Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 12:37 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, PsychMJC, ringo, Tanypteryx, Taq (8 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,015 Year: 9,051/19,786 Month: 1,473/2,119 Week: 233/576 Day: 36/98 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
16Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 106 of 238 (423913)
09-24-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
09-24-2007 11:11 AM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution - fact
RAZD
Except that survival of the fittest doesn't produce "inferior" individuals or races.

Huh? There aren't a lot of choices. If it produces equal offspring, there's no point in selection. Clearly there must be superior offspring, and they have to be 'superior' to something. I submit that there cannot exist 'superior' anything without an 'inferior' counterpart.

And what are 'races' to be made up of, if not individuals?

Are you equating being poor with being inferior? Are you equating having some poor people in a population with the whole population being inferior?

Darwinists do so right now. It's a favorite pro-abortion argument of theirs: the unwanted babies would result in unbearable economic hardship for the parents and for society at large.

A good number of their pro-abortion arguments work equally as well when applied as pro-racist arguments. The "quality of life" argument, the "it's legal so it's just fine" argument. Even the quacky "how do you define human?" line is readily converted to racism.

I did a search here & came up with this local discussion. Makes for ugly reading, but a fair sampling of the arguments can be found here. Of course not every last one will handily transform, but there are a handful.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=15&t=135&m=1

And it's been pointed out before that in practice legalized abortion results in some 'races' aborting in much higher percentages than others among 'multi-racial' populations.

I personally am unable to define the term 'race'. For anyone who can, there are ample motives to practice racism under atheist evolution. It is precisely because evolution requires selective pressure, and humans do not undergo any consistent, discernable selective pressure that they need to implement other forms of pressure.

Under evolution, it is a proper course of action to see to it that one's offspring survive to produce more offspring. As Modulous pointed out this applies to the offspring of siblings as well, since they'll have much in common, genetically.

It logically extends to give preference to all other creatures on the basis of how 'closely related' one is to them. So anyone who sees another 'race' as more distantly related than one's own has a motive to prefer the survival of some over others because one shares more genetically with them. The manifestation of this preference is properly called 'racism', is it not?

I expect some will say evolution doesn't require pressure. Look at the experiments. They always introduce pressure, lest they should have no change to observe.

I see now that there are two motives. 1.) Introduce pressure, that the species may evolve. 2.)Give preference to those individuals and groups to whom one is more closely related. These are separate, yet highly compatible motives for an atheist evolutionist to practice racism. In light of this, my post could have been better organized.

BTW, is there a topic yet which discusses the problems for evolutionism which exist because social species are often well-shielded from selection on an individual basis? I'd be interested to see what manner of stories have been invented to cope with this. Some of them might very well apply to humans, and probably would be highly compatible with eugenics and racism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 11:11 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 8:27 PM CTD has responded
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 9:48 PM CTD has responded

    
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 107 of 238 (423923)
09-24-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Modulous
09-24-2007 2:57 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
Modulous
Right now, many humans die of old age and so do not suffer as strongly from survival selection. Many many many people still die from disease and famine, so selection still exists. Your life expectancy in classical Rome could have been as bad 28 years. A lot of that is due to infant mortality. We westerners are lucky, but there is definitely natural selection occurring to humans in other parts of the world. Such as Africa.

quotes me

quote:
Oh, don't forget famine. Famine hits populations - not indiduals.

Correct. And the fittest individuals in that population will survive.

First of all thank you for being honest enough to agree, although you make it clear that we disagree on the extent of shielding.

It appears that 'fitness' in a starving or diseased country must depend mostly on friendship with a local warlord, or living in a place where relief workers can readily find a person.

Indeed, it can even depend on how much CNN coverage your country's plight receives, and how much charity the coverage generates. But it takes a pretty harsh disease to kill a rich man's child.

To me, that's just not very Darwinian.

There's been a lot of stuff on the History Channel lately about volcanos. They don't seem to be so all-fired Darwinian in how they go about selecting the 'fittest' either.

I won't go on and on. There's precious little 'natural selection' among humans, if any at all.

