What's on your mind?

graciesings · Aug 4, 2015

As for evolution and survival of the fittest, I want to quote my government teacher in saying that "any time you start with 'shouldn't,' that's highly subjective." There isn'to going to be any consensus on whether we should do things or not.

Personally, I think that social skills and willingness to listen both tie into survival of the fittest. Some people are more likely to take warnings than others... I'd say it's a good thing to warn people, but we have to realize that a lot of them just won't listen and that's normal.

Toro · Aug 4, 2015

TX_Matt said:
Evolution has nothing to do with morality. It's a scientific theory about how life changed overtime. That's it.

Oh but it does. Yes its a scientific theory, but look at those animals that through evolution couldnt cut it and died out. What if the animals of the time got together and protected those creatures that could no longer cut it because they had lived out their usefulness in the chain of evolution. Then what?

Evolution is about progress, not about seeing to it that the weaker links in the chain continue.

IF evolution is your embraced belief, then one dying out is simply part of the process you embrace. Standing in the way of that process DOES become a moral issue.

SnowyMacie · Aug 4, 2015

Toro said:
Oh but it does. Yes its a scientific theory, but look at those animals that through evolution couldnt cut it and died out. What if the animals of the time got together and protected those creatures that could no longer cut it because they had lived out their usefulness in the chain of evolution. Then what?

Then likely that species would evolve into a very cooperative species. Those who were not would likely not be excluded and not able to pass on their genes and either die out or become their own species in time.

graciesings · Aug 4, 2015

TX_Matt said:
Then likely that species would evolve into a very cooperative species. Those who were not would likely not be excluded and not able to pass on their genes and either die out or become their own species in time.

See, I think humans have evolved into a somewhat cooperative species. Those of us who can't cooperate would've had lower chances for survival, but those who were too cooperative couldn't have survived either.

Toro · Aug 4, 2015

TX_Matt said:
Then likely that species would evolve into a very cooperative species. Those who were not would likely not be excluded and not able to pass on their genes and either die out or become their own species in time.

Yes, but if they continue on, they are NOT the weak link. Now are they?

Someone doesn't know that lighting dynamite and holding it til it blows up is death..... or at the very least, severely destructive to the body...then obviously, they were a link that needed to be culled for the evolutionary process.

Because interfering with the process that one embraces is not allowing it to do what it does.

It's like a "Christian" embracing and enjoying sin.... it goes against ones very belief.

Im simply questioning why the hypocrisy in a socially accepted belief. They say our Bible is full of them. So, why not point out flaws in a society that embraces something else? as a simply passing question (I didnt intend this to become a long discussion)

Im all for compassion. However, evolution..... is to those that are the weak links is cold and cruel. To embrace evolution but ignore the needed coldness aspect to it..... is like a Christian only paying attention to the parts of the Bible they agree with, but discounting the rest.

MehGuy · Aug 4, 2015

Toro said:
I know that, but THAT is the world that embraces Darwinism SHOULD live in. One based on survival of the fittest. THAT is my point.

Not in a world that tells adults "No, that can hurt you".

Thats what evolution is, those that can no longer cut it...... disappear.

An attempt to keep those around that may not be fit to cut it any longer in the world is contradictory to a belief in evolution.

Im not saying that caring and watching out for others is a bad thing. Simply questioning why a society that embraces the belief, doesn't practice it.

Survival of the fittest is more than just every man for himself.

Evolution also has no end goals. If a species can survive and thrive due to cooperation and intelligent child rearing then it's survival of the fittest at it's work. Despite how subjectively one might think such offspring shouldn't survive. It doesn't matter, because it did.

Many people simply acknowledge the mechanisms of evolution, we're not by not means tied to the concept. I for one can't wait until humanity embraces the trans humanist (and some call post-Darwinist) age.

SnowyMacie · Aug 4, 2015

Toro said:
Yes, but if they continue on, they are NOT the weak link. Now are they?

It's really not a question of weak vs strong link. All primates came from the same species, and over time differences in genes became different in species. Some died out, it had nothing to do with being "weak", that's just what happened.

