Not true. There are plenty of cases where individuals coexist despite competition, and where they sometimes even cooperate at some times while competing at others. Monkey troops and wolfpacks are great examples. Their social systems have developed as the result of their genes, which do a great job of continuing to produce socially minded monkeys and wolves, and thereby better survive into the future.If two organisms exist in the same place, the competition for one to out survive the other invariably exists from the outset. And the winner never worries about the loser.
Richard Dawkins sometimes takes unnecssary potshots at religion in the midst of his biological writing. Nonetheless, his The Selfish Gene remains a great introduction to how altruism and social relations can evolve.
And again, the same point applies. Sometimes it's in an organism's biological interest for another organism to do well. Consider the relations between fig trees and fig wasps. It's pretty clear how symbiosis could begin to evolve in such a relationship, and how it could get refined, and how some organisms would take advantage of the partnership, including even the figs and wasps at times. It's an extraordinary interaction, and you should look into it.In the same way when two animals occupy the same ecosystem, according to your religion of natural selection one animal will evolve the needed changes to survive without ever worrying about or caring about the animal which shared its ecosystem but failed to evolve the needed traits to survive the environmental pressures they both faced.
I feel it necessary to ask, although it may sound rude: Have you ever read what evolutionary biologists actually say about how symbiotic relationships evolve? I mean, please forgive me, but you don't give the impression of someone who's well-versed in the topic he's criticizing.There is nothing at all harmonious or symbiotic about what evolution describes as the process that occurs in reality in the animal kingdom.
Actually, it has in the last few decades become very clear that evolutionary change can occur quite rapidly at times, and go through long periods of relative stasis as well. Again, you don't seem well-versed.And neither does it realistically deal with the changes we do observe in the natural world. What I mean by that is this, just look at how many millions of years your bogus science says it takes for true and real changes to take place in species, yet look at how drastically the worlds weather and complete environment has changed over just the past 10,000 years.
Actually, this doesn't follow in the first place. It could well have been the case that the ice age was slow to develop!When it suits your debate your side will refer to the Great Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago, but you never stop to consider the animals that never would have survived the onset of that Ice Age according to the incredibly slow process of natural selection under real world conditions.
But in point of fact, it probably occurred relatively rapidly -- in which case, see what I pointed out in the previous comment.
With all due respect, you don't give the impression of someone who has spent any time studying the subject at all.Based on what you have said so far, you are one of those people who don't understand biology.
I won't speak for others, but I have no doubt that there's much in biology that you can understand without evolution. But there's even more that you can't.And you are typically arrogant to assume that just because one doesn't accept the philosophy of biological evolution that I don't understand it.
Here's a puzzler for you: Why does an antibiotic that ordinarily affects bacteria also kill the malaria parasite?... Look into it.
If you want to say "because God wanted it that way," note two things. First, this is a theological rather than scientific explanation. Second, it doesn't actually explain things: then we should ask why God would want it that way; and with all due respect, that seems pretty inscrutable to me.... But perhaps after looking into it, you can explain it to me.
Insofar as human beings are finite and limited, I don't believe that any of us -- including myself, and including you -- has access to "absolute truth." That sort of unconditional access to the way things are is beyond our powers.You have just shown that you have no absolute moral center at all and what's more, you are clueless as to the existence of absolute truth.
I would think that this sort of view would be quite compatible with theism. We're not God, after all.
But it seems to me that theists are actually more likely to make claims to such perfect knowledge. And thus, it also seems to me that it is not theists' opponents who are theologically and philosophically arrogant....
Hey, you are the one claiming to have access to "absolute truth." So if anyone is playing God, I'd say it ain't your opponent!You actually believe that you are qualified to be an honest and objective arbiter of right and wrong and good and evil in life. This is your first and most serious self delusion because it sets you up for a lifetime of thinking you are qualified to be your own god. That is not only delusional, it is blasphemous and puts you at odds with your Creator who made you in love for fellowship.
But you have it? I don't think so, O imperfect one.Sure you adjust your thinking based on feelings and emotions and what feels right at the time. But you have no firm understanding of what is actually right and wrong according to a perfect and holy judge, in life.
Please. You do this repeatedly to your atheistic opponent, and that's okay, but when somebody does the same to you, you cry foul?Again with the arrogance as you attempt to define what my outlook on life is as a believer, and you insult me with your perspective no less.
Hypocrisy, pure and simple. If you don't want people to define your outlook, maybe you shouldn't define theirs. Golden Rule, and all that.
What's scary is that you think this is knowledge, rather than an unprovable belief. If you merely said, "here's what I believe about the world beyond nature, including the afterlife," there would be no problem. But religious conservatives try to impose worldly laws based on their unprovable beliefs about extraworldly things upon people who don't share them. And that is extremely scary.What makes you think believers don't enjoy our lives here and now? And why do you think I consider life here to be one of suffering? Is it beyond you to appreciate that we finally know who we are and why we exist? We fellowship with our Creator whom we now know created us specifically for fellowship. How you can see that knowledge in us as a scary thing or something that causes us not to enjoy and embrace our lives just reveals how ignorant you are of the spiritual realities we have been blessed enough to learn.
But the place to find truths about nature is not "within yourself!" The world is out there, not in here!This paragraph makes me so sad for you and it drives home the point that it is you who is living a miserable existence and a truly scary one also since you have absolutely no idea who you are and no idea what follows this life. My advice to you is to seek the absolute and eternal truth NOW while in this life. And place no limitations on where that journey takes you; just insist within yourself that you seek absolute love and truth according to the maker of all that is if He/She in fact exists at all.
The path to God and tranquility may well lie within. But the path to knowledge of nature requires looking elsewhere.