Wrong. Every stage was “fit for survival” since it survived long enough to have offspring, and so to have living descendants today.
The vast, vast majority of random mutations are either harmful or neutral. But there are so very many instances of random mutations the even the very tiny handful of beneficial ones over a long period of time can add up to a very noticeable difference.
It takes energy to grow fur. When hominids began filling a niche that did not require fur, those that continued to grow fur were wasting their energy. Those that devoted their energy to other uses made out better.
The reality is that the vast majority are neutral, neither harming nor helping. Of the non-neutral mutations the majority are harmful. For any species that is well adapted to its environment any significant change is very likely to be deleterious. However some changes are beneficial. Offhand I can think of four obvious example in humans:
So the food ran out for the otter and evolution decided to make it go through another million years of changes so it could find a new type of food ?Techno2000:
Either more fish, fewer mice or a combination of both. A hunter will go where the prey is.
rossum
So the mutations are only beneficial after a long period of time .What benefit is that when a animal has to survive right now, it can’t wait for something to happen a million years from now.vz71:
The vast, vast majority of random mutations are either harmful or neutral. But there are so very many instances of random mutations the even the very tiny handful of beneficial ones over a long period of time can add up to a very noticeable difference.
No. The mutations are beneficial immediately. Immunity to malaria is immediately beneficial in a malarial area.
What environmental change caused the otter to upgrade into something new ?
And how did you come to that conclusion? I don’t think that was his intent.
He did a lot to try to convert them, first step is finding ground, again, like St. Paul. He also talked an awful lot about Christ to them and in his other writings.
The otter didn’t, the otter is still in existence. I was using the otter as an obvious example. Historically whale ancestors were larger, and were more like a furry crocodile.
No, yes.
You are arguing with the Catechism, just to point out. I hope you know that.
How do you know this was the case millions of years ago ?Techno2000:
Either more fish, fewer mice or a combination of both. A hunter will go where the prey is.
rossum
Not strictly changes to the animals themselves. Changes to the overall DNA of the whole population. Each animal keeps its own DNA until it dies. As old animals die and new ones are born/hatch/whatever the DNA of the population changes. “Organisms reproduce; populations evolve.” It is an error to think that individual animals evolve.
The animal’s parents were good enough to survive and reproduce in the environment. Thus the animal itself will likely also be good enough to survive and reproduce in that environment. If it has a deleterious mutation then it will not survive and reproduce quite as well. If it has a beneficial mutation then it will survive and reproduce a bit better.
Because we can observe that predator-prey ratios are not constant today, and we can observe that predator-prey ratios are not constant in the fossil record.