Social Darwinism

[Pygoscelis]

and unlike you, I dont pretend I know what happened.

This line here is the most delicious irony of the month.

 

[Zafran]

This line here is the most delicious irony of the month.

dont eat it all at once you might choke.

 

[LavaDog]

They have many theories, homo sapians killing them off is just one of them.

 

[Trumble]

Modern humans "wiping out" neanderthals is not even the prevailing theory. Any sufficiently educated people would know this.
And there is no such thing as "the prevailing theory how neanderthals died out" anyway. There are theories, but still remain that: theories, and none of these theories at the moment can be proven.

I think you'll find that, when taken as broadly as my following post (when I used a few more words) suggested, it is. I have no idea what degree of education is deemed 'sufficient', although I suspect it does include knowing what the word 'prevailing' actually means. Perhaps you might refer to a dictionary? It probably also includes knowing what a scientific theory is, and whether or not it can be 'proven' but, worry not, I've already covered that in a previous post.

If I may, a word of advice? Take it or not as you choose. Should you wish to be honoured with the rank of full moderator without the 'trainee' bit, it just might be a good idea to avoid diverting totally innocent threads in the direction of complete off-topicness because you can't resist the urge to be a smartass? Just a thought.

This line here is the most delicious irony of the month.

Hmm.. I think I'd actually rank it second. First would be naidamar's suggestion the neanderthals were made extinct by a disease to which we were immune; it's just so deliciously Darwinian!

 

[CosmicPathos]

I don't think the context of my initial comment suggested any actual or intended attempt at academic rigour?



I was not 'pretending' anything. It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory, not an academic paper.




Name one, or at least one of anything like the same significance.



Er, what? Could you please explain what you mean by that? Or better still link to a scientific paper that explains and advocates it as an alternative to evolution by natural selection?

Name one? I've already told you that just because, for example, the Notch protein receptor in humans and drosophila is about 75% similar does not mean we are commonly related through a common ancestor somewhere in the past. Its just an explanation given by evolutionists, which they believe in. I do not need to believe in this interpretation of evidence that there is ancestral relationship. The protein amino acids are conserved, well because protein has similar functions yet in different environments (human body vs mouse body).

And no I cannot provide you scientific papers about this as:
1- they wont be published in the first place because you are going against the dogma of naturalists who are the editors on boards of these journals. How do I know this? Well my lab had trouble publishing a paper in one such journal, and it had nothing to do with evolution. It was rejected due to "political reasons" as my supervisor had different opinion about certain things in virology, and she ended up publishing with different people in a different journal.
2- there is no difference in explanatory power of the two interpretations of the evidence of DNA similarity and changes among many others (including vestigial organs, SNPs, RFLP, transposons, horizontal gene transfer, antibiotic resistance): that of evolutionists and that of non-evolutionists (like myself).

 

[Ramadhan]

I think you'll find that, when taken as broadly as my following post (when I used a few more words) suggested, it is. I have no idea what degree of education is deemed 'sufficient', although I suspect it does include knowing what the word 'prevailing' actually means. Perhaps you might refer to a dictionary? It probably also includes knowing what a scientific theory is, and whether or not it can be 'proven' but, worry not, I've already covered that in a previous post.

This is what prevailing means:
–adjective 1. predominant: prevailing winds.
2. generally current: the prevailing opinion.
3. having superior power or influence.
4. effectual.



And this is what you wrote:

It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory

so clearly you meant it was the predominant theory, because if the use of the definitive.

and again, you claimed "modern human wiped out neanderthals" as "scientific theory", and anyone with basic grasp of science would know that it is not a theory, but it is merely a hypothesis. And one of many hypothesa at that, including specific diseases, rapid climate change, etc. Apparently, you didnt know this, hence I said "anyone with sufficient education".
Anyone with enough education would know the difference between scientific hypothesis and scientific theory. Anyone with sufficient education would know that "human wiped out neanderthals" is not even the predominant "theory"

 

[Ramadhan]

I think you'll find that, when taken as broadly as my following post (when I used a few more words) suggested, it is. I have no idea what degree of education is deemed 'sufficient', although I suspect it does include knowing what the word 'prevailing' actually means. Perhaps you might refer to a dictionary? It probably also includes knowing what a scientific theory is, and whether or not it can be 'proven' but, worry not, I've already covered that in a previous post.

