|
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
"The strong survive" have you never heard of that saying or something?
Natural seletion is the "strongest survive" Survive till breeding age therefor they reproduce their stronger genes. Tell me how why did humans evolve? Offspring don't just take looks from their parents, they take intellegence fat everything.
Are you trying to say that by breeding more and more and overpopulating the earth, that we are somehow evolving? The "harsher conditions" cause more of the weak to be phased out of reproduction.
Your point number 6 is exactly what I'm saying I don't know where you are coming from here. Your point 6 is the exact same argument as mine that you have quoted. OH MY GOD! I think we may just misunderstsand each other and may agree come to think of it. My arguments seem to be tying into what your saying. |
Do you mean "survival of the fittest?" First of all, that was NOT something written by Darwin or Wallace, but by Herbert Spencer (who was a popular writer, but a misunderstood the whole theory of natural selection). That saying has nothing to do with organic evolution.
Fitness in terms of biology means the ability of an organism to reproduce and make viable offspring. It has nothing to do with intelligence of physical strength. In all my biology courses that dealt with evolution, this point has been emphasized.
Let me give an example. Michael Jordan, or Bill Gates. Strong, highly successful, rich, powerful people. Then you have my uncle, weak frail man who passed away recently from lung cancer. Who is more fit? Well, my uncle had 7 children, all who are grown up and have children of their own. So he has successfully passed on his genes to the next generations. Can we say the same about Jordan or Gates?
Tell me, what then do you consider strong genes and what do you consider weak genes? Physical Strength? Weak scrawny people pass their genes on just as well as strong people. Intelligence? Dumb uneducated people have lots of kids too.
Do we have "stronger" genes than cockaroaches? No, we both survive equally well, and maybe they are even better than us at reproducing. So really, there is no such thing as "stronger" genes, because it all depends on the pressures imposed by the environment.
For example, a fat light skinned person will have strong genes for arctic weather with little sun-light, while a skinny dark-skinned person will have strong genes for heavy-sunlight and hot conditions. Or a woolly mammoth during the ice age, and a modern elephant in africa.
So to summarize, there is no such thing as a universally "strong" or "weak" gene. Remember, an important point in evolution is that organisms don't get "better" as they evolve. They just change with the times.
In today's times, things like intelligence, physical strength, skin colour, are probably all NEUTRAL genes. In that they don't make a big difference in your fitness. An evolutionist would look at this and say that our environment (including society etc.) doesn't select against dumb people or scrawny people. So what? Evolution just happens, it doesn't happen for reason.
Social Darwinists on the other hand think this is bad, and think that we should alter society to favour those who are physically stronger and more intelligent (what they would consider "good" genes). What for though? In our present conditions, this doesn't make us any more fit to reproduce.
| quote: | | You Evolutionists are all a bunch of Social Darwinist racists. Who think that blacks arn't evovled because they look like monkeys. Maybe your views were accepted in Classical time but welcome to modern time and your rascist views are no longer accepted. |
This is particularly offensive. In none of my biology courses have we ever discussed "race". We did touch on it in Anthropology, where it was taught that there is no such thing as race. (you will find white people who are darker than some black people etc. there is no clear cut definition). Most evolutionists make it a point that it has nothing to do with Social Darwinism, which is a false and outdated theory that incorrectly used evolution as evidence.
In fact, most evolutionists would probably think that the mixing of individuals with diverse genetic makeup would probably produce healthier offspring than have people breeding with others of similar genes. Like how mutts are usually healthier than pure-breds.
Please, you do not understsand biological evolution, and you've mixed it up with Social Darwinism. It is obvious you've never taken a course on evolution before, I'm curious to where you've been taught this nonsense?
___________________
jimtran.net
Last edited by quddha on Sep-23-2004 at 20:02
|
.
Seriously, they are people who are seeking comfort from a simplistic view of the world (same kind of appeal Bush has). If I can't see it or it doesn't make sense to me then it must be hog wash.
