0

Can someone please explain to me how should I answer this question. As I understand correctly, we cannot predict the survival of the fittest and bc we have randomly assigned traits, we act according to the environment. Right?

  • 1
    No. This hypothesis is called progressive evolution or orthogenesis and it rejected by modern biologists. Evolutionary adaptation can decrease complexity, as it does in parasitic organisms, just as well as increase it. And human beings being the pinnacle that evolution aimed at is an even more discredited idea. – Conifold Apr 23 at 6:49
  • Hi efe, welcome to Phil.SE. Although in general your question touch a topic that is of interest to philosophy, the question itself is probably a better fit for Biology.SE. – Yechiam Weiss Apr 23 at 7:48
  • For a fascinating and illuminating take on your question, which does fall within the realm of the philosophy of science, see "The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science", by Errol S Harris. In it he traces the complete spectrum of the emergence of lifeforms on earth and depicts how the resultant complexity of organisms over time cannot be reduced to simply, 'evolution by natural selection'. He does not dismiss these undeniably measurably factors of evolution and natural selection, but demonstrates that there is an element of autonomy in micro-evolution which needs to be accounted for. – Charles M Saunders Apr 23 at 21:07
  • The notion of intentionality in causality goes back to Aristotle's four causes. It might be helpful to read SEP: Teleological Notions in Biology. Creationists cling to the hope there is to validate their belief in the supernatural, and often advance a pseudoscientific position known as ID or Intelligent Design. – J D Apr 24 at 16:18
  • Please be aware that questions are subject to editing and closure, and that reflects the site's policies on acceptable questions and NOT a personal attack. What to avoid in questions. Questions, including those that are closed, can be edited to bring them within guidelines. Keeping questions on-topic. Additional clarification at the meta site. – J D Apr 24 at 16:21
1

This is directly refuted by the existence of grasshoppers and pigs. It's a common misconception that humans are the "ultimate" product of evolution. We're not. All creatures that exist concurrently with us are just as evolved as we are because evolution is compared relatively to lineages and not between organisms living in the same time period. In addition to that there is your counterargument that evolution is inherently a random process at the molecular level so there is no guarantee that if we repeated the evolution of life on earth the end result would be the same.

| improve this answer | |
  • Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the tour or find help. You can perform searches here or seek additional clarification at the meta site. Don't forget, when someone has answered your question, you can click on the checkmark to reward the contributor. – J D Apr 24 at 16:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.