Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 12:59 AM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
16NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 238 (422980)
09-19-2007 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 6:35 PM


The Creationists' "Big Lie"
I'm not even entertaining those notions. I'm simply saying that many people have interpreted Darwin's notions in linear terms. I don't think its accidental. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, etc all used Darwinism as a basis for believing that their race was the most advanced.

But this is complete rubbish.

Stalin banned the theory of evolution, Marx, so far as I know, did not include racism amongst his other odd ideas (and published the Communist Manifesto eleven years before the Origin of Species) and as for Hitler, well, let's hear it in his own words shall we?

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi

---

There's a moral here. Before you recite poisonous creationist garbage in public, it is wise first to check that it is not the sort of stinking festering lie that would shame Satan himself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 238 (422983)
09-19-2007 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 6:35 PM


Let The Daydreams Begin
And I'd be curious to know how many of their modern contemporaries secretly harbor these taboo thoughts ... I suspect they changed their tune because they understood quite well the social implications of maintaining a totally Darwinistic framework.

Your daydreams must be a great comfort to you. At one and the same time, you can fantasise that your opponents:

(a) agree that evolution has racist consequences;

(b) are racists;

(c) are liars and hypocrites who won't admit that they're racists.

And the best thing of all, I guess, is that because your fantasy involves them all lying their whole lives long about what they really think, your belief is completely unfalsifiable. No matter what opinions they voice or vote they cast, you will always be able to delude yourself that they are racist liars.

Like so many before you, you have found yourself a reason to despise and distrust your opponents which is absolutely independent of what they do or say.

It must make you feel very happy. It makes me wish that intercessory prayers for the spiritual welfare of others were actually effective, 'cos we seem to have exhausted all the other options.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 650 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 63 of 238 (422997)
09-19-2007 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2007 6:35 PM


Religiosity, Superstition, and Racism
Nemesis, which of the following statements about your country would you agree with:

(a) Levels of belief in Christianity have increased in the U.S.A. over the last century, and levels of racism have also increased.

(b) Levels of belief in Christianity have declined over the last century, and levels of racism have also declined.

(c) Levels of belief in Christianity have increased over the last century, but racism has declined.

(d) Levels of belief in Christianity have declined over the last century, but racism has increased.

I think that (b) is the correct statement. If you disagree, I'd be happy to debate the point on a new thread, and find some statistics that'll back up my view.

In areas of the world where superstition is still rife, you can still find very strange attitudes towards race. Generally speaking, the decline in superstition in the west has coincided with a decline in racism.

I lived in the U.S. from 1969 to 1973. At that time, many conservative Christians like yourself showed obvious signs of racism, and I'm glad to see that you are now making arguments that assume racism to be a bad thing.

More directly on the O.P., I don't really agree with Jar that the ToE itself has helped against racism. Practical knowledge in genetics has, certainly, because it shows that the biological differences between human groups are trivial. What really makes "us and them" differences is culture, and religious divisions have been a far greater problem throughout the history of the world than racism, and they still are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2007 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 64 of 238 (423030)
09-19-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Adequate
09-19-2007 2:26 AM


racists and ideology
You don't see us trying to smear creationism on the grounds that some, perhaps most, nineteenth century creationists were racist....

Well, to be fair, I have seen people try to make this claim. Ideally, it only comes up as a counter to the "Darwinism is racist" argument to show how the general form of the argument is a fallacy:

"Some evolutionists were racists. Therefore, evolution is inherently racist.'
"Well, turn it around: some Biblical literalists were racists, therefore Biblical literalism is inherently racist. Do you still agree with it?"

However, I have seen some attempt to start a screed against Biblical literalism with this very type of argument. It is a fallacy, regardless.

Logically, to show that evolution or Biblical literalism is racist, one must take the central tenets and show that racism is a necessary, logical conclusion. So far, the few attempts I have seen in either attempt have been filled with fallacies.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the tact that nem is taking isn't valid. If it could be shown that a overwhelming majority of evolutionists have always been racists, that the overwhelming majority of evolutionists remain racists, that they were and remain more racist than their contemporaries, that they have and continue to resist non-racism more than others, then I think one has a legitimate reason to wonder about the role of evolution in racist thinking, even if it racism isn't a necessary logical conclusion of the theory.


