The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

It's "experiment" and "observation of evidence", so repeating your falsehoods doesn't miraculously make them magically true.

You need to go back to basics, and here's not a bad place to start because of your basic lack of understanding: Science - Wikipedia

Not just get back to basics, but to understand those basics at all. The claims I have seen indicate only the most trivial awareness of science.

 

[F1fan]

I didn't say he knows more. I said his beliefs and expectations on a specific question can be more likely to lead him to the truth or an accurate prediction than a Peer.

OK, you can have two high school grads working at a carwash, and both can have beliefs and expectations on a specific question. So how do you propose these two figure out whether either one has truth, or that both are wrong?

What method will solve this dispute? And be aware that "truth" means to conform to facts.

I said all Peers can be wrong about anything because Peers are by definition the group of all individuals who share the same beliefs about a given question.

Sure, but since you are referring to tens of thousands of experts in biology you'd better have something that is factual, objective, and conclusive to demonstrate they are all wrong about something. Thus far you've not done this, so the experts remain the authority about biology and evolution. And you are just a guy on an internet forum with beliefs, and no expertise.

Peers, as a rule, are far more likely to be correct than other people but they are certain to share the same errors and others might not.

Peers in the KKK, yes. Peers in academics? You need to have more than criticism. The sciences have to show their work and demonstrate how it's true.

The guy at the car wash might know from figuring it out or from experience that white cars are easier to wash or Chryslers are harder where an expert in any subject might predict exactly the opposite or believe his experience is mere superstition.

There are experts studying washing cars?

I get your point because there are some analytics that don't account for all the data of any given thing being examined. But note that it is observation and experience that led to Darwin realizing that evolution is a natural phenomenon whereas the naturalists of his time would still accept the heavy influence of Christianity as a way to explain the existence of humans and animals, and were wrong. So again you offer an example that backfires on you.

Maybe the critically wounded patient about to be operated upon in the 1850's would be appalled to see the doctor come at him with a blood stained scalpel.

Or a saw covered in flesh and blood from the previous wounded soldier. Do you know why medical care is better today? Science.

Maybe the "settled science" of aiding autistic patients to "speak" using ouija boards would be obvious claptrap to almost anybody with two brain cells.

Well keep working on it.

Why don't you explain how the child who first washed his tweezers back in the 1850's was less right than the surgeons who sawed off legs with rusty implements

In college I had to take a history of psychology class for my degree. Medicine and psychology have horrific histories. But we are judging them from modern ethics. Back in those days there were vastly different attitudes and ethics, and this is part of the point of the class: to understand how ethics and methods have changed over time.

No!!! My claim is obviously true because every peer can be wrong since (did I mention) "PEERS" are BY DEFINITION the group of individuals who share the same beliefs.

It's a bad definition, but I don't care, it's not relevant. Anyway just because peers (or anyone) CAN be wrong about something doesn't mean they are. You keep insisting that tens of thousands oaf experts in biology are wrong (or might be wrong) about evolution, but you offer no science that invalidates the hundreds of thousands of experiments that demonstrate evolution is a real and natural phenomenon. So we reject your concern.

Why can't you see this? Would a larger font help or maybe it should be in hieroglyphs.

Evidence and a lucid argument will suffice.

When one Peer is wrong They are Each wrong. Peers are not Gods, They are not privy to the Truth, They are merely the Priests of Science.

Well, science shows it's work. It's not religion. So you can go through any one of the hundreds of thousands of experiments that demonstrate evolution is a real and natural phenomenon and show us how it's wrong or flawed. This is your assignment, can you do it? If so, show us you are correct.

 

[cladking]

By his own definition, his beliefs are not science.

I never said such a thing. I used science from a young age and then found ancient science about 15 years ago so now "use" two metaphysics "simultaneously". I have said my "theory" is really a series of hypotheses by the definition of modern science but it is theory by ancient science and makes good "prophesy".

No belief is science. Belief is the horse behind the cart that everyone wants to ride. I stated my beliefs but I don't see yours anywhere. I know most of them anyway, though.

He has no experiments and experimental results to report on.

I've listed numerous experiments and observations in this thread. You can't see them. I've been through this many times and I know everything that doesn't agree with your beliefs is invisible.

Then there is the fact that reviewers would actually read his fantastical claims that have no basis in reality.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean but if you're suggesting my work is invisible to Peers I do agree.

