Poll: Darwinian Evolution

[TeamBob]

blah blah blah.



Anybody else wanna know what TK thinks...?

[badpennny]

Ok, so i have read a lot of this thread (no, not all of it tho) and am prepared to derail it even more so. I will probably amuse some of you, and the remaining will probably be totally appalled and angry.

If you hold to evolution then (per Darwin) you also must hold to the theory of Survival of the Fittest. It is the primary mechanism for weeding out the genes that need to be removed from the gene pool.

With that in mind how many of you root for the school shooters? Remember that they are removing those who weren't smart enough, tough enough, fast enough, etc...to survive their environment. They wern't the fittest of their species and NEEDED to be removed for the evolution of the species. The school shooters are the mechanism by which the poor genes were removed from the gene pool.

Neither appalled nor angry. But the comparison here is not quite accurate. There is no scientific theory of "survival of the fittest", so I see no reason why someone espousing a belief in evolution should have to accept it. Survival of the fittest is not something Darwin championed; he was talking about biology, while "survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to justify certain social/economic attitudes. It does a disservice to science to treat them as one in the same.

Your analogy to school shootings is half right in a very narrow sense, mainly in regards to what traits allowed some to survive while others perished. But that's assuming every victim/potential victim was exposed to the same threat over the same amount of time, and everyone has an equal chance of surviving. Often in school shootings, this is not the case. Plus there are procedures in place to minimize casualties during a shooting (lockdowns), students are in different proximity to exits, shelters, etc. These things probably outweigh any genetic component (not to mention the intent of the shooters, which may or may not have some rationality). A cursory comparison of survivors and deceased has yet to reveal any genetic predisposition to belong to either category at the end of the day.

[wetwrks]

There is no scientific theory of "survival of the fittest", so I see no reason why someone espousing a belief in evolution should have to accept it. Survival of the fittest is not something Darwin championed; he was talking about biology, while "survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to justify certain social/economic attitudes. It does a disservice to science to treat them as one in the same.

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.

This has nothing to do with social or economic attitudes and most certainly was championed by Darwin as he refered to it in his writings (tho I will admit that he wasn't the first to refer to it).

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase - after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species - in his Principles of Biology (1864)

that's assuming every victim/potential victim was exposed to the same threat over the same amount of time, and everyone has an equal chance of surviving. Often in school shootings, this is not the case.

There is no requirement that everything being held under this theory be from the same or even a similar environment or circumstances. Survival of the fittest is best summed up as the individual who is best suited to survive their environment who should pass on their genes. There is nothing in nature that guarentees that everything gets the same chances.

[Shirow]

There is no requirement that everything being held under this theory be from the same or even a similar environment or circumstances. Survival of the fittest is best summed up as the individual who is best suited to survive their environment who should pass on their genes. There is nothing in nature that guarentees that everything gets the same chances.

That being said, I still don't think anyone would seriously suggest that school shootings are a good thing, no matter what your belief.

A lot of civilized society goes against nature. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist or you can't have an opinion about it.

What I think the previous poster was trying to say is there is nothing genetic about not being able to make it to an exit while someone is shooting, therefore, it doesn't mean that any better genes will be passed down by the survivors.

[wetwrks]

That being said, I still don't think anyone would seriously suggest that school shootings are a good thing, no matter what your belief.

You refer to morals. Morals have no place in a natural mechanism.

What I think the previous poster was trying to say is there is nothing genetic about not being able to make it to an exit while someone is shooting, therefore, it doesn't mean that any better genes will be passed down by the survivors.

That would be like claiming that there is nothing genetic about culling the weak wolf from the herd. It most certainly affects the gene pool of the next generation of wolves and this affects the gene pool of the next generation of humans.

[Shirow]

You refer to morals. Morals have no place in a natural mechanism.



That would be like claiming that there is nothing genetic about culling the weak wolf from the herd. It most certainly affects the gene pool of the next generation of wolves and this affects the gene pool of the next generation of humans.

I don't know if you're just playing devils advocate or what, but it is totally different.

Let's take an example.

Lion chases herd of antelope. Slowest antelope get eaten. Fastest antelope passes on genes. Over time, faster antelope survive and pass on their genes more often.

Second example.

I walk into your house and shoot you in the face. How does genetics come into play here? It doesn't. I walk into a school and start shooting people in a classroom. How would genetics help here? Someone would jump out of the window? It just doesn't correlate.