Survival of the fittest means the ones most suited for their environment survive enough to pass on their genes. When the environment changes (a new predator moves in, humans tear down your habitat to build condos, the ocean heats up so you don’t have enough food for everyone, etc) only the members of your species that can handle the new condition will survive to pass down their genes.
Maybe as oceans warm, the remaining crabs will evolve to survive their changing environment better. Or maybe they will go extinct because they can no longer compete with species that are better suited for the warmer oceans. Either way survival of the fittest still applies 100% whether the cause is climate change or some other evolutionary pressure.
Does that clear up why it makes no sense to say that this somehow proves Darwin wrong?
This is about species as a whole and their physical characteristics. All humans are the same species and religion is a social construct, so that does not apply. Eugenics =/= Darwinism and it is intellectually dishonest to equate the two.
Also, there is nothing about winners and losers in Darwinism. It is simply an observation about the natural world. The world is always changing and is never static. Those who can handle the change will make babies and pass on whatever quality they have that makes them suited for their current environment. In the future, that quality may or may not be selected for. Or maybe you have a quality that is not beneficial for your environment, but is not harmful for your survival either, thus it may continue to be passed down (e.g. my shitty eyesight that was passed down, but with correction doesn’t impact my survival).
I’m genuinely not sure if you are a troll and trying to be intentionally argumentative or what…
But your argument is that the entire theory of evolution is proven wrong by crabs dying en masse because of climate change, because humans are racist and commit genocides against each other? Or did you just move the goal posts on this discussion about crabs and try to call me racist in the process for shits and giggles? Like you took such a hard turn in the discussion and the only logic is that you are probably gish galloping the discussion and it would be a waste of energy to continue.
you obviously know the answer already and it’s not an efficient marketplace of genetics…
While i don’t think Darwin is wrong outright like some Jesus folks would say. A critique i have is that model is simple enough and accurate enough that simple people can understand it and feel like they know something… but it’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe all of the forces at play.
Absolutely.
Survival of the fittest means the ones most suited for their environment survive enough to pass on their genes. When the environment changes (a new predator moves in, humans tear down your habitat to build condos, the ocean heats up so you don’t have enough food for everyone, etc) only the members of your species that can handle the new condition will survive to pass down their genes.
Maybe as oceans warm, the remaining crabs will evolve to survive their changing environment better. Or maybe they will go extinct because they can no longer compete with species that are better suited for the warmer oceans. Either way survival of the fittest still applies 100% whether the cause is climate change or some other evolutionary pressure.
Does that clear up why it makes no sense to say that this somehow proves Darwin wrong?
nah, it’s too simple. the world isn’t an efficient market, winners and losers are chosen. there isn’t a competition of genetics.
I doubt Charles Darwin would say that Jews weren’t fit to live during the Holocaust, that Muslims are not fit to live in Burma, etc.
Either he’s right or he’s wrong and I don’t think he’s got a complete picture.
This is about species as a whole and their physical characteristics. All humans are the same species and religion is a social construct, so that does not apply. Eugenics =/= Darwinism and it is intellectually dishonest to equate the two.
Also, there is nothing about winners and losers in Darwinism. It is simply an observation about the natural world. The world is always changing and is never static. Those who can handle the change will make babies and pass on whatever quality they have that makes them suited for their current environment. In the future, that quality may or may not be selected for. Or maybe you have a quality that is not beneficial for your environment, but is not harmful for your survival either, thus it may continue to be passed down (e.g. my shitty eyesight that was passed down, but with correction doesn’t impact my survival).
yeah humans are and humans have different genes that could eventually become new species. that’s what Darwin would say anyway.
racism is a system that preys on these genetic differences. saying this is not a fair comparison is rubbish and rascist (in the deep systematic way)
I’m genuinely not sure if you are a troll and trying to be intentionally argumentative or what…
But your argument is that the entire theory of evolution is proven wrong by crabs dying en masse because of climate change, because humans are racist and commit genocides against each other? Or did you just move the goal posts on this discussion about crabs and try to call me racist in the process for shits and giggles? Like you took such a hard turn in the discussion and the only logic is that you are probably gish galloping the discussion and it would be a waste of energy to continue.
the argument is there are winners and losers. these are chosen, evolution isn’t simply a competitive, efficient, marketplace of genetics.
this hasn’t changed
By what exactly?
you obviously know the answer already and it’s not an efficient marketplace of genetics…
While i don’t think Darwin is wrong outright like some Jesus folks would say. A critique i have is that model is simple enough and accurate enough that simple people can understand it and feel like they know something… but it’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe all of the forces at play.