How does medicine play into the theory of evolution?

[rudeguy]

If the theory is that the strong survive and the weak die off, aren't we screwing with the future of the human race by trying to cure diseases?

 

[zerocool84]

Duh?

 

[Crono]

Survival of fittest has nothing to do with physical strength. Who the "fittest" are is dependent on who survives, whether it's due to medicine or natural resilience.

Or in other words, nerds help population survive, too. Especially considering human beings are more dependent on harnessing intelligence than animals are.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: NSFW
If the theory is that the strong survive and the weak die off, aren't we screwing with the future of the human race by trying to cure diseases?

no.

where do you think modern medicine comes from?

The use of plants in the aid of healing has been around since the dawn of mans existence. they have been used to cure many diseases through out time.

incorporating that fact into your statement, one could concluded that we have, in essence artificially prolonged our own existence since we first appeared.

 

[Colt45]

work smarter, not harder 😉

 

[miketheidiot]

"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

 

[CallMeJoe]

Modern Medicine is one reason:

We are DEVO

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

I guess I haven't looked into it enough. I have haven't heard of social darwinism but I used to bang a chick that was into Neo Darwinism.

This is one of those questions that pops into my brain and I play with when I get bored. I guess I still don't understand it. Wouldn't the human race be better off in the long run if the people who were genetically inclined to have diseases were taken out of the gene pool?

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

I guess I haven't looked into it enough. I have haven't heard of social darwinism but I used to bang a chick that was into Neo Darwinism.

This is one of those questions that pops into my brain and I play with when I get bored. I guess I still don't understand it. Wouldn't the human race be better off in the long run if the people who were genetically inclined to have diseases were taken out of the gene pool?

Humans are not animals. People who are genetically inclined to diseases or those with congenital disorders can (and do) plenty of good in society. Adversity is often a major driving force for people to succeed in life, and having a society entirely of physically perfect people would not make us better as people.

See Gattaca. It's on Hulu.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

I guess I haven't looked into it enough. I have haven't heard of social darwinism but I used to bang a chick that was into Neo Darwinism.

This is one of those questions that pops into my brain and I play with when I get bored. I guess I still don't understand it. Wouldn't the human race be better off in the long run if the people who were genetically inclined to have diseases were taken out of the gene pool?

Humans are not animals. People who are genetically inclined to diseases or those with congenital disorders can (and do) plenty of good in society. Adversity is often a major driving force for people to succeed in life, and having a society entirely of physically perfect people would not make us better as people.

See Gattaca. It's on Hulu.

Humans, are in fact, animals.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: Crono


Humans are not animals. People who are genetically inclined to diseases or those with congenital disorders can (and do) plenty of good in society. Adversity is often a major driving force for people to succeed in life, and having a society entirely of physically perfect people would not make us better as people.

See Gattaca. It's on Hulu.

That I understand!

I wasn't saying that I think anyone who is genetically inclined to disease should be taken out of the gene pool, I thought that was the theory behind Darwinism.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

I guess I haven't looked into it enough. I have haven't heard of social darwinism but I used to bang a chick that was into Neo Darwinism.

This is one of those questions that pops into my brain and I play with when I get bored. I guess I still don't understand it. Wouldn't the human race be better off in the long run if the people who were genetically inclined to have diseases were taken out of the gene pool?

Humans are not animals. People who are genetically inclined to diseases or those with congenital disorders can (and do) plenty of good in society. Adversity is often a major driving force for people to succeed in life, and having a society entirely of physically perfect people would not make us better as people.

See Gattaca. It's on Hulu.

Humans, are in fact, animals.

Humans, are in fact, so different from animals that they shouldn't be considered animals. The very fact that we are having this conversation, and dolphins, snakes, cows, and eagles aren't, should tell you something.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

I guess I haven't looked into it enough. I have haven't heard of social darwinism but I used to bang a chick that was into Neo Darwinism.

