|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misuse of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You create a theory to explain a particular phenomenon. ToE is not aimed at explaining reproduction, it is aimed atexplaining the diversity of life on earth. It is thus aimed at the level of collections of species. Creating a theory to explain a narrow range of phenomenon iswhat scientists do ... it's called reductionism and is a paradigm in which the mainstream sciences have been grounded for centuries. Gravitational theory is not prejudiced towards gravitationaleffects ... that's what it is designed to explain. quote: Sarcasm is lost on some people. Whether there is variation in a population or not, the individualscompete for resources. All members of a herd are on the same grazing ground, and thereis not infinite grass. All predators (from one or many prides/packs in a particularenvironment ) have the same herds to prey on. They all must find a slot in the same living space. Competition in this sense is as much a part of life as anythingelse ... despite what your hundred dollar answer was, all animals are in competition at some level most of the time. quote: What evidence do you have to support this ? If it is not present most of the time, it IS present some ofthe time .... that's what natural selection says. quote: How many generations are you considering when you state theabove ? quote: Why ? Different environments with give advantages to differentvariants ... what's wrong with that ? quote: Gregor Mendel's work was a long time ago, and I believe thatmost evolutionists will consider mutations and genetic inheretence as existing. quote: Natural selection is NOT a theory of reproduction!! An nietheris ToE!! If you wish to study population genetics, do so ... if you wishto study evolution formulate theories with which to explore the possibilities. Don't try to suggest that one theory is blatantly wrong becuase itdoes not explore the area of your interest. quote: Not 'better' ... better suited to an environment. A gorilla isn't better or worse than a man, it's just different. Early thinking may have belaboured man's superiority (in general)over the 'animals', but that is largely a societal issue ... and rooted in christian belief of man as God's pinnacle of creation. quote: Back to this. Do you know much about psychology? In particular I was thinkingof how an expressed opinion says as much about the person expressing as about the subject matter. You seem to hung up of racism (and perhaps in your situationyou have every reason to be), but that does not mean that everythin is racist nor that there are simple cause-effect explanations for racism. quote: In your opinion ... give us a list of quotes and see if we agree.
quote: I am of much the same opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Racism didn't ORIGINATE with Nazism. It was present as a partof the Nazi ethos. The reason, as far as I see it, that it is incorrect to raise thesecond as an objection to the first is partly that racism was deliberately provoked in Nazi germany as political tool to win over the masses. It was aimed at stirring up the xenophobic instincts by saying 'THEY are taking your jobs!' It was a deliberate manipulation of people, the initial targetof the racism were the Jews becuase on the whole in that place and time they were among the more successful, so it was easy to get the poorer masses to turn against them. Hitler was already anti-semitic apparently, and the atrocities that he authorised were almost beyond belief. Ghengis Khan had similar, territorial, power-base reasons forpersecution. Perhaps the existence of racism today should be laid at Hitler,or Ghegis Khan's feet ... or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Ramses the Great, or Moses, or ... well just about any other politically motivated leader who used a part of human nature for their own ends.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The previous argument raised still lets it open for Darwinism to be just as conducive to racist and genocidal thought as Nazism. Therefore in the context of this discussion the argument is meaningless.
This has been one of yours and many other's main arguments, and therefore much of yours and other's counterargument should be discarded as meaningless. Please acknowledge regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I agree, this discussion is definitely finished. So I will just leave with the thought for people to try to apply a general theory of reproduction, because all the benefits I am talking about should be immideately obvious on application.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: In so much as anything can be used by racists to justify theirracism, then yes. That there is any inherent racism with ToE, then no. The argument as put forward by you is that Darwinism promotesracists and genocidal thought. A number of Darwinist supporters have said, after considering thematter, that they don't. No Darwinist here has said that they do. The sample size is too small to be conclusive, but equally castsdoubt on your original assertion. A line of reasoning has been put forward that suggests that racistaand genocidal thinking pre-dates Darwinist thought, and implies that such behaviours/attitudes are a part (whether we like it or not) of the human condition/mentality. Historical observation bears this out. From a behavioural point of view we may consider it a manifestationof a vestigial 'xenophobic' survival instinct as exhibited by our closest genetic reletive the chimpanzee. Chimp males patrol their tribal territory, and upon finding a chimp from another group, they attack and kill it/them. This is so that the resources of their territory can be used for their group's survival alone. quote: I have elaborated why the line of reasoning has been used above. It is not meaningless when used in the intended context.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024