If We Evolved?

Question

Then was Adolf Hitler right? What could be more noble than "purifying" the human genome for the advancement of mankind? If you believe in survival of the fittest, what could be wrong with stacking the deck through war and conquest? Wouldn't direct competition be a more certain and precise method than natural selection? Didn't our brains evolve in such a fashion to allow us to develop the technologies of war, and doesn't that allow us to demonstrate our superiority? What justification can you find for continuing to support the weak under an atheistic evolutionary paradigm? If there is no God, isn't this your DUTY?

Incidentally, I hope none of you try to tell me that Hitler was a Christian, he was Machiavellian to the core and a religious pretender, and why not? After all, if there is no God, who are you to say he was wrong? Doesn't evolution ultimately preach:
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT?

For those that don't read carefully, I OPPOSE EVOLUTION.

Answer 1

No, evolution doesn't preach "might makes right." Evolution doesn't preach anything.

You've taken the concept of "survival of the fittest" and twisted it. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the strongest, most powerful, etc. It means the survival of the most adaptable. One of the ways humans evolved to adapt to the environments we choose to live in is to create social structures. Reproductive success comes from our ability to work together, not from destroying each other. Think of the many species out there that have evolved and aren't violent towards each other yet are wildly successful.

Our brains didn't evolve just to allow up to develop the technologies of war. They also evolved to be capable of art, music, the technologies of peace, and bonding with one another. I have no doubt you oppose evolution, but perhaps it would do you well to actually learn about it first. Is it so wrong to understand your enemy? I suggest reading Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea by Carl Zimmer.

Answer 2

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of evolution. Consider this analogy. You create pesticide A and use it on a large piece of land. Pesticide A kills off 90% of a certain type of bug. The remaining 10% survived because they were the strongest (survival of the fittest). These 10% bred and after a few generations replenished their numbers. Since the strong bred with the strong, their offspring received the strong traits of their parents and created a superior race of bugs immune to pesticide A. You would then create a pesticide B, but it only kills off the weakest 90%. There is your cycle. Survival of the fittest and adapatation.

Now suppose that the stronger 10% of the first generation of bugs killed off the weaker 90% to purify the bug genome for the advancement of bugkind. Does this make any sense? I do not think so, but it is what you are suggesting.

Now suppose there was a virus being spread among humans through sexual contact that was incurable and caused an early and painful death. In order to purify the human genome for the advancement of mankind, humans decided to stop the spread of the virus by practicing safe sex, selective breeding, and finding a cure. I think this approach is more reasonable and less barbaric than killing off the infected humans in order to stop the spread of this disease.

Answer 3

Stacking the deck doesn't work, as the laws Hitler used were based on race. No race is more special than another, each has it's own faults in relation to fitness, and it's own positive traits. Never mind the fact that genocide is a hideous trait of war that we as humans should be ashamed of.

If humans were to evolve, it'd be due to evolutionary pressures such as climate change, disease etc, same as it's always been. It's not going to be some mad man with a vengeance problem.

Evolution preaches nothing, only teaches 'survival of the fittest'.

Answer 4

No Adolf Hitler was WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!, but so are you. Hitler was not a Machiavellian, he was essentially a Nietschean. Evolution has nothing whatsoever with MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. The actual words you were probaly seaching for are, " Survival of the fittest", but you wouldn't know that not actually having read any of the literature you are arguing about. Nowhere does evolution follow an inevitable forward course, even success of a species can lead to its demise. There is nothing whatsoever that says or indicates that evolution is necessarily atheistic, indeed I believe quite the contrary. My bible says "All nature showeth His handiwork", and "What is Man that thou art minful of Him, Thou createdst him a liittle lower than the angels (the literal translation of the Hebrew is " as a god"), to crown Him with glory and honour". Competition, direct or otherwise is part of the mechanics of natural selection, and evolution is impossible to go about by any unatural thing like "purifying the human genome", and there is no one organ or even individual which evolves. Evolution is not some political agenda following a paradigm and subect to any kind of justification like a religious dogma. Your time frame and universe are entirely too small, as is your god. In terms of either Scripture or science you simply have little or no comprehension of the language, the playing pieces or the field on which the game is played. Set about LEARNING more about you faith and the world, and perhaps as you mature you'll be able to argue these things intelligently rather than aping popular fundamentalist demagogues.
Miyamoto Musashi said in book 4 of "The Book of Five Rings" If you do not know others, you do not know yourself. This is the way of Wind. You must know your opponent better than you know yourself in order to use his strengths to your advantage. Above the Oracle of Delphi were nscribed the words "Gnosei seauton"," Know Thyself" This was the particular strength of Socrates which enabled him to ask questions his opponents could not answer and thus lead them to the truth. Both of these you must master if you are to argue intelligently. In Chess this is called building to back row strength, the careful process of seeing several moves ahead. Winning strategy.

