When I speak to young people's groups about evolution, I make the point that if evolution is true there is really nothing wrong with bullying; it is just the natural consequence of survival of the fittest.
43 comments
In theory, "survival of the fittest" can be used to justify just about any hostile act against another.
For example, if someone shoots another guy and goes "Evolution! Survival of the fittest!".
Anyway, you're an asshole.
Many animals, humans included, evolved with social structures and an underlying instict to preserve the group as a survival mechanism. You need only look at a flock of birds flying in a wedge formation with the strongest up front to reduce strain on the physically weaker members of the group.
Social dynamics are a part of natural selection, which you grossly misunderstand. In this sense, it can be argued that bullies - who hinder a group and the development of its younger members far more than they add to it - are a perversion of nature.
Oh for all that is cute and fuzzy's sake. Natural selection is NOT survival of the fittest. Natural selection is a) As Passerby pointed out, concerned with the survival of the species as a whole and b) Natural selection is better described as "survival of that which is best adapted to it environment". Strength has nothing to do with it. If that were the case we'd have tigers everywhere and rabbits on the endangered list.
Speaking of rabbits and tigers, here have some cute pictures of them, enjoy!
image image
And I hope that someone who actually knows something about evolution corrects you. Survival of the most adaptive (fittest isn't wrong but a bit too simple) does not talk about an individual but a group. A group that can adapt to its surroundings and can pass those adaptions to future generations is going to grow in greater number while a group that does not adapt will mate less and in generations fade away.
Your bullying example is too simple and well not right.
I am 100% sure you have no idea as to what 'survival of the fittest' really means. Also, bullying is not a survival trait. Carry it to its logical conclusion and see what happens to such a society.
So why do you comment on things you clearly don't understand? It's like opening up your mouth and proving that you are an idiot. And you are doing it in public!
You know that kid in the Hans Christian Anderson story that calmly points out, "The Emperor is naked?"
Hopefully, you will meet one of equal intelligence that will point out that dick-headedness is not necessarily a survival trait.
On that day, you will become smarter if you actually stop talking and listen.
Hey, George. You are leading the children astray. The theory of evolution describes a biological process. Bullying and other aberrant behaviors come under the headings of psychology and sociology. Bullying is wrong whether you believe in science or not and would be wrong if Charles Darwin had never been born or humans were still primitive hunter-gatherers.
I had a righteous bit of mockery all ready to spill out, but SHODAN's bunny picture pushed it right out of my mind.
Now I'm all happy because bunny.
Guess I'll save up that indignation up for the next caamib post, which I'm assuming will be short on bunnies and long on stupid.
Hey, George. You are leading the children astray. The theory of evolution describes a biological process. Bullying and other aberrant behaviors come under the headings of psychology and sociology. Bullying is wrong whether you believe in science or not and would be wrong if Charles Darwin had never been born or humans were still primitive hunter-gatherers.
Well, you are completely wrong because "survival of the fittest" originated with Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin, and Darwin disowned "Social Darwinism."
Scientists do not say evolution is good, evolution is just or its how you should live your life. Science says one thing and one thing only about evolution: it's what happened. There's a ton of evidence to support that. We're the first species to evolve the ability to leave evolution behind. Transhumanism, here we come!
The properties of the universe are not inherently moral! Just because things that behave a certain way maximize their reproductive fitness doesn't mean that things should behave in that way. I don't even want to maximize my reproductive fitness, any more than I want to maximize the number of paperclips in the world.
Even if that were true about evolution, that wouldn't make evolution any more the best explanation we have. You don't want us to go take the Bible to its natural conclusions. If we did that, we'd be having to execute thousands of people every day for crimes as simple as disobeying their parents or eating shellfish.
The strong can impose their will is a fact, not a dictate or rule, that will can be benevolent as easily as dictorial.
And has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution, the theory is not a guide to behavior.
The Bible on the other hand is, a and encourages the use of force repeatedly.
There isn't a single predator that can reliably hunt humans. If they are able to get us it's usually when we're alone and lost. We owe that success to the civilizations we live in. Civilizations are the ultimate expression of cooperation. It doesn't matter how big and bad the animal is if it's against five people cooperating to remove the threat. So how, again, is bullying survival of the fittest? Because I'm pretty sure if you bullied your tribe members you'd very quickly find yourself used as a decoy as they hunt smilodons. Besides, you don't need evolution to justify being an asshole. Before social darwinism you had divine right.
I think "survival of the fittest" is quite possibly the most misunderstood sentiment of all time. It refers to "fitting" in their ENVIORNMENT. Not whomever's the strongest. God, do they really think we think gorillas are going to wipe out the butterflies, or something?
Oh, for the love of...! Social Darwinism =/= Evolution! Are these guys spreading such lies on purpose or what? Do they really need their religion that much to prevent them from becoming savage animals and treating fellow humans so horribly?
Seriously, if they cannot defend their opinion without pulling lies out of their ass, it's obvious their opinion holds no water.
Twaddle. As Darwin would be the first to tell you, evolutionary fitness is a matter of fucking, not fighting.
(He might have used slightly different terminology)
Twaddle. As Darwin would be the first to tell you, evolutionary fitness is a matter of fucking, not fighting.
I'm not supporting creationists' arguements now but you're missing an important point that at least among more complex animals it's the largest, strongest, meanest and to add to it usually the more experienced ones who are able to, as you say, fuck. Of course an actual confrontation does not always take place (and it doesn't always mean death fight - some species avoid fights that result in severe wounds and potentially death). Sometimes a demonstration of force is enaugh. And of course there are other means to conquer or attract a mate, especially among birds. But the general rule stays.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
