The ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘natural selection’ theories do not explain the various complexities of families. If a chemical machine was intent to simply survive, why consider ones future descendents? Why consider the health and survival of offspring? Future descendents will not increase an individual’s personal survival chances. Having and protecting offspring is simply a burden, slowing down ones chances of personal longevity.
While we might consider the possibility that stronger offspring might one day protect the parents, this requires a complex outlook into the future that includes the assumption that the offspring will stick around.
The accidental evolution theory is quite vague on this subject. Most accidental evolutionists will mumble that some strange accidental genetic mutation created an instinct within physical organisms to promote the survival of their own clan. If one asks where this instinct came from, more mumbling about random accidental genetic mutations will probably result. This is because accidental evolutionists do not know where instinct comes from.
While we might consider the possibility that stronger offspring might one day protect the parents, this requires a complex outlook into the future that includes the assumption that the offspring will stick around.
The accidental evolution theory is quite vague on this subject. Most accidental evolutionists will mumble that some strange accidental genetic mutation created an instinct within physical organisms to promote the survival of their own clan. If one asks where this instinct came from, more mumbling about random accidental genetic mutations will probably result. This is because accidental evolutionists do not know where instinct comes from.
Let us examine the ‘survival of the fittest’ doctrine a little closer with respect to practical life on our planet. Humans throughout history have sacrificed their survival on behalf of their mates, their family, their country, or God. Others may risk their lives for the sake of achieving respect and love from others. Consider a mountain climber who risks his life to get to the top, thereby gaining the respect of others. Animals also make similar sacrifices. They are often seen defending family or fighting to increase their pecking order and the respect of peers.
How would these types of behaviors translate to the ‘survival of the fittest’ theory? Love and sacrifice would seemingly have to be considered errors of evolution. Loving another or sacrificing oneself for another would require a feeling that others are more important than ones own survival. Risking ones life for the love or respect of others means that gaining love and respect are more important than survival.
This conflicts with the assumption that creatures have evolved through motives of pure self-preservation. In other words, have these humans and animals who act out of care for one another become genetically crazy? Are those who value family, love, honesty, beauty, humility, gratitude, and sincerity above their own lives just irrational mutants?
Accidental evolutionists seem to be saying that an accidental family gene somehow developed, connecting ones family’s survival to the survival of the species. This would seem to be quite the intricate accidental gene mutation—but it does not explain the more complex activities related to love and sacrifice.
This conflicts with the assumption that creatures have evolved through motives of pure self-preservation. In other words, have these humans and animals who act out of care for one another become genetically crazy? Are those who value family, love, honesty, beauty, humility, gratitude, and sincerity above their own lives just irrational mutants?
Accidental evolutionists seem to be saying that an accidental family gene somehow developed, connecting ones family’s survival to the survival of the species. This would seem to be quite the intricate accidental gene mutation—but it does not explain the more complex activities related to love and sacrifice.
The ‘survival of the fittest’ theory assumes living organisms are essentially self-centered, self-motivated chemical machines. Love and sacrifice confounds this theory, because ‘survival of the fittest’ should result in only cruel, selfish actions. In the true ‘survival of the fittest’ world, activities of love and sacrifice simply would not exist.
This is because the living being is by nature not a selfish creature. Though we display quite a bit of selfishness within this physical world, caring for ones family and sacrificing for noble concerns reflects that living beings are loving creatures within. It reflects that living organisms are simply not chemical machines. There is someone within - someone who can care about and love others.
This is because the living being is by nature not a selfish creature. Though we display quite a bit of selfishness within this physical world, caring for ones family and sacrificing for noble concerns reflects that living beings are loving creatures within. It reflects that living organisms are simply not chemical machines. There is someone within - someone who can care about and love others.