Biological fitness is not a cause. It is a result.

And of what is it a result? Consciousness?

You have no experiments. The natural conclusion of your own claims is that they are not science.

Just keep making things up and ignoring everything I said.

 

[cladking]

OK, you can have two high school grads working at a carwash, and both can have beliefs and expectations on a specific question. So how do you propose these two figure out whether either one has truth, or that both are wrong?

The same way any science would; evidence and logic. Experiment and deduction are the most effective means of learning and creation.

And you are just a guy on an internet forum with beliefs, and no expertise.

...And biologists are the guys in ivory towers who can't consider anything that doesn't accept their assumptions.

The sciences have to show their work and demonstrate how it's true.

...Only to the satisfaction of those who already share their beliefs.

What they actually need to demonstrate is that it makes accurate predictions and no other theory makes better prediction. I believe my theory makes much better prediction.

But note that it is observation and experience that led to Darwin realizing that evolution is a natural phenomenon whereas the naturalists of his time would still accept the heavy influence of Christianity as a way to explain the existence of humans and animals, and were wrong.

I have great respect for experience. While it means little in science in the real world it is as important as experiment to every individual. But people still choose their own beliefs, experience reality in terms of their beliefs, and in time become their beliefs. Look at my assumptions again and you'll see this has happened to me as well. My contention is that my beliefs are more accurate than the beliefs of biologists because there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest".

Medicine and psychology have horrific histories. But we are judging them from modern ethics.

Oh sure. It's far better to let crazy people walk the streets committing crimes or rot in a prison's solitary confinement than to keep them in a loony bin and tend to their needs.

We have jumped the shark. We release murderers and lock up the accused. We have laws against everything and enforce them against a select group of individuals. If you're wealthy there are no laws at all and if somebody accidently catches you then a few well greased palms will solve all your problems. The world gets stupider and crazier every single day because of all the settled science. Commo0n sense no longer exists at all.

Anyway just because peers (or anyone) CAN be wrong about something doesn't mean they are.

Yes, of course not. My point is that if one Peer is wrong then they all are.

Well, science shows it's work.

Where is the ability to predict. Predict what squirrels will look like in a million years and then show you are right. The theory is nonsense.

I can't predict what they'll look like because it is dependent on events that haven't happened yet. But I know exactly when they'll change; right after almost all of them die in an event that selects for behavior and not for "fitness" (which isn't even real).

I'm sorry change in species is so complicated but this is the nature of all of reality. Reality is a manifestation of logic. While all logic is simple reality is the interplay of all of it occurring at once. I'm sorry reality is so complex that we've only begun to understand its nature but this is the cross we bear if we want to understand and predict. I'm sorry science has yet to even discover this framework of nature and this is why we believe there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. Ouija board science indeed.

 

[gnostic]

Logic and observation would suffice if you aren't blinded by a belief in "survival of the fittest.

Can you define what you think “survival of the fittest” mean IN THE BIOLOGICAL CONTEXT?

Because it would seem that your opening statement in this post of yours, that you either don’t understand the concept, or you are deliberately (and falsely) changing it what it mean.

So what does “survival of the fittest” when used with Natural Selection?

Second question to you, did you know that Charles Darwin didn’t coin this terminology?

Darwin didn’t use this term in his original 1859 On Origin Of Species, and it is not in his earlier works and in his notes. It was added later, when he adopted the term from Herbert Spencer.

And Spencer isn’t ready biologist. He was more of a political sociologist and an anthropologist.

My point is that most people have mistakenly attributed this expression to Darwin. Plus, Darwin’s usage of the expression differed from Spencer’s original meaning.

Spencer’s usage have everything to do with man’s politics, because survival of the fittest to Spencer, weren’t inherently biological, and can’t be passed on through genes, hence Spencer’s works have nothing to do with evolutionary biology even though the term have been adopted by biologists.

What I am saying that there are two meanings to this expression, the original mean have to do with sociology, the later usage have to do with biology. And you sounds like, you are applying the wrong one to Evolution, hence my first questioned you.

 

[gnostic]

@YoursTrue & @cladking

I don’t think either of you understand that only anti-Peer Review people are people who tried to promote their pseudoscience beliefs, concepts, opinions.

