Racism

I understand that Jimmy-'I'm just a regular guy who wants to make up his mind but I know links to lots of racist sites'-evolution has been banned, but there's a thing I'd like to say with reference to his 'Guns Germs and Steel' thread.None of the 'reasoning' he presented there has anything whatever to do with what Jared Diamond wrote.Diamond explains at length in the intro that he was asked once by a New Guinean called Yali why Europeans came to Guinea with novel goods rather than the other way round.He had previously formed the impression that individuals in hunter/gatherer societies tend to be a bit more alert, intelligent, inventive and physically stronger than individuals in more complex societies, making Yali's question a very puzzling one.He wrote 'G,G&S' in an attempt to give Yali an answer. An even more condensed version of which is that people who have the raw material suitable for the mass production of food can also mass-produce themselves, and ultimately other things, and so can take resources from others.

Quetzal,It's not my point of view as I don't believe that natural selection is how we got to where we are. However if one were to believe in natural selection (as I understand the term), it seems to logically follow that we shouldn't really care what happens to any life form on this planet, because the strong will survive and, that's the way it's meant to be.I know it doesn't sound pretty, I don't like it one bit. It does though seem logical, if natural selection is how life on this planet changes.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

'Is' is not 'ought', Funk. I for one don't base my morality on natural selection.

quote:

---

It's not my point of view as I don't believe that natural selection is how we got to where we are. However if one were to believe in natural selection (as I understand the term), it seems to logically follow that we shouldn't really care what happens to any life form on this planet, because the strong will survive and, that's the way it's meant to be.

---

Ouch. I'm not quite sure where to start on this. How about I run some "general" topics past you, and see if you're interested in discussing all/any further (I'll open a new thread if so).1. In the first place, your understanding of natural selection seems to be misleading you. Although the "survival of the fittest" is a common-language (and kind of catchy, too) way of describing evolution by natural selection, it isn't really that accurate. And getting from there to "the strong will survive" is leaping a conceptual chasm without justification. Suggest starting with any of Syamasu's "Darwin..." threads - Peter, I and others have given pretty good explanations of what natural selection is and how it works. If you're interested, we can discuss the conceptual leap you made, and why it's a dangerously misleading misunderstanding.2. There is a certain "background" level of extinction going on normally. Populations and species come and go fairly regularly. Something upsets the population's equilibrium and tips it "over the edge" into extinction. It happens locally, or occasionally regionally. If whatever caused the disequilibrium effects the entire range of the species, then the whole gang can go belly up. This is no big deal - after all, 99% or so of all species that have ever lived are extinct. However, currently measured extinction rates are 50-100 times (depending on what source you use) the background rate - almost all of which is human caused. Habitat destruction/degradation, insularization, over-exploitation, pollution, etc, are the proximate causes. I am one of those that regards this mostly preventable extinction as evidence of a new "mass extinction" event that has the potential of rivaling any of the major mass extinction events throughout history - including the Permian. I'm not alone in that, but I admit there are scientists who don't consider it a "mass extinction", although I doubt they would disagree that it is a disturbing trend. I obviously don't concur that this was "meant to be".3. The value of preserving biodiversity ("why should we care?") can be very subjective, depending on who you ask. However, there are in fact quite a number of practical reasons to do so. These range from preserving wild-type genes to help keep our monocultured crops from failing, to the myriad of plant and animal extracts used in medicine (many of which are still being investigated and/or discovered), to "new" foods and even fuel sources! Many of which have been discovered only in the last 50 years, and many of which have been discovered in areas that are the most vulnerable or being the most impacted by human activity.So the three areas that cover the errors in your post are: natural selection, extinction, and the value of biodiversity. If you'd care to go into more detail on any - let me know.

quote:

---

The value of preserving biodiversity ("why should we care?") can be very subjective, depending on who you ask.

