Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil
- To put it all in simple words :Charles Darwin says... it's the survival of the fittest(natural selection)Peter Kropotkin says... it's the survival of those that co-operate - avoid compeition.The two are diametrically opposite.Which one do you agree with? And why? Why didnt Krootkin's theory succeed? There's truth in both. Anyways... you're thoughts please :)Thankyou.
If it should be survival of the smartest, why has the majority of our society remained bogged down with antiquated religious beliefs? Nowadays survival of the religious malcontents seems to be applicable to Muslims as they have increased their numbers past two billion people. Smart people should be able to rationalize that supernatural acts have never, can never and will never exist in nature.
Yes in early days it was survival of the fittest.These days it should be survival of the smartest, those that are able to keep up with technological and scientific advancements in various fields.
Who created God?...or did he say, "Poof, I am God"?[
Darwin fail because most of the Religious book says GOD created this earth/world with in Six days... 😊
Originally posted by: peaceseeker
Who created God?...or did he say, "Poof, I am God"?
Do you feel HEADACHE?!! How can you prove, ur headache to others?!! ..same way, its difficult to prove...and remember ''no-God'' is also a type of belief😊...I believe our existence is God...if you are alive..ur God also alive..God used to be the life,.. this whole existence becomes soulless, life becomes just a by product of matter. So when you die, everything will die...religious world people like to float with their beliefs , lazy to swim...!
Who besides man wrote the religious books? If it is proved definitely, how is it going to change your life?!?!!!...we all know It is not going to change our lives at all bcos both believe different ideas and concept. All differences are only verbal. No verbal difference makes any difference in their existence. They have been discussing about useless questions.
And, for your info, I am thoroughly convinced that God exists...but what God is, no human knows.
I don't think the theories necessarily contradict each other.
Survival of the fittest is actually quite a crude simplification of natural selection. Natural selection is a very long term biological process where certain traits disappear while others become stronger depending on the environment.
Let us take bears for example. Their genetics were for black or brown skin. The Grizzly, Black bear and most bear species still retain that color. However, Polar Bears are different. Originally Polar Bears were thought to have dark fur. Albinism was a genetic anomaly. Since white fur served as perfect camouflage allowing the bears to hide in snow and sneak up on prey, eventually the genetic anomaly became the dominant trait. Other traits like temperature regulation also developed. The Polar Bear is the fittest to thrive in the arctic. Albinism was a positive trait in the environment and by natural selection that trait survived in the region. It does not mean that the albino bears actually competed with the darker bears or tried to one up them. There wasn't a competition.
Cooperation and coordination are traits that can be rewarded and developed by natural selection. There are very complex systems of coordination and cooperation that have helped animals thrive and survive.
Ants are one of the greatest example. An ant colony is the result of extreme cooperation between thousands of ants. They have very cooperative societies that build houses and hunt for food. Did you know ants never have a traffic jam? You could have literally thousands of ants going back and forth in lines for food sources and they never end up with a traffic jam. Throw in an obstacle like a rock or something, within seconds they have found a system around it without causing any backup. Their travel system is so perfect that scientists are studying it to see if we can learn from ants to resolve human traffic jams.
A lot of hunting animals hunt in pack. Their hunt is very coordinated. They work in unison to flank herds of prey, drive them to corners and hunt. Similarly, many animals have very coordinated defense systems. Elephants, rhinos, and many animals in danger will form a protective circle around the young and hold a defensive line.
Kropotkin's theory did not survive because it is too narrow. While cooperation and coordination are extremely fundamental to the survival of some species, it is not always the case. It lacked big picture thinking of all the other factors that cause species to survive and thrive.
Darwin's theory survived because it is truer. Natural selection isn't anti cooperation or pro competition. It is neutral. It says nature rewards and selects what is necessary to survive the environment.
Originally posted by: QuietlyLoud
Good topic but somewhat difficult to answer.
I think Drawin's statement is applicable to all non- human organisms that live in natural ecosystems..In natural ecosystems, resources like food,water and living space are limited so there's no scope for exponential population growth.Only those strong and healthy individuals who manage to win over the competition for food,living space etc get selected by nature .Fittest ones survive and frail ones are eliminated.
Kropotkin's statement holds good for human population and also for other organisms which are in captivity and provided with human care/man made ecosystems like in zoos..Here frail ones are never neglected and they are given adequate care so they too could survive along with the fit ones.
Darwin's statement is more general when it comes to explaining evolution as a whole because all ecosystems including humans' were once natural..So i think that's the reason why Darwin's theory is more accepted.
Anyway I agree with TM.There's truth in both.
comment:
p_commentcount