This is one of those questions that pops into my brain and I play with when I get bored. I guess I still don't understand it. Wouldn't the human race be better off in the long run if the people who were genetically inclined to have diseases were taken out of the gene pool?

Humans are not animals. People who are genetically inclined to diseases or those with congenital disorders can (and do) plenty of good in society. Adversity is often a major driving force for people to succeed in life, and having a society entirely of physically perfect people would not make us better as people.

See Gattaca. It's on Hulu.

Do you think we're fucking plants or something? Of course we're animals.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

I guess I haven't looked into it enough. I have haven't heard of social darwinism but I used to bang a chick that was into Neo Darwinism.

This is one of those questions that pops into my brain and I play with when I get bored. I guess I still don't understand it. Wouldn't the human race be better off in the long run if the people who were genetically inclined to have diseases were taken out of the gene pool?

Humans are not animals. People who are genetically inclined to diseases or those with congenital disorders can (and do) plenty of good in society. Adversity is often a major driving force for people to succeed in life, and having a society entirely of physically perfect people would not make us better as people.

See Gattaca. It's on Hulu.

Humans, are in fact, animals.

Humans, are in fact, so different from animals that they shouldn't be considered animals. The very fact that we are having this conversation, and dolphins, snakes, cows, and eagles aren't, should tell you something.

Take a damn bio class

Humans are biologically animals. Thats 7th grade science. Save for our intellect we are not "so different" from animals. We ARE hairless apes, 99.9% ape, .1% "human"

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Crono


Humans are not animals. People who are genetically inclined to diseases or those with congenital disorders can (and do) plenty of good in society. Adversity is often a major driving force for people to succeed in life, and having a society entirely of physically perfect people would not make us better as people.

See Gattaca. It's on Hulu.

That I understand!

I wasn't saying that I think anyone who is genetically inclined to disease should be taken out of the gene pool, I thought that was the theory behind Darwinism.

Darwinism is dependent on variation, not on genetically favorable changes. Evolution is not about a species getting better, it's about changing in response to environment in order to survive.

What is beneficial genetically can only be observed after the fact, anyway. Changes aren't predictive, they are adaptive. Which is why social Darwinism is garbage. "Better" is not for humans to decide.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

I guess I haven't looked into it enough. I have haven't heard of social darwinism but I used to bang a chick that was into Neo Darwinism.

This is one of those questions that pops into my brain and I play with when I get bored. I guess I still don't understand it. Wouldn't the human race be better off in the long run if the people who were genetically inclined to have diseases were taken out of the gene pool?

Humans are not animals. People who are genetically inclined to diseases or those with congenital disorders can (and do) plenty of good in society. Adversity is often a major driving force for people to succeed in life, and having a society entirely of physically perfect people would not make us better as people.

See Gattaca. It's on Hulu.

Humans, are in fact, animals.

Humans, are in fact, so different from animals that they shouldn't be considered animals. The very fact that we are having this conversation, and dolphins, snakes, cows, and eagles aren't, should tell you something.

Take a damn bio class

Humans are biologically animals. Thats 7th grade science. Save for our intellect we are not "so different" from animals. We ARE hairless apes, 99.9% ape, .1% "human"

I took Gen Bio 1 and 2, Human Gross Anatomy, Physiology, Genetics, and I am currently taking Pathophysiology. I understand what "animal" means as defined by modern biologists.

I am going by general definition, not applied, to reinforce my position that human beings, while we share same programming language as other creatures, should keep in mind that we are intellectual beings that can imagine, create, and make decisions based not just on instinct. The fact that science even exists shows that we human beings are indeed in a category on our own compared to (other, if you must) animals.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

I guess I haven't looked into it enough. I have haven't heard of social darwinism but I used to bang a chick that was into Neo Darwinism.

This is one of those questions that pops into my brain and I play with when I get bored. I guess I still don't understand it. Wouldn't the human race be better off in the long run if the people who were genetically inclined to have diseases were taken out of the gene pool?

