Darwinism??
 

Why do people reject Darwinsim so much? From what I've understood it's "survival of the fittest". That man has an innate goal to pass on his/her genes. I broke out into discussion with a friend and then they started acting like it was this huge immoral theory and trying to relate it to Hitlers idea of this geat race/population. I don't see how it has anything to do with that.

As a species do we want a population full of sick and damaged people, or would a population of healthy and attractive be more beneficial to the species. And I'm not just talking about humans, but all species.

For example, my friend brought up my grandmother. She is diabetic, and she would probably die if she didn't take insulin injections. Under the Darwinism theory she would die due to her condition. But death is a part of everything. People just choose to act like it didn't exist and try to ignore and escape death. I think its when people actually start dying is when people have a problem with Darwinism. Instead people ought to confront death and stop trying to be "politically correct" all the time.

As it is we all have a small instinctual drive towards Darwinism. Would you want an attractive or totally unattractive mate. Studies have shown that physical attractiveness is a sign of good genetic health. And the fact of the matter is that everyone wants an attractive mate.

So I dont get it.

We started taking care of our sick and injured when we became civilized.

"Survival of the fittest" as a social policy IS immoral. Hitler claimed that Ayrans WERE the fittest and was purging the "inferior" races.

Tell me that we were better off without than with these disabled, sick individuals: Stephen Hawking, Beethoven, Franklin D Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein, etc.

All had physical disablities, illnesses, or learning disablities that would mark them for termination under your "Survival of the Fittest".


Let's hope darwninism starts with you then.

As an unfit individual(intelligence), you wouldn't.

I'll be simple and straightforward.

The Darwinian theory of evolution helped to explain what was not explainable. For some, it eliminated the idea of a 'supreme creator'
In some respects it challened many different religious viewpoints and contradicted biblical teachings. The church has always fought that which cast any doubt upon it. Copernicus, Da Vinci and the like.

Even simpler:

Religious : God created MAN, and from MAN he created WOMAN.

Darwin: MAN evolved.

Got me?

-SF

Darwinism doesn't apply to humanity in the same way it applies to animals. It applies more in an economic/social sense now than it does in an actual survival sense.

in the descent of man, darwin talks about survival of the group, not just the individual. so concepts like social darwinism don't grasp darwin's idea properly. darwin imagined that people can sacrifice themselves for the good of the group and still be in line with natural selection. besides, the term survival of the fittest doesn't really capture the concept of darwinism. it's not so much about weakness as much as it is about abilities to adapt to a changing environment long enough to procreate. so, talking about human communities, someone may be able to argue that charity can be a good thing, and also curing the sick and caring for the elderly? why? because all this can strengthen a community, and allow it to grow and adapt to new challenges.

and about evolutionary psychology.. attractiveness is one trait that is looked at.. but there are others, like being able to provide for a child and protect it.

Wow,

I can feel the narrowing of the minds in this room.

1. Darwinian theory simply points out that the fittest "species" have survived. That has nothing to do (nor should it) with social poilicy.

2. Read carefully... Lona didn't imply that it has anything to do with social policy. She is correct when she says that we are atracted to our own definition of a "fit" mate. (some people like heavy, thin, Black, white, yellow or otherwise, big deal) We subconciously like certain traits. We translate those traits into our our own definition of "fitness" as a mate.

3. What is the big conflict between Darwin and the Bible? Read the Bible and see...(please don;t respond to this unless you first read all of genesis chapter 1 .) There are two creation stories in Genesis, not one. Each sea creature was made "after it's own kind" on the fifth day ... and here is the real clincher... All of the land animals were made... and humans were made on the sixth day.. each after it's own kind, Sorted and told to "go forth and multiply and fill the earth"

did you catch the operative word there.... sorted, as in genetics. Darwinian theory is just a theory... but it isn't fascism, nazi-ism or a solial policy. it is just survival of the fittest species.

Please read darwin before you condemn him to hell... he was just pointing out the obvious... and frankly the scriptures easily agree with it. (and even darwin admitted he "might" be wrong, it's just a theory, he wasn't arrogant about it)

that is not correct.
of only the fittest species whold have survived there would be only one species left.
"Survival of the fittest" is about all individuals within one species. it is about "niches" to live in. Birds do not compete against cats (according to your theory birds must have been long extinct since cats are "fitter" compared to a bird especially a young one). Birds compete against other birds within their species. If you are fitter then your neighbr bird you will more likely breed and spread your genetic code. Bird and Cats dont compete, they are not even playing the same game.

