Human evolution and inferior races

[phank]

Phank even you did not agree that genocide was an example "natural selection." And I'm not playing word games - HMS is. He is defining NS in a way that no credible scientific literature does, that I could find. Even in his own link the author called human intervention unnatural selection.

Yes, but the proximate point here is that selection selects. You are quibbling over how "natural" the selection is. Even the link you claim backs your point (by referring to "unnatural" selection) emphasizes that selection selects, and that humans are being selected. Credible scientific literature, and indeed evolutonary theory, is concerned with selection. Not how "natural" YOU happen to think it might be.

I think probably everyone here could agree to use a different word. Perhaps just "selection", or perhaps "directional" selection. In other words, you are deliberately and rather pugnaciously missing the point. Why? Don't you LIKE the idea of selection?

[shunyadragon]

The problem with 'unnatural selection' such as ethnic cleansing is that they are local and their effects are temporal, and local or regional at best, where natural selection effects a population as a whole. An example of natural selection in recent history is the introduction of diseases to the Native American populations of the America. The dead rates among Native Americans was probably over 90% of the whole population. The survivors established the later population of Native Americans which were resistant to the diseases. Another apparent example based on genetic studies is the presence of Neanderthal DNA that has resistance to northern diseases.

[seer]

I think probably everyone here could agree to use a different word. Perhaps just "selection", or perhaps "directional" selection. In other words, you are deliberately and rather pugnaciously missing the point. Why? Don't you LIKE the idea of selection?

I just said I have no problem with various forms of selection. Just the idea that you can redefine terms to suit you. And here is another point. Can "natural selection" ever be immoral? No, its just what happens in nature (amoral) - if that is the case and genocide is a form of NS, then how can that be immoral?

[phank]

The problem with 'unnatural selection' such as ethnic cleansing is that they are local and their effects are temporal, and local or regional at best, where natural selection effects a population as a whole. An example of natural selection in recent history is the introduction of diseases to the Native American populations of the America. The dead rates among Native Americans was probably over 90% of the whole population. The survivors established the later population of Native Americans which were resistant to the diseases. Another apparent example based on genetic studies is the presence of Neanderthal DNA that has resistance to northern diseases.

I agree one distinction between different types of selection is that they are local, temporary, even arbitrary. "Natural" selection is widespread, directional and persistent.

But hopefully we have not forgotten that the original claim was that there are features or characteristics which are objectively superior, which we seem to have taken to mean universally superior. And THAT claim needs only a single counter-example to show that it's false. Plenty of counter-examples are out there to examine. And that in turn cause the goalposts to shift away from counter-examples (which would entail admitting error), and in the direction of assessing the "naturalness" of the selection. Which, for the purposes of refuting "objective superiority", is simply evasion.

[phank]

I just said I have no problem with various forms of selection. Just the idea that you can redefine terms to suit you. And here is another point. Can "natural selection" ever be immoral? No, its just what happens in nature (amoral) - if that is the case and genocide is a form of NS, then how can that be immoral?

I don't know even how to begin to address that. My guess is that your idea (until it changes) of "morality" has to do with what you regard as conscious intent to do things you disapprove of. EXCEPT of course if your god is guiding "natural selection", in which case I guess we won't raise the moral questions in nature. But sticking to human intent, you seem to have a filter you use to separate out purposes you approve from purposes you don't. My guess is that you're going to start arguing now for an "objective morality", that applies to everyone in all situations. Which just happens to match your opinion.

I really can't set myself up as Ultimate Judge of Morality. We would probably disagree on too much.

[shunyadragon]

I agree one distinction between different types of selection is that they are local, temporary, even arbitrary. "Natural" selection is widespread, directional and persistent.

But hopefully we have not forgotten that the original claim was that there are features or characteristics which are objectively superior, which we seem to have taken to mean universally superior. And THAT claim needs only a single counter-example to show that it's false. Plenty of counter-examples are out there to examine. And that in turn cause the goalposts to shift away from counter-examples (which would entail admitting error), and in the direction of assessing the "naturalness" of the selection. Which, for the purposes of refuting "objective superiority", is simply evasion.

