So what about the not fit enough?
Do atheists believe in survival of the fittest?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
So what about the not fit enough?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
This nonsense.
Being small, for example, may very well be an advantage.
Being strong when there's no need for it is a evolutionary disadvantage.
In social animals being brute could very well be a disadvantage.
It's all about context.
Define fit
exactly my point
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ok, very well
I'll give you a tip though. 'Discussing' this with SAM is of no use. She knows what survival of the fittest is, she's just playing stupid.
Ok, very well
I'll give you a tip though. 'Discussing' this with SAM is of no use. She knows what survival of the fittest is, she's just playing stupid.
I know - I should know better :crazy:
She described me as intelligent in another thread - a dubious honour I think
Many times those at the bottom will rise to the top if only given the same opportunity as everyone else. By supressing those at the bottom of the economic ladder you only have more people that are upset and not being given a chance in life to really make something out of themselves. Without a good education, upbringing, and wholesome nuturing from everyone we would all become less that what we are today. Bu giving those less fortunate a chance at least at a good education they will be halfway given a chance at living a good , productive life.
In the long run, the fittest or most well adapted to a given environment are the ones that survive. It's axiomatic. The unit of selection isn't the individual however, it's the gene. This explains why some forms of self-sacrifice qualify as fitness.
Last edited:
I agree with you about the likelihood of anything useful coming out of such misbegotten confusion, but I question whether SAM is "playing stupid". I think she thinks she has a real question here, behind the provocation.enmos said:
Never underestimate the influence of a strong theistic intellectual foundation, a deep inculcation of ultimate purpose and underlying design in one's worldview, on the comprehension of something like evolutionary theory.
You need a "survival of the most adaptable" choice.
Yup.
So its not the individual that survives, its the gene.
How is that different from survival of the fittest?
Still wondering what atheists who are not evolutionists, believe.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I consider that to be extremely shocking, if true..
I don't think I have any words for it..
It would explain a lot though.
Not at all. I'm no longer surprised by fundie atheists on the forum though.
Its interesting how they paint everyone with their brushes of intellectualism.
1. So you realise then that the phrase "survival of the fittest" is applicable to social darwinism and not theories of biological evolution, and that it doesn't adequately describe theories of biological evolution - yes?
2. In essence yes - looking at survival and heredity from the perspective of genes rather than individuals gives a clearer insight into a number of aspects of evolution and ethology - such as altruism and self-sacrifice for example.
4. Because Survival of the fittest uses pre-judged man-made constructs in terms of determining what fitness is - instead of the inequalities in reproductive success that arise from a variety of factors caused by the biotic and abiotic environment.
3. Yeah - me too - some kind of alien directed panspermia perhaps? :crazy:
well big fish DO eat little fish, unless they eat algy or coral or invertabriates or planton or a hundred other things. However this doesnt mean they are more "fit" than the little fish. Just like any preditor\prey relationship the prey arnt compeating against the preditor they are compeating against others of the same species. This is because they are the ones who use the same resorces as they need. Take birds and cats for instance. If the cats eat ALL the birds in there teritory then they die out so they have to eat only a percentage of the birds in order to out compeat other cats. As for the birds, its those birds who can avoid being eatten better that reproduce so there aim is to be better at this than the rest of the birds who "win".
Another example of this would be cars and kangroos. If a kangroo jumps infront of a car it doesnt breed so its those kangroos who are smart enough not to jump infront of cars who "win"
Another example of this would be cars and kangroos. If a kangroo jumps infront of a car it doesnt breed so its those kangroos who are smart enough not to jump infront of cars who "win"