Misreadings Of Evolution

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by ibshambat, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. ibshambat

    ibshambat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,636
    Likes Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I once had an interaction with a man on the Internet who called himself Danimal. He was a firm evolutionist, yet he believed that the problem with the world was that “the freaks do not know their place.” As an evolutionist he would have known that the evolutionary process – if there is an evolutionary process – is driven by mutation. In human world what this means is that the people whom he regards to be “freaks” are the ones who come up with all the innovation that moves the world forward.

    Now evolutionary theory can be used for all sorts of things, many of them not good at all. There are some in the Nazi movement who think that races have evolved for their place in the ecosystem and should not mix. They are dead wrong about that. When races mix they give each other their best genes, and the children inherit the best of both races involved in the mix. The most beautiful populations in the world – Ethiopians and Venezuelans – are products of racial mix.

    Still more wrongdoing we see with people who think that only the strong survive. There are people in rural Mexico who believe this, so they've worked out an arrangement toward that effect. A man would come home and beat his wife, and she would make him super-spicy food and tease him when he would tear up. To the best of my knowledge, rural Mexico does not run the world. In fact many people in such situations complain about the gringos and the multinationals; and complaining is not a behavior of strong people. The correct response to that is that the world requires contributions of all sorts of people, most of whom would be strong in some ways and not in others. That Bill Gates cannot defeat Mike Tyson in a boxing match does not mean that he is not fit to live.

    Another bad use of the evolutionary theory has been Social Darwinism – that a population that conquers another population is superior. That is not always the case. They may simply have better weapons or better military practices but be light years behind in other respects. Genghis Khan and his descendants were able to conquer cities in China and Russia that were far ahead of Mongols economically. The Spanish conquered the Incas; but the Incas had architecture, agriculture and infrastructure far superior to that of the Spanish. Having better weapons does not mean that you are better. You are better in one pursuit. It does not mean that you are better in all of them.

    More important is an argument that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been made before. There is the power to destroy – as we see in Genghis Khan and the Spanish above – and there is the power to create. It takes one bullet to kill a person. It takes trillions of cells to make one. Power to destroy can become power to subdue others, but it does not become power to create others. Not even the people who know how to build nuclear bombs can create a human body or an Amazonian rainforest. Until one can create things of such nature, not even the power to destroy them gives one the right to see oneself superior to them. The power to create is far more important than the power to destroy. And it is time that it be recognized and rewarded accordingly.

    A person who parses the evolutionary theory correctly will draw much different conclusions. One will be that the process is driven by mutation; which in human society means that it is the “freaks” that contribute the most original things. Another is that the process requires contributions of all sorts of people, and weakness in one area does not preclude being valuable in any number of others. Finally, life requires all sorts of things, and having destructive power is not comparable to having creative power.

    So it is time that wrongful implications of evolutionary theory be reversed. Support ingenuity and innovation; support diversity; and support the power to create. And as a result of this see the human species advance beyond all its previous limitations and build on its genius and its efforts to achieve the heights never thought possible.
     
  2. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,541
    Likes Received:
    2,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good points. As I see it, all life must adapt and evolve to adapt in order to survive. Ignoring, for now, the good and bad things humans have done, ignoring the racist tendencies, It's like all life at some basic level has the same genetic commandment--to survive. If, despite all our evolution, we pose the greatest threat to ourselves, have we really evolved? If we focused on the power to create, will our ignorance allow our creations to ultimately destroy us? I remember when nuclear energy was the pinnacle of human power and would make electricity so cheap we'd have to give it away. Now, it's toxic and deadly.
     
  3. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,770
    Likes Received:
    4,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are no wrongful implications of evolutionary theory only misinterpretations or deliberate bastardizations.
     
  4. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    28,638
    Likes Received:
    11,577
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you believe that when different people mix only the good genes are shared?

    That makes zero biological sense.
     
  5. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,318
    Likes Received:
    9,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The OP is definitely a "Misreading of Evolution"...or more likely a Non-Reading.

    Individual or societal nature are NOT evolution...they are culture.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
    trevorw2539 likes this.
  6. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,541
    Likes Received:
    2,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, I think that's what he's saying when he said social Darwinism was a bad use of evolutionary theory.
     
  7. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,318
    Likes Received:
    9,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not a use, good or bad.....it's a freakin' talking point and has nothing (Zero, ziltch, nada) to do with biology or evolution.
     
  8. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,541
    Likes Received:
    2,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're right, but at the same time, I understand what he's trying to say. It's more like the evolution of cultures.
     
  9. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    25,141
    Likes Received:
    9,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed. And it is funny how quickly you can poke holes in social "Darwinism" just by looking at the evolution of social species. Darwin himself wrote some interesting lines about the evolution of altruism.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  10. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,541
    Likes Received:
    2,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, and we are social animals by nature.
     

Share This Page