03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyWhat I find striking is how little opponents of established scientific theories appear to be interested in knowing what they actually say. Goes for evolution, global warming, vaccines, etc.
Obviously false. You clearly don't know what evolution is. Look it up and come back to us.
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraTheir motto: Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
What I find striking is how little opponents of established scientific theories appear to be interested in knowing what they actually say. Goes for evolution, global warming, vaccines, etc.
They don't even want to LOOK at facts since they KNOW they are right.
Reminds me of Galileo when he first showed off his telescope early on, was able to show there were stars that were binary, his first real astronomical discovery, telling his local 'science' dudes about the fact that some stars looking like one are actually two very close spaced stars.
The 'experts' who looked at it says, NO, that is impossible, there is clearly something wrong with your optics, even though stars nearby were clearly only one star.
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @chaney3We have ALREADY been proven to be superior since we are the ones alive today and Denisovans, Neandertals, and the rest are fossils. Evolution has already done that for us. That's how it works and we are in the process of getting mutations every day so the human of today is not the exact same thing genetically as they were even 1 thousand years ago.
If Darwin's theories were true, then by now, all humans today would be a superior race, with all inferior qualities filtered out already.
But as we know, this has not happened, and won't, because Darwin was wrong.
Most mutations are almost un-noticed like hair that tends to kink V straight hair and such and response to diseases of the past like the plague that killed 1/3 of the people of Europe a thousand years ago. The survivers had genes that made for at least a partial defense against plague and so forth. This is not fairy tale but proven science.
Originally posted by @sonhouseCAREFUL! Best NOT use the word "superior", at least in this context, because that word has no scientific meaning whatsoever in the context of evolution and its use is always best avoided there and, if you use it here, I think that would only reinforce one of their common stupid idiotic straw man they use to misrepresent what evolution is. Always best to say "superior" has absolutely nothing to do with it, I think; "best adapted to pass on genes" is MUCH closer to the mark.
We have ALREADY been proven to be superior ...
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @eladarNo. Where did you get this idea from? I've read the Bible, sat in Sunday school. The least you could do is read the wikipedia article on "natural selection." Apparently they don't teach it anymore? 3rd graders know this is wrong.
Survival of the fittest limits diversity. The characteristics that allow one group to dominate eventually leads to the end of other groups.
You suggest that social programs that keep people alive who would otherwise be dead are good to increase biodiversity. As I pointed out, that is an error when applied to survival of the fittest or natural selection.
Natural selection is an mechanistic explanation of life's diversity. Worms in different types of soil have different phenotypes, adapted for unique conditions. Why would that mechanism eventually lead to the end of other groups? It doesn't add up.
"it's not the strongest, nor the most intelligent of a species that survives, but the one most responsive to change." Darwin
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhYour earlier quote indicated that Nazi textbooks included a reference to Darwin and Natural Selection. The rest of the story, about how it rationalized their genocidal behavior, is totally absent. In Hitler's writings, he clearly cites God as a reason.
If you're here to teach others from the storehouses of your wisdom, you're not bound for a good time.
The study of Nazi connections to Darwinism is beyond refute, so any quibbling is more concerned with being clever than understanding.
Again... I can't seem to stress this one enough in this forum.... natural selection predicts and relies on species diversity as a fitness advantage. Culling a group of people who are different from you decreases your fitness, as predicted by Darwin.
03 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @humySuperior in this case, by being the survivors, that's all. Survivors then, we are, they aren't.
CAREFUL! Best NOT use the word "superior", at least in this context, because that word has no scientific meaning whatsoever in the context of evolution and its use is always best avoided there and, if you use it here, I think that would only reinforce one of their common stupid idiotic straw man they use to misrepresent what evolution is. Always best to say "s ...[text shortened]... tely nothing to do with it, I think; "best adapted to pass on genes" is MUCH closer to the mark.
There were reasons for that, for instance, it is said we are better long distance runners than say Neantertals who were very strong but the wrong muscle type to pursue fleeing deer for instance, while we can run, maybe not as fast as deer but deer don't understand the devoted nature of homo sapiens during a hunt, they don't stop but deer do so eventually the ancient homo sapien could get close enough to launch attacks, spear, bow and arrow, whatever, to get the kill. Modern humans seem to be superior in at least that one aspect.
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassIf there is a physical reason for the diversity. You seem to ignore this fact for people who are so physically or mentally handicapped that they require help to live.
