Belief in human evolution makes people better persons

[blü 2]

That has nothing to do with evolution.
Nor does evolution ever come up, not even implicitly, as a factor in making the decision to abort in such cases.

I'd say it has the same relationship to evolution as selective breeding does.

 

[Kenny]

Ultimately, "life".

In closer ties, the family of Homo Sapiens.
The family of Hominidae
The family of apes.
The family of primates.
The family of mammals.
The family of tetrapods.
The family of vertebrates.
The family of eukaryotes.
...

So... we have become more "evolutionized" than the apes and primates, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'd say it has the same relationship to evolution as selective breeding does.

In that sense, everything has a relationship to evolution - especially concerning matters of life and death - as they are all factors in the evolutionary process.

What I was objecting to, was how you were implying that knowledge of the evolutionary process somehow influences decisions to carry out such abortions.

That is preposterous.

Long before anyone even knew about evolution, in more barbaric times, disabled babies were often killed at birth in various cultures. If they would have had the know-how to detect such things much earlier in pregnancies, they'ld have aborted as well.

It has nothing to do with knowing about or understanding the evolutionary process.

 

[blü 2]

In that sense, everything has a relationship to evolution - especially concerning matters of life and death - as they are all factors in the evolutionary process.

Death is only a secondary factor in evolution. Selective breeding is about the primary factor, the genes that are passed on.

And as for understanding the evolutionary process, selective breeders 8,000 years ago grasped at least part of it when, quite strong evidence suggests, they selectively bred their livestock around Anatolia.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So... we have become more "evolutionized" than the apes and primates, right?

As a sentence, that makes no sense at all.

If you mean to say the humans are "the most evolved", then I can only inform you that there is no such thing as "most evolved" in evolution.

When in doubt, compare it to the development of languages, which is always a good analogy for big picture stuff.

Humans and chimps both come from the same primate ancestor.
Italian and Spanish both come from the same roman language ancestor (latin).

When you ask "are humans more evolved then chimps?", it's like asking "is spanish more evolved then italian?"

Hopefully you can see how that is not a meaningful question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Death is only a secondary factor in evolution. Selective breeding is about the primary factor, the genes that are passed on.

Which is a thing that becomes kind of hard if you don't survive till breeding age.

And as for understanding the evolutionary process, selective breeders 8,000 years ago grasped at least part of it when, quite strong evidence suggests, they selectively bred their livestock around Anatolia.

Meaning they were making good use of the principles of evolution without realizing it.

 

[blü 2]

Meaning they were making good use of the principles of evolution without realizing it.

I don't think I said they had to act as they did consciously in the light of the ToE, did I? But controlling the genes that are passed to your next generation of cattle or goats or sheep works more or less as well whether or not you know what a gene is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think I said they had to act as they did consciously in the light of the ToE, did I? But controlling the genes that are passed to your next generation of cattle or goats or sheep works more or less as well whether or not you know what a gene is.

All of which has nothing to do with your original statement that I originally objected to....

Which was that somehow knowledge of evolution is to blame for, or connected to, aborting pregnancies when severe disabilities are observed in the womb.
That wasn't the case in the past and it's not the case in the present.

 

[blü 2]

All of which has nothing to do with your original statement that I originally objected to....

Which was that somehow knowledge of evolution is to blame for, or connected to, aborting pregnancies when severe disabilities are observed in the womb.
That wasn't the case in the past and it's not the case in the present.

You make me remind myself of that song with the line, Well, didn't he ramble ...

 

[Kenny]

As a sentence, that makes no sense at all.

If you mean to say the humans are "the most evolved", then I can only inform you that there is no such thing as "most evolved" in evolution.

When in doubt, compare it to the development of languages, which is always a good analogy for big picture stuff.

Humans and chimps both come from the same primate ancestor.
Italian and Spanish both come from the same roman language ancestor (latin).

When you ask "are humans more evolved then chimps?", it's like asking "is spanish more evolved then italian?"

Hopefully you can see how that is not a meaningful question.

IF, as you say, we are not "more evolved" than chimps... then why do we put them in cages in parks for viewing? Why do we compare "brain capacity"?

