Re: Did Darwinism Smooth the Way for Nazi Ideology?


"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:y0SCf.39803$dW3.11223@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > "Chris Thompson" <cthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> > news:Xns97599B401A3F2cthompsonTAKEOUTbmcc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>"Glenn" <glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >>news:glennsheldon-JtPCf.20$v83.1563@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Steven J." <steven_j@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>>news:1138473266.747291.41980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>>snip
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>We had, some months back, a link posted to a Nazi high school
> >>>
> >>>textbook
> >>>
> >>>>which spoke of natural selection in glowing, highly colored
terms
> >
> > as
> >
> >>>a
> >>>
> >>>>means of preserving the purity of a species or group, but which
> >>>
> >>>ignored
> >>>
> >>>>entirely the "Darwinist" view of natural selection as a means of
> >>>>changing species. In short, the Nazis seemed to have, or at
> >
> > least
> >
> >>>>wished to encourage, a pre-Darwinian, almost creationist view of
> >>>
> >>>this
> >>>
> >>>>concept.
> >>>>
> >>>Interesting. Artificial selection practiced on one's own species
> >
> > is
> >
> >>>not natural selection.
> >>
> >>The usual definition of artificial selection is selection dictated
> >
> > by
> >
> >>humans, so no, selection on humans guided by humans is artificial.
> >
> >
> > Doesn't mean that the "usual definition" is right or even logical,
> > however. What makes humans any less animals than dogs?
>
> Nothing. Humans are exactly as much animals as dogs are.

Then *anything* they do is natural, and normal.
>
> > Recall the
> > relevant aspects of Darwinism for your evidence.
>
> The only relevant aspect I could think of would be common descent.
> Humans and dogs are descended from a common ancestor. Do you want me
to
> present evidence for that? If so, then we are (if I recall) going to
> have to agree on some idea of homology.

You've either lost track, or are trolling. What is the difference
between artificial and natural selection?
>
> >>>So it's not a dog eat dog world?
> >>
> >>No, it's YEAR of the dog.
> >
> > How appropriate.
>
> How did dogs enter into this discussion anyway?
>
Dogs eating dogs is natural selection, John. The dogs that get eaten
will tend to leave less offspring than the dogs that are not eaten. Or
is that just a just-so story?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kamikaze spaniel
    ... I'd suggest that it's a data point in natural selection. ... Mike--humans have been breeding dogs for a long time, ... I don't dispute what you say about the effects of domestication. ... that had also been bred and selected by humans. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Generic Dog ancestor
    ... > naturally and the investigators selected the dogs which had them ... Dog behaviors are under selection, ... younger animals who have not imprinted on their social group, ... There is a certain belief that humans did not select dogs ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Question for Ray
    ... With selection beginning about ... Kill all humans today. ... All domesticated dogs would die in 2 years. ... you would have wolves and feral dogs that often resemble ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question for Ray
    ... With selection beginning about 14.000 years ... Kill all humans today. ... All domesticated dogs would die in 2 years. ... you would have wolves and feral dogs that often resemble ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Did Darwinism Smooth the Way for Nazi Ideology?
    ... Humans are exactly as much animals as dogs are. ... >> between artificial and natural selection? ... > artificial selection is really a form of natural selection. ...
    (talk.origins)