Question about evoultion?
This is my question. IF evoultion is true, how come humans have an inclination to help other humans from different races and nationalities, even giving their lives? Doesnt this contradict "Survival of the fittest" from which we evoulved?
(gah, spelling sucks today) I mean, even ants while helping their own, would kill an ant from another colony if the ant was in danger as oppossed to helping it. And I study evoultion-you cant evolve altruism (like I said, spelling sucks)
Ha! but you contradict what evoultion says. why save what is going to die anyway? survival of the fittest right? why would you let a weak one live?
And wouldnt perserving the species mean you would let the weak ones die, so the weak one would not pass on its genes?
Well corrision,(or however you spell it) You should call up your big boys, cause thats what your future atheists are learning in school, what I just said regarding survival of the fittest.
And corrison your right the fittest genes get passed through, but if your weak, what genes do you have
Red, your wrong. Like I said before, ants from different colonies will fight rather than help each other. They are the same "race", but different colony. same goes with packs of wolves, and any other social species.
Corrison, I dont even need to tell you. just pick up any evoultion book.
Geek, that has to be the STUPIDEST thing I have EVER heard.
Corrison, I'm talking about the average school book.
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest answer
Natural selection favors those who have heritable traits that increase chances of survival. Selfishness is not a good trait for a species whose muscles are extremely weak relative to other animals. Our ancestors had to work together to survive so developing altruistic tendencies (to ones own family and friends) would be beneficial to a species who cannot rely on brute force to survive. Hence, no contradicton in evolutionary theory (natural selection), not to be confused with evolutionary fact (common ancestry).
You also may have noticed that I said altruistic to family and friends. Humans are not inclined to help others unlike themselves or when a reward is not likely. We only help family out of what you may call love and affection, but is truly a survival strategy. We help friends so that they will return the favor. And when we do help other races, we tend to expect some kind of compensation.
That's only because you've yet to tape record your own ramblings. Your understanding of evolution is analogous to my dog's understanding of calculus. You'll never get it so don't even bother. Stick to some field that doesn't matter like theology, cause you'll fail at any attempt to work in science or any relevant occupation.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Humans are all the same species. Any human (of the opposite gender of course) can interbreed with any other human regardless of geography or ethnicity, so we all have a vested interest in keeping our fellow humans alive.
Survival of the fittest is not an active effort on the part of humans, or any other species, though it may appear that way at times. Yes, we compete for resources and sometimes we kill each other to obtain them, but this is not evolution. The most well adapted (fittest) survive even if they're not always the most aggressive.
There has been much speculation of why we (humans) cooperate, and probably it has a lot to do with being at the top of the food chain. Since there are many, many animals that, one on one, can easily kill a human being, cooperation was the only way we could hunt and kill our food when smaller game and plants were unavailable.
Generosity/altruism probably arose as a result of cooperative clans realizing that what worked for them on a micro level would also work on a macro level. If you gave food to a hungry neighboring clan when you had an excess, it could be reasonably assumed they would return the favor when you needed food. As the benefits of this behavior became clear, it eventually became ingrained into the human psyche.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
This does contradict classical evolution, but the theory has been considerably refined since Darwin first came up with the origin of species. First, you have to remember that it's not your off-springs necessarily that need to survive for you to pass on your genes, but any descendants which have a good proportion of your genes.
A parent's love for their children, of course, makes sense, because that natural instinct promotes the survival of one's genes. But further than this, it also makes sense, evolution-wise to encourage the well-being of a number of your family members, including nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, and all those closely related to you.
Furthermore, genetic studies find there are relatively little genetic variations within a species. Over 95 percent of genes are common to all of humanity. Because genetic survival, as opposed to personal survival, is more important to the process of evolution, it makes perfect sense to imagine altruism being built in to the genetic code through the process of evolution.
So it is that we find altruism in many species on earth and, at the very least limitations to aggression within a species. Lions and other well-armed predators don't typically kill one another.
- 1 decade ago
Because those different nationalities and "races" are political divisions, not biological ones. We are all one species, a species that evolved in social groups, and helping each other is part of how we survive.
Sorry, youngster, you're wrong. Humans survive best when ALL available humans are cooperating. That's why these political divisions are counterproductive. The bigger the group, the better for survival.
No human can be examined as an evolved biological entity as an "individual," floating in space alone. That's the error made by believers in the mistakenly-named idea "social Darwinism," which is actually a conception that is contrary to evolution - examining members of a social species as if they were in isolation.
(After I wrote the above, I looked at your picture. Unlike the impression you give, you're no youngster! Aren't you a little old to be talking like this?)
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- grandmaLv 41 decade ago
Marooned on Earth has it right, Many, many animals depend on the group for survival. The lion depends on the zebra etc. The python depends on its prey. Crocodiles lay quietly till something comes along that represents food. There are some people that do eat others but they are far and few between. Mostly the people will help others without a thought. People generally does not kill or injure another because they came from a different location or neighborhood.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No, it's called preserving the species.
I was reading a few weeks ago on Newswise how some researchers had found what they think is the altruism gene, and others had located an area of the brain that responded to images of people in need of help.
Remember, Ayn Rand was no scientist, just a bitter control freak, so don't take her assertions as fact. If communities had not had cooperation, there would not have been early communities.
"Survival of the fittest" is the most misquoted and misunderstood term. The fittest genes get passed along.
I submit your "study" of evolution is very zig zag and cherry picked. If I am wrong, tell me which university is teaching you this nonsense.
I'm way ahead of you, son. Got an entire bookcase with nothing but books about evolution. Nice dodge. So you're not studying it, you're just hoping to refute it and have failed.
- SarrafzedehkhoeeLv 71 decade ago
Humans have evolved beyond nature. We no longer live there. Consider the fact that so many animal rights people think nature is like a Disney film. It ain't. And since we can separate ourselves from nature, we can see value in things that are not material things (unless, of course, you're an ultra-conservative) like justice, love, harmony, and beauty. We can be curious about others and not destructive (unless you are one the the people who practice desert religions). It's cool to be human. It's one of the reasons I'm less concerned about pie in the sky.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
We are HUMANS of the same SPECIES. Black, white, Indian, autistic etc. WE ARE HUMAN, their is only one kind of Human, HOMO-SAPIEN. But first you would have to understand what a Human is and what Humans do. This is why you can't compare ant to a Human. With the development of society and religion we have learned to that everyone has value. The proof is the simple fact that we exist, if not my family would be at war with my next door neighbor who would be at war with their next door neighbor etc.
Sounds like your out of touch with your Humanity
- wacky_racerLv 51 decade ago
"Survival of the fittest" is the right term for today's events... the fittest are trying its might to be fit among the weaker genes as what the revolutions are for the records, " United we stand, divided we fall'. Which is all in all the political evolution.Source(s): Here, there and everywhere.
- daugaardLv 43 years ago
I actual have self belief in God. He created something and each thing. How ought to you think that something blew up and positioned each and every thing interior the universe to the place it ought to stay to tell the story for hundereds even thousands of years. an excellent type of individuals say that this is way less complicated to have self belief that it replaced into by twist of destiny, yet once you think of approximately it, this is way less complicated to have self belief that somebody replaced into right here earlier each and every thing and made all of it. somebody continually has greater potential than somebody else, yet there must be an end of the potential line and the tip is God. He began and could continually be the main effectual.