Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2018 4:43 PM
272 online now:
1.61803, Aussie, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Son Goku (7 members, 265 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,386 Year: 15,209/29,783 Month: 1,153/1,502 Week: 151/492 Day: 25/40 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
16Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 151 of 238 (425302)
10-01-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by CTD
10-01-2007 5:09 PM


Huxley says otherwise.

But you cannot actually quote him saying otherwise, because this is something you made up in your head.

Were he here, I can't say he'd hesitate to obfuscate, and join those who attempt to muck up the discussion. But he's not here, so he has no opportunity to change his tune.

Translated into English: you are lying about Huxley's opinions, and you know it, and you know that if he was alive he'd say that you were a liar, but because he's dead you can lie about his opinions without him pointing out that you're a liar.

I should advise you that this does not prevent other people from reading what he wrote and observing that you are a liar, which is self-evident. You are lying about Huxley like you lied about Nietzsche and like you lied about Marx. You are a liar. And again, I should like to ask: given that everyone reading this thread knows that you are lying, whom do you hope to decieve?

This leaves you in the position of disputing the teachings of your prophet. Not that that means beans, because you'll be welcome to recant as soon as the discussion ends.

When you made up this jumble of lies, didn't you feel ashamed of yourself at any point?

Let me ask another question. Your whole line of argument seems to involve inventing halfwitted lies about your opponents. Has it not occurred to you that a thesis which can only be supported by halfwitted lies is itself a halfwitted lie, and so not worth supporting?

I really don't understand you people. You must, surely, know that you're lying. Then why don't you do what I did and take up a position that can be defended by telling the truth?

I know that religion is a powerful thing, but I don't ... I just don't understand how you can behave like this.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 5:09 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 6:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 152 of 238 (425307)
10-01-2007 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by CTD
10-01-2007 5:09 PM


Cutting to the chase ...
What
Huxley says ...

... is irrelevant.

The issue is whether evolution necessarily results in racism.

Racism says that one (or more) whole subpopulation(s) of people are inferior to one (or more) whole subpopulation(s)

Evolution says that unfit individuals are selected against such that unfit hereditary traits are gradually removed from the (sub)population(s) gene pool.

In other words evolution tends to select for fit subpopulations and populations of people in every ecosystem they inhabit.

How then can any subpopulation be inferior?

Genetics shows us that any trait we happen to choose has a wide variation in all populations such that the differences within any population are greater than the differences between populations.

How then can any subpopulation be inferior?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : sub


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 5:09 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 9:17 PM RAZD has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 153 of 238 (425309)
10-01-2007 6:15 PM


It seems the opposition has fallen into a trap by either failing to read thoroughly enough, or failing to retain the message of the false prophet Huxley.

They argue that "not applying eugenics" is the implied valid alternative to "applying eugenics".

But Huxley has already ruled out "doing nothing".

from "VII"

Thus, as soon as the colonists began to multiply, the administrator
would have to face the tendency to the reintroduction of the cosmic
struggle into his artificial fabric, in consequence of the
competition, not merely for the commodities, but for the means of
existence. When the colony reached the limit of possible expansion,
the surplus population must be disposed of somehow; or the fierce
struggle for existence must recommence and destroy that peace, which
is the fundamental condition of the maintenance of the state of art
against the state of nature.

Supposing the administrator to be guided by purely scientific
considerations, he would, like the gardener, meet this most serious
difficulty by systematic extirpation, or exclusion, of the superfluous.

If nothing is done, civilization must perish when the population exceeds the limits of the environment. This argument appeals to fear as well as logic.*

So since "doing nothing" has been ruled out, and whatever authority (even non-tyrannical types) one chooses to imagine is not going to "be guided by purely scientific considerations"; it looks like they're going to need some sort of alternative. Huxley conveniently omits to offer any.

Based on the evidence, a fair evaluation is that Huxley argues strongly in favor of eugenics/racism, and then proceeds to feign (or mysteriously becomes incompetent, if you prefer) argument against these. Even if one accepts the not-very-scientific argument that "nobody is smart enough", one is still left between a rock and a hard place because there's no alternative. Either implement the measures, or civilization must perish.

