There is no "Darwin's law of natural selection." Darwin's contribution is one book written over 150 years ago. The science of evolution has moved on since then. There is an enormous and complex body of work on the many forms of evolution discovered since the publication of On the Origin of Species.

Some of the findings in that body of work point to the possibility that our capacity to support the weakest among us is an enormous evolutionary advantage. I read the studies years ago and don't have the names handy, but maybe someone reading this will know what I'm talking about and have a reference.

The tl;dr is: evolution is a lot more complex than Darwin could have understood in his own time. Here's a good place to start: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Types_of_evolution

Items on RationalWiki are often very snarky, but rarely inaccurate.

Oh hey, here is a law of natural selection. I haven't read his work in a long time.

But the point still stands. A law in science is an observation, not a regulation. New things have been observed in the last 150 years. Classic laws are simplistic observations that are only useful in contexts where the complexities of our more detailed understanding (like quantum physics) are overkill.

I may have found something related to what I was talking about: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Epigenetics makes a mess out of any attempt to make evolution simple.

That is an interesting article- The idea that the way one lives today will affect what natural abilities one's children will have. Then, naturally, the way your parents lived affected what natural abilities you have. Sounds like Darwin's theory to me.
If people eat wrong (and have a natural propensity to put on weight), chances are their kids will be fat also. Is it too much of a stretch, to believe that people who have a tendency to fall into holes, if saved, would have children who tend to fall into holes?

Social darwinism relies on the faulty belief that people who make the occasional bad choice contribute nothing else to the progress of civilization. Scientists, engineers, and doctors occasionally do dumb things too.

I'd rather discourage their self-destructive behaviors and gain the social value of their skills, and encourage the spread of the genes and environments that led to them becoming scientists, engineers, and doctors.

Social darwinism throws the good out with the bad.

That's nonsense. The universe is exceedingly complex. We can simplify it for use in every day life, but those simplifications are dangerous when we try to apply them to the real difficulties in deciding how to run our civilization.

The introduction of anything "Charles Darwin" to attempt to respond to the editors question is totally counter productive. And then seeing Darwin (Natural Selection) and Breeding (Unnatural Selection) used in the same paragraph is absurd.

The amalgam of fields and particles you call mankind is not simple at all. It's the belief that mankind is simple that leads to naive and counterproductive policy.

I believe the idea the idea that man is not simple leads to naive and counterproductive policy.

Makes sense to me!!!! LOL!!!

So how do these fines being levied against distracted smartphone users affect you? Based on your comment I'd like to think that you'd be for these fines, that is the responsible approach to addressing the increase in emergency room cases as a result of smartphone use. That number is only going to go up as the technology affords us more capabilities on our fingertips. Tim, "...just let em get run over..." is a reckless and not well thought through comment.

Edward- If you had a law banning communicating while walking in a public place, who draws the lines on what that constitutes?
Plenty of people trip on curbs every day while chatting with a friend walking next to them,
Do you propose people not be allowed to talk on their cell phones while walking or just limiting it to texting?
How would a cell phone cop know the difference?
When scrolling through your contacts to make a phone call, it can look like texting. Does that mean you get a ticket?
The big problem is, that whenever you make a law, it's like telling a lie. Once you make one, you have to keep making more to cover the first one, make exceptions, add clauses, etc.
As far as being distracted not being directly attributable to "stupidity", I beg to differ. Common sense is a big part of being smart, not just IQ (except of course if you live and work in Academia where common sense and results are not necessarily required).

Racer,
You could grow on people with ideas like this ..

And in comes the spectators who now routinely fall over rails at sporting events ...

Ok folks in blue or related shades, please stop shaking your heads long enough to type a pithy comment here.

There's at least one out there that runs around town as "Street" Samurai, its time to get things REALLY fired up...

For those who might have missed it, this was a general call for participation of officers from the various law enforcement agencies at the Federal, State, County and City levels …

Or "Calling all Coppers!"

@ GGY Not really…
Not by a long shot, because conservatives generally want to retain control and responsibility for their own actions. They realize the best way to REALLY be in a position to actually help the neighbor is to have the resources to do so. Most conservative types understand cause and effect and that risky actions have consequences.

That isn’t blue or red thing, just reality. Take dark side humorous positions because if we didn’t we’d have to cry? Absolutely …

Self sufficiency is one of the causalities of “urban city life” and it’s on display every single day for those with eyes to see. For those who work with machinery, they know most equipment currently has more interlocks than Fort Knox.

So I guess it’s time to pass a law that disables cell phone or mp3 players while the devices are in motion, based on internal GPS processing and Google road maps.

