Question to Jim_Darwin?

Question

Sorry, I know I posted this in the wrong section but I wanted to ask Jim a question.

Where do evolutionists draw the line between survival of the fittest and killing? Seeing evolution is based on the survival of the fittest is it then okay to use my advantage over another human to take life if necessary? Is there a line or have I completely missed something. I know survival of the fittest refers to individual specimen successfully breeding over another, but can it also carry across to an actual challenge between the two. Hope you get what I’m trying to ask if not peace.

Thanks, Im glad you understood what I meant I know the question was a bit wishy washy. I just wanted to know your opinion.

ark s whats all that stuff i cant get your links to work please explain.

Answer 1

I can't adequately answer this in a yahoo answers box,

survival of the fittest is like when a giraffe has a longer neck and is able to eat more fruit from a tree, and so those giraffes with longer necks have those genetics passed down generation to generation, and then the result is longer necked giraffes,

so this is a sort of passive activity

killing would be an active activity where one human person takes the life of another human person,

Ronald Reagan said killing is wrong, but killing in defense of society is not wrong, which is why he was for the death penalty.
Popes have been opposed to it - the death penalty.

So you are asking me about topics that the greatest minds of science and politics disagree on substantively, and while I am flattered, I'm just not a great enough mind to adequately answer here in this little box.

I'm sorry. I hope my answer while brief is satisfactory.

Answer 2

I'm not jim - maybe you'd like a different answer.

Science shows us what the world _is_ like. It does not - and cannot - show us what the world _should be_ like. Science has no connection with morals.

Modern evolution's greatest thinker - even moreso than Charles Darwin - is a man named Richard Dawkins. He has said that humans are the only species (so far) with a potential to _overcome_ the pressures of evolution. He professes doing it through struggling to behave as altruistically as possible.

No scientist would profess applying 'survival of the fittest' to the realm of human behaviour. That is eugenics, and eugenics is evil.

Answer 3

While you are waiting for this Jim_Darwin consider this; this happens in nature all the time. That is what a species will do, but civilization is what turned the tide was civilization and a good argument could be made that war is survival of the fittest...More questions less answers

Answer 4

Hmmm, "survival of the fittest" is not about being stronger or smarter and it's not about abusing others.

What makes human "fit" to spread around the world is their capability to live in society, communicate and teach what they've learned generation after generation.

I am sure that violent anarchy would make men less "fit" to survive than if he learns to cooperate.

Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Hernán Cortés and most colonialist didn't need the Theory of Evolution to conquer, kill and spread their empire, they didn't need it to commit genocide. To put the blame on Darwin theory (like the guy above) is plain silly.

Answer 5

you rock, jim. I agree with both points of view to a degree. But, indeed the fittest people would be the most advanced and intellegent people, not just the strongest. And, history is full of examples of this in action. It was a crime how the native americans were wiped out, but that's one of the best examples of this principle in action. Right now we ( The civilized intellegent people who don't like war ) conquer by absorbtion of the citizens of less advanced cultures into our own, by their own decision, hence "Westernization". America and some other allies of ours act like a giant ameoba swallowing the diversity of the world into itself, while allowing individuals to embrace their cultural differences, as long as those differences aren't hostile or destructive to themselves or anyone else. That sounds fair, and I'm glad I was born into this part of the world where freedom and capitalism reign supreme.

Answer 6

I know your question is focused to Jim, but you need to remember the difference between survival of the fittest and killing. Survival of the fittest is killing to survive and being able to defend one's self. Now, if they were just hunting for the sport of it, then it is mindless killing.

Answer 7

Evolution comes from the word 'evolve', which is a natural progression progress, it is involuntary and unintentional. Deliberate killing of another life, in any form, will not serve the natural selection progress. Of course if you are faced with what you consider to be a 'life threatening' situation that would prompt you to take the life of another human you may be faced with a legal issue rather than an ethical one.

Answer 8

Does anyone know that Charles Darwin was the inspiration of people like...Hitler, Mussolini, Zhao Tseng(or somthing similar), and the murderous British Empire, and the other colonialists?

Millions of Native Americans, Africans, Indians were killed because they were thought to be of an inferior race.

Answer 9

One man opinion got the world thinking
amazing right

Answer 10

Wow, the tension mounts as we await Jim's response....