BTW: the term "survival of the fittest" was not used by darvin, it was used by the journalist Herbert Spencer whos job it was to interpret and explain darwins theories to the masses.
And, as someone said,
"The phrase has the advantage of convincing everybody that they understood what darwin was saying, and it hat the disadvantage of convincing everybody that they understood what darwin was saying "

I'd say the theory of evolution makes a hell of a lot more sense than God creating everything.

I just don't believe in Darwinism because I don't want to think that I evolved from an ape. I like to think of myself as better than that. That, and I think it is just about as far fetched as any other theory there is. I don't care how I was created, but how I live my life. I care more about what laundry detergent I use.

Wow! I am stunned by your convincing, powerful and compelling logical argument.

I don't believe in war or poverty anymore. I like to think of the human race as being above all of that.

From what I remember we didn't evolve from an ape, but rather we have a common ancestor that we both evolved from.
It's been years since I took a course on this subject, but it still makes the most sense to me.

It's true that we didn't evolve from a chimp or a gorilla, but we did evolve from some sort of non-human primate that is no longer around. Whether that primate can be called an "ape" is a matter of taxonomy that's not very important.

Evolution is much more complicated than "survival of the fittest." That certain genetic tendencies are selected for and passed down through the generations is obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the world around them. Any reasonably intelligent person who has thought about this should not disagree.

The difficult point is exactly how new species arise, and how often it should happen from chance. The exact process(es) are AFAIK not completely understood. Even so, I personally can't understand how all animals could be so extraordinarily similar if they were not directly related.

In terms of modern human life, darwinism obviously doesn't apply in its usual sense anymore. We take care of those would have never survived, etc. I think this is good to a point - intelligence is now more important than physical strength - yet modern medicine is I think getting close to seriously degrading our intrinsic health.

At the same time, we are still a product of our past. We are not wired to be attracted to modern traits. Nerds can hardly get laid, yet they shape our future :p

That argument isn't so obvious if there were an identifiable group that could be objectively argued to be superior to others. Just because Hitler used the word didn't mean he used it correctly.

i have noticed that 9 times out of 10,if arguing with someone who is anti-darwin i soon see that they know nothing of the subject!
how can one be against something they know so little about?

I couldn't agree more. Although the thing about the mental strength vs Physical strength hasn't really applied up until this past century. Think about how rapidly our technology has evolved in the last century??? I would say it is a dangerous rate, we have come farther in 100 years then in 10,000 years of our existence, radical change like that will for sure lead to problems. At the same time I don't think we have gotten physically weaker as a species, just look at people like professional athletes, people like Shaq... wasn't the average size of a male like 5'5" up until the 18th century? People like William Wallace were considered giants and he was only 6'4" (big, but not huge by today's standards).

As far as the species getting weaker though, I think it is definently possible. Those that would've died off have been preserved thus keeping the gene pool at a lower standard.

simple...

1. The bible is infalible, and literally true.
2. It says evolution is wrong.
3. Therefore evolution is wrong...and I don't need to know a damn thing about what I am talking about... I don't CARE how much evidence you have...you're still wrong!

Oh yeah...and it breaks the second law of thermodynamics, and I know what I am talkiing about...really :rolleyes:

p.s. it's just a theory.

Hey, no one said that you had to.

I can believe in whatever religion I want, regardless of how convincing, powerful, or compelling the reasons behind that religion are. So therefore, if I don't believe that I evolved from some lesser species, I don't have to. Maybe I do believe that God created Adam and Eve and that humans have been the same all throughout time. I have every right to believe that. Sorry that my opinion differs from yours.

He wasn't attacking your right to believe. He was attacking your basis for that belief: you want to, period.

Yup, he's perfectly free to stick his head in the sand. :D :lol:

To me, an attack on a basis for a belief is an attack of a belief. Let me put it another way. I don't believe in Darwinism because I like to think that we were made in some glorious way. If that means creationism, then so be it. But I don't believe we came about from just evolving. Sure, we probably did adapt and evolve from our first form, but I don't think that it is what Darwinism points that out to be. I think that as humans we are to complex and special to have come from a purely scientific background. To attack that, is to attack the belief. However, how humans were made really makes no difference to me now, which is why is isn't really all that important to me.

Other great creationistic ideas:

The earth is the center of our solar system, the sun and all other panets revolve around the earth...

...the earth is the single most center of the entire known universe...

...the earth is only 10,000 years old...

...g-d put dinosaurs in the ground to make us beleive that that the earth could be really old, but only those with faith will truly beleive that it is 10,000 years old...


...all creatures were created in the beginning and have only changed small amounts since.