Then pass a law that renders us in violation if we point out the fallacies in actions of or policies of others... Because that’s unfair.

R+ There's always a way to help thy neighbor whether or not you have to pay a few more bucks in taxes. Charity isn't about red or blue, but heart. Lower to middle income people are more likely to donate cash to churches and charities, upper income donate stuff with inflated values to go with their other loopholes, generally speaking, of course.

Conservatives don't have the market cornered on conscience or personal responsibility. If that were the case this old world would be even worse than it is now. Most Americans are in the middle on fiscal and social matters. I think waste is our biggest fiscal drain. Austerity measures won't work but cutting excess will.

Dark side humor shouldn't include human suffering that makes others cry.

To that same end with respect to conscience or personal responsibility, neither do those who claim to care from the "progressive pool" who support government action everywhere by tax - rather than personal involvement.

Writing a check to giverment and saying "Handle it, handle it... simply won't get it.

It's been that way since the temple stood in one piece in Israel, and will most likely stay that way until its rebuilt.

Dark humor?

Well everything can at some point make somebody, somewhere cry...

Key word: balance. This life needs a balanced approach, not one-sided.

No one entity, group or individual can do it all.

Racer, I'm not talking about charity. Also, I specifically stated "on these comment threads."

Red states have Democrats, too, and vice versa. I did say "generally speaking". There are always exceptions. Generally speaking, reds seem to take a harsher stance on the well being and safety of people, as evidenced on these Patch comment threads.

http://thecentristword.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/welfare-teenage-pregnancy-and-obesity-reach-epidemic-levels-in-red-states-is-this-the-gop-blueprint-for-america/

"Of the 32 states that receive more welfare than they contribute, 27 (84%) are Red States
14 out of the 15 states with the highest levels of teenage pregnancy are Red States
The 7 most obese states voted overwhelmingly for McCain in 2008, the 7 least obese, for Obama"

GGY- I was only addressing your statement, "Generally speaking, reds seem to take a harsher stance on the well being and safety of people..."
Charitable giving, both monetarily and time, are, in my estimation, a good yard-stick for telling who cares about others.

I thought we were talking about individuals. My mistake.

GGY- You should research links before you post them as gospel. The above link you posted is majorly flawed. In the data they base this article on, they list 6 states as being Republican (Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia and Florida) when, in fact, according to the Washington Post, they are actually Democrat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/
This completely throws off the misguided data and point of this left-biased article and destroys any credibility it may have had.

Sorry Mr B- It's my ADD kicking in again.

Racer, I didn't post any gospel. I don't believe in preaching to people ;)

That's only one source. There are others. Don't kill the messenger. Check with the Tax Foundation website: "organized as 501(c)3 non-profit educational and research organization. Its website states that journalists should describe it as: "a nonpartisan tax research group",[5] though it has been described as having a "pro-business leaning"[6] and it has ties to various conservative groups."

I was talking about individuals (on Patch) to Racer. My link is in answer to you Mr. B on the givers/takers comment. Don't discount the source because it's not a conservative site.

Clarification: I don't believe in myself preaching to people. I'm good with ordained ministers preaching to people in their churches :D

Understood on the preaching. I was not discounting the site because it is liberal biased. I discounted the site because they are factually far from correct.

Here's an interesting article, touching on "personal responsibiity" regarding finances. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all
"The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year."

If there weren't health and safety laws, mommies would still be holding their infants in their laps while daddies drive. Daddies would still be holding their toddlers in their laps while they drive. Kids would be bouncing all over the car in motion. Pickups would still be rolling down the road with a bed full of kids going to wherever. Drivers would still be swigging their PBRs while driving with their drinking passengers. Smoking would still be done anywhere and everywhere smokers wanted to, probably even in some contemporary churches nowadays. People do whatever they can get away with. It doesn't mean they're stupid. It just means they're practicing their freedoms regardless of the effect on innocents around them. Laws don't stop irresponsible behavior by all, but they do curtail the offenders who fear tickets and fines, sometimes jail time. Make it painful for them, and most will obey the law. Also, saying "enforce the laws already on the books" doesn't take into account that they are being enforced most of the time when the lawbreakers are caught. Law enforcement personnel can't shadow every person, ready to write a ticket or make an arrest. Just knowing one could be caught at anytime is enough for most people, stupid or not. We all have bad days.

It's a wonder we survived.

We did, Mr. B, but many didn't or didn't survive very well.

I assume you can provide a list for me to investigate.

