Jump to content


Photo

Up The Evolutionary Ladder


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:49 AM

Up the Evolutionary ladder
"Much ado about nothing!"

Given all the celebrations, conferences, special issues and TV programmes, everyone must know by now that it is 200 years since Charles Darwin was born and 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). Among the spate of books published on this occasion, one actually stands out in its novelty: the claim that Darwin's evolutionary theory was inspired by his hatred of slavery, as especially experienced during his epic Beagle voyage (Desmond & Moore, 2009). It is a nice try, but it does not convince me; Thomas Malthus and the Galapagos finches provide a much more plausible origin for the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. --Steven Rosson Embo Reports website


According to the latest scientifiic conclusions, humans are 99.98% genetially identical. The .02% percent difference between any of us is largley aesthetic ( just as Darwin and we observe it to be--skin color, hair type and color etc.--all trivial differences).

Darwin viewed himself as "white" and atop the evolutionary ladder. Lower down the rung were the yellow, brown, blacks (the closest to the apes). Finally, there were the mongrels (mixtures of the "pure strains") of any of the aformentioned groups (used as a term of convience).

Usually we think of evolution, in terms of new body types or transitioning body types. Where are these evolving body types evident in the so called differennt races Darwin defined into existence?

Racism as we observe it today is not a function of biology but is a mental cognitive construct of the human mind. We color our view of others as if their skin color controls them! No indeed! We control our view of others by our worldview, relgigon or phiolsophy of life--our belief system! Our personal philsophy, which in most cases is eclectic, is the source of our conflicts between oursellves and others.

We tell, ourselves how to respond to our ennvironment by use of our philosophical (mental) concepts we have stored in our mind (our philosophy of life) Feelings (emotions) are triggered by our cognition of our philosophical concepts (thinking).

The deception is that external events and circumstances trigger our emotions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our mind has been set up by us! We are deceived when we tell ourselves things like "They made me mad!" So ,like a troop of insane actor we deliver our lines to ourselves and believe we are controlled by events and others. Worse yet, we have formed a neurotic agreement with others to back up our self deception! Anyone that dares to take exception to our neurotic agreements will suffer our rejection.

Listen in on your conversation with yourself and you will discover where all you problems come from!

Thus, instead of owning causation of our disturbance, we blame exterals (others and or the environment). This is a misdiagnosis. Instead of "I upset myself over what she said," it's "She upset me!" or, "It made me mad!" Notice, there is no reasoning with it as it is not a concious entity. Thus, an exercise in fuility!

In truth, we are individuals controlled by individual minds equiped with numerous and often conflicting philosophical concepts! We individally tell ourselves how to respond to stimuli in our evironent.

"Oh! That person has brown skin and I have white. That means that they are inferior to me. They shouldn't exist and I am bothered by them existing! How dare such vermen cross my path!" etc.

Until we address the actual cause of our inability not to get along (our personal belief system) we will continue to neurotically interact with ourselves and others. Get it? So, ask yourself.What am I telling myself to feel the way I do? The only way to stop the insanity is to quit! :)



#2 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 17 August 2017 - 03:38 AM

According to the latest scientifiic conclusions, humans are 99.98% genetially identical. The .02% percent difference between any of us is largley aesthetic ( just as Darwin and we observe it to be--skin color, hair type and color etc.--all trivial differences)

.
Can anyone tell me the difference between "is largley aesthetic" and "is aesthetic." I won't wait for an answer. The answer is no.

FYI, there should be a link provided to the content quoted: the text-string "Steven Rosson Embo Reports website" is not sufficient.

