|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 05/28/2007 : 10:28:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, I do not know the Discovery Institute, I come up with this stuff on my own. Give me more credit that that.
The point is to hear all your thoughts on evolution and eugenics; and discus them. I have stated facts that were confirmed by another poster in this tread; this hardly makes me a troll.
|
You really should learn something about the Discovery Institutes and the liars who are also known as DI Senior Fellows. Here is a discussion on Darwinian evolutionary ideas and eugenics.
Oblivious to logic and intellectual honesty, the “Darwinism = eugenics” meme nevertheless has been widely promoted by several ID advocates, most prominently by John G. West, Associate Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.
|
"Besides the breeding of human beings was suggested at least as far back as Plato." Galton just gave it its modern name and definition.
"The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior." Plato
|
So we are back to a "So what". This does nothing to refute the fact of evolution as a theory.
Edited: had to add the quote from Plato |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 05/28/2007 10:31:47 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 10:50:00 [Permalink]
|
| I don't think Jerome is interested in refuting evolution as a theory. He seems to accept evolution. I base that on what was talked about in chat on sunday. More, he is wondering why eugenics is not valid since some people think it is, and why it doesn't make sense in light of "survival of the fittest," a concept he called a "law" which means he doesn't really understand the theory behind it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 11:48:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
More, he is wondering why eugenics is not valid since some people think it is, and why it doesn't make sense in light of "survival of the fittest," a concept he called a "law" which means he doesn't really understand the theory behind it.
|
Well, that's easy. "Is" does not mean "ought."
Evolution is. It's just a fact. Trying to draw human moral guidelines from it is absurd for the same reasons as assuming it's moral to eat your children because some animal species do it. Or the fact that hurricanes destroy houses means that we shouldn't build houses. Etc. Nature does what nature does. People do their own thing.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 12:22:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I don't think Jerome is interested in refuting evolution as a theory. He seems to accept evolution. I base that on what was talked about in chat on sunday. More, he is wondering why eugenics is not valid since some people think it is, and why it doesn't make sense in light of "survival of the fittest," a concept he called a "law" which means he doesn't really understand the theory behind it.
|
Ok. Then in my opinion Dave's answer from the previous page was right on.
Except that eugenics is artifical selection, while Darwin's breakthrough was common descent and natural selection.
|
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 15:48:34 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, what is the point of this thread? You say you are interested in our opinions and that you are interested in research. If you are interested in our opinions, on what? You started this thread with a statement of fact. I think everyone here will agree with you that biological evolution has been used to support social Darwinism and eugenics. And?
As for research, what are you doing research on? Your specific interests are not at all clear from this thread so far, and we are on page 2! Also, do you think that discussing issues on an online forum is a good way to do research? If you are actually interested in research, go to a library or start with Wikipedia and then check the sources that the Wikipedia articles direct you to. That would be a decent start. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/28/2007 15:50:40 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 16:47:53 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
| he is wondering why eugenics is not valid since some people think it is, and why it doesn't make sense in light of "survival of the fittest," a concept he called a "law" which means he doesn't really understand the theory behind it. |
Evolution via natural selection occurs in response to changing environmental pressures (mainly).
Eugenics is the idea of applying subjective value judgements about a character, and breeding to enhance or eliminate that character.
Why is human eugenics wrong? Well, who gets to decide what characters are desirable and undesirable?
Then there is the whole, as yet poorly understood, nature of some of the more ephemeral (yet desirable) human characters, like intelligence and common sense.
Then there is the epigenetic aspect of things. What role does physical environment play in the developement of desirable human traits?
Then you have to figure out if cultural and societal influences can have an effect on the character trait you think is desirable.
Breeding humans, aside from the ethical problems, for specific desirable character traits is a highly complex and problematic topic. We aren't talking about breeding cats for a specific coat color here.
The problems for human eugenics are legion. The whole idea is more or less irrelevant anyway, because no one outside of a totalitarian dictatorship is going to be able to make an effort at human breeding. And probably not even then, becuase the rest of the world would vehemently object.
And really, Jerome, If you are aware of the name Galton you should be aware that eugenics has less than nothing to do with evolution.
The ONLY people to use the two words together are historian writing about Galton and imbecilic religious types who want to rub some of that Nazi evil off on evolution.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 17:54:37 [Permalink]
|
Correct me if I'm wrong JEROME, at the Sunday chat I think you mentioned eliminating mental disabilities and hereditary deceases by means of denying people prone to that kind of offspring the ability to procreate.
Can you confirm that? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 19:07:12 [Permalink]
|
Natural selection still acts on the human species on a global scale, since in many poor and overpopulated areas, children with disabilities have a much lower survival rate. And those that do grow up still struggle to find a mate if their parents aren't fortunate enough to be able to arrange a mate.
