Originally posted by @whodeyThat's not Darwin's idea, it predates him by a long way. Isn't it obvious? You'd have to go back at least to Socrates for the first written record of eugenics. Christianity supported these ideas long before evolutionary theory, especially as it pertained to Jews.
What is all this talk about natural selection?
The discussion should be about Darwin talking about the weak being able to reproduce and how that is weakening the human gene pool.
If you want a specific genetic result then scientists know how to breed livestock and plants for desirable traits. Why not do this with humans?
How does Hitler describe his motivations in Mein Kampf (spoiler alert: there is no mention of Darwin or the theory of evolution): “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou don't appear to know what natural selection is. Another name for it is survival of the fittest. Not sure what you are blathering about.
Yet again, you don't appear to know what natural selection is.
edit: please google it and read about it before you reply.
Originally posted by @eladarRight. But you clearly haven't googled it or even thought about it. What is fitness in an ecosystem that punishes its strong?
You don't appear to know what natural selection is. Another name for it is survival of the fittest. Not sure what you are blathering about.
Survival of the fittest is not survival of the strongest or survival of the smartest or survival of the one with curly hair. It's survival of the fittest (i.e. the one with the best fit). When ecosystems change, it's adaptation of a species over time to a specific environmental niche.
Neandertals were bigger and stronger than modern Homo sapiens, yet all perished. Natural selection predicts that traits which are more advantageous within a given environment will be more likely to propagate to the next generation.
Originally posted by @wildgrassAll perished or did they simply breed into a larger population?
Right. But you clearly haven't googled it or even thought about it. What is fitness in an ecosystem that punishes its strong?
Survival of the fittest is not survival of the strongest or survival of the smartest or survival of the one with curly hair. It's survival of the fittest (i.e. the one with the best fit). When ecosystems change, it's adaptation ...[text shortened]... advantageous within a given environment will be more likely to propagate to the next generation.
In any case, keeping those who should die alive you are not allowing for natural selection.
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladarNo. You clearly don't know what you're talking about with that "should die" bs. Google it. Think about it. Why is the sickle cell anemia gene (which kills people) so persistent in Africans?
All perished or did they simply breed into a larger population?
In any case, keeping those who should die alive you are not allowing for natural selection.
Originally posted by @wildgrassYes, I know it is useful to prevent malaria, but that is not what we are discussing. There is no natural reason to keep people who require others to survive alive.
No. You clearly don't know what you're talking about with that "should die" bs. Google it. Think about it. Why is the sickle cell anemia gene (which kills people) so persistent in Africans?
What do extremely retarded people have that would help them to survive over normal intelligence individuals? What do severely handicapped people have that would allow them to survive when compared to people without handicap?
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarJeez I feel like your biology teacher.
Yes, I know it is useful to prevent malaria, but that is not what we are discussing. There is no natural reason to keep people who require others to survive alive.
What do extremely retarded people have that would help them to survive over normal intelligence individuals? What do severely handicapped people have that would allow them to survive when compared to people without handicap?
One of the most important components that make natural selection possible is diversity. Within a population, trait variability (size, hair color, muscle mass etc.) is encoded in heritable DNA. Maintaining genetic diversity ensures that a species will be more adaptable to change over time through natural selection. Additionally, the maintenance of diversity (i.e. heterozygous copies of certain alleles) increases organismal fitness by reducing the probability of deleterious phenotypes. For example, a heterozygous sickle cell allele can increase your fitness by reducing the symptoms of malaria, but homozygousity of that allele decreases your fitness. This is an extreme example, but also think about how inbreeding can reduce fitness by reducing genetic diversity of offspring.
A similar hypothesis has been posited for the causes of many mental disorders. In evolutionary history, our speciation included major rewiring of our brains. This made us smart, but also required massively increased energy inputs. Carriers of some heterozygous alleles may confer fitness advantages that are not seen in homozygous states. Others are propagated without conferring any overall fitness disadvantage (i.e. fitness neutral) but contribute to overall diversity. Similar to diversity of blood chemistry, diversity of brain chemistry appears to have an overall fitness advantage. Some of the mechanisms are still unknown.
And the ecosystem is vitally important too. If you have an allele that predisposes for polio infection, but there's no polio anymore, then you're fine and there's no selection either way. There is no negative selection on that allele without the selective pressure. At some point in the future, though, polio may come back and reintroduce selective pressure on that gene variant.
"no natural reason to keep people who require others to survive alive". This isn't what natural selection is about. One might predict, however (depending on the disability), that those who require others to survive are less likely to breed, and the gene variant that caused the decreased reproductive fitness would be less likely to carry on in the subsequent generation.
Originally posted by @wildgrassSo you are saying that natural selection allows for diversity through survival of the fittest.
Jeez I feel like your biology teacher.
One of the most important components that make natural selection possible is diversity. Within a population, trait variability (size, hair color, muscle mass etc.) is encoded in heritable DNA. Maintaining genetic diversity ensures that a species will be more adaptable to change over time through natural selection. ...[text shortened]... he decreased reproductive fitness would be less likely to carry on in the subsequent generation.
Wow, the liberal mindset is odd indeed.
Originally posted by @eladarNo one who knows me would call me a liberal.
So you are saying that natural selection allows for diversity through survival of the fittest.
Wow, the liberal mindset is odd indeed.
Your statement is odd. Earlier, you brought up "survival of the fittest" and equated it with natural selection. Now one allows for diversity through the other? I didn't write that. It doesn't make sense.
I prefer to stick with natural selection. Diversity is one of the key ingredients, laid out by Darwin. Without it, obviously selection cannot occur. Species, and isolated populations within species, with limited genetic diversity have a decreased organismal fitness.
Also have you heard of the internet? All this stuff is on there.
Originally posted by @wildgrassSurvival of the fittest limits diversity. The characteristics that allow one group to dominate eventually leads to the end of other groups.
No one who knows me would call me a liberal.
Your statement is odd. Earlier, you brought up "survival of the fittest" and equated it with natural selection. Now one allows for diversity through the other? I didn't write that. It doesn't make sense.
I prefer to stick with natural selection. Diversity is one of the key ingredients, laid out by Darwin. ...[text shortened]... ecreased organismal fitness.
Also have you heard of the internet? All this stuff is on there.
You suggest that social programs that keep people alive who would otherwise be dead are good to increase biodiversity. As I pointed out, that is an error when applied to survival of the fittest or natural selection.
Originally posted by @eladarIf Darwin's theories were true, then by now, all humans today would be a superior race, with all inferior qualities filtered out already.
Survival of the fittest limits diversity. The characteristics that allow one group to dominate eventually leads to the end of other groups.
You suggest that social programs that keep people alive who would otherwise be dead are good to increase biodiversity. As I pointed out, that is an error when applied to survival of the fittest or natural selection.
But as we know, this has not happened, and won't, because Darwin was wrong.
Originally posted by @wildgrassIf you're here to teach others from the storehouses of your wisdom, you're not bound for a good time.
I must have missed the "Darwin caused the holocaust" part of this quote.
Again, a key tenet of Darwinian evolution clearly depends on genetic variability for species fitness. A eugenics program killing all the people who are different undermines organismal fitness.
Are you simply arguing that the Nazis misinterpreted what natural selection means? Or do you not know what it means?
The study of Nazi connections to Darwinism is beyond refute, so any quibbling is more concerned with being clever than understanding.
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhI was taught it was an indirect connection by way of Nietzsche.
If you're here to teach others from the storehouses of your wisdom, you're not bound for a good time.
The study of Nazi connections to Darwinism is beyond refute, so any quibbling is more concerned with being clever than understanding.