You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2007 2:26 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2007 1:42 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 65 of 238 (423051)
09-19-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Chiroptera
09-19-2007 10:33 AM


Re: racists and ideology
quote:

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the tact that nem is taking isn't valid. If it could be shown that a overwhelming majority of evolutionists have always been racists, that the overwhelming majority of evolutionists remain racists, that they were and remain more racist than their contemporaries, that they have and continue to resist non-racism more than others, then I think one has a legitimate reason to wonder about the role of evolution in racist thinking, even if it racism isn't a necessary logical conclusion of the theory.

Except that an intellectually honest person would admit that if that were NOT the case the assumption that the theory was to blame would be called into question. NJ doesn't do that. he just uses it to make further claims (first that the theory is too "malleable" and secondly that the theory is racist but that scientists are dishonestly hiding it - i.e. since the evidence doesn't support his smear he invents MORE smears).

Worse, when NJ's quotes don't support his claim the best he can do is to assert that there must be other quotes that do support it somewhere else. Ignoring the obvious question of why he didn't produce THOSE quotes.

Still worse, a discussion of what the theory says ought to carry more weight than even a valid argument of the form that NJ is attempting. But NJ calls that a "steaming pile of dung" when compared to the "pumpkin pies" that he pulls out of his ass.

Ultimately all NJ is doing is exposing the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of creationism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 09-19-2007 10:33 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5692
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 66 of 238 (423342)
09-21-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
09-18-2007 2:39 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
The Dobzhansky quote doesn't quite say what you think it says. I have bolded relevant points to make it more clear:

What you have emboldened further supports what I have been saying. Early proponents of evolution have viewed the process in linear terms. The surely was this sense of less evolved/more evolved as it relates to organisms. Where is the objection? Are you honestly going to deny that?

Let us note that nowhere does Dobzhansky hint that his idea applies within the human species.

He wouldn't have to since ALL organisms, human and non-human, are products of evolution according to the theory. Why would humans be exempt?

Nor does he suggest that this trend is more than a general historical idea, one that only applies over the whole of evolutionary history - not at the small scale of within-species evolution.

You can call your description anything you'd like, but you just described was progress. Its very simple-- unicellular to multicellular. Prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Less adapted to more adapted. Less intelligent to more intelligent. The list goes on, and yet, you deny "progress." Surely you must only being doing so because you understand the underlying implication if you don't-- namely, that it explains some justification on the part of racist ideologies, whether you agree with their premise or not.

(The Brig Klyce quote you produce is just silly. It's not even clear what he means by "logical entropy" - the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to thermodynamic entropy. Not to the entropy of information theory or some other "entropy" that Klyce has made up. There is no real problem - which is why it is ignored.)

Its not made up at all. There are different kinds of entropy. Read his page on it and it will explain what he is talking about in great detail. For however nutty panspermia might be considered by both creo's and evo's alike, his understandings are well articulated.

For instance, I have long been an advocate for the specific naming of an immutable natural law. That I am aware of, there is no law of death or disorder that has a specific name, and yet, its as simplistic and true as gravity. Its a cornerstone law that goes on nameless. Klyce here is speaking about this law and how the term "entropy" is often confused. He goes on explaining why the confusion exists, but probably shouldn't.

Of course, this is now drifting off topic, as the 2LoT is a subject unto itself.


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2007 2:39 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-21-2007 12:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2007 12:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2007 1:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2101 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 67 of 238 (423345)
09-21-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 11:42 AM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
What you have emboldened further supports what I have been saying. Early proponents of evolution have viewed the process in linear terms. The surely was this sense of less evolved/more evolved as it relates to organisms. Where is the objection? Are you honestly going to deny that?

congratulations. we used to not know as much as we do now. amazing. now we know more and we're not making quite as many stupid assumptions, and the theories are less liable to being misapplied.

why is this really an issue at all?


i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 11:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 68 of 238 (423346)
09-21-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 11:42 AM


Addressing the ISSUE is part of the ISSUE
What you have emboldened further supports what I have been saying. Early proponents of evolution have viewed the process in linear terms. The surely was this sense of less evolved/more evolved as it relates to organisms. Where is the objection? Are you honestly going to deny that?

You still absolutely FAIL to make the distinction between what people say and what the theory of evolution says.