And evolutionists have never offered any alternatives since that time, to the best of my recollection. They still warn of the dangers of overpopulation, and they still generally maintain that 'scientific' knowledge is superior to all other knowledge. While they may or may not openly advocate eugenics/racism, they make no small effort to make everyone aware of the hard place, while conditioning everyone they can reach to be prepared to accept their rock.

* See earlier parts of the piece for his assessment of the importance of "that peace, which is the fundamental condition of the maintenance of the state of art against the state of nature". I'm not going to past the whole thing here.


Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 6:18 PM CTD has responded
 Message 155 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2007 6:22 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 6:39 PM CTD has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 154 of 238 (425312)
10-01-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by CTD
10-01-2007 6:15 PM


topic please?
He says if you don't apply eugenics that evolution takes over. Big whap. Still doesn't end up in racism.

Still irrelevant to the issue: how does the theory of evolution necessarily result in racism (not eugenics, racism)?


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 6:15 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 7:04 PM RAZD has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6517
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 155 of 238 (425314)
10-01-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by CTD
10-01-2007 6:15 PM


CTD, repeating this same exact quotation again, writes:

Supposing the administrator to be guided by purely scientific
considerations, he would, like the gardener, meet this most serious
difficulty by systematic extirpation, or exclusion, of the superfluous.

And this is exactly what normal animals breeders have done since time immemorial. Animal breeders already knew all about the systematic extirpation of the superfluous. What you are saying is that animal husbandry, not evolution, leads to racism and eugenics.


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 6:15 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 156 of 238 (425315)
10-01-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate
10-01-2007 6:01 PM


Dr Adequate has posted
Translated into English: you are lying about Huxley's opinions, and you know it, and you know that if he was alive he'd say that you were a liar, but because he's dead you can lie about his opinions without him pointing out that you're a liar.

I should advise you that this does not prevent other people from reading what he wrote and observing that you are a liar, which is self-evident. You are lying about Huxley like you lied about Nietzsche and like you lied about Marx. You are a liar. And again, I should like to ask: given that everyone reading this thread knows that you are lying, whom do you hope to decieve?

I can't help but speculate that you were jotting down a note to yourself and inadvertently posted it.

Everyone can indeed see who's been truthful and who has been otherwise, and I hope and pray that they shall. In future, I expect they'll understand if I don't pay you too much attention.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 6:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 6:43 PM CTD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 157 of 238 (425318)
10-01-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by CTD
10-01-2007 6:15 PM


Problem Solved
They argue that "not applying eugenics" is the implied valid alternative to "applying eugenics".

Yup, that's evolutionists for you, always pointing out stuff that is indisputably right.

Yes, the alternative to practicing eugenics is indeed not practicing eugenics. Lie your way out of that one, chum.

And evolutionists have never offered any alternatives since that time, to the best of my recollection.

And we all know that you are a liar, and you know that you are a liar, because I, at least, have pointed out an alternative to practicing eugenics, which is not to practice eugenics, and you know that perfectly well, and you are a liar, and we all know that you are lying.

While they may or may not openly advocate eugenics/racism, they make no small effort to make everyone aware of the hard place, while conditioning everyone they can reach to be prepared to accept their rock.

I have been trying to understand how you could possibly have written that sentence.

That sort of screaming twitching paranoia is not a good sign.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 6:15 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 158 of 238 (425319)
10-01-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by CTD
10-01-2007 6:29 PM


I can't help but speculate that you were jotting down a note to yourself and inadvertently posted it.

As a student of your mental processes, I am interested in your disorder. So may I ask --- why are you unable to keep from daydreaming about an idiotic fantasy which you know to be untrue?

Everyone can indeed see who's been truthful and who has been otherwise, and I hope and pray that they shall.

Of course they can.

You are a liar.

You lied about Huxley.

You lied about Nietzsche.

You lied about Marx.

