Evolution's evil twin

[TwinCrier]

I notice that many evolutionists feel offended when Eugenics is mentioned. I am curious as to why Eugenics isn't receiving more support from the evolutionists.

 

[notto]

Because it has little to do with evolution.

Evolution only deals with the ability to reproduce and survive in ones environment. If you can live and breed, you are successful under the theory of evolution. ANY population that is living and breeding has passed the test of evolution related to natural selection. In biology and the theory of evolution, the cockroach is just a successful as man because it survives and has not gone extinct.

Eugenics is something completely different and doesn't deal with random mutation, natural selection or population survival.

 

[PaladinValer]

Five words that defeats this argument:

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance

 

[jbarcher]

Except that you still have to explain how it is the fallacy...

 

[Underdog77]

Because it has little to do with evolution.

The justification for eugenics is founded in the belief of evolution

In biology and the theory of evolution, the cockroach is just a successful as man because it survives and has not gone extinct.

Then why did it evolve? If it was 'successful', why did it feel the urge to mutate? It was already fit enough to survive.

Eugenics is something completely different and doesn't deal with random mutation, natural selection or population survival.

If one believes evolution and 'survival of the fittest', eugenics is one way to help ensure the fittest will survive. If Arians had killed all other races, only Arians (the fittest) would survive.
Not only is evolution wrong but it is dangerous to mankind physically, ethically, and spiritually.

 

[gluadys]

The justification for eugenics is founded in the belief of evolution
Then why did it evolve? If it was 'successful', why did it feel the urge to mutate? It was already fit enough to survive.
If one believes evolution and 'survival of the fittest', eugenics is one way to help ensure the fittest will survive. If Arians had killed all other races, only Arians (the fittest) would survive.
Not only is evolution wrong but it is dangerous to mankind physically, ethically, and spiritually.

Whats wrong is assuming that Arians---or any other group---are the fittest. What's wrong is assuming that the characteristics of the "fittest" are static and don't change with changing environmental pressures.

If fitness was in any sense absolute, we could dispense with all but one rice species, all but one wheat species, all but one apple species (the "fittest" of each of course).

We don't do that because we have learned from hard experience that you can get a whole crop wiped out by a virus or parasite. While some of the "less fit" species might have the resistance needed.

Biodiversity is needed to retain a variety of characteristics and improve the overall chances of survival. So eugenics doesn't really make much evolutionary sense. Who knows what characteristics will make for fitness in a changing environment?

 

[notto]

The justification for eugenics is founded in the belief of evolution

And justification for the crusades is founded in the belief of God. This has no bearing on the truth of God, does it.

Then why did it evolve? If it was 'successful', why did it feel the urge to mutate? It was already fit enough to survive.

This statement shows that you don't understand evolution. Populations evolve, not individuals and ther is no 'urge' to mutate. Read a book.

If one believes evolution and 'survival of the fittest', eugenics is one way to help ensure the fittest will survive. If Arians had killed all other races, only Arians (the fittest) would survive.

Evolution deals with diversity and generation of species. Arians and other races are the same species. Evolution deals with natural selection. Eugenics deals with artificial selection based on arbitrary traits, not traits that have to deal with repoductive success, which is what evolution deals with.

Not only is evolution wrong but it is dangerous to mankind physically, ethically, and spiritually.

Evolution as a scientific theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. Again, you are showing your ignorance of the subject matter.

Can I make an argument that Christianity is dangerous to mankind physically, ethically and spiritually because some have twisted it outside of its bounds to commit attrocities or to justify their unChristian actions? You can't condemn the valid theory of evolution if some use it unscientifically to justify their unscientific political or personal actions.

 

[Underdog77]

And justification for the crusades is founded in the belief of God. This has no bearing on the truth of God, does it.

Not true. No where in the Bible will you find instructions for the crusades. It isn't even implied. The Crusades were fueled primarily by greed and want, it was labled as a religious plight. Study some history and you'll find that they were not religious wars although people label them as that.

Eugenics can find shelter with evolution; the crusades cannot find shelter with the Bible or belief in God.

This statement shows that you don't understand evolution. Populations evolve, not individuals and ther is no 'urge' to mutate. Read a book.

OK, don't have the individuals evolve and wait and see how the population goes. You won't find anything new. It'll be the same creatures you had to start with.

In order for the population to evolve, individuals must evolve. Use your mind.

Evolution deals with diversity and generation of species. Arians and other races are the same species. Evolution deals with natural selection. Eugenics deals with artificial selection based on arbitrary traits, not traits that have to deal with repoductive success, which is what evolution deals with.
Evolution as a scientific theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. Again, you are showing your ignorance of the subject matter.

But evolution gives credence to Eugenics because it says there are lesser species. If they truely are the master race, Arians have the right to kill any lesser race. The lesser race is not as good as the master and therefore is disposable.

