Even if you think you believe in Evolution, you probably don't...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
541
126
Evolution no more suggests that we euthanize the "inferior" than does gravity suggest that we push people off tall buildings.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,679
11,023
136
You can't just "stop" evolution. Does using medication stop evolution? Nope. Does wearing glasses stop evolution? Nope.

Evolution has no goal, no philosophy, no purpose. It is all about the most common gene/gene mutations get passed down. Do we affect what those genes are? Sure, we always have, every time a girl turns down a guy it affects what genes get passed down.
There is no "natural" we humans came from nature, everything we interact with is from nature, we can change mutilate, mutate but in the end, we cannot "break" nature and make the unnatural. To do that, we would have to violate natures laws, however, they wouldn't be laws if they could be violated (thus we would stop calling it a law..)

What does this all mean? OP is full of crap.



Without a doubt, some parts of the gene pool need a good strong bleaching...

OP, yes, we are messing with natural evolution by keeping defective humans alive. It's one of the weaknesses of the species. We SHOULD be taking them out onto the ice floe and abandoning them for the polar bears. Instead, we waste billions of $$ trying to find cures for genetic defects in humans that in the past would have killed them within 1 year or so. This is weakening our genetic pool by allowing them to reproduce and pass those genes onto future generations.

My gawd...then, to really fuck things up...people are breeding outside their species...(or more politely, inter-racial breeding) :p Talk about fucking up the gene pool!! :eek:
 

dpearson

Member
Jul 23, 2009
184
0
0
Would evolution in humans really be helped by letting Steven Hawking die?

I think you're confusing evolution with scientific progress.

Our gene pool is only strengthened or weakened when people reproduce. It doesn't matter what a person's contributions to society are or how smart they are, they add nothing to our gene pool if they're not having sex.

Unless you meant that we should keep people like Stephen Hawking alive as long as possible so they can have as much sex as possible.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
OP is asking us to worship evolution, not believe that it exists.

That's just silly, my heart and soul belong to the FSM.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Unless you're OK with letting the strong live, the crippled and defective die, and are against medical treatment to maintain life in any manner.

:hmm:

:eek:

Pretending the theory of evolution is a religion, cute.

Actually, not cute. It's disgusting. You're a sick fuck.
 

caddlad

Golden Member
Jan 14, 2002
1,248
0
0
My implication was that ardent supporters of Scientific theories seem to self-justify the way things are by using the rationale that evidence proves itself true. Yet, at the same time, they do not behave like the science is correct in application of lives. They will behave in ways that demonstrate extraordinary measures to counteract these same natural scientific phenomenons.

That's just weaksauce.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
94,686
14,935
126
Unless you're OK with letting the strong live, the crippled and defective die, and are against medical treatment to maintain life in any manner.

:hmm:

:eek:


You mean like the nice religeous folks that don't like blood transfusion?
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
I choose you Evolution! You can do it, I believe IN you!

Oh and OP...
We tried Eugenics. Even had the forced sterilizations and that great great fun stuff.
Personally, I am slightly in favor of that whole concept.
But Germany took it, ran with it, and thinking anything is close to German made it evil.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
I agree, but my implication was not that (unless you didn't realize I was playing Devil's Advocate).

My implication was that ardent supporters of Scientific theories seem to self-justify the way things are by using the rationale that evidence proves itself true.

Yet, at the same time, they do not behave like the science is correct in application of lives. They will behave in ways that demonstrate extraordinary measures to counteract these same natural scientific phenomenons.

In essence, they don't believe in Evolution at all.

So.. we should not be following Natural Selection, survival of the fittest, etc in determining how we treat others and we live our lives.

Yet, it is the greatest irony that we model many of ours social constructs after competition, survival of the fittest and other natural phenomenon while using SCIENCE to justify it, because we know it is truth, thus we must believe it... yet we clearly do not believe IN it. ():)

They believe in evolution and natural selection, they just also have different values which supercede the premise of evolution/natural selection, like preservation of life is important (hey, don't Christians think that too? Maybe it doesn't require religion!).

