Darwin's Theory of Evolution's impact on human self-interpretation

[Compaq]

So, an interesting subject! Let me list a few:

Social Darwinism (direct consequence of the ToE) that justifies:
- wars (casualties being naturally right)
- colonialism (natives being less fit to survive, less technologically developed)
- capitalism (not necessary giving to the poor, etc)
- eugenics program (extreme form, nazi! weeding undesirable genes from the population)

In addition, the ToE reduced humans to mere animals, who has not always been the same "divine", as was the church's views at the time. We have developed through millions, billions of years from the simplest organism. Also, our "evolutionary journey" is not teleological, that meaning that we are not changing towards a "goal". It is completely random. By that I mean, it is not random what life forms survive over time (natural selection), but what made those life forms more well fitted to their environments is random. A mutation might make someone resistant to some kind of venom of their "enemies", whilst other, similar species are not. The mutated species survive. Perhaps a mutation makes they a bit faster, making running away from predators easier. See where I'm going?
So, we are what we are out of luck.
This "being reduced to animals" was a sort of hit toward our pride as humans. We weren't a divine species any more, just another, more developed animal.

So, what I am asking here, is whether someone else has any other reasons for why the ToE has altered the human self-interpretation.

This is an interesting subject. I also acknowledge that I have posted some awful consequences of the theory, and that I in no way see lightly upon those, please don't misunderstand!

Compaq

PS. we are gentlemen, let us act as such. Of course, some won't agree with what is written up there, e.g. about the reduced to animal parts. But the fact is, that the theory reduced us to animals, whether we believe it or not. We are looking objectively on the subject.

[ImaRobot]

http://www.gifanatics.com/files/InBeforeTheLock.gif


I don't have hope for this thread staying gentlemanly for long.

[BCatl]

I think man first lost his pride when it was discovered that the solar system didn't revolve around the earth.

As a matter of fact, I think at one time it was thought that the universe revolved around the earth.

Galileo was sentenced to imprisonment by the Inquisition but it was commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life. The Roman Catholic Church finally apologized but it was too late....1992. :laugh:

There's a lesson is this somwhere.:blink:

[Compaq]

I think man first lost his pride when it was discovered that the solar system didn't revolve around the earth.

As a matter of fact, I think at one time it was thought that the universe revolved around the earth.

Galileo was sentenced to imprisonment by the Inquisition but it was commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life. The Roman Catholic Church finally apologized but it was too late....1992. :laugh:

There's a lesson is this somwhere.:blink:

Yup, that's right. We have had many hits, the geocentric to heliocentric system, theory of evolution, perhaps earth is not the only planet with life, perhaps there are many other universes. It all boils down to this, according to me, we are not so special and "big" as we think. We are in fact ridiculously small being, that has very little impact on things work out. We will also only exist in an extremely short time scale compared to the universe.


But I'm really just interested in anything that can be related to the ToE, at least in this thread. And this thread will stay gentlemanly as long as people know how to behave in a grown up debate.:001_smile

[SalvadorMontenegro]

Well, the theory of evolution categorically rejects Genesis/Creationism. If we evolved from chimpanzees, we aren't made in the image of God. Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. are bunkum if you believe in the theory of evolution.

[ImaRobot]

Well, the theory of evolution categorically rejects Genesis/Creationism. If we evolved from chimpanzees, we aren't made in the image of God. Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. are bunkum if you believe in the theory of evolution.

Which is makes this contentious issue/thread, ergo my in before the lock gif.

I do feel the need to state that evolution does not consider humans to have evolved from chimpanzees. If I can recall correctly, genetic studies suggest that the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans would have existed at least 7 million years ago. Over the past 7 million years the two divergent paths have undergone different evolutionary pressures resulting in extant humans and chimpanzees.

[BCatl]

Compaq to ask an American crowd this question will probably end up with no clear results whatsoever.

The next thing you'll hear is that since God is said to be all powerful, all good and all knowing then God created evolution and in this way he created man. However, that would give evolution a teleological purpose which is quite doubtful.

Anyway this is likely to go in circles. However, to put the matter in perspective, we don't debate whether the earth is flat anymore or whether the earth revolves around the sun. This too shall pass.

[SalvadorMontenegro]

Which is makes this contentious issue/thread, ergo my in before the lock gif.

I do feel the need to state that evolution does not consider humans to have evolved from chimpanzees. If I can recall correctly, genetic studies suggest that the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans would have existed at least 7 million years ago. Over the past 7 million years the two divergent paths have undergone different evolutionary pressures resulting in extant humans and chimpanzees.

