It is impossible to believe in Evolution and not be a racist

[tiggis]

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?

[TommyB]

It is impossible to believe in Macro Evolution and not be a racist.

For some, it is.

[Palem]

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?

Different is not better.
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.

[tras19]

Different is not better.
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.

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.

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.

[Elldallan]

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.

[barbrolie]

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.

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.

[Magn]

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.

I think people get stuck in a local short-term evaluation of evolution and lose sight of the bigger picture (ie, millions of years from now after the rise and fall of countless cultures). There is a desirable selection happening, it's happening at an incredibly slow pace (think an ossilating graph going in an overall upward direction over millions of years) and more at our expense than it needs to because we chose not to exert intelligent control over it.

If positive selection is not happening locally in a culture, that culture will die and only cultures that evolve in a positive direction will survive.

We have never been so prosperous that we could afford to screw up a lot. Our technological progress has limits and often comes at an environmental cost. We can't afford to apply it mindlessly without careful analysis (the way we have been doing quite often so far).

We could help guide our natural selection: we wouldn't even have to kill anyone or be extremely stringent about it, we'd just have to make sure that say, the bottom x% using broad metrics the majority would agree on doesn't reproduce (ie, extremely poorly adapted individuals in terms of physical health, character or cognitive abilities).

Instead, because we refuse to do any sort of weeding, however humane it would be, we've chosen to let external factors do all that weeding for us and it will be a much harsher taskmaster than we would be. It won't have any qualms about making countless people die in a very non-humane way and wiping out entire societies to ultimately get it right.

Hell with enough research we might be able to learn to control evolution on a genetic level, and yes we've evolved to such a point that we as a species is capable of self extinction, any other form of extinction at this point is unlikely, barring the rise of some super virus/bacteria(which is far from impossible).

I'm not saying extinction of the entire species would be impossible, but I think it accidentally occuring as a result of our actions would be extremely improbable. If we'd wipe out our entire species, it would be quite deliberate, not accidental.

However, we are entirely capable of "accidentally" (most likely by turning a blind eye to facts we have) making our civilisation crumbles, screwing up our ecosystems in such a way that prosperity is not feasible for a very long time and force smaller pockets of populations to subsist on very little for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't diss on our potential for adaptation. It takes a special kind of infrastructure to provide what we would consider a humane lifestyle to billions of people, but smaller groups with low standards who just want to survive can subsist on very little. It's just not particularly pleasant and not the kind of lifestyle someone who grew in a more prosperous time would like to comtemplate though.

[Elldallan]

Thoughts?

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.

And given modern technology climate and geographical location as a factor have become mostly irrelevant anyway.

[noobium]

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?

My thought is **** YOU VERY MUCH.

[noobium]

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.

[freemehul]

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.

[Palem]

I know that evolution exists and I am not a racist. Notice how I say "know" instead of "believe".

No you do not.

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.

[noobium]

No you do not.

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.

[Palem]

Uh Palem, we see evidence of Darwin's theory of evolution at work, so yeah it exists in a reasonably undeniable form.

Earth-centered models of the universe were pretty undeniable at one point too.


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.

[tras19]

Earth-centered models of the universe were pretty undeniable at one point too.


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.

+1 The first step towards intelligence is admitting you know nothing