Jeff Gordon wrote:
> Ok, since evolution is based upon survival of the fittest, and many
Evolution? Survival of the fittest was only Darwin's theory. In the
century before "Origin of Species" there were at least a hundred other
books on the subject published in Europe. Darwinism is a tidy theory,
and a flattering one since we are all clearly fit, descended from the
fit, simply because we survive. Which is precisely the problem with
Darwinism: that there is no way to tell what or who is fit, except by
seeing who survives.
If fitness were some sort of observable quality, we should be able to
look at the most primitive of archaeobacters, find what sort of changes
would be possible, calculate the fitness of each change, and predict the
course of evolution.
But this is not possible. The same set of calculations must point to the
remarkably successful dinosaurs, the tentative experiment called Homo
sapiens, pond scum, orchids, wart hogs, slime mold, and that really
All these creatures, and everything else, is fittest having survived.
So, Darwinism is believable if one enjoys the flattery, but it has no
For instance: did our little tree-shrew ancestors survive because they
were smart (flattering) or just because they were too small to be
noticed (not so flattering). Fitness, finally, is any excuse a Darwinist
can find to justify the survival of a population, however unlikely.
I'd love to hear how the Kakapo (the large flightless parrot) is more
fit than its flying ancestors, or its cousins who flew away when the
climate turned cold.