This is what prevailing means:
–adjective 1. predominant: prevailing winds.
2. generally current: the prevailing opinion.
3. having superior power or influence.
4. effectual.



And this is what you wrote:

It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory

so clearly you meant it was the predominant theory, because if the use of the definitive.

and again, you claimed "modern human wiped out neanderthals" as "scientific theory", and anyone with basic grasp of science would know that it is not a theory, but it is merely a hypothesis. And one of many hypothesa at that, including specific diseases, rapid climate change, etc. Apparently, you didnt know this, hence I said "anyone with sufficient education".
Anyone with enough education would know the difference between scientific hypothesis and scientific theory. Anyone with sufficient education would know that "human wiped out neanderthals" is not even the predominant "theory"

 

[Trumble]

so clearly you meant it was the predominant theory, because if the use of the definitive.

"generally current: the prevailing opinion"' is closest. As definitions of both 'prevailing' and 'predominant' suggest they can be regarded as virtual, if not actual synonyms, the difference is trivial.

again you claimed "modern human wiped out neanderthals" as "scientific theory", and anyone with basic grasp of science would know that it is not a theory, but it is merely a hypothesis. And one of many hypothesa at that, including specific diseases, rapid climate change, etc. Apparently, you didnt know this, hence I said "anyone with sufficient education".

As is your habit, you are using quotation marks around things I have not said. Paraphrase by all means, but please use quotation marks only when quoting verbatim.

Anyone with enough education would know the difference between scientific hypothesis and scientific theory.

I agree. It is therefore fortunate one of us does have enough education! Obviously hypotheses regarding events in pre-history cannot be tested in the same way that, say, hypotheses regarding physics or chemistry can. That does not mean that sufficient observations of fossils, artifacts, deduced population movements and so on are not sufficient for a hypothesis concerning pre-history to become prevalent, and accepted as having sufficient supporting evidence to be considered a theory, as is the case here. I'm afraid your 'basic grasp' of hasty research by Wikipedia is no substitute for that 'basic grasp of science'.

Anyone with sufficient education would know that "human wiped out neanderthals" is not even the predominant "theory"

I know I really shouldn't ask this of a moderator, even a trainee one, but why do you insist on making a fool of yourself? I can only refer you my previous advice and hope Woodrow and Co. advise something similar.

 

[Trumble]

Name one?

I actually invited you to name another scientific theory of comparable importance to evolution by natural selection that was better supported by empirical evidence.

I've already told you that just because, for example, the Notch protein receptor in humans and drosophila is about 75% similar does not mean we are commonly related through a common ancestor somewhere in the past. Its just an explanation given by evolutionists, which they believe in. I do not need to believe in this interpretation of evidence that there is ancestral relationship. The protein amino acids are conserved, well because protein has similar functions yet in different environments (human body vs mouse body).

I assume this is your supposed scientific 'alternative' to evolution by natural selection. You do, though, seem rather confused by the distinction between the theory of evolution by natural selection and explanations of its mechanism. As Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be (and was) accepted quite happily on the basis of observational evidence in complete ignorance of such things as DNA and Notch protein receptors (whatever the heck they are), I fail to see any alternative to that theory hidden in the above.

And no I cannot provide you scientific papers about this as:
1- they wont be published in the first place because you are going against the dogma of naturalists who are the editors on boards of these journals. How do I know this? Well my lab had trouble publishing a paper in one such journal, and it had nothing to do with evolution. It was rejected due to "political reasons" as my supervisor had different opinion about certain things in virology, and she ended up publishing with different people in a different journal.
2- there is no difference in explanatory power of the two interpretations of the evidence of DNA similarity and changes among many others (including vestigial organs, SNPs, RFLP, transposons, horizontal gene transfer, antibiotic resistance): that of evolutionists and that of non-evolutionists (like myself).