Well, I think that's what I meant? Our last existing primate relative is the chimpanzee. Right? I mean, it's the primate we split from. Maybe not. It's been a while since my anthropology course.

[SalvadorMontenegro]

Compaq to ask an American crowd this question will probably end up with no clear results whatsoever.

The next thing you'll hear is that since God is said to be all powerful, all good and all knowing then God created evolution and in this way he created man. However, that would give evolution a teleological purpose which is quite doubtful.

Anyway this is likely to go in circles. However, to put the matter in perspective, we don't debate whether the earth is flat anymore or whether the earth revolves around the sun. This too shall pass.

Yep. But the gentleman seems inclined to have this discussion and by God (no pun intended) we're going to oblige him!

[BCatl]

True.

[raisindot]

Well, the theory of evolution categorically rejects Genesis/Creationism. If we evolved from chimpanzees, we aren't made in the image of God. Adam and Eve, original sin, etc. are bunkum if you believe in the theory of evolution.

True, but given that every religion has its own creation story, all it says is that these stories don't align with the fossil record, although in some ways the Genesis story does a decent job of mapping out what did happen in terms of the sequence of life leading from sea creatures and plant life to mammals to humans.

At the same time, there's nothing in the theory of evolution that denies the possibility that a divine presence created the local conditions that allowed natural selection to take place. For example, there's nothing wrong with believing that a god sent that giant asteroid to slam into the earth 65 millions years ago as a way of getting rid of the dinosaurs so that the warm blooded little rats that existed at the time could eventually evolve to become humans. The whole debate over intelligent design isn't a debate over whether evolution actually happened--the ID people accept that it did--but whether evolution is caused by natural selection guided by random factors that created a hundred extinct species and evolutionary dead ends for every species that exists today (Darwin's theory) or that some kind of divine presence guided a purposeful path of evolution.

[ImaRobot]

Well, I think that's what I meant? Our last existing primate relative is the chimpanzee. Right? I mean, it's the primate we split from. Maybe not. It's been a while since my anthropology course.

I think it's a common misunderstanding to think we split from chimpanzees, but at the time of the split chimpanzees did not exist. Different evolutionary paths from this unidentified common ancestor has resulted in current chimpanzees and humans. Chimpanzees can be considered our closest living relative because of this shared common ancestor, but we did not split from chimps directly.

[SalvadorMontenegro]

True, but given that every religion has its own creation story, all it says is that these stories don't align with the fossil record, although in some ways the Genesis story does a decent job of mapping out what did happen in terms of the sequence of life leading from sea creatures and plant life to mammals to humans.

At the same time, there's nothing in the theory of evolution that denies the possibility that a divine presence created the local conditions that allowed natural selection to take place. For example, there's nothing wrong with believing that a god sent that giant asteroid to slam into the earth 65 millions years ago as a way of getting rid of the dinosaurs so that the warm blooded little rats that existed at the time could eventually evolve to become humans. The whole debate over intelligent design isn't a debate over whether evolution actually happened--the ID people accept that it did--but whether evolution is caused by natural selection guided by random factors that created a hundred extinct species and evolutionary dead ends for every species that exists today (Darwin's theory) or that some kind of divine presence guided a purposeful path of evolution.

Yes. It is akin to the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory doesn't reject a creator, but offers a theory as to how he created.

I think the OP wants to know about the sociological consequences of the theory of evolution and how it changed man's image of himself. My point is that a theory that says we evolved from apes can undermine our image of ourselves as God's most majestic creation. As in, contrarily, if he just plopped us down out of nowhere the way a painter would draw a person on a canvas. If we evolved from an "animal" than we are part of the "animal kingdom" and not set apart, or elevated above it.

[Compaq]

I realise there are most Americans on this site, but hopefully we'll have others as well :001_smile

Anyway, good points re: what SalvadorMontenegro said.

An interesting part of evolution is that it implies that life hasn't always existed. Life has come to be, somehow. Life being made from inorganic compounds etc. Amino acids being made, forming proteins, nucleic acids somehow being formed in a stable environment. All life forms have a common ancestor, Last Universal Common Ancestor, or whatever it's called.

When we mention blows to man kind, what we're really saying, is blows to the church. The Church has been in charge of what was correct for a long time, and that was accepted by the big majority back then. When ToE came around, it was the Church and its followers that got hit the worst. People who were atheists might have felt empowered. "Might is right" and all that.

