Quote# 70717

The whole survival of the fittest description of nature is totally false. Animals are not in competition, they are co-operative beings, nature is much more social than they claim. Evolution just reflects the racist capitalist imperialist victorian ideology that was around the time that it was produced, believing that there were biological hierarchies, to justify white colonial rule of the rest of the world. Plus it's still a theory, and what about the whole issue of the transitional fossils?

LailaTheMuslim, Ummah 67 Comments [2/19/2010 1:18:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 48

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom


So, the lion and the antelope are cooperating... Is that what you wanna tell us?

2/19/2010 1:26:19 AM

Sure, the dolphins cooperate so much with the Sharks, like other fishes, that they appear fighting in National Geographic documentaries. Please.

2/19/2010 1:35:34 AM


Argh. There's just so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
I'll just start with the first sentence. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean that animals can't cooperate when it happens to benefit them and their reproductive success. Evolution can account for things like altruism and cooperation perfectly well.
And no one's denying that some animals are more social and some are more solitary.

And while the theory of evolution may have been distorted to justify actions, the point is that it's a nonscientific distortion. The theory of evolution is science. It describes how the world works, not how it ought to be or how we ought to act. But imperalism was around before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. It's not as if people were desperately looking for an excuse to justify white colonial rule. They already had their excuses. In their own minds, their actions were already justified. And while Darwin's views definitely reflected the sentiments of his time, he was in some ways ahead of his time. (By the way, the fact that Darwin had some racist opinions does not invalidate his scientific work. He was simply wrong about some things. Big deal. It does nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution. Because Newton believed in alchemy does that mean we have to throw gravity out the window? Anyways, Darwin was in some ways ahead of his time. For instance, he was an Abolitionist.)
Biological hierarchies just refers to how we organize different forms of life according to what other forms of life they are most closely related to and descended from. It has nothing to do with saying that one race of people is somehow "higher" or "lower" or "more evolved" than another. There is no such thing as "more evolved" -- you didn't use those exact words, but I've seen that claim far too many times and it essentially follows your logic.
Also, yeah, evolution is a theory. So is heliocentric theory and germ theory. Are you going to deny those because they're only theories?

As for transitional fossils . . . the whole issue there is we happen to have a rather freaking lot of them. I'd link to a list or something, but I'm tired of typing this, so I'll wait and see if anyone else decides to do that.

Anyway, seriously, just get a basic biology textbook. You have some ideas about evolution that are just plain wrong and it would be nice it you had at least an elementary understanding of the subject before you decided to challenge it's validity.

2/19/2010 1:49:19 AM


Really? So sharks don't eat penguins, seals or turtles? Grizzly bears don't raid wolf dens and eat the cubs? Lions are only just playing with Zebras and gazelles, and lions only play with the cheetahs they kill?

You are either ignorant, or asinine. Quite probably both.

2/19/2010 1:52:25 AM


You have totally misunderstood the concept of Evolution.
You are talking about Social Darwinism, a perversion formed by people who, like you, had completely missed the point.

A herd has to have social individuals to survive. The most social ones get to have the most off-springs and carry on their social genes to the next generation.
They are the fittest ones, and their genes survives. Btw, it's fitting as in a key fitting in a lock, not fit as in strongest. Next question, please.

2/19/2010 1:59:33 AM


Without even getting into everything that's wrong with this post, I just have to say something about a phrase that really stuck out: "racist capitalist imperialist victorian ideology"--WTH? This isn't a black metal song. When you type things out, they should make sense and not just be words that you think sound kwel and ebil.

2/19/2010 2:21:12 AM

In regards to being racist: The racists in Darwins time hated the theory of evolution because it stated that the white racists were related to black people. And oh they couldn't have that now could they? Of course you'd have known that if you had actually researched, you know, facts before spouting off opinions

2/19/2010 2:33:08 AM


Double bonus fundie. Not only doesn't understand evolution, but also doesn't understand the arguments she's trying to use against it.

2/19/2010 3:03:07 AM

Quantum Mechanic

Hopefully someone will shove a transitional fossil up your ass.

2/19/2010 3:11:06 AM


I am sorry, but The Lion King is not empirical evidence.

And relativity is "still a theory", so I suppose that should also be placed under heavy scrutiny.

2/19/2010 3:42:51 AM


A slight clarification:

"On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master's eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating forever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of;—nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated, and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask
slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears.

It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever-illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter;—what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder!
And these deeds are done and palliated by men who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that His Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty; but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin. - Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle

This book is written by a great observant mind. The entire book can be found at:

2/19/2010 3:53:13 AM


Wow! I got nothing........ Just fucking wow.

2/19/2010 4:22:38 AM

Yes because when a gazelle runs away from a Cheetah because it doesn't want to be eaten, it's co operating with the Cheetah.

2/19/2010 4:36:53 AM


Lamest. Argument. Ever.

2/19/2010 4:38:11 AM


From the load of FAIL you have placed in explaning evolution, I feel that it is proper that I should give you a question that won't make you head explode.

You state: " Animals are not in competition, they are co-operative beings, nature is much more social than they claim."

Ok LailaTheMuslim, if that were so, then how come my dog starts angrily barking and growling loudly at the sight of a cat and has the urge to chase it if the cat is in the backyard?

2/19/2010 4:42:43 AM


Quoting Richard Attenborough (who should know a a bit about nature!)

[when asked how he can be an atheist when nature is so beautiful and harmonious]

"I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

2/19/2010 4:51:07 AM


Congratulations, LailaTheMuslim! Here's your reward! :)

2/19/2010 5:36:02 AM


OK,then. If there was one Twinki left in the world, how many zombies would you kill to get it.

2/19/2010 5:44:45 AM

Doctor Whom

The Qur'an teaches us that Solomon eavesdropped on ants' conversation, so if you don't mind, I'll trust modern science over your faith.

2/19/2010 5:58:11 AM

Mister Spak

"Plus it's still a theory, and what about the whole issue of the transitional fossils?"

We have the transitional fossils. We wim. Plus creationism is still a myth.

2/19/2010 6:21:05 AM

Blaidd Drwg

Of course animals are in competition - ever see two male elk fighting over who has access to the females? That is part of the basis of the concept of survival of the fittest - the strongest tend to pass on their genetic hetitage more often than do the weaker. In terms of mating, sometimes it is simply a contest of strength, for other animals it is lady's choice (peacock tails are this principle taken to the extreme).

Another large part of survuval of the fittest is that the members of a species that can use the available resources (food, water, shelter) tend to live longer, and thus are more likely to reproduce - frequently this involves adaptation to existing or new environmental challenges.

2/19/2010 6:22:33 AM

Muppetry! Some organisms are sociable or cooperative; it's to allow them to be stronger as a group entity so they can survive. Resources such as food are limited and the strongest get it, females of many species will only mate with the demonstrably strongest male. Have you never seen "nature in action"? You're missing out.

2/19/2010 6:39:50 AM

Ah, a two-fer: FSTDT as well as RSTDT.

2/19/2010 6:41:52 AM


Surivial of the fittest is racism? WTF?

2/19/2010 7:01:14 AM

D Laurier.

To be fair, White Englishmen have done some truely evil things to their colonized muslim subjects. (although not as bad as what the French did)
But rejecting biological science just because there were englishmen involved.... is kinda stupid.

2/19/2010 7:42:15 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page