Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
35 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,266 Year: 22,302/19,786 Month: 865/1,834 Week: 365/500 Day: 64/64 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
CTD
Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 136 of 238 (424386)
09-26-2007 7:25 PM


http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/thx2010.txt

I have other reasons for fearing that this logical ideal of
evolutionary regimentation
--this pigeon-fanciers' polity--is
unattainable.

Thomas H. Huxley, at the start of "IX" (emphasis added)

What's he talking about? It's best to start at "V" and read straight through. From the ending paragraphs of "VII":

Thus, as soon as the colonists began to multiply, the administrator
would have to face the tendency to the reintroduction of the cosmic
struggle into his artificial fabric, in consequence of the
competition, not merely for the commodities, but for the means of
existence. When the colony reached the limit of possible expansion,
the surplus population must be disposed of somehow; or the fierce
struggle for existence must recommence and destroy that peace, which
is the fundamental condition of the maintenance of the state of art
against the state of nature.

Supposing the administrator to be guided by purely scientific
considerations, he would, like the gardener, meet this most serious
difficulty by systematic extirpation, or exclusion, of the superfluous.
The hopelessly diseased, the infirm aged, the weak or deformed in body
or in mind, the excess of infants born, would be put away, as the
gardener pulls up defective and superfluous plants, or the breeder
destroys undesirable cattle. Only the strong and the healthy,
carefully matched, with a view to the progeny best adapted to the
purposes of the administrator, would be permitted to perpetuate their
kind.

He's talking about the operation of a colony of people, administered by an "ideal" agent. He argues that the reason it shouldn't be done is that the ideal "administrative authority" cannot be found.

In "VIII" he acknowledges that attempts are being made in his time to do this thing. He speaks well of their ruthlessness, but has reservations about their intelligence.

If you can make it through all the babble down to "XII" (again I'll add emphasis)

I have briefly described the nature of the only radical cure, known to
me, for the disease which would thus threaten the existence of the
colony; and, however regretfully, I have been obliged to admit that
this rigorously scientific method of applying the principles of
evolution to human society
hardly comes within the region of practical
politics; not for want of will on the part of a great many people; but
because, for one reason, there is no hope that mere human beings will
ever possess enough intelligence to select the fittest. And I [35]
have adduced other grounds for arriving at the same conclusion.

This is the man who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog", the mouthpiece who dared to say the things Darwin lacked the guts to say. He clearly states what the logical result of applying evolutionism would be. And the "one reason" he gives for not implementing the ideal is "nobody's smart enough".

I agree that it shouldn't be done or attempted. But the "nobody's smart enough" argument will never convince even one single person who would otherwise attempt this that they're not up to it.

So what's the next gripe? "He wasn't talking about neo-Darwinism, so that's not evolution", is that it? No. It'll probably be some lame lie that I didn't read it all, or misquoted. I read enough to see that he offered no alternatives, compatible with evolution or otherwise. Neither did he offer a better argument. I can also tell he's had practice saying nothing with a lot of words. So go for it, losers.


Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 7:33 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 138 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2007 7:33 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2007 11:04 AM CTD has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 238 (424388)
09-26-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by CTD
09-26-2007 7:25 PM


He clearly states what the logical result of applying evolutionism would be.

See, that's why it's nonsense. Evolution isn't something you apply; it's a description of what naturally happens in populations of living organisms.

Evolution is a description of what already happens; it's not a prescription of behavior. It's not something that tells us what we should do; it's something that tells us what's going to happen, anyway. Populations don't need anybody's help to select against the less fit members of their populations; that happens anyway, it's intrinsic to being less fit.

What you're saying is all nonsense, CTD, because evolution explains how less fit individuals tend to have less success in reproduction. It doesn't obligate us to ensure that it happens, any more than the law of gravity requires human beings to go pushing down on things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by CTD, posted 09-26-2007 7:25 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 138 of 238 (424389)
09-26-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by CTD
09-26-2007 7:25 PM


This is getting stupid.
Thomas H. Huxley....
From the ending paragraphs of "VII":
Supposing the administrator to be guided by purely scientific considerations, he would, like the gardener, meet this most serious difficulty by systematic extirpation, or exclusion, of the superfluous. The hopelessly diseased, the infirm aged, the weak or deformed in body or in mind, the excess of infants born, would be put away, as the gardener pulls up defective and superfluous plants, or the breeder destroys undesirable cattle. Only the strong and the healthy, carefully matched, with a view to the progeny best adapted to the purposes of the administrator, would be permitted to perpetuate their kind.

