Re: Most scientists say 'alternative' to evolution isn't a theory at all


"Bert Hyman" <bert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96DEA046A6E16VeebleFetzer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Be@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Hooda Gest) wrote in
> news:Y9CdnTx1w47XM6TeRVn-iA@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >
> ><tomaldrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:43399e79$0$12174$9a6e19ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> On 27-Sep-2005, "Hooda Gest" <Be@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > You know, if these people really believed in evolution, they
> >> > wouldn't be in
> >> > favor of protected endangered species.
> >>
> >> Ok, what is trhe thought process behind this statement ?
> >
> > Darwin's theory. Think about it... it is survival of the fittest.
> > Interfering with that is basically tinkering with evolution, with
> > Mother Nature if you will, or "playing God". That we displace
> > species in the process of improving our environment is only
> > natural.
>
> Well, evolution isn't simply "survival of the fittest", but even if
> it was, so what?

Uh, yes, it is. At its core is that premise. Do not confuse "survival of the
fittest" with "survival of the strongest".

> Humans do things because it pleases them, not because they believe it
> satisfies some need for order in the universe. They ->like to "play
> god".

Not important. Why humans think they do things is not an issue. We do things
in order to survive, to thrive, to continue to exist at the Darwinian level.

>
> Besides, maybe appealing to humans desire to preserve a species is an
> element of "fitness" that makes the species survive.

That is a valid argument. But most species are interested in only
their own individual survival. By that, I mean their own survival and
survival of their offspring. Humans appear to be the only creatures who
exhibit a level of altruism beyond that. Is that part of evolution or a
deviation from it? We don't know. But saving species on the verge of
extinction may prevent other species from thriving in their stead.


--
Hooda Gest
"Respect is difficult to win, easy to lose."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naturalistic Fallacy
    ... They are a part of Darwinian evolution. ... It is interesting to note that sometimes what we humans prefer to call the ... Few spots remain on earth that are ... ESCAPING each species' needing SOME kind of externality complex if it is to ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... >> process of evolution was occuring, did the human female birth canal ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... many atheists agree with those religious persons that evolution and religion are not alternatives. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Temporal Learning
    ... >> be born with pre-wired knowledge about one's environment. ... I think that humans inherit of a lot less knowledge than they learn ... You can believe in the magic of evolution all you ... species to emerge, there must be a lot of opportunities for mutations. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... how humans came to be and how we fit in the universe"... ... human prehistory and the origin of species does not mean that those ... Macro) evolution has been tested, ... logical that humans genetics would also most closely match primates. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • POTM: Re: Commentary: Thoughts on atheistic evolution and morality
    ... Macroevolution refers to one species changing into a completely ... but not "completely different," what sort of evolution would that be? ... If we humans are animals like any other - only more evolved - there ...
    (talk.origins)