Evolution is antithetical to racism

Spam away with denials. Misstate whatever you will.

So where exactly did you show that racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution? If you haven't show it how can it be denied or misstated?

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.

Again, where exactly did you show that racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution?

I agree that nobody should be fooled by your posts that lack substantiation for your position or by your tactics of avoiding the issue.

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.

Spam away with denials. Misstate whatever you will.

Why?

It's so much easier just to challenge you to produce a shred of evidence for your delusions.

Got any?

The information is out & the facts have been set free.

Er ... but you haven't provided any information or facts that support your assertions, despite being challenged to again and again.

And everyone reading this thread can see that.

Your cause is lost. Nobody will be fooled who wasn't fooled before, and it's possible you could even lose a few souls.

What's the weather like on your planet? You know, the one where you win a debate by running scared from every demand for evidence that supports your views? I'm guessing it rains candy sprinkles, yes?

"What surprises me most on making a general survey of the great destinies of man, is that I invariably see the reverse of what today Darwin and his school sees or will persist in seeing: selection in favour of the stronger, the better constituted, and the progress of the species. Precisely the reverse of this stares one in the face: the suppression of the lucky cases, the uselessness of the more highly constituted types, the inevitable mastery of the mediocre, and even of those who are below mediocrity. Unless we are shown some reason why man is an exception among living creatures, I incline to the view that Darwin's school is everywhere at fault ...

I see all philosophers and the whole of science on their knees before a reality which is the reverse of the struggle for life as Darwin and his school understood it- that is to say, wherever I look, I see those prevailing and surviving, who throw doubt and suspicion upon life and the value of life.- The error of the Darwinian school became a problem to me: how can one be so blind as to make this mistake?"

--- Nietzsche, "Anti-Darwin", The Will to Power

So he was against Darwin, yes, but I don't see where he shows that evolution must lead to 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.

Of course, this would not lead us to conclude that some races must be "more fit" than others, unless "we" happen to be morons.

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

Just like the Bible, then.

So one might ask if the racists are somehow misapplying evolutionism or being hypocritical. If they are, I can't see it.

Well, perhaps you could produce just one argument from evolution to racism, and then we could take a look at that argument and see if it does indeed involve a misapplication of evolution.

Until we see some arguments, we too are going to be unable to see what is wrong with them.

On what basis can one fault their reasoning?

ITS COMPLETE ABSENCE.

Apparently there is no supposed reasoning from evolution to racism that you feel would stand up to public scrutiny.

This suggests that you know as well as I do that any such argument would be rubbish.

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.

And I notice that no-one did in fact claim that, and that what you are denouncing as artificial and nonsensical is stuff you made up in your head.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

I'm not sure what evolutionism is or of what it strives to remind us, but since very few people, as far as I know, are followers of this evolutionism it is pretty irrelevant.

What the Theory of Evolution states is a fact: some individuals in a population will produce more surviving offspring than others, and that this difference, at least in non-human populations, is often due to inherited physical characteristics.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

It is maintained that evolutionism is antithetical to racism because it teaches us how closely we are related to our fellow men.

Uh, bullshit. Please point out where "evolutionism" is even mentioned in the OP or where that assertion is maintained?

Biology has indeed revealed much along those lines.

Biology has confirmed what the Theory of Evolution predicted and that is, "Common Origins and Descent with Modification".

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.

Again with the made up terms. There is no evidence that there is anything called "evolutionism". However, from an evolutionary perspective, a population that has a birth rate higher than its death rate is fit. There is no survival of the fittest, just survival of the fit.

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

So you assert, yet you have never show that Evolutionism even exists or that the Theory of Evolution can actually be used to justify racism.

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.

I do not doubt that you cannot see it, since your posts show you to be totally clueless about what Evolution is or what the Theory of Evolution says. If those things had not been explained to you, it would be possible to imagine that you were simply ignorant. However they have been explained to you several times, so we are left with the possibility that you are willfully ignorant, deluded, or just plain lying.

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.

If those happened to be the case, then perhaps you might have an argument, but as with so much that you post, they are simply false.

The Theory of Evolution does not state "stress and competition are appropriate and that one should strive do demonstrate and exploit the advantages of one's own group" or that ""inferior" specimens don't deserve to survive". Both of those statements are false and again, as above, since that has been explained to you we are left wondering if you are willfully ignorant, deluded, or just plain lying.

The Theory of Evolution deals with the mechanisms that operate. That is all. There is no concept of "deserve" or "inferior" or "strive". It simply explains how biological and genetic changes happen, and the mechanism that selects out those traits that prevent the individual from living long enough to reproduce. Fitness of a population is simply when the birth rate of the population is higher than the death rate.