Answer 5

Survival of the fittest is out of date and was never correct in the first place but yet it always seems to rear it's ugly head. There are plenty examples of successful organisms that are not considered strong. The new way of looking at evolution is more like survival in mass numbers, if you have a group altruistically pursuing the same things, then it is beneficial to the culture as a whole, the more organisms working as a team, the more chance of survival. Take ants for example, I could go slaughter a couple thousand but they will be back because they are all working and have roles that benefit the whole. It is all BS, the whole war was planned. There is a group of people who are pretty much in charge of th world. They wanted to kick theJews out of Europe,kill of populous, tear down old construction so they can build new buildings and architecture, advance in technology, take control of natural resources, put certain people in power, New World Order.

Answer 6

'Survival of the Fittest' is not Darwin's phrase, or a phrase dreamed up by other scientists... it is a phrase dreamed up by a newspaper reporter, who did not understand what he was reporting about. The phrase was kind of catchy, though, and caught on... even though it is NOT an accurate description of what 'natural selection' is all about.

The 'Theory of Evolution' has absolutely nothing to do with concepts like 'might makes right', or conquest, or superiority. It is a scientific theory which forms the foundation of ALL of modern biological science.

Theories are not merely 'ideas', as the scientifically ignorant would have us think. In science, theories occupy a higher tier of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The theory of evolution explains the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time. These observed facts are NOT in dispute, and they are readily evident in the fossil record, biology, genetics, paleontology, etc.... more-so now than they were in Darwin's day.

The theory identifies two primary mechanisms which ACCOUNT FOR the OBSERVED FACTS:

* genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency, over time

* natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators (Dawkins' excellent phrase)

While the FACTS ARE NOT in dispute, there is ongoing conversation about OTHER possible mechanisms which may ALSO account, in part, for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time... ideas such as 'punctuated equilibrium'.

However, the word 'fact' CAN BE applied to evolution in the sense of COMMON USAGE in science... that being:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'." ~ Stephen J. Gould

In THAT sense, 'evolution' is, indeed, 'fact'.

Answer 7

italy and germany were mainly christian countries and they supported the genocide. Surrivial of the fittest mean to kill the weak ourselves, they just die off. so by saying was adolf hitler was right, he would also be right if he said 2 + 2 = 4, but if u believe in that to you support hitler. you see where your argument went, nowhere. You oppose evolution because you dont like survival of the fitest. I oppose nuclear bombs being used, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Might usually makes right, but so can intelligence.

Answer 8

You total hypocrite!! Hitler WAS a christian! For you to try to use Hitler as an example to oppose evolution, and then in the same paragraph refuse to admit to historical FACT makes you the worst kind of hypocrite. You may not like it sweetie, but he was one on yours. So in that case he was wrong about both your religion and our beliefs. So your question is pointless!

And you're ignorant......"Doesn't evolution ultimately preach:
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT?" No, it doesn't. It says the fittest survive. That is, the fittest for survival in the environment. The creature could be aggressive or passive, but if they were suited to that environment they'd likely survive. Do sloths seem "mighty" to you??

Answer 9

i love this constant, "not a TRUE Christian stance"

as for evolution, humans have evolved the ability to have compassion for each other, we have taken a path that most primates have taken. the strong defend the weak of our race, but also dominate them. it is our ability to stand up for each other that has allowed a flawed design like the human to become the apex predator in all enviroments. out hunters have developed weapons that allow us to kill from a safe distance, and tactics which include having a lookout watch for other dangerous animals.

the fact that the strong share their kill with the weak allows a population to flourish, and the larger population will by sheer number produce more strong animals. were we to simply allow the weakest of our race to die off we would cease to exist as a race. simply because that would drop our birth rate to an incredibly low number while our death rate would not change,

Answer 10

Eugenics is artificial selection. Evolution is natural selection. The second humans try to carry out "evolution" it stops being evolution. So that's your theory dead.

Is Machiavellianism a religion now then? Anyway, Nicolo Machiavelli was a Christian. So what are you saying?

And what does "I oppose evolution" mean? Do you oppose gravity? How's that floating six inches off the ground thing coming along anyway?