“Survival of the fittest,” is a cicular argument; the fittest are generally defined as those that survive. The traditional evolutionist argument relies heavily on mutation; however, truly empirical observation reveals that with very rare exception, mutations are far more detrimental to an individual organism’s viability and “survivability,” than they are conducive to it.
Also, as to mutations. In nature, mutants.. oddballs, generally are shunned by a species, and therefore there “evolutionary” progress would die with them.
Evolution presumes mutants are preferred and therefore spread their (highly) rare mutant gene to eventually produce massive (species jumping lol) change.
As far as I can tell a mutation is a birth-defect. A mutation is a failed attempt of replication. It could be due to a stray cosmic ray, due to simple replication error, or perhaps the mother suffered a disease and normal processes were unable to proceed normally. So what are the odds of birth-defect advancement? Not very good.
Well, nobody claims that all mutations survive, only those that that are beneficial.
Thus the many early winners of the Darwin Award.
Virtually every life form on this planet requires a male and a female to reproduce. If life evolved from mud, how was it that two sexes evolved at the same time in order to start the cycle of life in all the millions of different life forms on this planet. It can’t be a coincidence....
I learned in an nineth grade anthropology class that it is not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most adaptable.