What is the mechanism to stop "kinds"from turning into other "kinds"?

[xianghua]

A "robot" is designed by definition, since robots are manufactured in factories.
Probably in china. And ironically, by other robots..

so a creature that made by human is also a robot by definition becbause it was made by intelligent?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let me give you a riddle:

He's the same One educatees claim didn't write anything with His own hands; but want what He didn't write with His own hands off of the courthouse lawn.

Separation of church and state, sir. No reason other than that, I personally wouldn't care if religious symbols were in public places. Some of them make for really nice art. Just probably shouldn't be government funded or placed on government property. Put a giant cross in your yard, and I won't care.

 

[PsychoSarah]

On the Origin of Species is an abbreviated title, it was actually ...by means of natural selection, or preservation of favored races in the struggle foe existence. You should learn the philosophy and worldview you argue for so venomiously.

Oh yes, those horribly racist discrimination of the races of... cabbages. Race is used as a synonym for species/variation in that text, and is never applied to humans in it. We've had this discussion before, stop acting as if the "races" in the title of that book refers to humans specifically.

Also, would it matter if it did apply to humans? Plenty of intellectuals of the past were racist. That doesn't make all of their scientific work illegitimate.

 

[USincognito]

You always like to ask the most obscure and pointless question you can conjure up{snip a bunch of things that don't mean what you think they do}

Interestingly you didn't just simply answer the question. The answer is Darwin does not refer to humans at all in Origin of the Species so therefore "races" does not refer to human races but to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage," etc. Interestingly your quote does not make the case that you think it does because Darwin is talking about Lamarck in the preface to the Third Edition, not himself.

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works [Lamarck] upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. [Lamarck] first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.​

 

[mark kennedy]

Interestingly you didn't just simply answer the question. The answer is Darwin does not refer to humans at all in Origin of the Species so therefore "races" does not refer to human races but to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage," etc. Interestingly your quote does not make the case that you think it does because Darwin is talking about Lamarck in the preface to the Third Edition, not himself.

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works [Lamarck] upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. [Lamarck] first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.​

Darwin made it clear that he concurred and that answers your question, he mentions man in the preface. The title further made it clear that me factored in races with regards to the struggle for existence, which is natural selection. It is Darwin talking and it is the essence of Darwinism but it's not necessarily about race, when you understand how Darwin used the term. There was a time when people were confused about race, we are not now, there is no such thing. Sure there are alleles but it's one tenth of one percent. My point originally was that we can't have the ten commandments on the statehouse lawn but you can have the KKK. That's not how it should be, my understanding of the reasoning behind the legal reason of the Supreme Court not withstanding.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so a creature that made by human is also a robot by definition becbause it was made by intelligent?

A robot is a mechanical device. Not a biological entity.

 

[xianghua]

A robot is a mechanical device. Not a biological entity.

so a robot that made from organic components isnt a robot?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so a robot that made from organic components isnt a robot?

Correct.

When the word "robot" is used, people think of a device made from metals, plastics, copper wire, silicon chips,... and running on electricity that it gets or generates from "some source" and which is manufactured and assembled in some factory - likely somehwere in Asia.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Darwin made it clear that he concurred and that answers your question, he mentions man in the preface. The title further made it clear that me factored in races with regards to the struggle for existence, which is natural selection. It is Darwin talking and it is the essence of Darwinism but it's not necessarily about race, when you understand how Darwin used the term.

If you understand that, then why act as if the full title of Origin of Species is racist?

There was a time when people were confused about race, we are not now, there is no such thing.

Depends on what you mean by "confusion". The concept of human race has changed over time, socially. When it's a social construct to begin with, I'm not sure what you mean by people being confused. We all know that the attempts at using biological factors to justify discrimination was fueled by bigotry. They weren't confused, but rather, they were grasping at straws to justify seeing their own race as "superior". Some of those justifications were as ridiculous as saying that, since such and such group has this ratio of the length of their belly button to their chin and their overall height, this makes them superior. That's the sort of thing that happens when personal views are put above scientific integrity.

Sure there are alleles but it's one tenth of one percent.

This is a nonsense statement, since all variations of genes are called alleles, and nearly every gene has at least 2 variants. I could only imagine that you'd be able to get that kind of count if you selected a species with very little genetic variation, such as the cheetah, and counted all the sequences that don't contribute to genes as "not being variable"... which would be a huge misrepresentation, because the non-coding parts of DNA have a lot more variation than the actual genes do.

My point originally was that we can't have the ten commandments on the statehouse lawn but you can have the KKK.

The latter is covered by freedom of speech; as much as I dislike racists, I am not going to deny them the right to be open about how they feel. As long as they aren't lynching people or something, they are well within their rights.

However, having the ten commandments on government property is a violation of the separation of church and state; it's the state using public funds to promote a religious text. That is unconstitutional. However, private citizens are free to put up as much religious imagery as they please on their own property. You don't care that not everyone decorates their house for holidays, so why do you care if a decoration is removed from government property?

That's not how it should be, my understanding of the reasoning behind the legal reason of the Supreme Court not withstanding.

While I agree with you that racism is abhorrent, I do not agree that allowing people that are racists to form private groups is wrong compared to the government promoting a religion. To prevent people from gathering because you view their views as abhorrent is basically charging people with thought crimes; "you only get free speech if I agree with what you want to say" is a terrible system to have and sets a dangerous precedent. Morality is subjective, so ultimately, limiting what groups can form based on how "moral" their positions are would be an arbitrary removal of certain ideas from the public space. It also solves nothing; racism doesn't end just because you prevent people from talking about it.

Yet, the government's function demands it be impartial on the basis of religion. Having a bunch of Christian religious stuff on government property, with little to no representation from other religions, shows favor to one religious group over all the others. Of course, this means an alternative solution to taking the ten commandments off the property is to have an equivalent of every other religion put on the property, but as this would be more time consuming and restricted by available space, the simplest solution is to just remove these things from display.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review.

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on

Thread is permanently closed
for
egregious flaming.
Carry on.​