Hmmm…ragingloli, you’ve really decided to take me to action. In its most literal sense, “survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean the strogest or the fastest. The answer to the question at hand, however, what something about strength. The “fittest” could describe any number of traits, be it quickness or strength of web for a spider or whatever traits would benefit any specific individual over others. The monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, spiders, dolphins, sea urchins, and flounder that exist today would most definitely carry the highest percentage of “successful” genes and traits as those would be the ones most likely to be passed down from generation to generation. The genes that “help” necessarily survive, whilst those that don’t lie either dormant or are passed out of the genome. For example, we humans no longer carry a prehensile tail (or a tail of any other kind, although there are those that will argue the end of a vestgial tail still rests in our spine). Yes, indeed, only a few mutations result in advantageous traits…but they make all the differenece in the world!
I **fiercely** debate the evolution of humans. We do NOT evolve any longer, nor have we for hundreds of years. Evolution occurs as an evironmental response, favouring those creatures that can manage and thrive in the environmental conditions that are given. Humans, however, **CREATE** their environment, and therefore do not change to adapt to it. We’re taller than we were 200 years ago…but that’s not an environmental change, it’s a change based on the availability of resources…
ragingloli, I’d like to take this to a more intimate forum, if you’re willing….I think I’ve not only answered the original question posed effectively, but also rebutted the majority of your argument. I don’t think anything else you and I could say to each other would fit in this forum or aid in the answering of the original question, which I believe is the point of this, eh?
Lemme know: bripi@juno.com