Moral objection to evolution!

[Jro]

PS How about instead of discussing my child's death, we discuss why I would discourage a teenage daughter from becoming pregnant. It's functionally equivalent, but I don't even like thinking about a child dying from cancer.

 

[Lillen]

So in other words you do got moral objections against evolution... It is "...monsterous" and "...you don't like it"..

 

[Jro]

No, not at all. Read what I wrote. Evolution is a description of natural processes. It's very sad when someone dies of AIDS and it's not fair that certain people have a resistance to the virus and other people don't, but that's the way it is until we can come up with a vaccine. Evolution is inevitable. Some genes will prosper, some will die out. There's no morality associated with that in the same way that there's no morality associated with a hurricane.

 

[Gracchus]

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

There are two reproductive strategies. Intelligence may be a useful, but not necessary component of one. And however intelligent squids may be, it would seem that intelligence plays no part of their reproductive strategy. How do they manifest their intelligence, if not in protecting their offspring?

Of course, the two strategies mentioned represent the extremes of a spectrum. As a species, humanity exhibits a mixture of strategies.

Frank Bunker Gilbreath was a very smart man with lots of children. He brought intelligence to raising lots of children and became one of the first "efficiency experts".

 

[Lillen]

So you don't have moral objections against a persons inevitable death?

I can say I do. I think it is "...very sad when somone dies of AIDS, and i think it is not fair that certain people have resistance to the virus and other people don't"

Thats my moral objection, whats yours?

 

[Jro]

There are two reproductive strategies. Intelligence may be a useful, but not necessary component of one. And however intelligent squids may be, it would seem that intelligence plays no part of their reproductive strategy. How do they manifest their intelligence, if not in protecting their offspring?

Of course, the two strategies mentioned represent the extremes of a spectrum. As a species, humanity exhibits a mixture of strategies.

Frank Bunker Gilbreath was a very smart man with lots of children. He brought intelligence to raising lots of children and became one of the first "efficiency experts".

I'm unfamiliar with Gilbreath, but cephalopods often do protect their offspring by selecting hiding spots or constructing them. Parasitoid wasps are another example where intelligence is used to aid large scale reproduction. Generalist species that prey on many species of caterpillar learn to associate the presence of caterpillars with chemicals from their host plant. After finding the caterpillar they will lay a great many eggs which later devour the caterpillar alive. As a side note, these parasitoids have been trained to detect bombs by teaching them to associate bomb smell with caterpillars!

I think that you're discussing r selection vs. K selection (?), which, broadly speaking many animals can be classified to, although there are many exceptions to the rule. One problem with this schema is that it doesn't account for plants or bacteria, which are often headaches in all kinds of ways. Really though I think that we're having a semantic argument and we can agree that organisms have a vast, vast diversity of ways to ensure that their genes are passed on, even if we have differing views on what a reproductive strategy is.

I'm going to wiki Gilbreath now!

 

[Jro]

So you don't have moral objections against a persons inevitable death?

I can say I do. I think it is "...very sad when somone dies of AIDS, and i think it is not fair that certain people have resistance to the virus and other people don't"

Thats my moral objection, whats yours?

Because it's a physical phenomenon. It's like saying "Gosh darn gravity, I can't believe it killed my friend when he fell off a cliff." You might as well spit in the wind.

What we can do is look at the way that evolution has cultivated the resistance in other people and attempt to inoculate other people with that same resistance. But there's no reason to 'praise evolution' or 'thank evolution' that it created that cure.

 

[Gracchus]

I'm going to wiki Gilbreath now!

Well, you might have better luck if you wiki Gilbreth (no A).

 

[Belk]

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...

In agreement with evolution? Is the sun in agreement with cancer? Is the moon in agreement with tides? Evolution is not a thing. It has no thoughts, feelings, opinions. It is simply a theory to explain what we see around us. It posits neither do nor do not. It tells how things happen.

Millions of Jews dying was the product of human fear. It in no way has any basis in evolution.

 

[Delphiki]

Lillen - The sun, gravity, and evolution are things that happen. There's no motive behind them. There is no moral or immoral guidance involved.
The holocaust of WWII was something done by humans, there was a motive behind it. Immoral guidance was involved.

Nobody is saying let the sun give us cancer, we're saying the sun doesn't give us cancer on purpose. It's an object in nature, not a person. Evolution is a process in nature, not a set of rules created by an entity. There's no morality or immorality to object to, let alone any entity to credit it to.

 

[Resha Caner]

You can't really fight against evolution anymore than you can fight against gravity.

This is the hair I was looking to split. Gravity may always be present, but I can apply a force such that the net sum is zero. For example, the lift on an airplane wing negates the force of gravity.

So, I could theoretically (had I enough political power to do it) select who would breed and who wouldn't - creating a "force" that would negate changes in the population (still avoiding that charged word "evolution"). I think that has a name ... something like "eugenics" ... a favorite of the Nazis.

Then where between the two extremes does a "moral" society reside? At one extreme are the social darwinists who propose letting the poor and weak die because its "natural." At the other extreme are the fascists who want to "design" a society. I guess this doesn't belong in the science forum, but the thread is here.

