Humans will prefer their mixed race child over their siblings pure bred child. Humans will prefer those that they share a future with over those they had a past with.
Here’s a question to ask atheists: “Does evolution require preferring genetic similarity, i.e. your own kids over other kids?” “Yes.” “Then wouldn’t human races evolve to prefer their own race at the expense of other races?” “Uhhh...”https://twitter.com/CrouchingCynic/status/1174936613354258437 …
-
-
-
Pass the bong.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No. Mutual well being is an agreement of survival over mutual assured destruction.
-
Only if there are enough resources. And usualy the perception is that there are not.
-
That is exactly the tipping point between civilization and desperation. So long as government can persuade, or give the appearance of available resources, people will compete fairly. How long can they manufacture security??
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve also wondered how they view survival of the fittest in human terms. How stronger and more advanced cultures and civilizations invaded in a time when it was law of conquest. Surely, that is a form of ‘survival of the fittest’ - why is that something to be ashamed of?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Or is my view a little simplistic...
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Survival of the fittest means the survival of the one that fits best in its environment. This does not really have anything to do with territorial fights.
-
As far as I understand, it’s those with the best traits to reproduce them to their offspring. Which is why only the strongest lion in the pride will mate and so on. Lions also kill off the weaker gazelle allowing only the faster and stronger to reproduce.
-
And it is indeed territorial. A pride of lions will move in and push out other hunters such as leopards.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Atheism doesn’t imply determinism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The answer to the 1st is: No. Evolution is a movement from A to B. That movement doesn't require in group preferences, it could be accelerated or slowed by this. The answer to the 2nd question is: Probably, because there is likely a benefit to having this trait (group comradery)
-
Life forms that don't display kin selection go extinct. The answer to a Is yes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Humans evolved to prefer "us" vs "them." The us can be arbitrary though. Us can be all cowboys fans vs them all redskins fans. Even if those Cowboys fans are of different races, thats the us. Cant remember what book this is comin from. Maybe How the mind works, or Behave.
-
Seems like common sense. I got more in common culturally with a black/latino American today than with my great grandfather
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Here's a question for Stefan: "When are you going to include your rejuvenated love of science/evolution into your abortion arguments?" Prediction: never
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Of course, we prioritize those closest to us, close family, friends, town, country, and yes, race.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Not just races, tribes. The basic unit of populations is family & the tribe is an extension of the family. For most of human history we waged war against other tribes that often looked much like our own but they were *not* our own, they were competitors which made them enemies.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.