Humans are not animals. People who are genetically inclined to diseases or those with congenital disorders can (and do) plenty of good in society. Adversity is often a major driving force for people to succeed in life, and having a society entirely of physically perfect people would not make us better as people.

See Gattaca. It's on Hulu.

Humans, are in fact, animals.

Humans, are in fact, so different from animals that they shouldn't be considered animals. The very fact that we are having this conversation, and dolphins, snakes, cows, and eagles aren't, should tell you something.

Take a damn bio class

Humans are biologically animals. Thats 7th grade science. Save for our intellect we are not "so different" from animals. We ARE hairless apes, 99.9% ape, .1% "human"

I took Gen Bio 1 and 2, Human Gross Anatomy, Physiology, Genetics, and I am currently taking Pathophysiology. I understand what "animal" means as defined by modern biologists.

I am going by general definition, not applied, to reinforce my position that human beings, while we share same programming language as other creatures, should keep in mind that we are intellectual beings that can imagine, create, and make decisions based not just on instinct. The fact that science even exists shows that we human beings are indeed in a category on our own compared to (other, if you must) animals.

Your interpretation arbitrarily excludes humans from the term "animal" just because we think? There is no basis for that whatsoever. We are animals, simple as that. We are animals who have an oversized brain, and no arbitrary exclusion can change that.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

I'm with Crono. While we are technically animals, we are so different from them that we need our own separate classification.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Your interpretation arbitrarily excludes humans from the term "animal" just because we think? There is no basis for that whatsoever. We are animals, simple as that. We are animals who have an oversized brain, and no arbitrary exclusion can change that.

I like your usage of the word arbitrary, and then your mention of an oversized brain. By that same logic, all our classifications of animals and species becomes arbitrary and meaningless.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I like your usage of the word arbitrary, and then your mention of an oversized brain. By that same logic, all our classifications of animals and species becomes arbitrary and meaningless.

Nope. Because all those classifications fall under the term "animalia" My logic simply states that there are 6 kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria) and humans fall under Animalia, and no matter how special we think we are, we can't change that fact. Everything else is differentiated under the term "animalia"

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Your interpretation arbitrarily excludes humans from the term "animal" just because we think? There is no basis for that whatsoever. We are animals, simple as that. We are animals who have an oversized brain, and no arbitrary exclusion can change that.

if you look at taxonomy, there are so many organisms that are classified different because of minor details...i think our brain structure and function are different enough to be classified differently.

edit: but i guess our evolutionary path restricts us to the animal kingdom.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Your interpretation arbitrarily excludes humans from the term "animal" just because we think? There is no basis for that whatsoever. We are animals, simple as that. We are animals who have an oversized brain, and no arbitrary exclusion can change that.

if you look at taxonomy, there are so many organisms that are classified different because of minor details...i think our brain structure and function are different enough to be classified differently.

Thats the reason why we are classified Homo Sapien, But we are still animals as we are still in the kingdom animalia

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Crono

I like your usage of the word arbitrary, and then your mention of an oversized brain. By that same logic, all our classifications of animals and species becomes arbitrary and meaningless.

Nope. Because all those classifications fall under the term "animalia" My logic simply states that there are 6 kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria) and humans fall under Animalia, and no matter how special we think we are, we can't change that fact. Everything else is differentiated under the term "animalia"

You're telling me to "take a damn bio class", but you don't get that the classifications that we have were developed (with minor to major disagreements through history, I might add), and not because there were immediate and undeniable differences in between the kingdoms that we have now?

Research the history and current state of biological taxonomy. Even if the kingdom level of taxonomy is settled (for now), on lower levels the taxonomical hierarchy is still unsettled and developing.

 

[sandorski]

We are Animals. The more we Learn about Animals, the more we realize they are like us. Animals are not Pre-programmed with "Instinct", they Learn just as we do. They just do so on a much smaller scale.