This topic is about what the theory of evolution says in regard to racism, and all quotes of what people say are totally irrelevant to that issue.

Once you have established what the theory of evolution says about racism, then you can go back to see how that is reflected in what people said (and how what they said reflects on their biases).

You can call your description anything you'd like, but you just described was progress. Its very simple-- unicellular to multicellular. Prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Less adapted to more adapted. Less intelligent to more intelligent. The list goes on, and yet, you deny "progress." Surely you must only being doing so because you understand the underlying implication if you don't-- namely, that it explains some justification on the part of racist ideologies, whether you agree with their premise or not.

So tell me, nem, after 3.5 billion years of evolution how are the modern cyanobacteria "more" evolved, "higher" or show "progress" from their ancestors 3.5 billion years ago?

If "more" evolved, "higher" or "progress" is such an integral necessary part of evolution and the theory of evolution, then why do we still have cyanobacteria? Surely they have evolved over the last 3.5 billion years eh? Or do we still have them because the concepts ("more" evolved, "higher" or show "progress") are false and invalid?

Please restrict you reply to just the evolution of cyanobacteria. Take you time.

I suggest you do this before you demonstrate how the theory of evolution results in racism so you don't confuse yourself with repetition of false thoughts and ideas.

Its not made up at all. There are different kinds of entropy. Read his page on it and it will explain what he is talking about in great detail. For however nutty panspermia might be considered by both creo's and evo's alike, his understandings are well articulated.

And being well articulated is your standard for accurate and correct? That explains a lot imho. I suggest that if you want to discuss this one further that you start a new post: Proposed New Topics.

In the meantime please:

(1) show how the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism, and

(2) show how the cyanobacteria has "progressed" through evolution over the last 3.5 billion years.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : clarified

Edited by RAZD, : sp


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 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 11:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 69 of 238 (423359)
09-21-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 11:42 AM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
quote:

What you have emboldened further supports what I have been saying. Early proponents of evolution have viewed the process in linear terms. The surely was this sense of less evolved/more evolved as it relates to organisms. Where is the objection? Are you honestly going to deny that?

I'm going to deny that Dobzhansky said that that because the parts that I emboldened show that he didn't. Dobzhansky's "progress" is a feature of the big picture - not a universal of evolutionary change.

Maybe you can find some other guys who believed it - but if you do I'd bet that most of them believed in some theory of evolution other than Darwin's.

quote:

He wouldn't have to since ALL organisms, human and non-human, are products of evolution according to the theory. Why would humans be exempt?

I don't say that humans are exempt form what Dobzhansky actually said. But he didn't say that you should expect to see significant progress in cases of microevolution. If he meant humans to be considered such a special case then yes, he WOULD have to say it. Because what he did say gives no reason to think that at all.

quote:

You can call your description anything you'd like, but you just described was progress. Its very simple-- unicellular to multicellular. Prokaryotes to eukaryotes.

Exactly - examples of major differences. Not examples of everyday small-scale within-species evolution.

quote:

Less adapted to more adapted. Less intelligent to more intelligent. The list goes on, and yet, you deny "progress.


"Less adapted" to "more adapted" is NOT the sort of progress Dobzhansky meant and it certainly isn't what racists have in mind. The example of Andean natives I used earlier is an example of "less adapted to more adapted". I've never seen a racist use it as an example of racial superiotity.

quote:

he list goes on, and yet, you deny "progress." Surely you must only being doing so because you understand the underlying implication if you don't-- namely, that it explains some justification on the part of racist ideologies, whether you agree with their premise or not

I'm not denying Dobzhansky's idea of "progress". I do say that it is a subjective idea (if you've seen the opening episode of "Heroes" consider Mohinder's speech about cockroaches and their superiority to humans). More importantly it is NOT an idea which is of any help to racists for the other reasons I've pointed out,

quote:

Its not made up at all. There are different kinds of entropy. Read his page on it and it will explain what he is talking about in great detail. For however nutty panspermia might be considered by both creo's and evo's alike, his understandings are well articulated.


I read the page. Klyce reveals that he made up the term. That he uses it to refer to the statistical mechanics version of entropy AND the information theory version of entropy AND one based on his own idiosyncratic definition of organisation ("furnished with organs") as if they were all the same thing. Which is certainly NOT true. It also isn't true that there is an analogue of the 2LoT for Information theory, so he's wrong there, too.

