Evolution does not make sense

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

Evolution is wrong because according to it, evolution leads to the survival of the fittest, whether it is individual or species we’ll see later.

If evolution lead to the survival of the fittest individual, then how is a lamb fitter than a lion. So evolution does not apply to an individual level.

Now, if evolution is the survival of the fittest species then why is it that over so many years of evolution, all species have survived to the point of a stalemate? In fact, all have survived, so who is the fittest? I mean you can’t have everyone who started the game to be winners?

Evolution does not make sense, so please explain how it makes sense to you?

2

survival of the fittest

No, it’s survival of the most adaptable.

3

so Darwin got it wrong.

Edit, I thought things evolve, i.e if white people live in Africa for 5000 millions years, they would look like the present day Africans. It is based on natural selection. Now it is based on human selection.

so even if natural selection was right before, it no longer applies now. now we decides who is the most adaptable. so evolution without an evidence, which constantly changes from fittest to adaptable is now an obsolete theory.

4

The word ‘fit’ isn’t mutually exclusive to ‘bigger and stronger’
Fit can also be relative to circumstances.
In a vast grassy plain where nothing exists but plant life, a lamb would indeed be ‘fitter’ to survive than a lion.

5

Even that, Dr.Satanical.

Now days, humans have triumphed over nature. so it becomes human selection and not natural selection.

6

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Darwin has as much to do with evolution as the ancient Egyptians or pre-Socratics have to do with philosophy. Call it ‘his idea’ if you must, but the progression and subsequent status of evolution is dependent upon over a hundred years of biological and geological research, not anything Darwin said.

I could address the OP in more specific detail, but I somehow doubt it’s worth the effort. Honestly PoR, at least skim the link above. Take it or leave it after that, but your posts thusfar are painfully inept.

7

so Darwin got it wrong.

Again, I have no idea how you can be serious.

Darwin never said fittest; that was someone else.

Animals adapt to changes in their environment to survive. Hey, that’s why racial mixing is ok.

8

Natural slection is not the same as evolution! and fit was coined about 50 years after darwin was dead.

9

alright por, i thought i got the devils advocate thing down pretty well on this particular issue, but if you must jump in, ok. you do add your own little spice.

but some people STILL think that you are serious. so just be careful.

when you say “even that”, it sounds like you are about to contradict what doc satan has written and reaffirm your original point in some way that takes into consideration what he has just said.

but you know you arent.

seriously its a cool act. it can really be hilarious if you use it right. do you watch the colbert report? thats how you should do devils advocate for hilarious purposes (as i do for occasional paragraphs). you need to let people know that you are not actually as ridiculous as you are by throwing in some subtle yet obvious satirical jab or some point that is so obviously wrong that it immediately illustrates the argument that goes against it.

or, for the more traditional devils advocate, you need to, very clearly, completely, and consistently describe the exact argument that you are trying to disprove or cause to be disproven.

you either make fun of the jerks who say what you have said here, or you replicate them much more faithfully than you have. i like how you choose to make fun of them, the only problem is that not everyone knows that you are joking.

10

Only if you work under the assumption that humans are not part of nature.
I do not.

11

:unamused:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=144294
and
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=146546
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=139058
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=146545

12

HI all, thanks for replying.

I’m moving to this point.

Nature thus far selected animals for survival, because nature has power over the animals. so it imposes environment in which animals are to survive.

But humans have triumphed above nature. Man can manipulate nature, so any pre-existing arguments in favor of nature is not obsolete. Before it was, it is natural to have black skin because we stand in the sun all day, and we can’t find a shade. but humans are smarter than that, so we find shade.

Humans determined the environment, and thus the conditions for other animals to live. The human will is supreme.

Evolution is based on nature before now it is based on man. there are no advantages to mixing. race mixing has nothing to do wth adapting, unless they wish to adapt to me. so the question as in all cases is a question of power. whoever has the power determines all. before that power lies in the hands of nature, now it is in the hands of men.

13

“Nature thus far selected animals for survival”

Nature doesn’t choose anything. Nature isn’t a thing.

“But humans have triumphed above nature.”

So, how many people were killed due to natural disasters this year?

“there are no advantages to mixing.”

Yes there is.

If you find yourself as a black person living amongst white people and they have it better, are more educated, and more safe to be with then marrying one makes sense. A not so good-looking white woman might be prized by a Blackman allowing her to have love and a husband. A man that isn’t happy with current western female behavior might find himself happy with a traditional Asian woman, and so forth.

All of these people are adapting to the environment.

14

TheAdlerian

no offense, did I ever tell you your avatar has to be the most ugly woman I have ever seen.

no idiot, I am talking about natural selection. A concept you as an evolutionist does not seem to understand.

what does natural selection have to do with natural disaster. I used nature in context of sun, yet you ignored it.

You still do not understand. The above is again your love argument, which as I have shown, does not make any sense biologically. Even if they are in love, that does not change the reality that they will have mongrels.

Your example fails in reality. In reality, similar people get married. people are truely happy, no matter black, white couples or not. People must be intellectually equal to be happy and equal in hobbies and things. so a white woman with high education may prefer a highly educated black man to a less educated white trash living in my boarding house.

but that does not change the fact that the black/white relationship produce bastards.

