Questions for people that support evolution

1.what evolutionary benifit does empathy have?

2.If we help out others in need isnt that agaisnt what evolution teaches "the survival of the fittest"?

3.I we were to look at what hitler and the nazis did to the jews from strictly an evolutionist point of veiw,could we say that hitler did something good to the world?

4.According to evolution, should we kill babies that are born with disabilities and that would do no benifit to society?

5. Should we end all the hospitals to ensure that only the strong will survive?

Im not bein sarcastic i just wanna know how yall feel and i need real answers not answers out of anger and offense and be detailed

short answer. no.



Ill reel off a few names of people who had disabilities and what disability they had
(all these people have/had epilepsy)
Hugo Weaving
Vincent van Gogh
Sir Isaac Newton
Neil Young
Napoleon Bonaparte
Agatha Christie
Charles d***ens
Theodore Roosevelt
Peter Tchaikovsky

(Cerebral Palsy.)
Chris Nolan
Stephen Hawking
Jhamak Ghimire

(Spina Bifida)
Hank Williams, Sr.
Judy Woodruff
Jay Bradford Fowler
Buddy Winnett (also legally blind)

(Tourettes Syndrome)
Dan Ackroyd
Dr. Samuel Johnson
Marc Summers
Tim Howard

(Mood Disorders)
Richard Dreyfuss
Harrison Ford
Abraham Lincoln
Buzz Aldrin
Jim Carrey
Ludwig Van Beethoven
Kurt Cobain
Winston Churchill

You will notice in that list several political leaders that lead successful careers during pivotal moments in history as well as actors, soccer players, musicians and other professions.
Just because they had a disability didn't mean that they were/are not able to perform their jobs.






some times the strong get sick or critically injured, that doesn't mean that they are weak it shows that not everyone is immune to the same things or taking the same amount of damage.

Being able to read someone or somethings expressions allows you to know what the appropriate action to take it. Think of an angry cat or dog, can you not see how telling whether it is happy or agressive could be useful?



Only if you assume those who don't work together are best able to reproduce. This is not true as cooperation can clearly work to mutual benefits. If say me and a friend went hunting together we can catch a prey that is larger than what we would catch combined indivudually.



The problem with this question is that you think there is some type of evolutionist point of view. The theory of evolution only describes the mechanism. It doesn't give any value judgements on what should be done. You might as well ask that if gravity exists, isn't it good if a building falls over.



See above. Evolution doesn't tell you what you should do only what will happen and what has happened in the past.



The same answer applies again. Just because you believe that evolution has happened means that you think it is moral or some type of ethical basis. It also seems that you seem to think of fittest as necessarily physical strength. Fitness can also apply to co-operation.

The survival of the fittest thing was referring to the species not the individual.

I think you are mistaking evolution to mean that individuals are always competing against one another for survival, where, in actuality, competition is just one component that is used only when needed.

Members of a particular species are naturally dependent on one another for survival of the species as a whole. They do not always need to compete against each other, and actually gain more from collectively pursuing things together.

Mothers have love, empathy, and assistive tendencies towards their young, and, therefore, the young get the nuturing they need as they grow and eventually learn to survive as adults. Others also gain from love, empathy, and help in similar ways for survival. As a result, the human race has learned how much more we can gain from collective survival than the low percentage risk involved when it just becomes every person for himself/herself.

We as a human race, have learned how to survive without the violence or competition, not only towards each other, but we have also learned that we can help other species continue to survive as well.

Perhaps we can, therefore, even be considered the pinnacle of the evolutionary curve since such competition is no longer needed, and can overcome anything thrown at us that would otherwise eradicate a different species. That is to be seen though.

Pretty much.

fish eat their kids even without disabilities.
do mammals ?

That's not evolution, that's red neck conservatism.

Best way to look at it is like this:

Forget religion and evolution.

One day you're walking down the street whistling and minding your own business and all of a sudden there's a flash and you reappear in the middle of a crack house only to find that you're locked in for the next sixty plus years.

By default, you know better than what is going on in the crack house.

So just best to be yourself until whoever fixes what they broke and gets you out of there.

I would eat my kid if he really pissed me off!

It lends emotional support to the concept of enlightened self-interest, where we take personal risks to defend the equal rights of others.



Evolution brought about self-awareness and the intelligence to conceive of the answer to #1.



Hitler adopted the opposite course of enlightened self-interest, the moral double standard where individual rights are not equal, which is contrary to good order and resulted in the chaos of war.



To judge benefit, we would have to assume knowledge we do not posses.



Your question assumes strength is only physical. Keeping that in mind, the answer would be the same as #4.



You obviously consider the idea of evolution to be evil. Why? Why do you consider Genesis to be literal rather than allegorical? Do you think there is no allegory in the Bible? Aren't parables allegories?

i guess you could assume that i look at evolution as evil by the way i typed this, but that is simply not true yes there are some parables in the bible but when there is a parable being used the reader is told b4 hand if you read the whole verse in context and not cherry pick. Genesis shown from moses perspective as he watched God creating the world. hope this helps

o and also the reason i wrote what i wrote about hitler is that i thought he used darwinsim to justify the killing of jews

Evolution is just a bunch of rubbish and nonsense!

A "silly" theory at best...

then what is your reasons for not beliving it please give me a list of reasons and a full explanation