You have, indeed, misrepresented Darwinism.

The reality is that you DO believe you have evolved more than they have and thus relegate them to inferior opportunities for life.

The racism in evolution has been repackaged and evolutionized to make it more palatable. Let me quote the original raw and true to form concept before it was packaged in a nice box with a ribbon:

Australian secular historian Joanna Cruickshank

“Supporters of Darwin have understandably often been reluctant to acknowledge how closely entangled Darwinism and social Darwinism were, preferring to distance Darwin from his theory’s evil twin.

Yet those who debated the theory of evolution in the late nineteenth century were keenly aware of this connection … . Nowhere was this more obvious than in Australia.”

She also writes:

“followed Darwin’s logic in using the apparent dying out of Aboriginal people as evidence for evolution....

In response, the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, Charles Perry, attacked both Bromby’s evidence and his conclusions. Perry critiqued what he saw as the scientific inadequacies of Darwin’s book.

In particular, however, Perry attacked the view that human beings could be divided by race—or any other category—into ‘savage’ and ‘civilised’ … .”

A Documentary History of the Attitudes Affecting Official Policy and the Australian Aborigine 1697–1973

“In 1859 Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species popularized the notion of biological (and therefore social) evolution. Scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with races able to ascend or descend a graduated scale. The European was … the ‘fittest to survive’ … [The Aboriginal] was doomed to die out according to a ‘natural law’, like the dodo and the dinosaur. This theory, supported by the facts at hand [i.e. that Aboriginal folk were dying out from ill-treatment and disease—CW] continued to be quoted until well into the twentieth century when it was noticed that the dark-skinned race was multiplying. Until that time it could be used to justify neglect and murder.”

Aborigines in White Australia, on p. 100

“a question of temperament; to the sentimental it is undoubtedly an iniquity; to the practical it represents a distinct step in human progress, involving the sacrifice of a few thousands of an inferior race. … But the fact is that mankind, as a race, cannot choose to act solely as moral beings. They are governed by animal laws which urge them blindly forward upon tracks they scarce can choose for themselves.”

trove.nla.gov.au

“This, in plain language, is how we deal with the aborigines: On occupying new territory the aboriginal inhabitants are treated exactly in the same way as the wild beasts or birds the settlers may find there. Their lives and their property, the nets, canoes, and weapons which represent as much labor to them as the stock and buildings of the white settler, are held by the Europeans as being at their absolute disposal. Their goods are taken, their children forcibly stolen, their women carried away, entirely at the caprice of white men. The least show of resistance is answered by a rifle bullet … [those] who fancied the amusement have murdered, ravished, and robbed the blacks without let or hindrance. Not only have they been unchecked, but the Government of the colony has been always at hand to save them from the consequences of their crime.”trove.nla.gov.au." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); margin-bottom: 4px; border-bottom-style: none; cursor: pointer;"

And so many more....

My case is based on historical evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IF, as you say, we are not "more evolved" than chimps... then why do we put them in cages in parks for viewing? Why do we compare "brain capacity"?

For reasons that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution in the scientific field of biology.

You have, indeed, misrepresented Darwinism.

No. That's what you do, as I informed you of. And instead of rectifying your mistake you do as creationists usually do: you double down.

The reality is that you DO believe you have evolved more than they have and thus relegate them to inferior opportunities for life.

No.

The racism in evolution has been repackaged and evolutionized to make it more palatable

The theory of evolution of the scientific field of biology, has nothing to do with racism and everything with processes that all life is subject to.

You might be confusing it with so-called "social darwinism" - which is not the theory of evolution, but some kind of political ideology.

Another thing that creationists tend to do: pretend that social darwinism and evolution theory are one and the same.

Let me quote the original raw and true to form concept before it was packaged in a nice box with a ribbon:

Australian secular historian Joanna Cruickshank

“Supporters of Darwin have understandably often been reluctant to acknowledge how closely entangled Darwinism and social Darwinism were, preferring to distance Darwin from his theory’s evil twin.

