Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: a red herring?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 120 (377312)
01-16-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
01-15-2007 7:14 PM


Well, that was weird.
Sure, evo's will bark at this. But they always seem to forget that the TOEv is only a theory.
Sure, that's why we keep calling it "the theory of evolution". It's 'cos we've forgotten that it's a theory. Some of us real hard-core evos have forgotten what "evolution", "the" and "of" mean as well.
What's the weather like on your planet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 01-15-2007 7:14 PM limbosis has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 120 (377584)
01-17-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM


Re: the population dilemma
Some of the folks on these forums seem to be confusing theories with scientific laws ...
A theory is a collection of laws. For example, the theory of evolution consists of the laws of genetics and the law of natural selection. The theory of gravity consists of the laws of motion and the law of gravity. The theory of thermodynamics consists of the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law, et cetera.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM limbosis has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 120 (377586)
01-17-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM


Re: the population dilemma
Do you think it is a coincidence the idea of eugenics came about shortly after the inception of the TOEvo?
No, I think both of them were caused by people thinking about inherited characteristics. Every science attracts its cranks and crackpots. The eugenicists were a prime example.
---
We should also note that the eugenicists were only interested in microevolution, and that they did not, in general, believe in the theory of evolution as an explanation for speciation. To quote Hitler:
The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.
What he was interested in changing through eugenics was:
The various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.
In so far as creationists have a theory, creationist theory permits microevolution, and Hitler could draw as much support from Answers in Genesis (had it existed) as from the Origin of Species.
As to where Hitler actually got his inspiration from, I think we'll let him speak for himself:
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM limbosis has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 120 (377852)
01-18-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by limbosis
01-18-2007 2:53 PM


Re: My Position
But no-one can, in fact, derive any racist conclusions from the theory of evolution.
One can, of course, conclude that eugenics is possible (though not desirable) from Darwin's theory, but one could come to that same conclusion by observing how we can improve our breeds of domestic animal. As in, for example, Plato's Republic:
...
And how can marriages be made most beneficial?--that is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?
In what particulars?
Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others?
True.
And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?
From the best.
And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age?
I choose only those of ripe age.
And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate?
Certainly.
And the same of horses and animals in general?
Undoubtedly.
...
And from this he concludes that the "Guardians" of his state should improve the condition of their human flock by selectively breeding them, like animals.
People have always known that this is possible, knowing no more than Plato knew. Knowing the theory of evolution does not make eugenics seem any more possible, nor any more desirable.
Do you believe that animal breeds can be improved by artificial selection? Then you, too, believe in all the scientific basis eugenics has.
The objection to eugenics is that it's immoral, and the theory of evolution implies nothing to the contrary --- has, indeed, no moral implications.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 2:53 PM limbosis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RickJB, posted 01-18-2007 5:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024