One of many problems with Evolution

[PLAYER57832]

Sources for what?

For evidence. the theory springs from the evidence. I

For the "supporting doctrine". Which is not the "fruit" of that doctrine, but merely "pretty words".

You are the one spouting doctrine without evidence.
The theory of evolution can and has changed as new evidence is found. For example, we now know that birds are the closest relatives to most birds, not reptiles.

You are not honestly opposing me, you are merely trying to convolute the matter.

Repeating your opponents words without consideration is not opposition, it is being a mindless drone. That is what you are doing.

Evolution is a tree and from that tree we've sampled several of its fruits. Social Darwinism, eugenics, genocide. You recognize that these are the fruits and yet keep offering me the apple. I don't want the apple and I don't care much about the poetic sales pitch of the serpent who convinced you to eat it.

i am merely concerned with the fact that it has proven itself poisonous. If you would like to dissuade me that it is poisonous, the best way isn't to say the Nazis are the best example of it. Letting you try to convince me that that wasn't a poisoned fruit is not a torment that I would wish upon myself.

LOL....LOL...LOL
The Bible can be said to be the tree of Christianity, but Evolution is the fruit of the tree of evidence.
Science deals with evidence that can be tested, measured and proven. Faith deals with ideas that are less tangible, but provable within the heart.

Both can and do yield truth, and both can and do yield poison.

As for "convincing"... no, you stopped even pretending to pay attention to what honest posters here say a long time ago.

[PLAYER57832]

Our best example of why and how this is wrong happened just before and during WWII.

The Nazis' racial purification efforts were rather abruptly halted and not really practiced widely or for long enough for tangible results to be observed. Sweden also failed to maintain its eugenics program for an extensive period of time. There hasn't really been comprehensive and lengthy enough experimentation with the selective breeding of humans to conclusively say that it does or doesn't work.

Eugenics and social Darwinism are not at all the same thing, though they are related, so that comparison is invalid. The valid comparison is that the idea of Nazism, the idea that one race was superior to the other, that the IDEAS were superior.. that was roundly defeated.

The point that is possibly correct is that on a very, very long-term scale, we can see changes in society. We have, for example, almost universally done away with slavery. However, like evolution, such social change is can only be seen on a very, very long scale. It is no way something that is predictable.

[degaston]

Sources for what? For the "supporting doctrine". Which is not the "fruit" of that doctrine, but merely "pretty words".

You are not honestly opposing me, you are merely trying to convolute the matter.

Evolution is a tree and from that tree we've sampled several of its fruits. Social Darwinism, eugenics, genocide. You recognize that these are the fruits and yet keep offering me the apple. I don't want the apple and I don't care much about the poetic sales pitch of the serpent who convinced you to eat it.

i am merely concerned with the fact that it has proven itself poisonous. If you would like to dissuade me that it is poisonous, the best way isn't to say the Nazis are the best example of it. Letting you try to convince me that that wasn't a poisoned fruit is not a torment that I would wish upon myself.

None are so blind...

[mrswdk]

Eugenics and social Darwinism are not at all the same thing, though they are related, so that comparison is invalid. The valid comparison is that the idea of Nazism, the idea that one race was superior to the other, that the IDEAS were superior.. that was roundly defeated.

I took a guess that you meant eugenics seeing as 'Social Darwinism' means nothing other than that that the law of natural selection applies to humans just as it applies to other animals.

The Nazis lost the war therefore everything they thought was wrong?

[Metsfanmax]

Once you attribute success to a random mutation of genes that provides a competitive advantage, you create a situation where:

1. People are unequal,
2. We strive to replicate the success,
3. We strive to eliminate the "weak" genes.

No. #2 and #3 are simply not true in evolution. Evolution is not about striving to eliminate the "weak" genes. (Indeed, there may be nothing "weak" about them at all -- they may just be less well equipped to handle their environmental circumstances than the more well-equipped ones.) It is about individuals (genes or bodies) trying to reproduce in an environment of limited resources. The eventual success of some genes over others is therefore merely the result of some being better adapted to their circumstances. But this could easily lead to weaker genes in some sort of objective sense. It could also lead to a situation where individuals become so well-adapted and specialized to a particular set of circumstances that they are massively disrupted by a change in those circumstances. And, finally, it can lead to a situation where the species as a whole becomes extinct because of the increase in frequency of a particular gene. This is sometimes called "evolving to extinction."

Those who argue that eugenics can be derived from natural selection are severely, thoroughly misunderstanding natural selection. They do not realize that evolution is not about improving a species, no matter how often you hear that idea to the contrary. Most of the species that have ever lived are now dead -- so look how good evolution was for them. Every time you talk about natural selection striving to eliminate the "weak" genes, it demonstrates a fundamental problem with your reading of how species evolve over time. And until you correct that, your conclusions about Darwinism and its applications to society are mostly irrelevant (except insofar as they might teach us why other people are also making fundamental mistakes).

