Survival of the fittest cannot be proven?

[Raw_Power]

I believe creationism is wrong and that evolution is correct, but my friend claims that there is no falsifiable evidence for survival of the fittest, is this true?

[Twiggy]

Depends on what you call "fittest".

[Raw_Power]

He didn't really go into detail, he just said "survival of the fittest cannot be observed and therefore has no falsifiable evidence" and then promptly changed the subject.

[hespeaks]

"survival of the fittest" is just another way of saying evolution by natural selection, which has been proven. "What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not tautologous(non-falsifible). It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified."

[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-06-2006).]

[Rust]

1. This was probably more fitted in 'Mad Scientists'.

2. Like hespeaks said, "Survival of the fittest" is just a general phrase that actually means "evolution by natural selection". It has been observed.

The only definition of "Fittest" that evolution would deal with would be that of "having good chances of production" - which does not necessarily mean a muscular/strong body as we usually take "fit" to mean.

3. As for how we could go about falsifying Natural Selection?

Well if you can find certain group of organisms with an unadvantageous mutation (this group of organisms would be from a specific species), that have a higher success rate in reproduction than other organisms of the same species that do not have the unadvantageous mutation, (the "success rate" determined through a substantial amount of time - i.e. not just days or weeks), then that would be a start.

Keep in mind that by "unadvantageous" I mean that there is absolutely no advantage from that mutation in any context. We currently see mutations that do not show any advantage in hunting pray for example, yet do show an advantage while finding a mate; those wouldn't be "unadvantageous".

It is definitely possible to falsify, the thing is that it is not intuitive. Common sense tells us to expect organisms with disadvantages in reproduction, to have have a lower success rate in reproduction - especially after a substantial amount of time of observation... and we do see that.

[Beta69]

Yeah wrong forum.

Survival of the fittest is really a misnomer. Evolution could care less about survival, only reproduction. This is why many diseases that occur in old age are still around. Which also provides a way to falsification as rust pointed out. If genetic mutations that extremely hinder reproduction not only stick around but prosper in a population, it would bring into question natural selection.

[bonkers]

Despite the title of his book, Darwin actually devoted little space to the origin of species, concentrating instead on how populations of individual species become better adapted to their local environments through natural selection.

Ernst Mayr of Harvard University has dissected the logic of Darwin's theory of natural selection into three inferences based on five facts:

Fact 1: All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born would reproduce successfully.

Fact 2: Most populations are normally stable in size, except for seasonal fluctations.

Fact 3: Natural resources are limited.

Inference 1: Production of more individuals than the environment can support leads to a struggle for existence among individuals of a population, with only a fraction of offspring surviving each generation.

Fact 4: Individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics; no two individuals are exactly alike.

Fact 5: Much of this variation is heritable.

Inference 2: Survival in the struggle for existence is not random, but depends in part on the hereditary constitution of the surviving individuals. Those individuals whose inherited characteristics fit them best to their environment are likely to leave more offspring than less fit individuals.

Inference 3: This unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce will lead to a gradual change in a population, with favorable characteristics accumulating over the generations.



[This message has been edited by bonkers (edited 08-07-2006).]

[Raw_Power]

Ah, thanks a lot for the info. I told my friend who wants creationism taught in school that there was no falsifiable evidence for an intelligent designer and that therefore creationism isn’t science, so he said there’s no falsifiable evidence for survival of the fittest. Thanks again for the information.

[MasterPython]

You can't prove anything if God exists. Because then there is always the posibility that he is fucking with us to test our faith or just because he likes fucking with us.

[bonkers]

Anybody who wants creationism taught in schools should be shot.