Just because you observe something to be the case doesn't mean you have to like it and try and follow it and keep propagating it when you feel that either it's detrimental in some way (it kills off people we might care for) or when you believe that we can be above it (such as allowing people with hereditary gene issues to reproduce partly because we can prolong their lives and those of their children and maybe eventually cure the defects ourselves rather than breeding them out).

Your premise seems to be that for something to be scientifically correct and believed by scientists to be true, they have to follow its precepts. You also seem to confuse evolution with natural selection.
We have been 'breaking' natural selection for thousands of years by using un-natural selection (i.e. selective breeding) to evolve plants and animals to be more suitable for our own uses (through for example domestication). That has nothing to do with helping diseased or defective or retarded humans living or propagate their genes, and it has nothing to do with science, more to do with human nature. But it's still leading to evolution of species. Effectively humans transcend natural selection and do not subscribe to it when applied to themselves or things under their domain, but they cannot escape evolution through selection, but what type of selection that is is another matter.

Natural selection is what predominantly shaped the world over millions of years.
In the last few thousand years, human selection has shaped the world.
In both cases evolution has been caused by this selection.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
Evolution no more suggests that we euthanize the "inferior" than does gravity suggest that we push people off tall buildings.


Beautiful. Exactly the point I was trying to make. Evolution is something that happens without a goal. To try and ascribe one to it is retarded.

Will killing off the weak make us a stronger race? Potentially. Does evolution mandate that as our action? Absolutely not. It will happen regardless.

Species survive because of evolution, they don't evolve to survive.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
A person doesn't (or shouldn't) believe in a Scientific Theory, they should accept them based on reasoning, logic and deduction. There's a difference between believing in something, and accepting something.

Agreed. Evolution isn't, and shouldn't be a belief system. It is a form of explaining.

People like Dawkins who take themselves and their work so seriously really ruin the concept of Science and empiricism because they make cases that can't really be made. Evolution is tenuous in the concept that nobody can actually prove evolution was happening millions of years ago.

However it can be deduced with very compelling evidence evolution did occur.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
I think you're confusing evolution with scientific progress.

Our gene pool is only strengthened or weakened when people reproduce. It doesn't matter what a person's contributions to society are or how smart they are, they add nothing to our gene pool if they're not having sex.

Unless you meant that we should keep people like Stephen Hawking alive as long as possible so they can have as much sex as possible.

Fail.

You (and I) don't know what genes strengthen or weaken our gene pool. The gene for sickle cell anemia actually provides protection against malaria. So would it strengthen or weaken our gene pool?

It really depends on two factors. What is your idea of a strengthened gene pool? Intelligence, health, height, etc, etc?? And what effect does preventing these genes from spreading thru procreation have.

It may be that if we did "euthanize" or prevent those with genetic abnormalities from procreating, we may actually be reducing our gene pools tendency to create newer adaptations.
 

zebano

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2005
4,042
0
0
And just because you don't allow evolution to occur like nature intended, doesn't mean you don't believe it has occurred.


I believe you are the product of devolution.

This is accurate. OP fails at simple logic.
 

CoinOperatedBoy

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2008
1,809
0
76
Typical semantic bullshit from MJinZ, who fails to make any salient point. Nobody should even bother trying to enter this discussion.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Unless you're OK with letting the strong live, the crippled and defective die, and are against medical treatment to maintain life in any manner.

:hmm:

:eek:

But you fail to see evolution has allowed us to advance to a point where we can alter it. As far as genetics go, the defective do die (well we all die), but the defective people, just like defective animals have a much lower chance of reproduction.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
But you fail to see evolution has allowed us to advance to a point where we can alter it. As far as genetics go, the defective do die (well we all die), but the defective people, just like defective animals have a much lower chance of reproduction.

No, he just fails to see the difference between natural selection/survival of the fittest and evolution. They are not the same.
 

SlitheryDee

Lifer
Feb 2, 2005
17,252
19
81
I agree, but my implication was not that (unless you didn't realize I was playing Devil's Advocate).