No. Where did you get this idea from? I've read the Bible, sat in Sunday school. The least you could do is read the wikipedia article on "natural selection." Apparently they don't teach it anymore? 3rd graders know this is wrong.
Natural selection is an mechanistic explanation of life's diversity. Worms in different types of soil have different phenot ...[text shortened]... the most intelligent of a species that survives, but the one most responsive to change." Darwin
As for Hitler, he was very much into the Germanic Pantheon of Gods. Weak Christianity does fit very well with Nietzsche and his Social Darwinism.
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @eladarWhat do you mean "IF" there was a physical reason for diversity? You don't think for instance, change the PH of the ocean and life forms will have to adapt or die? It is already happening to coral reefs, PH of the ocean goes down, more acidic, and corals are dying. What is hard to understand about that?
If there is a physical reason for the diversity. You seem to ignore this fact for people who are so physically or mentally handicapped that they require help to live.
As for Hitler, he was very much into the Germanic Pantheon of Gods. Weak Christianity does fit very well with Nietzsche and his Social Darwinism.
Are you suggesting a deity makes every atom of the universe change according to its wishes, it WANTS the PH of the ocean to be more acidic BECAUSE it wants Corals to die?
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassDarwin knew about the what (evolution and natural selection) but not the why (reproduction and mutation of DNA). Now that we know how evolution works, we also know that it does not work at the level of species. Hence, there is no mechanism in natural selection to boost "diversity" within species.
Your earlier quote indicated that Nazi textbooks included a reference to Darwin and Natural Selection. The rest of the story, about how it rationalized their genocidal behavior, is totally absent. In Hitler's writings, he clearly cites God as a reason.
Again... I can't seem to stress this one enough in this forum.... natural selection predicts and reli ...[text shortened]... ing a group of people who are different from you decreases your fitness, as predicted by Darwin.
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseThose who are chosen by natueal selection can survive on their own. This is the essence of what I was trying to convey.
What do you mean "IF" there was a physical reason for diversity? You don't think for instance, change the PH of the ocean and life forms will have to adapt or die? It is already happening to coral reefs, PH of the ocean goes down, more acidic, and corals are dying. What is hard to understand about that?
Are you suggesting a deity makes every atom of th ...[text shortened]... ng to its wishes, it WANTS the PH of the ocean to be more acidic BECAUSE it wants Corals to die?
03 Aug 17
Originally posted by @eladarCome on. All this and you still haven't bothered to read the wikipedia article?
If there is a physical reason for the diversity. You seem to ignore this fact for people who are so physically or mentally handicapped that they require help to live.
As for Hitler, he was very much into the Germanic Pantheon of Gods. Weak Christianity does fit very well with Nietzsche and his Social Darwinism.
I'm not ignoring anything. I explained it earlier but I'll try another tack. Natural selection is the process/principle by which heritable variation between individuals/populations/genes leads to differential reproductive success over time. One "variation" that increases reproductive success is phenotypic diversity. In an ever-changing ecosystem, adaptability traits are preferred. Think about an antibiotic resistance gene in bacteria.The gene itself would be useless in the absence of antibiotic in the environment but essential in its presence. Or in a colony of bees, where a diversity of specialized individuals within a hive is required for its efficiency and ultimate survival. Many bees are sterile, and yet they are essential for the fitness of the species. Because of these complex interactions between us and our ecosystems, organisms evolved mechanisms to maintain genetic diversity. Mechanisms for this include, among others, homologous recombination, heterozygous advantage, de novo mutatgenesis and frequency-dependent allelic selection.
Physical and mental handicaps are not evidence against natural selection, as you seem to suggest. They are representative of our phenotypic diversity. Autism spectrum disorders require additional layers of care, but they are unique minds that have contributed great things to our society. Why are you suggesting that there is no physical reason for the existence of diverse phenotypes? Did you make it up?
It's all in the wikipedia article. And in grade school textbooks.
03 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI haven't read the Origin of Species in awhile, but I believe there are lots of references in there to worms, for example, with different sensitivities to light depending on their depth, and different digestive tracts depending on the type of dirt they lived in. The mechanism that maintains genetic diversity is the relationship between populations/organisms/genes and their ever-changing ecosystem.
Darwin knew about the what (evolution and natural selection) but not the why (reproduction and mutation of DNA). Now that we know how evolution works, we also know that it does not work at the level of species. Hence, there is no mechanism in natural selection to boost "diversity" within species.
edit: obviously we know about genetics now, and more precise molecular mechanisms to maintain diversity.