Questions about humanity.

[RexMilotic]

I can answer this by saying: our ideas of evolution are completely infantile and too clinging to religion, following these ridiculous ideas of "Survival of the fittest" and "Best suited for the environment".

 

I honestly had to google for a possible second meaning for infantile, just because of how wrong that statement was. Clinging to religion? That doesn't sound like evolution at all. The "Survival of the fittest" deal happens all the time life, such as when a larger corporation takes over a smaller one. The reason that only the fittest aren't surviving now is because of how most areas have adapted to suiting the needs of both the weak and strong. Look back a few hundred years ago, or even look at certain countries now, and notice how the weak links don't survive that well. Tell me, if I threw you into an underwater environment that had sharks, who would last? The shark would, because it's suited for the environment, while you're not.

 

Also, your signature is messed up.

"Today, we live not in a world where innovation is king, nor does survival of the fittest show any contemporary relevance. Nay, my friends, the world we live in is one of those few in power holding it with an iron grip, whilst the plebes bow to any sign of superiority. How may we escape the power cycle that so consumes us? What will it take, apart from blood in the streets? I do not know; perhaps those wiser than I shall have insight."

That's speaking of survival in the fittest in two ways. The first being the obvious where it disregards the saying. The second is whenever it speaks about those in power (who are the fittest) having control over the weak. That is an example of the survival of the fittest, but changed to modern standards where the rich/powerful are the "fittest" now.

[Perakp]

2. Birth control and money/power are corrupting out gene pool. This in cludes modern medicine. The human race is de-evolving at an alarming rate. The weak are living, and breeding.

 

 

Have you considered that soon (or maybe now, i dunno) it will be possible to abort fetus with "bad genes", eg kill off people who would have serious syndromes etc, before they are even given a chance at life. And what kind of moral dilemmas this introduces in relation with the handicapped part of the population.

[1230abcz]

These are just some questions I posted on a different topic but it got me thinking about these.

 

Note: in this Topic evolution is assumed to be true, so if this angers you.. sorry.

 

 

1. Animals seek the most fit to reproduce, but then why do people stay with their abusers and continue to have children with them? While I realize you might say fear, wouldn't some sort of primordial SURVIVAL instinct kick in? (you get hurt you get away)

 

2. Do you think its possible that humans can/are de-evolutionizing? In the modern world we are provided with everything, food, water, shelter, protection. So the "weaker" of us don't die off, some examples that I can think of: Hemophilia, asthma, juvenile onset diabetes. While this may seem like a harsh, heartless outlook I think it is true (obviously), and before you think I'm a "master race" bastard know that I have asthma and yes I have wondered if I would make the cut.

 

3.Do you think humans were meant to be monogamous? I like to think of these days as the "Satisfaction Age" in that, if you have a desire you get it. Case in point are affairs, and before you go off on a rant about how that is only these days, they happened in earlier times, they just weren't publicized. Also if you look at most if not all group/"pack" mammals they aren't monogamous.

 

4. Do humans/carnivores have a natural need for violence/bloodshed?

Since life first began things have been fighting, its just the way it is, physical combat is easier, more efficient and faster than "negotiation". In our modern world which is peace oriented however we don't get this sort of "satisfaction" in a natural way, so we have invented substitutes (sports) but the bottom line is does this craving/ need exist?

 

5.I also don't think humans were meant to live in as large of numbers as we do(multi-million cities, tens of thousands)My explanation is below.

If you think about the size of a population (human) the smaller it is in general less crime, violence and all that. For instance in larger cities you see things like gangs form, smaller groups almost "tribes" who engage in general "animalistic" activity together such as "hunting" and "territorial competition" unfortunately this manifests as gang wars and "hits"(this relates back to #4). So this begs the question "why do we live in these numbers then?" My mother came up with a possible answer. Unlike animals in the wild who have natural inhibitors such as food in the area, and competition we don't. So we don't naturally break off and form our own groups.

