Moral objection to evolution!

[Cute Tink]

So fitness can be weak and smart instead of strong and dumb. Evolution falsified.

As the others said, you have no idea what you are talking about. Fitness has nothing to do with particular attributes, but, rather, the overall survivability of the creature and the ability to breed.

 

[MorkandMindy]

It comes in the end to a tautology - whatever reproduces more you have more of



(it has to be expressed in a more complex form to make the tautology watertight, but I think the 7 word version points out the tautology adequately)

 

[Cabal]

It comes in the end to a tautology - whatever reproduces more you have more of



(it has to be expressed in a more complex form to make the tautology watertight, but I think the 7 word version points out the tautology adequately)

It's tautologous if you attempted to use such a description as proof of evolution. As a mere explanation of how it works, it fits the bill pretty well. Boils it down to simple terms even creationists can understand.

 

[Doveaman]

As the others said, you have no idea what you are talking about. Fitness has nothing to do with particular attributes, but, rather, the overall survivability of the creature and the ability to breed.

The smartest survive and breed. The dumbest die out. Evolution falsified.

 

[Jro]

The smartest survive and breed. The dumbest die out. Evolution falsified.

Evolution does not predict that dumb animals will reproduce more than smart animals.

 

[Cute Tink]

The smartest survive and breed. The dumbest die out. Evolution falsified.

You still don't get it. You just don't. Your attempts to simplify the situation into these short quips are utter failures at doing what you type, but they do a great job of showing how little you understand of the subject.

 

[Gracchus]

The smartest survive and breed. The dumbest die out. Evolution falsified.

Evolution does not predict that dumb animals will reproduce more than smart animals.

There are two reproductive strategies in biology.
You can produce lots of offspring. This strategy requires no intelligence. Most of them will die without reproducing, but so many are produced that some survive. Or you can produce only a few offspring and take care of them. Intelligence can be a useful tool for this approach. Human beings are known to use both strategies.

And let's face it, human beings aren't really all that smart. Half of them are below average in intelligence.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

And let's face it, human beings aren't really all that smart. Half of them are below average in intelligence.

I love it. Fscking hilarious!

 

[Tiberius]

Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.

Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.

But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.

The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.

I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?

Reality doesn't care if you object, and your morality doesn't control what is real and what is not real.

So you can object to evolution all you want, but that isn't going to make it false.

 

[Jro]

There are two reproductive strategies in biology.
You can produce lots of offspring. This strategy requires no intelligence. Most of them will die without reproducing, but so many are produced that some survive. Or you can produce only a few offspring and take care of them. Intelligence can be a useful tool for this approach. Human beings are known to use both strategies.

And let's face it, human beings aren't really all that smart. Half of them are below average in intelligence.

There's more than two reproductive strategies! Cephalopods are very intelligent but lay thousands of eggs with very few that survive.

 

[Lillen]

That's like saying you have moral objections against the sun because it gives people cancer. You can rail against it if you wish, but it will still rise everyday regardless.

You are saying that you can have moral objection against the sun, but because it is there it is nothing we can do about the sun and its function, we just need to accept the fact that people get cancer of it!

The thing is it doesn't work that way since we find alternatives to protect ourself against that blatantly bloody sun of ours.

Do you in the same manners argue for a protection against evolution? Do we protect ourself against evolution? or is it my wish that moral objections exist, and are visible?

For example, you can settle with the fact that millions of jews dying in concentration camp was necessary in agreement with evolution, it left room for the better fit, and you can settle with that. You can argue, hay thats just the way it is... the sun gives me cancer, and jews die in concentration camp, or you can actually provide the world with something good looking from this point of view, and fight against evolution...

 

[Resha Caner]

You can argue, hay thats just the way it is... the sun gives me cancer, and jews die in concentration camp, or you can actually provide the world with something good looking from this point of view, and fight against evolution...

Hmm. Interesting thought. Aside from whether one agrees with the latest in biological theory, and given the high moral state to which humans supposedly try to rise, should one accept natural processes or resist them?

 

[Lillen]

You phrased that better then me Resha!

 

[Jro]

You can't really fight against evolution anymore than you can fight against gravity. You can work on the environment and say "Hey, an environment where we don't kill the elderly is much nicer than one that does," but there will still be differential reproduction. As long as some people possess genetic traits that cause them to have more children than others, human kind will continue to evolve. The only way to fight that would be to institute a mandatory two child policy or something.

 

[Lillen]

Those people in the twin towers left room for the survival of the fittest, there were some escaping it as i recall. But we should just stay there, saying that evolution took place!?

 

[Jro]

Mass death does not imply that evolution is taking place. An example of a tragedy that resulted in evolution can be found in the black death. Many of the survivors of the plague survived because they carried a gene that conferred resistance to the disease- these survivors had descendants that now have resistance to HIV/AIDS.

Letting evolution take its course might mean ceasing efforts towards an AIDS vaccine and shrugging our shoulders and saying "Well, some people are resistant so we might as well not bother." Even if we do invent a vaccine though, there will still be genetic variation within humanity and that variation will result in differential reproduction. Thus, the population will continue to evolve.

Mass tragedies like the world trade center don't really select for any traits. There's no gene that causes the human body to be non-flammable for example.

 

[Lillen]

I am not using moral objections as a falsification against evolution. I am useing moral objections to see if your moral values are in congruence with the scientifical thought of evolution. Basically are you hypocrits arguing of the survival of the fittest, while you don't even shed a tear when your own child is dying in cancer?

"A mere heart of stone"

 

[Jro]

No, but you're saying that by behaving morally we are somehow interfering with evolution or stalling it. Using evolutionary standards as a qualitative standard to evaluate someone's life is monstrous- just because someone lacks a certain protein, the ability to metabolize alcohol, see in all the colors I do, etc., etc. doesn't mean that they have any less of a right to live than I do, but sometimes it makes them much less likely to do so.

Survival of the fittest isn't a moral imperative, it's simply a description of what happens. But fittest depends upon the environment. Using vaccines to prevent children's death is one example of an environmental modification in the same way that taking care of your children for 18 years is a different environment than dropping them out in the middle of nowhere. Regardless of our actions though, some people will be more fit and reproduce more than others. It's not fair, it's not right, but people die. In the same way that we call a child who dies before he reproduces less fit, I'd also call myself less fit than someone who has 16 children. But I wouldn't say that I, or you, or anyone else is less deserving of our compassion, understanding and efforts just because they have fewer children than someone else.

 

[Lillen]

So you would cry if your child died of cancer even though you knew he were less fit?

 

[Jro]

Yes of course. Fitness has nothing to do with my child's value to me.