Thread: Here's some easy money

Originally Posted by Ditch

Riddle me this, if survival is the end of evolution, why does man alone, if not in very few numbers, have the initiative to sacrifice them self for the one that they love?

It could be argued that the study of evolution is about the survival of a species, not of an individual.

An individual could break its leg and compromise survival. Assuming there wasn't some genetic predisposition that would make the integrity of the legs unsuitable for the environment, then there's no reason to assume such an accident (or sacrifice of a member) would compromise the survival of the species.

This trait alone seems to belong to the human species, does it not? Sure, at some primitive level, an ape may stand against insurmountable odds to defend his mate while she escapes, but the ultimate meaning of true, knowing sacrifice of oneself, is truly a human emotion, don't you think?

It's not just apes. Many animals will defend their young. Or will defend the "pack" or group. Even to the death.

The difference is not that we will sacrifice ourselves and animals won't. The difference is that we are conscious of it on a more profound level.

It does run contrary to the regeneration of the species, don't ya think? There is a separation, and it is love.

How so? Genocidal sacrifice would run counter-intuitive to the regeneration of the species, and so far as I know, mankind is the only animal that is consciously that dumb. Thankfully, our sheer numbers make it hard for our stupidity to overcome.

But individual sacrifice is not against the notion of evolution, especially if it allows the gene pool to survive and thrive through the remaining members. And it happens all the time in the animal kingdom.

Originally Posted by Zuiun

It could be argued that the study of evolution is about the survival of a species, not of an individual.

I don't know how/why it is so many hold this view of evolution. I never understood this to be what the theory taught and yet I still see so many comments claiming that evolution is about the survival of species. I always understood the "selection process" (if it can be called that), to happen at the level of individual genetic elements and not at the level of species. My genes do not achieve greater presence in the gene pool by my death and my genes, of course, do not care about you and yours.

Originally Posted by Patrick

I don't know how/why it is so many hold this view of evolution. I never understood this to be what the theory taught and yet I still see so many comments claiming that evolution is about the survival of species. I always understood the "selection process" (if it can be called that), to happen at the level of individual genetic elements and not at the level of species. My genes do not achieve greater presence in the gene pool by my death and my genes, of course, do not care about you and yours.

Don't get me wrong. Individual survival is also a pretty big deal. As is the drive to pass along genes. However, if we're talking about the sacrifice of an individual in order to protect the greater whole (offspring, pack, etc.), then I'd maintain that such a thing isn't swimming against evolution in the grand scheme of things. Especially if said "sacrificial lamb" had already created offspring.

This would make a great comedy sketch.