Is there a difference between fitness and the ability to adapt to change? is that change in the organism or change in the environment?

Yes, there's a difference. I'm not very fit but I can adapt to change. And its environmental change.

Fittest implies most powerful/strongest. Dinosaurs, mastodons, wooly mammoths, and saber toothed cats were all powerful and strong but they didn't survive.

imagine how ecstatic hed be if he knew about DNA

fittest subsumes adaption to change. .... class dismissed.

@holdenc98 No... not really. Fittest implies biggest, strongest, most powerful. Adaptation frequently has nothing to do with that. Frequently its being smaller, hiding better, finding new food sources, acclimating to changes in the environment, etc.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

Do they mutate to survive, or do they mutate and the fittest results survive?

@racocn8 The ones that do not mutate are gone. It works that way with us too.

Is there a reason intelligent life is rare other than the need for a large and differentiated neural net? Can you elaborate on your statement?

@racocn8 The more intelligent competitors wipe each other out. Just consider how humans create more and more deadly weapons, and how we are destroying the only planet we have in the name of competing with each other. A large number of people claim nuclear energy is safe even thoug nuclear waste remains dangerous for more than 100,000 years, an dwe have had several nuclear plant accidents which left areas uninhabitable. We have biological weapons that if released coudl wipe out all human life.

Just because intelligent life is capable of rational thought, does not mean it is rational all of the time. Rational thought also means rationalization away of unpleasant facts.

Would there be general principles that guide self-engineering principles? Would some seek overall enhancement while others create slave-sub-species? Would other opt to create the best-possible artificial intelligence?

have humans stopped evolving?

The term applies to physical, not social attributes.

@Alienbeing You might want to read Herbert Spencer.

“The 19th century liberal economists missappropriated the works of Charles Darwin to cloak and justify what would have otherwise deemed reprehensbile economic practice by by use of the phrase, ‘survival of the fittest.” Arnold Arnold – Winners and Other Losers in War and Peace.

@ASTRALMAX Sounds boring

I don't see why any organism, human or otherwise, should be applauded for being more fit than any another. Fitness is an attribute defined scientifically to help explain the theory of evolution. It carries no moral weight, and though we might admire an organism that displays extraordinary fitness (e.g., an ancient oak tree that has left many offspring when the overwhelming majority of its siblings became squirrel food), our admiration has absolutely no meaning where evolution is concerned. Personally, I'll save my applause for those humans who take the welfare of all humanity into consideration when they choose whether or not to reproduce (and no, I won't insist they make the same choice I did).

@Behind-the-dog Evidently, my sense of humour is not appreciated by everyone nor do I expect everyone to like it. I see your point and broadly speaking, agree with it. .

@Behind-the-dog Nothing you typed indicated you knew survival of the fittest was the topic because it explains evolution, which was the opening posting.

Everything you typed indicates you are consumed with social commentary.

@Alienbeing "Assuming life exists throughout the universe, may we reasonably assume that Survival of the Fittest and other evolutionary principles are, in fact, universals? (Saluting Darwin Day" You remind me of a courtroom judge who said to the counsel for the defense, 'my mind is made up do not confuse me with the evidence.'

@ASTRALMAX As I said, boring. The answer is obvious and tortureous dissertations are boring.

@Alienbeing ... dopes frequently find bright people boring

@holdenc98 How would you know?

@Alienbeing Well, well, a reply from you. Of course, there could be any number of reasons or excuses considering how long it took you to reply.

I do not know nor do I need to know what branch of law you practiced, I am glad that I never had to engage your services. It has been part of my experience in this life to learn that those who like to use the word 'boring' as a reaction/reply are usually boring people, I have no reason to think otherwise with regard to you.

@holdenc98 Some people remind me of a close friend's grandfather. He told me that his grandfather played the piano in the basement of a whorehouse and he never knew what was going on upstairs.

@ASTRALMAX .... me? i never met a whorehouse, or any woman's house, i didnt like, basement to roof. and upstairs was my forte. but its all theoretical now. these days ii just play the viola de gamba, an occasional solo sonata, where ever theres a chair

@ASTRALMAX Your last reply is not boring it is pointless. You don't exhibit much life experience, and that is why other than your last reply, the others were boring.

As for my legal expertise, I am positive you could never have affored it, and you even commenting on same is obviously nothing except a poor attempt at insult. How childish.

@Alienbeing Do everyone a favour and crawl back into your little narrow world. Also check your spelling.

@ASTRALMAX Do yourelf a favor and stop playing moron.

@Alienbeing This is the last reply that you will ever receive from me because I would rather watch paint dry than reply to your drivel.

@astralmax rant on

Exactly, evolution by natural selection is a powerful theory that serves us well but assuming it is the last, best or only explanation everywhere flies in the face of open minded enquirey. We may have a situation like relativity replacing Newtonian physics where we may be forced to reexamine our basic premises.

@Buttercup Premises, basic or not, are open to be re-thought as we learn more and more imo.
But, imo, where ever life evolves it would ALL most likely have the same urges/impulses, i.e S.A.R. S. ( Sustenance, Adaption, Reproduction and Survival) .

@Triphid "Most likely" being the operative phrase, I don't have any reason to doubt but pre Maxwell I would have thought Newton had the last word. Reproduction as we know it may not be necessary, It's not unthinkable that a single or fixed number of organisms could modify themselves on an ongoing basis and supplanted those that had to replace themselves.

@Buttercup Yes there are a FEW cases of single organisms being capable of self-reproduction, worms being one of them btw, but there are also documented cases of those self-same organisms REQUIRING a type/types of Sexual Reproduction to stop their Gene pool/s from becoming stagnant.

For survival, would life require an ability to reproduce?