If anything, the Darwinism for humans would have to be applied on a national level. The nations which are 'more fit' organizationally fare batter than those with lesser organization. This is what made the collectivism evolutionist paradigm (ant emulation) look good to some. Of course their choice of organizational methods proves rather poor...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2007 2:57 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Vacate, posted 09-24-2007 9:48 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 120 by Modulous, posted 09-25-2007 2:17 AM CTD has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6619
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 108 of 238 (423925)
09-24-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by CTD
09-24-2007 7:55 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution - fact
Under evolution, it is a proper course of action to see to it that one's offspring survive to produce more offspring.

Well, under anything, actually. I don't know a single society that didn't feel that a proper course of action is to see to it that one's offspring survives to produce more offspring. In fact, in most societies, if one didn't see to it that one's offspring survives, one would be considered a bad parent.


You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 7:55 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:39 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 109 of 238 (423926)
09-24-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jar
09-24-2007 7:18 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
jar
Nor have you shown how Marxism supports racism. One of the tenets of Marx work was the equality of the individual. There was no differentiation based on race, but only on productivity.

And one 'race' could never be deemed "less productive" than another? Once 'races' are defined, it seems that one will inevitably be considered 'more fit' than another.

When reading liars like Marx, one must expect some flowery language to be included. Such persons will frequently say one thing that conflicts with another, leaving their followers to implement the real plan where the rubber meets the road.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 7:18 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 8:39 PM CTD has responded
 Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 11:31 PM CTD has not yet responded

    
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 110 of 238 (423928)
09-24-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Chiroptera
09-24-2007 8:27 PM


offspring
Well, under anything, actually. I don't know a single society that didn't feel that a proper course of action is to see to it that one's offspring survives to produce more offspring. In fact, in most societies, if one didn't see to it that one's offspring survives, one would be considered a bad parent.

'Bad parent'? Did you mean to be so harsh on those who abort their children?

Edited by CTD, : Fix quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 8:27 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 111 of 238 (423929)
09-24-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by CTD
09-24-2007 8:33 PM


Using loaded terms again.
And one 'race' could never be deemed "less productive" than another? Once 'races' are defined, it seems that one will inevitably be considered 'more fit' than another.

You even quoted what I said and still misrepresented it. Amazing.

The key to the Communist Manifesto is the individual. And yes, one race could not be deemed "less productive" than another. The whole basis of Marxism is equality.

When reading liars like Marx, one must expect some flowery language to be included. Such persons will frequently say one thing that conflicts with another, leaving their followers to implement the real plan where the rubber meets the road.

Yet you have not shown Marx was a liar.

AbE:

You are also simply avoiding the topic. Can you show how the Theory of Evolution is not antithetical to racism?

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:33 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:52 PM jar has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 112 of 238 (423941)
09-24-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Lithodid-Man
09-24-2007 4:24 PM


objective selection
Lithodid-Man
To repeat what has been said over and over in this thread, please demonstrate how the ToE is inherently racist or leads to racism as a logical conclusion, naming racists who may or may have not been evolutionists is not evidence.

Please take care about moving goalposts.

Actually, in the OP jar says

Several posters over the years have implied that Evolution and Racism are related or that racism is supported by evolution.

The fact is that the Theory of Evolution is antithetical to the concept of racism.

And jar's post #21 of this thread

And I never said it did.

I said that Evolution and the Theory of Evolution cannot be used to justify racism.

And so far no one has even come close to showing how evolution could be used to justify racism.

It is maintained that evolutionism is antithetical to racism because it teaches us how closely we are related to our fellow men. Biology has indeed revealed much along those lines. But evolutionism continually strives to remind us that there should be a struggle for survival, and that some of us must be "more fit" than others.

Can evolutionism be used to support racism? It clearly has been used for that purpose, and it continues to this very day.

So one might ask if the racists are somehow misapplying evolutionism or being hypocritical. If they are, I can't see it. On what basis can one fault their reasoning? Evolutionism provides no basis whatsoever upon which to criticize them. Only via morals and ethics can they be faulted, and evolutionism is fairly scant on ammo.

