Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[Astrid]

Bear in mind that you can select exactly nothing into existence.
Natural selection, as any selection process, is a filtering process. You begin with a larger number of options, and end with a smaller one.

The Darwinian tree of life, and natural history, clearly depicts the opposite occurrence, and so we need to explain the origination process, not the selection process.

This has always been the key question, and only Darwinism posits pure blind chance, random mutation to answer it.

Hence blind chance is the defining characteristic of Darwinian theory.

Nobody in science would say that. Where do you get this odd info?

 

[Bradskii]

Natural selection, as any selection process, is a filtering process. You begin with a larger number of options, and end with a smaller one.

And if that filtering process gives an organism a beneficial advantage (it rarely does, but when it does), then that advantage propogates throughout the group. By natural selection. Because...it's advantageous.

Hence blind chance is the defining characteristic of Darwinian theory.

You really shouldn't be attempting to discredit something that you give every indication of not understanding. The very basics of evolution includes the fact that it is a non random process. Specifically the natural selection aspect.

 

[Astrid]

It's good to know that I can come to you as an authority on these things, Estrid! That alleviates me from having to read any more books or to listen to any podcasts. You're one-stop shop presence is going to save me a lot of time and work from having to do my own thinking!

As if even you could successfully fake such a vacuous interpretation.

 

[RDKirk]

And please explain how I, lacking any "Holy Spirit", am able to recognize the sheer absurdity of the idea of human "races".

It can't be "sheer absurdity" if it's been only in the last couple of decades that DNA evidence has indicated that what science had identified for a century as distinct racial classifications actually have fewer distinctions at the DNA level than there are within the racial classifications. That's not "sheer absurdity," that's simply "we've gotten more information since then."

The thing about both science and Christianity, unfortunately, is that individuals too often cherry-pick information to suit their own prejudices.

The DNA evidence suggests a foundation of an ethic of "we all derive from the same ancestor, therefore we should not observe differences between us," but that's only a suggestion of a foundation for those who are predisposed to use the DNA evidence as such.

Science does not dictate ethics. Those individuals who are pre-disposed to seek out differences by which to be prejudiced will find in some scientifically gathered information reasons to do so. If DNA evidence mitigates their prejudices, they will look elsewhere for scientifically gathered evidence that supports their prejudices.

OTOH, Christianity does dictate ethics. Those individuals who are pre-disposed by their own prejudices to seek out ways to discriminate even between Christians will still cherry-pick the Bible to do so, despite explicit biblical direction against it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And if that filtering process gives an organism...

No, again you cannot give an organism (or anything) something it did not already possess by selecting it!
By definition, if natural selection selects for something, that something already existed to be selected.

There's really no way around this..

You really shouldn't be attempting to discredit something that you give every indication of not understanding. The very basics of evolution includes the fact that it is a non random process. Specifically the natural selection aspect.

Sure, and the basics of Creationsim, Lamarckism and Intelligent Design also posit the same non-random selection process to account for the distribution of biological form. They just don't posit 'blind chance' to create it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Y'know, I've never been a big fan of the "Philosophy and ......." series of books. But I guess things have come along far enough now that rather than a Philosophy and Star Wars, Philosophy and Batman, Philosophy of LOTR, Philosophy of Harry Potter, etc., etc., they can do a "Philosophy and The Bible."

Then again, I never did get much from all of those children's books they used to read to us in pre-school, either. I must have a problem ...

I can't say I have any general interest in the philosophical consequences of fiction franchises. So... pass.

 

[Astrid]

I can't say I have any general interest in the philosophical consequences of fiction franchises. So... pass.

Talk about a useless and pointless topic!

 

[AV1611VET]

And please explain how I, lacking any "Holy Spirit", am able to recognize the sheer absurdity of the idea of human "races".

Um ... correct me if I'm wrong, but in college cliche, aren't "race" and "species" the same thing?

If not, what's with the arcing and sparking about how I use the title to Darwin's book?

 

[RDKirk]

Um ... correct me if I'm wrong, but in college cliche, aren't "race" and "species" the same thing?

If not, what's with the arcing and sparking about how I use the title to Darwin's book?

