The basic tenet of Darwin's theory of evolution was survival of the fittest. Yes? Then how do you explain compassion, self-sacrifice, morality, the conscience., the need for justice. None of these are necessary for survival and exist only in humans. In fact they might be on an animal only level be considered a detriment. You don't see a lioness that has just killed her prey having second thoughts and wondering whether or not it was the right thing to do. Nor do you see the relatives of the young antelope that the lioness just had for dinner coming back and demanding retribution.
I've never seen this particular question discussed here so I thought I'd put it out there. Please look past the knee-jerk reaction to yet another questin from yet another believer in creation/intelligent design and think about it.
Serious responses please. NO bashing/insults from EITHER side would be nice.
Thanks.
2007-03-11 18:26:03 · 21 answers · asked by Q&A Queen 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Music Girl (nice user name btw) Thanks for the research suggestions. I think I'll take you up on that.
About the lioness protecting her lion cub (my apologies I forgot to write your name down). Yes, actually I have. But if she loses the fight I have yet to see evidence where she returns to get payback.
On that note. I'd like to thank y'all for playing nice. Have a nice evening.
2007-03-11 18:49:20 · update #1
Altruism and binding together in groups increases fitness. "Survival of the fittest" was a great catch phrase, but it probably interferes with people understanding evolution.
I'm going to try to break down your question. I'll start with one item from your random laundry list, "compassion, self-sacrifice, morality, the conscience., the need for justice" separately: self-sacrifice. If a bee stings it dies. It stings to protect the hive. Bee-hives do better for producing quality self-sacrificing bees, so self-sacrifice is evolutionarily favorable.
Compassion is not a purely human trait. Lifetime pair bonding in birds is well documented. The bond between dogs and humans is legendary and works both ways. I knew a team of oxen, which when one died, the other lowed for months.
The last three, morality, the conscience., the need for justice, are really just three manifestations of the same thing. If you look at the social aspects of apes, there are a lot of similarities to humans. The key is that their behavior is dominated by risk and reward -- pain and pleasure. With abstract thought, our we manifest the favorable feelings with "right" and the negative feelings with "wrong". The transition to a system of "raght and wrong" is what makes human societies human.
2007-03-11 18:46:06 · answer #1 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually many of the things you mention can improve the liklihood that the species will survive. A large group of people working in concert has a greater chance of mutual survival than a large number of individuals who cant stand each other, and over time people (and for that matter other pack animals) have evolved traits that appear to violate the 'survival of the fittest' rule, but in fact allow a large number of creatures to interact with each other smoothly.
To touch on your specific examples:
Compassion and self sacrifice-- while your willingness to care for and help others could put you at an evolutionary disadvantage in some instances it also means that others will be willing to help you, and on balance this is a plus.
Morality, the conscience-- In order for groups to function rules are needed to reign in the 'survival of the fittest' impulse which is present to some degree in everyone. A tendency to feel bad about screwing over someone else reduces the fact that we'll actually do so. To a significant degree these are also going to be socially constructed.
2007-03-11 18:45:10 · answer #2 · answered by Adam J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well thought out...however you misunderstand "survival of the fittest". Humans are a social animal...therefore the "tribe" or "group" is of paramount importance. The qualities you have attributed to humans are those things that allowed for group survival. You must also note that we often do not have compassion for those outside of our "tribe" (those different than us). Our morality quickly fades when looking at another "group" of humans that we feel incompatible with. Justice is simply another way of protecting group interests. Also, look at the other higher primates and their behaviours....not that different from ours. We are an advanced animal, but an animal nonetheless. I would recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins. Great stuff that will give you some great answers as to the how and why of what you are asking.
2007-03-11 18:42:49 · answer #3 · answered by Medusa 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I highly respect Em Adjineri's work. Not only can the pyrolutionists not answer how fire could have evolved by satanic selection (as the natural world is really satan's world), but they can no more account for the evolution of life-forms like fire, such as freezing cold...stuff. Something that's really cold can get warmer or make you colder, and it can even make water larger than it was before! This is clearly an indicator of intelligent design. The evolutards can't think of anyway to explain fire or freezing...stuff. Em Adjineri once again show the flaws of their theory clearly. And to think that they hold their theory better than ours! Theory doesn't mean anything! Why, I theorized that it was my neighbor that was stealing my newspapers just this morning, and then I got a letter saying that I hadn't paid my bill for six months and that they wouldn't deliver. My theory was completely wrong!!! Edit: See, deslok "gets it." And Lou, fire triangle? Ever heard of the triune God? Take that sc-liar-tist!
2016-03-29 01:01:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A human who hurts others, does not have the respect of others, or behaves in other ways that foster bad relationships will not benefit from those relationships, and is therefore 1. Less likely than "nice" people to reproduce and 2. Less likely than "nice" people to survive.
Please do some reading about social contracts, memetics, and in particular, the prisoner's dilemma. You can find many resources online, and alternatively, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins is an excellent book that goes into these subjects a bit.
2007-03-11 18:31:05 · answer #5 · answered by Snark 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
These can be explained using natural selection; compassion, self-sacrifice, morality, the conscience, a need for justice.
It's only as humans we feel a need to make them as something special and particular to humanity...
Nurturing is a quality exhibited by all mammals that rear off spring, self-sacrifice (if you wish to class it as that) can be highlighted with spiders where a mother often allows herself to be consumed by the progeny. These instincts allow the offspring to survive.
The problem is that many of these terms is subjective in origin and again we feel they are only particular to humanity as an animal as we feel we are the only truly sentient species and, therefore, superior. However, these emotions or feelings of conscience are just continuations of instincts that can be observed among many other species. We are not so singularly special... to think so would be hubris...
2007-03-11 18:29:43 · answer #6 · answered by psicatt 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, you have it wrong. Darwinism is not about survival of the fittest. Darwinism is about Survival of the most Adapted organisms as a whole species, so humanity would be a beneficial characteristic for a species like ours.
2007-03-11 18:40:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
These things you describe are based on two instincts: The instinct for empathy and the instinct for altruism.
These instincts are present in all social mammals, and altruism can even be found in certain protective reptilian species (such as alligator mothers who will risk their own life for their off-spring).
Nothing you mentioned is unique to humans. Troops of monkeys will insist on justice when one wrongs another, mothers will go to great lengths to protect their offspring (including dying, since the rest of the troop will care for her young), etc. They will seek to console each other during periods of stress, they will seek to redress wrongs (sometimes even doing so only when it is possible to be seen, as if to avoid that just retribution from the others).
2007-03-11 18:36:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Antelopes don't gang up on Lions and kill them for attacking their young. It the did they would be Baboons. Baboon troops catch and kill Leopards, Cheetas, Hyenas and Lions. But they do not really hunt them for food, just to remove a threat. Most predators are afraid of Baboon troops.
We kill things that threaten us. We even kill inhumane killers if they are our own species. Just like Baboons do.
Not ticking off the tribe has survival benefits.
2007-03-11 18:34:48 · answer #9 · answered by U-98 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
compassion self sacrifice morality and conscience are all needed for survival of the group. especially when you are thinking of children. rubber said it... survival of the tribe
survival of the fittest is not survival of the fittest individual without taking care of your offsprings. why do you think lions usually kill the cubs of their pride that are not his? he's not hungry, he just wants to pass down his own genes
2007-03-11 18:30:33 · answer #10 · answered by lnfrared Loaf 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