-----------------------------------------------------

I did a thesis on this, and still to this day I chuckle whenever I hear this argument. <hehehhhehehhe>


more to come...


-SF

Rubyee, what you want to say is that as humans we are too complex and special to have come from purely natural origins. When you say you think that we were made in some glorious way, you mean we were made supernaturally. No offense to you, but this is a very self-centered point of view. What makes humans so special over other life forms? There are characteristics that distinguish us from other life-forms, but our origin need not be one. If God created humans, then it is likely God also created all other life, so how are we any more special with respect to origin? If humans evolved through natural processes, that does not make humans any less special than other life-forms. The other things that make us special and complex are still there.

Now, just a minor gripe I have: Please do not use the phrase "evolution is just a theory." For some reason, it is popularly thought that a scientific theory is just a random guess someone came up with, but this is not the fact. In science a theory is as good as you are ever going to get, it's not something to be taken lightly. You do not often hear people criticising gravity by saying "gravity is just a theory," do you? Yes there is a possibility that evolution is wrong, but that is about as likely as the theory of gravity being wrong.

Evolution is not debated, because all the theory of evolution says is that descent with modification occurs. Given our knowledge of genetics, unless you discount that knowledge, you cannot say that descent with modification does not occur.

The mechanisms by which evolution occurs are debated, and the Darwinian mechanism is one of those.

Duh.

Just because you want to believe in the Santa Clause doesn't mean that he's real.

reason being?


wtf are you talking about?

Er.....I kinda thought that Darwin made a theory regarding the origin of speices, not a ideology for govermental use?

Social darwinism suck, but I do belive Darwin should be remembered as a scientist and not an creater of some ideology.

btw:

HAY DUDES I BELIVE THAT THE SANTA CLAUSE IS REAL 100% AND YOU ARE ALL WRONG IN BELIEVING ANYTHING ELSE WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ME????

We have a winner! :thumbsup:

Social Darwinism wasn't one of Darwin's thoughts, it was a notion contrived by an 18th century sociologist.

P.S. CSfilm PJP II has come out and stated ideas like the big bang are in accordance with creation by God.

Yes, social Darwinism does suck, a lot. Through discussion (quite a bit of it on the TFP) I have changed my views just a little bit. I leave a possibility open that man did evolve. However, I believe that God did at least create the beginning product, or He helped to shape and mold it over millions of years (how long is seven days in God days, we don't know) or maybe He did make Adam from the Earth and Eve from Adam, my point is I believe that God created this universe that we know. We don't know how He did it, but I believe He did it. There is quite a bit in the Bible that is metaphorical, doesn't mean that the message that you should help others, be kind to others, and share the love of Christ is wrong or false. It may be illogical to believe in God, but then faith isn't really defined by logic is it?

Listen, you all have very valid points, and I am not saying that you are wrong. I am also not saying that I am right. Nothing has been proven to 100% either way. But my point is this- I would like to think that we came from something special. If that means God, than so be it. We live in such a depressing world where the only thing that is sure is that we will die. So why is it such a bad thing for me to think that we came from something special, and more meaningful? It isn't. Sure, it is self- centered. And sure, it is harder to believe. But I have that right. I am not trying to be a bitch and tell you that you are all stupid idiots, because any one of us could be. No one really knows what happened, and maybe we never will. But out of the thousands of bad things in this world- disease, death, hunger, war, pop music- why shouldn't I be able to believe in something nice. I guess I just tried to talk to the wrong people. When you talk about anti-darwinismists being closed minded, you also need to think about what you might be saying to them, as well.

What has that got to do with me?

And also, just because the Pope says so, does not sway the minds of creationists.

Creationists believe that the bible is literrally true: The earth and its inhabitants were created by god in 6 days.

Classic case of the blue pill.

for me, I choose to believe not that which makes me comfortable, but that which is real.

Actually, you may be wrong there. From my perspective, it is a case of the red pill in my direction, and a case of the blue pill in yours.

Since nothing has been proven, anyone can say that what they believe about how humans came to be is true. Therefore, I can say that what I believe is true, and I would take the red pill.

That is the great thing about this country. I can believe whatever the hell I want to, without fear of persecution. Except for on the internet, that is.

You have to understand that all philosophy is seen from different view points, and that one truth will not hold for all people. The only truth that there is in philosophy is that all people have a different perspective, and see things differently.

Until you accept that, you can post as much as you want about how wrong I am or how wrong my logic is. But I am just as in the right as you are. You just need to realize that for yourself.