They are the ones who are anti-science, and tried to get around science, because they cannot follow the 3 essential requirements of what all scientific concepts need to follow. The scientific theory must all three of these requirements:

1. The hypothesis must be falsifiable.
2. The hypothesis must pass Scientific Model, through testing, eg observations, evidence, experiments, and data obtained from these tests.
3. The hypothesis must pass Peer Review.

The Peer Review investigate if the hypothesis followed the two earlier requirements: Falsifiability & Scientific Model.

Only anti-science people want skip all 3 requirements.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never said such a thing. I used science from a young age and then found ancient science about 15 years ago so now "use" two metaphysics "simultaneously". I have said my "theory" is really a series of hypotheses by the definition of modern science but it is theory by ancient science and makes good "prophesy".

No belief is science. Belief is the horse behind the cart that everyone wants to ride. I stated my beliefs but I don't see yours anywhere. I know most of them anyway, though.



I've listed numerous experiments and observations in this thread. You can't see them. I've been through this many times and I know everything that doesn't agree with your beliefs is invisible.



I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean but if you're suggesting my work is invisible to Peers I do agree.



And of what is it a result? Consciousness?



Just keep making things up and ignoring everything I said.

I don't ignore what you post, but it is all made up. Just pretend. There is no foundation for your flights of fantasy that you claim are reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The same way any science would; evidence and logic. Experiment and deduction are the most effective means of learning and creation.


...And biologists are the guys in ivory towers who can't consider anything that doesn't accept their assumptions.



...Only to the satisfaction of those who already share their beliefs.

What they actually need to demonstrate is that it makes accurate predictions and no other theory makes better prediction. I believe my theory makes much better prediction.



I have great respect for experience. While it means little in science in the real world it is as important as experiment to every individual. But people still choose their own beliefs, experience reality in terms of their beliefs, and in time become their beliefs. Look at my assumptions again and you'll see this has happened to me as well. My contention is that my beliefs are more accurate than the beliefs of biologists because there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest".



Oh sure. It's far better to let crazy people walk the streets committing crimes or rot in a prison's solitary confinement than to keep them in a loony bin and tend to their needs.

We have jumped the shark. We release murderers and lock up the accused. We have laws against everything and enforce them against a select group of individuals. If you're wealthy there are no laws at all and if somebody accidently catches you then a few well greased palms will solve all your problems. The world gets stupider and crazier every single day because of all the settled science. Commo0n sense no longer exists at all.



Yes, of course not. My point is that if one Peer is wrong then they all are.



Where is the ability to predict. Predict what squirrels will look like in a million years and then show you are right. The theory is nonsense.

I can't predict what they'll look like because it is dependent on events that haven't happened yet. But I know exactly when they'll change; right after almost all of them die in an event that selects for behavior and not for "fitness" (which isn't even real).

I'm sorry change in species is so complicated but this is the nature of all of reality. Reality is a manifestation of logic. While all logic is simple reality is the interplay of all of it occurring at once. I'm sorry reality is so complex that we've only begun to understand its nature but this is the cross we bear if we want to understand and predict. I'm sorry science has yet to even discover this framework of nature and this is why we believe there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. Ouija board science indeed.

Funny how you believe in conspiracies that you claim you do not believe in. Imagine the inconsistencies you have to juggle.


The theory of evolution is not used to predict what squirrels or any other animal will look like in a million years. No where has any scientist made predications like that using the theory of evolution. You just made that up as a straw man to attack, since you have nothing else to run with.

If I were going to waste my time fantasizing, I could come up with something more plausible than imaginary people and imaginary languages.

 

[gnostic]

The same way any science would; evidence and logic. Experiment and deduction are the most effective means of learning and creation.

I don’t know about anyone else, but all I see from you concept and your claims on Ancient Language and Ancient Science, are circular thinking, confirmation bias, and misinformation.

There are no logic, no evidence and no experiments in your claims, not in this thread, and not in the Ancient Reality thread.

Misinformation about what observation mean. You don’t see that experiments ARE OBSERVATIONS!

Observations applied to all testings and evidence finding, INCLUDING experiments!

Since your Ancient Reality, you have been trying to separate experiments from observations. So you are trying to limit sciences to your misplaced views and your agenda.

AND YET, you have presented no experiments to your claims, whether it is about your Ancient Language fantasy or in your view about Evolution. You have only presented (your) claims, not experiments.

