Biological evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, but I think some evolution will ma

The reason why it will be lower is because the living environment is comfortable, there is no need to bother, in this case, it will stagnate or lose its original advantage, like a frog in warm water, it will gradually... Even if they are not like frogs in warm water, they can't help a little difficulty, and when they encounter problems, they will find that they can't survive and die, maybe there will be survivors, and then the survivors have to adapt themselves to the surrounding environment, make themselves stronger, and in this cycle is continuous: natural selection, survival of the fittest.

Adaptation is the purpose of evolution.

Evolution is produced by heritable genetic mutations, which are themselves neutral, and mutations that are more adapted to the environment can continue to exist.

If it is really a lower mutation, it will definitely be eliminated naturally, and if it is not eliminated, then that mutation cannot be called inferior. Of course, human interference is excluded. Dogs and wolves belong to the same species biologically, dogs, which are some mutated individuals that humans find from wolves that can be used by humans, and then slowly breed them.

Many dogs are in some ways low evolution, without humans, they would not be able to survive in nature, without people, they would have been eliminated long ago.

Evolution is about adapting to the environment, and you think it's inferior, but it's making it more adaptable, and that's what evolution is for.

It does make sense.

For example, fish polluted by water evolve to survive. But it's ugly and poisonous, and this evolution is caused by humans...

Are you saying you're inferior to a monkey?

No. Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, or the driving force. So natural selection is not the same as evolution. Actually, this was in the early days, when people had not yet discovered the realization of genes. Later, after the discovery of genes, evolution added the mechanism of gene mutation.

On the surface, it seems to be perfect. Unfortunately, neither mechanism supports the theory of evolution.

First, natural selection can only work on biological "traits," which are determined by a combination of genes. Natural selection is only the elimination of a part of the organisms with genetic combination traits, and this process is subtraction, and there is no increase in genetic information, so this is not called evolution.

Second, from the perspective of evidence, there is no evidence that genetic mutations can form information with new functions, and genetic mutations will only bring disease and disaster to organisms.

Finally, an example to explain. The genetic information of an organism is like a deck of cards, and the rules of poker are like natural selection. When playing enough levels and royalists, the "gene combination" of playing cards that "natural selection" likes is:

2 more, and it doesn't matter the suit. But when playing Texas Hold'em, natural selection prefers a combination of genes that preferably not 2s, with spades taking precedence.

But no matter how you choose, the playing cards have not changed, the genes have not changed, how can you talk about evolution? What is a genetic mutation, is that the 2 of several cards becomes aces, then, obviously, the result is: this card is unplayable.

Therefore, evolution is unevidenced, anti-common sense, and anti-logical.

Of course not.

Natural selection is simply the screening of each phenotype in the existing population, leaving the more suitable ones and eliminating the unsuitable ones. This is a secondary objective reason.

The subjective cause lies in the organism itself, that is, variation. If there are no variations in multiple shapes, then natural selection is not possible.

The evolution of living things is a kind of choice to adapt to nature, and only by adapting to the changes of nature can we continue to survive.

Can't quite say that.

A large part of biological evolution is about adapting to natural changes!

The views of the evolutionary idea of natural selection, survival of the fittest, are as follows:

Natural selection, survival of the fittest! This sentence was translated and introduced to the Chinese people by Mr. Yan Fu during the late Qing Westernization Movement, and is well known to women and children in China, and is regarded by many people as the essence of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Actually, this is a fallacy! Miao Desui, a well-known biologist in the United States, corrected his theory of hunger at a lecture in Nanjing yesterday, but in fact, except for quoting this sentence in the preface to the fifth edition of "The Origin of Species", Darwin never said such a thing.

Even he himself doubted whether the "survival of the fittest" was reliable. And in the "Origin of Species" retranslated by Professor Miao, who graduated from NTU in the early years, there are many similar "faults" and clarifications.

The book and the title "Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest" actually comes from the translator and educator Mr. Yan Fu's "Theory of Heavenly Evolution" in 1895.

He took part of Huxley's book "Evolution and Ethics" to introduce part of Darwin's theory of evolution, and added many of his own insights and ideas. But this is not the same as Darwin proposing "survival of the fittest".

Professor Miao said with a smile, "Darwin is almost a dish, and anyone can sprinkle ingredients on him." Not only Chinese have misreading, but even on the marble floor and ** homepage of the Academy of Sciences in Britain and the United States, there will be some "famous sayings" that Darwin never said.