Try again should you wish, but so far you have not shown any evidence that Evolution is not antithetical to racism.

Edited by jar, : spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Again, where exactly did you show that racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution?

Where exactly in the OP is this mentioned?

Not that I couldn't do it. It may be that I already have. I'm a little drowsy. But the point is: why should I?

I've already demonstrated how false the claim was - all that happens now is you guys generate more spam of frustration.

The history is clear. Racists have seen that natural selection doesn't apply to individual humans. If it has any effect, it is certainly too small to result in any improvement. They have devised and implemented other means to "evolve the species". Or should everyone forget there ever was an attempt to evolve a "master race" of the "Ãœbermann", just so you all can "win"?*

*RAZD, I clearly see that you intend to move the goalposts in order to obtain your "victory". So that question would not apply to you as an individual at this time. Others seem to be reaching that point, as disgusting as it is.

Where exactly in the OP is this mentioned? Not that I couldn't do it. It may be that I already have. I'm a little drowsy. But the point is: why should I?

* giggles *

I've already demonstrated how false the claim was.

Which claim did you demonstrate was false and where did you demonstrate it?

Does this have anything to do with your lies about Marx and Nietzsche?

Looking over what you have, in fact, already posted, I am not surprised that you don't wish to draw our attention to any particular part of it.

Racists have seen that natural selection doesn't apply to individual humans.

And what racists have "seen" is wrong.

There you go.

I notice, by the way, that when you tell me what racists think, you don't quote any racists. So what I'm wondering is, when you tell me what racists think, is that just something you've made up in your head, y'know, like all the other times on this thread where you've attributed opinions to people?

They have devised and implemented other means to "evolve the species".

Ah, doubtless they have been influenced by the creationist dogma of microevolution.

RAZD

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?

Playing the card? What are you talking about? Abortion is supposed to have popular support, so by bringing it up I'd be risking turning most of the "audience" against me. In order to "play cards", one has to play politically correct cards in case you never noticed.

And I ranted about nothing. I pointed out that several of the evolutionist arguments currently used to support abortion work equally well to support racism. What further did I say about abortion that would qualify my remarks as a rant?

And since you don't seem to understand, it is the Darwinists, the racists, and the supporters of abortion who equate poverty with inferiority. Pointing out that piece of information does not make me one of them, and never will. Neither will you ever convince anyone that it does beyond a couple of our little spammers.

Again, where exactly did you show that racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution? Where exactly in the OP is this mentioned?

The OP states that evolution theory does not result in racism. You are arguing against this position, therefore it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism. The way you support your argument is to actually show that evolution theory necessarily results in racism. If your argument is true it should be easy to do.

Not that I couldn't do it. It may be that I already have. I'm a little drowsy. But the point is: why should I?

You haven't - otherwise nobody would be asking you to. And if you don't feel you need to support your argument with anything other than your bald assertion, then you should withdraw it.

If it is impossible for you to support your argument with a demonstration that racism necessarily results from evolution theory then your statement must be false.

It's that simple.

The history is clear. Racists have ...

... misused science, history, philosophy, and religion to support their racist views, but that doesn't mean any of their arguments are valid.

What makes an argument valid is a demonstration, such as the one requested here, that evolution theory necessarily results in racism.

Quoting racists doesn't do this, that just shows that people were racist. DUH. The way you support your argument is to show that evolution theory necessarily results in racism. If your argument is true it should be easy to do.

*RAZD, I clearly see that you intend to move the goalposts in order to obtain your "victory".

What goalposts this is about you substantiating the argument against the OP stating that evolution does not result in racism.

What victory? Actually getting you to substantiate your position would be a victory for me?

Others seem to be reaching that point, as disgusting as it is.

What point? That you failed to substantiate your argument with an actual demonstration of how racism necessarily results from evolution theory?

That's pretty clear to anyone who reads this thread.

Message 129 Playing the card? What are you talking about? Abortion is supposed to have popular support, so by bringing it up I'd be risking turning most of the "audience" against me. In order to "play cards", one has to play politically correct cards in case you never noticed.

Abortion has nothing to do with what evolution theory says about racism. Introducing it is a red herring designed to deflect the argument in a different direction due to your stellar inability to actually demonstrate that evolution theory necessarily results in racism. If your argument is true it should be easy to do.

And I ranted about nothing. I pointed out that several of the evolutionist arguments currently used to support abortion work equally well to support racism. What further did I say about abortion that would qualify my remarks as a rant?

