Why are the evolutionists not able to explain altruism, cooperation, and affection between living things?

Question

Altruism and other cooperative behaviors of living beings clearly reveal that the theory of evolution is invalid. The actual reason for this is natural selection, the mechanism upon which Darwin based this theory. According to this mechanism, those living things that are better adapted to their habitat will survive, whereas those that are unfit and weak will be eliminated. Thus there is no room for cooperation, only competition between organisms. However, we see that nature is not an environment in which only the strong survives and where a merciless struggle for existence continues.
All living beings hunt in order to survive, and fight to protect themselves. Apart from this, however, many organisms also practice unselfish concern to protect their offspring or risk their own lives for the safety of the larger population. Nature provides us with many examples of different species defending the interests of each other.

Let’s go into some examples: A male horned screamer builds an incredibly well-sheltered nest and then places the female in it, carries food to her, and looks after both the female and the eggs until the young hatch and mature. He never neglects to take care of them. A penguin does not leave her egg during the freezing polar winter; rather, she incubates it during all this time without eating anything. Many fish species painstakingly build nests for eggs and larvae. For example, male sticklebacks gather bits of vegetation, spout a sticky liquid that is secreted by glands near their kidneys, and use it to glue these plant pieces together to build a nest. Then swimming around it, they shape the nest. They ensure that the females lay their eggs in the tunnel that they construct in the nest, and undertake the total care of the eggs. The male’s duties include repairing the nest, waving the water in order to provide the eggs with oxygen, keeping watch, and protecting the eggs.

Many similar examples are observed in nature. Explaining the emergence of these behaviors in terms of evolutionary mechanisms is impossible. Therefore, evolutionists cannot answer the question of how such features emerged. Dr. Cemal Yildirim, an evolutionist professor, acknowledges that such behaviors as a mother’s love for her offspring cannot be explained by evolutionary mechanisms. He states:
How could the love of the mother to her young be explained by a "blind" mechanism (that is natural selection) which does not include any psychological element? One can hardly say that biologists (and Darwinists) provide satisfactory answers to such questions. (Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Evolution Theory and Bigotry), Istanbul:Bilgi Publications, 1989, p. 185)

Useful links:
Evolution Deceit(Book):
http://fs.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=462&Format=pdf

LOVE AND COOPERATION IN LIVING THINGS(Video):
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1193

THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION(Video) :
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245

=* FOR ANY HELP FEEL FREE TO E-MAIL ME ON *=
[e-mail]

Answer 1

I can't be bothered reading all that.

I did see a program on altruism - they said there is usually a personal gain in being altruistic eg if you show concern for the welfare of others then they are more likely to do the same for you. - and is therefore an evolutionary advantage.

Answer 2

for those animals that take painstaking care of their young, its to ensure the survival of their species. More to do with survival then evolution.

Though its true that the strong survive, what if even being the strongest isnt enough? thats where animals and people band together to help each other survive.

If there are any stragglers in the group, either two things can happen, the organism gats cast out, confirming the evolution theory.

Or it will be cared for and supported. Showing that those organisms have further evolved to include emotional attachment to their repetoir, or the simple understanding that if your best hunter is sick and dies because you let him, you are in deep doo-doo.

Answer 3

Quite simply, in the very beginning, something or someone created what was to evolve into the universe. We are a very small part of a huge evolutionary process.
As time goes on, theories and thoughts about life and the basics of life will be pondered, proven and/or disproven. Eventually some parts of different theories will be accepted.
I, personnally believe God created our ever evolving world. It really shouldn't matter what we started out looking like.

Answer 4

Your argument that there is no room for co-operation is non-sequitur. My interpretation of natural selection is such that it DOES allow for co-operative behaviour: Consider the gedanken of chance cooperative behaviours which do result in some advantage arising (such as survival). It follows that within those individuls whose makeup encourages co-operation, that trait will clearly be passed on. We see many examples of co-operation evolving across many species. For example wolves that hunt in packs, humans that co-operate in so many ways and the many examples of symbiosis in nature.

Now onto your question:

Evolutionists fail because, I believe PURE altruism is a hypothetical concept and does not and cannot exist in the real world nor evolve through natural selection.

The examples you give are only superficially altruistic. I tackle each in turn below:

Screamers penguins and sticklebacks: Not altruistic because these are instincitve behaviours to ensure the males genes are passed on (as per Dawkins' Selfish Gene Theory).

Even the paralllels amongst human parents caring for their offspring are not examples of PURE altruisim as I believe the parents are only satisfying their base urges to care for their child. These are urges which have arisen to ensure survival of the parents genes. Eg: mums and dads find their baby's cute for a reason! Maternal instsincts to care for baby is there for a reason! By responding to those instincts , we are satisfying a primeval need to do so. These needs ensure survival of the baby and ultimately of the parents genes. Eg: We would cuddle a baby cause we find it irresistably cute. That cuddle keeps the child warm and provides reassurance and security to the child.


For what it is worth, although I do believe in evolution, I do not believe that natural selection is a satisfactory explanation of the complete mechanism. There are so many weaknesses in using natural selection to explain evolution such as timescales, but that's a topic for another occassion/question.

Answer 5

All those human feelings you listed had to be developed in order to propagate and extend the human species. Those that 'evolved' those feelings were the ones that survived and those that didn't became extinct on the plains of north africa. To think otherwise is fanciful thinking.

Answer 6

It took 5 billion years of evolution for humans to develop those things...
And some people still don't possess those traits...!
Too bad evolution is so slow...

Human traits of "goodness" are not so "miraculous" when you think about how long it took to for us to develop them...
Genetics proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that "evolution" easily explains those things...take some college science classes, for Christ's sake!!!
Geezus!!!

Answer 7

Wow! of course, altruism destroys almost 200 years of scientific research. Thousands of the most dedicated researchers studied all those fossils for nothing. Wow, you really nailed that. There is absolutely no fallacy in your thinking at all . None. No sir.

Answer 8

Ever seen a tick bird and a cow....you are convoluting facts to your argument..no-one wants to get down with an echnida but the ants it eats... and they scurry away..furiously..What is your point? I am evolving and would lay down my life for my wife...and...?

Answer 9

Lets put this into perspective for you. GOD create evolution. Live with it.

Answer 10

uhhh...ok