Second, misinformation about what is Peer Review is and how Peer Review works.

You are still peeved that Egyptologists have rejected your concept. But I don’t see Egyptology to be sciences, because a lot of works in Egyptology involved in translations, hence it is more to with philology and linguistics, which fall under the category of Humanities, not sciences.

And the other parts involved in Egyptology, in the studies of ancient artefacts, like artworks, pottery, etc, so other than dating these items using science, eg radiometric dating method or luminescence dating method, the knowledge of arts and crafts also fall under the category of humanities, not sciences.

Architecture also falls under a branch of art. Most Egyptologists are not engineers, unless their previous qualifications and work experiences were that of civil or structural engineers. Most of the times, Egyptologists would hire engineers to assist them with their projects/works.

I know that you are anti-Egyptology. You preferred your own concept, even though you cannot read or translate hieroglyphs or hieratic yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.And biologists are the guys in ivory towers who can't consider anything that doesn't accept their assumptions.

Okay, this is the sort of nonsense that you should drop. When you accuse others of making assumptions you take on a burden of proof. From what I have seen this is false. But it is your claim please support it. Since you have demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method, and you will not even discuss the concept of evidence I strongly doubt if you can support this claim.

Once again, if you ask proper questions and try to learn people will try to help you without negative judgment. Continually making false claims does lead to judgment and you do not seem to like it.

 

[rational experiences]

And to the ape, we are not apes. The ape owns the apeness of its being.

As the ape gazes at its fellow apes and conjures images of itself man gazes at its fellows and conjures images of itself. Man gazes at the apes and reflects upon them while the ape gazes at man and startles itself with mirrors.

Jesus danced with apes, you know, under the shade of a Bodhi tree to the piping of Pan.

Scientists also dance with apes under the electric shade of micro-macroscopes to the tunes of equations.

And all are mirrors.

The ape reflects man reflects ape.

Really that statement would qualify as sophism.

I am conscious I look at an ape and consciously spiritually as a healer appraisal know it is an ape. In conscious awareness. I love it anyway. One of a Multi spiritual life.

When my brother a holy father human spirit decided to sacrifice his life by his brother. Still uses the exact same scientific criminal thoughts today. Make everyone else's life a victim but not my own.

Ignored as relevant human behaviour is always involved.

Destroyer God mentality I am the God.

Seeing God earth and it's heavens always survived after.

Said. As I was irradiated sacrificed so too was the ape.

My brother inane never told you man of science also mutated all of nature's creatures in the same attack as he never ever has told you any spiritual truth.

Science was ordained a criminal action once.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue & @cladking

I don’t think either of you understand that only anti-Peer Review people are people who tried to promote their pseudoscience beliefs, concepts, opinions.

They are the ones who are anti-science, and tried to get around science, because they cannot follow the 3 essential requirements of what all scientific concepts need to follow. The scientific theory must all three of these requirements:

1. The hypothesis must be falsifiable.
2. The hypothesis must pass Scientific Model, through testing, eg observations, evidence, experiments, and data obtained from these tests.
3. The hypothesis must pass Peer Review.

The Peer Review investigate if the hypothesis followed the two earlier requirements: Falsifiability & Scientific Model.

Only anti-science people want skip all 3 requirements.

The experiments proving evolution are ridiculous. Guppies make guppies, with or without the same characteristics. They don't morph into different type entitites. With or without eyes. They remain fish. Period. Thanks, though, for your thought on the subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you define what you think “survival of the fittest” mean IN THE BIOLOGICAL CONTEXT?

Because it would seem that your opening statement in this post of yours, that you either don’t understand the concept, or you are deliberately (and falsely) changing it what it mean.

So what does “survival of the fittest” when used with Natural Selection?

Second question to you, did you know that Charles Darwin didn’t coin this terminology?

Darwin didn’t use this term in his original 1859 On Origin Of Species, and it is not in his earlier works and in his notes. It was added later, when he adopted the term from Herbert Spencer.

And Spencer isn’t ready biologist. He was more of a political sociologist and an anthropologist.

My point is that most people have mistakenly attributed this expression to Darwin. Plus, Darwin’s usage of the expression differed from Spencer’s original meaning.