 

All opinions and explanations are welcome, and please try to be tolerant of what other people suggest no matter how much it denies what you believe.

 

Also you don't have to answer all of these just please let me/us know which one you are referencing.

 

 

1.) Humans aren't as simple as animals. We have a conscience, which, however you look at it, can be either a boon to humanity or the death of it. A conscience can change a lot of decisions that seem to go against common sense. Also, most of the time, people are already too attached to their partners to leave them, even if they are abused. That can be easily attributed to olden times (cave man time zone), when good mates weren't plentiful, so people stuck around with whoever they were with and decided not to risk the relationship.

 

2.) No. People with the diseases/conditions you mentioned have a lower birth rate/lower chance to reproduce with someone else in society due to their setbacks. Evolution still occurs in the population as a whole.

 

3.) Eh. Probably. Monogamy has its good parts. Females aren't fought over/killed during competition, younger males aren't left out of the gene pool/killed, and genetic variety is increased. If male x gets it on with every female on the block and a disease hits, chances are if one kid goes bye bye, so will the rest.

 

4.) Nope. Incentives. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. The instances in which this doesn't apply is when people are in power and thus cannot be touched by others. If civility can be used instead of violence, then you're less likely to die in the conflict. I think you're talking about pure competition, in which people prove themselves to be the greater person or whatever. Also probably goes back to mating.

 

5.) I'll agree on this one. Humans work the best when they're in smaller populations. Most successful companies don't exceed worker population of over 200 something to ensure that a community-like bond is created, which in turn creates better teamwork and less violence/disagreements between people. If someone works in a group of 10k other workers and they decide to slack off, chances are, no one will notice and humiliate them for their laziness, but in smaller communities, people notice and more unity is established.

[RexMilotic]

2. Birth control and money/power are corrupting out gene pool. This in cludes modern medicine. The human race is de-evolving at an alarming rate. The weak are living, and breeding.

 

 

Have you considered that soon (or maybe now, i dunno) it will be possible to abort fetus with "bad genes", eg kill off people who would have serious syndromes etc, before they are even given a chance at life. And what kind of moral dilemmas this introduces in relation with the handicapped part of the population.

 

Personally I think it's a good thing, and the handicapped part of the population should realize that also. I don't see any moral dilemma in aborting a fetus that was going to be seriously flawed anyways.

[Lenticular_J]

I can answer this by saying: our ideas of evolution are completely infantile and too clinging to religion, following these ridiculous ideas of "Survival of the fittest" and "Best suited for the environment". Those are part of the equation. But then comes a mother-[bleep]ing platypus that goes and feeds its egg-born children after killing an antelope or whatever.

 

Good enough answer for me.

 

You have a real problem with evolution, don't you?

 

Adaptation to the environment and "survival of the fittest" (although it's a misleading term) are perfectly reasonable and logical. How on earth you get "infantile" and "clinging to religion" out of this is beyond me.

Just current beliefs on evolution - because so many people stick with pure darwinism as though it's the end-all of evolution. It isn't. Sociobiology is a good popular idea for me, although how I see it myself is (of course) different.

 

I also don't care if they're reasonable and logical. I've never been one for Enlightenment-era rationalism.

 

To explain infantile, well, our beliefs in evolution are quite young and ever-changing. Darwin would not recognize a group that studies evolution these days. Religious? So many act as though there's some goal in evolution, some sort of end to it. This to me sounds like the religious hope for an afterlife.

 

I'm just ready for a tail.

[pegpenguin]

Little disclaimer: I only read the first post, I'm not really in the mood to read the two pages to stay updated and I just thought of something that I feel I should point out

 

 

You use evolution as your basis for this topic, but you say things like humans were/weren't meant for this or that, but when it comes to evolution, there is no meaning other than survival.

 

 

 

So far it seems to me humanities winning in the race to survival, from an evolutionist stand point.