I acknowledge the problem of 'superiority/inferiority' in understanding evolution by natural selection. Most important; I want to get away from archaic views of ethnic cleansing and eugenics as past misconceptions of the misapplication of 'natural selection' in evolution. Christian apologists who do not believe in evolution continually dredge these archaic concepts up as supposed legitimate science by citing old sources that are no longer accepted. The Bottom line is that 'Unnatural selection is for the most part not relevant to the natural process of 'natural selection' of evolution for the most part the natural history of life before we came on the scene. Evolution still takes place now as in the past, but human impact has greatly distorted the process by causing an 'extinction event' on a scale similar to major catastrophic extinction events in the geologic past.

[HMS_Beagle]

I just said I have no problem with various forms of selection. Just the idea that you can redefine terms to suit you.

Which is exactly what seer has been been doing. Trying to redefine accepted scientific concepts into his own ignorant layman's view of reality.

Seer's big problem seems to be his religious beliefs tell him that humans are specially created to be above nature, not part of nature. Therefore anything that humans do can't be considered natural. Sadly for him that's a position which is contradicted by dozens of well verified examples of humans being the cause of natural selection. Things like the ivory poachers and the effects on tusked elephants. Like human fisheries which have caused drastic population crashes in certain food fishes due to overfishing.

And here is another point. Can "natural selection" ever be immoral? No, its just what happens in nature (amoral) - if that is the case and genocide is a form of NS, then how can that be immoral?

LOL! More equivocation. The fact that selection was caused by humans and the morality of that action are two completely different things. But as per usual when seer starts floundering he squirts out a little more squid ink.

[seer]

I agree one distinction between different types of selection is that they are local, temporary, even arbitrary. "Natural" selection is widespread, directional and persistent.

But hopefully we have not forgotten that the original claim was that there are features or characteristics which are objectively superior, which we seem to have taken to mean universally superior. And THAT claim needs only a single counter-example to show that it's false. Plenty of counter-examples are out there to examine. And that in turn cause the goalposts to shift away from counter-examples (which would entail admitting error), and in the direction of assessing the "naturalness" of the selection. Which, for the purposes of refuting "objective superiority", is simply evasion.

I never claimed a universal superiority (as a Christian I know that is not the case) . And when I fleshed this out more with Carrikature it was in the context of different populations in conflict. With one being able survive while destroying or dominating the other. We know that there were, for example, hominid species that went extinct - our hominid ancestors obviously did not go extinct and therefore were superior as far as survivability. Which in the Darwinian model is all that matters.

Then there is the point of naturalness. If it is "natural" then how can one assign more culpability? A bacteria runs through a population and kills millions of people - it is a natural and amoral event. So why is it any different when the Nazis run through a population killing millions? Just another "natural" amoral event.

[seer]

LOL! More equivocation. The fact that selection was caused by humans and the morality of that action are two completely different things. But as per usual when seer starts floundering he squirts out a little more squid ink.

Nonsense, if it is all "natural" then where is the moral culpability? Is it immoral for a virus to kill humans? And just to repeat - HMS has offered no credible scientific source that agrees that murder or genocide are examples of "natural selection." HMS just made it up.

[HMS_Beagle]

Nonsense, if it is all "natural" then where is the moral culpability? Is it immoral for a virus to kill humans? And just to repeat - HMS has offered no credible scientific source that agrees that murder or genocide are examples of "natural selection." HMS just made it up.

Wow, seer is still hard at work in the stupid mine. First it was dead people can stiill reproduce. Now's its the moral culpability of natural selection.

Natural selection is the name science gives to any mechanism that produces a differential winnowing effect on a population. Doesn't matter if it's a virus killing you or a Nazi. Selection is still selection, and dead is still dead. Morality is a human construct dealing with the code of conduct found acceptable by society. It has nothing to do with the natural selection process itself.

Seer's muddle-headed juxtaposition of the two concepts is like asking where is the moral culpability of gravity. It may be considered immoral to push someone off a cliff but gravity produces the same result whether that person accidentally fell or was deliberately shoved.

Of course now we'll have to listen to seer rant about how there can be no morality without believing in his personal God. It always comes to that with Fundies, donnit?

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, if it is all "natural" then where is the moral culpability? Is it immoral for a virus to kill humans? And just to repeat - HMS has offered no credible scientific source that agrees that murder or genocide are examples of "natural selection." HMS just made it up.

Moral and ethical culpability are pretty much human traits, and likely our immediate homo ancestors, with observed primitive morality and ethics in primates. How would viruses be remotely related to morals and ethics?

I am not sure what is the point of HMS line of thinking. I would have to rely on his response to explain. I gave a fairly good accounting that 'unnatural selection' such as ethnic cleansing (genocide) and eugenics has no relevant relationship to 'natural selection' in evolution. I would include that murder would not be relevant to 'natural selection.'

