If evolution is correct ,why dont bad people disappear,after all =survival of the fittest?
447038
Bad people is how the way people think and it can be influenced by many factors. So, no matter how we elvolve, there will still be people who will be bad.
145882
Always people we need & love, we dont want to lose them. I always put in my mind that good people died before bad people coz it's part from the end of the universe. Only the worse people will live untill that moment. At the end it's the fate.
657830
Yes there is a survival of the fittest among humans too. It's called social stratification. That is, if I understand your question. please write in English next time.
614441
Evolution happens to populations of organisms not individuals, and populations of humans across the globe are continually evolving. Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a breeding population over time - that's it. Of course you need a $100,000 lab to show most of it but it happens all the time. Many people see evolution only as 'speciation' - that's just one possible end point. Speciation might occur, for example, if enough gene frequencies change in a population so that the individuals look different or smell different from most, or a catastrophe geographically isolates one group - something divides them from others. The isolated group no longer breeds with once similar populations, the differences in gene frequencies between them accumulate. Over eons of time, at some point, this population may become a new species, no longer capable of breeding with its parent species; or it may become a subspecies - related but biologically isolated; or a sister species; or part of a circle species - there are many levels of relatedness. And then it happens again and again - populations continually dividing and changing - driven by an individual organism’s success at parenting fertile young. The genes that made a parent a success where they lived and who they lived with are passed on to the next generation. Genetically, we are what worked, when and where our parents made us. \n\nEvolution does not mean we are improving or getting better. Evolution has no bias about good or bad, and no direction; you either fit your environment well, move with it, change when it changes, or you die out. So evolution works quicker for organisms with short generation times and large populations (like insects or bacteria). It's no wonder that the insect and bacterial world is chock full of subspecies and sister species. Human evolution is a very ponderous affair because of our 25 year generational time. Ordinarily, it may take hundreds or thousands of generations to see some significant changes - there are many exception of course - but don't expect to see any differences between humans unless you look on a scale of millennia or more.
958096
I think its true. The human mind cannot be compared to those of animals and therefore the simple view of the natural selection in which the idea of selecting mates on the basis of physical attributes as in the case of animals cannot be applied here.For the world that we have created around us there is no place for those who are mentally weak. This is natural selection at its best. It shows how complicated the whole mechanism is. The term "survival of the fittest" can not just be applied to physically fit, it can also be applied to mentally fit.\n\nHuman beings change their environment to suit their needs, unlike animals which just adjust to the surroundings in which they are. Due to this change, the way of natural selection in animals in which physically strong and fit is almost the entire criteria for a good mate cannot be applied to humans.\n\nThe natural selection method in animals is based on physical attributes mainly for survival (as is wonderfully said in "Survival of the Fittest") For the world that we have created around us, a human being also has to be mentally fit to survive. In fact this has reached to such an extent that physical attributes mean very less now. Nobody wants a good looking bad really badly behaved mate, at least not for life.\n\nThis is the world we human beings have created and now "Survival of the fittest" has even more promininence as being mentally fit or perfect is much more tougher than being physically  fit or perfect. \n\nNobody is perfect but everyone yearns to reach that perfection.\n\nThe competition for survival has reached a new level, natural or not, and i think one should be pondering about "HOW" to get ahead of the competition? instead of "WHY" is the competition held this way
510324
because most people are selfish at heart, and would rather be the suvivor, regardless of the well being of others...\nthey believe in survival for the fittest, and they plan to be that survivor...
361939
Because of evolution.  Ugly people are frequently people who have errors in their genetic code.  They usually lack symmetry.  In the desperate world of the caveman, those people who were born with congenital defects (were ugly) might not live long.  They posed a risk to the survival of the group.\n\nWe have evolved from a long line of survivors... we have been bred to hate ugliness as an instinctual response.  This doesn't mean that this instinct is still a beneficial thing.  Our culture has evolved  to where physical appearance doesn't need to be as important.
781832
because if people stopped loving eachother, there is no hope for humanity. \n     humans are created out of love, so it is paradoxical if we do not love in return\n     loving people rather than hating them can make you live longer.\n     Maybe if serial killers and rapists were loved when they were younger, they wouldnt have become such evil people, who knows? Everyone deserves a chance\n     Humans were created in God's image, and God loves everyone, so we should too
444517
Evolution is fact.  Think about it.
1028483
Life is about evolution to higher forms.  Humans destroyed the Neanderthals and we will be eliminated by the robots, after they become smarter than us.
283084
Strictly speaking there is no evolutionary ladder. Each living being is perfectly adapted to its environment.
544104
I would agree with you that humans causing extinction can sometimes be defined as natural selection. However, our nervous systems have allowed us to have a different impact on the world around us. We are able to make decisions to avoid the extinction of other animals and have the capacity to take action a lot of the time. \n\nHope this helps.\n\nand as a side note "survival of the fittest" was retracted by Darwin when he saw that his cousin Galton was using it promote societal improvement. This is not what Darwin meant. Think of natural selection as selecting against  traits, characteristics, or behaviors that are harmful to the organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce. Survival of the fittest just sounds like constant improvement.
221780
The people above are incorrect!!!!!...\nIf a zebra kills thousands of prey and lives to 100 years old, it doesn't mean the zebra is fit. According to Darwain fitness and survival of the fittest depends on how many healthy offspring you produce. The most fit organism produce the most viable offspring because that makes sure their genes are passed down to the next generation. This means more organisms with your traits will be around competiting with organisms without your traits, and your traits will overpopulate the otehrs
683440
There isn't a purpose to evolution.  It's simply what happens when you get imperfect replicators competing for limited resources.  It's like asking to purpose of current traveling through the path of least resistance.  There's no purpose there, it's just what the laws of nature dictate must happen in that circumstance.
642511
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.
219714
Survival of the Fittest means that if an animal is stronger or smarter, it will live longer than animals who are weaker or less intelligent. The idea is that animals that live longer will mate and pass on their good genes, while animals that die earlier because of weakness will die before they can pass on their bad genes. So after many generations of this sort of selection (Darwin called it "Natural Selection"), you should have an animal that is stronger, faster, smarter, more brightly colored, better camouflaged, etc.\n\nAn example of this type of selection might be frogs in a pond. Frogs are eaten by large birds like storks or harens. Let's suppose there are two types of frogs in the pond--bright yellow frogs and drab forest green frogs. If you were a stork, which frogs would you see first? Of course the brightly colored ones--they'll be eaten up first while the forest green frogs will blend in better and pass their genes onward to the next generation. By Natural Selection, you should end up with mostly forest green frogs 10 generations down the road.
1186604
One answer might be that they have gradually changed, or evolved,over a very long time to suit the places they live in and the food that is available to them.\n                 In the 19th centurya scientist named CHARLES DARWIN (1802-1882) put forward a theory, which he called 'natural selection'. to explain how these changes might happen.\n              According to darwon, individuals animals and plants sometimes have qualities that help them to survive.For example,in agreen forest, a green bug would pribably survive longer than a brown bug,because its appearence would help it to aviod being seen amd eaten.\n       The individuals that survive the longest are likely to have more babies,and will pass on their useful qualities to them.Over a very long time,each species will very gradually develop all the most useful qualities for surviving in its own habitat.