• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
skace said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Now that I've labeled exactly what it is we are talking about, it seems discussing it any further is rather... futile, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

Not really. The discussion may actually make use of Social Darwinism as a sample and example, but it has more to do with inconsistent world-views people tend to portray.

Social Darwinism - the idea that Darwinist theories like survival of the fittest as applied to human society should be paramount - is clearly not supported by anyone in this thread.

The question is, why do we use it anyway in structuring human societies. And, people's justifications for them.
 
MJinZ said:
LOL. You absolutely can, if you had the capacity to.
Click to expand...

perhaps for someone that holds all of their core values and understandings of the world around them under the "belief" label.

you have your own definition for love, as do I, as does every other individual. There may or may not be very specific biochemical responses attached to such...but no, you can't quantify Love.

stop being so damned daft.
 
zinfamous said:
perhaps for someone that holds all of their core values and understandings of the world around them under the "belief" label.

you have your own definition for love, as do I, as does every other individual. There may or may not be very specific biochemical responses attached to such...but no, you can't quantify Love.

stop being so damned daft.
Click to expand...

Well, I was referring to the exact biochemical aspect as well as the intangible and semi-spiritualistic aspect... just because we can't quantify love in hard fashion, it doesn't mean it is impossible to do.

Even relatively, I can tell you who I love more than others, when I've loved the most, etc. I can also tell you the types of love everyone feels (parental, friendship, relatives, lovers, infatuations etc).

Even easier, I can tell you people I have zero love for. There's your 0 point, you can arbitrary quantify and qualify using an arbitrary unit from there.

Stop being so close minded.
 
CoinOperatedBoy said:
Our dreams do not necessarily reflect our beliefs. Why do you keep posting nonsense?
Click to expand...

So, what do you believe and what are you dreams? I'd to hear one that does not logically coincide with the other.

Here, I'll start.

I am Atheist and do not believe in God.

I dream of going to Heaven.

^_^
 
Another brilliant thread from the think-tank... 🙄

There's no point "believing in" evolution, it'll still occur whether you think it will or won't.
 
The OP is very logical. I don't see how anyone can disagree.

Also worth noting:

Even if you think you believe that humans get dry skin, you probably don't unless you are ok walking around with unmoisturized skin so dry it cracks.

Even if you think you believe in surgery, you probably don't unless you are ok with completely unnecessary and unwanted surgery.

Even if you think you believe in sexual reproduction, you probably don't unless you are ok with rape.
 
torpid said:
The OP is very logical. I don't see how anyone can disagree.

Also worth noting:

Even if you think you believe that humans get dry skin, you probably don't unless you are ok walking around with unmoisturized skin so dry it cracks.

Even if you think you believe in surgery, you probably don't unless you are ok with completely unnecessary and unwanted surgery.

Even if you think you believe in sexual reproduction, you probably don't unless you are ok with rape.
Click to expand...

i c wat u did thur
 
Evolution isn't a philosophy (you're thinking of racist, scientifically baseless early 20th century Social Darwinism, which had nothing to do with evolution or Charles Darwin). Evolution is how the world works. Things adapt to changing conditions over time, which can be easily verified by just looking at stuff. Seriously.

MJinZ said:
So, what do you believe and what are you dreams? I'd to hear one that does not logically coincide with the other.

Here, I'll start.

I am Atheist and do not believe in God.

I dream of going to Heaven.

^_^
Click to expand...

What a brilliant counterpoint! I'll do another:

I am religious and believe that an arbitrary collection of fairy tales, put together by men just over a thousand years ago, describes a literal, magical history.

I am a rational, otherwise freethinking humanist.

^_^
 
Last edited:
MJinZ said:
Well, I was referring to the exact biochemical aspect as well as the intangible and semi-spiritualistic aspect... just because we can't quantify love in hard fashion, it doesn't mean it is impossible to do.

Even relatively, I can tell you who I love more than others, when I've loved the most, etc. I can also tell you the types of love everyone feels (parental, friendship, relatives, lovers, infatuations etc).

Even easier, I can tell you people I have zero love for. There's your 0 point, you can arbitrary quantify and qualify using an arbitrary unit from there.

Stop being so close minded.
Click to expand...

do you know the difference between subjective and objective values?

do you know what those words mean?

Is it this lack of comprehension that allows you to make such invalid comparisons, and then repeatedly fail to understand everyone's replies?
 
zinfamous said:
do you know the difference between subjective and objective values?

do you know what those words mean?

Is it this lack of comprehension that allows you to make such invalid comparisons, and then repeatedly fail to understand everyone's replies?
Click to expand...

LOL, again what makes you think they CAN'T be objective?

Just because you think WE can't quantify something objectively, it doesn't mean there isn't... even arbitrarily objective quantification when you compare everyone's "love" against each others.

SUBJECTIVE?

That's liking the new Acura TL, or hating Picasso paintings.

Is it really that hard to imagine that emotions CAN be objectively quantified? Really?
 
Last edited:
dpearson said:
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.
Click to expand...
For animals that purely rely on instict, sex is really the only thing that counts in evolutionary terms. When an animal can use tools to change and control their evironment then much more than sex has to be taken into consideration. Humans have that capability. We can even create artificial environments.

Scientific progress and human evolution are intertwined. People like Hawking will allow us to spread out across the galaxy eventually, which very well might be the next influential step in human evolution...if we manage to make it that far without killing ourselves first.
 
skace said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Now that I've labeled exactly what it is we are talking about, it seems discussing it any further is rather... futile, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

If you're going to quote an article on a subject, don't use one that is so biased. Social Darwinism is a legitimate argument, but that article is purely against it.

Wikipedia is not a valid source for any political and/or personal subject.
 
MJinZ said:
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:

😱
Click to expand...

I'm not going to read this whole thread, but clearly you have either:
a) A very poor understanding of evolution
b) A very poor understanding of science in general
c) A very poor understanding of philosophy
d) A very poor background in logic
e) All of the above.


˙ǝ sı ɹǝʍsuɐ ǝɥʇ
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
For animals that purely rely on instict, sex is really the only thing that counts in evolutionary terms. When an animal can use tools to change and control their evironment then much more than sex has to be taken into consideration. Humans have that capability. We can even create artificial environments.
Click to expand...

While I was at work I did realize that technology does allow people wider access to the gene pool. Take for example the automobile. I can easily drive my car from Arkansas to Washington State and have sex with a girl. If that car was not been available, the genes I could mix with mine would have been limited to my local area.

But transportation does not affect the actual evolution process. It does not mutate, add, or delete any of my genes.
 
While I was at work I did realize that technology does allow people wider access to the gene pool. Take for example the automobile. I can easily drive my car from Arkansas to Washington State and have sex with a girl. If that car was not been available, the genes I could mix with mine would have been limited to my local area.

But transportation does not affect the actual evolution process. It does not mutate, add, or delete any of my genes.
Click to expand...
But it changes the selection pressures on your genotype.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top