So that page quite definitely supports my point. (And note that - unlike you - I bothered to explain why it supports my point. You didn't explain why the emboldened sections of the Dobzhansky quote supported your case - and they don't).

quote:

or instance, I have long been an advocate for the specific naming of an immutable natural law. That I am aware of, there is no law of death or disorder that has a specific name, and yet, its as simplistic and true as gravity.


Really ? How does it apply to bacteria ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 11:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5692
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 70 of 238 (423360)
09-21-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
09-18-2007 5:14 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
It will always be protected against the claims you are making, but it is not an insurmountable theory.

What claims have I made that are unreasonable? Quite a few people are saying that I am claiming that evolution will inherently lead to racism. I've made no such claim. What I have said is that based on the teachings, it is reasonable for racists to have come to their pitiable deductions.

And what was natural selection doing with the ancestors of the latter race? Here's the thing: either all current races broke off from the 'first' race of man and are thus equally evolved OR some races broke off earlier, and the latter races evolved from one the earlier races - in which case they would be equally evolved.

Of course I believe all humans are equally evolved, as no doubt, a measure of evolution has occurred in all humans. But could Darwinian macroevolution say the same thing? Well, lets find out.

All human beings can mate with one another, which is the surest way of knowing that they are related. We cannot mate with our supposed current ancestors, the chimpanzee. But what of the various simian kind? Isn't there a difference between homo habilis and homo erectus? Was one considered more or less evolved than the other? Is it possible that one race is more closely related to habilis, while the other is more closely related to erectus?

Are not these images telling of a progression?

Yet, the denial that progress is paramount, all the while showing stepwise progressions.

Who said anything about removing social implications? I said sociologists study social implications, biologists study life. Some biologists might dabble in sociology (or be full blow sociologists). I am having difficult following what you are talking about. What deep motives are you talking about?

The zeitgeist in Darwin's time, all the way up to Hitler's, was to show that some men are more highly evolved than others. This changed as people's personal views began to change the science behind it. Now, we're all equally evolved, no better or worse. Why a shift in thought? Is it because racism is now unpopular? Does that erase what the theory is saying?

Sure, Darwin is racist - by unfortunate ignorance not willfull ignorance.

Well, sure, I agree with that. Its the same with racism and slavery. The new belief concerning slavery was that they enslaved people because they looked different than they. What a silly notion. Racism never factored in to slavery until the latter years.

I told you of Victorian creationists (ie., almost all Victorians before Darwin's ideas became accepted), and that they were more racist than Darwin who was rather liberal for his time, and you respond with a non-Victorian bishop as a retort? You want evidence of this? Have you tried looking at the slave trade?

The slave trade was ended by numerous pioneers, Modulous. You can't just say all Vicotrians, or all liberals, or all conservatives. I could point to you William Wilberforce, as almost single-handedly abolishing slavery. But that wouldn't do justice to the myriad of others that helped him during his crusade to free the slaves.

what does demonstrating that some early evolutionists were racists?

I'm not. What I've been arguing, from the beginning, is that the question of if evolution reasonably has ties to racism, I believe the question to be a legitimate one. My use of quotes is only to show that it isn't far-fetched at all. I'm not trying to demonize evolution as being inherently racist at all. I'm simply saying that if some people come their "Master race" ideology after having read about evolution, don't be surprised by their conclusion. Its reasonable.

I state unequivocally that racist conclusions have never been a part of the explanation for the change of life on earth

Not intentionally, but inadvertently. What else did you expect would come of it?

One has to misrepresent or misunderstand what the theory is (an explanation) and try to convince others that it justifies whatever vile thing they happen to want to justify. People do that, with lots of things. Vile people lie and twist things. It's called propaganda and we should fight it, no?

Sure, people manipulate all sorts of things for their own ends. No sense in anyone ever denying that. But what else should they deduce after reading the theory in its context? Has there ever been a regression within evolution? Has anything gotten worse as a result of evolution? Probably not. Why? Because of natural selection. It removes the aberrant and retains the strong. So clearly, there really, truly is a sense of advancement in evolution. How can you say otherwise?