Yet those who debated the theory of evolution in the late nineteenth century were keenly aware of this connection … . Nowhere was this more obvious than in Australia.”

She also writes:

“followed Darwin’s logic in using the apparent dying out of Aboriginal people as evidence for evolution....

In response, the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, Charles Perry, attacked both Bromby’s evidence and his conclusions. Perry critiqued what he saw as the scientific inadequacies of Darwin’s book.

In particular, however, Perry attacked the view that human beings could be divided by race—or any other category—into ‘savage’ and ‘civilised’ … .”

A Documentary History of the Attitudes Affecting Official Policy and the Australian Aborigine 1697–1973

“In 1859 Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species popularized the notion of biological (and therefore social) evolution. Scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with races able to ascend or descend a graduated scale. The European was … the ‘fittest to survive’ … [The Aboriginal] was doomed to die out according to a ‘natural law’, like the dodo and the dinosaur. This theory, supported by the facts at hand [i.e. that Aboriginal folk were dying out from ill-treatment and disease—CW] continued to be quoted until well into the twentieth century when it was noticed that the dark-skinned race was multiplying. Until that time it could be used to justify neglect and murder.”

Aborigines in White Australia, on p. 100

“a question of temperament; to the sentimental it is undoubtedly an iniquity; to the practical it represents a distinct step in human progress, involving the sacrifice of a few thousands of an inferior race. … But the fact is that mankind, as a race, cannot choose to act solely as moral beings. They are governed by animal laws which urge them blindly forward upon tracks they scarce can choose for themselves.”

trove.nla.gov.au

“This, in plain language, is how we deal with the aborigines: On occupying new territory the aboriginal inhabitants are treated exactly in the same way as the wild beasts or birds the settlers may find there. Their lives and their property, the nets, canoes, and weapons which represent as much labor to them as the stock and buildings of the white settler, are held by the Europeans as being at their absolute disposal. Their goods are taken, their children forcibly stolen, their women carried away, entirely at the caprice of white men. The least show of resistance is answered by a rifle bullet … [those] who fancied the amusement have murdered, ravished, and robbed the blacks without let or hindrance. Not only have they been unchecked, but the Government of the colony has been always at hand to save them from the consequences of their crime.”trove.nla.gov.au." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); margin-bottom: 4px; border-bottom-style: none; cursor: pointer;"

And so many more....

None of this has anything to do with the theory of evolution and what it actually says, nor does it affect its accuracy in any way.

The theory of evolution explains the facts of biology. It doesn't prescribe how human civilization should be organized nor does it prescribe how humans should treat one another.

As I said: you are simply doubling down on your strawman.

My case is based on historical evidence.

Your case is based in ignorance and strawmen.


I note you didn't answer my question...
Do you understand how it is ridiculous to ask the question "is spanish more evolved then italian"?


In evolutionary process, there is no "more evolved". There is only "evolved differently". And that "difference" is dictated by the selection pressures active in those lineages both past and present.


There is NOTHING in evolution theory that states anything remotely like "species X is inferior to species Y" or "race X is inferior to race Y".

In evolution theory, these are simply invalid concepts.

 

[metis]

That depends what you mean by eugenics being dead. I'd say it's gone underground for now.

There's always gonna be some renegades, such as we also saw in the early Church with Judas. Goes with the territory.

 

[wellwisher]

I don't think I said they had to act as they did consciously in the light of the ToE, did I? But controlling the genes that are passed to your next generation of cattle or goats or sheep works more or less as well whether or not you know what a gene is.

The DNA is like the hard drive of a computer. The hard drive has all the data that the computer uses, but the hard drive does not run the show. The hard drive is more of a passive device, that is acted upon when data is needed. We cannot take naked Human DNA and place it in nutrient solution, and allow it to form a full human. The DNA needs a lot of logistical support, since it is only the hard drive, where the data is stored.

This is why when cell cycles occur, the cell will not only duplicate the DNA, but also the entire protein grid associated with any given cell type, since the protein grid is the CPU. The proteins grid allows the DNA to become used as the hard drive in the specific ways of that cellular differentiation.

