WTF Betty Sue? If evolution is real, why is murder illegal?

[0 kids n not countin]

Huhhhhh?

If evolution is true, than survival of the fittest is a basic law of natue.

If this is true, than why is rape and murder illegal? Aren't those activities just the fittest making the odds of their genes being passed on the highest?

Why do we have laws protecting people from stupidity? If you are dumb enough to hurl down the freeway at 110 without a seatbealt, aren't you too dumb for your genes to be passed on anyway?

Why do we try to cure disease, protect people from danger, and prolong life? Aren't all those things violations of "survival of the fittest" and thus evolution itself?

If the planet is really overpopulated with humans, why do we have hospitals? Why not just let people die? And there are those safty rules again. Illogical if you really believe there are too many humans.

Of course, we all know in our hearts that evolution is not true, it's really survival of the luckiest, and the God wants us to take care of the weakest among us. that is really the only explination for our behavior.

WTF Betty Sue??

If God made us in His imagine, I think he screwed up?? :think:

Not to mention all the "non-believers", what's up with that? Why would God do that??

[Kitty]

dafuq?

Why do these eejits always confuse evolution with social darwinism? The laws are put in place because the things they're banning HURT OTHER PEOPLE. As in, people who may well have a chance to achieve something, but don't have natural protection from bullets or knives or clubs or whatever else. They're to ease suffering. Why do we cure disease? To stop suffering and prevent more of it. It's not about creationism or evolution.

The planet is overpopulated with humans because humans a) take more resources than the earth has and b) not everyone has access to birth control, for whatever reason.

Humans take care of the weakest of the lot, from disease, starvation, and danger, which includes other humans at times. By Betty Sue's logic we'd neglect children entirely, because it's "survival of the fittest" right? The kids who survive to adulthood are the fittest. What an idiot.

[Guest Anonymous]

Jeepers! What terrible reasoning! Does she not see that our desire to protect our own (helping the sick, protecting people from violence, etc.) is a part of evolution?

[jaynie]

dafuq?

Why do these eejits always confuse evolution with social darwinism? The laws are put in place because the things they're banning HURT OTHER PEOPLE. As in, people who may well have a chance to achieve something, but don't have natural protection from bullets or knives or clubs or whatever else. They're to ease suffering. Why do we cure disease? To stop suffering and prevent more of it. It's not about creationism or evolution.

The planet is overpopulated with humans because humans a) take more resources than the earth has and b) not everyone has access to birth control, for whatever reason.

Humans take care of the weakest of the lot, from disease, starvation, and danger, which includes other humans at times. By Betty Sue's logic we'd neglect children entirely, because it's "survival of the fittest" right? The kids who survive to adulthood are the fittest. What an idiot.

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't quite work like that anyway. The "fittest" can easily be those that work together towards a common good. We're a social species and have always benifited greatly from keeping the tribe alive -- especially because our greatest strength -- intelligence* -- is strengthed by having a large community to learn from. (other intelligent species tend to be social as well, even the non-primate ones).

*the human species as a whole is intelligent, I mean. This particular individual does not seem to have been infected with that particular gene.

[Kitty]

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't quite work like that anyway. The "fittest" can easily be those that work together towards a common good. We're a social species and have always benifited greatly from keeping the tribe alive -- especially because our greatest strength -- intelligence* -- is strengthed by having a large community to learn from. (other intelligent species tend to be social as well, even the non-primate ones).

*the human species as a whole is intelligent, I mean. This particular individual does not seem to have been infected with that particular gene.

I know how survival of the fittest works, that it's not necessarily biggest, strongest, healthiest, or even luckiest as this idiot says. She forgets that even people who believe in evolution to good things, not because of some latent belief in God/creationism but for the good of the community, which helps us all.

I think what she's trying to do is say "Only theists can be good people, and if atheists are good people it proves that God exists!" Which is such a horribly circular statement, not to mention smacks of cognitive dissonance.

[jaynie]

I know how survival of the fittest works, that it's not necessarily biggest, strongest, healthiest, or even luckiest as this idiot says. She forgets that even people who believe in evolution to good things, not because of some latent belief in God/creationism but for the good of the community, which helps us all.

I wasn't trying to say you didn't, so I'm sorry if it came across that way! I actually probably didn't need to frame it as a response to your comment at all. The idea of "the fittest" being the biggest, strongest, luckiest bullies just irritates me and I couldn't let it go without commenting on.

I think what she's trying to do is say "Only theists can be good people, and if atheists are good people it proves that God exists!" Which is such a horribly circular statement, not to mention smacks of cognitive dissonance.