Wow. So all men would be drinking and driving while holding kids in their laps, and women wouldn't be driving at all. Good thing that's not sexist or anything.

So essentially what you said here was that people will only not do things because we make them illegal, not because of any risk to their own lives. Hunh. Sounds like a complete lack of faith in humanity to me.

Ahhh, Mr. B, I knew you were being sarcastic. You also know what I wrote is true - you just don't like being reminded of olden days.

Karsten - that was reality pre-seat belt laws and open container laws. I don't know how old you are, but you can ask your parents or grandparents. It was also a very sexist time, in favor of males, of course.

Karsen, I didn't say women didn't drive. However, they usually didn't drive if their hubby was in the car.

We've come a long way, baby :D

Densely populated areas are where people go to seek employment. Oftentimes when they arrive, there aren't enough jobs to go around, but they may be stuck with no money to go back to the place they left because of no job-no money. Densely populated areas are where people live already because that's where the jobs used to be. Migrating from rural areas and small towns to cities has been happening for decades. Welfare assistance has been in place for decades, too.

And somehow that welfare assistance hasn't really helped anything. Go figure. People move to the cities, and then live off the government teat because they can't make a living, but they don't move, either, because they don't have to. Kind of a vicious, endless cycle, no? Wouldn't it be better if they had the impetus to get moving and either be productive or leave?

Karsten, I hate that you're so cynical. Don't you?

GGY- That's kind of lame. Who would move to a city if they didn't have a job set up? A dummy perhaps. To rent an apartment you have to prove you have a job or a way to pay your rent.
There are plenty of jobs out there for those who wish to work. The problem is that most employers cannot compete with the federal government.

Desperate people, Racer. You're assuming everyone goes to a big city and sets up house immediately. Wonder how many move in with family or friends first?

Do you think everyone in big cities only moved there since President Obama was elected in 2008? Migration to cities is part of the American way, people looking for employment or a new life, chasing a dream, running from boredom. Why do you think so many small towns have dried up since WWII?

So because they move there, they should definitely be taken care of and not have any personal interest in taking responsibility for their bad choices.

And yeah, I hate that I HAVE to be so cynical, because some people are just so naive. I understand human nature, and actually want people to be the best person they can be. Others (not pointing fingers...) are content to take care of people, and are afraid to offend anybody by actually expecting them to step up and handle business the way they should.

KT, so you think everyone who finds themselves in hard times is irresponsible, doesn't care and doesn't try? I hope you never have to find out how that works.

I'm no pushover. I don't go looking for trouble, but I help when and if I can. I've always been the type of person who didn't want to be a burden to anyone else, so I have avoided risky situations, but I also recognize that I have been blessed. Lots of Democrats are like that - not wanting to be a burden to others - come to think of it - blessed, too.

I thought you were a moderate...err..progressive...just what the heck are you other than confusing?

John B, I know you don't truly care, but I'm a moderate Democrat leaning toward progressive ideas. Extreme policies from left or right are dangerous to the nation and to individuals. What are you? Nevermind.

Its really refreshing to hear democrats come out especially when they reminisce about the past here in GA., about how all the ladies didn't drive and such.

You just have to ask yourselves who were the power brokers during those eras?

John B, in the South, they were the Dixiecrats, currently known as Republicans. You have a nice w/e, too. :)

PS I never said the ladies didn't drive. Although, my mother-in-law didn't drive. She had to be at home to make 3 meals a day and tend to the kiddies. No venturing out in the world for her. She did get to watch her stories, though. She was a lovely person and my father-in-law was a very good man. It was the times in which they lived.

GGY...slow down missy...I think you were replying to R in reference to Dixiecrats but in your zeal to pump out another post you replied to me. Not surprised..your mouth usually runs before your brain kicks in....oh...and have a nice weekend.

Beg pardon, John B. You are correct, sir. My comment was intended as a reply to R+. I doubt he feels slighted. You, however, should not feel flattered that my attention inadvertently went to you. It's more that your name pops up so often.

You're the party of zealous posts in your mission to always insult, rather than contribute. And, you're such a gentleman in your writings . . . never.

oh but I am flattered GGY..you just can't get me off your mind..like I said, your mouth runs before anything else engages....that's why no one has an ounce of respect for you....and I know...you don't care..blah, blah, blah....but I give you credit for one thing. You're a heck of a lot more transparent than the dipstick rock start in office right now. Have a great day! Time to go to work. I don't take hand outs.

Admittedly, JB, your name does leave a bad taste and blight on my eyesight, but you only come to mind when I read another of your insults.

