No Pain, No Gain
You’ve heard of “red in tooth and claw,” natural selection, and the survival of the fittest. As one evolutionist put it, “The death of unfit individuals is what causes a species to adapt and improve.” This is because evolutionary theory is founded on that Malthusian idea of limited resources. Life is a zero-sum game. And so when a chance mutation happens to confer a reproductive advantage to one individual, he and his descendants survive and propagate at the cost of others, who do not. It is evolution’s version of a final accounting, but in this Darwinian spreadsheet there is no forgiveness, just survival. Of the fittest that is, and death of the unfit.
And if death is a necessary part of the evolutionary equation, then conflict can’t be too far behind. To wit, evolutionists are now saying that “Fighting may have shaped the evolution of the human hand.” This because they discovered that a clenched fist works pretty well when throwing a punch.
Oddly enough our evolutionary cousins, chimpanzees and bonobos don’t generally clench their firsts and may not be able to do so. Oh well, their loss was our gain. Death, or at least a good rumble, is evolution’s engine of progress.
Saloon fight reminds me of Ukrainian Parliament
ReplyDeleteare brass knuckles transitional? Will human hands evolve into iron?
ReplyDeleteCh,
ReplyDeleteIt is evolution’s version of a final accounting, but in this Darwinian spreadsheet there is no forgiveness, just survival. Of the fittest that is, and death of the unfit
Bad news,both the fittest and less fit die. It is the reproduction advantage,so perhaps the Duke's greatest love scenes would be more appropriate. But best fight scene in a John Wayne movie, " Donovan's Reef".
But best fight scene in a John Wayne movie, "Donovan's Reef".
DeleteThanks for the tip. I may use that one ...
Evolutionists View Violence as Progress
ReplyDeleteIt does not necessarily follow from research which suggests the human hand has evolved to form a fist to the claim that "evolutionists" view violence as progress.
On the other hand, if you want to read stories which endorse the use of violence in the service of religion you need look no further than the Old Testament.
So, do you think that organisms leaving more offspring will not leave more descendants, then? Or do you think they should not? You are, I am absolutely certain, familiar with the 'is-ought' fallacy? There are many mechanisms by which types leave more offspring (and in many, the competing forms find it impossible to engage in any kind of 'violent' contest. Plants, for example.). Even fluffy bunnies die childless, while other fluffy bunnies reap the dividend. Biology is not a notably nice place. You blame evolutionists for that state of affairs?
ReplyDeleteLoL! No Allan M, we don't blame evolutionists for that state of affairs. However it is obvious that "that state of affairs" is not a mechanism that can account for the diversity of life.
DeleteRabbits that out reproduce other rabbits still give birth to rabbits. And if those rabbits have offspring, they will also be rabbits.
It's rabbits all the way down. And that doesn't bode well for evolutionism.
Joe G December 29, 2012 5:55 PM
Delete[...]
It's rabbits all the way down.
Not quite. Still no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian so still no falsification of evolution.
Still no evidence that a non-rabbit can evolve into a rabbit via accumulations of genetic accidents. And still no way to even test the claim.
DeleteAnd evolutionism can't be tested so how can it be falsified?
Ian said: "It does not necessarily follow from research which suggests the human hand has evolved to form a fist to the claim that "evolutionists" view violence as progress.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if you want to read stories which endorse the use of violence in the service of religion you need look no further than the Old Testament."
Did you ever notice who God is angry with in the Old Testament when He uses violence as a means of executing His justice? For the most part it's against those who refuse to believe Him.
Awstar,
DeleteDid you ever notice who God is angry with in the Old Testament when He uses violence as a means of executing His justice? For the most part it's against those who refuse to believe Him.
One would hope that an omniscient being would be at 100%.
It's rabbits all the way down. And that doesn't bode well for evolutionism.
ReplyDeleteYou see rabbits all the way down? Get help. There are 8 genera in the Lagomorpha classified as rabbits, with about 20 species, another 3 genera form the hares. There is a patchy fossil record with decreasing resemblance to modern forms. You think each species was seeded by a pair of proto-rabbits without genetic parents, or just each genus? Or just one proto-rabbit and one proto-hare? And do you have a hypothesis about how? Tail first, ears first, or all-at-once with an audible 'pop'?
Yes I see rabbits all the way down leading to more rabbits.
DeleteDo you have any evidence that a non-rabbit can evolve into a rabbit via accumulations of genetic accidents? Any at all?
Ian,
ReplyDelete"Still no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian so still no falsification of evolution."
And what gives you the idea we know of every creature that lived in the 'pre-cambrian'?
Finding rabbits in the pre-cambrian would not falsify evolution. Their discovery would simply be made to fit the infinitely pliable fairy tale which is evolutionary theory.
Keep up your amazing work. It matters.
ReplyDelete