[obfuscator]

1. Animals seek the most fit to reproduce, but then why do people stay with their abusers and continue to have children with them? While I realize you might say fear, wouldn't some sort of primordial SURVIVAL instinct kick in? (you get hurt you get away)

 

We absolutely have a primordial survival instinct. The problem is, the human brain is so developed that it is capable of supressing it, aka justifying the situation using common sense. A person who stays with an abuser may feel as if they have nowhere to go, as if the abuser is the "best they can get", in which case they stay despite the abuse.

 

2. Do you think its possible that humans can/are de-evolutionizing? In the modern world we are provided with everything, food, water, shelter, protection. So the "weaker" of us don't die off, some examples that I can think of: Hemophilia, asthma, juvenile onset diabetes. While this may seem like a harsh, heartless outlook I think it is true (obviously), and before you think I'm a "master race" bastard know that I have asthma and yes I have wondered if I would make the cut.

 

I wouldn't say we are de-evolutionizing. I would say that we are allowing eveyrone, even the "imperfect" a chance to live. It is true that many people have lost the toughness and ability to work for things in todays society of instant gratification.

 

3.Do you think humans were meant to be monogamous? I like to think of these days as the "Satisfaction Age" in that, if you have a desire you get it. Case in point are affairs, and before you go off on a rant about how that is only these days, they happened in earlier times, they just weren't publicized. Also if you look at most if not all group/"pack" mammals they aren't monogamous.

 

Yes, I do. There are some animals that are, but the majority aren't. If you look at the life cycle of children, human children have one of the longest animal developement stages. In the wild, fathers will stay with their children until they are adults at least, or ready to move on. In humans, the "growing up" process takes so long that by the end of it humans don't have a desire to "mate again" so to speak.

 

4. Do humans/carnivores have a natural need for violence/bloodshed?

Since life first began things have been fighting, its just the way it is, physical combat is easier, more efficient and faster than "negotiation". In our modern world which is peace oriented however we don't get this sort of "satisfaction" in a natural way, so we have invented substitutes (sports) but the bottom line is does this craving/ need exist?

 

Yes, I think so. We have a need to unleash anger and stress. In the past violence fulfilled that, so yes, we turn to sports to a degree.

 

5.I also don't think humans were meant to live in as large of numbers as we do(multi-million cities, tens of thousands)My explanation is below.

If you think about the size of a population (human) the smaller it is in general less crime, violence and all that. For instance in larger cities you see things like gangs form, smaller groups almost "tribes" who engage in general "animalistic" activity together such as "hunting" and "territorial competition" unfortunately this manifests as gang wars and "hits"(this relates back to #4). So this begs the question "why do we live in these numbers then?" My mother came up with a possible answer. Unlike animals in the wild who have natural inhibitors such as food in the area, and competition we don't. So we don't naturally break off and form our own groups.

 

I think humans were meant to live however suits us. I can't agree with population size contributing to crime rate. For example, many small cities have much higher crime rates than larger ones. It's the poverty gap that causes crime, not the how many people we are surrounded by.

[Zierro]

1. Animals seek the most fit to reproduce, but then why do people stay with their abusers and continue to have children with them?

 

They probably see the psychological and emotional comfort of not being alone as more important than their physical well-being.

 

2. Do you think its possible that humans can/are de-evolutionizing?

 

Since we have all the medicines and stuff we need, it makes no difference right now. It's as if we are "evolving" in the technological sense, since it is increasing our chances of survival. But once we run out of resources, it will nip us in the behind. Our immune systems will probably suck.

 

3.Do you think humans were meant to be monogamous?

 

If you think about it logically (something we humans are capable of), love just seems more 'special' when you don't have to share your partner.