Where's the theory of evolution in all of this? This is pretty much mundane animal breeding as it has been practiced for thousands of years, well before Darwin or the discovery of evolution. Animal and plant breeders already knew that systematic extirpation of the superfluous will result in improving the breed. What is the theory of evolution adding to this?

Also, where is the racism?

Added by edit:

And I can't emphasis enough the point that crashfrog made in the previous post (something I've been trying to say, but haven't found near as succinct a way of saying it). The theory of evolution is a description of what happens in nature, not a prescription of what people should do. Just like the Law of Gravity is a description of what happens when objects fall, not a prescription that people should crawl on their bellies and avoid airplanes and tall buildings.

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by CTD, posted 09-26-2007 7:25 PM CTD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Chiroptera, posted 03-29-2008 10:35 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 139 of 238 (424993)
09-29-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
09-18-2007 6:18 PM


Re: References and Quote-Miners
quote:
Klyce listed his reference sources, and I believe it was Lithodid-Man that posted it.

In other words you just parroted a quote-mine from a questionable source and didn't check your facts. Why not read the source and learn what Dobzhansky actually says about evolution and "progress"?

Why is he questionable? Because you say so? As far as Dobshansky is concerned, I'm already aware of what he says. He agrees that life shouldn't be characterized in linear terms, but simply states the obvious that, deny it or not, its there.

He actually said "closed system" and you didn't twig that this makes him ... how do I put it kindly ... wrong?

No.

That make him a questionable source ... whether on entropy or on the validity of the Dobzhansky quote or on any other question.

He was speaking about logical entropy, which was the entire purpose of his thesis. To quote you: Why not read the source and learn what [Klyce] actually says?


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2007 6:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 11:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2007 5:15 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 140 of 238 (425007)
09-29-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Hyroglyphx
09-29-2007 9:05 PM


Re: References and Quote-Miners
He actually said "closed system" and you didn't twig that this makes him ... how do I put it kindly ... wrong?

No.

He was speaking about logical entropy, which was the entire purpose of his thesis.

How is logic a closed system? Anyone claiming a closed system needs to demonstrate it is so rather than declare it.

Now do you want to attempt dealing with the topic and demonstrate how the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : topic question


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 139 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2007 9:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15664
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 141 of 238 (425044)
09-30-2007 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Hyroglyphx
09-29-2007 9:05 PM


Re: References and Quote-Miners
quote:
He was speaking about logical entropy, which was the entire purpose of his thesis. To quote you: Why not read the source and learn what [Klyce] actually says?

I did that. See Message 69. And Klyce never clearly explains what a "closed system" is for his conflation of statistical mechanics and information theory.

(See also Message 38 for more explanation of the Dobzhansky quote.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2007 9:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 142 of 238 (425095)
09-30-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by CTD
09-26-2007 7:25 PM


Thomas H. Huxley, at the start of "IX" (emphasis added)

What's he talking about?

Eugenics. What do you want to pretend he's talking about? Let me guess ...

He clearly states what the logical result of applying evolutionism would be.

Except that he does not, in fact, state that this would be a "logical result of applying evolutionism".

He says that this would be the logical result of applying the "evolutionary regimentation" that he's denouncing, as we can see by reading the article.

In fact, he has written an attack on eugenics which at no point involves advocating racism, as we can see by reading the article.

I have to wonder whom you hope to fool.

And the "one reason" he gives for not implementing the ideal is "nobody's smart enough".

That is not in fact "the one reason he gives", as we can see by reading the article. Indeed, we can see that from the first snippet you quote, where he says that there are "other reasons".

Whom do you hope to fool?

I agree that it shouldn't be done or attempted. But the "nobody's smart enough" argument will never convince even one single person who would otherwise attempt this that they're not up to it.

It might, however, convince everyone else that they should not invest any individual with such power.

I read enough to see that he offered no alternatives, compatible with evolution or otherwise.

