Morality and the Survival of the Least Fit Contradicts Evolution

Agonaces of Susa said:

#82: Humans Took Care of the Disabled Over 500,000 Years Ago | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine


So much for the Victorian Age myth of the survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

Could you explain a little more? I don't see how the article contradicts evolution at all.

Agonaces of Susa said:

So much for the Victorian Age myth of the survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

In a species (or a society) which takes care of disabled individuals, those individuals need not have low fitness.

In other words, your conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted.

Agonaces of Susa said:

You don't see the difference between actual survival of the least fit and the alleged survival of the fittest?

Click to expand...

Not in the example provided by the article, no.

It does keep the species going, doesn't it?

Can you imagine the poor folks who think "survival of the fittest" was some kind of prescriptive rule, and not a descriptive one?

Agonaces of Susa said:

You don't see the difference between actual survival of the least fit and the alleged survival of the fittest?

Click to expand...

The species works in a tribe/family. The group helps each other, allowing them to compensate for others. Other groups don't, so they lose members. Therefore, the tribe/family that works together is the fittest out of all the groups and will pass on it's genes better than the rest.

Voila, Survival of the Fittest. It doesn't necessarily have to apply to individuals, or even at all. Darwin never mentioned the phrase.

Morality and altruism= you watch my back, I'll watch yours, we both survive. It is an excellent survival strategy, despite some people's lack of knowledge on the subject.

Agonaces of Susa said:

You don't see the difference between actual survival of the least fit and the alleged survival of the fittest?

Click to expand...

If they're able to survive as well as others, then they're fit. That's what "fit" means in evolutionary biology. Not bigger, stronger, faster, or more appealing to posters on internet forums.

Survival of the fittest= survival of the reproductively fittest. Those populations who took care of each other had more offspring than populations that did not. It really is that simple!

Agonaces of Susa said:

#82: Humans Took Care of the Disabled Over 500,000 Years Ago | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine


So much for the Victorian Age myth of the survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

After reading the article, I can't see relationship to survival of the fittest and evolution.

Would you mind explaining your thoughts behind your post?

Molal said:

Would you mind explaining your thoughts behind your post?

Click to expand...

There was thought behind his post?

Agonaces of Susa said:

#82: Humans Took Care of the Disabled Over 500,000 Years Ago | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

So much for the Victorian Age myth of the survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

I agree with you 'survival of the fittest' is an unfortunate phrase as it falsely describes how natural selection works. In the minds of creationists, it surely conjures up a picture of selfish individuals trampling over their weaker brethren in a bloody competitive fight — nature being "red in tooth and claw". Actually, natural selection is much more about differential rates of reproduction, both within and between populations, over long periods of time.

Natural selection need not be about individual survival and reproduction either. If an organism has relatives that carry the same or similar genes, then it can afford to sacrifice itself for the benefit of others, because a proportion of its genes will still survive. Moreover, where you have competing groups, especially of people, then positive interdependency and cooperation between individuals becomes an important component for the survival of the group and thus of its individuals.

In the case of the disabled child, you have to bear in mind the huge investment that goes into rearing any child and most animals do their utmost to ensure their offspring survive and their genes get passed on. But 'survivors' do not have to be 'fit' in the sense of being perfect healthy examples of the sort you might see at an agricultural show all 'bright eyed and bushy tailed'. Indeed — judging by the capacity of every organism to recover from multiple diseases, famine, drought and serious physical injury — individuals who successfully reproduced were probably, at times in their lives, very sorry specimens! In human society, where there is individual interdependency, recovery from such illnesses can be greatly aided by assistance from others. In the story, perhaps the parents expected the child would recover — who knows.

A caveman by himself probably wouldn't be able to take down a mammoth. A group of them working together would have better results -- mammoth burgers for everyone!

Sounds to me like Joe Caveman's got good reason to keep his fellow cavemen alive.

theFijian said:

There was thought behind his post?

Click to expand...

If there was, it was most likely quoted from someone who's been dead at least a century.

Agonaces of Susa said:

#82: Humans Took Care of the Disabled Over 500,000 Years Ago | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine


So much for the Victorian Age myth of the survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

its a good thing "survival of the fittest" is descriptive and not prescriptive then. i wouldn't live in a society that believed evolution makes a good social system, and i doubt anyone else would.
if you think that supporting evolution means people do believe survival of the fittest is a good way to live, then you are lost.

Sigh, you guys take all the easy ones way too quickly.

Agonaces of Susa said:

#82: Humans Took Care of the Disabled Over 500,000 Years Ago | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine


So much for the Victorian Age myth of the survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

Altruism in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's quite a fascinating subject.

I agree with all the comments made thus far. I don't see how the article in the OP contradicts natural selection at all, only that the OP reflects a misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest." So, I suppose, this post is for the purpose of subscribing.

This is intellectually dishonest. This does not disprove evolution at all. Infact it reinforces ideas contradictory to yec. If a yecist acknowledges a human history older than 10k years, they're basically acknowledging their own delusion in an open and peculiarly strange way.