My implication was that ardent supporters of Scientific theories seem to self-justify the way things are by using the rationale that evidence proves itself true.

Yet, at the same time, they do not behave like the science is correct in application of lives. They will behave in ways that demonstrate extraordinary measures to counteract these same natural scientific phenomenons.

In essence, they don't believe in Evolution at all.

So.. we should not be following Natural Selection, survival of the fittest, etc in determining how we treat others and we live our lives.

Yet, it is the greatest irony that we model many of ours social constructs after competition, survival of the fittest and other natural phenomenon while using SCIENCE to justify it, because we know it is truth, thus we must believe it... yet we clearly do not believe IN it. ():)

In evolutionary terms, we're competing with other species on this planet. It doesn't matter how far ahead of the rest of nature we get in terms of advancement. Well, it matters to the rest of nature, but they're all different species and we don't care about them.

The way we compete within the constraints of natural selection is species vs the rest of nature first, and then individual vs rest of species after that. Once we have secured the advantage vs nature, then we are free to compete amongst ourselves. In a case of survival we will almost invariably choose the human species over another species, that is how it should be and that is why our "engineering" of our own evolutionary development is not a contradiction of social constructs that resemble natural selection. We don't have to be fair to the rest of nature, so if we want to make a huge leap ahead of the other species on the planet that's just fine. The social constructs that you speak of are a manifestation of the secondary competition amongst ourselves. It is not analogous with our competition with the rest of nature and therefor does not have to follow the same rules. The "survival of the fittest" ideology as it applies to human interaction is an attempt at fairness in the arena in which we compete with each other. It straddles the line between maintaining civil relations and providing a forum in which individuals may prove their worth for reproductive purposes. First and foremost we must maintain our solidarity in the more important competition against the rest of nature, and constructing a social system in which that same "rules" apply to everyone is a way to keep things fair. You are either capable or you aren't. It hard to argue with the fairness of that. That should keep everyone happy in theory.

I'm not going into whether our systems as currently implemented actually ARE fair, they mostly aren't once a member acquires a large enough advantage. But the ideal is clear and it does not contradict the notion of directing evolution as we please.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Beautiful. Exactly the point I was trying to make. Evolution is something that happens without a goal. To try and ascribe one to it is retarded.

Will killing off the weak make us a stronger race? Potentially. Does evolution mandate that as our action? Absolutely not. It will happen regardless.

Species survive because of evolution, they don't evolve to survive.

"Species survive because of evolution.

They don't evolve to survive."

Ahahahahahahahhahaha.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
They believe in evolution and natural selection, they just also have different values which supercede the premise of evolution/natural selection, like preservation of life is important (hey, don't Christians think that too? Maybe it doesn't require religion!).

Just because you observe something to be the case doesn't mean you have to like it and try and follow it and keep propagating it when you feel that either it's detrimental in some way (it kills off people we might care for) or when you believe that we can be above it (such as allowing people with hereditary gene issues to reproduce partly because we can prolong their lives and those of their children and maybe eventually cure the defects ourselves rather than breeding them out).

Your premise seems to be that for something to be scientifically correct and believed by scientists to be true, they have to follow its precepts. You also seem to confuse evolution with natural selection.
We have been 'breaking' natural selection for thousands of years by using un-natural selection (i.e. selective breeding) to evolve plants and animals to be more suitable for our own uses (through for example domestication). That has nothing to do with helping diseased or defective or retarded humans living or propagate their genes, and it has nothing to do with science, more to do with human nature. But it's still leading to evolution of species. Effectively humans transcend natural selection and do not subscribe to it when applied to themselves or things under their domain, but they cannot escape evolution through selection, but what type of selection that is is another matter.

Natural selection is what predominantly shaped the world over millions of years.
In the last few thousand years, human selection has shaped the world.
In both cases evolution has been caused by this selection.

Wat.

Natural Selection is the driving force of Evolution. I never said they are the same. Nuclear Fusion is not the same as the Sun.

