Do you consider charles darwins theories to still be relevant?

He introduced the concept of evolution through random genetic variation. I think most biologists accept that much.

But biologists do not all interpret evolution as "survival of the fittest", in the way that phrase is usually interpreted by the general public.

That traditional view has given rise to some abominations like Social Darwinism, Hitler's master race theory, and white supremacy. But there are objections to that view that are based purely on biological considerations, and not on social or political issues.

Biologists like W D Hamilton point to the marvelously intricate ecosystems that we have and conclude that evolutionary success is also tied to the ability of species to cooperate with each other. It's not all about competition. Successful species are the ones that can find their ecological niche.

There is a fascinating book called The Evolution of Cooperation , written by political scientist Robert Axelrod, with a chapter by biologist Hamilton. They do a mathematical analysis from the point of view of game theory and then discuss real-world examples, both social and biological. The latest edition has an introduction by Richard Dawkins.

Here is my admittedly crude example of what they are getting at.

Imagine an "ecosystem" consisting of two tennis players, where the goal is to keep the volley going as long as possible. An aggressive player will destroy the ecosystem and kill off his or her "food supply".

Now imagine a tournament consisting of several players, who each play every other player. At the end of the tournament, players "reproduce' according to how successfully they sustained a volley. The players with long volleys replicate in greater numbers than the aggressive players. In the long run, it is the aggressive species who die out because they are destroying the ecological balance.

I admit that my example is oversimplified and open to the criticism that the criterion for success can be considered arbitrary. But the book discusses a more complex kind of match, namely the 'prisoner's dilemma ' from game theory. Actual computer tournaments were held, with programs based on a variety of strategies. The most successful program was one that elicited cooperation from others but immediately punished non-cooperation.

It is a fascinating book.

Yes. The Theory of Evolution has been proven, modified and enlarged.
Scientists have proven the lineages of descent through genetics.
We now know that competition for survival is not the only force influencing natural selection; cooperation, altruism, symbiosis, niche specialisations, and numerous other strategies also play their roles.
In addition, we now understand how chemistry and the mechanical properties of biological materials influence the evolution of form.

Environmental disasters wipe out countless species, sometimes in ways that are random chance - while others survive and new rounds of evolution emerge from them.
Even if climate change causes global catastrophic extinctions,
nature and life will slowly recover from the extremophile survivors,
and a new round of evolution will begin adapting to the new state of the world.
Globally higher temperatures - similar to the time of the dinosaurs - will again become the dominating influence.

Of course they are still relevent today.. As a species we will face new fitness tests that will cull the herd. (Like we need reminding after covid) And those better equipped to deal with them will prosper relative to the others. Thats how the game is played..😷

yes. he could not have known about DNA at the time that he studied evolution, but his contributions are enormous.

Everything from the past is relevant. Someone like Richard Dawkins now gets less relevant every year. And that's yet another fact

Definitely! Does anyone seriously dispute Darwin these days?

Largely.
Much of what he prophesised still holds weight today

As the basis, yes... With additional layers of understanding

Yes

Yes.

No there would be animals and insects in different levels of evolution. They might develop different characteristics but they remain the same animal or insect .

Yes. They’re are start but not the full conversation.

sure - particularly his advocation of eugenics....

Never did really..
entertaining none the less

just parts of it.

NO... The bible was written by men.... just like batman comics.... amen.

No.

Many of them yes. Animals that do not fear us will go extinct very quickly. lol

I’d put a huge asterisk by his name, because his theories were largely colored by the white supremacist and racist beliefs that were the filters through which he theorized.

Evolution has matured a lot since his time but I'd still credit him with laying the foundation.