Survival Of The Fittest
Side Score: 24
Side Score: 22
It's not really a matter of whether we like the notion or not, it's the case and question of whether it's true and how the fundamental principles of evolution influence our most basic and biological impulses such the need to feed, engage in the act of reproduction, sexual pleasure and socializing with our fellow species etc.. right up to our conscious level of everyday decision making throughout our lives.
Mind you, this doesn't and shouldn't be used as a justification to shrug the responsibility of helping fellow prime-mates in need for the sake of being the fittest.
What on earth are you talking about? My argument was way above 50 characters! Is this supposed to be an automated moderator's rule or a joke to try down booting the argument i made?
Perhaps in future and in the interest of the quality of debate, the moderator should also take the time to read the content of the argument as well as the number of characters used.
Survival of the fittest is actually quite random. The greatest line of genes in history's ancestor may have fallen in a tar pit a hundred thousand years ago by no fault of their own. A genius can get brain cancer and die before their greatest invention. The best driver in the world can die in a car wreck.
Survival of the fittest assumes living things have far more control over their surroundings than they actually do.
It's better to work together for the betterment of everyone, fit and unfit alike.
Excellent argument, couldn't have put it better myself :)
The evolution and continued survival of our species clearly revolves around the principle of aiding one another through say, scientific research, the sharing of resources, the exchange of decision-making processes and ideas etc rather than simply taking the "every person for himself or herself" initiative on the day-to-day basis, which in the long run doesn't actually benefit humankind as a whole.
David you don't understand the intricacies of Evolution. Yes, people and things will die before they invent something...but that has nothing to do with 'survival of the fittest', genetic lineage or evolution of a species. Evolution is absolutely not random.
Evolution refers to the tiny tiny advantage that a small element or feature of a species or group of animals may have over others in its environment, the numerical and reproductive advantage that provides increases it's propensity for survival and thus the increased liklihood of future generations of that species having said element or feature.
I don't want to get into massive amounts of detail but one particular individual's death or survival will not significantly impact the entire evolutionary path of a species.
Well sure, I understand that. But there is no guarantee that because an advantage is present, that that advantage will be passed on. I mean, at some point some tadpole looking things had what would eventually turn into thumbs, and some did not. There was never any gaurantee the tadpole looking things that had this gene would survive. That they did does not necessarily mean "survival of the fitest" worked, it just means they survived, nothing more.
Put it this way. Yes of course once there is an advantage, this is going to help a species. But most only consider what already exists, and naturally do not consider all of the potential genetic properties which may have existed but never had a chance to continue.
It's trying to prove a negative.
Three arms would be an advantage. Why aren't there people with three functional arms? Well, maybe the gene was never there, or maybe some thing with that potential died off before the advantage could be.
The idea that the most advantageous option is somehow magically gauranteed success is short-sighted.
As far as "survival of the fittest" one would have to say that the giant asteroid that killed the dinasaurs, which is the only reason primates were able to come out of their caves and trees, that the asteroid was somehow a guaranteed factor of survival of the fittest.
It was not, it was random. Not the fittest of the time survived, the things that happened to live in caves and trees survived. If there had been no asteroid then tables turn and suddenly according to the theory, dinosaurs were the fittest and us humans must simply have never been "meant to be" 'cause we're not "fit" enough.
On a smaller scale. Who is fitter, a sloth or a bull?
Put each in a room with no food, the sloth will live longer because it has a slower metabolism therefore it is the fittest right?
Put each in a pen with nothing but long grass for miles around. The bull will survive and the sloth will die. I guess the bull is fittest.
Circumstance and chance has far more impact on survival than fitness.
As such, as thinking beings, we should understand that leaving to circumstance and chance our overall survival, and the survival of individuals within our species, is not an advantage, it is animal instinct sure, but we have big brains so we don't have to depend on something so random as survival of the fittest. Nor should we.