It is not necessary for a species or organisms sole goal to be passing genes in order for that passing to take place. The fact that the passing of genes does take place does not mean that it is their sole goal. With this kind of reasoning, it could be argued that any biological function that has some part in survival of the self or the species is the sole goal of an organism. To even assume that there is but one singular goal for all organisms in existence is extremely oversimplified.
There is nothing in your argument that compels me to believe that the ONE AND ONLY SOLE GOAL of all organisms in existence is to pass on genes. All organisms pass on genes, yes, however why does that mean it has to be their sole goal? Badgoalie destroyed that blanket statement with the very valid assertion that that is indeed not his goal, and that passing on his genes can even be contradictory to his goal (to be happy). Because badgoalie is an organism, the fact that it is not his goal to pass on genes contradicts your statement that it's every organism in existence's sole goal to pass on genes rendering it false. There is also the existence of symbiotic relationships within the "animal kingdom." Thus falsifying the conclusion you drew in regards to cooperation.
Logically, your argument falls flat on it's face. It is simply your arbitrary attribution of a reason to a behavior. It cannot even be argued that single celled organisms have goals, as goals are desired results and single-celled organisms do not have the supporting biological faculties for such a desire. It could however be argued that their sole purpose is to pass on their genes, purpose being determined by their biological makeup. That they have drives derived from this biological, and that this promotes various behaviors. Your use of the term goal was a stupid move.
Anyways, whatever tickles your fancy. I don't think it's a loss if you believe your sole goal in life is to fuck and die. Carry on. Hopefully your close-minded arrogance doesn't make it into the next generation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tedkennedy
its just frustrating when i spent the time to type out something that is basically widely accepted as factual and people try to criticize it as if they know what they are talking about. in the context of what i was speaking i was entirely correct, and then people who dont even try to understand what i am explaining try pick out one sentence and then take it out of context and try to argue it for absolutely no reason, and they offer absolutely no evidence or ideas to support their opinion. i personally dont care if you know something or not, at least be respectful about your opinion and other peoples views.
|
I didn't offer an opinion. I inquired about yours. Wrong again. Also, you were in no way respectful in your treatment of my views and I had done nothing to warrant that. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.
I don't think you should be talking about people's intelligence, ted. Sorry to tell ya.