God pwns

The definition of natural selection proposed is the consistent difference of fitness in organisms. Sounds to be the progression of variation in populations driven by levels of fitness. Essential to the theory is that traits which increase the fitness of a population are stabilized within the population and those that are not are eliminated. Fitness being essential reproductive success and viability of offspring, with 3 of 4 points of the definition of fitness relating directly to the number of gametes and offspring produced.

There are problems with the formulation presented. First is the incessant anthem that evolution is without purpose, without goals. If this is the case than to suggest that the goal of natural selection is selection of fitness adaptations is a contradiction which more often than not rears its head during such investigations. If nothing else, logical consistency is essential to scientific theory and pursuit.

Further the basis of natural selection being essentially reproductive fitness leaves some odd results for the process which is presented as underlying natural history. Why are those organisms which we are easily prone to dub ‘highly evolved’ often quite reproductively limited? If this were the driving process of the selection, then why is it that so many organisms, ourselves included, which we want to call highly evolved, are limited to single offspring after exceedingly long gestation periods? Seems to be an odd and quite common result of a process dictated by reproductive fitness.