One would have to demonstrate that their actions somehow inhibit 'evolution'. So long as the 'theory' clearly states that stress and competition are appropriate and that one should strive do demonstrate and exploit the advantages of one's own group, this is a tall order indeed. So long as it implies that "inferior" specimens don't deserve to survive, it will have no chance whatsoever.

Also, it is artificial and nonsensical to claim that 'evolution' can be applied in a manner which restricts consideration to individuals and does not extend to groups. Groups are made up of individuals, and most evolutionary 'science' deals with groups. Generally, individuals aren't said to 'evolve' much at all. (And as I've already explained, human survival is much more of a group issue anyway.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-24-2007 4:24 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2007 1:15 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Chiroptera, posted 09-25-2007 1:37 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 126 by jar, posted 09-25-2007 2:28 PM CTD has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 113 of 238 (423942)
09-24-2007 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by CTD
09-24-2007 8:19 PM


Humans and natural selection
To me, that's just not very Darwinian.

I would agree; relief workers, cnn, modern health care, foreign aid, tax relief, quality housing, steady access to food, and many other things help to contribute to humans being less affected by natural selection. This however is a 'modern' event.

There's precious little 'natural selection' among humans, if any at all.

Given that in the past most (or all) of the factors where absent, humans ability to survive would be very dependant on whether or not they could survive harsh conditions. In the absence of eye glasses, for example, its very likely that serious vision problems where selected against as blind or near blind people would not live long enough to breed. How could they keep up with a wandering tribe of hunter/gatherers?

Today however people are dependant on many factors and in the absence of all of these modern conveniences it is easy to see that many people would simply not survive. 'Modern' man has is little affected by natural selection, but this was not always the case.

This does not suggest that one 'race' is more advanced than another. I cannot imagine how one could suggest that one race is superior when all had to survive for each race to be represented today.

Volcanoes and other such natural disasters can take out the most fit and least fit in any given population, if the impact is great enough such things have also resulted in extinctions. Nature isn't always fair, but it does not mean natural selection isn't at work in the absence of an extinction event.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:19 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 114 of 238 (423943)
09-24-2007 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by CTD
09-24-2007 7:55 PM


playing the abortion card ... ?
Huh? There aren't a lot of choices. If it produces equal offspring, there's no point in selection. Clearly there must be superior offspring, and they have to be 'superior' to something. I submit that there cannot exist 'superior' anything without an 'inferior' counterpart.

Correct. But all the offspring of the next generation are the ones that are from fit parents -- the unfit parents don't pass on their hereditary traits. This is all natural selection does: select the fittest members to pass on their hereditary traits, and virtually by definition all hereditary traits that get passed to the next generation are fit.

However this does not mean that there is any selection for "superior" vs "inferior" because those have to be hereditary traits subject to selection for fitness to the ecology, and not just some arbitray subjective evaluations of the relative worth of individuals or groups of individuals by other individuals or groups of individuals. There may be some sexual selection in choosing mates by individuals or groups of individuals that make such arbitrary subjective evaluations of other individuals or groups of individuals but that won't necessarily select for (or against) the arbitrary subjective evaluations if they are not a hereditary trait.

So you have a three-fold problem:

(1) showing that any criteria to be used to evaluate "superior" and "inferior" has a hereditary basis,

(2) showing that it is specific to certain sub-populations of humans and not to others,

and

(3) showing that this criteria is necessarily derived from the theory of evolution and is not an arbitrary subjective evaluations of the relative worth of individuals or groups of individuals by other individuals or groups of individuals.

You have not done one of those yet.

Are you equating being poor with being inferior? Are you equating having some poor people in a population with the whole population being inferior?

Darwinists do so right now. It's a favorite pro-abortion argument of theirs: the unwanted babies would result in unbearable economic hardship for the parents and for society at large.

This makes them inferior? You are now off on a rant about abortion, and have completely missed making the connection between poor and inferior. That there are lots of topics that discuss abortion still has no bearing on the equation of poor with inferior.

I repeat: are you equating being poor with being inferior? Are you equating having some poor people in a population with the whole population being inferior?

And I'll add: are you equating having an abortion with being inferior? Are you equating having some people in a population having an abortion with the whole population being inferior?