You made an argument based on things people use to support abortion in individual instances, but you absolutely failed to show that those arguments were derived from evolution theory or that the application of abortion in those instances resulted in inferior subpopulations of people with distinct hereditary traits. Equating abortion arguments with evolutionists and hence to evolution theory is compounding several logical fallacies into one irrelevant line.

So your argument was hogwash from start to finish.

Pointing out that piece of information does not make me one of them, and never will. Neither will you ever convince anyone that it does beyond a couple of our little spammers.

Nobody is trying to make you out to be a racist. However we do want you to substantiate your position. Pointing out that piece of "information" and demonstrating that it is true are two different things.

And since you don't seem to understand, it is the Darwinists, the racists, and the supporters of abortion who equate poverty with inferiority.

To demonstrate it is true for Darwinists means you need to demonstrate that equating poor with inferior is a logical result of the theory of evolution.

But you have not demonstrated that either (add it to the ever growing list of totally unsubstantiated claims). This is just another bald assertion, one that says a lot about your personal biases and bigotry about poor people, but nothing about how evolution theory necessarily resulting in racism.

OR in other words, no I do not understand that evolution theory necessarily equates being poor with being inferior: please demonstrate how evolution theory necessarily results in poor being inferior.

Again for your edification, and to assist you in making such demonstrations as have been multitudinously requested of you, the theory of evolution can be stated conveniently in one of two ways:

1. briefly -- that evolution (see Message 184) is the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation and that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see on this planet and in the fossil record,

   OR

2. more explicitly (see Message 215) -- The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.

Use whichever version you think is more appropriate.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : add

---

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.

I'm a little drowsy.

Reading your posts, this seems to be a on-going problem. Why don't you sleep it off? Maybe when you're sober your posts will have more content.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

And I ranted about nothing. I pointed out that several of the evolutionist arguments currently used to support abortion ...

How does the theory of evolution "support abortion"?

Does this involve more Sooper Sekrit Reezuning which you won't actually share with anyone 'cos you know it's bollocks? Just guessing.

And since you don't seem to understand, it is the Darwinists, the racists, and the supporters of abortion who equate poverty with inferiority.

Uh ... there's no point in lying to us about what "Darwinists" think, 'cos we are "Darwinists", remember?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,773029-1,00.html

Cooperation has been a more important evolutionary jorce in the development of man than has the bitter competitive struggle for existence. So asserted a learned U.S. biologist last week in an attack on those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression.

Just what is meant by "those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression"? Of whom could they be thinking?

One clue might be found in the date of the article.

Unfortunately, switching paradigms from competition among individuals to competition among groups really doesn't help much in combating racism, because 'races' have always been considered groups.

But I'm skipping too far ahead. I fear we may still have some who are in denial.

Just what is meant by "those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression"? Of whom could they be thinking?

Um, racists? You still have not shown that "those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression" have an argument the shows how racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution. You're still quoting other people's insinuations instead.

From your article:

quote:

---

Since Darwin's time violence has sometimes been justified by aggressors and even accepted by their victims as biologically natural, i.e., just and not answerable to unscientific moral scruples. A climax in the misuse of Darwinian ideology was reached by the totalitarians who declared that it justified 1) deliberate brutality, 2) adoption of violence as the final arbiter in the relations among men, classes, states.

---

That sounds like what everyone else here has been saying.

quote:

---

"Competition plays a tremendously important part in evolution but the survival of the fittest does not always mean the survival of the strong, the predators, the parasites or even the adequately defended organisms." Sheer struggle tends to be supplanted by cooperation, Emerson observed, in each evolutionary step upward from the single cell to the many-celled organism to the family to societies.

---

Note there is nothing here about evolution theory necessarily resulting in "inferior" subpopulations and the behavior of racism.

Now it seems to me that you have three options:

1. Acknowledge that the theory of evolution does not in fact result in racism,
2. Continue to assert that it does result in racism, while providing absolutely no evidence that it does (and in denial of all the evidence that it doesn't), or
3. Actually demonstrating that the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism.

In my opinion, an honest person. especially one that is honest to themselves, will choose option (1) or option (3) but not option (2).

It is also my opinion that option (3) cannot honestly be done, which imh(ysa)o leaves only option (1) as the honest, truthful answer.

You may disagree, and feel free to do so, however there is no basis - can be no basis - for disagreeing if you cannot show that the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism, because option (2) is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

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.

So asserted a learned U.S. biologist last week in an attack on those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression. Just what is meant by "those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression"?

It means that not only are "those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression" making a logically invalid argument, but they also have their facts wrong, too.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)