[Trenton]

ToE is not something I have thought a lot about, but my daughter is lucky enough to do some work with fossils from the Burgess Shale. I find conversations with her very interesting, I hope that I can make a trip to the field when she is working there. It is a interesting time capsule. For those of you that haven't heard of the Burgess Shale http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/discover-burgess-shale/burgess-shale-fossils-and-their-importance

[Seraphim]

ToE doesn't rock the theological boat, ToE is a self justification so that people don't have to feel that they have to answer to a higher power, don't have to be on that boat to begin with.
Without God all things are negotiable. There are no absolutes. Moral choices simply depend on what you agree to get out of a particular situation. Plenty of that evident in modern society.
Some people claim that evolution is proved beyond a shadow of doubt, other claim the same about the existance of God, and no amount of arguing will ever get the two to agree.

[ouch]

I can't begin to tell you how offensive I find this thread. :thumbdown

[SalvadorMontenegro]

I can't begin to tell you how offensive I find this thread. :thumbdown

Why? It seems pretty civilized.

[Josteinr]

OP: I noticed you're a norwegian, and if you're interested in how evolution has shaped human nature, I would really recommend the book "Det biologiske mennesket" by Terje Bongard and Eivin Røskaft. It was part of the curriculum in a course at NTNU, but it's really well written and easy to understand. The book is unfortunately only available in norwegian.

http://www.bokkilden.no/SamboWeb/produkt.do?produktId=5347209

[BingeAndPurge]

I can't begin to tell you how offensive I find this thread. :thumbdown

I can't believe how fallacious I find this thread. double :thumbdown:thumbdown

[SalvadorMontenegro]

I can't believe how fallacious I find this thread. double :thumbdown:thumbdown

How so?

[Seraphim]

I can't believe his obsequious I find this thread! Two thumbs down, plus a meh:thumbdown:thumbdown:glare:

[babafats]

For what it's worth, an experiment completed a few years ago actually observed evolution by natural selection over 40,000 generations of E. coli. You can read an article about it here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html). This (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html) is also a useful resource.

I don't think the theory of evolution, on its own, has any moral content. It is a scientific theory; it's an explanation of how the natural world is what it is. The problem comes when humans (especially non-scientists) get their interpretive hands on it. That's when people start to come up with things like social Darwinism, eugenics, and evolutionary psychology, none of which can be real scientific endeavors. To me, the theory of evolution is not only the scientifically best explanation, it's a useful reminder that we are not the all-powerful, autonomous beings we so often like to think we are. We think in short terms; how could we not, when our lives are an eyeblink in terms of the time scales evolution works with (to say nothing of geological or cosmic scales).

P.S. I continue to be amazed at how B&B is a bastion of civility in the unmannered wasteland of the internet. Let's keep it up! The more people who think actively and critically, and debate civilly, about philosophical issues like this, the more hope I have for humanity.

[TonyH]

I agree that secular v. religious thinking are two things that will never be fully reconciled. I also think, however, that there is a fascinating blend of theories from several scientists regarding a Divine presence in science, i.e. the Big Bang Theory still allowing for and possibly supporting the idea of a God. That doesn't mean I agree, but I always appreciate a well thought out and well articulated argument.

I think that there have been some good points made on both sides of the issue so far. It will be a shame if this thread doesn't carry on for a bit. It's refreshing to have a civilized discussion without a bunch of hardliners showing up and spoiling it.

[TonyH]

P.S. I continue to be amazed at how B&B is a bastion of civility in the unmannered wasteland of the internet. Let's keep it up! The more people who think actively and critically, and debate civilly, about philosophical issues like this, the more hope I have for humanity.

Yes Yes Yes!

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[franz]

One thing I am struggling to understand is whether the OP believes that Social Darwinism and the tangentially related social phenomena he lists are logically implied by the theory of evolution.

I happen to think not, since ToE is just a descriptive theory and not a normative one. Any normative "implications," IMO, are just an example of humans reading into ToE what they want to believe (e.g., that inferior people ought to be eradicated and/or prevented from reproducing).

As far as religious implications, ToE isn't a convincing argument against the existence of God -- merely one particular account of the earth's creation that isn't very persuasive to begin with and I doubt many people believe to be literally true.

[sharky007]

get a LIFE:thumbdown

[Compaq]

For what it's worth, an experiment completed a few years ago actually observed evolution by natural selection over 40,000 generations of E. coli. You can read an article about it here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html). This (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html) is also a useful resource.

I don't think the theory of evolution, on its own, has any moral content. It is a scientific theory; it's an explanation of how the natural world is what it is. The problem comes when humans (especially non-scientists) get their interpretive hands on it. That's when people start to come up with things like social Darwinism, eugenics, and evolutionary psychology, none of which can be real scientific endeavors. To me, the theory of evolution is not only the scientifically best explanation, it's a useful reminder that we are not the all-powerful, autonomous beings we so often like to think we are. We think in short terms; how could we not, when our lives are an eyeblink in terms of the time scales evolution works with (to say nothing of geological or cosmic scales).

