Intelligent Design Natural selection

Does survival of the fittest not apply to frogs?

Spread the love

Does survival of the fittest not apply to frogs?

Well, it probably does over time but the story turns out to be more complex than that. In one study, the brighter colored poison frogs were not necessarily outcompeting the blander colored ones for survival. Also, from ScienceDaily:

“The biggest surprise came from the fact that the frogs [with] higher amount of toxins in their skin are not necessarily the ones that birds find most distasteful. This finding challenges previous assumptions that most toxic equals most unpalatable,” says Rojas. Paper.(open access) – Lawrence, Rojas, Fouquet, Mappes, Blanchette, Saporito, Bosque, Courtois and Noonan. Weak warning signals can persist in the absence of gene flow. PNAS, 2019 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1901872116 More.

Maybe we are looking for a certainty that isn’t there. How much toxin a frog has may not be calibrated by nature “daily, hourly, adding up.”

See also: Natural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Does survival of the fittest not apply to frogs?

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    That’s interesting because that follows through a dichotomy between two different animals

    So the evolution would’ve had to have developed between the two

    In most cases the frog would’ve had to of died for the bird to figure out which one is more toxic

    Innoway both would have to die so neither survive

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Survival of the fittest doesn’t even apply to natural selection. Natural selection’s great idea is nothing more than the defective and deficient will die out unless helped along by their peers. Powerful stuff, that. 🙄

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    ET @ 2
    You have it backwards and I’m not surprised, since Darwinists simply spout things without evidence. The only reason man should help anyone or anything is if man is unique in nature. If man is nothing more than animal, than man cannot be judged for acting as animals do. Cannibalism exists in nature. Should we not charge cannibals? If man is nothing more than animal, then man should pray upon man. The brutality of nature should be exhibited in mankind, yet we punish those that do just that.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    BobRyan- Humans are not the only cooperative population.

  5. 5
    Brother Brian says:

    BR

    The only reason man should help anyone or anything is if man is unique in nature.

    There are other species that help each other. And even examples of individuals if one species helping individuals of another. Altruism isn’t unique to humans.

    Cannibalism exists in nature.

    And has existed in various human cultures. And what is communion if not symbolic cannibalism?

    The brutality of nature should be exhibited in mankind, …

    Have you watched the news lately? El Paso, Dayton, Las Vegas, Columbine,, shall I go on?

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Don’t forget abortions. The carnage they brought is greater than all wars ever waged. It even goes against what is supposed to be our main and only goal- survive and reproduce.

    And extended altruism is expected in an intelligently designed world.

    Just sayin’…

Leave a Reply