Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
If evolution requires death in order to operate, why should humans suffer feelings of loss when others die. Evolution doesn’t care who lives or who dies; it doesn’t care if that person is related to you or not. It is a cold thing that toils, eats, and destroys.
We’ve all heard it before on TV or in biology textbooks: evolution removes those members of a species that are less fit. This, after all, has been one of the assumptions about how evolution prunes the gene pool and somehow blindly selects those attributes that are better adapted to the environment What does one do, however, with the recurrence of “less-than-ideal” members of the species?
Evolutionary scientists observe altruistic and compassionate behavior in humans and must explain the source—but their Darwinian framework requires that such behavior must be evolutionarily motivated. In other words, non-self-interested behavior must still be reducible to self-interest.
Camel humps may have been the key to Arctic survival for ancient camels.
Robots who “learned” how to share are “the first real confirmation of Hamilton’s rule, one of the most fundamental theories in modern biology.”
Could global ice ages have “triggered” evolution—or is it just another wild idea that works on paper but lacks actual evidence?
If the Canadian Press is to be believed, whitefish provide the latest example of “evolution” in action. But as with previous examples, the evolutionary significance is overstated.
If we take the idea of “survival of the fittest” to its logical conclusion, it seems almost absurd for anyone who accepts the story of evolution to think of death as being the enemy.
Perhaps an elephant should stand in for the “sage owl” character sometimes portrayed in cartoons.
Researchers investigate how inferior members of a deer herd keep on recurring.
A multi-decade study of Scottish sheep indicates that weather patterns have an effect on “body shape and population size,” according to the BBC, who reports on this ovine study led by Imperial College London professor Tim Coulson and colleagues.
A discussion of an opinion piece from The Denver Post which is hardly worth mentioning, except for its service as a recitation of some common arguments for evolution-in particular, that teaching evolution is the foundation for our economy.
An article in the July 24, 2006 Washington Post refers to a March 2006 PLoS Biology article that suggests that humans are currently undergoing evolution.
the last dodo died in the late 1600s. A careful recent examination of the dodo has revealed that many common perceptions about the bird are incorrect.
Well, I doubt that many young couples in love think much about the survival of the species. But such is the nature of evolution that it has become an explanation for everything.
Survival of the fittest is not evolution. It is a fact of life in a world that has been tainted with death and bloodshed, but only since Adam rebelled against his Maker.