P.S. I continue to be amazed at how B&B is a bastion of civility in the unmannered wasteland of the internet. Let's keep it up! The more people who think actively and critically, and debate civilly, about philosophical issues like this, the more hope I have for humanity.

Exactly, I completely agree with this!


One thing I am struggling to understand is whether the OP believes that Social Darwinism and the tangentially related social phenomena he lists are logically implied by the theory of evolution.

I happen to think not, since ToE is just a descriptive theory and not a normative one. Any normative "implications," IMO, are just an example of humans reading into ToE what they want to believe (e.g., that inferior people ought to be eradicated and/or prevented from reproducing).

As far as religious implications, ToE isn't a convincing argument against the existence of God -- merely one particular account of the earth's creation that isn't very persuasive to begin with and I doubt many people believe to be literally true.

I believe I never said that the "social phenomena" were implied by the theory of evolution. I said that social darwinism is a consequence of the ToE - and I think we both can agree that that is the case? Surely, if SD is the application of the ToE in the modern society, one can say that SD is a direct consequence of Darwin's theories?

I'm not sure if you're proposing between that lines that I somehow agree with the extreme forms of social politics I posted initially. I assure you I am not.

Anyway, I'll try and say this nicely. The Church, Christianity, has decided what is the correct views for many people for a long time. They have had their views of how the world is shaped, it was created etc. Science has come up with new ways of explaining it. The Church first denies it, but has later accepted, for example, the fact that the earth is round, and not flat. Science then comes up with a rather convincing theory of evolution, which some religious people will say God created. Oh, and didn't the pope say that it was God that created the big bang?
My point is that if the Church would just stick to their beliefs that's impossible for science to disprove, it would, at least to me, be a more attractive explanation. In my personal opinion, the Church has not done itself any good claiming that God is behind the Big Bang and the ToE. To me, it looks like desperate moves to keep up with time and its discoveries.
Just a few observations, I'm not critiquing.

Just so you all know, I like to think of the nature as a system as a "God" or a "Force" or a "Divine Power" or whatever you want to call it. To me, then it all fits:
- Nature created life, created the universe, created anything, really.
- I've had a course at uni called "Cellular Biology", and I've seen some amazing things in our body that almost looks like it's been designed. However, nature has "designed" or made or created these things, for example the system that ensures that the flagella of some bacteria rotates, making it "swim". That's an amazing "contraption". Nature made it.

This view fits me well because I don't believe in any divine power that can't be disproved, but something that we all know exist. We experience the nature every day, whether it's getting sunlight in our face, going fishing or camping or looking at mighty mountains.

ToE is nature, science is describing the nature by mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology (and psychology / sociology?)

Just my personal opinion.

[Seraphim]

For what it's worth, an experiment completed a few years ago actually observed evolution by natural selection over 40,000 generations of E. coli. You can read an article about it here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html). This (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html) is also a useful resource.



That experiment starts with e coli, and ends with e coli albiet a citrate digesting e coli. Is that proof of evolution? Argumentatively speaking:Is a lactose intolerant human a different species, perhaps less evolved than a lactose tolerant human?
Alot of what is claimed as evolutionary evidence points more to the difficulty of actually delineating what makes a species a species, and how we define them.

[Compaq]

That experiment starts with e coli, and ends with e coli albiet a citrate digesting e coli. Is that proof of evolution? Argumentatively speaking:Is a lactose intolerant human a different species, perhaps less evolved than a lactose tolerant human?
Alot of what is claimed as evolutionary evidence points more to the difficulty of actually delineating what makes a species a species, and how we define them.

Actually, most people in the world are lactose intolerant. I mean, they become that after finished breast feeding. It's a western thing to drink milk throughout our lives, and most people become lactose intolerant when reaching a year or something like that. It's we that's different, really.

[TonyH]

Exactly, I completely agree with this!



I believe I never said that the "social phenomena" were implied by the theory of evolution. I said that social darwinism is a consequence of the ToE - and I think we both can agree that that is the case? Surely, if SD is the application of the ToE in the modern society, one can say that SD is a direct consequence of Darwin's theories?

I'm not sure if you're proposing between that lines that I somehow agree with the extreme forms of social politics I posted initially. I assure you I am not.