People are quite free to pay to publish themselves, which is easier than ever with the internet and if the reasearch presented is sound it will eventually be accepted. I would have thought that the obvious rewards (Nobel prize, multi-million selling best seller, chat show fees) would provide more than enough motivation to overcome such resistance in the case of a topic so important. May I respectfully suggest your lab's research, while worthy no doubt, was perhaps not quite so earth shattering?

I have pointed out above why DNA, SNPs, transposons, horizontal gene transfer and the rest are of no more relevance to Darwin than the graviton was to Newton (or to Einstein, come to that).

 

[Ramadhan]

"generally current: the prevailing opinion"' is closest. As definitions of both 'prevailing' and 'predominant' suggest they can be regarded as virtual, if not actual synonyms, the difference is trivial. As is your habit, you are using quotation marks around things I have not said. Paraphrase by all means, but please use quotation marks only when quoting verbatim.

It seems you have forgotten what you wrote. Let me refresh your memory, this is what you said (and this time I made sure it is verbatim):

I was not 'pretending' anything. It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory, not an academic paper.

As has already been said not only is natural selection not 'all that is left', it's probably pretty much irrelevant in this context since homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals! Of those suggested I think 'mutual self-interest' combined with sufficient intelligence to realize what that was is perfectly sufficient.

Anyone with grade school reading comprehension should be able to understand that by choosing to use the word "since", you present it as a fact. You should have known better than presenting a hypothesa from the field of anthropology/archeaology as fact (eg. the latest archeaological find from Israel could potentially disprove such established theory as the single origin theory).
However, after I asked you for evidence, you backtracked and said that it is only the prevailing theory.
and by choosing to use "the previling", you present it as if it is the predominant, generally current, superior (per dictionary), which I have pointed out that it is not as scientists themselves do not agree as to what caused the extinction of neanderthals, and there are many hypothesa offered (or as you call it "theories"), of which none is more prevailing than others as there is not enough data and evidence to show either.

And even if we use your definition of "the prevailing theory", "homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals" (please note here that this is the verbatim of what you said) is NOT the prevailing theory of how neanderthals went extinct, as there are MANY prevailing theories about extinction of neanderthals like I said, and most authorities (as you called it) would never even claim it ("homos sapiens wiped out neanderthals") in any way. My mistake is I did not provide you with sources because I thought you could have done that yourself and save you from embarrassment.
Here are some more current prevaling hypothesa offered by "authorities":

Neanderthals didn’t get dumped on prehistory’s ash heap — it got dumped on them. At least three volcanic eruptions about 40,000 years ago devastated Neandertals’ western Asian and European homelands, spurring a rapid demise of these humanlike hominids, says a team led by archaeologist Liubov Golovanova of the ANO Laboratory of Prehistory in St. Petersburg, Russia. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...sted_out_of_existence,_archaeologists_propose

Yet they were affected by environmental perturbation and went extinct. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12093345

Neanderthals Extinction Hypothesis Offered: The University of Granada study of Gorham's cave on Gibraltar shows the Neanderthal extinction could have been determined by environmental and climate changes, and not by competitiveness with modern humans. http://www.physorg.com/news97254266.html

A US study on Monday found that Neanderthals, prehistoric cousins of humans, ate grains and vegetables as well as meat, cooking them over fire in the same way homo sapiens did. The new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) challenges a prevailing theory that Neanderthals' over reliance on meat contributed to their extinction around 30,000 years ago http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-neanderthals-ate-veggies.html

