5
   

Social effects of the theory of evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 05:12 pm
@farmerman,
     https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmOXO9nrq4HndyjmAAlKwYEzyypV3bOyF1ngVHjmBbJQlsraE-

Gunga's Geo-Science Book
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 05:54 pm
@raprap,
A conservative . . . look something up? Learn the truth? Nah!
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 05:57 pm
@farmerman,
I put most of the loudest, most bellicose conservatives on ignore. They're just too loony, too mean and too stupid but as I am teaching a class called Writing in the Biological Sciences, I had to read this. It's been years but gungasnake is as hysterical as ever!
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 07:50 pm
@gungasnake,
And proud of it GanjaSnaKKKe!

Rap
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 07:55 pm
Question is, what is it that gets anybody worked up over evoloserism and evolosers??

I mean, there actually are flavors of junk science which are relatively harmless and nobody gets worked up over them. Nobody is loosing any sleep worrying about the LDS church, scientology, or the search for bigfoot...

But evolution is not harmless. Evolution is a flavor of junk science with some 200,000,000 human bodies to its credit. Evolution was the philosophical cornerstone of Communism, Nazism, and all of the sundry eugenics programs of the past two centuries; a quasi-religious ideology which can serve and has served as a philosophical and pseudoscientific basis for racism.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:02 pm
from the link in the OP...

Quote:

Pulitzer Prize winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine:

“ While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.

Dawkins deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of. . . an insane and unscientific eugenics theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.
There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science."[12][13]
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:04 pm
Quote:
Dr. Josef Mengele's evolutionary thinking was in accordance with social Darwinist theories that Adolph Hitler and a number of German academics found appealing.[15] Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.[16] Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with Nazi death camps and the Holocaust.[17] Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[18]

Prominent evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins stated the following regarding Adolf Hitler in an interview:

“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[19] The interviewer of Richard Dawkins wrote the following regarding the Richard Dawkins comment about Hitler: "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."[20]
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:06 pm
@farmerman,
In reality this is directed to Ionus...look up Wallace lines--Wallace was a contemporary of Darwin who independently developed an Evolutionary Theory amazingly similar to "The Origin of Species" that Darwin had been sitting on for a decade.

Wallace sent a nomograph of his observations of speciation in the South Pacific that contained the gist of the Theory of Evolution to Darwin for peer review.

Darwin realized that the time was due, and published his tome.

About forty years later it was noticed that Wallace lines aligned with borders of Tectonic plates.

Rap
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:11 pm
http://creation.com/darwinism-and-world-war-one


Quote:
The evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin (1809–1882) destructively influenced many of the Western world’s leaders in the early 20th century. In particular, intellectuals in Germany were among the earliest to embrace Darwinism enthusiastically, and to apply its concept of the survival of the fittest to human society. That is, they applied the subtitle of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). The most infamous result of this was the Holocaust,1 but social Darwinism was also a major influence in the events leading up to World War One.

In the decades leading up to World War One, intellectuals embraced Darwinism and its ethical implications as a welcome alternative to Christian belief and ethics. Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), the most famous German Darwinist of the time, and notorious forger of embryo diagrams,2 believed that evolution would “bring forth a complete revolution in the entire world view of humanity.”3 He argued that Darwinism required the abandonment of Christian morals.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:13 pm
Quote:
In addition to greatly influencing Hitler's Nazism, evolutionary ideas influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin.[21] Marx wrote, "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."
Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:

“ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." [22]
raprap
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:14 pm
@gungasnake,
Hitler hated unions, used Christianity as a political tool to promote antisemitism, gave special powers to the police to suppress dissonance, gave special favors to favored corporations and kept the roads rolling. If he'd have lost the mustache and the unfortunate name he could have been another Texan politician.