 

4. Do humans/carnivores have a natural need for violence/bloodshed?

 

Well, animals such as cats and dogs attack things for the purpose of exercise and fun. As for humans, I would think so. Anytime a fight breaks out, people will crowd around to watch. Very few people are actually opposed to violence, even though a lot of them say otherwise. Of course there are some who really are opposed to it, so there could be exceptions. Or maybe they're just trying to suppress it? Don't know. I wouldn't consider myself a violent person, but if the situation calls for it, such as my family being attacked, I would feel that resorting to violence is the right thing to do. Sometimes violence can be efficient.

 

So I guess you could call violence a tool. To get what you want, to entertain, to show dominance, whatever. If you drag certain people into certain situations, they will most likely use that tool to alleviate their problems. So I guess it's not really a "need" or "urge" as much as it is a "means".

 

5.I also don't think humans were meant to live in as large of numbers as we do(multi-million cities, tens of thousands)My explanation is below.

If you think about the size of a population (human) the smaller it is in general less crime, violence and all that. For instance in larger cities you see things like gangs form, smaller groups almost "tribes" who engage in general "animalistic" activity together such as "hunting" and "territorial competition" unfortunately this manifests as gang wars and "hits"(this relates back to #4). So this begs the question "why do we live in these numbers then?" My mother came up with a possible answer. Unlike animals in the wild who have natural inhibitors such as food in the area, and competition we don't. So we don't naturally break off and form our own groups.

 

With more population, there also comes more friends and comfort. And yes, there's more crime in the cities but with all the people and cops around, you're more likely to be saved if you were being attacked or something. In a rural area, nobody could hear you scream for miles. Maybe we just feel more comfortable in larger numbers.

 

Interesting questions. Nice thread. :thumbup:

[SeanyTheSailor]

Ok going to try to respond to a lot of people in one post.

 

1230abcz

2. yes, but not the extent in the wild for instance in the wild a carnivore that "needed glasses" would die because of bad depth perception/distance judgment so it wouldn't be able to properly catch prey. however needing glasses in this day and age has a very minimal effect on your likelihood to reach the age of reproduction. also asthma I'm pretty sure that never stopped anyone from "reproducing" though I'm sure it has stopped people from running too far too fast.

3.Most of that is true, but GOOD genetic variety is more likely to be passed on through polygamy.

4.I assure you in the wild there is no such agreement between predator an prey. And I'm pretty sure a bull moose isn't thinking about weather or not it will get hurt when fighting for a mate.

 

pegpenguin

But evolution is about being best suited to survive. So if (though not mammals) eagles started taking multiple mates and not staying with just 1 they would die, because they are set up to be with one mate (adults alternate guarding and bringing food) you see what I mean? So if we go against the system we were "meant" to go by, we are not longer best suited to our environment.

 

y guy 4 life

2. but that's the whole point in evolution they aren't supposed to be allowed to live, as cruel as it seems.

3. But consider the male doesn't have to leave his young, like a lion pride or a wolf pack, the male remains he just has offspring with many females.

5. you say however suits us, but the question really is, does living in millions/thousands SUIT us.

 

zierro

2. In a sense it does make a difference, because some of these things aren't being weeded out genetically we have to produce the medicines for them.

3. This doesn't really answer the question

4.Any animal (well in theory) could use violence as a means

5.On your last point i have to disagree, in ohio there was a gang rape at a school dance and apparently around 20 people watched yes WATCHED while others participated, some took pictures but no one called the police. Whereas in rural areas or where I live I think that some people would come with their torch and pitchfork so to speak. And about the "more friends" thing, how many can you really maintain? and as much as we like to think otherwise if food came into question our friendships would quickly sour.

 

thanks for all the feedback and provoking thought guys.

[Lenticular_J]

I honestly had to google for a possible second meaning for infantile, just because of how wrong that statement was. Clinging to religion? That doesn't sound like evolution at all. The "Survival of the fittest" deal happens all the time life, such as when a larger corporation takes over a smaller one. The reason that only the fittest aren't surviving now is because of how most areas have adapted to suiting the needs of both the weak and strong. Look back a few hundred years ago, or even look at certain countries now, and notice how the weak links don't survive that well. Tell me, if I threw you into an underwater environment that had sharks, who would last? The shark would, because it's suited for the environment, while you're not.

