the theory evolution claims that life is a war where the most powerful, the strongest stays alive and the other ones die...they don't have chance to live, they always fight... but how can evolution exlplain sacrifice? can te theory give the answer of a penguin that waits for its baby without eating for months? I'm sure they wil call "instinct".but where is the source of this behaviour and there is sacrifice in natura if there is life contest? why does a penguin risks its life?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Evolution and Sacrifice
- Thread starter jeki
- Start date
ApocryphaNow
Well-Known Member
It's not just about living, it's about reproduction. The penguin example is an excellent one for evolution since it entails the continuation of the line through reproduction (the baby).
Upvote
0
jeki said:
Where does evolution say this. Please be specific.
A very successful survival mechanism is to not fight at all.
You don't know jack about evolution. This is just another post that confirms it.
You are a great creationist. Too ignorant to know what they are talking about and too stubborn to actual learn about what they speak against.
Poe's law at its finest.
Upvote
0
S
Silent Bob
Guest
From stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce. This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept. In everyday parlance, an action would only be called altruistic if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the biological sense there is no such requirement. Indeed, some of the most interesting examples of biological altruism are found among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects. For the biologist, it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action counts as altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.
The article is much bigger than this Jeki IF ur interested go read and post the parts you have problems with.
In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce. This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept. In everyday parlance, an action would only be called altruistic if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the biological sense there is no such requirement. Indeed, some of the most interesting examples of biological altruism are found among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects. For the biologist, it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action counts as altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.
The article is much bigger than this Jeki IF ur interested go read and post the parts you have problems with.
Upvote
0
ImmortalTechnique
Senior Veteran
jeki, we all know that you aren't really interested in having your question answered.. .you think you have found a problem with evolution that has somehow escaped the notice of all the scientists working on it. it is dishonest.
if you really ARE interested in finding out how this works, read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Its a very easy to understand discussion of selfishness and altruism in evolutionary biology
if you really ARE interested in finding out how this works, read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Its a very easy to understand discussion of selfishness and altruism in evolutionary biology
Upvote
0
jeki said:
Can you tell us where you are getting such bad information about the theory of evolution?
Where does the theory of evolution say the things you state in your opening post?
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Rookie mistake. Why don't you try reading an actual evolutionary biology book. Evolutionary theory states that the fittest survive. Sometimes the word stongest is used by laymen. BUt you have to understand what fitness means. Fittest does not mean the toughest, meanest, nastiest brute. Fitness means the most likely to reproduce sucessfully. Basically, whoever has the most grandchildren is the fittest.
In many social species fittest means the ones who are most successful at finding mates, rearing young, protecting the offspring and ensuring that their genes get past on.
Please dismiss form your mind the fallacy that fitness refers to agression and physical strength alone.
Evolutonary theory says no such thing. Those that are unfit, merely do not reproduce, or at the very least - have as many offspring. The unfit simply do not contribute to the gene pool of the population in future generations.
It IS the survival of that baby that ensures the propagation of the parent's genes for future generations. Penguins who don't make the "sacrifice" also don't see their babies survive. It's kind of hard to pass your genes on to the future generations when you can't even make your children suvive long enough to become mommies and daddies. Those penguins who are good at making the sacrifice are those who are the fittest and it is their genes (along with the genes that enabled them to be good penguin parents) that get passed on to future generations.
If anything, an example like the penguin's "sacrifice" is a stong arguement FOR evolution, not against it.
But thanks for playing.
Yes, it is instinct. Instinct is passed on genetically as oppopsed to learned behaviour. However, you could argue that the ability to learn is instintcual.
LIfe is a struggle, no doubt about that.
THe penguin "risks it's own life" in order to ensure the survival of it's offspring. Without offspring the penguin would be at a dead end in genetic and evolutionary terms. YOu could be the toughest, meanest, most agressive penguin around but if you don't have kids who in turn go on to reproduce then you are a loser in the contest of life.
YOu really must stop equating evolution with the song about Leroy Brown
AND MEANER THAN A JUNKYARD DOG
Upvote
0
Similar threads