Anyway, I'll try and say this nicely. The Church, Christianity, has decided what is the correct views for many people for a long time. They have had their views of how the world is shaped, it was created etc. Science has come up with new ways of explaining it. The Church first denies it, but has later accepted, for example, the fact that the earth is round, and not flat. Science then comes up with a rather convincing theory of evolution, which some religious people will say God created. Oh, and didn't the pope say that it was God that created the big bang?
My point is that if the Church would just stick to their beliefs that's impossible for science to disprove, it would, at least to me, be a more attractive explanation. In my personal opinion, the Church has not done itself any good claiming that God is behind the Big Bang and the ToE. To me, it looks like desperate moves to keep up with time and its discoveries.
Just a few observations, I'm not critiquing.

Just so you all know, I like to think of the nature as a system as a "God" or a "Force" or a "Divine Power" or whatever you want to call it. To me, then it all fits:
- Nature created life, created the universe, created anything, really.
- I've had a course at uni called "Cellular Biology", and I've seen some amazing things in our body that almost looks like it's been designed. However, nature has "designed" or made or created these things, for example the system that ensures that the flagella of some bacteria rotates, making it "swim". That's an amazing "contraption". Nature made it.

This view fits me well because I don't believe in any divine power that can't be disproved, but something that we all know exist. We experience the nature every day, whether it's getting sunlight in our face, going fishing or camping or looking at mighty mountains.

ToE is nature, science is describing the nature by mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology (and psychology / sociology?)

Just my personal opinion.

To be fair, we should obviously include religions as a whole and not just Christianity. What you describe is a contributing factor in nearly all theistic religions.

[stormpetrel]

So what were we before Darwin, if not animals?

[Nils]

Exactly, I completely agree with this!



I believe I never said that the "social phenomena" were implied by the theory of evolution. I said that social darwinism is a consequence of the ToE - and I think we both can agree that that is the case? Surely, if SD is the application of the ToE in the modern society, one can say that SD is a direct consequence of Darwin's theories?




That, I believe, is a dangerous way of thinking. If Social Darwinism is a consequence of Darwinism, it would make the ToE directly responsible. In fact, it is a gross misrepresentation of Evolution, which doesn't say "survival of the fittest" but "survival of the best adapted".
Social Darwinism is simply a way of falsely applying badly understood principles to justify a selfish agenda; and by the choice of name misrepresenting the ToE.

[Compaq]

That, I believe, is a dangerous way of thinking. If Social Darwinism is a consequence of Darwinism, it would make the ToE directly responsible. In fact, it is a gross misrepresentation of Evolution, which doesn't say "survival of the fittest" but "survival of the best adapted".
Social Darwinism is simply a way of falsely applying badly understood principles to justify a selfish agenda; and by the choice of name misrepresenting the ToE.

I agree to what you say. Actually, ToE could be called "Survival of the Luckiest", because it's all luck. Also, not everything about us is, a product of evolution.
Social Darwinism is, as you said, some selfish person's "interpretation" that "justifies" his or her's action. Capitalism, for example. The rich are the rich because they are the ones that best could handle it. The poor were the poor because they weren't the "fittest". No reason giving money to someone who doesn't need it, right? That's one way to look at SD.

Theory of Evolution isn't actually the "one to blame" that SD exists. Someone has just interpreted (wrongly, imo) so that it fits their own agenda.

[ImaRobot]

That experiment starts with e coli, and ends with e coli albiet a citrate digesting e coli. Is that proof of evolution? Argumentatively speaking:Is a lactose intolerant human a different species, perhaps less evolved than a lactose tolerant human?
Alot of what is claimed as evolutionary evidence points more to the difficulty of actually delineating what makes a species a species, and how we define them.

I would say that yes that is proof of evolution. Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.

[ImaRobot]

So, an interesting subject! Let me list a few:

Social Darwinism (direct consequence of the ToE) that justifies:
- wars (casualties being naturally right)
- colonialism (natives being less fit to survive, less technologically developed)
- capitalism (not necessary giving to the poor, etc)
- eugenics program (extreme form, nazi! weeding undesirable genes from the population)



Social Darwinism is not necessary to justify all of these issues. The first three of these points can be supported from a Malthusian view of society, which was developed before the theory of evolution. Colonialism had been justified before through the need to convert natives, though I consider that to be smoke screen for the motivation of economic exploitation.

As for eugenics, yeah that was just awful.

For the most part the theory of evolution was misused and misappropriated to justify long standing western euro-centric views and actions.

[David in Boston]

Damn, proud of you guys.

For the most part a very civil and intelligent tread.

Thought that I should chime in considering who I have as my avatar but I'm just happy to observe.

[Compaq]

Awful or not, having taboo subjects isn't the answer. We must be able to deal with the fact that it has indeed happened.