Oh, I hate that argument. The phrase "not even wrong" springs to mind...

[tankgirl]

Of course, we all know in our hearts that evolution is not true, it's really survival of the luckiest, and the God wants us to take care of the weakest among us.

Umm.. so why should I believe in your God? Basically she thinks that life is a crap shoot, and God only likes the weakest, otherwise it's all luck. Umm... not helping your own case sweetheart.

[CanadianHippie]

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't quite work like that anyway. The "fittest" can easily be those that work together towards a common good. We're a social species and have always benifited greatly from keeping the tribe alive -- especially because our greatest strength -- intelligence* -- is strengthed by having a large community to learn from. (other intelligent species tend to be social as well, even the non-primate ones).

*the human species as a whole is intelligent, I mean. This particular individual does not seem to have been infected with that particular gene.

QFT

Each of those things we do is survival of the fittest. Well except over population, that is just a result of human's ability to survive.

Of course, we all know in our hearts that evolution is not true, it's really survival of the luckiest, and the God wants us to take care of the weakest among us.

When the weakest among us are able to survive, the strongest thrive.

[julie paradox]

Sigh.... yet another person who doesn't get the distinction between describing what is and prescribing what ought to be. Human laws don't have to reinforce "natural laws", which generally take care of themselves.

[Burris]

From her incorrect premise – i.e., her belief that “survival of the fittest†is a law rather than merely a fact – Betty Sue has come to a whole boat-load of false conclusions.

This is the same mistake so many Creationists – particularly the YEC who believe in Biblical inerrancy – are wont to make. They believe evolutionary theory is proscriptive – that is, it tells people how to behave – rather than being merely descriptive of things that actually happen.

If Betty Sue would be kind enough to make her way over to this article, and this one, and read them, then she may finally come to understand where she has gone wrong.

And finally, I would like to point out that one can accept the ToE and still believe in God.

[Chowder Head]

Theistic evolution she should look it up. Plus as social animals help others helps ourselfs.

[holothuroidea]

Well it's a good thing for our species that we evolved one of our greatest survival skills: empathy.

At least most of us did. -_-

[Effie]

She left a comment:

"Can you show me an example of any other species that does "protect their own." I don't mean parents protecting their offspring, but one individual doing what is best for the community as a whole instead of what is best for himself. We pass laws punishing total strangers for raping total strangers. Show me an equivalent in the animal world."

Anyone cares to answer?

[Sola]

What's the url?

[alba]

She left a comment:

Anyone cares to answer?

Bees? They sacrifice themselves to protect the community from a threat by stinging. That took me all of two seconds to come up with.

Not that I can be arsed telling her that.

[Soldevi]

What's the url?

homeschoolwwh.blogspot.com/

Edit: I tried to give a polite answer but my blogger account gives me an error page. Oh well. I should know better and stay away from evolution discussions with fundies. They never end well. I hate when I have all the time first find out what they mean with terms like species and such because they alter from scientific explanations... I got a fine advice from my friend: if they are not willing to discuss of science with scientific terms, don't bother at all.

[notsocommon]

She left a comment:

Anyone cares to answer?

I guess it is safe to say that she does not watch the discovery channel. Or PBS. I can list dozens of examples.

ETA: Or owns multiple pets. I have seen my cats work together. Big cat knocked his toy under the couch, couldn't fit to go after it....little cat went and got it for him. I've seen them knock the treat jar off the counter then bat it around between them, trying to get in.

[debrand]

I guess it is safe to say that she does not watch the discovery channel. Or PBS. I can list dozens of examples.

ETA: Or owns multiple pets. I have seen my cats work together. Big cat knocked his toy under the couch, couldn't fit to go after it....little cat went and got it for him. I've seen them knock the treat jar off the counter then bat it around between them, trying to get in.

My cat, Stripes, wasn't very friendly. She liked my husband and our dog, Buster. For the most part, she hid in the closet because she disliked too much interaction. Once I caught her on the countertop knocking hotdogs down to Buster. Other times she would turn over her food bowl and knock down pieces to him. We had to keep her food on my dresser so Buster wouldn't steal it.

Jane Goodall was on the Daily Show and she discussed a male gorilla who adopted an orphan. Male gorillas don't usually care for their young so his behavior was very unusual.

How can anyone own a social animal like dogs and not realize that they care for and protect members in their pack? All my kids have commented that our dog, Keiba sits with them when their sad.

[MrsYoungie]

How about meercats? One meercat is always on duty, standing tall and watching for danger. Whoever is the lookout is obviously in the greatest danger, (plus has to forego eating and other activities) yet they take turns doing it to protect the community.

