dajoga #fundie

dajoga #fundie libertydwells.com

Since atheists believe evolution which basically is "survival of the fittest" then why do they bring their kids to the hospital if they get seriously ill? Why not do as all other living species do...let them die? Wouldn't that help eradicate some of our diseases that are in the gene pool?

Also, if life spontaneously came into existence, why is there death? Why will a person die even if they receive the best of care, best of nutritious food, and diligently do everything possible to live as healthy as possible?

44 comments

old comment by ScrappyB

First of all, not all other living species let their offspring or social group members die. Caring for sick or injured members isn't exactly unknown among animals that live in cooperative social groups.

Secondly, there are groups of religious fundies who let their own children die because "Gawd will heal them" but somehow Gawd doesn't come through.

Death from old age serves the purpose of freeing up resources for the younger generation rather than wasting them on organisms that have already spread their genes and are past their prime. I think that's a better answer than "Gawd had a temper tantrum and cursed everyone because he's a giant cosmic asshole," don't you?

old comment by Knock-A-Dish

From an evolutionary point of view, parents care for their children because they share their genes.

Since it requires a very significant investment on the mother's part to carry a child to term, in almost all cases caring for the child is more efficient than letting it die and getting a new one.

Hence, such behavior would be selected for evolutionarily in humans. This takes the form of parental love: parents who get attached to children are more likely to take care of them; ergo, parental love would be selected for. This is true since humans who give less care to their children would tend to leave fewer offspring.

You could imagine that this would be a fairly strong selection. Hence, in extreme conditions that were evolutionarily rare, this strong emotion can become illogical. That's why it makes sense that a parent continues caring for a dying child, even when it no longer can serve its purpose of passing on the parent's genes.

This behavior does break down at times. If you look at mice, for example, mothers do indeed care for their pinkies under both conditions of plenty and that of (some) strife.

However, as you reduce the mother's nutrition intake, there comes to be a "breaking point" where the mother eats and reabsorbs the pinkie (in a sense, taking back some of the resources it invested in it). From an evolutionary point of view, this is because the mother stands a better chance of passing its genes on if one of the two survives, and pinkies don't stand much of a chance on their own.

This actually applies to humans, too, but I sadly can't find the research on it.

(continued...)

old comment by Knock-A-Dish

As for life and death, I can't seem to figure out the connection dajoga is trying to make there. Cloning seems to support the idea that death from old age comes from degeneration of DNA, which can lead to cancer and lack of gene expression.

Honestly, I believe that cancer will one day be cured, given the amount of progress scientists have made in understanding it. Other causes of death may or may not be, given that they seem integral to life as we know it. It may be as simple as finding a gene or two - there are current studies on nearly identical rockfish species, one of which lives over a century and one of which lives in the single digits. Of course, changing this is not necessarily a good thing - a lack of death would wreak havoc with a society based around leaving offspring.

On the other hand, most people aren't crazy about dying, so there's that.

old comment by Tempus

Since atheists believe evolution which basically is "survival of the fittest" then why do they bring their kids to the hospital if they get seriously ill?

Because of empathy, which which was selected for as a group survival trait. We can cure or repair the majority of illnesses and injuries children endure. Many of the ones that can't be cured can at least be compensated for.

And what you describe has been practiced. The majority of cultures who did were anything BUT atheist. And while in the majority of Christianized countries infanticide was treated as a particularly heinous variety of homicide, abandonment of unwanted children was particularly common, and in many places, widespread infanticide of unwanted children still quietly took place.

Wouldn't that help eradicate some of our diseases that are in the gene pool?

Possibly. But since genetic engineering shows great promise in eradicating the same diseases, that's what we're going with. Science works, bitches.

Also, if life spontaneously came into existence, why is there death?

Three possible answers for this:

(1) Because, if most organisms didn't die, eventually all resources needed by living would be tied up exclusively inside of living things.

(2) Because entropy causes damage to pile up faster than it can be repaired. Organisms wear out just like machines do.

(3)Who says every organism dies? Many living organisms clone themselves over and over. Some plants endless grow new individuals from their roots. Many, MANY organisms simply divide--and when it's done, which is the original and which is the offspring?

old comment by Mech610

"Wouldn't that help eradicate some of our diseases that are in the gene pool?"

1. Diseases don't typically attach themselves to genes in the way you seem to be implying. True, some genes give people predispositions to certain diseases, but those are typically not the kind where a child just falls suddenly and seriously ill, there are typically warning signs. Though genetic diseases tend to be worse overall.

2. Humans have spent 150,000 years trying to remove ourselves from the 'survival of the fittest' equation. We have worked very hard to control every aspect of our environment, this includes disease.

Humans are social animals, like wolves or elephants or other apes. We evolved to rely on the survival and strength of the group in order to survive ourselves. Additionally, 'survival of the fittest' does not mean the survival of the fittest individual, it means the survival of the fittest population. This means the group best able to adapt to their surroundings and that includes managing things like disease.

"Also, if life spontaneously came into existence, why is there death?"

If the aardvark likes to read, why is there candy?

But in all seriousness, biological lifeforms, are, in essence machines. Extremely complex and naturally occurring machines, but machines nonetheless. Considering this, machine parts eventually stop working, that's what happens over time. The same goes for biological systems. Eventually, those systems break down and cannot be repaired. The most common way that happens is sheer age. That said, if there WASN'T death, that would be a point more in creationism's favor than in evolution's, because I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve weren't susceptible to death until after they were banished from the Garden of Eden.

old comment by

Not only does dajoga not understand evolution, but they also fail to realize that since atheism is merely the lack of a belief system and not a rival set of beliefs to religions, one could be an atheist and refuse to accept the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, or be more right-wing. The thing is, any sort of ideals that bring atheists together (such as say, the human rights movement) are supported by those people because they see it as something they want to be a part of, rather than the religious way of folowing certain ideals (anti-abortion, theocratical laws, ect.) because your religious group supports them. This makes non-religious people a very diverse group, an "Other" category of sorts.

dajoga #fundie libertydwells.com

44 comments

Confused?