Theory of Evolution - Page 2

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

Angel , wouldn't people co-operating in a society increase their chances of survival , something on the lines of 'power of unity' , thus making them the fittest to survive & accomplishing survival of the fittest ?..🤔

I think Charles Darwin's theory is more universally accepted & applicable since he was very wise to use an extremely general trait prudent for survival..⭐️ 😆..so if somebody else puts forth another theory of survival i dont think it will challenge Darwin's theory but will rather end up being a sub-part or just another contributing factor in Darwin's theory..

i think as we further evolve as a society, Peter Kropotkin's theory becomes more & more applicable.. however, Darwin's theory doesnt loose its validity in the process..bcoz even co-operation is carried out with an intention to out-do any adversities or competitions which brings us back to the starting point..i dont think these are diametrically opposite theories but are rather 'co-operative' with each other..😊

[ edit : I bet Ross Geller would have been thrilled to participate in this debate..😆 ]

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I don't think the theories necessarily contradict each other.

Survival of the fittest is actually quite a crude simplification of natural selection. Natural selection is a very long term biological process where certain traits disappear while others become stronger depending on the environment.

Let us take bears for example. Their genetics were for black or brown skin. The Grizzly, Black bear and most bear species still retain that color. However, Polar Bears are different. Originally Polar Bears were thought to have dark fur. Albinism was a genetic anomaly. Since white fur served as perfect camouflage allowing the bears to hide in snow and sneak up on prey, eventually the genetic anomaly became the dominant trait. Other traits like temperature regulation also developed. The Polar Bear is the fittest to thrive in the arctic. Albinism was a positive trait in the environment and by natural selection that trait survived in the region. It does not mean that the albino bears actually competed with the darker bears or tried to one up them. There wasn't a competition.

Cooperation and coordination are traits that can be rewarded and developed by natural selection. There are very complex systems of coordination and cooperation that have helped animals thrive and survive.

Ants are one of the greatest example. An ant colony is the result of extreme cooperation between thousands of ants. They have very cooperative societies that build houses and hunt for food. Did you know ants never have a traffic jam? You could have literally thousands of ants going back and forth in lines for food sources and they never end up with a traffic jam. Throw in an obstacle like a rock or something, within seconds they have found a system around it without causing any backup. Their travel system is so perfect that scientists are studying it to see if we can learn from ants to resolve human traffic jams.

yeaah...Ants are a wonder ❤️ WOW...never knew this

A lot of hunting animals hunt in pack. Their hunt is very coordinated. They work in unison to flank herds of prey, drive them to corners and hunt. Similarly, many animals have very coordinated defense systems. Elephants, rhinos, and many animals in danger will form a protective circle around the young and hold a defensive line.

Kropotkin's theory did not survive because it is too narrow. While cooperation and coordination are extremely fundamental to the survival of some species, it is not always the case. It lacked big picture thinking of all the other factors that cause species to survive and thrive.

Like.. cooperation happens on a day-to-day basis, and is somewhat behavioural trait, and then, process of natural selection happens over centuries taking in BROADER aspects of the living creatures' life and struggles?

Darwin's theory survived because it is truer. Natural selection isn't anti cooperation or pro competition. It is neutral. It says nature rewards and selects what is necessary to survive the environment.

alright. i get it.

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

so both are complimentary and co-exist... all in all, co-operation is for survival.. ? 😆 co-operation is very basic(narrow) like RTH says, and survival involves broader things... hmmm..

@Ross --- Yeah, and with all that seriousness I'd become like Phoebe and yell out "Okayy, okaay fiiine" 😆 ...I'm more into God stuff so... 😛

Originally posted by: Vinzy

I feel, Prince Kropotkin is nearer to the truth than Charles Darwin...everything related, interrelated, connected...the 'Avatar' movie concept type...it is not against nature..😊

Darwin fail because most of the Religious book says GOD created this earth/world with in Six days...and there has not been a single case when suddenly a monkey jumped out of a tree and became a man...still people didn't find the missing link... If it has not happened in ten thousand years, it is inconceivable that it could ever have happened?!!😊

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

Precisely, co-operation is narrow & survival involves broader ..and that is why Peter Kropotkin's 'narrow' theory is more of a sub-part or contributing factor in Charles Darwin's 'broader' theory..😃

Phoebe !..😆..she is my favorite character in the show..⭐️..especially when she is drunk, neurotic. mean or just being her usual 'wonderfully weird self'..😃..i dont mind you being Phoebe here but i have serious reservations against being Ross , i had already had a Ross-like outburst on another thread & i dont think i can handle one anytime soon..😆..need time to revive. 😆

She was my fave too ...but mentally, I'm a complete ball of confusion 😆

Originally posted by: Vinzy

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

Say, if we look deep into co-operation and coordination, isnt it cooperation and coordination that makes an organism want to ADAPT, thus change it's traits... for survival.