[Conuly]

I'm not going to exert myself. I'll just quote Wikipedia!

Altruism is a well-documented animal behaviour, which appears most obviously in kin relationships but may also be evident amongst wider social groups, in which an animal sacrifices its own well-being for the benefit of another animal.

Emphasis mine. Altruism, like homosexuality, is well-documented among animals.

They give a few examples.

[Guest Anonymous]

My cat, Stripes, wasn't very friendly. She liked my husband and our dog, Buster. For the most part, she hid in the closet because she disliked too much interaction. Once I caught her on the countertop knocking hotdogs down to Buster. Other times she would turn over her food bowl and knock down pieces to him. We had to keep her food on my dresser so Buster wouldn't steal it.

Jane Goodall was on the Daily Show and she discussed a male gorilla who adopted an orphan. Male gorillas don't usually care for their young so his behavior was very unusual.

How can anyone own a social animal like dogs and not realize that they care for and protect members in their pack? All my kids have commented that our dog, Keiba sits with them when their sad.

Not to mention wolves. When a wolfpack with a growing litter goes hunting, one or two of the adults stay behind. mostly to defend the litter from other predators, and to keep the cubs entertained and out of trouble.

[Wolfie]

She left a comment:

Anyone cares to answer?

I'm not going to post there, but my roosters attack intruders when their hens are threatened. I had a raccoon attack last night and the rooster stayed near the door of the coop the rest of the night.

[Conuly]

Jane Goodall was on the Daily Show and she discussed a male gorilla who adopted an orphan. Male gorillas don't usually care for their young so his behavior was very unusual.

I've seen cats do the same thing. People worry that toms are a danger to kittens, and they can be, but I've seen myself how sometimes a particularly obliging tom will "babysit" a friend or sibling's kittens. For that matter, mama cats that live in colonies* will often take care of any kitten that happens to come up to them, even if it's not related at all. That might well be what's behind little furry and bloody presents found on your pillow at night - your cat might take parenting very seriously and wonder why a great big creature like you hasn't learned to hunt yet!

* It's not quite true that cats aren't social animals. They aren't pack or herd creatures, but that doesn't mean social ties don't exist for them. Colonies, groups of feral or semi-feral cats that live together, often consist of relatives, the mostly-female descendents of one mother, but they don't *have* to. Helping your sister's kittens live is helping yourself in a way, because it increases the odds of your genes being passed on even if none of your own survive. Helping a stranger's kitten that found its way into your group is entirely different.

Edit: In thinking on it (I do like cats and can talk about the subject for quite a while, so I'll shut up now!), feline babysitting is such a common behavior that it's not even unusual for mother cats to recruit non-cats to watch their babies. The mama we've got now, back when her kittens had just started to be mobile, had a habit of luring them up onto my bed, nursing them there, and then ditching them with me to go do her own thing for a few hours. They never were on the bed when I came home, but within 5 minutes of my sitting down she'd get them up there. She assumed I'd watch her kittens while she took a break, that it was a perfectly safe and reasonable thing to leave them in the care of a human. I'm not related to her, I'm not even her species! But she trusted me with her young. Why? Because cats in a social situation will *often* take care of each other's children. It's a normal thing to do. Lacking another mama cat she judged me as the next best thing around.

Social altruism in the form of babysitting has evolutionary benefits, as it means that one or two mothers can take care of multiple litters while the others hunt and relieve themselves and do all the things that can't be done with children in tow - and it means that if one mother dies while out, her young might outlive her because the others will pick up the slack. Or if one can't produce enough milk or simply isn't very maternal, that sort of thing, her babies can be spread out a bit and won't starve.

[Sola]

homeschoolwwh.blogspot.com/

Edit: I tried to give a polite answer but my blogger account gives me an error page. Oh well. I should know better and stay away from evolution discussions with fundies. They never end well. I hate when I have all the time first find out what they mean with terms like species and such because they alter from scientific explanations... I got a fine advice from my friend: if they are not willing to discuss of science with scientific terms, don't bother at all.

Thanks :)

[Tanaqui]

Social altruism in the form of babysitting has evolutionary benefits, as it means that one or two mothers can take care of multiple litters while the others hunt and relieve themselves and do all the things that can't be done with children in tow - and it means that if one mother dies while out, her young might outlive her because the others will pick up the slack. Or if one can't produce enough milk or simply isn't very maternal, that sort of thing, her babies can be spread out a bit and won't starve.

Gerbils do this, too. Males and females will babysit the pups, keeping them warm and grooming them, while the mother eats and even plays.