Reply #39: "Survival of the Fittest" isn't directed. It isn't ideological

[RainDog]

I didn't even finish reading the piece b/c when I saw the way in which the person who wrote this seemed to misunderstand what survival of the fittest means, I thought it wasn't worth it to go on.

Survivial of the fittest is based upon chance. Nothing more. It's not an idea that translates in economics or social theory or anything of the sort. Scientists who work in evo. theory know this.

The words could be called "survival of those who happen to have random mutations in their genetic code who are in a situation, also randomly, in which the environment changes and thus, totally by chance, survive this change."

...but that's a lot to try to say for a conceptual idea. maybe they should come up with something like WYSIWYG.

Like this, maybe? SOTWHTHRMITGCWAIASARIWTECATTBCSTC.

Paul Davies is a person who has consistently tried to combine religion and science. I really don't think he's on the cutting edge at all.

Punctuated equilibrium also works within the survival of the fittest/random mutation over time idea b/c it doesn't change the basic understanding but does acknowlege that sudden changes can reduce a population and create a founder effect that dramatically alters the available gene pool.

And Darwin's GRANDFATHER, Erasmus, was already writing about evolution back when he and others in England were starting the industrial revolution and learning all about the physical world through experimentation, so it's not like Charles Darwin was sui generis.