Can I make an argument that Christianity is dangerous to mankind physically, ethically and spiritually because some have twisted it outside of its bounds to commit attrocities or to justify their unChristian actions? You can't condemn the valid theory of evolution if some use it unscientifically to justify their unscientific political or personal actions.

No, but I'd like to hear you try. Go ahead and give it a shot.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The justification for eugenics is founded in the belief of evolution

It is based on a faulty understanding of evolution that is shared by many YECs. That faulty understanding of evolution thinks that species are headed towards something "better". Eugenics follows through on that misunderstanding to say that human intervention should facilitate this process.

However, evolution has nothing to do with improving species or is headed in any particular direction, but simply is observation of what happens when environments change and species need to naturally adapt.

 

[TwinCrier]

If you truly believe "evolution has nothing to do with improving species or is headed in any particular direction" then you disagree with most evolutionists as well as Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

Interesting addition: Francis Galton who initiated the idea of eugenics was Charles Darwin's cousin.

 

[Gold Dragon]

then you disagree with most evolutionists as well as Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

Probably. Language dictionaries are notorious for messing up scientific definitions because they are based on the usage of the common person, not the scientifically informed person.

Interesting addition: Francis Galton who initiated the idea of eugenics was Charles Darwin's cousin.

Thanks for that info. I've never studied Galton and will look into him.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Sir Francis Galton
Eugenics

However, the initial principle defined by Galton, was directly in connection with the teaching and work of Darwin, himself very influenced by Malthus. According to Darwin, the mechanisms of the natural selection are thwarted by human civilization. One of the objectives of civilization is somehow to help the underprivileged ones, therefore to be opposed to the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. According to eugenicists, the loss of effectiveness could lead to an increasing number of individuals who would have normally been eliminated through natural selection processes. Eugenicists thus propose to promote actions to balance effects of natural selection mechanism loss within civilizations. This basic principle inspired numerous and very diverse philosophies, scientific or pseudo-scientific theories and social practices.

It should be noted that this idea of "strongest" and "weakest" has gradually been disassociated from the language of evolution, largely because of how eugenics theory would extrapolate those ideas and because they were very inadequate at describing what was really happening in natural selection.

 

[tryptophan]

The fact that evolution happens does not justify eugenics.

 

[notto]

In order for the population to evolve, individuals must evolve. Use your mind.
But evolution gives credence to Eugenics because it says there are lesser species. If they truely are the master race, Arians have the right to kill any lesser race. The lesser race is not as good as the master and therefore is disposable.
No, but I'd like to hear you try. Go ahead and give it a shot.

Individuals don't evolve. Individuals die with the genetic makeup they are born with. Use your mind and read a book.

Evolution says nothing about 'lesser' species. You are presenting a strawman of evolution. The only 'lesser' speices are the ones that have become extinct because they could not survive in their environment. There are no living 'lesser' species.

Also, traits that would be detrimental in one environment can allow a species to thrive in another. Natural selection and the environment determine this and it is not an independent thing. Once cannot look at a species and say it is 'lesser' than another if it is surviving in its environment.

You should read Darwin. It would clear up these misconceptions you have about evolution.

Namely
1) that individuals evolve
2) that there is such a thing as 'lesser' species
3) That evolution says anything about the 'right' to kill another species
4) That individuals have some sort of 'urge' to evolve

 

[1denomination]

In biology and the theory of evolution, the cockroach is just a successful as man because it survives and has not gone extinct.

.

Another good reason not to belive in evolution. haha

 

[Kripost]

Isn't it possible to perform eugenics without knowledge of evolution?

 

[tryptophan]

Isn't it possible to perform eugenics without knowledge of evolution?

I suppose it is possible. Technically, breeding techniques with agriculture is a form of eugenics. You take the trait that you want to improve upon, you cross two animals with the largest advantage for the traits, and then don't allow other animals without that certain trait to cross. However, I consider it highly unethical with regards to humans.

 

[notto]

Another good reason not to belive in evolution. haha

In physics according to the theory of gravity, a man is just as vulnerable as a cockroach to its affects. Does that mean that I don't need to believe in gravity?

Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.

If you choose not to accept a scientific theory because its states the obvious fact that humans and cockroaches have both survived and adapted to their environments, then that would be a problem with your rational thought, not the theory itself.

 

[1denomination]

In physics according to the theory of gravity, a man is just as vulnerable as a cockroach to its affects. Does that mean that I don't need to believe in gravity?

Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.

If you choose not to accept a scientific theory because its states the obvious fact that humans and cockroaches have both survived and adapted to their environments, then that would be a problem with your rational thought, not the theory itself.

It was a joke are we not allowed to make jokes on this forum

 

[tryptophan]

It was a joke are we not allowed to make jokes on this forum

Unfortunately, on a forum, it's very easy to misinterpret some jokes.