Oh, sorry, didn't notice you. The second part I don't really care about, I think it's funny.

 

But I'm not denying survival of the fittest is a part of the picture. It just isn't the whole thing. It's a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of the whole cluster[bleep] that is the evolution of the universe.

[anonymous_user]

At number 1, about the survival instinct. I assume that as we become intelligent, some of our primal instincts are opposed by what is used in modern society. For example, if an aggressor has a powerful long-ranged weapon than can kill instantly(like a gun) and your instinct is to survive, running away won't help much. Intelligence will intervene and you may try to mentally overcome the conflict which wouldn't really occur before invention overruled instinct. So it could be the same, fear is what is keeping them there because perhaps worse things may happen if they try to get away.

 

De-evolution. I find this interesting, the 'weak' are surviving easier now so does that mean that they will in time get weaker and weaker, or does it not matter because the strong breed with the weak, thus creating something in the middle? Or are strong attributes more likely to be inherited? There seem to be far more questions than answers on that topic...

 

Monogamy and polygamy. I'm not sure of pre-religious history(assuming there is no invisible 'creator' that told us what we can and can't do) but I doubt there would be monogamy back then. Part of survival is ensuring that the population of the race increases and this may have been hindered somewhat when human society developed enough to create religion + rules and made sure all the lower-ranking humans followed them. I see monogamy as an old religious habit that we haven't quite grown out of, although it's good if it keeps the ever-inflating population down. But I don't want someone religious or not telling me I'm wrong because we will each think each other's ideas are obviously wrong so we should agree to disagree. You'll -never- convert me and I cannot convert you.

 

The need for violence and bloodshed. No idea. It could just be innate for all things predatorial, but few people hunt now. Peace grows from violence and inside that peace more violence bursts into life. We can't have a perfect world full of perfect people and that's just how it is. Maybe people like violence if it makes them content in some way? Revenge can make someone feel complete. Some just like adrenaline. Difficult to find answers about this.

 

Population. I think this is mainly a matter of predators. Big people in the sky don't catch us with 'humaning rods' and proceed to cover us with breadcrumbs and pour ketchup all over. Mm-mmm. I'll try not to digress. Basically, as we are superior, there's not much that feeds on us en masse. Until the aliens descend from the deep blackness. Everyone wear tin-foil hats! We're also intelligent enough to control supply and demand with farming, except unfortunately some people miss out and starve.

 

Sorry if I don't make much sense. Tired. Re-reading this doesn't even make much sense to myself, actually... Pleeeease don't take me too seriously.

[warri0r45]

I can answer this by saying: our ideas of evolution are completely infantile and too clinging to religion, following these ridiculous ideas of "Survival of the fittest" and "Best suited for the environment". Those are part of the equation. But then comes a mother-[bleep]ing platypus that goes and feeds its egg-born children after killing an antelope or whatever.

 

Good enough answer for me.

 

You have a real problem with evolution, don't you?

 

Adaptation to the environment and "survival of the fittest" (although it's a misleading term) are perfectly reasonable and logical. How on earth you get "infantile" and "clinging to religion" out of this is beyond me.

Just current beliefs on evolution - because so many people stick with pure darwinism as though it's the end-all of evolution. It isn't. Sociobiology is a good popular idea for me, although how I see it myself is (of course) different.

 

I also don't care if they're reasonable and logical. I've never been one for Enlightenment-era rationalism.

 

To explain infantile, well, our beliefs in evolution are quite young and ever-changing. Darwin would not recognize a group that studies evolution these days. Religious? So many act as though there's some goal in evolution, some sort of end to it. This to me sounds like the religious hope for an afterlife.