No, race and species have never been considered the same thing (at least not authoritatively). Neither scientists nor religionists have thought so. Different species do not interbreed without qualifications, something noted by Christians even before Darwin that all races must be of the same biblical "kind." At most, race has been more like "variety" or "breed."

 

[AV1611VET]

No, race and species have never been considered the same thing (at least not authoritatively). Neither scientists nor religionists have thought so. Different species do not interbreed without qualifications, something noted by Christians even before Darwin that all races must be of the same biblical "kind." At most, race has been more like "variety" or "breed."

QV please:

In Barker’s five-minute closing arguments, he addressed this idea, and stated: “When Darwin talked about favored races, in those days the word race did not mean human race, like Hitler might have used it. In his day the word race was just a synonym for animal species. He wasn’t talking about favored races like whites over blacks or something.”

SOURCE

 

[RDKirk]

QV please:


SOURCE

I would point out that Darwin himself never defined "race" as "species."

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, again you cannot give an organism (or anything) something it did not already possess by selecting it!
By definition, if natural selection selects for something, that something already existed to be selected.

There's really no way around this..

Mutations add it; Natural selection either spreads it or weeds it out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Talk about a useless and pointless topic!

Yep! Racism, genocide and [possible] omnicide...and don't forget... mundicide are useless and pointless topics over which to wrangle, especially when they're only used in discussion as abstract conceptions in relation to fictions and without any direct reference to real life and history.

Wouldn't you say you agree?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Mutations add it; Natural selection either spreads it or weeds it out.

Yes, and according to Darwinism, the mutations are .. random. aka blind chance

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, and according to Darwinism, the mutations are .. random. aka blind chance

Not blind chance. Reactive to exterior pressures.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not blind chance. Reactive to exterior pressures.

Mutations are random - Understanding Evolution
Mutations are random

The mechanisms of evolution — like natural selection and genetic drift — work with the random variation generated by mutation.

You can enhance the mutation rate by external pressure, but the mutations themselves are still, according to Darwinism, random.

If you are suggesting they are biased towards an advantageous result, that may be true but then you'd be arguing as a skeptic of Darwinian evolution.

I knew you were coming around

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Mutations are random - Understanding Evolution
Mutations are random

The mechanisms of evolution — like natural selection and genetic drift — work with the random variation generated by mutation.

You can enhance the mutation rate by external pressure, but the mutations themselves are still, according to Darwinism, random.

If you are suggesting they are biased towards an advantageous result, that may be true but then you'd be arguing as a skeptic of Darwinian evolution.

I knew you were coming around

Random is not the same as blind chance though. Mutations occur as a result of genes reacting to stimuli from an external pressure. For it to be blind chance mutations, the genes would have to mutate at will, whenever, willy-nilly.

Even your own link says so:
"Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

Genetic resistance to certain factors in a population is random, but that's not blind chance.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Random is not the same as blind chance though. Mutations occur as a result of genes reacting to stimuli from an external pressure. For it to be blind chance mutations, the genes would have to mutate at will, whenever, willy-nilly.

Even your own link says so:
"Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

Genetic resistance to certain factors in a population is random, but that's not blind chance.

yes, no argument there,

when I swap a scrabble letter with one in the bag, the swapping event is not random, but the result is.

No matter how much I want that 'u' for my 'q' I cannot determine the outcome. The outcome of the swap/mutation is literally blind chance.

or as your quote from the link puts it 'whether a particular [swap]mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that [swap]mutation would be'

unless, there is some cheating going on, which would explain a lot..

 

[Astrid]

Yes, and according to Darwinism, the mutations are .. random. aka blind chance

Genetics is post- Darwin, but nobody denies the random aspect
to mutations- so what possible point are you attempting
to make?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

yes, no argument there,

when I swap a scrabble letter with one in the bag, the swapping event is not random, but the result is.

No matter how much I want that 'u' for my 'q' I cannot determine the outcome. The outcome of the swap/mutation is literally blind chance.

or as your quote from the link puts it 'whether a particular [swap]mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that [swap]mutation would be'

unless, there is some cheating going on, which would explain a lot..

So why is this such a big issue for you? Because all I get from your argument is just a massive amount of incredulity: you cannot perceive of random mutations doing anything, so that must be wrong.