Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know but they are called Liberals and they refuse to believe that only the most fit should survive and the weak and helpless should be removed from the gene pool.
It's a waste of money to teach Darwinsm in school if it's not allowed to be practiced.
I believe the OP isn't talking about social darwinism.
I don't know but they are called Liberals and they refuse to believe that only the most fit should survive and the weak and helpless should be removed from the gene pool.
It's a waste of money to teach Darwinsm in school if it's not allowed to be practiced.
Based on your post, it's clear you don't know what survival of the fittest means.
1. It does not effectively explain the beginning of life
For many, this leaves the shred of hope for a creator.
2. There is no direct "this is the missing link".
You can't show someone a missing link. There are millions of missing links.
Those are generally the reasons why.
Another problem - it doesn't explain why the liberals want to encourage the most helpless, the least able to survive to breed and outbreed those who are productive.
It also doesn't explain why the once strongest society in the world, the USA, has decided to destroy it's strength and turn over the source of it's strength to a Communist nation and other third world weak inferior nations.
I don't know but they are called Liberals and they refuse to believe that only the most fit should survive and the weak and helpless should be removed from the gene pool.
It's a waste of money to teach Darwinsm in school if it's not allowed to be practiced.
Darwinism is the practice in which NATURE decides the winners and the losers.
It has nothing to do with Eugenics, which is the mental decision on who the winners and losers are.
Based on your post, it's clear you don't know what survival of the fittest means.
In humans it would mean that those smart enough and strong-minded enough to work would have more surviving children and those too weak and feeble-minded to do anything but watch television would have no way to feed their children and they would die. Darwinism wouldn't have the stronger ones turning everything over to the least capable.
Humans are proving Darwin wrong. The welfare class is soon to outnumber the working class.
In humans it would mean that those smart enough and strong-minded enough to work would have more surviving children and those too weak and feeble-minded to do anything but watch television would have no way to feed their children and they would die. Darwinism wouldn't have the stronger ones turning everything over to the least capable.
Humans are proving Darwin wrong. The welfare class is soon to outnumber the working class.
Social Darwinism=/=evolution.
One could easily argue that us trying to help each other as a species, even our weaker ones, plays into our trait as the dominant species in nature right now, and that we evolved that way.
Darwinism is the practice in which NATURE decides the winners and the losers.
It has nothing to do with Eugenics, which is the mental decision on who the winners and losers are.
Nature lets those whose parents cannot provide or teach them or defend them to die. You don't see strong wolves stop having litters and promote the weak wolves having huge litters. You don't see a strong fast growing tree chop itself down so the weaker trees get more chance at getting sunlight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.