 

I'm just ready for a tail.

 

Who exactly are you talking about? Because scientists certainly don't have the beliefs on evolution that you portray here. If I can't appeal to you with reason or logic then debate is pointless.

[deathdrow]

Humanity sucks, they're all losers. Until they lose their virginity that is.

[Lenticular_J]

I can only be appealed to by new, exciting, shiny ideas. Reason and logic are too old, predictable and tired. We need new methods of convincing.

 

Waterboarding seems popular.

[fastortoise]

I can only be appealed to by new, exciting, shiny ideas. Reason and logic are too old, predictable and tired. We need new methods of convincing.

 

Waterboarding seems popular.

:rolleyes:

Hey 321ownage, I suggest you read Guns, Germs & Steel. It's probably the most complete book on human history (within the 500 page limit) and explains a lot about how humans got to where we are. It doesn't answer any of your questions, but it'll definitely interest you. Actually, it answers question 5 very nicely.

[hide=my problem with your questions]

As for most of your questions.. they all seem to have to do with sociobiology. The problem with this field is that you can almost never make generalizations about topics like these, and so research never takes off. Without answers to the questions you're asking, we can't go deep into the humanitarian questions. The basic inductive scientific procedure (which is used by all sciences, except math) goes along these lines:

 

-I make a set of observations

-I make a theory or model that explains these observations

-I use the model to predict other outcomes I can observe

-Collect those outcomes and see if they fit the theory

 

This is where the "give me one example that contradicts my theory and I'll gladly throw it in the trash can" comes from. So many people tried disproving Einstein when he "came up with" his theories, but nobody could. In the case of sociobiology theories, any five year old can give a counter example to any theories made by psychologists/social scientists.

[/hide]

And that's why I avoid going into subjects like these. I don't feel like doing a 5 year project and have some ingrate disprove me the following year :mrgreen:

[The_Gabe]

Don't expect anything from humanity.

 

I've known that for a while now, which is while I've lost all faith in it. Humans are wild animals.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Don't expect anything from humanity.

 

I've known that for a while now, which is while I've lost all faith in it. Humans are wild animals.

Did you even read a single question? Your post has 2% relevance to the topic.

[llamster]

I think other posters have answered the other questions sufficiently, so

 

3. Humans are meant for marriage in general, be it monogamous or polygamous. Random affairs would destroy the family unit and make it harder to raise children.

 

5. Cities are the basis of industrial civilization. The modern technology and high standard of living that developed countries enjoy are a result of high urbanization.

 

Also, even if you believe that humans are evolved from more primitive species (I don't) it doesn't mean that all human behavior is a direct result of natural influences and that sort of thing. Challenges that a hypothetical human ancestor might have faced in nature aren't necessarily relevant to us.

3.What do you mean by marriage? staying with their mates?

5. Ok so they are the basis of it,but where theymeant to be/do they have to be so vast?

 

3. I guess. Marriage is society's way of guaranteeing (or at least increasing the chance of ) that.

5. It's just more economically viable. If you look at developed nations versus developing the former have much more population in the cities.

[Alg]

Who exactly are you talking about? Because scientists certainly don't have the beliefs on evolution that you portray here. If I can't appeal to you with reason or logic then debate is pointless.

"Survival of the fittest" is a bit oversimplified, maybe? Evolution is a process. The only ones that die off quickly are the extremely unfit ones. And it takes a long time for the rest to actually become fit enough.

--general questions--

I keep wondering about that one moth where soot caused all but the gray ones to become easy prey. How did the gray ones last that long when before, they were in that position. How did the gray ones last that long? And if evolution is a long process, how does survival of the fittest come into play when the unfit organisms are apparently supposed to die off quickly? If the finch had to have a certain beak shape, how did its species survive long enough to develop it, or how did the members with that beak shape last long enough in an environment where they could use it.

