Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Though I must say, this is a novel argument against evolution.
Indeed, in the 1950s, Dmitri Belyaev showed that it took wild silver foxes only twenty years to evolve to be as tame as dogs. So even in complex mammals, behaviour instincts can be rapidly changed (this is useful for, say, diminishing food supplies, or encroaching territories).
No difference.
__________________
Evolution is the product of chance mutations. The case described wasn't. It was adapting to the environment.
There is still no difference. Adaption and evolution are both the result of natural selection weeding out bad mutations from the gene pool.
This sounds like survival of the fittest
There is still no difference. Adaption and evolution are both the result of natural selection weeding out bad mutations from the gene pool
]Eugenics
For more details on this topic, see Eugenics.
Following Darwin’s publication of the Origin, his cousin, Francis Galton, applied the concepts to human society, starting in 1865 with ideas to promote “hereditary improvement” which he elaborated at length in 1869.[138] In The Descent of Man Darwin agreed that Galton had demonstrated the probability that “talent” and “genius” in humans was inherited, but dismissed the social changes Galton proposed as too utopian.[139] Neither Galton nor Darwin supported government intervention and thought that, at most, heredity should be taken into consideration by people seeking potential mates.[140] In 1883, after Darwin’s death, Galton began calling his social philosophy Eugenics.[141] In the 20th century, eugenics movements gained popularity in a number of countries and became associated with reproduction control programmes such as compulsory sterilisation laws,[142] then were stigmatised after their usage in the rhetoric of Nazi Germany in its goals of genetic “purity”.[V]
Social Darwinism
For more details on this topic, see Social Darwinism.
The ideas of Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer which applied ideas of evolution and “survival of the fittest” to societies, nations and businesses became popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, and were used to defend various, sometimes contradictory, ideological perspectives including laissez-faire economics,[143]colonialism,[144]racism and imperialism.[144] The term “Social Darwinism” originated around the 1890s, but became popular as a derogatory term in the 1940s with Richard Hofstadter’s critique of laissez-faire conservatism.[145] The concepts predate Darwin’s publication of the Origin in 1859:[144][146] Malthus died in 1834[147] and Spencer published his books on economics in 1851 and on evolution in 1855.[148] Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature,[149] and that sympathy should be extended to all races and nations.[150][VI
I didn't say it was a good argument or an informed argument, just a novel argument.No... it's not. It's grasping at straws and completely mixing concepts. In order to argue evolution, you must understand the theory in the first place.
This guy doesn't.
The same cannot be said for The Theory of Evolution whose core belief system ....
No, it doesn't: eugenics is the belief that some human races are superior to others, which is fallacious. Natural selection is simply selection based upon those who just so happen to survive long enough to reproduce. Those with beneficial mutations are more likely to reproduce, so novel beneficial mutations become the norm in the long run. This is the theory of evolution and leads directly to the theory of common descent.Which naturally leads to this sort of thinking: [Eugenics]
Strawman and equivocation. "Survival of the fittest" is an inaccurate caricature, and the "fittest" and "unfit" do not refer to the same thing (the former best refers to genes that are more likely to be proliferated, the latter to humans in need of spiritual salvation).Evolution is about the survival of the fittest.
Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit.
If it occurs by natural means, yes. Otherwise one can hardly call NATURAL the extinction of a species by NATURAL selection.While abuses occur within the Christian Church its core belief system does not support them. The same cannot be said for The Theory of Evolution whose core belief system treats as natural the extinction of the “unfit”.
Even though you're wrong, there's a very important question here: so what? The truth of common descent doesn't depend on how good said truth makes us feel. Astronomy is a humbling science, but it isn't any less true because of it. We may want to be the centre of the universe, we may want to be ultimately unrelated to the other animals, but reality rarely bends to the wishes of the masses: it is what it is, regardless of the consequences to humanity.These may be anyone who is politically out of favor as were the Jews in Germany where Hitler used “evolutionary” rhetoric to plead his cause.
Which naturally leads to this sort of thinking:
Evolution is about the survival of the fittest.
Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit.
While abuses occur within the Christian Church its core belief system does not support them. The same cannot be said for The Theory of Evolution whose core belief system treats as natural the extinction of the “unfit”. These may be anyone who is politically out of favor as were the Jews in Germany where Hitler used “evolutionary” rhetoric to plead his cause.
I would say the this is adaption and not evolution.
This sounds like survival of the fittest.
Which naturally leads to this sort of thinking:
Evolution is about the survival of the fittest.
Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit.
While abuses occur within the Christian Church its core belief system does not support them. The same cannot be said for The Theory of Evolution whose core belief system treats as natural the extinction of the unfit. These may be anyone who is politically out of favor as were the Jews in Germany where Hitler used evolutionary rhetoric to plead his cause.
I didn't say it was a good argument or an informed argument, just a novel argument.
Once again. Hitler did not use evolution to gain supporters; he used the writings of Martin Luther.
When you copy and paste from somewhere, please cite your source.
By saying this, you have voided your entire argument. You have conformend that the Holocaust was not the inevitable outcome of natural selection and that external sources where required for Hitler to gain supporters.Hitler used what ever he could.
Hitler twisted all sorts of teachings
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?