Darwin was very much influenced by Thomas Malthus, and saw that the "Malthusian Catastrophe" applied to the wildlife. Wildlife breed too much with regards to the food supply - some must die --> the fittest (luckiest, with fortunate mutations) will survive over time and produce the most offspring --> more of the advantageous mutated species.

[franz]

I believe I never said that the "social phenomena" were implied by the theory of evolution. I said that social darwinism is a consequence of the ToE - and I think we both can agree that that is the case? Surely, if SD is the application of the ToE in the modern society, one can say that SD is a direct consequence of Darwin's theories?

To be more precise, I mean to say that there's nothing in ToE that implies Social Darwinism, it is/was merely an opportunity for certain people to misuse ToE in service of their own agenda.



Theory of Evolution isn't actually the "one to blame" that SD exists. Someone has just interpreted (wrongly, imo) so that it fits their own agenda.

Yes, exactly.

[franz]

That, I believe, is a dangerous way of thinking. If Social Darwinism is a consequence of Darwinism, it would make the ToE directly responsible. In fact, it is a gross misrepresentation of Evolution, which doesn't say "survival of the fittest" but "survival of the best adapted".
Social Darwinism is simply a way of falsely applying badly understood principles to justify a selfish agenda; and by the choice of name misrepresenting the ToE.

I think Anders intends "consequence" in a historical way, not in a logical (if X then Y) way.

[ImaRobot]

Awful or not, having taboo subjects isn't the answer. We must be able to deal with the fact that it has indeed happened.

Darwin was very much influenced by Thomas Malthus, and saw that the "Malthusian Catastrophe" applied to the wildlife. Wildlife breed too much with regards to the food supply - some must die --> the fittest (luckiest, with fortunate mutations) will survive over time and produce the most offspring --> more of the advantageous mutated species.

Agreed, I was just trying to illustrate that the theory of evolution is not directly required to justify these actions. It was available to be manipulated at the time to fit people's agendas. It's similar to ways that religion has been manipulated/used to justify atrocities.

[Seraphim]

To be fair, we should obviously include religions as a whole and not just Christianity. What you describe is a contributing factor in nearly all theistic religions.


And what he was describing is rather particular to the Catholic church, which is not representative of the belief of all Christian denominations either. FWIW.

[Seraphim]

Social Darwinism is not necessary to justify all of these issues. The first three of these points can be supported from a Malthusian view of society, which was developed before the theory of evolution. Colonialism had been justified before through the need to convert natives, though I consider that to be smoke screen for the motivation of economic exploitation.

As for eugenics, yeah that was just awful.

For the most part the theory of evolution was misused and misappropriated to justify long standing western euro-centric views and actions.

Scientifically speaking, is there anything wrong with eugenics? The Nazi version of it is often refered to, but isn't the very common amniocentesis proceedure of looking for "faulty" chromosomal aberations and the usual options offered if tests turn out a certain way part and parcel of eugenics as well?


A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated.[45] Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the United Kingdom indicates that from 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome has remained constant at around 92%.[46][47]

[babafats]

Scientifically speaking, is there anything wrong with eugenics? The Nazi version of it is often refered to, but isn't the very common amniocentesis proceedure of looking for "faulty" chromosomal aberations and the usual options offered if tests turn out a certain way part and parcel of eugenics as well?

Such a practice could reduce genetic diversity, which has been historically linked with increased susceptibility to some diseases. Also, though we may in some cases be able to identify some direct relationships between genes and diseases, the human body is an incredibly complex organism, and we may not be sure what other effects genetic changes would have. For example, sickle-cell anemia is rooted in genetics, but having one of the genes that encodes it is a benefit in places where malaria is endemic, because it confers resistance to the disease.

[BCatl]

One thing I am struggling to understand is whether the OP believes that Social Darwinism and the tangentially related social phenomena he lists are logically implied by the theory of evolution.



I think you make a good point Franz. When you take what was meant to be a scientific theory about evolution of species and then try to relate it to social behavior you can get into a muddle very quickly. Nevertheless, people will make these rather crude analogies.

You can argue for instance that man has aggressive tendencies which is of course true. But we also have a relatively huge neo-cortex which helps tremendously with impulse control if used properly. Many humans do an adeqate job of making the distinction between mere self interest and enlightened self interest.

[Kevan]

And what he was describing is rather particular to the Catholic church, which is not representative of the belief of all Christian denominations either. FWIW.
It isn't, but it's still a point worth taking. Christianity in whatever form has never taken well to contrary ideas. The very idea of Protestantism was deeply offensive to Catholics when it first came about. The whole Inquisition thing and the persecution of scientists has already been touched on. Heck, there are literally hundreds of Christian denominations nowadays based on minute differences in theology and some of them find the others offensive too.

