|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
The World is more of an Altruistic World than a pure selfish survival of the fittest world:
Atheistic evolutionists would like us to believe that the living world is simply survival of the fittest and selfish genes. The truth is that the living world has more cooperation and altruism than simple survival of the fittest. Certainly there is survival of the fittest, but that survival is dependent in many ways on altruism.
Recent scientific findings, in fact, show that even if the creation of life was accomplished at least in part through some evolutionary process, those processes were probably only possible through cooperation (symbiosis) even at the cellular level.
Many aspects of altruism are discussed in the book; "The Cooperative Gene" by Mark Ridley. Even at the basic level of the gene, there are many reasons to believe that cooperation is the key factor that makes abundant and complex life possible, much more so than selfish genes. Coevolution is a form of cooperation among two species. (Darwinists usually fail to note that coevolution is the even more improbable "coincidence" of two independent random changes being beneficial to two species at the same time.) Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
As discussed in the book "Biomimicry" by J. Benyus, on page 33 the author discusses "overyielding" where planting polycrops rather than single crops actually increases yields since plant direct competition in a species is diluted. Clearly there is compatibility between different crops growing together and while it is not altruism, it does show that unless there is very direct competition, there is no inviolate rule of interspecies fighting for survival.
As can be seen in the following general examples, in comparing what would be expected in an Altruistic Dominated world as opposed to a pure survival of the fittest world. The reality is that cooperation is what make the incredible diversity of life possible.
If altruism were more important than individual survival the
animal kingdom could be expected to include (and
what actually exists:
1)
Groups with sacrificial individuals such as termites
2) Groups with nurseries for young not their own
(bats and ants.)
3)
Mothers defending their young at very high risk to themselves.
Cheetah mothers
risk their lives moving close to lions to distract them from the Cheetah
young.
4) Schools and herds where the outer members do not push into the center of the group to hide themselves. In the presence of predators, Buffalo show altruistic behavior. The fit members form an outer protective circle to shield the young, blind, and crippled!
5) Groups where only the lead pair breeds. This occurs in both mammals and birds.
6)
Wide spread
SYMBIOSIS;
COOPERATION RATHER THAN COMPETITION. (Microbial, Plant, and
Animal Kingdoms.)
We realize that Darwinists spin these examples and claim that such behavior fits survival of the fittest, but what they can't do is compare the survival of what would be with what actually is and their models are selected with their biased guesses as to what the numerical model numbers need to be to in their minds show that it is Darwinist behavior. They don't ever prove it really is.
In a theoretical pure survival of the fittest world (Not
what is actually found) it would seem probable that;
1) All species would be predators (larger food supply, able to defend themselves.) Not the actual case in the real world.
2)
3) Plants too poisonous for any species to eat. All plants would be weeds (anyone who has ever gardened or kept a lawn knows that weeds out compete flowers or grass.
Whether the mathematical models of group selection, the instinctive qualities of kin selection, or the trusting attributes of reciprocal altruism, are the prime explanations of the development of this behavior is still largely unknown.