Over the past two decades many explanations have been proposed for the extinction of the Neanderthals. Some believe that they never became extinct. Instead they either evolved into AMHS (Brace 1995; Wolpoff 1989, 1992; Wolpoff et al. 1994) or were absorbed by modern DNA through interbreeding (Smith 1994; Smith et al. 2005; Trinkaus 2007; Zilhão 2006a, b; Zilhão & Trinkaus 2003). However, those who follow the Out of Africa model of human origins (Stringer 1990; Stringer & Andrews 1988; Stringer & Gamble 1998) have posited a variety of extinction hypotheses.However, these theories largely ignored the effect that the climatic oscillations of OIS 3 may have had upon the Neanderthal and AMHS populations in Europe http://durham.academia.edu/Frederic...on_A_Reanalysis_of_the_Neanderthal_Extinction

So, clearly, there are many hypotheses offered as to why neanderthals went extinct, including the findings about neanderthals developing TSE disease as a result of cannibalism.

I have also observed that you (along with other atheists here) often readily accept hypothesa with the flimsiest data and circumstantial evidence as facts, while on the other hand, flat out refusing even the idea that our universe is created, although proof (scientific, reasoning, logical) point out towards that.

I know I really shouldn't ask this of a moderator, even a trainee one, but why do you insist on making a fool of yourself? I can only refer you my previous advice and hope Woodrow and Co. advise something similar.

Does the truth hurt that badly for you?

 

[Trumble]

Anyone with grade school reading comprehension should be able to understand that by choosing to use the word "since", you present it as a fact.

I'm afraid by this point I can only assume you are trying to wind me up, in order to get an chance to exercise your new powers!

Anyone with that grade school reading comprehension will realise, as I have already said, that that phrase was not intended to present a scientific hypotheses', scientific theory, scientific wishful thinking, or scientific anything else. It certainly wasn't intended to present an opportunity for an alleged moderator to take a thread on 'social darwinism' into a totally off-topic, totally irrelevant and seemingly endless discussion of why the neanderthals might have died out. Tell you what, if it makes you happy, let's just pretend I wrote "since the neanderthals died out while we survived" in the first post, shall we? The meaning of that post would be completely unchanged, and to make you happier still I'll offer that as a statement of fact rather than a theory or hypothesis as I think even you could agree that neanderthals are a little short on the ground these days. Maybe Wikipedia thinks differently, I dont know.

However, after I asked you for evidence, you backtracked and said that it is only the prevailing theory.....

blah, blah, blah...........

..... So, clearly, there are many hypotheses offered as to why neanderthals went extinct, including the findings about neanderthals developing TSE disease as a result of cannibalism.

In terms of substantial content you are just parroting what you posted lasted time. Nobody is doubting that there are many hypotheses as to what may have contributed to the extinction of the neanderthals; that does not prevent there being a prevailing hypothesis, and indeed theory, as to what the principal reason actually was. Exactly the same is true of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but let's just not go there OK? I am still taking anti-depressants.

I have also observed that you (along with other atheists here) often readily accept hypothesis with the flimsiest data and circumstantial evidence as facts, while on the other hand, flat out refusing even the idea that our universe is created, although proof (scientific, reasoning, logical) point out towards that.

Have you really? Maybe you could point out an example of where I have accepted a hypothesis with the flimsiest data and circumstantial evidence as a fact? The final phrase is of that paragraph is, of course, so laughable, I won't comment beyond to say that you need to look up 'proof' in your dictionary, too.

Does the truth hurt that badly for you?

That you persist in making a fool of yourself? Why should it?

 

[Pygoscelis]

How did this thread go form a lame and inflamatory characacture of evolution (and false link to "social darwinism" and satan worship) to a flame war over neanderthals?

I have also observed that you (along with other atheists here) often readily accept hypothesa with the flimsiest data and circumstantial evidence as facts

Such as what exactly? I have yet to hear any atheist, or any theist for that matter, express the kind of hardocre faith in any hypothethis as the muslims here have in their religious beliefs. There is just no comprison.

while on the other hand, flat out refusing even the idea that our universe is created

I haven't seen that either. Was Trumble stating that the universe can't have possibly been created? If not him, who was?

although proof (scientific, reasoning, logical) point out towards that.

