There you go...using common sense.

Darwin's opinions on ethics are not part of his science. Ayn Rand's philosophy supports science, it does not conflict with evolution. The Declaration of Independence was not a Christian document.

This country was based on the Enlightenment, not religious mysticism. The Enlightenment did not have Ayn Rand's ethics of egoism, but did base its concept of rights on individualism and reason. "Nature and nature's god" meant the nature of reality, regardless of how much of it was known at the time. The common understanding was a deist predecessor of a natural order of the universe, and that the "laws" of the natural order, i.e., the principles describing it, are discovered by human reason, not a mystical decree of what we should believe, which explains and validates nothing.

As Ayn Rand wrote in "Man's Rights":

"In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man's nature.

"The Declaration of Independence stated that men 'are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.' Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival."

If you are interested in Atlas Shrugged you should pursue understanding the philosophy that makes it possible. A lack of formal education does not preclude that.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was merely pointing out that there are many who (somehow) maintain a god belief and acknowledge the fact of evolution. Although, as with the Catholics I grew up with, they acknowledge evolution in the animal world, but not when it comes to humans.

I would never deny another person input and comment, no worry there. Sorry for the delay in response.

"that as we were evolving from that physical condition (strong ,fast Did not need fire) we went downhill." --- I would not agree that we went "downhill" at all. Going with that idea, every continent should be filled with great apes and chimpanzees. There is a reason we have dominated the planet. We don't "need" fire, but it gives us an advantage, enabling us to easier digest meat in particular, helping us to be active sooner. Ever eat way too much on Thanksgiving? You don't feel like walking, or really doing anything? That is how you would feel for hours every time you ate raw red meat. We are not as strong as our ape cousins, but maintaining that takes more food energy. We can survive with less resources because our brain development enabled us to construct weapons and shelter. I could go on and on, but you get the point. And, even if I agreed with you, there is nothing in evolution that demonstrates that a change in genetics is always "better". Smaller, weaker mammals evolved from larger ones, but survived mass extinctions where the "superior" large mammals could not.

"I don't believe in survival of the fittest" --- Neither did Darwin. That misnomer was put out as propaganda by creationists so they could show it is false. That's a common tactic when a person doesn't understand something, making a strawman argument. As I eluded to with the small mammals, animals with the most beneficial traits for the environment survive, others don't. You are correct in that environment plays a huge part, and probably causes genetic mutations in many cases. That is why alligators are still here and a triceratops isn't.

Also, there is a reason we cooperate, that is a trait that evolved in us. But, you are trying to use a trait of modern humans (and a couple close relatives, neanderthals, etc...) to compare to what? We haven't evolved much since we started cooperating. You would have to find evidence of a group of creatures closer to an ape or chimp hunting in cooperation to associate that trait with evolving, instead of the other way around. Which, I'm 99.999% sure doesn't exist.

Lastly, there is no such thing as science being "wrong". Scientists can be wrong. A theory can be wrong. But, the only way to know a theory is wrong is to develop a 'right' one to contradict it. Some of Newtons gravitational theory is spot on, some of it was not accurate and replaced by Einstein's Relativity. That is how science works. (as for "global warming", I personally don't think that is scientific at all. It is false evidence being present by politically and monetarily funded think tanks.)

More food for thoughts. Thanks for the chat.

Has science "been wrong before"?

Is "science" discredited?

If you want to understand evolution you should read a modern account of it, such as by Dawkins.

The Amazon societies were technologically sophisticated in their agricultural practices, with evidence of an ingenious network of irrigation systems and large scale composting that had to be the work of many in cooperation. There is no evidence as to their societal structure, so judgements on that score are without basis.