If I were seeking respect by posting on L-G Patch, I would pretend to be extreme right wing :D

It is really quite the compliment that you and your band of naysayers zero in on anything I write.

I'm sure you can provide a link proving I'm wrong. :)

I'm upper income and donate cash to my church and charitable organizations. I could provide my tax returns or cancelled checks as proof but it's none of your business.

Wow, I'm impressed that you must be in the top 2%, Mr. B. Not really. I didn't ask for your business, and don't care. You're just being mean, now.

Here you go GGY:
http://smartblogs.com/finance/2012/12/30/where-charitable-americans-live/

Next is the race card......

KT, what is it that you don't understand about "likely to" and "generally speaking"? You been talking to Mr. B?
Sorry to have kept you waiting.

You and some of your patch buds wouldn't recognize proof or documentation. It's out there, but you won't look for yourselves because you're afraid you'll find it.

I think you would argue with a stop sign.

GGY- Nothing personal, but the last "proof" you offered me was a link to a 10-year old article on a left-wing website that was completely inaccurate.

Racer, you stretch a lot, don't you? No matter what link I provide, you'll find fault with it because you're one of those people who would hang onto your beliefs no matter the proof otherwise. God bless you.

If the proof is no proof at all, why would I accept it? If I did that, I would have voted for Obama.

Guaranteed you won't approve this link, either. It's based on the 2010 Census and IRS data. I don't believe stats are yet available for the most recent election forward.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

On the previous link which you claim is "completely inaccurate", PolitiFact grades that article in the following link, giving it a rating of "Mostly True". The source disclosed the timeline of the data, which you're comparing to the most recent election results. There's no update yet as far as I can find, but it's doubtful there's much change.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/

lol...yuck man..................

Karsten, it is you who is tiring. You write paragraph after long paragraph expounding on your truisms without posting sources or backing. As usual, you give up because you don't like being answered. Quit challenging, then.

You misquoted me. Twist much? I said, "You and some of your patch buds wouldn't recognize proof or documentation. It's out there, but you won't look for yourselves because you're afraid you'll find it." If you're going to use quotation marks, make sure you're attributing the quote accurately. You wouldn't want to hurt your credibility :)

Whatever, indeed.

Karsten,
A group of us is praying twice daily for, among other equally important things, GGY's deliverance. It's working albeit slowly. You may have noticed less liberal ramblings from her lately. God is good.

Mr. B:
I'd like to join your prayer group. I actually like GGY in a funny way and I do think there is hope for her....I think......maybe....praying.

Mr. B, you should change your prayer. I'm a moderate Democrat, formerly Independent (which seemed to be a cop out), but you and a few of your people are influencing me more toward liberal positions :D Hmmm . . . maybe your prayers are working as is.

We meet at the lake at 6AM and 5PM. Starting one right now.

That must be a virtual prayer group at a virtual lake.

. . . observing virtual Lent.

I don't know. My hope is waning. She doesn't like me to pigeonhole, then does it to me. Wants me to be accurate on quotes, and then twists my words. Says things, and then refuses to back them up. Supposedly me saying things like that people moving to cities and not having jobs and then not leaving is the same as me saying that every bad situation is completely the fault of the person experiencing it. Which is not what I said. When presented with "Densely populated areas are where people go to seek employment. Oftentimes when they arrive, there aren't enough jobs to go around, but they may be stuck with no money to go back to the place they left because of no job-no money" I'm supposed to just assume that these people have no responsibility for their lot in life? Really?

Which I think is the real problem here - not making anybody responsible for their actions makes somebody not feel responsible for their statements. Liberalism is based in feel-good thoughts, unfortunately with no basis in reality. It's not realistic to expect people to work if they don't really have to (generally), or that people will excel if given no incentive to do so. Rich don't give to charities because they get tax breaks, it's because people that excel and are allowed to keep their gains realize that they are fortunate (not lucky - there's a difference) and so want to give back.

Karsten, you live in a right-wing bubble. Any way you move you'll pop it, so you have to be very careful not to move. You must remain fixed.

These are your words, verbatim:

"People move to the cities, and then live off the government teat because they can't make a living, but they don't move, either, because they don't have to."

That's very clear to me to be harsh and judgmental, allowing for no extenuating circumstances for anyone.

It's at Lake Lanier, in my game room.

GGY is fighting it, evil has her heart but we are trying. She even mocks our prayer time with God. She, like so many other people have heard the lies and fallen for them. We're really not trying to change her political persuasion, just to be delivered from the evil influences that make her think she sees clearly when the vision is so clouded. Praise God in the Highest.