[shickingbrits]

I must entertain my tormentors...

Science uses evidence to test theories generated through observation.

In the beginning there was a Big Bang. It produced conditions for a primordial soup and now we write to each other on computers.

Sounds good. It's observable, there's evidence. Pretty solid bet.

Until you consider the probability. What is the probability that an unordered event would have the appropriate gravity, timeframe, distances, elements, bonds, interacting forces to be able to generate life? You can go further and calculate the odds of you being born amongst the flood of sperm, their chance of being around at the same time that the egg was around. The probability that you are writing to me according to scientific proposal is non-existent.

A scientist would make an observation, based on observable information, I cannot exist. I do exist, therefore I can make a hypothesis as to why. Based on observable information, I can only conclude that Big Bang was not a random event, but an ordered one. Whatever force generated that order is my creator and my creator is known as God. It can only exist through God.

Knowing that there is a God and the Big Bang was of, by and through God, I can then classify genetic mutations as the diversity of God and as part of his plan.

Man is made in the image of God in that we can act to create harmony and we are subject to the abyss. The more harmony we generate, the greater we may withstand the risk posed by the abyss. The abyss is the infinite chances that life can't exist, the ones that God had to overcome to create life and the ones we must overcome to sustain it.

Evolutionists may be so called because they ascribed to their idea not based on scientific understanding; ie God must exist, but because of a biased predisposition. They are like any group that tries to garner authority from an idea. They suffocate it. They deprive it of being harmonious with reality and sway reality towards the abyss.

[Metsfanmax]

Until you consider the probability. What is the probability that an unordered event would have the appropriate gravity, timeframe, distances, elements, bonds, interacting forces to be able to generate life? You can go further and calculate the odds of you being born amongst the flood of sperm, their chance of being around at the same time that the egg was around. The probability that you are writing to me according to scientific proposal is non-existent.

And yet here I am! How amazing.

[shickingbrits]

Once you attribute success to a random mutation of genes that provides a competitive advantage, you create a situation where:

1. People are unequal,
2. We strive to replicate the success,
3. We strive to eliminate the "weak" genes.

No. #2 and #3 are simply not true in evolution. Evolution is not about striving to eliminate the "weak" genes. (Indeed, there may be nothing "weak" about them at all -- they may just be less well equipped to handle their environmental circumstances than the more well-equipped ones.) It is about individuals (genes or bodies) trying to reproduce in an environment of limited resources. The eventual success of some genes over others is therefore merely the result of some being better adapted to their circumstances. But this could easily lead to weaker genes in some sort of objective sense. It could also lead to a situation where individuals become so well-adapted and specialized to a particular set of circumstances that they are massively disrupted by a change in those circumstances. And, finally, it can lead to a situation where the species as a whole becomes extinct because of the increase in frequency of a particular gene. This is sometimes called "evolving to extinction."

Those who argue that eugenics can be derived from natural selection are severely, thoroughly misunderstanding natural selection. They do not realize that evolution is not about improving a species, no matter how often you hear that idea to the contrary. Most of the species that have ever lived are now dead -- so look how good evolution was for them. Every time you talk about natural selection striving to eliminate the "weak" genes, it demonstrates a fundamental problem with your reading of how species evolve over time. And until you correct that, your conclusions about Darwinism and its applications to society are mostly irrelevant (except insofar as they might teach us why other people are also making fundamental mistakes).

You shouldn't deny tributes to your saints. That's why you're slated for future elimination.

[Metsfanmax]

A scientist would make an observation, based on observable information, I cannot exist. I do exist, therefore I can make a hypothesis as to why. Based on observable information, I can only conclude that Big Bang was not a random event, but an ordered one. Whatever force generated that order is my creator and my creator is known as God. It can only exist through God.

If I flip a coin 500 times in a row, the chance that I get the particular sequence that I end up getting is less than 1 part in 10^150. Should I therefore conclude that what just happened was impossible?

[AndyDufresne]

They deprive it of being harmonious with reality and sway reality towards the abyss.

--Andy

[shickingbrits]

If you had to bet on it with your eternal soul of coming up that sequence with the potential to win a terrible life, why would you bet on it?

[Metsfanmax]

If you had to bet on it with your eternal soul of coming up that sequence with the potential to win a terrible life, why would you bet on it?

Why do I have to bet on it? It already happened.

[shickingbrits]

Why did you bet on it? I didn't.

[Metsfanmax]

Why did you bet on it? I didn't.

What the f*ck are you talking about?

[shickingbrits]

I'm talking about the decision you made to say that the Big Bang was random instead of ordered.

You placed yourself in jeopardy with no upside. You didn't have to, you could have said it was ordered and thereby avoided risking your soul. But you have made the decision to risk your soul in exchange for a shitty life and are asking others to make the same bet.

Not for me thanks.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm talking about the decision you made to say that the Big Bang was random instead of ordered.