Is there empirical evidence that humans evolved from chimps? Not really, just stuff we can make educated inferences from. Is there empirical evidence that God or the divine or the Christian conception of God exists? Not really, just things that people can take on faith and what they choose to believe.

So what's the point of the whole argument?

[BCatl]

Such a practice could reduce genetic diversity, which has been historically linked with increased susceptibility to some diseases. Also, though we may in some cases be able to identify some direct relationships between genes and diseases, the human body is an incredibly complex organism, and we may not be sure what other effects genetic changes would have. For example, sickle-cell anemia is rooted in genetics, but having one of the genes that encodes it is a benefit in places where malaria is endemic, because it confers resistance to the disease.

Genetic diversity may well help our survival again in the future. Many in the West are eating pretty well today (maybe too well). So it's not surprising you see the increasing numbers of Type II diabetes. But who knows what this might have been adaptive for in the past? I'm sure some scientist probably knows. Whatever it was it might be needed again someday. Things change.

[babafats]

Genetic diversity may well help our survival again in the future. Many in the West are eating pretty well today (maybe too well). So it's not surprising you see the increasing numbers of Type II diabetes. But who knows what this might have been adaptive for in the past? I'm sure some scientist probably knows. Whatever it was it might be needed again someday. Things change.

Exactly. This is a problem I think both science and religion confront (and, for that matter, philosophy) in their respective fashions, and each has something valuable to contribute. We are by nature finite beings; our understanding of the world can only ever be so robust that if facilitates our useful understanding of it. The world is constantly in flux, ourselves as individuals and as humans included, and we do our best to understand that continually changing manifold.

[jansob]

To answer the OPs question from my point of view, the discovery of evolution has not reduced us...it has explained where we came from. I'm not a believer in the supernatural, so the knowledge of how we came about doesn't challenge my view of humanity. It deepens my awe at the long road we have come down.

It has not changed the fact that we are apparently the only species that understands some of what shaped it, and has the power to see the consequences of its actions. However, it has given us a glimpse of why the brain does what it does the way that it does it, and how some of its reactions and biases are not well attuned to the society we now live in. This allows us to be aware of these biases and try to overcome them. Understanding our origins empowers us and shows us the connections we have with all other life on this planet.

For me, evolution is a fact. Therefore, I find debates of whether the ToE is "good" or "bad" to be pointless. The discovery of the theory of relativity led to some horrific consequences (Hiroshima is not so far away from me), but those consequences do not have any bearing on whether or not it is true. But some seem to say "The ToE makes me feel unimportant, so it must be wrong", which I find to be nonsensical.

This post is intended to give the OP an additional viewpoint, not challenge him or anyone else to a debate. I think that online forums are a poor place to hash out these issues. That is best done face-to-face and one-to-one between people who know each other well enough to disagree without taking it personally.

[Compaq]

It isn't, but it's still a point worth taking. Christianity in whatever form has never taken well to contrary ideas. The very idea of Protestantism was deeply offensive to Catholics when it first came about. The whole Inquisition thing and the persecution of scientists has already been touched on. Heck, there are literally hundreds of Christian denominations nowadays based on minute differences in theology and some of them find the others offensive too.

Is there empirical evidence that humans evolved from chimps? Not really, just stuff we can make educated inferences from. Is there empirical evidence that God or the divine or the Christian conception of God exists? Not really, just things that people can take on faith and what they choose to believe.

So what's the point of the whole argument?

To me, the point of the argument is to get a deeper understanding of how other people thing, and maybe increase my knowledge of myself as a being. I am fascinated by the ToE. Another thing I find interesting is genetic determinism and human sociobiology. What has made us who we are? Natural selection? Our genes? Did natural selection change our gene expression? Did natural selection favour certain behaviours, thus explaining some of our behaviours today with the ToE?

Central Dogma of biology states that proteins can't be "turned into" RNA or DNA. What this is saying, is that our environment and behaviours can't change our gene expression. this theorem is on thin ice. Caring mothers reduces stress response of pups (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MCDIRTS.php). So there's a connection between maternal care and gene expression, which is in direct breach with the central dogma. So, could this apply to humans as well?

[Compaq]

To answer the OPs question from my point of view, the discovery of evolution has not reduced us...it has explained where we came from. I'm not a believer in the supernatural, so the knowledge of how we came about doesn't challenge my view of humanity. It deepens my awe at the long road we have come down.

It has not changed the fact that we are apparently the only species that understands some of what shaped it, and has the power to see the consequences of its actions. However, it has given us a glimpse of why the brain does what it does the way that it does it, and how some of its reactions and biases are not well attuned to the society we now live in. This allows us to be aware of these biases and try to overcome them. Understanding our origins empowers us and shows us the connections we have with all other life on this planet.