Red blood cells, for example, lose their DNA at maturity, but can still do their job for several weeks, without any DNA. The DNA is not needed when the needed data is already in the short term memory; RAM, of the CPU. But there is no example of just naked double helix DNA becoming a cell, if there is no CPU support available to make use of its data. A lab would need to play the surrogate role of the protein grid and feed the DNA what it needs as it needs. The DNA is not smart and cannot find what it needs.

The modern Theory of Evolution depends too much on a passive hard drive, playing the role of the CPU. This is conceptually flawed. It has to do with casino math, making this premise appear valid within a margin of error. However, one cannot reason this or show it in the lab. It is a mystical fantasy.

The ideas of human willpower and choice, implies a connection to the CPU, that does not have to be part of the hard drive. A new environment adds new potentials the CPU, that which may not be engrained in the DNA. The naked ape may need to invent clothes to compensate for cold. Like with science, a hard drive can contain a year of raw passively collected data from a satellite. How this data will be interpreted, if based on totally new discoveries, will be formed outside the limits of the hard drive; skills of the operator. The operator is the CPU. Will and choice allows us to make new relationships with the same natural DNA data.

The Bible, in Genesis, tells of how the CPU changed within the human brain, away from a natural CPU connection to the DNA hard drive, to a CPU state of mind, where the same natural data was now interpreted differently; knowledge of good and evil. This created an unnatural approach to the natural hard drive data; knowledge of good and evil instead of neutral instinct. This was an important milestone in human evolution, which is not fully written on the DNA, since the change is part of a new CPU platform in the brain, that is still on top of the older natural DNA data.

Picture the brain's natural DNA based firmware, as neural seeds that appear at birth. Under natural conditions, these neural seeds germinate and are programmed to grow into little neural branched plants, with each stage of growth collecting natural data from the sensory systems; natural human.

As an alternate scenario, picture the same natural seed to plant data collection process in culture, collecting man made data, that was not there, when the original DNA data was written. The little plant still form in its characteristic way; human nature. However, based on the new CPU platform, the growth and fruit will be different, than natural. It is based on data not on the natural DNA, but just in the brain. The fruit is not exactly the expected natural orange or cherry, but something unique but not part of the natural earth.

There is a disconnect between the natural operating system; natural CPU, which has a level of manmade data, even if both are built on the same hard drive platform. This began 6000 years ago and led to a lateral branch, not fully described by the DNA hard drive and the natural CPU. The new CPU is not fully natural due to will and learning cultural knowledge. It is almost designed to make unnatural mistakes, that can lead to choices apart from the natural CPU, but with the data of the DNA hard drive trying to hold us steady, at natural. We have two centers or CPU of consciousness; ego and inner self, with the inner self natural.

 

[metis]

This is ridiculous. Even the study doesn't hide the fact that is hasn't been a century since the worst eugenics-based horror of the 20th century (and arguably one of the appalling atrocities in human history) occured; namely, the holocaust. And it was the NAZI atrocities that caused what had been a growing Eugenics "science" to suddenly disappear or at least go underground. From the study itself:
"Darwin’s theory of evolution (1859, 1871) has undoubtably affected the way human beings think about themselves and others. It has particularly influenced the way people think about race, and it has historically been (mis)used to perpetuate racism, prejudice, homophobia, and intergroup violence...It has been utilized by prominent eugenicists (Helfand, 2020) and White supremacists (Kendi, 2017), and was central to the genocidal Nazi ideology (Weikart, 2004, 2009) as well as other prejudicial ideologies (Rose, 2009). It has also been used by evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists to argue for genetic differences among races in intelligence and other attributes (e.g., Rushton, 1995). Aside from being utilized as the fuse for what was the spark of genocide and prejudice, the theory of evolution has also propagated prejudice in people’s attitudes at the implicit level.."
The article is an attempt (and thankfully not the only one) to show that this may be changing, in that they seek to "test the hypothesis that disbelief in human evolution is positively associated with racism, prejudice, discriminatory behavior, and support for intergroup conflict." They fail rather horribly but its the kind of research where if you massage the way you ask the questions well enough with the way you use factors and aggregates and what you exclude, you can always get the answer(s).

