|
How do you define "Darwinism".
There appears to be a lot more to evolution than was observed by Darwin for example.
Likewise - I don't know if it is correct that evolution tends to create "lifeforms" (bacteria for example) that are perfect for their environment.
First up... the environment will change at the same time as a species evolves. So if tigers on an island become better and better predators for example, and if they eventually eat all available prey... they'll simply die out.
The second flaw that I can see - is that if we see visualize evolution as a path up a mountain (or into a valley), you can imagine that selection pressures migh easily push a species into a "local maxima". Sorry about that term... I come from physical sciences.
Ok... so in this case we become something like a (pick some species that hasn't changed much recently)... It's found it's niche and is well adapted for it. Mutations or changes in a variety of axes/directions cause no appreciable improvement - however is it truly as well adapted to it's current environment as it could be? Probably not.
And is it perfect. Heck no (in my view), although it would depend on your definition.
|