Toro said:
Because interfering with the process that one embraces is not allowing it to do what it does.

Like MehGuy said, evolution has no end goal. You can't really interfere with evolution, it's going to happen regardless but altering it's course is possible.

grandvizier1006 · Aug 4, 2015

Well, great. If I die in a car accident, I can just be glad that natural selection was at work :/ I'm sure every parent who had a teenage child that died from texting while driving will be relieved to know that that child should not have had to be born. I know that's not what y'all are saying, but that's what it comes across as, considering that I am a very nervous, relatively inexperienced driver and my parents don't trust me driving in most ways.

SnowyMacie · Aug 4, 2015

grandvizier1006 said:
Well, great. If I die on a car accident, I can just be glad that natural selection was at work :/

It's really the opposite, natural selection is only at work if you reproduce, otherwise it's irrelevant. Biologically, someone who tragically dies from a car accident at 40 but has two kids is more successful than someone who lives to be 100 with no children.

grandvizier1006 · Aug 4, 2015

TX_Matt said:
It's really the opposite, natural selection is only at work if you reproduce, otherwise it's irrelevant. Biologically, someone who tragically dies from a car accident at 40 but has two kids is more successful than someone who lives to be 100 with no children.

Ok. Still not very uplifting, though.

grandvizier1006 · Aug 4, 2015

I'm just getting fatigued of hanging out around here. The Internet is way too depressing for me today. I wish I could purge my brain like how people with eating disorders "purge" their stomachs. I don't mean to be cruel or offensive or rude to anyone who struggles with this, but it's honestly something I wish I could do.

graciesings · Aug 4, 2015

Do you ever look at the people around you and think, "Do they realize that this is called gossiping and is often considered sinful?"

MehGuy · Aug 4, 2015

Dexter season 4 marathon tomorrow.

This time.. Dexter has.. a baby..

MehGuy · Aug 4, 2015

grandvizier1006 said:
I'm just getting fatigued of hanging out around here. The Internet is way too depressing for me today. I wish I could purge my brain like how people with eating disorders "purge" their stomachs. I don't mean to be cruel or offensive or rude to anyone who struggles with this, but it's honestly something I wish I could do.

I feel that way whenever I go on buzzfeed, or freethoughtblogs..

graciesings · Aug 4, 2015

graciesings said:
Do you ever look at the people around you and think, "Do they realize that this is called gossiping and is often considered sinful?"

Or maybe they it's somehow different from actual gossip. Either way, I don't see the relevance of discussing how plain looking (my deceased cousin's ex-husband's second wife) is/was.

grandvizier1006 · Aug 4, 2015

graciesings said:
Do you ever look at the people around you and think, "Do they realize that this is called gossiping and is often considered sinful?"

Yeah, gossiping is a sin. But since everyone does it it's socially acceptable. Maybe it always has been, unless the gossiper is a kid.

Tom Mix · Aug 4, 2015

MehGuy said:
This time.. Dexter has.. a baby..

Dexter himself has the baby? This I am having to watch.

Hawthorne · Aug 4, 2015

It sure would have been nice if the directions on the polyurethane matched what the manufacturer's website says.

MehGuy · Aug 4, 2015

Tom Mix said:
Dexter himself has the baby? This I am having to watch.

I don't know, I haven't seen the 4th season yet.. it's possible..

I just want to see a little baby serial killer. Lol.

Owlette · Aug 4, 2015

What's on your mind?

It is so ordered.

Oh, Hello!

Well-Known Member

It is so ordered.

Oh, Hello!

A member of the less neotenous sex..

Well-Known Member

I don't use this anymore, but I still follow Jesus

Well-Known Member

I don't use this anymore, but I still follow Jesus

I don't use this anymore, but I still follow Jesus

It is so ordered.

A member of the less neotenous sex..

A member of the less neotenous sex..

It is so ordered.

I don't use this anymore, but I still follow Jesus

Well-Known Member

CF Singles High Council

A member of the less neotenous sex..

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency