Sure but having children is necessary in any case.
Do atheists believe in survival of the fittest?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Sure but having children is necessary in any case.
What are you talking about ? "Evolution is becoming redundant". Evolution is an ongoing process which cannot become redundant, whatever you mean by redundant.
Open your eyes; evolution is happening all around you
So is having a crap; but what is your point ?
I'm guessing you can spread your genes by crapping, but I'm not sure how far they would go.
If you have a point to make, make it. Your red herrings are losing their innocent appeal.
We're changing the environment too rapidly to be able to adapt to it. Children will have shorter lifespans than their parents soon. Thats a redundancy in evolution.
You are taking a very narrow and anthropocentric view of evolution. Bugs are mutating ,so research is ongoing to combate the new strains. Ask a farmer about how his pesticides gradually become less effective.
As far as humankind is concerned, nature doesn't give a damn whether we are here or not. Having said that, I would ask what evidence you have to suggest that children will have shorter lifespans than their parents.
Childhood obesity? Heart attacks in teenagers? Earlier incidence and progression of chronic disease? This is the first American generation with a life span lower than their parents, but current projections do not indicate its going to get better soon. And the situation is being repeated in different ways.
Agreed. But think about the Third World ! As I said before, nature doesn't give a damn.
With AIDS and malnutrition, they will be lucky to make it to fifty. And now that food prices are going up, its going to get worse.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Which is what I told her right before she put me on 'ignore'.
SAM:
Thanks.
Fittest doesn't always mean physically strongest.
I asked you earlier whether you understood the difference between the theory of biological evolution and Social Darwinism. You said you knew the difference. Yet, here you are mixing the two concepts together.
Few, if any, biologists would think that "survival of the fittest" is a moral code that we ought to live by. But as a biological explanation of the origin of species, there is no real alternative.
You're not doing very well on the idea of "fitness". You're assuming (wrongly) that fitness always means strength and power, and the ability to dominate other beings. It does not.
Thanks.
Fittest doesn't always mean physically strongest.
I asked you earlier whether you understood the difference between the theory of biological evolution and Social Darwinism. You said you knew the difference. Yet, here you are mixing the two concepts together.
Few, if any, biologists would think that "survival of the fittest" is a moral code that we ought to live by. But as a biological explanation of the origin of species, there is no real alternative.
You're not doing very well on the idea of "fitness". You're assuming (wrongly) that fitness always means strength and power, and the ability to dominate other beings. It does not.
Console yourself with the thought that seh needed to hear it a second time !
James R
James I do not consider survival of the fittest as an adequate metaphor for natural selection. Hence I use it as defined, competition for predominance. By virtue of that definition, you can also ascertain that I do not consider natural selection to be a competition for dominance, it is retrospective and a consequence rather than a cause.
Biological fitness I define as reproductive potential of an organism in a reference environment.
iceaura:
True, having children is an investment in the future, you have to pay for it.
James I do not consider survival of the fittest as an adequate metaphor for natural selection. Hence I use it as defined, competition for predominance. By virtue of that definition, you can also ascertain that I do not consider natural selection to be a competition for dominance, it is retrospective and a consequence rather than a cause.
Biological fitness I define as reproductive potential of an organism in a reference environment.
iceaura:
True, having children is an investment in the future, you have to pay for it.
Last edited:
SAM,
Have you ever wondered what atheists believe about having children ? Do the see a sunset as a theist does ? Do they pick their noses ? Do they fart louder than theists ?
There's a rich vein of vital information about atheists waiting to be mined. You only have to ask !
Have you ever wondered what atheists believe about having children ? Do the see a sunset as a theist does ? Do they pick their noses ? Do they fart louder than theists ?
There's a rich vein of vital information about atheists waiting to be mined. You only have to ask !
I had no idea atheism was such a mine of information.
And then some !