Don't we go against the laws of evoloution?

Question

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, "survival of the fittest".

Surely were slowing down the process by helping people, like charities and hospitals.

For example trying to find a cure for cancer.

Does that make any sense and is it a completly stupid thing to ask?

Answer 1

Well only if the process for evolution was linear.  It can definitely be argued that any step is a step in a direction, natural selection does the rest.  I guess man, has a long history of trying to best nature in our pursuits.  We build imposing cities of stone and steel and manicure the foliage around us and think we beat it.  Truthfully though if we weren't around it wouldn't take long for it to look like we were never here.  

Answer 2

I think we are allowing people to live too long.  Medicane makes them live longer but their bodies are worn out.  I see this in nursing homes and it makes me sick.

Answer 3

The Important word is THEORY. Darwinism  is not a fact and has enormus gaps and unprovable assumptions. For instance The incomplete fossil record, The mathamatical improbability of beneficial mutations. We have bred different breeds of dog for centuries but a great dane will still sniff a pug,s ****. Also why would we create art and great works of literature, why would we develop a brain that we only use 10%.  If you want to believe that your ancestors swung through trees thats fine but i believe my existence is a little more esoteric than that .   By the way Euthanasia is sick

Answer 4

We are the manifestation of Darwin's theory.  We have evolved to the point of being ABLE to create charities, hospitals, medicine.

Under your logic we should never have created houses OR airplanes OR shoes.

Answer 5

I suppose this is why we are at the top of the "food" chain! We have the ability to treat and cure illnesses, although we botch up some of these so-called cures! The other species, they are now dependant on us to cure them! In other words, we are interfering with Nature!  We have come so far as to clone animals, and I really wouldn't doubt if they haven't cloned human beings too!  The way I see evolution is - you live on an island with no interference from the outside world, when things get tough, the species adapt to it's changing enviroment. That's evolution. They grow hair to keep warm, become smaller, because of the shortage of food. and, yes, only the fittest survive. Now you take OUR enviroment! WE don't change when it gets cold, we just go out and buy wood, or chop the tree down, use oil, gas and electricity. Take away all our "worldly possessions, processed foods, cars etc, there will be a period of utter chaos, then slowly, after the weak have died off, we will be back in the evolutionary chain again! Do you really think that will happen in the future? Maybe! We are living in the Atomic age! We had better start learning how to rub two sticks together to make fire!!!

Answer 6

yup i see a future of s**y S****y people, ugly meaningfull people aren't breeding as rapidly,...anyone evr see idiocracy, were their already.

Answer 7

I am in fact an ape and still live in a tree outside Epsom.  Therefore I am living proof that evolution is a myth.  

Tomorrow I'm going to drop out of my tree (not) onto my head to show that gravity is only a theory.  

Global warming?  Don't make me laugh!  It's the pixies - everyone knows that.  

Answer 8

yeah, that makes sence, i always think of stuff like that

we also go against it by stopping animals becoming extinct and choosing what animal to breed another with.

Answer 9

Survival of the fittest is an oversimplification. 'Social darwinism' has been a dangerous miss almost since Origin of Species was published!

Evolution does not have a drive or direction. We have reached a level of tool using sophistication unrivalled in all the biota. That does not mean that we are not evolving, it means that those traits that are selected for survival are no longer limited to those that would be advantageous for purely physical reasons.

Answer 10

Many social species have evolved to be helpful. Dogs will adopt anything that moves, it doesn't even have to be a puppy, there are cases of other animals or even ferrel children adopted by packs of wild dogs. Other animals will often even sacrifice themselves for the good of the group. It's all part of survival of the species, which is the best strategy for gene propogation. It's not against evolution at all. Evolution has no direction, whatever we do inherently becomes a part of it, as what we do determines which genes are passed down to the next generation.

Answer 11

It's not a completely stupid thing to ask and it does make sense. However, you can't use an argument like a bus. You can't just get off at your stop. You have to follow the argument through to its conclusion.

First of all, individuals don't evolve, species do. A person keeps the same set of genes for his entire life. What evolves over time is the gene pool for his species. This makes later individuals more adapted than earlier ones, but no individual adapts.

Curing diseases, giving to charity, and so on are all things that are, at least to some extent, made possible by our genes. Dogs don't cure cancer. Shrimp don't give to charity. These are all things that improve the adaptability and survival rate of the species.

So because you have a curable cancer, and are a member of a species smart enough to figure out how to cure it, that cancer *doesn't* make you less adapted and so there's no evolutionary reason you shouldn't pass on those genes.

Also, something very important to point out is that evolution isn't normative or an inherent good. It tells us what happens under certain circumstances, not what we should do under those circumstances. There is nothing inherently good about passing on genes that enable propagation of those genes. Otherwise, rape would be a great good, since men who rape lots of women pass on their genes very effectively.

Suppose we have reason to think that bees are more adapted to survival and we're in their way. Should we just all kill ourselves to make room for the bees in the name of evolution? No, you don't have to make evolution work. Evolution is what happens when you don't try to make it happen. You really can't force evolution or push its hand.

So this argument is like a bus. You get off at curing cancer and charity. But if you stay on the bus, our charitable nature and our ability to cure cancer are survival abilities we have evolved. Not using them would be defying evolution. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that either.)