Oh, and apparently you didn't read my post. No one was arguing with you that we shouldn't supercede Natural Selection and Evolution in the way we live our lives with values like preservation of life.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
In evolutionary terms, we're competing with other species on this planet. It doesn't matter how far ahead of the rest of nature we get in terms of advancement. Well, it matters to the rest of nature, but they're all different species and we don't care about them.

Well, we've already won. Humans have taken over the Earth, we don't really compete with any other species at all. We actually do the opposite - to preserve them. Unless you count the microorganisms like Bacteria and Viruses. We haven't won against them yet.

The way we compete within the constraints of natural selection is species vs the rest of nature first, and then individual vs rest of species after that. Once we have secured the advantage vs nature, then we are free to compete amongst ourselves. In a case of survival we will almost invariably choose the human species over another species, that is how it should be and that is why our "engineering" of our own evolutionary development is not a contradiction of social constructs that resemble natural selection.

Never said that was contradiction. It makes perfect sense to use natural selection and competition to form a basis for our own social interaction.


We don't have to be fair to the rest of nature, so if we want to make a huge leap ahead of the other species on the planet that's just fine. The social constructs that you speak of are a manifestation of the secondary competition amongst ourselves. It is not analogous with our competition with the rest of nature and therefor does not have to follow the same rules. The "survival of the fittest" ideology as it applies to human interaction is an attempt at fairness in the arena in which we compete with each other. It straddles the line between maintaining civil relations and providing a forum in which individuals may prove their worth for reproductive purposes. First and foremost we must maintain our solidarity in the more important competition against the rest of nature, and constructing a social system in which that same "rules" apply to everyone is a way to keep things fair. You are either capable or you aren't. It hard to argue with the fairness of that. That should keep everyone happy in theory.

OK, so you're saying that framing our own social system from the natural system of evolution (competition, survival of the fittest) is done in an attempt at fairness.

I wasn't really making a judgment one way or another on this topic, and it is too long to get into.

I'm not going into whether our systems as currently implemented actually ARE fair, they mostly aren't once a member acquires a large enough advantage. But the ideal is clear and it does not contradict the notion of directing evolution as we please.

Again, I'm not making a judgment on the fairness of the system.

However, I was making a statement of our apparent contradictory viewpoints on social frameworks vs propping up the weak:

1) We acknowledge Evolution and its methods like Natural Selection and competition.

Thus, many people fallaciously JUSTIFY our system (you didn't though, you justified it by saying it was the most fair way) by saying it is the NATURAL way of things.

2) Yet, by that same prescription, they also do not object to extraordinary measures to save, preserve, or propagate the weak, disabled and debilitated.

The question is - How does one reconcile one natural application versus one very unnatural one?

The BIG question after that, depending on your answer, is how you see that as it applies to your bigger belief system, more so of our existence than anything else.

I do expect that all this has gone WAY over the head of 90% of the posters in this thread, who have no clue about what the topic is actually about. :rolleyes:
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
I never understood why some religious people continue to insist that evolution is a belief system. There is no church of evolution, there is prayers to evolve, etc.. All that evolution really is about is observing how life changes and trying to understand why it changes. Actual evolution is FACT - it's observable, there is evidence it has left behind, etc..
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
I never understood why some religious people continue to insist that evolution is a belief system. There is no church of evolution, there is prayers to evolve, etc.. All that evolution really is about is observing how life changes and trying to understand why it changes. Actual evolution is FACT - it's observable, there is evidence it has left behind, etc..

So is LOVE, and HATE.

They are FACT - it's observable, and there is evidence left behind.

Do you understand or believe in Love or Hate?

The existence of something does not equate to you agreeing or relating to it, or spreading it, or advocating it, or denying it.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
So is LOVE, and HATE.

They are FACT - it's observable, and there is evidence left behind.

Do you understand or believe in Love or Hate?

The existence of something does not equate to you agreeing or relating to it, or spreading it, or advocating it, or denying it.

Huh? Love and Hate are nothing like evolution at all, nor are they belief systems, they are emotions. There is no church of hate that I'm aware of, nor is there a holy book of hate.