And every time you're challenged to back up your lies, you run away sobbing and screaming and --- and claiming that you've won.

Here's an example:

In future, I expect they'll understand if I don't pay you too much attention.

Yes, everyone will understand why you're too frightened to answer my posts.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 6:29 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 159 of 238 (425323)
10-01-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by RAZD
10-01-2007 6:18 PM


Re: topic please?
He says if you don't apply eugenics that evolution takes over. Big whap.

Your earlier posts were better. I still intend to explain a few things you mentioned.

In this case, I'll explain what you don't mention. Your "Big whap" is a tremendous understatement of the situation. A group of humans becoming overcrowded to the point that it abandons all behaviors associated with civilization and resorts to violence to determine who survives - that's the scenario. Mankind reverting to a wild state of panic, and all you say is "Big whap"?

With no trace of civilization, there's nothing to restrain racism. So how do we end up with anything other than chaos and racism? What naturalistic mechanism would you invoke to select only non-racists for survival? If there is such a mechanism, why has it not been effective?

Still irrelevant to the issue: how does the theory of evolution necessarily result in racism (not eugenics, racism)?
*

Yes, we're all aware that you moved the goalposts. The original premise was that evolutionism doesn't support racism, and now you've changed it to necessarily resulting in racism.

If you're patient & polite I may continue to further demonstrate this. Or is that what you're afraid of?

* I noticed that your sentence is more accurate than intended. Your new goalposts are slightly irrelevant, although in reaching them I have already surpassed the original goal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 6:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 8:11 PM CTD has not yet responded

    
CTD
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 160 of 238 (425330)
10-01-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
10-01-2007 5:09 PM


This was better
RAZD
For I don't understand your confusion between eugenics and racism if you are well versed in the definitions of words. One is about selecting individual organisms for desirable characteristics and the other is about rejecting whole populations as unworthy regardless of characteristics.

I'll do my best. As I have already confessed, I am unable to define 'race'. I'm not aware of any definition that fits the modern sense of the term without being overly subjective and/or ignorant.

But even so, I see there are flaws here: a 'race' cannot be distinguished from the rest of the population without noting characteristics. So neither case can be said to operate "regardless of characteristics".

Eugenics is also in effect when selection is made against "undesirable" characteristics, not merely when it selects for "desirable" characteristics.

The only way to have one without the other is to compile two lists: one for 'race' purposes and one for eugenics purposes; and ensure that no characteristic exists on both lists. But even this process would be an artifice, would it not?

And is it not still racism to discriminate for/against descendants of a race which use to exist and has been assimilated? Is it not still racism to select based upon a characteristic which is predominantly found among one 'racial' group?

Can you give an hypothetical eugenics scenario which would clearly not be racist? This might help me see the difference. I shouldn't like to say racism = gutter eugenics if this isn't so. But if it is so, I see no reason to keep it a secret.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 5:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 8:38 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 163 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 9:04 PM CTD has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 161 of 238 (425331)
10-01-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by CTD
10-01-2007 7:04 PM


Re: topic please?
The original premise was that evolutionism doesn't support racism, and now you've changed it to necessarily resulting in racism.

The original premise was that the theory of evolution was antithetical to racism (see title), ie that it could not result in racism.

It's not a matter of "support" but a matter of logically getting from one to the other. Quoting people doesn't do that. Diverting into eugenics doesn't do that. Demonstrating how you can derive racism directly from evolution via logic does do that, and when you do that then it must, necessarily, be true.

People can find "support" in modern physics for the earth being at the center of the universe. But that doesn't mean that you can derive a geocentric universe from modern physics.

With no trace of civilization, there's nothing to restrain racism. So how do we end up with anything other than chaos and racism? What naturalistic mechanism would you invoke to select only non-racists for survival? If there is such a mechanism, why has it not been effective?

Correction, there is nothing to restrain violence between individuals. If civilization breaks down there are no nations, no rational groups. Some people may revert to their racist beliefs in implementing that violence, but that doesn't make the violence per se racist, just the implementation of it by a racist being a racist.

