Does the age-old Darwin principle apply to humans?

Question

"Survival Of The Fittest"

This Darwin principle at its' very core has rather hateful and cruel implications for human beings in general. The sad thing is, this principle is "gospel truth" in the real world. People are actually living by the Darwanian concept. The modern age has thrown away the religious "shackles" of the past and has accepted newer, stronger chains in the flawed Darwinism principles. By very nature of Darwin's key concept, the poor and sick in our society should be terminated to futher the growth of our species. This shocking implication may seem absurd on the surface to someone with dull perception. Believe it or not, this principle is being applied covertly and under-handedly in our modern society. It is my stongest belief that the New World Order will be ushered in on this concept.

Answer 1

The term "survival of the fittest" was a used by others, not Darwin. It applies to species, not individuals. Using it for individuals is simply cruelty. There are many creatures, in addition to humans, that have developed societies that care for the sick and injured. It seems that for all of us, doing so provides an evolutionary advantage.

The fittest refers not to the strongest or the most well, but those whose genetic structure best equips them to deal with the changing environment. Since human beings are globally distributed, we are probably only going to undergo speciated evolution in the face of a global calamity, such as an asteroid impact. This could cut out communication and transportation for a few thousand years, and the potential for new species with human ancestors to arise then might be possible.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 2

mostly devoid of any real meaning

"This Darwin principle at its' very core has rather hateful and cruel implications for human beings in general."

no it doesn't

"By very nature of Darwin's key concept, the poor and sick in our society should be terminated to futher the growth of our species. ."

wrong again, darwinian evolution simply describes how the natural world actually operates, the human race does not have to live by these rules

" Believe it or not, this principle is being applied covertly and under-handedly in our modern society. It is my stongest belief that the New World Order will be ushered in on this concept."

more nonsense

Answer 3

Human have existed for about a million/2 a million years, yet this answer relies upon on the right definition of "human". Fossil evidence exhibits that quite a few human-like lineages greater throughout the previous million years or so. >From fossils, the visual attraction of Homo sapiens is dated at a pair of million/2 a million years, and of anatomically modern Homo sapiens at a pair of hundred thousand years, values that are additionally supported by utilising genomic evidence. yet another records factor, besides the actuality that no longer some thing you asked straight away, is that the present finished sequencing of the genome of the chimpanzee, that's the closest dwelling relative of people, ability that chimps and people diverged from their trouble-loose ancestor approximately 6 million years in the past. Of the various intermediate appropriate species that have existed on condition that then, in effortless terms chimps and modern people stay to tell the story as we talk

Answer 4

We should not equate humans to mean our bodies or vehicles. They are different and we are not our bodies. Instead, we are the indwelling spirit entity that makes use of the disposable flesh body to learn lessons on earth. Although the body may get bruised and battered as it goes through life, the spirit entity, instead, grows and develops in spite of all the wear and tear. And when we must cast it aside when it becomes unusable, we will then simply put on another new body, just like we put on new clothes. Of course, it is reasonable for everyone to discard the old and outmoded in favor of the new, better handling and user-friendly, don’t you think?

But even though we may opt for new improved species or more highly developed units or types of bodies, we ourselves, the evolving spirit selves, are never “terminated” or thrown away. We will simply be moved to other worlds and avail of other life forms best suited to our particular stage in the order of evolution and from there, continue with our development.

”There is more to life than is thought of in your philosophy,” a wise man once said.

Enter the Realm of the Spirit
http://innerquest1.blogspot.com/

Answer 5

In our case evolution probably means 'survival of the most prolific' - With readily available contraception, many people choose to have few or no children, so the ones passing on the most genes to future generations will be people who have the most babies. Moreover, the welfare state ensures that parents can raise large families successfully with virtually no infant mortality. So, if there is a 'type' of people who tend to do this, they are the ones who are going to become predominant in our species.

Answer 6

I think that humans are actually the only species to who the principle doesn't apply. The stupid members of our society most often survive their mishaps. Google the Darwin Awards.

Answer 7

1. "Survival of the fittest" is not one of Darwin's concepts.

2. "Fittest" in the sense of evolution means "that which survives and reproduces". It is a tautology.

3. Natural selection is not a moral concept. It's a biological one. It no more justifies treating people badly than the theory of gravity justifies pushing people off cliffs.

Answer 8

I believe and support that concept, because it's true. But unlike the theists, atheists don't blindly follow words they read. I like to help the unfortunate, "weak" and sick people of this world, because self destruction derives from selfishness and greed. I, unlike many people, have a conscience, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't help, or give, It would kill me on the inside.

Answer 9

Nice cut-and-paste job, there.

Lots of unsubstantiated conclusions, too. Survival of the fittest means just that - the most fit will survive. It doesn't mean go around killing people. That's pretty screwed up. If I thought you had actually thought of any of this yourself, and not cut it from somewhere else, I'd be genuinely concerned for you.

Answer 10

It's not survival of the fittest per se... it's more so survival of the genes best able to reproduce themselves.

So... all you just said is moot.