The unprecedented die-off represents roughly 90 percent of the eastern Bering Sea population

      • yenahmik@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Absolutely.

        Survival of the fittest means the ones most suited for their environment survive enough to pass on their genes. When the environment changes (a new predator moves in, humans tear down your habitat to build condos, the ocean heats up so you don’t have enough food for everyone, etc) only the members of your species that can handle the new condition will survive to pass down their genes.

        Maybe as oceans warm, the remaining crabs will evolve to survive their changing environment better. Or maybe they will go extinct because they can no longer compete with species that are better suited for the warmer oceans. Either way survival of the fittest still applies 100% whether the cause is climate change or some other evolutionary pressure.

        Does that clear up why it makes no sense to say that this somehow proves Darwin wrong?

        • lntl@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          nah, it’s too simple. the world isn’t an efficient market, winners and losers are chosen. there isn’t a competition of genetics.

          I doubt Charles Darwin would say that Jews weren’t fit to live during the Holocaust, that Muslims are not fit to live in Burma, etc.

          Either he’s right or he’s wrong and I don’t think he’s got a complete picture.

          • yenahmik@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is about species as a whole and their physical characteristics. All humans are the same species and religion is a social construct, so that does not apply. Eugenics =/= Darwinism and it is intellectually dishonest to equate the two.

            Also, there is nothing about winners and losers in Darwinism. It is simply an observation about the natural world. The world is always changing and is never static. Those who can handle the change will make babies and pass on whatever quality they have that makes them suited for their current environment. In the future, that quality may or may not be selected for. Or maybe you have a quality that is not beneficial for your environment, but is not harmful for your survival either, thus it may continue to be passed down (e.g. my shitty eyesight that was passed down, but with correction doesn’t impact my survival).

            • lntl@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              yeah humans are and humans have different genes that could eventually become new species. that’s what Darwin would say anyway.

              racism is a system that preys on these genetic differences. saying this is not a fair comparison is rubbish and rascist (in the deep systematic way)

              • yenahmik@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m genuinely not sure if you are a troll and trying to be intentionally argumentative or what…

                But your argument is that the entire theory of evolution is proven wrong by crabs dying en masse because of climate change, because humans are racist and commit genocides against each other? Or did you just move the goal posts on this discussion about crabs and try to call me racist in the process for shits and giggles? Like you took such a hard turn in the discussion and the only logic is that you are probably gish galloping the discussion and it would be a waste of energy to continue.

                • lntl@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  the argument is there are winners and losers. these are chosen, evolution isn’t simply a competitive, efficient, marketplace of genetics.

                  this hasn’t changed