Rubyee, until you are willing to back up your opinion with evidence of some kind, your opinion is just that: groundless, unfounded, and not belonging on a board about philosophical discussion.

You are simply ignoring evolution on the basis of: "I don't like it...I want to be special".

This is not an argument. It is not a mature outlook on life. It is self-decieveing. It is pulling the wool over your own eyes.

You can perfectly well apply your strategy to almost anything: A belief in Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the refusal to accept the existence of poverty, war and death.

Also, the converse IS NOT true.
You are welcome to question any one of my beliefs and I will be able to back it up, and argue for it.
You can ask me why I believe in evolution, and first of all, I will point you to the myriads of pieces evidence supporting my belief.
I will then point out the flaws in the dozens of ceationist counter arguments.

You will not find me saying "I believe in evolution just because I want to".

True, you do have the right to believe in what ever the hell you want to. Far be it from me to impinge on this, however since you are posting them on a philosophical board, I have the right to
a.) disagree.
b.) point out the flaws in your argument and
c.) defend my own "belief"

and cut out the "persecuted for my beliefs" crap.

I think I can decide what is mature and proper for my own life.

How do you know that your alarm clock will go off in the morning? You don't. It's called faith. That is what leads me to believe in what I do. Call it pulling the wool over my eyes if you like, but it won't change a thing.

A couple of months ago, when my grandfather was in the hospital clinging onto life, I sure as hell did not pray to Darwin.

So if my opinion does not belong on a board for philosophy because it involves faith, please point that rule out for me, and I will gladly argue that. Until then, I will continue to express my opinion, whatever it may be. At least I can truthfully say that I am open minded enough to accept that what I say may not be true.

and cut out the holier than thou crap, if we are going to call names and have petty fights

There is clear observable evidence that our alarm clocks will go off in the morning. There is some sort of basis for maintaining this belief. There is absolutely no basis for your beliefs.


Why would you?

By posting your thoughts on this messageboard, you openly invited everyone to criticize or agree with them. You shouldn't have posted the message expressing your irrational beliefs if you didn't expect us to shred it pieces.

wtf are you talking about?

QUOTE:

A couple of months ago, when my grandfather was in the hospital clinging onto life, I sure as hell did not pray to Darwin.

If I am reading your ideas/thoughts correctly, I would have to question exactly how you percieve our belief in Evolution. Many of us do not see Charles Darwin as a person to be praised. He was just an man with an idea, an idea that was brought forth in a place and time where this was against the norm. We respect his work. Any further than that he was just a scientist that made remarkable observations. Evolutionists do not have a spiritual faith in Evolution, we use this as another piece of the puzzle that explains our surroundings in a logical manner; a key to unlock that which we do not know--a token of knowledge.

Quote:
We live in such a depressing world where the only thing that is sure is that we will die.

I can see that this discussion can be somewhat hard to deal with, and I myself have gone through a period of questioning my own beleifs. I have also gone through a period in my life where I saw the world and everything around me as being depressing. Though, conciousness is exactly what one makes of it. I choose to enjoy all that is around me for it's sheer beauty. I take solace in the fact that I am alive; I wouldn't have it any other way. This is the way that I choose to live my life, the pursuit of knowledge, being open-minded and never turning down that which will enlighten me. During this pursuit, I wish to tread as lightly as possible on the beielfs of others. We are all going through this together and we each have out own unique perception, just like fingerprints, no two are alike.

I do have to admit that I respect your thoughts/feelings. My father is a very spiritual person who was raised jewish, and has always had a relationship with g-d. I support his feelings and I will do that which I can to make him happy. Though I have decided that it is not for me.

Please continue to share your ideas and thoughts, I beleive that there may be some common ground that we can all agree upon.

;)

-SF

I believe in adaptability and survival of the fittest. Macro evolution has been proven but micro hasn't.

Some call me crazy but I don't think the earth is billions of years old. If it were, wouldn't we have larger populations.

How did the dinosaurs breathe when their nostrils where the same size as our horses notrils? Gravity has been proven! Micro evolution hasn't been. The big bang theory is just a theory. Only those who believe in the bible will think it is true.

Those who believe in evolution may do as they please. It is called free will and that is one of the many things that puts us above animals.

Creationism vs. Evolutionism is an ongoing debate. Sometimes it gets rough and usually sides are drawn and they don't change.
It sure is fun though and can be enlightening!!!!!

Quote:
Some call me crazy but I don't think the earth is billions of years old. If it were, wouldn't we have larger populations.

