You guys are beating your heads against a stone wall. Both because this joker doesn't understand evolutionary theory (survival of the fittest refers to species, not individuals), and because he is so heavily invested in the idea that evolutionary theory is morally repugnant--when, of couse, evolutionary theory has no reference to morality. Even you guys, who understand these things, have taken pages and pages to get to the statement that strength and aggression do not equate with fitness. He's not even listening to you, so saying as much will not sway him.
He's motivated by a bankrupt religious point of view which condemns evolutionary theory, not on a scientific or logical basis, but because it contradicts "revealed truth." He can't even be honest with himself about his objection, and is trying to make claims against evolutionary theory in which he doesn't have to admit that his true objection is that it contradicts scripture. So he portrays it as morally deficient.
@Setanta,
As in the past I was misinterpreted with a "religious" approach on some of this matters hope now you and some other people around can actually see which side I´m with...(independently of some minor conceptual differences)
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
As in the past I was misinterpreted with a "religious" approach on some of this matters hope now you and some other people around can actually see which side I´m with...(independently of some minor conceptual differences)
...(independently of some minor conceptual differences)
which are
