Replies

The older kids took off for the house yelling "bees" and I trailed behind. However the bees went after the fastest kids, slownest was a survival trait. I was stung less than anybody because I was younger and slower.

I'm struggling to understand your point. Were bee stings always fatal, you would have had a distinct advantage in being left behind, though it would be of questionable long-term benefit, because it's unlikely that you'd be safe once all of the faster kids were weeded out. Still, for the time being, your traits would make you most "fit" for the situation.

Which illustrates the point about how many variables there are. Fitness for a "given environment" does not always lead to survival of the "best" specimens.

"Best" is always subjective. Are humans "better" than sea bass? Toss a group of humans and a group of sea bass into the environment typically inhabited by sea bass and watch to see which ones manage to survive and reproduce. You're making the mistake that evolution is supposed to create "better" life forms. Evolution does not have a design plan. Evolution does not distinguish life forms in a heirarchy from "best" to "worst". The "best" life forms within a given environment are the ones that reproduce and pass on their genetic information. If they can't manage that, then they're not any good.

There are senarios where natural selection can have a negative potentially devastating impact on a species. The protective behavior of herds may allow faulty genes to be replicated.

Yes, and? No one claims that this can not happen. Well, no one outside of creationists creating strawmen. In fact, evidence suggests that such things have happened -- primates lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C as a result of the proliferation of a "faulty" gene. That does not disprove evolution.

Then again perhaps it was randomness or providence that the bees went after the older kids.

It was bees doing what bees do. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue or claim here.

Survival of the Fittest is logical but is it even significant relative to luck or providence or other external environmental issues?

Urgh. I thought that I made this point clearly the last time.

"Fit" means able to survive in a given environment with all factors within the environment considered. There are no "other external environmental issues". If something affects a given environment, then that something is part of what ultimately determines what traits make organisms "fit" to survive and reproduce. A sudden meteor strike will alter the environment and, as a result, be a factor in determining what life forms are "fit" to survive and reproduce within the environment that the strike has altered

Even if it is significant, it's still doubtful in my mind that even given millions or billions of years, it would lead to the development of new functioning organs or transition between species, especially in those species whose gene pools are stabelized by male/female mating.

All of that nonsense leading up to the argument from incredulity fallacy? Why didn't you just come out and say this in the first place?