Does evolution through natural selection produce ?better organisms? in
an absolute sense? Are we climbing the ?ladder of nature??

Darwin actually said: 'the survival of those most fitted to survive'

I am only here because my grandfather had a TB scar on his lung and
was deemed unfit for duty in WWI
- as it was he did rather well, while his fitter contemporaries were
getting slaughtered in the Somme.

'Better' is a relative term
- 'Better' for what ?
- a lounge lizard is much better at surviving a war
- you have probably noticed that rather thick people are 'better' at
getting to the top of large bureaucratic organizations

Strictly speaking Darwin's theory should be:
   'The natural selection of the mutants of the species'

Interesting question. Certainly evolution produces organisms that are
better adapted to their environment, but that environment changes for
many reasons including the evolution of other organisms. It is also
clear that evolution has led to increasingly sophisticated life forms.
Bacteria, after all, are not capable of developing the theory of
General Relativity or painting the Mona Lisa. Still, there are very
learned scholars of evolution who debate the answer to your question.
Most prominent of these was probably the late Stephen Jay Gould who
wrote a lot about this topic, arguing vociferously that evolution was
not "progressive". Other's like Richard Dawkins have argued equally
strongly against Gould's view.

Evolution always heads towards the direction of the most effective way
for an organism to survive and reproduce in a particular enviroment.
Because the enviroment is dynamic, (either through changes in the
enviroment or the acutal organisms travelling to a different
location)it is as random as enviormental changes by which it seeks to
adapt too. Evolution not through natural selection, but through random
mutation also causes "random" variables which can very rarely cause a
positive effect (as opposed to a neutral or negative effect) on an
organisms fitness in a particular enviroment.

and another note, evolution's goal is not to achieve greater
intelligence unless it is neccisary for an organisms survival (in the
wild, physical fitness as opposed to mental capability is a much more
simplistic goal and in nature the most simple route is the one usually
taken)

(firstly, it must be assumed that all involved in this conversation
are of the evolutionary camp...) now, natural selection is first and
foremost a passive device, the natural process of the fittest
reproducing the most. it is through this device that the fittest
disseminate genes amongst a population.

dna randomly mutates via various causes like radiation, incorrect dna
replication, and so on. occassionally, in fact, quite rarely, these
random mutations amount to a better organism (stronger teeth, more
resilient skin tone).

this new dna, and so the new organism, might be more adept at
surviving in its environment, which will allow it to spread its dna
even more so.

however, in regards to frde-ga's comments on natural selection in
modern homo sapien society, one must balk at the alleged parallel.
artificial selection is the process of man implementing his own
priority in nature's method; clearly this is a much more approriate
title. in truly natural structures (free capitalism comes to mind) one
can apply darwin's ideology readily, but, in situtations where
individuals act with agenda's other than survival and betterment,
darwin is surely removed.