#3 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 August 2017 - 05:06 AM

FYI, there should be a link provided to the content quoted: the text-string "Steven Rosson Embo Reports website" is not sufficient.

even if he posted a link, it wouldn't matter.
i posted a link to peer reviewed science sources that EXPLICITLY says there is NO EVIDENCE that natural selection encourages complexity.
and what do we get?
we go right back to the same old "natural selection/ random mutation" paradigm like the link was never posted.
  • Mike Summers likes this

#4 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 August 2017 - 06:28 AM

What if said:

even if he posted a link, it wouldn't matter.
i posted a link to peer reviewed science sources that EXPLICITLY says there is NO EVIDENCE that natural selection encourages complexity.
and what do we get?
we go right back to the same old "natural selection/ random mutation" paradigm like the link was never posted.

I couldn't agree moreL Like Dale Carnegie said: "Conviced against your will of the same opinion still!"
 



#5 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 17 August 2017 - 08:44 AM

Up the Evolutionary ladder
"Much ado about nothing!"

Given all the celebrations, conferences, special issues and TV programmes, everyone must know by now that it is 200 years since Charles Darwin was born and 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). Among the spate of books published on this occasion, one actually stands out in its novelty: the claim that Darwin's evolutionary theory was inspired by his hatred of slavery, as especially experienced during his epic Beagle voyage (Desmond & Moore, 2009). It is a nice try, but it does not convince me; Thomas Malthus and the Galapagos finches provide a much more plausible origin for the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. --Steven Rosson Embo Reports website


According to the latest scientifiic conclusions, humans are 99.98% genetially identical. The .02% percent difference between any of us is largley aesthetic ( just as Darwin and we observe it to be--skin color, hair type and color etc.--all trivial differences).

Darwin viewed himself as "white" and atop the evolutionary ladder. Lower down the rung were the yellow, brown, blacks (the closest to the apes). Finally, there were the mongrels (mixtures of the "pure strains") of any of the aformentioned groups (used as a term of convience).

 

 

I am not familiar with the idea that Darwin's theory was inspired by his hatred of slavery, but from what I understand Darwin was fairly progressive on the matters of slavery and racism for his day.

 

The 0.02% difference (I didn't bother to check the number) is more than just aesthetic differences, but I digress; racists will take the differences and blow them out of proportion attaching significance where none exists, and meanwhile the politically correct will refuse to entertain the notion outright.

 

While Darwin did recognize that different races exist (although the proper scientific view of race is more complicated than mere skin color or the archaic groupings of Victorian classifiers), I'm going to call BS that Darwin viewed the "white" race as being evolutionarily superior to other races. The motif of Darwin's work in relation to fitness is that it is environmentally dependent; i.e. the differences observed between the races is the result of different environmental pressures with which one being 'superior' depending on the environment in question. An unequivocal superior race is nonsensical in a Darwinian view.

 

I have no reason to think your words are anything other than lies (either from yourself or from your source) unless you can show otherwise.

 

 

"Oh! That person has brown skin and I have white. That means that they are inferior to me. They shouldn't exist and I am bothered by them existing! How dare such vermen cross my path!" etc.

Until we address the actual cause of our inability not to get along (our personal belief system) we will continue to neurotically interact with ourselves and others. Get it? So, ask yourself.What am I telling myself to feel the way I do? The only way to stop the insanity is to quit! :)

 

 

If you want to fight against racism I am on your side, but to suggest that racism is a consequence of evolution (as per your opening quote and statements) is to ignore history and the racist movements themselves. The KKK for example has a history of opposing evolutionary theory. Years ago I was a member on the infamous white supremacist forum Stormfront (anyone can register), and there I was told evolution was a lie. Before the time of Darwin clergy literally debated among themselves if the different races really all descended from Adam and Eve, with many of them concluding that the different races were made separately by God and were inferior to their race, and this belief is echoed by various KKK factions. In case anyone doesn't know the KKK is an explicit Christian organization, and unless you affirm your Christian belief you cannot join no matter how pure your blood and soil is.

My point here is that if you want to rant about racism I'm with you, but if you are using it as an opportunity to blame evolution for racism you are misinformed and undercutting your own anti-racist position. Let me ask you a personal question: Once upon a time you said that you used to be racist; when you were racist were you an evolutionist, and did you consider yourself a Christian?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users