Re: A scientific theory against God and morality


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
What a lot of rubbish you write.

When somebody as much as breathes, they are struggling for their
reproductive success.

This is what we are supposed to assume as scientific fact.

No, we're not. Our genes happen to be evolved in such a way that we
come equipped with lungs and need them for blood gas exchange. In
practical terms this means that we breath because we wouldn't be alive
if we didn't. Those who are alive just happen to have an easier time
reproducing than those who are dead, and thus breathing (and anything
else that keeps you alive) may be said to help to achieve reproductive
success. It does not follow that we breath only because we struggle for
reproductive success. I'm sure all of us know someone who has decided
not to have any children or is long past the age when it's a relevant
thought and nevertheless insists on breathing.

There is
simply no such struggle, it doesn't exist, it is simply the insanity
that it looks to be.

You know this isn't true. There is plenty of struggling going on in
nature. Try the tv, watch some nature documentaries. The males of some
species stage quite spectacular and sometimes fatal struggles just to
get female attention. Why do you think they do that? Hint: mating.

The fact is, no matter how many times you deny it, that the
reproductive success matters when it comes to determining what the
future generations are like. Those genetic traits that make an organism
more likely to survive until it reproduces are going to have an
advantage over those that are likely to kill it. (E.g. breathing vs.
non-breathing.) This is how our genetic material has been shaped and
that's how some traits got selected and some disappeared. However, it
does not follow that everything is genetically determined, and it does
not follow that we can only do things that maximize our reproductive
success. And no scientist worth your time is claiming the opposite.
What they are saying is this: a genetically determined trait is more
likely to survive and increase in the population if it improves the
individual's chances to produce viable offspring. Improvement of
chances is relative to other individuals' chances and hence a lot of
competitive imagery, but it does not follow that they're saying
whatever we do, we're struggling for our reproductive success. Take
this newsgroup for instance. Do people write here newsgroup to maximize
their reproductive success? No. If anything, this has the opposite
effect since it takes time that could be better spent having
unprotected sex or surfing dating sites.

.

Relevant Pages