If evolution is all about the survival of the fittest, why ...?

Question

... do we prosecute robbers who try to support their families and praise someone volunteering their time at a nursing home?

Hmmm... Dreamstuff tactfully avoided the question and others seem to have no idea. What's up?

bandycat5,
Are you suggesting that the evolutionary process in humans somehow ceased?

Answer 1

Actually, cooperation is a key evolutionary trait of social species. It is quite evolved in most primates.


EDIT: I did answer your question. How do you not understand this?

Answer 2

In contrast to a previous answer, the evolution of good morals doesn't make anyone more fit to survive, it just protects the weak so they have more opportunities to reproduce before getting the crap kicked out of them. The fact that the weak have the ability to create systems of morality demonstrates that the idea of "survival of the fittest" simply isn't correct as an explanation for the mechanism of evolution.

"Survival of the fittest" is also circular. Only the fittest reproduce; the ones who reproduce are fittest. Which comes first?

One only has to look at the human race to see that the "fittest" simply aren't the ones who are surviving. The greatest population growth is among those who are poor, uneducated, dependent, hungry, etc. In fact our world is going to hell in a handbasket precisely because the best of us are being out-reproduced by the dregs of society.

The answer to your question is that we're not really evolutionists as a society, thus we don't reward the bank robber nor arrest the do-gooder. At heart, we're mostly creationists who still believe in the value of treating others kindly in expectation that they will do the same.

Answer 3

The Theory of Evolution has come a long way since Darwin... 150 years during which ALL related branches of science have contributed to the 'knowledge-base' of evolution... and even spawned some NEW branches of science. Even though evolution is the MOST SUCCESSFUL scientific theory ever conceived, some of Dawrins original ideations... or manner of expression... are, today, considered to be 'quaint', or 'naive'. One of those is 'the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life'. 'Favoured' implies that there is someone of something that is doing the 'favoring'... and this is simply not the case... unless you feel inclined to assign some sort of supernatural, divine guidance to 'statistics'. Then there is 'survival of the fittest'... an expression that did NOT come from scientists... it was coined by a British newspaperman who didn't quite understand what Darwin was all about... but it was a snappy phrase, and it caught on.

There are a few important things to know about biological 'evolution'...

* DNA DOES NOT evolve... it experiences mutations.

* Organisms DO NOT evolve.

Organisms are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space'. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy. This is where 'natural selection' plays out. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is a complete misapplication of the concept... it implies (and is usually interpreted to mean) faster, stronger, smarter, etc... able to take, rather than share. What 'natural selection' REALLY means is something like better camouflage... slightly better tolerance for arid conditions... a new protein that permits the use of a food source that was previously toxic to the organism... the ability to run just a little bit faster than your neighbor, so that HE gets caught by the predator, instead of you... etc. THAT is 'natural selection'... ANYTHING that increases the STATISTICAL PROBABILITY that an organism will survive long enough to procreate... and that is ALL that it means.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the 'gene pool') that 'evolves' (changes, over time).

Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an 'idea'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In science, 'theories' occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There may be OTHER mechanisms in play which have not yet been identified and accounted for, and various scientists continue to quibble about that... but NONE of what I have described above is in dispute within the scientific community. Claims to the contrary by creationists are nothing more than a red herring, designed to bamboozle their scientifically-ignorant constituency... which is VERY easy to do. That's what happens when your 'trusted' sources are professional liars whose livlihood depends on keeping their 'flock' (sheeple) steeped in gullibility, self-delusion, ignorance and irrationality.

They're pretty good at that huh? It sure worked on you.
.

Answer 4

You have compared apples to oranges.

Human society has deemed certain behaviors punishable (robbery). This is for the common good. Altruism is highly regarded in society because it places others above the self.

So, humans have hopefully gone beyond (evolved) to a point where the common good (society) is of more importance than the wants, desires etc. of the individual. Adaptation to this type of behavior is survival of the fittest!

Answer 5

Survival of the fittest only applies for animals or before man had modern tools, guns, etc. Man lived in mud or stick houses, little heat, no running water, no antibiotics, etc. If a baby was born weak, it would die, if it wasn't smart enough to come in out of the cold, it would die, etc. Man had to hunt or scavenge for food, which took brains and stamina. Those who couldn't do it, died. It was much like the animal world today. For instance a feral cat living in the city has a life span of 2 years, while one living inside with people can live to 20. Most animal babies born in the wild die, only a few survive to grow up & breed, those are the healthy ones, the best ones. Life was tough and man and animals had to be tough to survive.

It has nothing to do with modern life.

Answer 6

Evolution says nothing about morality. Yes, in nature, there is no jail or laws. Animals kill each other or steal. But we have developed a consciousness and the ability to live without doing harm to others. thus we also have developed morals to help everyone be as happy as possible. But this has nothing to do with evolution.

Answer 7

Claim CA001:
Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.

Response:

1. Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.

2. Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.

3. Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.

4. Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.

5. Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.

6. Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.

7. Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.

References:

1. Rotblat, Joseph. 1999. A Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Science 286: 1475.
2. Wedekind, C. and M. Milinski. 2000. Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science 288: 850-852. See also Nowak, M. A. and K. Sigmund, 2000. Shrewd investments. Science 288: 819-820.

Further Reading:
Huxley, T. H. H. 1894. Evolution and ethics. http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/index.html

Answer 8

A robber does not have to have good genes to become a robber, and someone volunteering at a nursing home does not have to have bad genes.

By good and bad genes, I mean as in a physical or mentally, not as in society good.

Answer 9

because others are striving to survive against robbers by legally eliminating that way of life and are striving to make helping-others the way of life that will survive the trials of life.

Answer 10

Because we are spiritual beings, created in the image and likeness of God, with free will and moral capacity. Only our biological nature is subject to evolution. Our morality and spirituality supercedes evolution, and makes us more than simply smart animals.