 

[Belk]

This is the hair I was looking to split. Gravity may always be present, but I can apply a force such that the net sum is zero. For example, the lift on an airplane wing negates the force of gravity.

Slight nitpick, the lift of an airplanes wings does not negate the force of gravity. It provides a lifting force that is enough of an opposing force that it allows planes to fly.

So, I could theoretically (had I enough political power to do it) select who would breed and who wouldn't - creating a "force" that would negate changes in the population (still avoiding that charged word "evolution"). I think that has a name ... something like "eugenics" ... a favorite of the Nazis.

No, it would still be evolution. You have just applied a different selective pressure. Much like your flying analogy you have simply applied what was already there in a new way. Only now you are the moral agent making what most would call an unethical choice.

Then where between the two extremes does a "moral" society reside? At one extreme are the social darwinists who propose letting the poor and weak die because its "natural." At the other extreme are the fascists who want to "design" a society. I guess this doesn't belong in the science forum, but the thread is here.

Their is no such thing as a "darwinist". Their are simply people who find the large body of evidence of evolution to be convincing.

I'll reiterate this because you seem to have missed it. Evolution does not posit how people should make decisions. It is not a set of ethical guidelines. It is a theory explaining how the diversity of life on our planet came about. It no more says we should let the weak die then the theory of gravity says we should push rocks off cliffs. Do you understand this point?

 

[Resha Caner]

Slight nitpick, the lift of an airplanes wings does not negate the force of gravity. It provides a lifting force that is enough of an opposing force that it allows planes to fly.

If you look at thesaurus.com you'll see that "oppose" is a synonym of "negate." This is just semantics. Now, dictionary.com does give "negate" two definitions - one being to oppose (which was the intent of my statement) and the other being to annihilate, which is apparently what you took me to mean.

With that said, it's an interesting philosophical discussion (one that has occurred in professional literature) regarding whether forces continue to "exist" if their net sum is zero or whether that means they cease to exist.

Regardless, it's a semantic distraction from the discussion.

No, it would still be evolution. You have just applied a different selective pressure. Much like your flying analogy you have simply applied what was already there in a new way. Only now you are the moral agent making what most would call an unethical choice.

You seem to miss what I'm poking at. Does biological change include the human will? Is human morality part of what is "natural," or is the human will something separate that allows it to oppose nature?

If you include it, pretty soon everything is natural, and nothing is unnatural. As such, "natural" becomes a pretty useless word. Murder would be natural, and punishing murderers would be natural as well. I prefer to separate the two and think of the human will as something apart from nature.

It seems you would agree with me because you said:

I'll reiterate this because you seem to have missed it. Evolution does not posit how people should make decisions. It is not a set of ethical guidelines.

So, no, I didn't miss it. There just seems to be a bit of misunderstanding. Given the view as stated above, the human will can negate (i.e. oppose) nature. The question, then, is: should it?

Their is no such thing as a "darwinist". Their are simply people who find the large body of evidence of evolution to be convincing.

I'd refrain from making absolute statements if I were you. Note that I said "social darwinst." As such, you might want to study up on Herbert Spencer. Note that I also said maybe this discussion doesn't belong in the science forum.

Anyway, maybe the question is now clearer.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you look at thesaurus.com you'll see that "oppose" is a synonym of "negate." This is just semantics. Now, dictionary.com does give "negate" two definitions - one being to oppose (which was the intent of my statement) and the other being to annihilate, which is apparently what you took me to mean.

With that said, it's an interesting philosophical discussion (one that has occurred in professional literature) regarding whether forces continue to "exist" if their net sum is zero or whether that means they cease to exist.

That being said, the act of jumping "negates" gravity as well -- but I wouldn't say that gravity "cases to exist" -- especially depending on where one jumps from.

"All men can fly, but only in one direction -- down."

You seem to miss what I'm poking at. Does biological change include the human will? Is human morality part of what is "natural," or is the human will something separate that allows it to oppose nature?

Well what is nature in this context? A human being can, through will and effort, overcome nature up to a point -- a person natually weak can hit the gym and become stronger, but never to "Incredible Hulk" proportions.

Likewise -- and going back to "gravity" for a moment -- for a person falling out a 27th-story window, no amount of will power is going to oppose the natural equation: 27 floors * 32 feet/second/second = ugly stain on the sidewalk.

If you include it, pretty soon everything is natural, and nothing is unnatural. As such, "natural" becomes a pretty useless word. Murder would be natural, and punishing murderers would be natural as well. I prefer to separate the two and think of the human will as something apart from nature.

Not so much the human will, but human civilization. Humans are (naturally) social creatures, and are better suited to living in groups than living in solitude. Our capacity for abstract thinking naturally devised certain rules which made living in such social groups possible.

So, no, I didn't miss it. There just seems to be a bit of misunderstanding. Given the view as stated above, the human will can negate (i.e. oppose) nature. The question, then, is: should it?

I recall a pastor of mine once saying, "Mother Nature is a [word that rhymes with "witch"] -- She always gets the last word."

