Survival of the Fittest

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The fittest? Survival? Hah!
♪♪ I've got to admit it's getting better. ♪♪

The Beatles on evolution

Charles Darwin studied the diversity of wildlife and developed a theory of natural selection that has come to be known as Survival of the Fittest. It simply states that life forms well adapted to their environment will be better able to reproduce than poorly adapted organisms, and will thus be a larger percentage of future generations.

Unfortunately, all the reader has to do is look around at all the unfit, misfit, and poorly adapted specimens in today's environment, all the organisms utterly incapable of survival (examples at Basement-dweller), to realize that Darwin's theory is pure crap. Modern public universities teach a theory of dysgenics best termed Survival of the Sickest (by lecture and by beer-drenched lab work).

Bases for challenge to Darwinism[edit | edit source]

You had to keep fit following Jesus.
Christian doctrine

According to the Christian faith, it can hardly be true that organisms self-select for fitness when every human on earth is born afflicted with original sin. If Darwin had a point, wouldn't we all have been weeded out in favor of people who had not "fallen short of the glory of God"? (Rom. 3:23) The fact that Catholics need to go to confession on a weekly basis, and that Jews feel guilty at home around-the-clock, is hard evidence of congenital mis-adaptation to the environment. Many church choirs can't even sing on key.

Moreover, if God had simply created a race of the Fittest, that would pretty much be Game Over--no need for religion, and ergo no God. Survival of God's own species precluded any such thing. In fact, He had to dispatch His only begotten son (John 3:16)--who, incidentally, proved notoriously maladapted to His environment--for some emergency machina ex deus to the human condition.

Manifest evidence
Improving on what God forgot to give you.

The evidence of our own bodies completes the case that well-adapted organisms do not come to dominate a species. The reader may be asking:

  • What up with nose hair?
  • Why does my girlfriend have to go to the salon to get waxed?
  • Tailbone? Appendix? WTF?

In any two-minute commercial break on American television, fully 1:30 (outside election years) is devoted to patent medicines and other strategies to correct the inherently flawed human condition. For example, homo sapiens, after hundreds of generations of evolution, should no longer need nose jobs or at the least, should have adapted to our high-calorie, high-sugar environment by being born with a built-in appetite-suppressant.[1]

Recent additional problems[edit | edit source]

In the modern welfare states of the developed world, the human race is throwing more mud and motor oil on Darwinism.[2]

  • Organisms that cannot, on their own, assemble food and resources to support offspring are by far outbreeding organisms that can.
  • The dominant populations in the world's cities are unable to read or even speak understandably.
  • Patterns of coloration are achieving dominance even though it's said that everyone hates them.

How it works[edit | edit source]

What time does the pub open, Mr. Persil?

A mechanism for this process of species de-selection is illustrated every Saturday morning at about 2 a.m., when Darwinism suggests that organisms would select the most gifted specimens for mating. As any pub-crawler knows, or realizes about eight hours later in the morning light, the more suitable candidates went home early, and those left in the breeding pool--Yikes! What was your name? May I call you a cab?

References[edit | edit source]

  1. To be even-handed, this is also an airtight refutation of Creationism. An omniscient God could not have intended this stuff.
  2. An opposing theory is that the evolving urban race in its dysfunction is exactly adapted for survival in an equally dysfunctional society.

See also[edit | edit source]