[steve-b]

We can speculate all we want about whether or not altruism is consistent with Darwinian evolution.

This is equivalent to "speculating" about whether or not two plus two equals four.

It is obvious on the face of it that creatures that effectively defend groups that include their relatives will propagate their genes into future generations more effectively than those that don't, all else being equal.

[metmom]

So that's why in the wild male animals like lions kill the young of their competitor when they run off the male and take over a pride?

[Elsie]

(It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)

LOL!!

As soon as I get hit, I'll buy a Lottery ticket!

[RussP]

I wrote:

We can speculate all we want about whether or not altruism is consistent with Darwinian evolution.

steve-b replied:

This is equivalent to "speculating" about whether or not two plus two equals four.

It is obvious on the face of it that creatures that effectively defend groups that include their relatives will propagate their genes into future generations more effectively than those that don't, all else being equal.

I reply:

When a fireman with no siblings and no children risks his life to save a stranger, he is taking the chance of letting his own genes die off. Yes, he is helping the survival of humanity in general, but last I heard humanity in general is not yet in danger of extinction (and if it were, I doubt the life saved from the fire would make a difference).

So altruism is not as obviously consistent with Darwinian evolution as you seem to think it is. Like so many evolutionists, you have allowed yourself to be fooled into letting superficial plausibility harden into "fact" because it is consistent with your belief system.