Advances in technology have led to lower mortality rates, which have lead to longer lifespans. In the future 50+ years we will see a population explosion. In the past we didn't have adequate means of disposing of sewage, proper sanitiation, adequate vaccination and medical technology. These things would have created a larger population. Humans with an average lifespan of 45 years cannot create a large population. Think exponentially, a average lifespan with a differential of one year can change a predicted population signifigantly.


I couldn't help it... ..but, Occams Razor, "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred"

So we say, umm, a supernatural being created our planet. While doing so, that being left fossil remains and radioactive carbon molecules that we can date with our advanced technology, leading us to beleive that our earth is 4.3 billion years old. When in fact it is just 10,000 years old. This being did so just to fool us. Whereas the one's with faith that the earth was created in this way are the only ones who hold the truth, they have privelidged information... ...and when they die, they will go to a place that is wonderful and they will be forgiven of all their sins.

OR

The earth is really 4.3 billion years old and we are just forms of life that exist at this given moment in time.

Anyone? Thoughts?

;)

-SF

Quote:
How did the dinosaurs breathe when their nostrils where the same size as our horses notrils?

Dinosaurs were cold-blooded, hence their metabolic rate was dependant on their body temperature. They didn't require the amount of gas exchange that mammals did.


-SF

Quote:
"I believe in adaptability and survival of the fittest. Macro evolution has been proven but micro hasn't. "

The concept of micro-evolution - or diversification of species - is a fact of nature. Species do vary and change, but only on a small scale. We have many examples of Darwin's finches and even the breeding history of dogs which supports the notion of micro-evolution. (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...icro_Evol.html)

Umm-huh.. Yeah...


-SF

Rubyee,
Everyone's jumping on you because this is a discussion about things that have actually happened. We're not asking your favorite icecream flavor. Unless you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality (I don't think you're saying this), then there is only one right answer. We're discussing what that answer is.

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but nobody cares what you believe. We care why. This is a discussion, not a poll.

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html

Just thought some people might need to read this. There is a difference between scientific theory, ie, evolution and theory, ie, God or the invisible snorg.

thanks for reading.

a bit more from that page......

ah....just for the record I never said that Darwin created social Darwinism (but he was quoted supporting it though...)

Hmm, how about this. Who cares about where we came from or what Darwin says or what the Bible says? We will never know exactly where humans came from or how we came about 100%. So why worry about it? Religious people will stick to their "God" creating man, and others will say evolution. I personally think that as I stated earlier, evolution makes more sense than one entity creating all man, but evolution is farfetched as well. But does it really matter where we came from? Honestly. This is a question of faith vs. science, and it will never be resolved. So just let it go. I'm in the same boat as Rubyee here, earlier you stated that you didn't care about what created you or something along those lines, and I agree.

I am a strong believer in darwanism. Natures way of trial by error. If something fails, it dies and doesn't reproduce; but if something works the creature survives and is able to reproduce. Compounded over millions (or billions) of generations and something is bound to happen (hence our existance). Sorry, creationism doesn't work for me.

For a good laugh and a practical application of darwinism check out www.darwinawards.com. It's full of all the "creative" ways that people have removed themselves from the gene pool.

There's one good ting about darwin's idea, survival of the fitest, I can kill people I don't like and take their stuff.

Then you get the death penalty and your stuff is donated to the gonvernment.

Good plan! Get started!

Is that really a part of Darwins theory ... hmmm, I don't remember seeing it in there.... hmmm maybe it is in the translation of survival of the fitest? Not sure.... Is the government the fitest then? since they would survive and have all my stuff.... Having all my stuff could do them a lot of good, like with the stuff over here they can do stuff with it. The other stuff they might just throw out, maybe give it to the weakest folks... nah, they would just kill them and take it back... hmmm what would they do with all my stuff ?

This leaves me much to think about... that ol' Darwin.

Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural selection was never about ethics. It was never about what is right or wrong. It was an attempt to explain how the complexity of living things arose.

Social Darwinism is nothing to do with Darwin, no more than scientology has anything to do with science.

The natural world is cruel and harsh. We as a species have evolved beyond the natrual anarchy, in our attempts to create a society.

If you want to learn more about this I would suggest the following books:

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Evolution of Cooperation by Robert M. Axelrod. (not really about biological evolution, rather it is a mathematical look at the prisoner's dillema)

and also check out this thread:
Human emotion\motives figured out

If you are using "evolution isn't ethical" as your disproof, then you are simply waaay off the mark.

Not only is it off the mark, it's not even relevant; even if evolution was a 'unethical', how does that disprove it?

It doesn't.