Spencer’s usage have everything to do with man’s politics, because survival of the fittest to Spencer, weren’t inherently biological, and can’t be passed on through genes, hence Spencer’s works have nothing to do with evolutionary biology even though the term have been adopted by biologists.

What I am saying that there are two meanings to this expression, the original mean have to do with sociology, the later usage have to do with biology. And you sounds like, you are applying the wrong one to Evolution, hence my first questioned you.

Survival of the fittest might mean that guppies remain fish, they don't morph to a more productive better fit life. Such as -- tetrapods. Ridiculous. Nothing proven, nothing but conjecture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The experiments proving evolution are ridiculous. Guppies make guppies, with or without the same characteristics. They don't morph into different type entitites. With or without eyes. They remain fish. Period. Thanks, though, for your thought on the subject.

You do not even understand them. Finding Tiktaalik was an "experiment" of evolution.

By the way, scientific experiments never "prove" anything. They are designed to disprove a concept. How would any scientific experiment prove anything?

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you define what you think “survival of the fittest” mean IN THE BIOLOGICAL CONTEXT?

Because it would seem that your opening statement in this post of yours, that you either don’t understand the concept, or you are deliberately (and falsely) changing it what it mean.

So what does “survival of the fittest” when used with Natural Selection?

Second question to you, did you know that Charles Darwin didn’t coin this terminology?

Darwin didn’t use this term in his original 1859 On Origin Of Species, and it is not in his earlier works and in his notes. It was added later, when he adopted the term from Herbert Spencer.

And Spencer isn’t ready biologist. He was more of a political sociologist and an anthropologist.

My point is that most people have mistakenly attributed this expression to Darwin. Plus, Darwin’s usage of the expression differed from Spencer’s original meaning.

Spencer’s usage have everything to do with man’s politics, because survival of the fittest to Spencer, weren’t inherently biological, and can’t be passed on through genes, hence Spencer’s works have nothing to do with evolutionary biology even though the term have been adopted by biologists.

What I am saying that there are two meanings to this expression, the original mean have to do with sociology, the later usage have to do with biology. And you sounds like, you are applying the wrong one to Evolution, hence my first questioned you.

Meantime, according to a website about blind fish, "Cavefish are a fish typically found in dark freshwater caves. Surface dwellers need eyesight in order to survive, but when they migrated into caves this sense was no longer necessary. Mutations rendered some fish blind and the mutation flourished. A prime example of convergent evolution, unrelated cavefish species all over the globe independently developed this trait."
Obviously NOT "survival of the fittest," although seemingly reported as such, but it was convenient that they survived. Period. NOT survival of the fittest. Say what you want, the fact that this mutant strain flourished does not in any way prove survival of the fittest. It means these offspring continued living as -- fish -- that were blind. NOT to their particular advantage, but managed to survive. In fact, I'm thinking it's proof (yes, proof) that the idea "survival of the fittest" just is not so.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue & @cladking

I don’t think either of you understand that only anti-Peer Review people are people who tried to promote their pseudoscience beliefs, concepts, opinions.

They are the ones who are anti-science, and tried to get around science, because they cannot follow the 3 essential requirements of what all scientific concepts need to follow. The scientific theory must all three of these requirements:

1. The hypothesis must be falsifiable.
2. The hypothesis must pass Scientific Model, through testing, eg observations, evidence, experiments, and data obtained from these tests.
3. The hypothesis must pass Peer Review.

The Peer Review investigate if the hypothesis followed the two earlier requirements: Falsifiability & Scientific Model.

Only anti-science people want skip all 3 requirements.

It has been noted that peer review can be prejudicial. Medical journal peer review: process and bias - PubMed (nih.gov)
hmm interesting stuff.

 

[rational experiences]

Why do you think voting is the way to decide results in science and not the scientific method, which is objective?

And do you think professional credentials are not important?


I still don't understand why you think voting is a way to decode what science is. It doesn't;t work that way for a reason. Heck, even Christianity can't decide what it is, and it needs some 41,000 sects to argue over.

Science has a method that has quite objective and has rules. For example an experimenter has to account for all data. If the data does not support the hypothesis then it fails. It takes a lot of work, and experts have better instruments and more and more data.


This future has been been a thing since the 1800's.

And you are free to believe your nonsense. But you can't blame ethical experts who follow the scientific method for not agreeing with your non-scientific ideas. That's your problem. We all know it. You can't bluff educated people.