For me, evolution is a fact. Therefore, I find debates of whether the ToE is "good" or "bad" to be pointless. The discovery of the theory of relativity led to some horrific consequences (Hiroshima is not so far away from me), but those consequences do not have any bearing on whether or not it is true. But some seem to say "The ToE makes me feel unimportant, so it must be wrong", which I find to be nonsensical.

This post is intended to give the OP an additional viewpoint, not challenge him or anyone else to a debate. I think that online forums are a poor place to hash out these issues. That is best done face-to-face and one-to-one between people who know each other well enough to disagree without taking it personally.

That's an good viewpoint indeed. I dare say it's a healthy one as well.

edit: I disagree on that having these, rather deep, discussion on an online forum is a bad thing. Most of us don't have these discussions at all, and don't take the time to reflect on who they are, really are. Be more philosophical, is my tip. I'm hoping others are finding this debate as interesting as I do.

And who better to debate with than the gents of the world? Surely we'll have a nice and civil debate? That's not to say, even civil debates might get heated.

-Anders

[Chimensch]

I think that the application of the ToE to humans is a fallacy because, to a large extent, human beings have jumped out of the mechanism.

For example, people don't have gills and can't resist high pressure but men have gone to the bottom of the sea and to the moon.

We don't have wings but we fly.

In short, technology has freed mankind from reliance on genetic mutation to increase survivability.

Darwin's theory was an attempt to explain the "origin" of species. Mankind may have achieved its capabilities through evolution but it is no longer subject to those rules.

[Seraphim]

I think that the application of the ToE to humans is a fallacy because, to a large extent, human beings have jumped out of the mechanism.

For example, people don't have gills and can't resist high pressure but men have gone to the bottom of the sea and to the moon.

We don't have wings but we fly.

In short, technology has freed mankind from reliance on genetic mutation to increase survivability.

Darwin's theory was an attempt to explain the "origin" of species. Mankind may have achieved its capabilities through evolution but it is no longer subject to those rules.
Quite an interesting take on it!:thumbup1:

[babafats]

There's an interesting debate to be had there, Chimensch. Sure, we've eased some selective pressures but what's to say we haven't introduced new ones?

Not to mention the fact that, despite our best efforts, we still live in world filled with hostile viruses and bacteria (not to mention the friendly bacteria living inside us); there are still natural selection pressures to be found.

For my part, I don't think humans are able to 'transcend' the natural world and no longer be subject to selection or evolution. Who knows what random mutation might lead to resistance to say, HIV*, and what as-yet-unthought other effects it might bring along. In addition, I think the hard and fast line between what's "natural" and what's "technological" isn't quite so clear, as nature can still pull out a trump card every once in awhile, and our technology clearly has an impact on nature. It will be hard to ever know the answer to this question, though, since evolution takes place over far larger time scales than we usually work in.

*If I weren't at work, I'd do some more digging, but I recall discovery of at least one individual who possesses a natural resistance to HIV. As in, he's been infected with HIV, but the virus has never been able to progress to AIDS, and he isn't symptomatic.

[babafats]

Here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2868295/?tool=pmcentrez) is an interesting paper on ongoing evolution in contemporary human populations; there is also a review in Nature Reviews Genetics, by Stearns & Byars et al., entitled "Measuring selection in contemporary human populations" that is a review of large, long-term studies. The abstract should be available for public viewing here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20680024).

[raisindot]

I think that the application of the ToE to humans is a fallacy because, to a large extent, human beings have jumped out of the mechanism.

For example, people don't have gills and can't resist high pressure but men have gone to the bottom of the sea and to the moon.

We don't have wings but we fly.

In short, technology has freed mankind from reliance on genetic mutation to increase survivability.

Darwin's theory was an attempt to explain the "origin" of species. Mankind may have achieved its capabilities through evolution but it is no longer subject to those rules.

That's not true at all. All it will take is one truly incurable, global airborne pandemic and we'll see how ineffective all our technological progress will be in saving anyone other than a small number who may or may not be randomly born with a genetic mutation that happens to make them resistant to the pandemic. Those survivors will be responsible for repopulating the planet, providing that they can pass this survival gene on as a dominant trait.

Of course, all bets are off if Murphy's Law applies and the survivors are the Kardashians. :lol:

[Seraphim]

Another downside to man's intervention into the natural order if things and the impact that will have on man's own natural selection is genetically modifying our foods.

Growing up I never heard of wheat allergies, extremely rarely peanut allergies, etc. Now it's all part and parcel of life in the modern age.