Printable View
It is impossible to believe in Macro Evolution and not be a racist.
The idea that every animal on the planet is adapting and evolving to survive except humans is incredible.
Unless the species is perfect then the differing abilities and shortcomings of each of the geographical and what we call "racial" divisions of the human animal must offer improved or degraded opportunities for survival as a whole both mental and physical.
Thoughts?
For some, it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggis
Different is not better.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggis
Pigeons and doves are both birds. They both have distinct qualities. It's nonsense to say that a dove is a better bird than a pigeon or that pigeon is a better bird than a dove.
Likewise suggesting a race is a better human than another race is silly. We've grown different adaptations based on where we've been. We're all doing just fine in terms of survival.
There is insufficient biological diversity to justify differentiating humans into different "races" so no it's not impossible to believe in evolution and not be a racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggis
And given modern technology climate and geographical location as a factor have become mostly irrelevant anyway.
My thought is **** YOU VERY MUCH.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggis
Ummm I will straight up say doves are better birds. No contest. Doves are majestic birds that symbolize unobtainable perfection in the form of peace. Pigeons are noisy trashy city dwelling pests that get off on ****ting on people's cars. I guarantee every bird species think pigeons are retarded jerks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
In regards to the original question I think that human beings are still evolving and won't stop until we're extinct. The basis of reproduction involving two individuals swapping genes will always always be evolving as new combinations of genes and mutations are bound to occur during such a process involving a staggering amount of possible combinations.
It is hard to compare human beings to any other animal species on the planet. Once human beings gained sentience, we became a part of nature that didn't belong to nature. We've recognized it and moved above almost every problem every animal species on the planet faces on a daily basis. Steady food and water sources and a lack of any natural predators anymore have basically separated us from the path of traditional evolution, but to think were not evolving is absolutely silly. Not that many thousands of years ago we were not the top of the food chain and didn't have the advantages science and technology have provided us.
Well technically since there is no process of selection it also means that "undesirable" genes also gets passed on with a greater frequency so our evolution could just as well be a devolution. But you're correct in that the process doesn't stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by tras19
There is selection, though at a much slower rate than would have happened had we not had the technological capabilities for living with undesirable genes. And it's possible we're selecting for characteristics that do not necessarily augur well for the survival of the species.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
lol such noobery in this thread.
there IS no such thing as "nature". human thought processes and behaviors are just as "natural" as anything else. there are volumes written about how to manipulate the natural tendencies humans have on a subconscious (and conscious) level.
case in point: no matter how many times eugenics and social darwinism is debunked, and no matter how many horrible things those belief systems are guilty of perpetuating, there will always be idiots willing to adopt them. someone with the most basic grounding in philosophy and logic can disprove the ridiculous and retarded appeal-to-nature argument, yet you see a lot more idiots on the internet perpetuating something that is known to be horse****, and gullible ****tards who eat it up.
i'm guessing (trying to be optimistic) that OP is making the point that evolutionists are inherently believers in racism and social darwinism, and to be fair to that viewpoint there is a **** TON of racist, classist, and completely horrible beliefs that are accepted as (pseudo-)scientific dogma, that have a lot of believers with no particular intellectual deficiency.
I know that evolution exists and I am not a racist. Notice how I say "know" instead of "believe".
Tiggis believes in social darwinism and eugenics and yes if you believe in social darwinism or eugenics you are indeed a racist. Social darwinism and eugenics by the way have nothing to do with science. Also if you use the word "believe", you are using a faith based system and there is nothing scientific about that either.
No you do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by freemehul
You believe that all of the information you know about evolution is reliable. There is a chance, however remote, that it's not. Even if you were 14 billion years old and you've watched animals "evolve" over time, you still could not know definitely that evolution exists.
Uh Palem, we see evidence of Darwin's theory of evolution at work, so yeah it exists in a reasonably undeniable form. The argument most people make is the exact path which led to the species that exist today, which is valid because even the best fossil record is going to have huge gaps, and it really is a lot of guesswork to put together a coherent history of life of Earth. It is also very easy for intellectually lazy ****s to attach horse**** and pretend that it has scientific merit, because some dumbass with a degree (or a fake degree from Hollywood Upstairs Medical School) is willing to prostitute his intellectual integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Earth-centered models of the universe were pretty undeniable at one point too.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobium
Please don't suggest that we know everything we can possibly come to know about biological history. I'm not saying that I think evolution is wrong, but don't say that you know beyond every possible doubt that evolution as we (actually, you) know it is the absolute truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
+1 The first step towards intelligence is admitting you know nothing
reasonably undeniable does not mean "based on nothing but superstition and precedent", which is where most of those Earth-centric models came from. the ancients either didn't know or didn't care to think about what was in the sky, so their conjecture was based on a lot of assumptions that were just wrong; for instance, the insistence that orbits were perfect circles because it was "elegant", and a convoluted explanation to fudge math so that the earth-centric model even worked (with the knowledge astronomers at the time could have).Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
you see a lot of that with ancient greek philosophy, where it actively held back human understanding until someone in the middle ages finally called bull**** on it. you don't want to know what the greek philosophers thought about biology...
And indeed, the very mentality you have there ("but you can't prove it unless you claim to know everything!") is a large reason why flawed and incorrect ideas persist for longer than they should, despite evidence to the contrary. usually, most people are too busy slaving, fighting, or dying to think too long on it. I for one am not an expert in anything, and a lot of biology is guesswork (didn't I say that lol)? That is something entirely different from believing that the theory of Darwinian natural selction is invalid in entirety (patently false because of observational and experimental evidence that supports it within reason), and then that is something completely different from the horse**** ideas idiots get in their heads ever since they latched on to Darwin's theory to justify good ol' racism and human ignorance.
The theory of evolution can be seen in practice because living things are still adapting, and genetic traits can be selected for in a controlled environment. Also, you can notice genetic traits that would only become favorable if humans, for instance, domesticated cows and developed a tolerance for lactose. As I said, nature is dumb, and "natural selection" as much as idiots try not to think about it, is a messy process which moves very, very, very slowly. Using an appeal to nature argument is something that can be easily debunked and I'm not going to waste my time, only reiterate that if someone who still uses that argument is a ****wit.