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

I'm beginning to feel cooperation and natural selection are one and the same... is that what you meant,@bold + underline.

No.

Sometimes competition is absolutely necessary. In many animals species only the alpha male is allowed to mate. In many animal species males compete to mate with the female. By preventing the weaker or lesser males from mating, nature allows the best genes to thrive in the gene pool.

Some species are solitary and highly territorial. They will compete for territory. This is because the resources they live on are not conducive to cooperation. It maybe scarce and the stronger animal has to prevent the weaker animal from depleting its necessary resources.

Nature rewards what is necessary. In some cases it rewards cooperation and coordination. In other cases it rewards dominance and power displays.

Originally posted by: peaceseeker

If it should be survival of the smartest, why has the majority of our society remained bogged down with antiquated religious beliefs? Nowadays survival of the religious malcontents seems to be applicable to Muslims as they have increased their numbers past two billion people. Smart people should be able to rationalize that supernatural acts have never, can never and will never exist in nature.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Let us take bears for example. Their genetics were for black or brown skin. The Grizzly, Black bear and most bear species still retain that color. However, Polar Bears are different. Originally Polar Bears were thought to have dark fur. Albinism was a genetic anomaly. Since white fur served as perfect camouflage allowing the bears to hide in snow and sneak up on prey, eventually the genetic anomaly became the dominant trait. Other traits like temperature regulation also developed. The Polar Bear is the fittest to thrive in the arctic. Albinism was a positive trait in the environment and by natural selection that trait survived in the region. It does not mean that the albino bears actually competed with the darker bears or tried to one up them. There wasn't a competition.

@Bold

I disagree.If there wasn't a competition,why did just the Albino variant survive?

Natural selection comes to operate only when some sort of competition arises.Let's imagine an ideal situation wherein there is plenty of prey for both original brown bears and the albino variants to feed upon.Since prey's are unlimited,camouflaging wouldn't come off as an advantage.In such a case,where there isn't any competition,both traits would have survived and contributed equally to the gene pool.Such a situation does not happen in reality because in nature resources are always limited.There will always be a competition between predators for the limited supply of prey.Here camouflaging will be a huge advantage so Albino variants will be more successful predators,they'd contribute more to the gene pool eventually eliminating the genes for dark fur.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Ants are one of the greatest example. An ant colony is the result of extreme cooperation between thousands of ants. They have very cooperative societies that build houses and hunt for food. Did you know ants never have a traffic jam? You could have literally thousands of ants going back and forth in lines for food sources and they never end up with a traffic jam. Throw in an obstacle like a rock or something, within seconds they have found a system around it without causing any backup. Their travel system is so perfect that scientists are studying it to see if we can learn from ants to resolve human traffic jams.

A lot of hunting animals hunt in pack. Their hunt is very coordinated. They work in unison to flank herds of prey, drive them to corners and hunt. Similarly, many animals have very coordinated defense systems. Elephants, rhinos, and many animals in danger will form a protective circle around the young and hold a defensive line.

This is new to me .I've never really thought about the cooperation among social animals.Yes, it's true that help each other a great deal and contribute to each others survival. Lions hunting as a group have more successful rates than other solitary big cats.Even so wouldn't there rise an competition in such a group while feeding the kill like more ferocious ones ending up with lion's share, becoming stronger and leaving more offspring?? In social animals like a pride of lions or a pack of hyenas,though competition and coordination help them in day to day survival,when it comes to selection of variations that ultimately leading to evolution,I feel it's just the natural selection that's responsible because traits like cooperation and coordination are fixed on the genetic make up of social animals and they are not subjected to further variations.

Originally posted by: Summer3

Smart ones do not need any religion but the general masses will follow whoever takes the lead. Religion is a useful political tool to gain power and wealth.

Politicians will add their own "improvements' to all religious texts so that they can gain control over the masses. Most humans are naturally drawn towards God due to an inner urge, it comes about sooner or later. It is easy to get followers by starting a new religion, cult or school of thoughts. We have several cases of religious frauds and cheatings in Singapore too; guess it happens in every country.

Societies evolve and so will religion. I have no quarrel with any faith but I hope we have plenty of different religions to appeal to everyone, each religion is like a lovely dish.

You have mentioned that somethings need improvement which are basically wrong. Yes I agree with that.