In life humans lie.

Humans coerce.

Humans apply secret experiments known by their community.

They know what their group believes. They don't make it public. However they interview the public without telling you what they believe by group.

Then mock you.

Human behaviour at its worst.

Real life is what is being discussed as science is a chosen human practice like any human behaviour it is only via human.

Consciousness says science is human. As a human theories on behalf of science.

Human being told everyday what they ignore as self warnings then quote science is a human.

Always using "is" inappropriately.

Secret science Th Isis jesus.

Was in fact an Egyptian book of the dead pyramid caused confession.
Isis reasoning in science had sacrificed life.

Th O th a God of scientific numbers.

Evil God status in human science said man with head thinker of a beast.

Alphabeta lphabeta.

Proved the alpha status constant by scientific purpose was removed as alpha is involved with beta naturally and is not separate.

Ab Ba their thesis read B read their Theis number formula proved nuclear dust reactions mutated attacked life

As the earth's sun heavenly mantle was removed by science burning earths stone gases out by one body mass.

Mantle inferred as heavens by father's cloak of many colours. Said was not the father of Jesus. Holy earth mantle is blue with white clouds highest cooled body. Owned man's image.

Was known.
Reason the sun a natural body is daily getting smaller.

The sun is earths light. And proves there is no constant secret infinite resource. As the sun one day naturally won't exist.

Science outright lied.

Machines apply used forced separated communications. Against natural communion.

Natural was never separate. They knew they caused it.

Do you think scientific egotism likes owning the human fact you destroyed life?

Not likely.

Why satanist is scientist in radiation occult thesis.

Radiation did not support life it is instant death.

Gods stone body is radiating a totally different effect.

Occultist lied. Basic human behaviour to coerce to be allowed the practice is human behaviour.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It has been noted that peer review can be prejudicial. Medical journal peer review: process and bias - PubMed (nih.gov)
hmm interesting stuff.

It has been noted that many clergy assault children. Using your logic, all clergy should be suspect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Meantime, according to a website about blind fish, "Cavefish are a fish typically found in dark freshwater caves. Surface dwellers need eyesight in order to survive, but when they migrated into caves this sense was no longer necessary. Mutations rendered some fish blind and the mutation flourished. A prime example of convergent evolution, unrelated cavefish species all over the globe independently developed this trait."
Obviously NOT "survival of the fittest," although seemingly reported as such, but it was convenient that they survived. Period. NOT survival of the fittest. Say what you want, the fact that this mutant strain flourished does not in any way prove survival of the fittest. It means these offspring continued living as -- fish -- that were blind. NOT to their particular advantage, but managed to survive. In fact, I'm thinking it's proof (yes, proof) that the idea "survival of the fittest" just is not so.

They are fit for cave life and not wasting energy on maintaining an organ that they no longer need. You are thinking about loss of sight in an environment where sight is essential and not about the loss of sight in an environment where being able to see is useless. Your perspective is off.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meantime, according to a website about blind fish, "Cavefish are a fish typically found in dark freshwater caves. Surface dwellers need eyesight in order to survive, but when they migrated into caves this sense was no longer necessary. Mutations rendered some fish blind and the mutation flourished. A prime example of convergent evolution, unrelated cavefish species all over the globe independently developed this trait."
Obviously NOT "survival of the fittest," although seemingly reported as such, but it was convenient that they survived. Period. NOT survival of the fittest. Say what you want, the fact that this mutant strain flourished does not in any way prove survival of the fittest. It means these offspring continued living as -- fish -- that were blind. NOT to their particular advantage, but managed to survive. In fact, I'm thinking it's proof (yes, proof) that the idea "survival of the fittest" just is not so.

Of course that is "survival of the fittest". Why do you think that it is not?

Instead of telling use that you do not understand basic science by making such easily falsifiable claims you too should be asking questions.

Any organ on your body is going to consume energy. A member of a species that wastes energy on its eyes in a cave where they are of no use is going to not do as well as members that do not waste that energy.

Think of a super strong fish in an environment where strength is not needed. This is easier to understand since it takes quite a bit of food to keep muscles healthy. A species with fewer muslces would be more fit for that environment. You are using an improper definition of "fittest". Which traits are advantageous and which ones are not is always dependent on the environment that the species exists in.