[HMS_Beagle]

I am not sure what is the point of HMS line of thinking. I would have to rely on his response to explain. I gave a fairly good accounting that 'unnatural selection' such as ethnic cleansing (genocide) and eugenics has no relevant relationship to 'natural selection' in evolution. I would include that murder would not be relevant to 'natural selection.'

I've already explain it to seer half a dozen times. The term "natural selection" has more than one meaning depending on context. It can mean the entire process of selection and genetic variations that produces allele changes in a population over time. That's the one you are describing and with which I agree. OR it can mean just the mechanism of differential winnowing out by an external factor.

For the fourth time I'll post

Nomenclature and usage

Following Darwin's primary usage the term is often used to refer to both the evolutionary consequence of blind selection and to its mechanisms. It is sometimes helpful to explicitly distinguish between selection's mechanisms and its effects; when this distinction is important, scientists define "natural selection" specifically as "those mechanisms that contribute to the selection of individuals that reproduce", without regard to whether the basis of the selection is heritable. This is sometimes referred to as "phenotypic natural selection".

Genocide as committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia who killed all the country's intellectuals or the Nazi atrocities against Jews are examples of the second definition above, the one described in bold. Seer continues to dishonesty equivocate and claim I offered genocide as the first definition even after I corrected him multiple times. It's a part of his ongoing "hear what I want you to say, not what you really said" policy of willful ignorance.

[Darth Executor]

Did you even bother to read your own link? It says the tendency to be religious is genetic like the tendency to be musical is genetic. Not that belief in any certain religion is genetically inherited. Sheeze...

If you skim through the study they linked they measure several traits (like fundamentalism). Nobody is saying there's a "Christian gene" or whatever other nonsense you think we said. What we are saying is that culture is a product of genes interacting with the environment (like everything else) and those genes will exert influence on which religious beliefs you adopt.

Then why aren't cities with large Afro-Anerican populations (Detroit MI 84%, Birmingham AL 74%) almost exclusively Rastafarians?

People become Rastafarian because they're black is not the same as all blacks will become Rastafarian. In America there are other Afro-centric religions like strands of Protestantism and cults like the Nation of Islam that particularly appeal to African Americans since they were shaped by others similar to them.

Facepalm.

No. Correlation is still not causation.

Well clearly the causation must run the other way then. Becoming Rasta turns your skin black and forcibly grows dreadlocks.

Social norms in a particular group may lead them to adopt a certain religion over another

Social norms don't spring out of thin air. They are made and shaped by people, who are made and shaped by genes.

[HMS_Beagle]

People become Rastafarian because they're black is not the same as all blacks will become Rastafarian. In America there are other Afro-centric religions like strands of Protestantism and cults like the Nation of Islam that particularly appeal to African Americans since they were shaped by others similar to them.

LOL! You can't be serious. No one becomes Rastafarian because they're black. People become Rastafarian for the same reason they adopt any religion: because it's social norm of their particular group and thus appeals to them. It has nothing to do with their skin color or any genetic preference for Rastafarianism over other religions.

Well clearly the causation must run the other way then. Becoming Rasta turns your skin black and forcibly grows dreadlocks.

Talk about clueless on the concept! There is no causation between skin color and religious beliefs either way. Correlation yes. Causation NO.

It's a fact most blacks in the U.S. like ice cream. I suppose you think they like ice cream because they're black, right?

Where does TWeb come up with these winners?

[shunyadragon]

I've already explain it to seer half a dozen times. The term "natural selection" has more than one meaning depending on context. It can mean the entire process of selection and genetic variations that produces allele changes in a population over time. That's the one you are describing and with which I agree. OR it can mean just the mechanism of differential winnowing out by an external factor.

For the fourth time I'll post



Genocide as committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia who killed all the country's intellectuals or the Nazi atrocities against Jews are examples of the second definition above, the one described in bold. Seer continues to dishonesty equivocate and claim I offered genocide as the first definition even after I corrected him multiple times. It's a part of his ongoing "hear what I want you to say, not what you really said" policy of willful ignorance.

OK, but this line of argument with to much detail will get you in trouble with those with an anti-evolution agenda and looking for rabbits in the Cambrian. All the above took place after 99.99% of all 'Natural Selection' in geologic history took place, which is the central issue. Go for simplicity.