The violence in the middle east is not racism, nor was that between the irish factions. Bigotry will beget violence faster than reason, sure, but the bigotry is not derived from evolution but from culture, tradition and xenophobia (fear of outsiders, whoever they are).

And this violence is what happens in evolution -- the struggle for existence, and when a species is successful enough that it overruns it's food source there is heavy competition between individuals for survival. There are many examples in the natural world. Look at predator-prey relationships in restricted areas (wolves and moose on Isle Royale) and you see both populations go up and down with one following the other.

This is basic evolution. Yes, it will take over unless we really are intelligent enough to agree to voluntary population control. Otherwise it won't matter that we are the most egotistical species on the planet. Evolution was not "kind" to the dinosaurs, why should it be "kind" to humans? Because we think we are great? It may impact your life more than you would like, but as far as evolution is concerned, "big whap" is about it: most species are extinct you know. What's one more?

Many people you likely call evolutionists (although many may not even think of evolution in relation to the issue) have been talking about the population explosion for over 50 years with some educated few going back to Malthus 150 years ago. The principal of a species over-running it's food supply has not changed in that 50 or 150 years. It is based on observations of what happens in wild populations with evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

quote:
In An Essay on the Principle of Population, first published in 1798, Malthus made the famous prediction that population would outrun food supply, leading to a decrease in food per person. (Case & Fair, 1999: 790). He even went so far as to specifically predict that this must occur by the middle of the 19th century[1], a prediction which failed for several reasons, including his use of static analysis, taking recent trends and projecting them indefinitely into the future, which often fails for complex systems.

Many otherwise intelligent and civilized people think we will out-think the problem. I am not so deluded.

But this still won't result in racism because of the theory of evolution, the "forces" of evolution will affect every living breathing individual, but mostly it will affect the unfit more than the fit individuals, and it will do so in every (sub)population category you choose to describe, irrespective of race, intelligence or culture.

For clarity here is a common definition of racism:

rac·ism –noun 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

And the thesaurus says

quote:
Main Entry: racism
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: prejudice
Synonyms: Jim Crow, apartheid, bias, bigotry, discrimination, illiberality, one-sidedness, partiality, racialism, sectarianism, segregation, unfairness
(Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus)

No mention of eugenics. Or evolution. Or biology.

So can you logically get from evolution to racism?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : inferior spelling


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 7:04 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 162 of 238 (425334)
10-01-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by CTD
10-01-2007 7:43 PM


Re: This was better
As I have already confessed, I am unable to define 'race'.

Then how can you argue that racism occurs if you don't understand it?

I'm not aware of any definition that fits the modern sense of the term without being overly subjective and/or ignorant.

That would be because (1) there is more variation within each subpopulation than between them, and because (2) there are wide hybrid zones between all known races, with a lot of intrusion of genes from all races into other subpopulations. There are probably no pure races. This does not stop racists from being racist based on the perceived race of others, for it is prejudice more than reality.

Eugenics is also in effect when selection is made against "undesirable" characteristics, not merely when it selects for "desirable" characteristics.

The selection in eugenics is on the basis of the hereditary characteristics of the individual. The selection in racism is on the basis of race (or perceived race) regardless of the hereditary characteristics of the individual.

Can you give an hypothetical eugenics scenario which would clearly not be racist?

Selection of individuals based on health: general fitness, resistance to disease.

But this doesn't get us to eugenics from the theory of evolution, and this certainly does not get us to racism from the theory of evolution.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 7:43 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 163 of 238 (425343)
10-01-2007 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by CTD
10-01-2007 7:43 PM


Re: This was better
CTD writes:

Can you give an hypothetical eugenics scenario which would clearly not be racist?

Yes. You select out all short sighted individuals.

quote:
American Heritage Dictionary -
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

quote:

American Heritage Dictionary -
eu·gen·ics (yōō-jěn'ĭks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

Like animal breeding for humans, as has been pointed out to you. If you think that eugenics means racism, then you must think that some races are genetically superior to others. Figure it out.