Mr. B, you're trying a bit too hard to convince someone of something.
The Christians I know don't judge others and label them evil. I don't want to know what denomination you practice. I do see clearly and think clearly. I'm embarrassed for you. How many times have you broken your Lenten discipline to make unkind remarks to and about me? I have lost count.

GGY- Karsten living in a vacuum, that's funny. He is one of the most sensible people I have read on Patch. The guy is really not tiring, he makes sense. If there were trouble, I guaren-dam-tee you, I would rather have Karsten in my corner than you. Nothing personal, he is just brings a lot more to the table than your average liberal.

Oh GGY, still using your standard tactics. I never said you were evil, just that you had evil in your heart. And even though I have explained my Lenten covenant to you multiple times, you continue to deny knowing what it is. And I'm not judging you, GGY. No need to judge since your beliefs are well established. No problem, God is with you. He loves you and I am trying to love you. My prayers are for your heart and for me to accept you even with the evil surrounding you. Praise be to God.

Oh, I forgot to tell you. I'm a United Methodist.

Racer, I didn't say KT is in a vacuum - I said bubble - right wing (political) bubble. I hope most people are multi-dimensional and aren't only about their politics.

I'm glad you have him, too. I'm sure there's no room in your corner for anyone but conservo-types. Besides, I would be in the corner with the children and helpless. :)

Mr. B, you are judging me. You say I am surrounded by evil and have it in my heart. I am surrounded by only good people, all Christians of varying denominations. I live a good and blessed life. You don't get to define judging. Judging is what judging is, and it is what you're doing.

You are the one who said no sparring with me until April 1 so that you don't break your covenant. I guess you included in that promise what you define "sparring" to be. Huh?

You see, here's my problem with you and your Patch sister-in-kind: Until I started writing comments on Patch, I had never experienced a Christian using their "faith" as a weapon of aggression, as in badgering, judging, humiliating and shaming. I have known of "Christians" who think only their denomination or specific church is populated by those going to heaven, being saved. That and your kind of Christian treatment is so wrong as to probably turn unknown souls away, not toward, Jesus. You have no way of knowing who is reading these public forums and how your rigid, wrong-way views may negatively influence them.

That's why it's really hard for me to believe in your alleged Lenten discipline. I believe the focus should be on your own preparation, not to publicly judge, harass and condemn someone else. It's why your story seems like a prank in bad taste.

I know my relationship with God. It is not defined and confined to what you think.
I'll take a pass on your strange kind of "love".

I am surprised that you claim a traditional, main-stream denomination. I'm a bit disappointed to know. My sister and brother are Methodists. They have never presented the sort of statements about their faith that you do. I need to have a conversation with them. Maybe they can intercede for you. I'm sure my dark and evil heart would do you no good. Have a nice, prayerful weekend, brother Mr. B. :)

"Besides, I would be in the corner with the children and helpless."

Kind of a scary thought, to be honest with you. The problem is that you'll be teaching them that nothing is their fault, there's nothing they can do to fix their lot in life, and they may as well be relying on the government, because they will be taking money from the evil rich and giving it to them.

It's thoughts like this that make me weep for our future....

OMG, Karsten! What in the world is wrong with you? What a dark statement. :(

I'll admit, it was dark. But accurate, nonetheless.....

Only in your mind, Karsten. Only in your mind.

Karsten, I dedicate this video to you. Hope you enjoy. Be sure to listen to the intro.

Strangely enough, that's what I've been saying. We all need people. We just don't need government to do it for us. People are amazingly giving and thoughtful. Until, at least, government steps in. Because then people don't think they need to be giving. After all, gubmint's got this....

Conservatives clearly understand this concept better. Shows why those on the right give more in time and money to charities than those on the left. The left figures they've done their jobs by getting the government to rob from the rich and give to the...well...not-rich.....

Karsten, I fear that you're unreachable. Despite that, have a nice weekend :)

I'm going to try. I hopy you do, as well...

Be silent sister GGY. 1 Timothy 2:12.

Pause and reflect. Do not allow evil to rule your speech.

B, you can save yourself the trouble with your Bible references. I never read your suggestions. It isn't right to use God's word for ill. I know you don't offer them in a Christian spirit, but to play to your audience.

You are my audience GGY. I will happily provide you with a Bible if you don't have one.

B, I'm not your audience - I'm your target. Continuous insults with God's word is no way to observe the Lenten season, or any season.

I know you will be so relieved when April 1 gets here so you can really give me what for. You should stop breaking your covenant and save up more.

C'mon sequester!

In context. God lays scriptures on my heart. I don't question Him as to why.