Well here we go again with Darwin's theory - brilliant but as yet unproven - being pulled out and misused as an apologetic for the worst of human behaviours. I think whenever there seems a dilemma at the 'top', like the current fiscal crisis, that this theory gets aired again (tellingly, in this case by a site on economics) to justify the dominance of certain groups.

There is so much wrong with the way the theory is presented here that I don't think we have enough posting space to go over it all, however, here are just a few thoughts.

1. The words often quoted are, "survival of the fittest". Darwin meant by that - fitted to a given environment. He didn't mean 'fit' as in necessarily strong and aggressive; but fit as in 'suited'; 'adaptable'. It may well be that the meekest amongst us are the best adapted to a given environment. In any case, the environment to which the 'winners' have adapted is one that we have created. It's artifical. Should this artifical environment collapse then the aggressive business exec. who is dependent on air con; Armani; IT services; prozac and fine wine, might well find it very tough going to survive.

2. There are many things that the vast majority of people do not do in order to compete. They still survive and reproduce - and relatively few, at least in Western countries, resort to rape and pillage.

3. Rape has next to nothing to do with reproduction or even with sex per se. Many rapists can't get an erection and instead use objects. Many can't ejaculate. Many already have wives and girlfriends and children. Something like one in six rape victims (some studies have even estimated one in four) is male. Many rape victims are children and older women well past child bearing age. Many rape victims are bashed or killed; in any case they are rarely in a fit state to nurture a baby that results from such an event. Rape does not, therefore, contribute to perpetuation of the species.

cont'd

4. Aggression and violence is not a necessary given to masculinity. The vast majority of men are not unduly aggressive and of those who are, a much smaller number of women can match them. Studies have shown repeatedly that there is much more difference between individuals within each group than between the sexes, in areas such as aggression; intelligence and sexuality.

5. Aggression and sex in males has much less to do with testosterone than with other more complex factors. For example, studies have shown that aggression is more closely associated with obesity and cholesterol than with testosterone. In any case, as one researcher points out, the majority of men who are non-aggressive have as much testosterone as men who are aggressive.

http://www.med.mcgill.ca/mjm/v06n01/v06p032/v06p032.pdf

http://men.webmd.com/news/20031111/dont-blame-testosterone-for-aggression

6. Reading some of the comments included with the article, I see that some clod has suggested that people might stop being so discontented with their lot if they just accept that we are 'programmed' to achieve at different levels in the pecking order.
If it's the case that, for example, women are pre-programmed to subservience, then one wonders why laws been devised to prevent their participation in voting; education and in many fields of work and why many men work so hard to keep them in their lowly place.

7. As to reproduction and survival, it might be noted that fertility in men naturally declines from somewhere in the 20s onward. It is also a fact that fertility amongst Western white males has been declining for decades. While many explanations are worth considering, including stress, diet, repeated STDs and environmental conditions - one wonders why it doesn't apply to all men everywhere. It may well be that the aggressive, winner gets all sort of nonsense is detrimental to the species and those attributes are being selected OUT.

cont'd

cont'd

8. Using Darwin's theory in the sense that it's used in the article; it would actually make more sense for women, rather than men, to be promiscuous. As a receptecle for sperm from several contributors, the most vigorous and therefore healthy sperm would be that which would succeed in fertilization. I am not btw proposing promiscuity for either sex as desirable, I am just pointing out how the theory could be interpreted and how the conclusions that are regularly drawn from it are fundamentally contestable. If we're going to be likening humans to creatures, then we might as well go the whole hog. A writer/researcher by the name of Stephen Rose writes beautifully about the limitations and pitfalls of relying on this sort of reductionist science to explain (excuse) certain behaviours.

9. As Polycarp has pointed out so well, the theory does not explain the richness of humanity, nor does it explain how humans distinguish between evil and good. I think Eddie Izzard puts it well in his skit 'evil giraffe':

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WYcnEonB04E

The thread is starting to show us some people are not what they should be.
An outcome not unexpected from the first post.
In fact the Christian defense is just another proof of why we are what we are.
Throwing doubt on Darwin's theory? no but highlighting the fact truth and common since are not going to shift some from following fairy tales.

Dear Yabby... leave religion out of it ? :)...aarggggh.. no way hosay...

NATURAL SELECTION/DARWINIANISM/EVOLUTION ANSWERS....

why we are 'natually' like we are....and all you say is pretty much true.. territoriality, aggression.. sex drives etc....

RELIGION (as in Christianity)

Answers how we can overcome our natural-ness and become new creatures on the inside.

PSYCHOLOGY/SCIENCE of behavior....

One problem with the natural human condition is 'motivation'.
Our motives will be controlled by those things we regard as most important in life no?

If we see life only as some kind of huge playing field and struggle to win.. why yes of course we will manifest all those traits like:
-Loving, supporting, encouraging 'our' side.
-Terrorising, fighting, competing with "the enemy"....

I see no benefit of 'mutual altruism' between one competing footy team and the opposing side. Mutuality of such things would be limited to your own side....just like chimps.

SOLVING THE MIDDLE EAST.... "huh" you say ? what the HECK has that got to do with this thread? aaaaah.. much more than you think....

If we are 'what' we are in a purely natural/evolutionary/chimp like way... then none of us who believe this should ever be offering solutions to the ME problems :) because.. they are just 'doing their natural thing'.....

That's were the inherrent contradictions arise... we admit we are driven by natural urges, yet we then try to solve problems for others which are based on those drives we say we all have.

I suppose it might be argued that trying to solve their problems could benefit us indirectly.. ok fine..but let's not try to solve their problem philosophically.. when the obvious 'natural' way is the missile and the tank :)

Evolution is more than a scant theory.How is it possible for Chimps and people to share 98% of their genes and not evolve from a common ancestor?Our religious folk are trying to deny reality.For two species to evolve separately and share most of their genes is way beyond the realm of chance and the laws of probability.To deny the highly probable theory of evolution is to lack understanding of science.Science unlike religion,does not tolerate reasoning based on faith.It is a strict discipline that does not accept margin for error when establishing laws,hence there are few in science.

Religion is just an expression of our aspirational self,while science deals with reality.In the realm of your personal survival which philosophy would you trust?

The new testament was written by man 300 yrs after the death of Christ.There were numerous apostles and it was King Constantine of Rome who really began the first Christian Church.He united all these variations of Christ followers.

We have to evolve better philosophies to cater for the realities we face,otherwise the religions will become even more irrelevant in our lives.Denying the existence of evolution is akin to denying the work of your perceived creator.Too much of religous logic is dangerous double think.