 

That could tie in to the question about reverse evolution, though. Genetic variation is a good thing, and maybe one day the freak mutations that seem like crap now will be the key to survival later.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Who exactly are you talking about? Because scientists certainly don't have the beliefs on evolution that you portray here. If I can't appeal to you with reason or logic then debate is pointless.

"Survival of the fittest" is a bit oversimplified, maybe? Evolution is a process. The only ones that die off quickly are the extremely unfit ones. And it takes a long time for the rest to actually become fit enough.

--general questions--

I keep wondering about that one moth where soot caused all but the gray ones to become easy prey. How did the gray ones last that long when before, they were in that position. How did the gray ones last that long? And if evolution is a long process, how does survival of the fittest come into play when the unfit organisms are apparently supposed to die off quickly? If the finch had to have a certain beak shape, how did its species survive long enough to develop it, or how did the members with that beak shape last long enough in an environment where they could use it.

 

That could tie in to the question about reverse evolution, though. Genetic variation is a good thing, and maybe one day the freak mutations that seem like crap now will be the key to survival later.

The moth thing if I understand you right, the grey moths weren't any less fit to live than the other moths, but when the soot thing came in they became more fit see?

 

Also a finch's beak evolved over time to better eat whatever it eats, so the shape is always right. As it's prey evolves so does it.

[SeanyTheSailor]

So i've been watching Penn&Teller and I've found a new interesting perspective on monogamy, well it's roots.

 

In historic societies property was passed from the father to usually his oldest son, and the only way to be sure that he WAS your oldest son was to know that your wife had never had sex with anyone else. So I guess it makes sense, but in our modern society we aren't as patriarchal so it doesn't make much sense anymore.

[warri0r45]

Who exactly are you talking about? Because scientists certainly don't have the beliefs on evolution that you portray here. If I can't appeal to you with reason or logic then debate is pointless.

"Survival of the fittest" is a bit oversimplified, maybe? Evolution is a process. The only ones that die off quickly are the extremely unfit ones. And it takes a long time for the rest to actually become fit enough.

--general questions--

I keep wondering about that one moth where soot caused all but the gray ones to become easy prey. How did the gray ones last that long when before, they were in that position. How did the gray ones last that long? And if evolution is a long process, how does survival of the fittest come into play when the unfit organisms are apparently supposed to die off quickly? If the finch had to have a certain beak shape, how did its species survive long enough to develop it, or how did the members with that beak shape last long enough in an environment where they could use it.

 

That could tie in to the question about reverse evolution, though. Genetic variation is a good thing, and maybe one day the freak mutations that seem like crap now will be the key to survival later.

 

I think I have an answer to the moth question. Basically, the grey moths will be eaten until they're at a very low number in the population (remember, the white moths aren't as easily seen, so they are less likely to be eaten). However, once the grey ones get down to a low enough level, they are very sparse such that the chances of a predator seeing them are very low. At this stage, the white moths are seen more (even though they are better camouflaged) because they are very common and hence they become the predominant prey again. Then a point of equilibrium is formed where the number of grey moths being eaten and the number being replaced is equal, but this maintains them at a very low level in the population because they're more easily seen than the white ones.

 

Its only after the soot coming into the equation that the numbers of white and grey are reversed. Natural selection favors the best camouflaged, but this doesnt necessarily mean that less camouflaged variants will be eliminated completely.

 

One more thing. The grey moths can mate with the white moths, hence the grey moth trait can be carried in white moths and survive that way, if its recessive.

 

I hope this makes sense. I'm sure there would be more information (including mathematical models and whatnot) in a population genetics article/journal. Good question though.

 

And on "survival of the fittest", as I've said before, it's often misinterpreted to mean that the physically strong trample the weak, but this is only one aspect to biological fitness. Intelligence, cooperation and even somthing like the functionality of an enzyme have a "fitness" associated with them, and in all of these areas it's still the "fittest" that survive.