---

Here is the thing, funk. We aren't going to destroy all life on Earth. The biosphere will keep right on going, even if the only survivors are bacteria. We CAN destroy the Earth's ability to support OUR species. That is why we should care.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Quetzal,I'd definately like to discuss this further to clear up my misunderstandings. I should not have used the phrase the strong survive, I knew it was a flawed phrase.We better start a new thread, I've run this one off topic.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Oops, I missed your reply. Sorry, funk.Which one would you like to start with?

Quetzal,If you don't mind putting the time and effort into it could we start by fleshing out my understanding of what natural selection is defined as.My basic understanding is that the species that are more adapt to their environment will survive, and reproduce. Where as those that cannot adapt to change will not survive in great enough numbers to reproduce, ultimately dying out.Is this the proper line of thinking?------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Not entirely.Natural Selection is where an individual's chance of survival
(and thus likelihood of reproduction) are affected by its
suitability to it's environment.It does not mean that only the fittest survive, but rather that
the 'fittest' produce the most offspring. By 'fittest' I mean
those best suited to the current environment.

I think the right way to go about understanding a theory is to cut the theory down to it's simplest form, and then make an abstract or real life example of it.The basicly meaningful thing in selection is the relation of the organism to the environment in terms of the event of it's reproduction. That means for instance light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cell of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (is selected for). You can then say that the photosynthetic cell is *adapted* to the environment (light) because it's relation to light contributes to reproduction.You can cut out reference to any variant or other type of species, because that is just using selection theory twice, so it's redundant to mention variation.Stated in another way to make it more clear, if you include variants then you end up with too many possibilities. For selection with variants A and B you would have:A reproduces B doesn't reproduce
A reproduces B reproduces
A doesn't reproduce B reproduces
A doesn't reproduce B doesn't reproduceWith selection there should of course be only 2 possibilities, which means that for describing variants you would have to use the theory twice.1 A reproduces or it doesn't reproduce
2 B reproduces or doesn't reproduceBesides environmental factors that contribute to reproduction, there are environmental factors that decrease chance of reproduction, like disease. So for any organism there is a selective regime consisting of negative and positive selective factors, that decrease or increase the chance of reproduction.The number of offspring has no particular interest in selection theory, since selection is about persistence, and not essentially about how many of them persist.The number of offspring in selection mainly has interest as a trait, which means that for instance if the chance of reproduction is 10 percent at birth, then on average 10 or so offspring needs to be produced in order for one organism to persist.Anyway if you want to inquire into Natural Selection I suggest you read some of the "Minimum requirements for applying Natural Selection" thread http://EvC Forum: Minimum requirements for applying Natural Selection -->EvC Forum: Minimum requirements for applying Natural Selection
Which contains the definition of selection on the glossary of this site.Your definition of Natural Selection is wrong, but then so are most all definitions of Natural Selection out there wrong, including the ones of the people criticizing your definition in this thread, and the definition in the glossary. It really comes down to either picking a definition based on your liking, and then you have many definitions to choose from (or even conjure up a definition of your own, why not), or choose a definition which follows from observation and the rules in architecturing knowledge, which is just one definition.I'm pretty sure that if you just keep asking the question is this (variation/competition/survival etc.) required to be there for selection to apply?, that you will end up with the one definition that is based on observation and according to the rules of knowledge. That's the way to go about it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu,Thankyou for your response I will read that thread when I have some time. I appreciate your effort to explain this to me.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Funk: I didn't want you to think I've forgotten my promise. I'm working on an essay, but there's a lot of ground to cover. Trying to make it comprehensible is good practice for me.

quote:

---

I'm working on an essay, but there's a lot of ground to cover.

---

My opinion is - I don't think that a "Free For All" topic is a good place for making major statements.Also, this topic started out on the theme of racism and genocide, and is now seemingly turning into another "natural selection" topic.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Fear not o' ye almighty AdminMoose! I wasn't planning on posting it here...

yes, DEATH TO ALL BLUE PEOPLE!