And that's even supposing that social darwinism had anything to do with evolution.

the point of this discussion is usually that it runs away with both parties and leads them on a tanget so far they can't remember how they started in the first place.

Darwinism speaks of survival of the fittest. Which means there is a role to be filled, with certain requirements. If you are most fit to fulfill that role, you will survive as a species. No idea what individual animals/people will do, but that's not the point. Darwinism tells us how all kinds of live can likely have evolved and backs it up with some credible evidence. It has the flaw that it starts with life. It doesn't explain life itself.

So did God create life? If we go by remnants left in the earth, we can see he did not directly create it. We can recreate alot of basic carbon-strings that might easily lead to RNA and DNA strings eventually, even in an everyday lab. Does that mean there is nothing at all special? I don't know that for sure. Where does the Big Laboratory come from? Big Bang? Contracting and expanding universe? Fine. Where did those come from then? Separate black holes exploding? Fine, where did the whole of it come from then?

We don't know. We can only logically deduct things. Empirical evidence of what came before that, can't be found, since according to all our standards there wasn't any *time* or space before that period.

ie. At present our science has no explanation for it. They can't say what came before that. All they tell us, has as much value as what the Bible tells us.

So you might as well believe it was God that created the universe or even Joe Pesci.

Somehow this universe came to exist and what happened before the very first millisecond, is beyond our grasp.

I'd call that super-natural.

Nisses, our science does have explainations. They just haven't been verified yet.
Are you saying that the Bible is closer to the truth? One book has a better idea than generations of scientific research?
Sure, we're not 100% certain about everything that's ever happened. But we're pretty sure about the way some things have happened, and we've learned that by looking at our universe and trying to explain it, rather than taking what one person wrote thousands of years ago as, quite literally, gospel.

Downward Spiral, I find your attitude somewhat worrying. Just because we don't know something, doesn't make it worth discussing? I think our uncertainty makes the discussion all the more worthwhile!
And in the course of this discussion, some people have learned a few new things about evolution, darwinism and creationism, so I think it was worthwhile.

If you look at the facts that are there, we can never tell what came before the big bang, and or before last contraction of the universe, or before...
since there is nothing at that point, no time to be measured and no space to measure it in.

So no, I'm not saying the Bible is closer to the truth than science. I'm saying they are both opinions that can't be proven when it comes to the point of creation. Science limits itself to the moment right after that.

And if you know of explanations that tell of what was there before the big bang or what was there when the very first expansion of the universe happened in science, I'd like to hear it. (not being sarcastic, I honestly haven't heard one so far)

I believe Hawking himself said if there was a contracting and expanding universe, there was no telling where, why and how it all started.

And yes, if we don't have anything to validate our opinions with, it's just empty discussion. Like the Byzantian Bickering about the sex of angels, it can only help you to work on your skills in discussion, but that's all.

I think lately what we are seeing is that most people now put just as much blind faith in the lab-assistent, physics professor and doctor. When one of those says something, it *must* be true.
How about using that same science of theirs, and verifying it once or twice. If only so you understand it yourself?

Nisses, I <i>have</i> performed some of their experiments and come up with the right results. I have observed the mathematical devices which the theories are drawn from, and how they don't fall down. I have a pure mathematics major with four semesters of theoretical physics, please don't accuse me of not understanding the science.
I take the word of a professor because I know that he has spent many years observing the world around him, and using his observations to create new theories and test the theories of those before him.
I will not take the word of a minister because I know that he has spent many years reading one source, and conferring with others who also base their arguments on that one reference. Go and write a scientific paper based on one refererence and one reference alone. Do not perform any experiments to support your hypothesis, but make sure that the hypothesis is not falsifiable. See how seriously anyone takes you.

So you can tell me what happened before then? By all means explain. I can't wait to hear it. (again, not being sarcastic, I'm trying to learn something new)

also: did I accuse you of not understanding science? I'm sorry, didn't mean to. I'm just saying that most people these days put just as much blind faith in a professor than they used to do in a minister.

See my last line in the previous post? You are the kind of person I was talking about. The kind that more people should be like.

I think Nisses is saying that no matter how science progresses, there will always be something left that must be taken as axiomatic. Say Newton's laws 200 years ago. They explained a lot of things, but nothing explained them.

In our modern society, survival of the fittest doesn't mean the fittest hunters, but the people with the most common sense and intellect to survive (i.e.,make enough money to live on).

Therefore, if one applied the natural selection to humans today, those who are in a permanent state of poverty should be dismissed so that the rest of us may flourish. That way, no one would have to pay as many taxes to assist the poor, and our nation as a whole would prosper.