The modern theory of biological evolution believes that the mutation of genes is non-directional, and multi-directional mutations will occur, but the environment is certain, which leads to the gradual reduction of mutations that do not adapt to the environment, that is to say, those who adapt to the environment are left. Darwin's theory of evolution provides the theoretical basis for this.

Lavoisier, Boyle and Dalton laid the foundations for modern chemistry.

Yan Fu proposed natural selection, survival of the fittest.

Natural selection, survival of the fittest" comes from Darwin's theory of evolution, and Darwin systematically expounded his theory of evolution in his book On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. Natural selection, survival of the fittest refers to the competition between species and within organisms, the struggle between species and nature, and the law of the jungle that can adapt to nature is selected to survive.

1. "Natural selection" is the evolutionary view of Charles Darwin, a famous British biologist. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are the common laws of nature and human society.

2. "Things" refers to all kinds of creatures, and "Heaven" refers to the natural Wuyan Shen Boundary. Darwin believed that plants and animals in nature compete for space, sunlight and food in order to survive on their own. In the competition between species and groups, the survival of the fittest, with good quality and adapted to the natural environment, can survive and reproduce, otherwise they will be eliminated until extinction.

3. "Natural selection" is not only the law of biological evolution, but also applicable to human society. There is also competition and elimination of jujube cloth among countries and ethnic groups in the world, and it is also the survival of the fittest. <>

Because whether it is the fittest or the unfit, they are all evolving, but only the fittest can survive, and the unfit will be eliminated naturally.

The basis of biological evolution is the variation of genetic information (DNA), and the driving force of evolution is the change of the ecological environment. Genetic variation occurs in order for organisms to adapt to the changed ecological environment. However, the mutation is likely to be undirectional, so the result of the mutation needs to be selected by the natural environment, leaving the adapted ones and eliminating the unsuitable ones.

Therefore, natural selection, survival of the fittest.

Darwin's theory of evolution was wrong.

First, natural selection cannot be identified at the genetic level, and natural selection can only select traits of organisms. Genetic changes, or mutations, that are reflected in biological traits, require considerable accumulation, and natural selection cannot be recognized.

Second, according to the above, the role of natural selection is that it can select gene combinations, not gene mutations. For example, if we mark the back of a deck of cards, and the player can choose the cards they want in turn, then playing Texas Hold'em and playing landlord will definitely not be the same cards. But no matter how different, this card is still a deck of cards, but the combination of cards is different, but there is no new card, will not be because of the play of the landlord, there will be an extra 2.

Therefore, people in Darwin's time did not understand genetics, and Darwin's theory of evolution was just describing different combinations of genes to adapt to different environments. But in any case, evolution, which refers to the production of genetic information with new functions, has been proven to exist so far.

Quite simply, survival does not necessarily evolve, evolution is the change of gene frequencies that occur in the process of survival.

Hope it helps!

Because evolution is not something that can be achieved in a short period of time, and it may take hundreds to a thousand years to achieve, it cannot be said that the fittest evolves, but the survival of the fittest.

Evolution is the result of variation + natural selection.

When talking about the fittest, we focus on the part of natural selection. That is, only those who adapt to the current environment will survive.

This process is obviously an external force, and has nothing to do with the changes of the organism itself!

If you can survive, you can evolve, if the species is extinct, how can you evolve

Evolution is a change in the gene frequency of a population, and in a stable environment, gene frequency may not change.

Evolution is random, not optimized, and what is left is in the right direction, survivor bias.

Because it's not necessarily evolution that survives.

Natural selection for the survival of the fittest cannot be classified solely as competition or natural selection. Biology and nature are in harmony and symbiosis. But there is competition between living things, and the weak have no way to survive, and they are eliminated by their own kind for a long time.

Creatures violating the laws of nature are naturally punished by nature, and those who are not fit are eliminated.

What evidence do you have to support that evolution is not a theory, but a fact?

If you study carefully, maybe the result you get is not evolution but degradation, and you can experience it for yourself.

The driving force is the competition for survival. Natural selection, that's the direction of evolution.

The fittest survive, and the unfit are eliminated.

Both.

The perfect exposition of the big bug of human beings is that desire is the royal way of survival. Emotions are the best catalyst for amplifying desires.

In the process of the evolution of the family, the creatures will escape the pressure of competition, that is, choose the environment of competition with larger things.

a.Complex. b.Chaos.

c.Few. d.Many.

Correct answer: c