Only in economically prosperous areas (and prosperous individuals) is natural selection neutralised through medical advancements.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 19:31:47 [Permalink]
|
Mab wrote: | Only in economically prosperous areas (and prosperous individuals) is natural selection neutralised through medical advancements. |
Natural selection is not neutralized among the economically prosperous, the conditions are merely changed. Traits that would be eliminated in other circumstances might flourish (such as autism and Asperger Syndrome having a higher frequency among the children of computer programmers), and other traits or diseases often become less frequent. When I was an undergrad I was shocked in a human development class to learn that genetically-caused mental retardation is occurring less frequently in industrialized nations. Due to modern medical care, the children live, but need special care their whole lives; parents of mentally retarded children tend to have less children than those with children of average intelligence, thus reducing the frequency of those genes. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 20:00:05 [Permalink]
|
As humans have the intelligence (from evolution) to discern "good" and "bad" traits; would it not be proper within evolution, for man to highlight the "good" traits and reduce the "bad" traits?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 20:44:50 [Permalink]
|
jerome wrote: | As humans have the intelligence (from evolution) to discern "good" and "bad" traits; would it not be proper within evolution, for man to highlight the "good" traits and reduce the "bad" traits? |
I'm really getting sick and tired of your vague statements. Be more fucking specific so we know what the hell you are talking about.
For one, are you being sarcastic? I'm guessing not.
If not sarcasm, then what do you mean by "highlight the 'good' traits and reduce the 'bad' traits'"? Highlights them how? If you mean that society should reward and thereby promote kindness, intelligence, cleverness, and a wide variety of various skills and talents, I'd say that society already does that for the most part. If you are talking about genetic traits, I'd say that you don't know much about human genetics.
And what do you mean when you say "man" in the general sense? Mankind in the organized sense (governments or other social institutions), or people as individuals?
People as individuals already do a certain amount of selection when they choose the people they will have sex with, when they choose to use birth control or not, when women choose to have a child or an abortion. Are you suggesting more than this? If so, what exactly are you suggesting? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 20:52:52 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox, I did not mean to be vague.
Should mankind decide which genetic traits to be allowed to reproduce and which genetic traits should be prevented from reproducing?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 21:27:13 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | Should mankind decide which genetic traits to be allowed to reproduce and which genetic traits should be prevented from reproducing? |
No. Here's why:
Lessons of History
Our history with eugenics is hideous and shameful. Not only did the practice of eugenics (not only by the Nazis, but by much of the industrialized world, especially the USA) cause a great deal of human suffering, but there is no evidence that it made any improvement what-so-ever on the human gene pool.
Forced Sterilization Once Seen as Path to a Better World: http://newsmine.org/archive/deceptions/experimentation/forced-sterilization-seen-path-better-world.txt
| Sterilization in the United States continued until the early 1970s. Its demise had begun during World War II, and the number of operations slowed in the 1950s. Scientific advances discredited the link between heredity and mental illness. New techniques for treating the mentally ill took hold. And the Nazi abuses drove sterilization promoters underground. |
And what kind of people were targeted for eugenics? Oh, people like this:
"One of the giggling dangerous type — a delinquent sexually, morally. Forged checks, remained away from home nights," reads the case file of a 16-year-old girl who was sent to the Sonoma State Home, sterilized and released. |
‘Cause, you know, forged checks and giggling are real signs of genetic deficiency! Glad that girl was removed from the gene pool!
And then there's this guy: | "It was all a mistake," wrote a man who had been sterilized at Stockton state hospital. "I would rather not be sterilized as I do not think there is the slightest danger of myself being responsible for any weak or feeble-minded children, and I shall ever bemoan the fact that I shall never have a son to bear my name, to take my place and to be a prop in my old age. |
Yeah, he writes like a real imbecile. Good thing we stopped him from reproducing.
And remember, folks, this happened in America, land o' the free!
Um, human rights anyone?
Also from the above article: Edgerton found that only a fifth of those interviewed approved of the operation, and most of them were unmarried men who felt freed sexually.
Nearly all of the women were devastated. Many were abandoned by their families. Those who married generally didn't tell their husbands what had been done to them.
"They said they were going to remove my appendix," one woman told Edgerton. "I still don't know why they did that surgery to me. The sterilization wasn't for punishment, was it? Was it because there was something wrong with my mind?"
Said another: "I love kids. Sometimes now when I baby-sit, I hold the baby up to myself and I cry and I think to myself, 'Why was I ever sterilized?' " |
When we talk about eugenics, are we talking about force? Marriage laws that ban certain couples from being together? Force |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/28/2007 21:46:07 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 21:37:37 [Permalink]
|
BTW, Jerome wrote: Marfknox, I did not mean to be vague.
Should mankind decide which genetic traits to be allowed to reproduce and which genetic traits should be prevented from reproducing? |
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You may not have meant to be vague, but you continue to be vague. I specifically asked whether you meant mankind in general through government and other social institutions, or individual persons. I also specifically asked you HOW mankind might prevent or encourage certain traits. You have not answered either of these questions. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/28/2007 21:38:13 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
evolution is a tool of eugenics