See my post above.

What I was referring to was with scientists who were actually moving away from any particular accepting of eugenics, especially since "old habits do die hard", especially when politics is mixed in as you cite above.

IOW, "don't make the exceptions the rule", and in the mid-20th century especially, most scientists had well moved well beyond eugenics.

 

[metis]

The racism in evolution has been repackaged and evolutionized to make it more palatable.

I just have to chime in on this.

"Evolution" is not related to "racism". "Evolution" is simply a process of genetic change whereas new species may emerge-- that's all it is, and the rest are just details with how that process works.

Matter of fact, it was Christianity that often much more related to "racism" as we saw here in the States for centuries, and it's also one main reason why I left my old church. Matter of fact, the most segregated day of the week is Sunday.

"Evolution" is just plain old common sense: all material objects appear to change over time, and genes and all life forms are material objects. To reject this is to reject that which we even personally see on a daily basis-- change.

My change now is to change my clothes shortly so as to play Paul Bunyan and cut up wood that I cut down yesterday, so if you'd like you can be Babe the Blue Ox, that would be an improvement over your avatar picture.

 

[Brian2]

Causal relationships are inferred from statistical relationships only.

Yes that is what I think also, if I understand you correctly.
Some people see a statistical relationship and infer causality but statistics do not necessarily show causality.

 

[blü 2]

The Bible, in Genesis, tells of how the CPU changed within the human brain, away from a natural CPU connection to the DNA hard drive, to a CPU state of mind, where the same natural data was now interpreted differently; knowledge of good and evil. This created an unnatural approach to the natural hard drive data; knowledge of good and evil instead of neutral instinct. This was an important milestone in human evolution, which is not fully written on the DNA, since the change is part of a new CPU platform in the brain, that is still on top of the older natural DNA data.

Bear in mind that eg chimps are aware of right and wrong too. Genus Homo had moral instincts appropriate to group existence long before H sap sap evolved.

The fruit is not exactly the expected natural orange or cherry, but something unique but not part of the natural earth.

Human beings are simply a particular kind of animal, whose specialty is being smart. We're as natural as the rats, ants, and germs are.

(Though in future we may build Homo mechanicus ─ we'll very likely have to do something of the kind if we want to travel to the stars or live on (as distinct from visit) Mars or the moons of other planets.)

 

[Kenny]

For reasons that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution in the scientific field of biology.



No. That's what you do, as I informed you of. And instead of rectifying your mistake you do as creationists usually do: you double down.



No.



The theory of evolution of the scientific field of biology, has nothing to do with racism and everything with processes that all life is subject to.

You might be confusing it with so-called "social darwinism" - which is not the theory of evolution, but some kind of political ideology.

Another thing that creationists tend to do: pretend that social darwinism and evolution theory are one and the same.




None of this has anything to do with the theory of evolution and what it actually says, nor does it affect its accuracy in any way.

The theory of evolution explains the facts of biology. It doesn't prescribe how human civilization should be organized nor does it prescribe how humans should treat one another.

As I said: you are simply doubling down on your strawman.



Your case is based in ignorance and strawmen.


I note you didn't answer my question...
Do you understand how it is ridiculous to ask the question "is spanish more evolved then italian"?


In evolutionary process, there is no "more evolved". There is only "evolved differently". And that "difference" is dictated by the selection pressures active in those lineages both past and present.


There is NOTHING in evolution theory that states anything remotely like "species X is inferior to species Y" or "race X is inferior to race Y".

In evolution theory, these are simply invalid concepts.

Denying what was written and the deduction that were made as they said the Aborigines of Australia were "the missing link" - is a flat earth position.

 

[SkepticThinker]

IF, as you say, we are not "more evolved" than chimps... then why do we put them in cages in parks for viewing? Why do we compare "brain capacity"?

Because human beings can be jerks sometimes.

You have, indeed, misrepresented Darwinism.

You have misrepresented it, first, by referring to evolution as "Darwinism."
Then by ignoring explanations as to how there are no "more evolved" or "less evolved" humans or other creatures.

