Challenge to Evolutionsts

[Autodidact]

One of the points is that, generally speaking, mutations or variation isn't better or worse per se, but only in the context of a specific environment. For example, let's say you belong to a species in which the males are belligerent, beat each other up and take their mates. If you're bigger, you might get all the females, and that would be an advantage. On the other hand, being bigger might also make you slower, and harder for you to escape from a predator, or harder to survive a winter famine. So who survives more will depend on the situation.

 

[camanintx]

As well evolution occurs gradually over extended periods of time if that is my understanding not immediately to specific incidences. Or are you saying eventually every human will evolve the cystic fibrosis gene?

The only goal of evolution is for the organism to survive long enough to reproduce. Seeing that the plague killed off roughly a third of the European population, carrying the cystic fibrosis gene was clearly a good trade off. Only about 1 in 31 people currently carry the CF gene, but if that did go up so would the number of people who actually get the disease, so it's unlikely that every human will evolve the gene.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At what cost. Would you gladly accept getting cancer if it cured aids?

Are you aware the black plaque killed a ton of people very quickly? It killed so many people it killed Feudalism in Medieval Europe right along with it.
A gene to survive it is definitely a very beneficial trait.

 

[Smoke]

The only goal of evolution is for the organism to survive long enough to reproduce.

Evolution is just a phenomenon we've noticed; it doesn't have a goal. You might as well talk about the goals of hurricanes or plate tectonics.