Social Darwinism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ubeyde
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 78
  • Views Views 15K
Ubeyde said:
I see your point, but I am on the Jews side here.. What was done to them in the World Wars deserves sympathy.
Click to expand...


Yes it was bad but it was not a jewish holocaust. People seem to forget another five million died. I think we should feel just as bad for the homosexuals, plus the first people who were put into the camps were catholics.
 
LavaDog said:
This is the never ending debate I have with athiests though. You say sociopaths can follow those beliefs but why? There are no repercussions so why would they bother? Without a god why would anybody care? But really the only reason I started this was because the only other posts on here were making fun of the thread starter and I thought that was unnecessary. So im pretty sure im not a sociopath.
Click to expand...

it's possible for Bob to simply enjoy helping others or simply enjoy acting out his perceived moral duties. Those are rewards in themselves. For everyone else, we have prison !
 
Trumble said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please show us here the evidence that homo sapiens wiped out the neanderthals.
 
Lynx said:
it's possible for Bob to simply enjoy helping others or simply enjoy acting out his perceived moral duties. Those are rewards in themselves. For everyone else, we have prison !
Click to expand...


Yes but right now we have prisons full of people who just don't care. They admit that they feel they were born to kill and will continue to do so. Perhaps one day Bob decides the meaning of life is no longer to help others but to take as many people down with him as he can. Would he not just be following his own path in life?
 
Zafran said:
why dont you just prove evolution for him - It shouldnt be that hard.
Click to expand...

It isn't hard at all. All you need is a microscope, a petri dish, and some bacteria.

Or if you'd like to see it with bigger animals, then all you need is a few million years. You got the time? Let's begin :shade:
 
naidamar said:
Please show us here the evidence that homo sapiens wiped out the neanderthals.
Click to expand...

Please conjour up the weeks it would take me to do the necessary research, and I'd be happy to do so! The most obvious evidence is simply that the world today contains something like 7 billion homo sapiens.. and zero homo neanderthalensis when the two species/sub-species most significant direct competitors were each other.

We can't be sure what happened, of course. It certainly seems very unlikely any sort of planned extermination took place, but most authorities seem to believe competition with homo sapiens was largely responsible for the extinction of the neanderthals; we were just the more successful species (or according to some, sub-species) when in direct competion for resources. Other factors could have been rapid fluctuations in climate, absortion into homo sapiens as a result of interbreeding, or even volcanic super-eruptions.

If you have evidence in favour of any other theories, please feel free to show us here.
 
Last edited:
LavaDog said:
Yes but right now we have prisons full of people who just don't care. They admit that they feel they were born to kill and will continue to do so. Perhaps one day Bob decides the meaning of life is no longer to help others but to take as many people down with him as he can. Would he not just be following his own path in life?
Click to expand...

Yeah that's exactly right.
 
Pygoscelis said:
It isn't hard at all. All you need is a microscope, a petri dish, and some bacteria.

Or if you'd like to see it with bigger animals, then all you need is a few million years. You got the time? Let's begin :shade:
Click to expand...

LOL interesting :)
 
Zafran said:
why dont you just prove evolution for him - It shouldnt be that hard.
Click to expand...

Far from not being that hard, it's actually impossible. Just as it is with any other scientific theory. You can only disprove a scientific theory, not prove it. So you go ahead and 'prove' general relativity or quantum mechanics and we might think about 'proving' evolution.

All you can actually do is provide evidence in support of a scientific theory. And I'm afraid that, whether the creationist ostriches like it or not, evolution by natural selection is probably the best evidenced theory in the history of science. Any suggestion to the contrary is - frankly - a fairy story believed only by those with no understanding as to what science actually is.

To repeat the point, though, 'social Darwinism' is just a label, it has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.
 
Last edited:
Pygoscelis said:
It isn't hard at all. All you need is a microscope, a petri dish, and some bacteria.

Or if you'd like to see it with bigger animals, then all you need is a few million years. You got the time? Let's begin :shade:
Click to expand...

waiting..........
 
Ubeyde said:
Exactly my view. Prove to me Evolution exists. You cannot because it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Our side: a fossil record

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidenced speciation

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Changes in DNA

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: A record of life developing from the simple to the complex

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidence that evolutionary alogrithms can produced optimized structues

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Geographic distribution of life

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Examples of natural selection in action

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidence of hybridization

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Artificial selection reporduced in a lab.

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Well documented evolution of certain species or structures (like the horse).

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: The molecular record

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Retroviruses

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Vestigial structures

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Etc..........................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
 
Gator said:
Our side: a fossil record

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidenced speciation

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Changes in DNA

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: A record of life developing from the simple to the complex

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidence that evolutionary alogrithms can produced optimized structues

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Geographic distribution of life

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Examples of natural selection in action

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidence of hybridization

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Artificial selection reporduced in a lab.

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Well documented evolution of certain species or structures (like the horse).

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: The molecular record

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Retroviruses

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Vestigial structures

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Etc..........................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
Click to expand...


Nobody says that Magic man in the sky did it but after a million years we find out that God was behind it all - we win - Game over. Your side loses:D^o):embarrass:heated::nervous::shade::p
 
Zafran said:
Nobody says that Magic man in the sky did it but after a million years we find out that God was behind it all - we win - Game over. Your side loses:D^o):embarrass:heated::nervous::shade::p
Click to expand...
Oh, well then. Nevermind.:D
 
Trumble said:
Far from not being that hard, it's actually impossible. Just as it is with any other scientific theory. You can only disprove a scientific theory, not prove it. So you go ahead and 'prove' general relativity or quantum mechanics and we might think about 'proving' evolution.

All you can actually do is provide evidence in support of a scientific theory. And I'm afraid that, whether the creationist ostriches like it or not, evolution by natural selection is probably the best evidenced theory in the history of science. Any suggestion to the contrary is - frankly - a fairy story believed only by those with no understanding as to what science actually is.

To repeat the point, though, 'social Darwinism' is just a label, it has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.
Click to expand...

wth?

Where are you pulling that from? There are other theories in science which have far more convincing evidence with no alternative explanations. Evolution has alternative explanation since changes in DNA (one example of what gator so boastfully posted) does not mean any relationship with the previous configuration.
 
naidamar said:
It's nice to see you backtracking from such certainty as this:
Click to expand...

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

and unlike you, I dont pretend I know what happened. The neanderthals could have died out from diseases that only affected them, etc.
Click to expand...

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


mad_scientist said:
There are other theories in science which have far more convincing evidence with no alternative explanations.
Click to expand...

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

Evolution has alternative explanation since changes in DNA ... does not mean any relationship with the previous configuration.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Trumble said:
I don't think the context of my initial comment suggested any actual or intended attempt at academic rigour?
Click to expand...

it was certainly NOT an attempt at academic rigour.

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

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. Is neanderthals your pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monsters?

LOL.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/neanderthal_prog_summary.shtml
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top