People can be friends, white/black/asian. But to move onto marriage, which is only to produce kids, you must be careful, because you are not there for you own happiness, but you are continuing your link with your ancestors. you are continuing who you are as a person with racial identity which I important. For those who find race no important, then by race they will perish.

Now, a higly educated, gentle, good mannered black person or a white trash living in my boarding house. If I was a woman, I would prefer the former as my companion, if they are the last two remaining. but for reproductive purposes, I would want a baby imbued with my racial characteristic.

sorry, but I really lost track of what you are talking about. and I don’t see how anyone is adapting. and I don’t see any advantages being produced, apart from both parties losing their respective identities.

Edit: also, if there are two people black/white men, equally good. and there is a black woman, who would she go for?

15

My avatar is CCH Pounder and I enjoy her for her ridiculous name and constant ‘tude face even when unnecessary.

“no idiot, I am talking about natural selection. A concept you as an evolutionist does not seem to understand.”

Please POR you, and everyone else, knows that you don’t have a fraction of my brain power, so “idiot” rings rather hollow.

Anyway, even natural selection is just a phrase for random events. One minute it’s hot as hell, the a comet hits and all but the littlest things live. Then, the Earth tilts and you get an ice age, then it’s ok for life, and so forth.

“ what does natural selection have to do with natural disaster. I used nature in context of sun, yet you ignored it.”

The sun is just one aspect of natural force.

“The above is again your love argument, which as I have shown, does not make any sense biologically.”

Stop with the blatant intellectual lying. Your our posts are right about us.

You said:

“there are no advantages to mixing.”

I then went on to spell out a variety of advantages to mixing. The advantages are that the individual’s life gets to go on through their children. Even if the child does not look like the parent the motivation is much the same as wanting to adopt a child. The motivation is to love and help a child.

“The above is again your love argument, which as I have shown, does not make any sense biologically.”

Did you have a dream that you did that? Love is part of our biology or else we wouldn’t be able to produce the emotion.

“Your example fails in reality.”

My example literally is reality.

“because you are not there for you own happiness, but you are continuing your link with your ancestors.”

This fails in reality because almost no one gets married for this reason.

16

I give this its own special post:

“…white trash living in my boarding house.”

This is the reason for your behavior! You believe that they are white trash and since you are living there you believe that you are white trash as well. That’s why you have gone into Nazi mode, because that helps you feel important inside.

It also proves to me that you don’t believe in Christianity, because you have had a chance to understand Jesus and the people that he cared for an failed.

Try again.

17 
 Anybody who is familiar with evolution would agree.  Place a lamb and a lion in close proximity and see who survives longer.  

 If she were not already forced by a nonsensically prejudiced society into feeling more comfortable around a person of one skin color that around a person of a different skin color, it's a toss up.

 Must they?  Must they really?

 I'd say that the responsibility rests on you to prove why there are personal disadvantages to ethnic/racial mixing, if you would say that it is undesirable.

 Biologically, though, there is every advantage to diversifying the gene pool that one's offspring will drawn from.  It is a strongly biologically advantagous option.

 Do you have anthropological evidence suggesting that white people evolved from black people because they developed intellect that allowed them to escape the sun?  If you do, please share it, as it would surely redefine the way[i] I [/i]think about race.

 Once again, anyone familiar with the concept of natural selection will say that humans are currently de-evolving.  Practically everybody reproduces, a condition that is not very favorable to natural selection.  It is a perfectly logical extension of evolutionary theory that evolution rarely applies to modern humans.
18

Yes you have a point.

As species move up the evolutional ladder they should (theoreticaly) keep on getting stronger and reproducing faster and living longer.

Evolution does exist but in a strange way within the modern eco-system.
I believe in both creation and evolution.

Sad but true. Next christmas wish for genetic upgrades technology! :sunglasses:

19

“As species move up the evolutional ladder they should (theoreticaly) keep on getting stronger and reproducing faster and living longer.”

No, there is no ladder to climb. If it gets suddenly cold for 10,000 years then maybe everyone will become short to save heat. It’s all about adapting to the environment and not about becoming perfect superbeings.

20

Being the generous soul that I am, I will help ensure that this discussion–which I will not partake in beyond this one selfless act–does not stray into the irrelevant or absurd due to any misunderstanding which could easily follow from such an obviously incorrect mis-stating of how evolution works:

Such a statement makes it seem as if beings can somehow change their biology to adapt to their present environment.

Of course, we all know (including the person who made the statement; it was obviously just a short-hand way of stating something that did not come out as intended) that it’s not a matter of biology changing to suit the environment with any form of intention or “decision”. Instead, biology which leads to certain traits/behaviours that are best suited for the environment–either from before or via some random mutation(s) which by chance increase their odds of surviving in said environmnet–continues to be propogated in that environment because those traits/behaviours which are so well-suited for the environment improve the odds of those organisms surviving long enough to reproduce.

And with a whoooooosh this good samaritan is outta here… :sunglasses: