these days the weak don't die out, they are given special benefits and priviledges and healthcare and stuff like that. there is no more survival of the fittest. what do you make of that?
and wouldn't survival of the fittest say that homosexuals are bad because they would die out?
2007-10-04 02:21:47 · 28 answers · asked by Saved by Grace 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You probably won't get too much support from Christians on this one...especially since your name (777) is the actual number of the beast as described in revelations.
The dodo bird would be a good example of survival of the fittest. However you may be proof that it still exists.
;o}
Sometimes I think I am too funny....
I am sorry to insult you I just wanted to make others laugh
2007-10-04 02:28:36 · answer #1 · answered by klover_dso 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I think your picking just to pick, survival of the fittest is just a saying nothing more, being homosexual doesn't make you weak by any means, and if it is survival of the fittest, it would probably mean, survival of those who are fit, not just in body but the mind as well. You can't say everyone is fit of the mind, so yes there a weak minded people out there, therefore the meaning survival of the fittest can be true.
2007-10-04 09:39:15 · answer #2 · answered by robink71668 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are correct when you state that we are changing the way survival of the fittest has worked for millions of year.
However that doesn't prove it wrong. Does dieting prove that the theory of eating being beneficial is wrong?
One of the biggest problems with survival of the fittest and our current society has to do with education. Right now educated people tend to have 2 children on average. Uneducated people have 3-4. Eventually there will be too many humans that don't value education and our society will break down and will most likely rely on religion for answers all over again.
2007-10-04 09:29:07 · answer #3 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Where in the world are the homosexuals dying out? And who says they are weaker? I'm a chirsitan, but I still believe in the survival of the fittest. We still have homeless, we still have genocide (look at dafur), there are still people dying of starvation and you're worrying about the gays. Not all unfortunate people get special benfits. Think about the homeless man on the street corner beggin for change, what does he get? He certainly doesn't get a nice house, 3 good meals a day, proper healthcare or a computer to fart around on. If you honestly think the only weak people out there are homosexual I think you need to take another look at the world around you.
2007-10-04 09:29:58 · answer #4 · answered by Group836 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Survival of the fittest is also known as natural selection. When you start throwing in government assistance, your remove a part of natural selection by adding in other factors.
On the other hand, this may strengthen the natural selection argument, by saying that humans are community-oriented and help the weaker members of our species, thereby strengthening the species as a whole.
I see no basis to say that homosexuals are bad or good. They just are.
2007-10-04 09:29:52 · answer #5 · answered by shotglass65 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since when has the survival of the fittest only been an atheist creed?
2007-10-04 09:46:13 · answer #6 · answered by Roberto 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Medicine stops the survival of the fittest.
As to Gays. By definition, gay people do not reproduce. Heterosexuals reproduce, and produce homosexual offspring. Survival of the fittest and Homosexuality have nothing to do with each other.
It is true that without science and humanity many people would not live long.
I think former fool has one too many names.
2007-10-04 09:30:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Survival of the fittest is how things tend to work. It's not a hard and fast rule.
Homosexuals probably reproduce less, but that has nothing to do with 'good' or 'bad'. After all, why should we care about the future course of evolution? None of us will be here for it.
2007-10-04 09:27:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
'Survival of the fittest' simply means that whichever individuals raise the most offspring to maturity will tend to be the ones which contribute more of their genes to the future. The people who are inclined to have more children are the ones whose genes will be more common in the future gene pool. So, far from proving the principle wrong, benefits and healthcare and so on actually *reinforce* the principle (because almost all children survive to maturity, and then it's a simple matter of numbers).
2007-10-04 09:28:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
No it hasn't. You are considering only human beings and only those in countries that provide the benefits, privileges and healthcare you mention. Survival of the fittest continues with animals and with humans in many third world countries.
2007-10-04 09:29:11 · answer #10 · answered by Divelucaya 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