The alternative to practising eugenics is not to practise eugenics. I guess Huxley supposed that everyone who read his article would be smart enough to figure that out for themselves.

I can also tell he's had practice saying nothing with a lot of words.

And yet curiously you have the idea that this "nothing" that he's saying proves you right.

Well, just because nothing supports your beliefs, that doesn't mean that someone saying nothing supports your beliefs.

But I think it rather more probable that Huxley was saying something, and you missed it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by CTD, posted 09-26-2007 7:25 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 8:43 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 143 of 238 (425203)
10-01-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dr Adequate
09-30-2007 11:04 AM


Dr Adequate
He says that this would be the logical result of applying the "evolutionary regimentation" that he's denouncing, as we can see by reading the article.

This is a curious method of "denouncing". Step one: make a carefully thought-out, logically sound argument in favor of something. Step two: make a threadbare, insubstantial argument against it.

That is not in fact "the one reason he gives", as we can see by reading the article. Indeed, we can see that from the first snippet you quote, where he says that there are "other reasons".

I saw him mention other arguments, but the "one reason" was put in quotes because it's what he said. Guess that slipped past you. That's okay, the "other arguments" he claimed to make seem to have slipped past both of us.

It might, however, convince everyone else that they should not invest any individual with such power.

Ah, but if that's the intention, there are dozens of better arguments available against investing an individual with excessive power. He must've just run out of steam about that time. Poor man couldn't seem to muster any of them.

The alternative to practising eugenics is not to practise eugenics.

So would the paraphrase apply: "the alternative to practicing evolutionism is not to practice evolutionism"? That seems to be in keeping with what your comrades claimed to advocate.

In fact, he has written an attack on eugenics which at no point involves advocating racism, as we can see by reading the article.

So eugenics is separate from racism? I always thought of it as a fancy-dress synonym. (When the thug down the street does it, it's 'racism'. When a 'scientist' does it it's 'eugenics', right?) It's a very fine distinction to make. How can one tell from the text which he was talking about, and which (if either) he was excluding? And please do be so kind as to clarify how this subtle difference has any impact whatsoever on the arguments involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2007 11:04 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 9:50 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 145 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2007 12:41 PM CTD has responded
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 5:09 PM CTD has responded
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2007 4:46 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 144 of 238 (425212)
10-01-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by CTD
10-01-2007 8:43 AM


This is a curious method of "denouncing". Step one: make a carefully thought-out, logically sound argument in favor of something. Step two: make a threadbare, insubstantial argument against it.

If you think that the arguments he mentions for eugenics are logically sound, and that his arguments against it are not, that is your problem. I think that his arguments against it are good.

Whether or not you like his arguments against eugenics, the fact remains that he is arguing against it.

I saw him mention other arguments, but the "one reason" was put in quotes because it's what he said. Guess that slipped past you.

Yes, he said that that was "one reason", implying that there were others. He did not say that that was "the one reason", which would imply that there were no others.

That's okay, the "other arguments" he claimed to make seem to have slipped past both of us.

Speak for yourself. I can read his other arguments. They follow after he says that there are other arguments.

Ah, but if that's the intention, there are dozens of better arguments available against investing an individual with excessive power. He must've just run out of steam about that time. Poor man couldn't seem to muster any of them.

I think you must have run out of steam at this point, because nor can you.

So would the paraphrase apply: "the alternative to practicing evolutionism is not to practice evolutionism"? That seems to be in keeping with what your comrades claimed to advocate.

The phrase "practicing evolutionism" has no meaning, but if it did, the clause you enclose in quotes would of course be true.

Why do you ask?

So eugenics is separate from racism?

Yes.

I always thought of it as a fancy-dress synonym.

And, as so often happens, you're wrong. Why didn't you look it up or something?

Briefly, eugenics is the application of artificial selection to humans. (NB: some early writers use it to include the breeding of humans and of domestic breeds, but in modern usage it tends to refer exclusively to the application of stock-breeding methods to humans.)

(When the thug down the street does it, it's 'racism'. When a 'scientist' does it it's 'eugenics', right?)

No.

It's a very fine distinction to make.

No.

How can one tell from the text which he was talking about, and which (if either) he was excluding?