Remember, human will can only oppose nature up to a point -- and a very limited one at that.

If all you're giving humans to work with is their will, in a battle of man vs. nature, put your money on nature.

 

[Belk]

If you look at thesaurus.com you'll see that "oppose" is a synonym of "negate." This is just semantics. Now, dictionary.com does give "negate" two definitions - one being to oppose (which was the intent of my statement) and the other being to annihilate, which is apparently what you took me to mean.

With that said, it's an interesting philosophical discussion (one that has occurred in professional literature) regarding whether forces continue to "exist" if their net sum is zero or whether that means they cease to exist.

Regardless, it's a semantic distraction from the discussion.

Hmmm... You are correct a semantic argument if that was the definition you are using. I was going by

ne·gate


Definition of NEGATE

transitive verb
1: to deny the existence or truth of

2: to cause to be ineffective or invalid

Neither of which are would be proper, but I digress.

You seem to miss what I'm poking at. Does biological change include the human will? Is human morality part of what is "natural," or is the human will something separate that allows it to oppose nature?

If you include it, pretty soon everything is natural, and nothing is unnatural. As such, "natural" becomes a pretty useless word. Murder would be natural, and punishing murderers would be natural as well. I prefer to separate the two and think of the human will as something apart from nature.

It seems you would agree with me because you said:

I'm sorry but this question seems nonsensical to me. You seem to be equating two different definitions of natural.

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 : being in accordance with or determined by nature

Killing is natural, it occurs in nature all the time. This does not make it right or wrong.

So, no, I didn't miss it. There just seems to be a bit of misunderstanding. Given the view as stated above, the human will can negate (i.e. oppose) nature. The question, then, is: should it?

But human will can not negate nature. We can apply our knowledge of nature to allow use to modify outcomes. It seems to me your question is more along the lines of "Is it ethical to use our knowledge of the natural world to modify outcomes to our advantage." Does that sound correct?

I'd refrain from making absolute statements if I were you. Note that I said "social darwinst." As such, you might want to study up on Herbert Spencer. Note that I also said maybe this discussion doesn't belong in the science forum.

Anyway, maybe the question is now clearer.

I had missed that. My sincere apologies since I had made assumptions about your entire post based off my misunderstanding.

 

[Resha Caner]

Killing is natural, it occurs in nature all the time. This does not make it right or wrong.

Mmm. Some of the semantic game continues. I said "murder", not "kill." Murder is the killing of a human being in a manner prohibited by law. So is it a worthy excercise to make such laws?

It seems to me your question is more along the lines of "Is it ethical to use our knowledge of the natural world to modify outcomes to our advantage." Does that sound correct?

If you prefer to word it that way, I'll accept it.

 

[matthewgar]

I think whats important here is, the OP doesn't seem to have a obiection to Evolution, but of missuse or use of it inappropriatly. How people treat or use something doesn't disprove it. Us not liking the destructive power of atomic bombs and having a moral objection to Korea using them on us won't stop us from being vaporized if they did, one can have a moral objection to the missuse of atomic energy, but as with evolution doesn't change the fact it's real.

 

[corvus_corax]

This is the hair I was looking to split. Gravity may always be present, but I can apply a force such that the net sum is zero. For example, the lift on an airplane wing negates the force of gravity.

Speaking of that hair you like to split-
Flight is dependent upon the force of gravity.

So, I could theoretically (had I enough political power to do it) select who would breed and who wouldn't - creating a "force" that would negate changes in the population (still avoiding that charged word "evolution"). I think that has a name ... something like "eugenics" ... a favorite of the Nazis.

Geee whiz, Beav, that's not at all the same! The 'political force' you are speaking of is nothing (read that again-NOTHING) like the force of gravity.
Apples and donkeys, my friend.

Then where between the two extremes does a "moral" society reside? At one extreme are the social darwinists who propose letting the poor and weak die because its "natural." At the other extreme are the fascists who want to "design" a society. I guess this doesn't belong in the science forum, but the thread is here.

You are correct, this PHILOSOPHICAL discussion does not belong here.
Sorry friend, but trying to decry Social Darwinism fails when it comes to the actualTheory of Evolution.

Yep, the one correct thing you said was-

I guess this doesn't belong in the science forum

So perhaps you should request the mods to move your post to a more appropriate forum (like Philosophy forum)?

 

[Belk]

Mmm. Some of the semantic game continues. I said "murder", not "kill." Murder is the killing of a human being in a manner prohibited by law. So is it a worthy excercise to make such laws?

Yes, you did say murder. However since "Murder" is an entirely man made concept and has no direct paralels in nature that I am aware of so I went with the closest thing I could think of. Why would making laws against murder be right or wrong simply because of nature? Laws against murder would be right or wrong because humans, as moral agents, have logical (or illogical) reasons to make it so.

If you prefer to word it that way, I'll accept it.

I try to use very precise language in the science forum. It is much to easy to use words with variable and slippery meanings to come to an incorrect conclusion. Some of the posters here are famous for it.

 

[Jro]

I'm curious what parts of evolution you guys would be interested in working against exactly.