I didn't say the Big Bang was random. I also didn't say it was ordered. It just is.

[BigBallinStalin]

IQ is largely a genetic product, and it differs among babies. It's a fact that we're not created equally.

Not completely true... and in this case there is a huge difference in import between "not completely" and "largely". One of the biggest problems is that tests/analysis err. I can remember when people began to first propose measuring different types of intelligence, suggesting that there were other factors that were of great import, rather than just IQ.

I like the show "Big Bang Theory". If you have seen it, you know the character Sheldon is a caricature of a genius with Asperger's. He is brilliant, but does not understand other people or their emotions. The funny part, in the show is how he uses is brain to compensate. He is, in the show successful. The reality is not that universities are filled with such folks. Sure, a few do exist. However, more often people like Sheldon are shunted off long before they get to a university or other setting where they might be successful. In reality, it is something colloquially called "emotional IQ" that matters for success far more than IQ. Another factor is shear determination. That last is particularly important but also very hard to define in a test. (the marshmallow test comes close, but does not really get at why the factor matters)

In real life, human history is rife with people evaluating others based on narrow criteria that, in the end, don't really matter or that can be truly harmful and distorted. Eugenics is just one example. The problem is not so much that we are incapable of selecting traits. More and more, we can. The problem is that we target the wrong things and forget the related factors.

Intelligence without compassion and, well, something I will esoterically call "honor" for lack of a better term, is evil.

If you add women into the mix, things get even more complicated because so much of what women are traditionally supposed to be good at is just dismissed by much of male society... even as we realize more and more how important those very skills are to society and human success.

I'll take the word of one of my professors who's written about IQ and education (and the general consensus of intelligent people on this matter) over the word of some lady in PN who commonly misspells words.

[BigBallinStalin]

You are not intelligently disagreeing, you are merely spouting supporting doctrine and refusing to discuss the source and real activities that those doctrines refer to.

You will know them by their fruits:

evolution has some pretty interesting fruits, as you yourself have pointed out. That you can somehow disassociate the fruits with the theory, ie more persuaded by their pretty words than their poisoned fruit and continually try to dissuade me from attaching their fruits to them suggests I have not much to discuss with you.

I don't much care for the their fruits. If you at any point decide that that is something you are willing to address, then I am more than happy to have a fruitful discussion.

[BigBallinStalin]

Our best example of why and how this is wrong happened just before and during WWII.

The Nazis' racial purification efforts were rather abruptly halted and not really practiced widely or for long enough for tangible results to be observed. Sweden also failed to maintain its eugenics program for an extensive period of time. There hasn't really been comprehensive and lengthy enough experimentation with the selective breeding of humans to conclusively say that it does or doesn't work.

Also, the US was systematically playing with eugenics before the Nazis existed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_i ... ted_States

It looks like three decades of experimentation. Note that the US still does this to a smaller degree and to a smaller population (so it ain't systematic, but hey):

Today eugenics in the United States is still officially permitted. Between 2006 and 2010 close to 150 women were sterilized in Californian prisons without state approval. Between 1997 and 2010, the state paid $147,460 to doctors for tubal ligations.[8][9]

But it looks illegal. I'm not sure if anyone was punished; it might've been one of the many incidents where there's a de jure rule against X, but it won't be enforced.

(IIRC, the Chinese had forced sterilizations in the 1960s and 1970s too!)

Interesting to note:

“One of the goals … and this is critical to understanding the history of eugenics in California – was to save money: how to limit welfare and relief,” Stern told them, according to a transcript of her presentation. “And sterilization is very much tied up in this.”

-Alexandra Minna Stern, a professor at the University of Michigan and leading expert on California sterilization

[mrswdk]

Happily the US states are fairly evenly divided into red and blue. Red states can start the sterilizations, blue states can refrain and we'll come back in one or two hundred years to see how everyone's getting along!

[BigBallinStalin]

Happily the US states are fairly evenly divided into red and blue. Red states can start the sterilizations, blue states can refrain and we'll come back in one or two hundred years to see how everyone's getting along!

Eugenics was an outcome of the progressive era, from which modern 'blue' people have evolved.

[shickingbrits]

I'm talking about the decision you made to say that the Big Bang was random instead of ordered.

I didn't say the Big Bang was random. I also didn't say it was ordered. It just is.

I expected you to lay claim to Hitler as much as I expected you to concede that your position is completely based on an impossibility.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm talking about the decision you made to say that the Big Bang was random instead of ordered.

I didn't say the Big Bang was random. I also didn't say it was ordered. It just is.

I expected you to lay claim to Hitler as much as I expected you to concede that your position is completely based on an impossibility.

Hey, I didn't ask for the Big Bang. It's not like whoever is right gets credit for what their position entails. That's not how facts work.

[shickingbrits]

You didn't ask for it, but you decided it was random and all that that entails.