What proof? All I've ever seen in this forum is repeated claims (and a lot of adhom and hostility)

 

[CosmicPathos]

I actually invited you to name another scientific theory of comparable importance to evolution by natural selection that was better supported by empirical evidence.




I assume this is your supposed scientific 'alternative' to evolution by natural selection. You do, though, seem rather confused by the distinction between the theory of evolution by natural selection and explanations of its mechanism. As Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be (and was) accepted quite happily on the basis of observational evidence in complete ignorance of such things as DNA and Notch protein receptors (whatever the heck they are), I fail to see any alternative to that theory hidden in the above.




People are quite free to pay to publish themselves, which is easier than ever with the internet and if the reasearch presented is sound it will eventually be accepted. I would have thought that the obvious rewards (Nobel prize, multi-million selling best seller, chat show fees) would provide more than enough motivation to overcome such resistance in the case of a topic so important. May I respectfully suggest your lab's research, while worthy no doubt, was perhaps not quite so earth shattering?

I have pointed out above why DNA, SNPs, transposons, horizontal gene transfer and the rest are of no more relevance to Darwin than the graviton was to Newton (or to Einstein, come to that).

What is the distinction between theory of evolution and the explanation of mechanism? if the theory cannot be explained, there is no need to believe its existence is necessary, first of all. Secondly, yes, there are things which exist but we cant explain their existence and it does not mean they do not exist but comparing those things with theory of evolution (which itself is an explanation given by man compared to the actual unexplainable physical things/phenomenon I am talking about) is laughable. Exactly, the Darwin's theory was accepted heavily in the absence of molecular evidence! What was it acceptance based on? On fossil record? On presence of homologous anatomical structures? On the basis of evidence from finches' beak sizes? All those have alternative explanation: Fossil record does not necessitate a progressive ancestral relationship even if modified fossils (giant spiders to small spiders later in time, or reptile-bird to just bird) are found dependent on the variable of time from antiquity to modernity. Finches' differential beak sizes mean different environments, it does not however mean that once, many million years ago, all finches were of same species or had similar beak sizes, which changed later over time due to evolutionary pressures (natural selection/mutation) on new islands that they inhabited.

You seem to be the one who is confused regarding the fact that theory of evolution can only be accepted if there is strong evidence to show that it is the ONLY explanation for existence of every living thing on Earth.

 

[Trumble]

What is the distinction between theory of evolution and the explanation of mechanism? if the theory cannot be explained, there is no need to believe its existence is necessary, first of all.

I would have thought that self-evident, you were the one going on about 'explanatory power'! We sent man to the moon on the basis of Newton's theory of gravity, and yet Newton didn't have the slightest idea of how gravity 'worked'. All he knew was that his equations had more predictive power (indeed, as far as he was able to measure 100% predictive power) than anything devised before. Are you seriously claiming Newton was just wasting his time?!

Secondly, yes, there are things which exist but we cant explain their existence and it does not mean they do not exist but comparing those things with theory of evolution (which itself is an explanation given by man compared to the actual unexplainable physical things/phenomenon I am talking about) is laughable.

Exactly, the Darwin's theory was accepted heavily in the absence of molecular evidence! What was it acceptance based on? On fossil record? On presence of homologous anatomical structures? On the basis of evidence from finches' beak sizes? All those have alternative explanation: Fossil record does not necessitate a progressive ancestral relationship even if modified fossils (giant spiders to small spiders later in time, or reptile-bird to just bird) are found dependent on the variable of time from antiquity to modernity. Finches' differential beak sizes mean different environments, it does not however mean that once, many million years ago, all finches were of same species or had similar beak sizes, which changed later over time due to evolutionary pressures (natural selection/mutation) on new islands that they inhabited.