But this point is only valid to one who believes in materialism as a lifestyle (i.e. most citizens of america).

I've though about a world in which the sick would die - no hospitals or perscriptions. A world in which the poor would die out without the assistance of welfare. A world in which the stupid would be sent away and enslaved to a life of labor...

I really don't know whether or not that world would be for better or for worse...But natural selection would apply to humans once again, since we seem to be so goddamn evasive of its grasp.

the fact that someone does not make enough money to live on is no indicator of that person's common sense and intellect, nor is having a ton of money an indicator that you have a lot of common sense or intellect, therefore what you were suggesting is not only a change for the worse, but it is also immoral.

Oh, that place exists. It's called Somalia. It isn't working very well, I've heard.

So tell me.....

Why does there always have to be a begining?

Oob

A very valid agruement....
however you faltered there. Money have no relevence on survival at a whole. The ability to think and use common sense to get you to a goal is the way of life now. A poor man will only be poor as long as he sits, complains, and does nothing about the fact of him being poor. Once he gets up and does something about it he has a better chance to succeed.

Dismisal is ignorance, ignorance is bliss, bliss is a false livelihood. If you simply dismiss the fact that your fellow man is in need, then you are dismissing yourself as man. Man's overwhelming compassion for his fellow has always dragged him behind, but in the same manner has helped him thrive.
I do believe that we should all help eachother, but not in the same way that it is being done now.

Physical evolution died the moment we became "civilized". Albiet some small changes in evolution have occured, society will never rid itself of deseases that would have worked their way out of the pool if only allowed.

Very well said.

Oob

Read The Origin of Species. Whether you think you agree with Darwin in whole or in part or not at all. Read it. Think about it.

Wow... try reading the actual theory people before you comment on it. Some of you sound like you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

I saw a documentary on the telly the other day, about this village in Brittain that had a very high percentage of survivors during the plague years that swept through a large part of Europe (in ye olde medieval days). A scientist looked a bit closer at the case, and noticed that a lot of the people living there today were descendents of the original plague-survivors. It also turned out that they had a genetic "defect", which is linked to the immune system. Apparently, this gene makes it impossible for the plague virus to enter white blood cells, stopping it in it's tracks.

Interestingly, the relatives of those that did not get the plague at all have two copies of said gene, while the relatives of those who got the plague but recovered only have one.

Even more interestingly, it turns out that accross Europe, the population in areas visited by the plague has a much higher occurance of this specific gene, when compared to the people in the area *not* exposed to the plague.

Now, if you're still with me... Does this not make it very likely that Darwin was right? After all, the "unfit" died during the plague, while those who were "fittest" survived. And all of that because of a slight difference in their genes. :)

(another thing: the AIDS virus attacks the body in pretty much the same way as the Plague does. This means that people who are better at fighting the plague are also better at fighting AIDS... There are people in the US who have no AIDS, even though they "should" have had it, considering their situation - partner of AIDS-victim, etc. Again, the same gene was found... It turns out that some 40% of the US population has a higher resistance to AIDS, because they have one copy of the gene; and some appear to be immune because they have two copies.)

To answer to the original post, and hopefully get back on topic.

Survival of the fittest doesn’t really apply to our species anymore.

While it may still seem that the physical condition is still important for finding a mate, its actually just a relic of the past. We are on the brink of taking our physical evolution into our own hands though genetics and robotics. Once that is achieved only the quality of the mind will remain as an important criteria for evolution. Since our brain has evolved at such an amazing rate that we have not unlocked its full potential, it is at the moment impossible to know who has the best minds, and therefore the best genes. By the time we uncover the mysteries within our skulls, genetics probably wont matter at all.

Back in high school I was shunned by about half of my peers because I believe in evolution, and wore it on my sleeve., I had some real trouble with some of them. Although they never outright attacked me, they did have a tendency to trip me all the time, shoves in the hall etc. since my sophomore year I had a 'evolve' patch on my back pack, the first time it was cut off (sometime when i was in the hall) and the second time (i bought a new one) it was set on fire (pissed me off) as it turned out no one saw a thing.

But as for why I believe in evolution is that it beats the alternative, creationism. it just makes more sense. I’ve always been very analytical as well as being open-minded to science and mathematics, I always loved to deal with chance and have come to recognizes that no mater how minute the possibility is, it can still happen. And being as large as the universe is, that is has happened multiple times across the great expanse.

Hooray for loving, caring and accepting christians. They really are a model for us all!

