The point that all darwinists miss is that according to this theory there is a constant struggle for survival, however this is manifested it is still a struggle.
The problem is that under this model mankind could not survuve unless there was more cooperation that competition. Since we have survived based on cooperation, it means that there is not now nor could there ever have been a "constant struggle for survival".
Evolution is so patently false that any 8 year old can see it.
22 comments
Neshama, to pick one example at random, go and google "the social contract".
You may find that what an 8 year old rejects, an 18 year old can argue for.
Quantum physics is so patently false that any eight year old can see it.
Yes, Neshama, it takes more than a grade three education to appreciate the complexity of the real world. You will notice this once you get there.
You say: survival is the motive behind cooperation.
And: this is obviously incompatible with evolution which, in contrast, would picture survival as the motive.
I think any 8 year old can see how stupid this is.
wrong...
evolution does not rule cooperation between individuals. If cooperation leads to a higher probability of an individual's genes being passed on, then it is a trait that will be passed on. With regard to human development, it was our evolved ability to coordinate and plan hunting trips that let our species take down and consume other physically stronger species such as sabertooth's or mammoth's.
OK, so the fact we had to band together to survive, which is why we evolved the way we did, is proof that we didn't have to band togther to survive?
WTF!
A more generous reading would stress the "struggle" part. This way, he might be arguing that (1) with cooperation, there is no struggle of man-vs-man or man-vs-nature (2) given there is no struggle, there is either no selective mechanism or selective pressure (I'm not really sure which he's arguing) to choose between men (3) with no selective mechanism, there is no evolution.
He seems to be assuming that live/die are the only options for evolution. But, of course, evolution is actually about differing reproduction rates, which happen even in a peaceful and cooperative culture.
Further, how does our current state of (questionable) cooperation rule out evolution for our entire past and for all species? Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Actually, he makes a good argument for the development of speech, bipedalism and social interaction amongst humans. Apart from the fact that he is a Hannity-fuckwad, he's not far off the mark.
I'm really tired of hearing these fundie retards saying evolution couldn't work that way, or that our origins cannot be explained by it, and yet being unable to produce a logical alternative for the way the world, and life upon it, came to be other than "Goddidit".
That answer doesn't explain the fossil record, nor for that matter does Noah's flood.
Go back to the drawing board you morons.
THE SONG: (returns!)
If you don't know what you're talking 'bout, shut up!
If you don't know what you're talking 'bout, shut up!
If you don't know what you're talking 'bout,
And you really want to shout it out,
If you don't know what you're talking 'bout, SHUT UP!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.