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2007 5:14 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by DrJones*, posted 09-21-2007 2:32 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 09-21-2007 2:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2007 2:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 76 by molbiogirl, posted 09-21-2007 4:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 77 by Chiroptera, posted 09-21-2007 4:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2007 4:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2007 2:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 80 by nator, posted 09-22-2007 7:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1868
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 71 of 238 (423363)
09-21-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 1:55 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
We cannot mate with our supposed current ancestors, the chimpanzee.

Chimps are not our ancestors.


Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 1:55 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 2:38 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5692
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 72 of 238 (423366)
09-21-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DrJones*
09-21-2007 2:32 PM


Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
quote:
We cannot mate with our supposed current ancestors, the chimpanzee.

Chimps are not our ancestors.

We cannot mate with our closest relative who shares a common ancestor. Is that better, Doc?


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DrJones*, posted 09-21-2007 2:32 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2007 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 73 of 238 (423368)
09-21-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 1:55 PM


Hardly interesting
What I have said is that based on the teachings, it is reasonable for racists to have come to their pitiable deductions.

Well sort of. In the context of the times: Given the teachings and the ignorance of anything else - it is reasonable for racists to be racists. Those teachings might be the teachings of Ancient Egpytians, the pagan Romans, Christian priests or biological scientists. Any teachings that teach about life and other people might be applied with a dab of ignorance and inherent racism to conclude racist thoughts.

That's hardly interesting though - is it?

We cannot mate with our supposed current ancestors, the chimpanzee.

Well we don't know that - and it definitely isn't the only or best way to detect relatedness. I have never mated with my cousin, though I probably could produce offspring. Easier would be to do a DNA test. Easier still would be to do a rough analysis: She looks a bit like my mother who looks a bit like a female older version of me, her mother looks even more like my mother than I or my cousin.

Isn't there a difference between homo habilis and homo erectus? Was one considered more or less evolved than the other?

When are you asking? If the two ever coexisted, then one could say they were 'equally evolved' at that time - though that doesn't really mean anything.

Is it possible that one race is more closely related to habilis, while the other is more closely related to erectus?

No.

Are not these images telling of a progression?

Yes - what of it?

The zeitgeist in Darwin's time, all the way up to Hitler's, was to show that some men are more highly evolved than others. This changed as people's personal views began to change the science behind it. Now, we're all equally evolved, no better or worse. Why a shift in thought?

Because the idea that two individuals that exist at the same time being 'more' or 'less' evolved doesn't make any sense. Had we been indoctrinated by an inherently racist system of white superiority, we might not have come to that conclusion because we might not have wanted to. Now that we don't have such a level of racial bigotry we can understand that all current life has been evolving for the same amount of time and the idea that something is 'more' evolved doesn't make a great deal of sense. And if we were to quantify the amount of evolution, that does not imply superiority, just difference.

Yet, the denial that progress is paramount, all the while showing stepwise progressions.

There has been progression in natural history - as I said, history as all about progressing from one state of affairs to another. However, this is not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution just explains change. That change is always progressive in the temporal sense of the word, but it isn't about getting 'better' as in more superior it's about adapting to the environment.

The slave trade was ended by numerous pioneers, Modulous. You can't just say all Vicotrians, or all liberals, or all conservatives. I could point to you William Wilberforce, as almost single-handedly abolishing slavery. But that wouldn't do justice to the myriad of others that helped him during his crusade to free the slaves.

I never implied only one person or group abolished slavery. I said that the majority of people around Darwin's time and before it, where more racist that Darwin. Thus: Darwin's ideas didn't make any difference to racism, since it was already there.

I'm not. What I've been arguing, from the beginning, is that the question of if evolution reasonably has ties to racism, I believe the question to be a legitimate one. My use of quotes is only to show that it isn't far-fetched at all. I'm not trying to demonize evolution as being inherently racist at all. I'm simply saying that if some people come their "Master race" ideology after having read about evolution, don't be surprised by their conclusion. Its reasonable.

Only reasonable because they were racists to begin with. Anti-semitism predated Darwin. Racism of all kinds predated Darwin. Some people came to the "Master race" ideology after reading about God, and we shouldn't be surprised by their conclusion. Its reasonable.

Are there ties to racism? Only in two ways. Racists came to accept the theory of evolution, and racists used the theory of evolution to justify their racism. This is not unique to the theory of evolution, so why bring it up?

