They are misrepresenting the concept of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Saying that one person is competing against another for survival is not the same as a group of the species being able to compete better in a natural environment because of having a similar genetic change and that groups lineage being able to survive and out last the rest of the species without that genetic change.
Natural selection happens over long periods of time. Not over one lifetime.
as Stephen as already said. they're misunderstanding natural selection.
what difference would it make if you were small and skinny and they were two big rugby players.
natural selection has instilled in us an urge for companionship and acceptance. we're social animals. we make connections with others. we create and build relationships.
natural selection has given us this urge because it helps create bonds and these bonds help ensure cooperation and group cohesion.
natural selection (if it could care in the sense of you or i caring) couldn't care less if someone is small and skinny as opposed to tall and broad shouldered when it comes to making friends.
Alright awesome, thank you both for the quick replies. I think I understood that at some level, but just couldn't articulate it quite like that. thanks!
Just tell them: "you're the muscle, I'm the brains."
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: “What a bunch of maroons!”
I agree with both of u, and I add that natural selection can't be applied that way in nowadays society. Small n skinny is irrelevant for survival now and big rugby players are not the fittest. Furthermore survival of the fittest doesn't explain much of our society maybe because as a kind we're the fittest.
Anyway, our relationships are explainded by other factors rather than survival, i think we're far beyond that.
drunk posting??? lol, nice!
I agree with Stephen and Nelson and would also like to add that survival of the fittest really has a hard time finding a hold in our modern society. As a society we've become tuned to helping the weakest and letting everyone thrive (In terms of economics, this is very clearly not present anymore, at least in the US). We have become a species less about letting the weak fall off with the strongest prospering, and more a species of everyone has something to offer. The most intellectually brilliant people I encounter are often physically far from the best (Be it skinny, weak, overweight, ill or handicapped) and yet without them our societies technological advances would be far slower and would probably not be to the level we are at currently. I kinda started rambling so I hope its meaning stayed clear. Cheers and I hope this helps
@TJ Your understanding of the meaning “Survival of the fittest” is incorrect. Many people who have not studied the basics of Evolution assume that “Fittest” means the “Strongest”. The most apt traits or best mutations to help the organism survive in its current environment are seen as the “fittest” and are passed on so that the next generation can reproduce. That is the aim of Evolution. It has no long term objectives. We should use the term “Natural Selection” instead.
Here is an interesting bit from Wikipedia
Conflation of "Survival of the fittest" and morality
Critics of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak. However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also suggested that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, even though in some cases of good social behaviour — cooperating with others and treating them well — might improve evolutionary fitness. This however does not resolve the is-ought problem.
It has also been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to "social Darwinism" which allegedly glorified laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support, while commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger mythology. The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944
Wow, what a back handed dig: 'We're so Christian that we've condescended to be friends with you. You, the puny guy, whose wimpy little mind, so beset by exotic theories, doesn't realize his world view lands him on the lowest rung of the social ladder. Poor thing. Well, friend, we're here to Chrisplain* it to you, so you can see just how great we and our religion are. If you want to be redeemed, like us, don't (just) worship us...bow down to our God.'
Even if they didn't realize how insulting their comment could be, you deserve smarter friends.
*magical christian explanation