The Huxley quotes you're giving us are from "Evolution and Ethics", a book in which Huxley argues strongly against the ideas which became known as social Darwinism, and later, eugenics.

Darwin agreed with him, and touched on the subject in "The Descent of Man".

quote:
Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless; it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
- Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

That's about the ideas that became eugenics.

Closer to the topic, Darwin believed that sympathy was an advantageous trait that had been selected for in humans. Here he touches on sympathy for others, including other races, describing racism as an "artificial barrier", interestingly, as we now know him to be right.

quote:
As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.
- Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

Why you're trying to pretend Huxley's stuff against social Darwinism is in some way pro-racist, I don't know. I think you're a bit out of your depth.

You also seem to have trouble understanding what an explanatory theory is. I'll give you a clue.

The theory of plate tectonics does not tell us that we should go and push the earth's plates across its surface. It explains how they move on their own.

Evolutionary theory does not tell us to go out and make life forms evolve. It explains how they do it on their own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 7:43 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 8:50 AM bluegenes has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 164 of 238 (425346)
10-01-2007 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
10-01-2007 6:12 PM


RAZD
quote:
What
Huxley says ...

... is irrelevant.


I can see why you'd want this to be so. I cannot see any reason to think it might be so.

He continues to be a highly-esteemed authority among evolutionists, and more importantly, he makes a sound argument (if you accept his a priori's) which demonstrates the 'need' for eugenics/racism.

Racism says that one (or more) whole subpopulation(s) of people are inferior to one (or more) whole subpopulation(s)

Evolutionism says that countless entire populations of species have proven themselves to be inferior by going extinct. The individual vs. group game won't work, since evolutionism isn't shy and has had much to say about both individuals and groups.

Evolution says that unfit individuals are selected against such that unfit hereditary traits are gradually removed from the (sub)population(s) gene pool.

In other words evolution tends to select for fit subpopulations and populations of people in every ecosystem they inhabit.

How then can any subpopulation be inferior?

It can go extinct, and that's a pretty good indicator.

But as we well know, evolutionism says humans are a special case. The consensus among evolutionists has long been that other factors supercede/impede 'natural selection' among humans. We've gone over this before. If your sect disagrees with the mainstream, that's not really my department.

No, I don't think there's any argument at all that 'superior' and 'inferior' life exists within the evolutionary paradigm. Not on the individual level or on the group level. They invoke these concepts to explain the origin of any organ you can name. ('Survival advantage' = 'superiority'.) The argument would be over how to tell in advance which individual or group will prove to be superior or inferior.

But again, if you intend to insist that there's no such thing as 'superior' and 'inferior', that's between your sect and mainstream evolutionism.

Genetics shows us that any trait we happen to choose has a wide variation in all populations such that the differences within any population are greater than the differences between populations.

I think you're talking about animals and not people. There are plenty of traits which occur predominantly among certain groups, and some of them are obvious to the naked eye. How else do you think groups are defined?

But even among animals there are traits which are more frequent among one group and less frequent among others. Can one not see that Dalmatians have a much higher amount of spotted fur than any other group of dogs? I suspect this is genetic.

And it's pretty obvious that it must be so. Any time a new trait appears, it must spread. It doesn't appear spontaneously among all members of the species. It will spread locally at first, and then perhaps make its way into the general population.

All traits had to start somewhere, and younger traits can therefore not be present in groups they haven't reached. This is a very good thing, too. I don't expect any creature would live too very long if it were otherwise.

Genetics shows us that any trait we happen to choose has a wide variation in all populations such that the differences within any population are greater than the differences between populations.

The more I look at this, the more certain I am that you misworded it. I hope this was not what you intended to say. The first part of the sentence has "trait" singular, and the last part has "differences" plural. The result is akin to "apples & oranges", except with numbers. I'm giving up on it, at any rate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 6:12 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 9:39 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 167 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 9:52 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2007 7:23 AM CTD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 165 of 238 (425347)
10-01-2007 9:37 PM


CTD Still Whining On
Obviously he can't answer my posts, because I have proved that he's a liar.
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018