Not intentionally, but inadvertently. What else did you expect would come of it?

Nope, not even inadvertently. That black people are inferior does not explain how populations change. Nor does the fact that populations change through variation and selection imply that some races are subhuman and not deserving of dignity. It just implies that some variants will do better than others in their environment - and nature will sort that out herself.

Sure, people manipulate all sorts of things for their own ends. No sense in anyone ever denying that. But what else should they deduce after reading the theory in its context?

That populations of species change over time due to variations within the population and selective pressures acting on it.

Has there ever been a regression within evolution? Has anything gotten worse as a result of evolution? Probably not.

See the major extinction events for more details.

Why? Because of natural selection. It removes the aberrant and retains the strong.

Most certainly NOT! If it removed aberrants, then there would be no evolution! Actually natural selection is a process whereby certain traits change in relative frequency because of their contribution to their own reproduction.

So clearly, there really, truly is a sense of advancement in evolution. How can you say otherwise?

There is no advancement. Like that. There is only adaption. Most of the time, a species will be at equilibrium where it doesn't really evolve a great deal since it is already well adapted to its environment and any aberration will be selected against. However, if the environment changes, then the species will need to adapt. They will 'advance' towards the next equilibrium point. That isn't a 'getting better' kind of advance. It might be 'getting worse' by any normal person's understanding of the phrases. For instance - flighted birds losing the flying ability, cave fish losing their eyesight.

In fact - creationists are normally the ones to point out that evolution has a lot of things 'getting worse' or devolving, I'm sure you can think of a few more examples.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 1:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 74 of 238 (423370)
09-21-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 1:55 PM


Inadvertently a different topic altogether ...
Quite a few people are saying that I am claiming that evolution will inherently lead to racism. I've made no such claim. What I have said is that based on the teachings, it is reasonable for racists to have come to their pitiable deductions.

Ah, so all your posts are about a different topic than the OP. Glad you clarified that. :rolleyes: (let's play which topic has the pea ...)

Are not these images telling of a progression?

Yes they are a progression, but they are not necessarily "progress" (as normally used or as used by evolution scientists - which are different). A progression goes from point A to point B by intermediate steps that proceed, show development, in each step to B from A. Or are you equivocating on the definition of progression?

Yet, the denial that progress is paramount, all the while showing stepwise progressions.

Yep you are equivocating.

pro·gres·sion –noun 1. the act of progressing; forward or onward movement.
2. a passing successively from one member of a series to the next; succession; sequence.
3. Mathematics. a succession of quantities in which there is a constant relation between each member and the one succeeding it. Compare arithmetic progression, geometric progression, harmonic progression.

You are confusing definition (1) with definition (2), typical.

The progression from A to B in a series does not involve any necessary values of A relative to B

I'm not. What I've been arguing, from the beginning, is that the question of if evolution reasonably has ties to racism, I believe the question to be a legitimate one. My use of quotes is only to show that it isn't far-fetched at all. I'm not trying to demonize evolution as being inherently racist at all. I'm simply saying that if some people come their "Master race" ideology after having read about evolution, don't be surprised by their conclusion. Its reasonable.

Your use of quotes does not show that, it just shows that some people were racist. Not one of those quotes showed how such racist views were necessary developments of the theory.

Not intentionally, but inadvertently. What else did you expect would come of it?

You mean inadvertently through ignorance and misunderstanding, such as you have displayed? Or inadvertently through accepting false representations (such as racist ones) as fact, as you have also done? Or do you mean that it can dishonestly be portrayed in this manner even when you know better?

All you have shown is that racists can misrepresent evolution to support their racist agenda, not that evolution does necessarily support racism.

For your information and edification (though it will likely be ignored) there is this definition of "progress" as used in evolution:

quote:
Progress is "a tendency of lineages to improve cumulatively their adaptive fit to their particular way of life, by increasing the number of features which combine together in adaptive complexes" (Richard Dawkins, Evolution 51(1997): 1016).

Where does that result in racism nem? Inadvertently or otherwise?

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 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 1:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 75 of 238 (423371)
09-21-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 2:38 PM


mating with chimps
We cannot mate with our closest relative who shares a common ancestor.

Do you have any substantiation of this? As far as I know it has not been attempted.

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 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
16NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019