Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
You’re not doing the analytical powers of your namesake proud...
Really? This study doesn’t say what you want it to say here - it looks like the baby is choosing the toy that is least likely to push him back down the slide. Totally in harmony with self interest.
Where do you get that from? If you have two villages of primative humans: one is social and help each other while the other village steal from each other and destroy their work, which is more likely to survive and pass on their genes? One bastard in the nice village might get a boost, but if you have too many the total chance of surviving and passing on their genes is greatly reduced.
STRAW MAN
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
EXAMPLE: "This type of behavior is at odds with the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fitest (sic). The evolutionists would have us believe that "every man for himself" is the guiding principle of human self-interest"
The study undercuts one of the central premises of Singer’s “Animal Liberation,” that babies should have no rights above animals because babies have no ability to make judgments.
Animals know right from wrong. They know when they are encroaching on your space and taking YOUR food. Whether it is a dog begging for a handout or a bird trying to steal a bit of lunch off your plate.
And animals seek revenge. Attack the young of one species and expect the pack to possibly come after you even once the young animal is safe.
Funny you should bring this up. I could be wrong, but in essence are not Evolutionists typically left leaning. If not then my premise is all wrong. I have not met an Evolutionist who is right leaning so I have this to posit.
Survival of the fittest is basically a tenet of republicanism. By this I mean, we are given the opportunity to excel by ourselves without infringement. Opportunity knocks and we either take it or don’t. My question is this. Does anyone find the relationship between liberlism and Evolution a strange dichontomy of philosohpy.
There's another study showing that they prefer attractive people over unattractive ones.
The test I would like to see is which would the baby perfer to listen to, Rush or Alan Colmes.
Perhaps some dicersity training for infants is required?
This study is a sham, a fabrication, another just-so story to justify Hillary’s “child liberation” and leftist Rousseauian nonsense.
No no no, altruism factors into the survival fitness of each individual and the species as a whole. Symbiotic relationships can be evolved as well as predatory ones.
Oh, the "every man for himself" anthropology is more Classical Liberal than Darwinian, though Darwinism in some ways presumed and provided some pseudoscientific support for such a view. Some conservatives even think classical liberalism is a good thing.
Aristotelians should endeavor to rescue teleological and formalistic understandings of nature from the reductive tendencies of modern science and modern liberalism. They shouldn't make silly objections to Darwinism.
Wow! What a spin in favor of your agenda. It didn’t even dawn on me to look at it that way until I saw your comments. But now that you force me, it seems more likely that these findings point towards natural selection rather than intelligent design.
But then again, I don’t have an agenda.