I'm always reluctant to post in Tilted Philosophy, but this thread is interesting. I've noticed a few people who seem to think that humans are somehow outside of Darwinian evolution thanks to our advanced technology and our dazzling social mechanisms.

Let me put this simply- as long as we can still die out, we are subject to evolution. Despite what Mantus is saying, we are still at risk of extinction, even in some glorious Stelarcian/Kurzweilian future. Death is the driving mechanism of evolution, people; let's not forget that.

I'll agree that it's getting less likely that humanity will become extinct in the near future (we've got numbers and we've got opposable thumbs), but all species become extinct in the end. We're fragile creatures living in a universe which is more or less inimical to life. The odds are always monstrously against life, and we don't have the power to shorten the odds.

There is a peaceful way for CSflim and Rubyee to settle their dispute. Please, both of you, click here . And let us know the result.

I took that test and the only thing that got me was that they said evolution has no irrefutable proof. Thats a bunch of crap, we see evolution happen all the time. Viruses change constantly due to natural selection. They say that science gives no actual "facts." But evolution is as sure as a rock falling down if I throw it into the air (remember, gravity is a 'theory').

Hmm. That's ass. I guess I took a different path. It didn't ask me that. I was hoping it would help to root out any logical inconsistencies in either person's argument so that both of them would have something approaching a well thought out, logical argument before they continued discussing it here. Y'know, just in case one of them didn't make much sense.

Ah ha! But thats "micro-evolution".

I'm going to define anything that you can demonstrate to me in the lab as microevolution, therefore you have proven nothing.

And no, they are not the exact same thing except on a different scale.

:rolleyes:

Really? I'm curious, as I'm not a biologist, but I assume that micro- and macro-evolution are as linked as micro- and macro-economics, which I DO understand. Can you expand on this, CSfilm?

I was just thinking about the grandmother with diabetes. Once that are no longer fertile their impact on "survival of the fittest changes". The entire story is let the best genes win. Call it a theory or whatever. Jump on a Bible and deny Darwinism. It doesnt matter. We are nothing more than genetic transport systems (with or without souls). Success leads to passing on your genes for the next generation. If you have a problem that manifests itself after you have reproduced it has little impact on survival of your genes. The only caveat is that your genetic problem may become an anchor on your children and keep them form reproducing and passing on genes.

The most successful genes are the most successfully passed on to the next generation. Call it Darwinism or whatever, but if the only food was peanut butter then anybody that could not genetically digest pnuts would die out pretty quickly. My children would prosper however.

I didn't know whether to post this here or on the proof that God exists thread, so I'll post it on both, because I have never heard this but it really made me think and I hope it generates discussion. It come from Greg Easterbrook, a guy that writes a football column, called the TMQ (Tuesday Morning Quarterback), that has football anaysis and alot of his thoughts on a wide range of topics. You can find threads about him and his column, and the controversy surrounding it in the politics or sports forums (fora?) Anyway, here it is.


article mentioned in column

link to full TMQ

CSFilm/Easytiger, going back to my previous comments on the plague in Europe: a small (micro-sized) difference in DNA leads to a large (macro-sized) difference in survival chances. One tiny genetic "abnormality" has become the norm in the whole of western Europe as a result. This genetic difference also leads to a slight difference in resistance to AIDS.

If we move the whole scene forward: if nature is allowed to take it's course, pretty much the whole of Africa will die of AIDS, *except* those people that are resistant, thanks to genetic mutations. Sure, these people may not have an extra arm, or be able to breath underwater, but they're different nonetheless. This is pretty much what evolution is all about - small mutations leading to enhanced survivability. In the long run, those small mutations will add up to a huge difference.

Hell, we force animals to mutate every single day: professional (dog/horse/cow) breeders select animals with the traits they want to enhance, and let them breed. The results are apparent: all the breeds of dogs you see today have a common ancestor. Some of these dogs have more fur than others (allowing them to survive in cold areas), some have extremely short legs (allowing them to enter rabbit holes), some even have a very oily coat (allowing them to swim in freezing water), etc. etc.. Clearly large (macro) differences.

Right?

sorry just to clarify this. This :rolleyes: was to denote sarcasm.

It used to be a popular argument by creationists to claim that nobody has ever witnessed evolution, or that it has never happened in the lab.

Then it did happen in the lab.

Although this didn't seen to stop the creationists. they simply define evolution on the small scale (i.e. anything which can be observed) as microevolution. And they then revert to their original argument that nobody has witnessed evolution!!

Of course microevolution and macroevolution are EXACTLY the same thing.

Dammit, now I feel like a right fool. Especially since I use so much sarcasm in my everyday life.