[Aquinasfan]

Under evolutionary theory, the creatures or species that survive the battle for survival are superior to those that do not.

Wrong.

Then under evolutionary theory it is neither better or worse for a species to survive?

The creatures that survive are simply the creatures that are best adapted for an environment.

OK, "creatures that survive" are "better adapted" than other creatures. In other words, they are superior to other creatures in their adaptation.

Had the enfironment been different, a different species might have survived and the current "superior" species might have died out.

There is no futurabilia in the deterministic universe of evolutionary theory. Everything must occur the way that it does. The species that survives must be better adapted than the species that don't survive. Period.

Superiority only goes as far as the environmental factors. It's all relative.

The species that survives is superior. This isn't a relativistic statement, it is a definition at the core of evolutionary theory.

"Superior" only in that they survived, which is a tautology.

No, this is a very particular definition. "Superior" in this case (evolutionary theory) refers to creatures who survive. The term in everyday language is used much more broadly.

Therefore, those who practice genocide are superior to those who are victims of it.

Not if those who practice genocide find themselves getting executed for their crimes.

Before their execution, they are superior. After their execution, they aren't superior. So survival superiority is dependent upon chronology. In fact, survival superiority is so dependent upon time that it is meaningless, except in cases of complete extinction of a species. And then, who's to say that, under evolutionary theory, that the extinct species will not arise again?

And again, this only defines superiorty through those who survive. Genetics doesn't even play into it...

How does genetics "play into it"?

...you just kill a group of people and call yourself "superior" simply because you didn't end up dead. That's not evolution, that's just mass-murder.

Lions wipe out a species of deer and this is called evolution. One race of people wipes out another race of people and this is called "mass-murder." Yet people are also supposed to have evolved, just like deer and lions. This is a contradiction.

[Dimensio]

Then under evolutionary theory it is neither better or worse for a species to survive?

Correct! I've said this before! Evolution does not assign moral value. Evolution does not care whether species thrive or face extinction. It's just a descriptor for a process!

Does an explanation of how rain occurs state whether it is good or bad for you to get wet? Does it state whether flooding is a good or a bad thing? Does it state whether it's good or bad for crops to dry out and die during a drought?

OK, "creatures that survive" are "better adapted" than other creatures. In other words, they are superior to other creatures in their adaptation.

Yes, but only for their given environment. Change the environmental factors and you can drastically change which species are "superior" and which ones are history.

There is no futurabilia in the deterministic universe of evolutionary theory. Everything must occur the way that it does. The species that survives must be better adapted than the species that don't survive. Period.

1) Evolution does not postulate a deterministic universe.

2) The species that survives does so because it is able to survive in its given environment. This is typically because it has physical traits that give it an advantage in finding food and reproducing. But this only works so long as the environment remains favourable to their physical makeup. Environments can change, and when they change, the species that were well-adapted for the previous environment might not be so fortunate in the new one. Stop introducing the absolute concept of a "perfect" species. Evolution speaks of no such thing. Sharks do quite well in the ocean, and chimpanzees do quite well in trees. They are thus well adapted for their environments, but neither would survive at all in the other's environment. Given that fact, you cannot say that one is "better" than the other from the standpoint of evolution.

The species that survives is superior. This isn't a relativistic statement, it is a definition at the core of evolutionary theory.

It is relativistic. I think that I've explained this clearly enough that your refusal to accept it without even attempting to explain why you dismiss it is bordering on dishonesty.

The species that survives is "superior" for a given environment. Change the environment, and they might not be as able to survive. Sharks are the 'king' of the oceans. In an oceanic environment, chimpanzees would die out. Are sharks therefore superior to chimpanzees? What happens if you put sharks in the environment of the chimpanzee? How can it make sense that two species would have different comparable survival rates in different environments if you already defined one of them as "superior" to the other?

No, this is a very particular definition. "Superior" in this case (evolutionary theory) refers to creatures who survive.

It refers to creatures who survive in a given environment. There are multiple, wildly varying, types of environments out there. Superiority in one might well be inferiority in another.

Before their execution, they are superior. After their execution, they aren't superior.

Which means that, in the long run, they lose out. That's really all that counts.

So survival superiority is dependent upon chronology.

It's dependent on environmental factors. Environments can change over time. A species that creates a situation that causes the environment to change to their detriment is ultimately not going to survive. Genocidal maniacs tend to work to create an environment where ultimately they are overthrown and executed, therefore genocidal maniacs tend to behave in a fashion that is ultimately detrimental for their survival.

In fact, survival superiority is so dependent upon time that it is meaningless, except in cases of complete extinction of a species. And then, who's to say that, under evolutionary theory, that the extinct species will not arise again?

Evolution theory doesn't say that extinct species will not rise again. Genetics suggests that such things are unlikely, however.

How does genetics "play into it"?

I just said that genetics doesn't play into it.

Lions wipe out a species of deer and this is called evolution.

That's not evolution. That's the removal of a species. For evolution to occur, alelle frequencies must change over time. If the species is wiped out, that won't be happening.

One race of people wipes out another race of people and this is called "mass-murder."

Do you not like this definition?

Yet people are also supposed to have evolved, just like deer and lions. This is a contradiction.

You've not explained how one group of people deliberately wiping out another group of people is evolution. You've also not explained what your ultimate point is.