Research Challenges "Survival of the Fittest"

[muncastro]

One problem I have with TOE is that it is too vague. Far from being science it is more like a Delphic oracle. TOE seems to be saying that new species origin is dependent upon transmittable mutations natural selection and time (or number of generations). So to derive a new species on the average how many new mutations do you need? On the average how many animals need to be destroyed thru natural selection? On the average how many generations are needed? TOE is too vague to be taken seriously.

[Doliath]

So, in this research, the organisms weren't competing for resources? Then there is no reason, evolutionarily, for one species to dominate over another...

[Anythingwilldo41]

Lol.. This is how they combat "Survival of the fittest"

This guy uses "If they eat different foods, they don't compete"... Well sure, that is true. But many animals eat the same type of food, and when food is not unlimited, the strongest get it and the weak die.

Lol.... this is funny watching them try to deny science.

[Anythingwilldo41]

Well.. Look at the rich and the poor.

1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth. That is survival of the fittest. When hardships occur, crisis's, the weak will die.

The weak are dieing off, but not in the normal sense. Usually it would depend on physical strength for survival. Now it has more to do with our brains, how smart we are. The smart get rich, the stupid stay poor.

Now with human kind, "survival of the fittest" could be modernized with "Success of the smartest"

[Inga4020]

1% = 40% of the wealth in the world?? That sounds about right. How do you account for the contradiction of helping/enabling poor stupid people groups? I tend to think of smart is a relative term.

[Anythingwilldo41]

We let the weak survive, but they never prosper.

[sandbar3000]

And what makes you think that you are any "better" than the "weak". And what, pray tell me is "the weak"? Are you talkingabout people? If yes, do you down upon the "weak"?

[sandbar3000]

There will always be people helping others. I'm gald to know that there are people around that will help "the weak", be it those people are hungry, or whatever it may be. Some people just don't like to give.

[sandbar3000]

YOu forget one thing. People need PEOPLE skills not just brain smarts. You can know everything in the world -- people are not going to care how much you know, until they know how much YOU CARE.

[Anythingwilldo41]

That has nothing to do with me or my comment.

Plz don't randomly reply.

[sandbar3000]

Randomly reply? I was not being random. I was being real. The survival of the fittest does not include people skills - does it? I thought that was just about "Who is more smart" or "who knows more" when applied to human beings.

[Anythingwilldo41]

Survival of the fittest.

Fittest physically. Fittest mentally.

That includes ALL skills.

[sandbar3000]

So does the "Survival of the fittest" mean or conclude that if one seems "weak" such as someone that is disabled or may be someone that is blind or deaf, or one that has MS, CP, Autism, diabetes, cancer, MD, etc, etc, etc, should not get help from others and should just "die" since those people are "not fit" or not "the fittest".

I am asking since I do not know.

[Anythingwilldo41]

Well.. Depends on how you look at it.

From an evolution stand point, They should go ahead and die.

If you do not benefit society, then we do not need or want you.

My personal belief isn't very emotional, Sorry for that. Anybody who cannot see 20/20, or has any disease/problem WHATSOEVER, should not reproduce.

You either 1) Stop having kids or 2)Die.

Hope I cleared it up.

[sandbar3000]

That's not right to say "We don't need you since you do not benefit society". That is MEAN to say that. It's saying 'We do not care about the poor" or "whatever". I have no kids.

[Anythingwilldo41]

Mean to say that?

This is a debate/arguement, feelings are irrelevant. For society to run better, it is at the cost of a few.

Its 100% correct to say that. Its only logical.

[sandbar3000]

Who said this was a "Debate"? Oh, wait. you did. That's right. This is a video about creationism. I used your words in a new video. Since you said yourself that you are unemotional - you shouldn't mind me using your words..

oh and emotions DO matter, since people have feelings and so do you.

[Anythingwilldo41]

Emotions only matter if you give them power.

I don't get sad, I don't get happy, I don't get angry, Unless I choose to.

I would classify any argument as a debate, call it what you want.

Feel free to use my words, I am pro-free speech and that includes words.

[CorvetteCoonass]

I think what he's trying to say is that nations have separated us as a race. The fact that we try to get all the oil is a case of ignorance and pride, not survival of the fittest.

[Anythingwilldo41]

It is survival of the fittest. It is among nations instead of individuals, however.

[CorvetteCoonass]

It would seem the human race is setting up to destroy itself, even if it's not intended. Mother earth will shed her wrath. It is inevitable. Pride is the source of all negativity, I'm sure a lot don't believe me, but they don't realize that they themselves are being controlled by pride in that very instant.

[ktorch]

Creation Moments supports a creator, which is a shortcut side-stepping scientific examination and discovery, so if there was/is a creator, is it a force,god or other entity? If a god, which one?

[Inga4020]

I would counsel you to study the God of the Bible ktorch, and see for yourself how He has done as He has said within prophecy. Some are yet to be fulfilled...but they are coming to pass even as we speak.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

[ktorch]

I have, Inga4020, in an advanced degree since 1955, and you? So I say to you,run,run as fast as you can toward truth, which is evolutionary science. You will be so happy you did as I have experienced.

[Inga4020]

Evolutionary science is but a 'best' guess and understanding from the limited finite mind of men.

Wow....since 1955 eh?? I wasn't even born then, so I will say that you obviously have more life experience than I do. Call me a fool if you need to, but I just have no desire to trade in my Joy for temporal mess of pottage that happy gives.

Isa 5:21 Woe unto [them that are] wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

[hellavadeal]

It is all about the resorces. Thank the LORD for the abundantance.

[sandbar3000]

Resources! I never thought about that. So, you mean all kinds of resources, such as money, smarts, ability, everything?. I'd like to chat with you.

[hellavadeal]

People lived on earth a long time before money. Smarts ? yes , Our brains are the same size has The first modern man. Food grews natural and wild until civilization. No cities no polution clean water ect. I think early man was smarter in many ways.