In fact i do… lots of them.
The trouble is,we cannot post them online in forums because they get automatically flagged as pro Hitler and removed…but you can search for them yourself…they are not difficult to find.
Here are two that might not get removed…
As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice
In a 1928 speech, he said: “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian.”
No theology needed here; it’s a brute fact that the Bible condones slavery. Real, chattel slavery. Even sets a price on slaves, with men going for more than women.
Darwin claims to be doing science. This is not the way that science is done. Science is predictive or not at all. It is not science to say that something happens because it happens.
Natural selection is entirely predictive. We can predict that there will be traits that result in increased reproductive success, and that those traits will become more and more common within a population over time. We can see this both at the morphological and genetic level.
If that is the case, what happened to the dinosaurs, to the mammoths, and to the Neanderthals? If these species thrived at one time, why did they die out at another?
It is unknown why mammoths went extinct. It could be because of predation by humans or quick changes in the environment that didn’t give them enough time to evolve. The Neanderthals were most likely outcompeted by H. sapiens who had evolved traits that gave them an advantage.
They (along with almost every other animal over 20 kg, and a bunch of smaller things) coundn’t make it through the extreme environmental changes from the Chixulub Impact.
“Survival of the fittest” is a catchy phrase but rather inaccurate. In evolution (or for that matter, in everyday observation), the fit enough survive. Another problem is that there are myriad different factors that must be balanced for organisms to survive. A feature that helps fitness in one situation may be irrelevant or even harmful in another situation. So “survival of the fittest” tends to promote misconceptions of some sort of ideal fittest organism and intense competition to reach that point, rather than the reality of there being many strategies to manage well enough to survive and reproduce.
Competition and cooperation both have potential to be effective strategies for evolutionary success. Specifically in the case of humans, very strong and long memories make it very likely that “put the other person down” strategies for self-advancement will backfire eventually and that cooperation is the smarter option. But the balance is complex, if one is solely considering biological success.
Survival of the fittest does not accurately describe evolution because it talks about a struggle within the species fir survival rather than how life forms adapt or fail to adapt the environment.
Survival of the fittest as defined by Darwin, Malthus, and others isa life and death struggle for existence. T. aquatius, you cannot define it as something else without destroying what Darwin said.
Symbiosis is a technical scientific term for situations where plants and animals share the same habitant and work together to increase the amount of resources for all. It can be as simple as plants providing fruit for animals and animals helping to spread seeds for plants. it is also humans helping one another as they grow plants and animals for food for each other. It is not pirates and other criminals.
who survive by robbing others.
Symbiosis is the way nature uses enable plants and animals to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, that is adapt to the many habitants of the world.
Yes, plants make fruit so that animals will eat them and disperse their seeds, but the ecological story does not end there. Because then animals compete with each other over access to that fruit. And the individual that can eat the most fruit and reproduce the most will be the “fittest” in the biological sense. There are not unlimited resources in nature.
Yes. More offspring are produced than can be sustained and successfully reproduce themselves, otherwise we would be moon deep in mice. Whether by competition in combat, adaptation, or cooperation in mutual self interest, acquiring resources necessarily debits the account of fellow creatures whether the same or other species. The inevitable question then becomes who among them, be it by luck, strength, device or cunning, prevails enough to pass on their genes, and how these characteristics aggregate over generations.
The misconceptions have been amplified by drift in the nontechnical meaning of ‘fittest’, from ‘most suited to its situation’ (‘aptest’ would be a good synonym) to ‘most physically robust’.
