The Atheist, Evolutionary Theory Defeats the Social Welfare Argument

You will forgive me if I have a hard time replying to your argument; the grammatical errors make it tricky enough but I'm not sure you fully grasp what my claim is, or if you do, you appear to go off on numerous tangents(I think). So I will do my best. I know you commented that you "wrote that really fast since I am heading out the door" and hence "din't proof read it", which is fine, but I implore you: there is no rush on this, so perhaps this round you will take all the time you need. There are 72 hours for each round, and as you can see, I took several days to reply, due to work. I am looking forward to this being a good debate. --" A few things your rashly over generalizing, one is that evolution is jsut some giant mosh pitt, in truth there are many mechanics of evolution we are still not sure about. This over generalization leads you into the point that Because its just one big moshpitt, the social welfare theory... which I will instead refer as the Common Good, is invalid but in justfying this argument you defeat you're own point in the same breath" -- I take it here that you are simply stating your position, which is fine. I believe you are contending that because I "over generalize" evolution, it makes my argument invalid. How exactly have I over generalized it? I never contended that evolution doesn't have many different facets. I am simply choosing to focus on its basic premise: All humans evolved by way of chance, trial and error, and gradual, often violent change. Is this not the basic premise of evolution? --"So pointed out effectively that chemical reactions responcible for cauing us to feel empathy are selected evolutions that allow(ed) us to function as social creatures. It is this social trait that has ruly amde us a dominate species, enabling our technology in a way that would not have been possible with out a cooperative nature, enabled by thwe evolutonary responces mentioned above. So actually it is baffling to think fo an Athiest not supporting collectivist policies, since our entire civilization which is an engineered evolution made possible by our biological capacity for empathy, is based on accumulation fo collective knowledge as well as the acumulation of collective efforts. Secondary motivations here such as " I will benefit from helping you" are not relevant to your case in truth, they are just another set of evolved chemical responces in the brain." -- OK, so here, I think you are just reiterating my point about social interaction being part of our evolutionary process, and how it has contributed to our dominance of the planet. What I am attempting to distinguish between, however, is "useful" empathy and "hindersome" empathy, if you will. I contend that there is such a thing as empathy that directly inhibits a species' ability to move forward. The evolutionist argues that we came to where we are by being the "fittest." Only the fittest survive. The fittest will realize which of his fellow humans are also fit, that is, which are useful to survival and which are not, or which hinder survival. Those that hinder survival are the old, the sick, the weak, the ones who can't contribute. If we are to believe the theory of survival of the fittest, then we must believe that "hindersome" empathy is a useless byproduct of the evolutionary process. It compels us to feel sorrow and pity for fellow humans who can not help us in any way, shape or form, even though this is directly contrary to the creed of survival. The evolutionist might even argue further that, because we are still evolving, in the future humans might weed out this hindersome empathy and become robot like, more calculating, determining which of our fellow humans are worth saving and which have outlived their usefulness.