The reality is that you DO believe you have evolved more than they have and thus relegate them to inferior opportunities for life.

Ah, don't you just love how after you explain your position to someone, instead of taking it in and considering it, they just tell you that you don't really believe that?

The racism in evolution has been repackaged and evolutionized to make it more palatable. Let me quote the original raw and true to form concept before it was packaged in a nice box with a ribbon:

There is no racism in evolution, as several posters have taken the time to explain.

Australian secular historian Joanna Cruickshank

“Supporters of Darwin have understandably often been reluctant to acknowledge how closely entangled Darwinism and social Darwinism were, preferring to distance Darwin from his theory’s evil twin.

Yet those who debated the theory of evolution in the late nineteenth century were keenly aware of this connection … . Nowhere was this more obvious than in Australia.”

That's just like, this person's opinion, man.

Evolution is a biological process. The theory of evolution just explains the process. Equating it with socialistic processes is folly. We might as well say that germ theory of disease is racist.

She also writes:

“followed Darwin’s logic in using the apparent dying out of Aboriginal people as evidence for evolution....

In response, the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, Charles Perry, attacked both Bromby’s evidence and his conclusions. Perry critiqued what he saw as the scientific inadequacies of Darwin’s book.

In particular, however, Perry attacked the view that human beings could be divided by race—or any other category—into ‘savage’ and ‘civilised’ … .”

Yep, there is just "the human race." Evolution demonstrates that.

A Documentary History of the Attitudes Affecting Official Policy and the Australian Aborigine 1697–1973

“In 1859 Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species popularized the notion of biological (and therefore social) evolution. Scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with races able to ascend or descend a graduated scale. The European was … the ‘fittest to survive’ … [The Aboriginal] was doomed to die out according to a ‘natural law’, like the dodo and the dinosaur. This theory, supported by the facts at hand [i.e. that Aboriginal folk were dying out from ill-treatment and disease—CW] continued to be quoted until well into the twentieth century when it was noticed that the dark-skinned race was multiplying. Until that time it could be used to justify neglect and murder.”

No, NOT, "and therefore social Darwinism."

The "facts at hand" that are mentioned here, are already explained as "dying out from ill-treatment." Ill-treatment by whom, one wonders? I mean, it sounds like they were being treated poorly long by other humans long before Darwin proposed the theory of evolution. That can't be right, hmmm ....

Aborigines in White Australia, on p. 100

“a question of temperament; to the sentimental it is undoubtedly an iniquity; to the practical it represents a distinct step in human progress, involving the sacrifice of a few thousands of an inferior race. … But the fact is that mankind, as a race, cannot choose to act solely as moral beings. They are governed by animal laws which urge them blindly forward upon tracks they scarce can choose for themselves.”

trove.nla.gov.au

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Mankind can and does act as moral beings all the time.

“This, in plain language, is how we deal with the aborigines: On occupying new territory the aboriginal inhabitants are treated exactly in the same way as the wild beasts or birds the settlers may find there. Their lives and their property, the nets, canoes, and weapons which represent as much labor to them as the stock and buildings of the white settler, are held by the Europeans as being at their absolute disposal. Their goods are taken, their children forcibly stolen, their women carried away, entirely at the caprice of white men. The least show of resistance is answered by a rifle bullet … [those] who fancied the amusement have murdered, ravished, and robbed the blacks without let or hindrance. Not only have they been unchecked, but the Government of the colony has been always at hand to save them from the consequences of their crime.”trove.nla.gov.au." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); margin-bottom: 4px; border-bottom-style: none; cursor: pointer;"

And so many more....

My case is based on historical evidence.

Do you think that racism didn't exist prior to Darwin developing the theory of evolution?
Your own sources seem to belie that belief.

 

[Kenny]

Yep, there is just "the human race." Evolution demonstrates that.

And that is what our faith teaches. No "different races" which pushes racism... just the human race and thus, faith is not necessarily the reason for bigotry.

Do evolutionist say that there are "races"? Opens the door for racism!