Hey peoples :) I've wondered this and I would like to know what you all think.
The purpose of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" and other things like that is to build species that have a few things:
1. High survival ability
2. High procreational ability (with the ability to have numerous offspring, etc.)
3. Et cetera, things that have to do with the ability to live advantageously in terms of evolution.
For me, natural selection and survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily have anything to do with leading to species that can live life comfortably or pleasurably (like humans), but just surviving and procreating (like animals). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Alright, that was the groundwork for my question:
If natural selection and survival of the fittest lead to species that can have qualities #1-3 , why did we evolve past creatures like tardigrades (water bears) and Deinococcus radiodurans/extremophilic microbes (radiation-resistant bacteria)? They are much more suited to living life than humans. They can survive just about anywhere.
Aren't these creatures the height of evolution? They can survive much better than humans (who can only live in certain environments). Aren't these the best results of natural selection and survival of the fittest?
Why did evolution continue past these creatures? The ability to survive and procreate generally decreases with the increase of organism complexity.
What do you all think?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
