Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

[spartacus1984]

Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

Why do scientist spend more and more of their time and energy coming up with more and more ingenious ways of keeping alive the most feeble bodied And most feeble minded. And simultaneously finding more and more ingenious ways of putting heavier and heavier burdens on the most able bodied And most able minded. If natural selection and evil ution was allowed to take its natural course, The world population would only be 1 billion.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

 

[Cabal]

Why do scientist spend more and more of their time and energy coming up with more and more ingenious ways of keeping alive the most feeble bodied And most feeble minded. And simultaneously finding more and more ingenious ways of putting heavier and heavier burdens on the most able bodied And most able minded.

Because social Darwinism =/= evolution.

Evolution, as is the case with most scientific theories, is a description of natural processes, not prescriptions of human behaviour.

If natural selection and evil ution was allowed to take its natural course, The world population would only be 1 billion.

Can you provide the calculation for that figure, please?

 

[spartacus1984]

Can you provide the calculation for that figure, please?[/quote]

yes i can

 

[Cabal]

yes i can

Whenever you're ready then, post it into the thread

 

[spartacus1984]

Because social Darwinism =/= evolution.

Evolution, as is the case with most scientific theories, is a description of natural processes, not prescriptions of human behaviour.

are you saying that scientist have just gone to war with a natural processe because scientist hate natural selection and evil ution.

 

[Split Rock]

Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

Why do scientist spend more and more of their time and energy coming up with more and more ingenious ways of keeping alive the most feeble bodied And most feeble minded. And simultaneously finding more and more ingenious ways of putting heavier and heavier burdens on the most able bodied And most able minded. If natural selection and evil ution was allowed to take its natural course, The world population would only be 1 billion.

Because social Darwinism =/= evolution.

Evolution, as is the case with most scientific theories, is a description of natural processes, not prescriptions of human behaviour.

are you saying that scientist have just gone to war with a natural processe because they hate natural selection and evil ution.

NO.... that is not what he posted.

I am calling "Poe" on this one, guys...

 

[spartacus1984]

Whenever you're ready then, post it into the thread

http://www.guibord.com/Democracy/files-images/World_Population_Graph.jpg

 

[Cabal]

are you saying that scientist have just gone to war with a natural processe because scientist hate natural selection and evil ution.

You keep making a spelling error there. It's spelt "evolution". Hope this helps

I'd hardly call it going to war with a natural process, given that that's what humans generally do. Fighting disease is "going to war with a natural process". Building dams for power is "going to war with a natural process". You're using emotive language to try and imply that scientists are being inconsistent. Just because we can explain how a natural process occurs without human interference does not mean we are required in any way to help it along. There is no requirement that we MUST weed out the weak because in the wild they wouldn't be as likely to survive. Of course, this whole thing is based on a misunderstanding - part of man's survivability arises from the fact that we are social animals and help out those who are disadvantaged, in exchange for help when we might be disadvantaged ourselves.

 

[Cabal]

The "img" tags display the image itself, by the way, not "url".

Ok, well, this a graph, not a calculation, but I'll take it for now.

How exactly do you think this relates to evolution? I would like to hear the full explanation of this.

 

[selfinflikted]

NO.... that is not what he posted.

I am calling "Poe" on this one, guys...

I'm still fairly certain this guy is a bot.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

Why do scientist spend more and more of their time and energy coming up with more and more ingenious ways of keeping alive the most feeble bodied And most feeble minded. And simultaneously finding more and more ingenious ways of putting heavier and heavier burdens on the most able bodied And most able minded. If natural selection and evil ution was allowed to take its natural course, The world population would only be 1 billion.

Lillen?

 

[Cabal]

Lillen?

That chap has really reset the benchmark.

 

[spartacus1984]

That chap has really reset the benchmark.

thanks

 

[Cabal]

thanks

Not you.

 

[Delphiki]

Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

Why do scientist spend more and more of their time and energy coming up with more and more ingenious ways of keeping alive the most feeble bodied And most feeble minded. And simultaneously finding more and more ingenious ways of putting heavier and heavier burdens on the most able bodied And most able minded. If natural selection and evil ution was allowed to take its natural course, The world population would only be 1 billion.

There was this German guy in the 1940s who had similar ideas, and a similar misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution as you do. It didn't go well for him, IIRC. The name escapes me at the moment.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was this German guy in the 1940s who had similar ideas, and a similar misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution as you do. It didn't go well for him, IIRC. The name escapes me at the moment.

Thomas Malthus was English.

 

[jayem]

The "img" tags display the image itself, by the way, not "url".

Ok, well, this a graph, not a calculation, but I'll take it for now.

How exactly do you think this relates to evolution? I would like to hear the full explanation of this.

I suppose it's to argue that our population has dramatically expanded above a billion or so only since scientific and technological advances have been available in the last 200 years. But that's not a problem, as long as we're smart about it, and can control our population to match our resource utilization. OTOH, in raw biological terms, the success of a species is measured by its numbers. Natural selection favors whatever traits allow a species to get more of its DNA into subsequent generations. Using our knowlege of science to mitigate those events that might kill us off, and keep us from reproducing is natural selection in action.

BTW: A variable genome also benefits a species. The more individuals who survive to reproduce, the more diverse the gene pool. Meaning that alleles which might confer a reproductive advantage if some major adverse environmental effect occurs are more likely to exist. A large population of genetically diverse individuals is good for a species.

 

[Shemjaza]

Science is not at war with evolution.

Evolution means that species will adapt to their environment, because of science the environment humans live in is considerably less dangerous and has more food... this has meant that our populations have increased and more of us are surviving having traits that would have prevented us from breeding.

A good example is Stephen Hawking, in a pre-scientific situation he would never have been able to reproduce or even survive very long. But with medical science and a supportive society we are all able to benefit from his genius.

 

[Cabal]

I suppose it's to argue that our population has dramatically expanded above a billion or so only since scientific and technological advances have been available in the last 200 years. But that's not a problem, as long as we're smart about it, and can control our population to match our resource utilization. OTOH, in raw biological terms, the success of a species is measured by its numbers. Natural selection favors whatever traits allow a species to get more of its DNA into subsequent generations. Using our knowlege of science to mitigate those events that might kill us off, and keep us from reproducing is natural selection in action.

I realise this. I really do want to hear the OP's explanation for this though, as I think there are several ways one could apply the social-Darwinist take on things to human history pre-1800.

BTW: A variable genome also benefits a species. The more individuals who survive to reproduce, the more diverse the gene pool. Meaning that alleles which might confer a reproductive advantage if some major adverse environmental effect occurs are more likely to exist. A large population of genetically diverse individuals is good for a species.

Yeah, I meant to post this earlier in one of my replies. A case of too much RONG to deal with and not knowing where to start