The fact that he is talking about eugenics but never mentions race.

And please do be so kind as to clarify how this subtle difference has any impact whatsoever on the arguments involved.

Because in this thread we are discussing racism, not eugenics.

The fact that Huxley criticized eugenics using arguments which you find invalid does not mean that the theory of evolution is implicitly racist.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 8:43 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 145 of 238 (425231)
10-01-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by CTD
10-01-2007 8:43 AM


What about my previous point that Huxley wasn't even talking about evolution but mundane animal breeding, as it was practiced for centuries or even millenia, before Darwin? That's all eugenics really is, it's animal husbandry applied to humans.

Huxley isn't speaking about evolution. He's speaking about animal husbandry. Eugenicists aren't applying the theory of evolution; they are applying the usual methods known to animal breeders for centuries.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 8:43 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 3:31 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 149 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 5:09 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 820 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 146 of 238 (425265)
10-01-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Chiroptera
10-01-2007 12:41 PM


That's all eugenics really is, it's animal husbandry applied to humans.

Exactly. No theory of evolution is required to do eugenics.

Humans would have recognized hereditary features in themselves ever since there were humans. No-one needs a sophisticated culture to figure out that if a couple, one of whom has a leg shorter than the other, produces a child with that same peculiarity, then it's not just coincidence.

Ideas similar to eugenics go back a long way. Aristocrats tended to believe that they were of superior breed, and the idea of their children marrying someone too far down the social class structure meant diluting their superior blood.

What they didn't know too much about, the European royalty being a great example, was inbreeding, which may explain why Prince Charles is a bit of a chinless wonder.:)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2007 12:41 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 4:32 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 147 of 238 (425277)
10-01-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by bluegenes
10-01-2007 3:31 PM


Humans would have recognized hereditary features in themselves ever since there were humans.

It's true --- it's obvious --- creationists are incapable of understanding it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2007 3:31 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 148 of 238 (425283)
10-01-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by CTD
10-01-2007 8:43 AM


Hi CTD.

So eugenics is separate from racism?

I'm having a little trouble reconciling this with your recent posts on The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution, such as Message 221

From what I've seen, evolutionists don't believe in fixity of language any more than they believe in fixity of species. I think this case demonstrates what I mean.

For I don't understand your confusion between eugenics and racism if you are well versed in the definitions of words. One is about selecting individual organisms for desirable characteristics and the other is about rejecting whole populations as unworthy regardless of characteristics.

The alternative to practising eugenics is not to practise eugenics.

So would the paraphrase apply: "the alternative to practicing evolutionism is not to practice evolutionism"?

If "evolutionism" was practiced. Evolution happens whether we practice selection or not. This is like the difference between practicing rocketry and gravity: one is dependent on our practicing it the other isn't.

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 143 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 8:43 AM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 7:43 PM RAZD has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4212 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 149 of 238 (425284)
10-01-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Chiroptera
10-01-2007 12:41 PM


Chiroptera
Huxley isn't speaking about evolution. He's speaking about animal husbandry. Eugenicists aren't applying the theory of evolution; they are applying the usual methods known to animal breeders for centuries.

Huxley says otherwise. Were he here, I can't say he'd hesitate to obfuscate, and join those who attempt to muck up the discussion. But he's not here, so he has no opportunity to change his tune.

This leaves you in the position of disputing the teachings of your prophet. Not that that means beans, because you'll be welcome to recant as soon as the discussion ends.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2007 12:41 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2007 5:20 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2007 6:01 PM CTD has responded
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 6:12 PM CTD has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 150 of 238 (425289)
10-01-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by CTD
10-01-2007 5:09 PM


Huxley says otherwise.

I dunno. I can read what you have posted, but maybe my reading comprehension skills are better than yours. I've been getting the impression from your posts that your reading skills are none too good.

When I read the selections that you have posted, all I see is exactly what animal breeders have been doing for hundreds, even thousands, of years. I see nothing that is unique to Darwin's theory of evolution.

But seeing how you seem to have a better grasp of these issues, why don't you point out the parts that aren't just animal breeding techniques? Why don't you point out the parts that are unique to the theory of evolution beyond what ordinary animal breeders have been doing to improve their breeds?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 5:09 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019