Originally posted by Bosse de Nage A better slogan for evolution would be 'the "strongest" have survived thus far'. In this context, with the exemplary case of the dinosaurs emblazoned on one's memory, the words of Ecclesiastes spring to mind: the first shall be last, etc.
No, that's terrible. 😛
The "best adapted" are already dead. They are the ones that passed their genes to the current generations. Which of their offspring are the best fit, only time will tell.
Originally posted by Palynka No, that's terrible. 😛
The "best adapted" are already dead. They are the ones that passed their genes to the current generations. Which of their offspring are the best fit, only time will tell.
I stand corrected. The best adapted have been perfected by history, and the rest is as you say.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage So for Hitler, evolution was just another rhetorical device, rather than a cornerstone of his personal belief system.
i wish that this was the case, the problem was of course that he actually tried to apply Darwinism to specific models! gulp!
Originally posted by Palynka Evolution is about describing the pattern of inherited characteristics over the course of many generations. It's not a statement about morality at all, nor about what is "better or worse". It's descriptive.
Moreover, the label of "best adapted" (or in your words, "stronger" ) is only given ex-post after many generations so it reveals no preference between ...[text shortened]... ies living in the present (and obviously also none between members of the same species).
yes this is now our own current understanding, however, can we deny that the Fuhrer would have been worried about such technicalities? it seems to me, that 'applied Darwinism', served the Fuhrer very well in justifying all manner of atrocities.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi you are absolutely right. nietzsche is also to blame for what the nazis did. and let's not forget hitler's parents who could have given him more hugs. also hitler once applied to an art school but was turned down. so there you go: the people truly responsible for the holocaust are finally revealed.
newton is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. because aft ...[text shortened]... for any whackjob making bombs out of them an blowing some sh|t up.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes this is now our own current understanding, however, can we deny that the Fuhrer would have been worried about such technicalities? it seems to me, that 'applied Darwinism', served the Fuhrer very well in justifying all manner of atrocities.
What you call technicalities, I call fundamental differences. Attributing morality to nature's patterns is actually closer to animism than it is to atheism.
And I still don't see what the Fuhrer's opinion has to do with whether evolution theory is a good description of nature's patterns or not.
the exact same response i had to your stupid comment that darwin is what led to the nazi holocaust. i wanted to post it exactly like that but then i thought it would be more fun to fart more insane suppositions in your general direction.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi the exact same response i had to your stupid comment that darwin is what led to the nazi holocaust. i wanted to post it exactly like that but then i thought it would be more fun to fart more insane suppositions in your general direction.
no need to understand.
Well, in a way, it did. But so did Christ lead to the Inquisition. That one thing led to the other does not mean much about the validity of Darwin's theory (in the former) or Christ's teachings (in the latter). It just shows the lengths people go to justify atrocity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie i wish that this was the case, the problem was of course that he actually tried to apply Darwinism to specific models! gulp!
There is no coherent body of thought called 'Darwinism'. There is, of course, a theory of evolution, but it is not called 'Darwinism'. So he didn't apply 'Darwinism' to anything.
In fact Hitler's views were far from coherent. He always acted expediently, as the situation dictated.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage There is no coherent body of thought called 'Darwinism'. There is, of course, a theory of evolution, but it is not called 'Darwinism'. So he didn't apply 'Darwinism' to anything.
In fact Hitler's views were far from coherent. He always acted expediently, as the situation dictated.
yes ok it may be an inaccuracy, i think a better term historically is 'social darwinism', a collection of ideologies based upon tenets of Darwins theory. are you happy with that?
Originally posted by Palynka Well, in a way, it did. But so did Christ lead to the Inquisition. That one thing lead to the other does not mean much about the validity of Darwin's theory (in the former) or Christ's teachings (in the latter). It just shows the lengths people go to justify atrocity.
thankyou, it always amazes me, although it shouldn't really, that our friend begins with his own premise, advocates his own refutation of his own premise while managing to call others stupid in the process. I really do think he has an inferiority complex that he needs to address.
Originally posted by Palynka Well, in a way, it did. But so did Christ lead to the Inquisition. That one thing lead to the other does not mean much about the validity of Darwin's theory (in the former) or Christ's teachings (in the latter). It just shows the lengths people go to justify atrocity.
you need to have practical cause and effect relations. christ did lead to the inquisition and marylin manson did lead to a bunch of school shootings and the italians that invented pizza do cause a lot of heart-attacks in the usa. and a lot of butterflies are responsible for tsunamis and storms across the globe.
but we also need to not ignore the other factors. the americans that die of pizza related issues probably are lazy doodz with imbalanced diets that don't exercise. if pizza was inexistent they would eat more micky d's and still die. the germans were poor and the nazis needed to get on track. they would have used german voodoo stories to justify their actions.
just because some dood uses your inventions or your ideas in some insane manner doesn't make you responsible.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie thankyou, it always amazes me, although it shouldn't really, that our friend begins with his own premise, advocates his own refutation of his own premise while managing to call others stupid in the process. I really do think he has an inferiority complex that he needs to address.
oh i am sorry, i might have misunderstood you then. tell me then oh wise one, what did you mean when you said
"that anyone can doubt that there was a ideology built around or certainly influenced by Darwins theory, i do not think can now be disputed, imperialism and even the economic basis for slavery were now justifiable, the Nazis were able to justify and fully accept in almost clinical terms, the genocide of an entire race, euthanasia programs etc etc My own opinion is that the natural exercise of conscience gets supplanted with another ideology, thus atrocities are committed."
and how does darwins' theory justify all the attrocities of the holocaust?
and do you even know what darwin's theory says?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage I think 'natural selection' is a bogus term, a ghost in the machine. There is no agency that 'selects', is there?
You are right there. I suppose the term "Natural selection" is more poetic. Maybe call it "Natural progression of species by benign genetic mutations which dominate over ones which do not help the progression, and hence the latter being filtered out", or something like that. 😕
Originally posted by Zahlanzi oh i am sorry, i might have misunderstood you then. tell me then oh wise one, what did you mean when you said
"that anyone can doubt that there was a ideology built around or certainly influenced by Darwins theory, i do not think can now be disputed, imperialism and even the economic basis for slavery were now justifiable, the Nazis were able to justify stify all the attrocities of the holocaust?
and do you even know what darwin's theory says?
i merely stated that it was used as a justification for atrocities and my own theory is, that the natural exercise of conscience is suppressed or totally overcome by another ideology, in this case, social darwinism. take for example the Nazi euthanasia programs, where do we find this type of ideology? Perhaps you had better read up on Herbert Spencer.
10 Nov '09 13:56
Evolution
Back to Top