Rap
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:28 pm
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
DNA, Genetics, Bioengineering, Agricultural Engineering, Bacteriology, Geology
Applying the theory of evolution to the science of geology? Is that what they mean by metamorphosis?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:30 pm
@farmerman,
evolution
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions
1. the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection


Evolution that can be seen in a life time is not a proof of evolution over millions of years . I personally think evolution is a correct theory as it ties in so much...it is elegant as mathematicians like to say . Many of the things people claim to prove evolution do no such thing .

I repeat: name one discovery that needed the theory of evolution for it to be discovered...the scientific method works well without having primitive 'lizards' evolve into birds and dinosaurs . Lining species up in an order has not led to any breakthroughs that I am aware of...bearing in mind that similarity is the criteria for determining relationships of species and families and that has a flaw in convergent evolution .

An example is cats . Small cats have an ancestor that was more possum-like than cat whilst at the same time the big cats were evolving in and out of sabre-tooth cats several times . Convergent evolution...but they are classified as the same family because they look alike and they do have a common ancestor, but so do we all ...
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:31 pm
@gungasnake,
Putting folks on ignore denies you access to their gems of wisdumb.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 08:36 pm
@farmerman,
There's a man in the funny papers we all know. .

Thanks farmer.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 09:31 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:

I repeat: name one discovery that needed the theory of evolution for it to be discovered
That's not what you said. You are trying to weasel over a bit to eliminate ANY necessity.
The development of yearly drugs and understanding resistance of organisms to diseases may be discovered by DUMB LUCK, but using the theory of nat selection has almost unilaterally directed the WAY in which such study and drug development or handling of sick organisms, proceeds.

We got from San Francisco to Sydney a century and a half ago, but e do it much more quickly and safely now.
Your statement that Germ Theory predates evolution, while correct, misses the point that Bacteriology isn't all about disease.

You seem to think that the very discovery of common ancestors and the parent species was able to be completely done without
considering the evolution of the clades in which the "cat" members reside?

The use of evolutionary development of forams is critical to oil and gas exploration (today). Back in the old days, it was a manner of hit or miss "Saturation drilling". We don't do that any more. Energy exploration is a very precise science that is the result of interdisciplinary use of many sciences INCLUDING evolutionary thinking.

No, there are many applications of evolutionary bioscience within many disciplines. I never said that they wouldn't have occurred without it, dumb luck could get you somewhere near the answer but not in any planned fashion,
but these applications do benefit from knowing the mechanisms defined by nat selection.

Quote:

Evolution that can be seen in a life time is not a proof of evolution over millions of years

why not? If we can trace a change in a genome over a short period of time (OUR lifetime is many many thousand times certain insect lives, or 400 times a rats life.
Fixing a new gene in a population occurs anywhere from 200 to 1000 generations and can result in the development of pluralistic solutions well within our lives.

We are quite fortunate(for one example) in having been able to see the pluralistic "divergence" among several species of anadromous fish that had been "trapped" behind dams built in colonial times along New England Rivers. Macroevolution of daughter species are able to be seen from a single parent population thatwas stuck behind these dams about 300 years ago. (That's short enough to result in the appearance of these new species that are defined by special adaptive mechanisms that have resulted in new phenotypic forms.

I was curious why you defined evolution up front of your post. Are you afraid that no one but you seems to understand the concept?
Try not to command a discussion with obvious gunga style tricks, youll be found out rather quickly that maybe youre not as genuine as you appear.


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 09:34 pm
@raprap,
Yeh, I recall in grad school how the term Wallaces line and Logans Line nd a few others were geological province boundaries that had biodiversity (and therefore evolutionary) significance.



0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 09:35 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
There's a man in the funny papers we all know. .


Tell ya what, neo . . . I'll give you the whole song! Razz



You're welcome! Razz Mr. Green
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 09:38 pm
@wmwcjr,
Only thing is, gunga believes this song is science
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 09:41 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
That is, they applied the subtitle of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859).

Do you really think that the German people were that stupid?

Make the comparison of Nazism to radical Islam. many similarities when zealotry reins.
You could use the New York Phone directory (if one still exists) to validate your wacky theories, but that does not invalidate the phone system.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2024 at 05:44:40