I personally am unable to define the term 'race'. For anyone who can, there are ample motives to practice racism under atheist evolution. It is precisely because evolution requires selective pressure, and humans do not undergo any consistent, discernable selective pressure that they need to implement other forms of pressure.

Under evolution, it is a proper course of action to see to it that one's offspring survive to produce more offspring. As Modulous pointed out this applies to the offspring of siblings as well, since they'll have much in common, genetically.

It logically extends to give preference to all other creatures on the basis of how 'closely related' one is to them. So anyone who sees another 'race' as more distantly related than one's own has a motive to prefer the survival of some over others because one shares more genetically with them. The manifestation of this preference is properly called 'racism', is it not?

But "under evolution" once your offspring are protected within your social environment there is no need for anything beyond that, and it can be counterproductive if going beyond your social environment results in confrontations that cause injury or death to those who are 'closely related', so "under evolution" there is a check on the mechanism.

And "under evolution" once you reach the point of "unrelatedness" within your social environment where other less 'closely related' people can cause injury or death to 'closely related' members, then it does not matter\need to be extended further. Thus you are in as much "danger" from someone of your own "race" as you are of someone from a distant "race" and they can be the person next door.

You cite abortion, I'll cite child abuse: children are more likely to be abused by a relative or someone they know than someone they don't know. That abuse can (and frequently does) end in sexual dysfunction, injury or death.

Finally, "under evolution" concern for one's offspring to survive to produce more offspring also means having mates for those offspring that we do know genetically are better if they are not 'closely related' and so there is a mechanism to bring in people from other groups to keep your group from becoming unfit.

You have not made a case for extending offspring welfare concerns to necessarily perceiving whole populations of people as inferior.

BTW, is there a topic yet which discusses the problems for evolutionism which exist because social species are often well-shielded from selection on an individual basis? I'd be interested to see what manner of stories have been invented to cope with this. Some of them might very well apply to humans, and probably would be highly compatible with eugenics and racism.

Start one. Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : 3

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 106 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 7:55 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by CTD, posted 09-25-2007 5:02 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 115 of 238 (423944)
09-24-2007 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
09-24-2007 8:39 PM


jar
Yet you have not shown Marx was a liar.

I kinda assumed most folks can figure that out. Maybe some other time...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 8:39 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 10:54 PM CTD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 238 (423957)
09-24-2007 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by CTD
09-24-2007 9:52 PM


Having cited Marx (without actually quoting him) as your authority on evolution, you now denounce him as a liar.

Fair 'nough, we'll just stand here and watch you beat yourself up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 9:52 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6619
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 117 of 238 (423961)
09-24-2007 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by CTD
09-24-2007 8:33 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
When reading liars like Marx, one must expect some flowery language to be included.

You seem to never have read Marx. Could you quote some passages that shows that he was a racist, and that he came to his racist conclusions as a result of evolutionary thinking?


You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:33 PM CTD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 11:39 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 118 of 238 (423963)
09-24-2007 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Chiroptera
09-24-2007 11:31 PM


On Marx
Still waiting for CTD to support ANYTHING, but as pointed out in Message 102, since Marx published the Communist Manifesto over a decade before Darwin published Origins, I think he will have a hard time here too.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 11:31 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 119 of 238 (423965)
09-25-2007 12:07 AM


Looks like Game Over
Spam away with denials. Misstate whatever you will.

The information is out & the facts have been set free. Your cause is lost. Nobody will be fooled who wasn't fooled before, and it's possible you could even lose a few souls.


Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2007 7:10 AM CTD has responded
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2007 12:37 PM CTD has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 120 of 238 (423988)
09-25-2007 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by CTD
09-24-2007 8:19 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
It appears that 'fitness' in a starving or diseased country must depend mostly on friendship with a local warlord, or living in a place where relief workers can readily find a person.

You misunderstand. It is not the survivors that are the fittest, it is that those which are fitter tend to be the ones that are more likely to survive - all things being equal.

I won't go on and on. There's precious little 'natural selection' among humans, if any at all.

So...sickle-cell, not an example of selection?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by CTD, posted 09-24-2007 8:19 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019