Actually it's perfectly reasonable, it just happens to be inconvenient to those who refuse to accept the theory for non-scientific reasons. People in 2011 tend to forget that, rather than being jumped on in the way they tend to imply, Darwin's theory didn't 'exactly' go down too well at first. There was exactly the same 'men from monkeys' nonsense then as there was now - in much greater quantities. The theory was accepted when the weight of evidence in it's favour became so overwhelming that even the most resistant biologists could no longer reject it without compromising their intellectual integrity and credibility.

I have already explained why 'molecular evidence' was unnecessary. The list you provide is a very small sub-set of millions of examples, the vast majority of which can be explained by evolution by natural selection. Sure, each might have an alternative explanation, but unless they can be shown to have a common alternative explanation, or at least something approaching as common of evolution it's just grasping at creationist straws. Explanatory power, again.

You seem to be the one who is confused regarding the fact that theory of evolution can only be accepted if there is strong evidence to show that it is the ONLY explanation for existence of every living thing on Earth.

No, I'm not confused.

Firstly, that simply doesn't follow. It is perfectly coherent view (albeit it one without the slightest bit of scientific evidence) that mankind was created by God and everything else was the result of evolution by natural selection. That is also totally compatible with the idea that the mechanism of evolution by natural selection was designed by God; something I'm continuallly baffled creationists reject for the far less elegant solution of some sort of continual tinkering on God's part with a new species here, extinct one there, another new one here.. etc, etc.

Secondly, I am satisfied that there is such strong evidence. So is virtually everybody else who has no religion-dictated reason to think otherwise. Acceptance of the theory does not, however, as I keep having to repeat, prove evolution by natural selection is a fact any more than acceptance of Newton's laws made them fact. But anybody who currently believes there is any serious scientific competitor to evolution is just fooling themselves. The argument for creationism is done a huge disservice by pretending it has anything to do with with science. The fact that evolution may yet need the same sort of fine tuning as did Newton's gravity (and probably Einstein's as well) and is subject to a bit of sniping around the edges as a consequence provides no reason to take seriously an alternative for which there remains no scientific evidence whatsoever.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Firstly, that simply doesn't follow. It is perfectly coherent view (albeit it one without the slightest bit of scientific evidence) that mankind was created by God and everything else was the result of evolution by natural selection. That is also totally compatible with the idea that the mechanism of evolution by natural selection was designed by God; something I'm continuallly baffled creationists reject

Your typical creationist rejects this. But I would add that it is a pretty common view amongst Catholics and many other religious folks. Their predecessors spent tons of energy fighting evolution, but since it did so well against them, now they accept it and claim God did it. If you can't beat em' join em, and claim you've been in charge of em all along, it would seem

 

[Zafran]

Your typical creationist rejects this. But I would add that it is a pretty common view amongst Catholics and many other religious folks. Their predecessors spent tons of energy fighting evolution, but since it did so well against them, now they accept it and claim God did it. If you can't beat em' join em, and claim you've been in charge of em all along, it would seem

This is what I find funny - If evolution is indeed true you should be happy people are accepting it because its true not beacsue they lost the war and are now part of the evolution empire! no wonder creationist hate the idea of bowing to evolutionist.

 

[LavaDog]

Their predecessors spent tons of energy fighting evolution, but since it did so well against them, now they accept it and claim God did it.

 

[Pygoscelis]

LOL LAVADOG! Wel said well said ;D

This is what I find funny - If evolution is indeed true you should be happy people are accepting it because its true not beacsue they lost the war and are now part of the evolution empire! no wonder creationist hate the idea of bowing to evolutionist.

I'm not an evolutionist and I don't really care if people believe in evolution. I just enjoy the humour in the sudden switch from denial to championship in many of these believers.

 

[Scimitar]

Necro-Bumpings... and deservedly so,


Subboor Ahmad breaks down why Social Darwinism is :facepalm:

Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpSprRjI4ZZzKXAORKfFodQ