Re: Did Darwinism Smooth the Way for Nazi Ideology?


"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kTUCf.19920$Yu.14912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> > news:y0SCf.39803$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.
>
> Natural, yes. "Normal" is of unclear meaning. But perhaps you are
> searching for a word we can use to make value judgments, like
"right" or
> "moral". If so, then none of that follows. Humans are animals, but
some
> things they do are right, and some are wrong.

Why? Some things our society determines is wrong, is not wrong in
another. Some things are not right to do to those in our society, but
right to do to those in other societies. There are no set rules, John.
"Normal" is just another word for natural, no "right" or "wrong" in
evolutionary theory.
>
> >>>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?
>
> It's conventional. Artificial selection is defined as a case in
which
> the selective mechanism is humans, on purpose. If you think about
it,
> artificial selection is really a form of natural selection.

I agree that would be the inescapable conclusion.

>But we make
> the distinction anyway. The definition has been widened, in a
> metaphorical way, to consider cases in which one animal performs
> behavior that exerts selection on another, for the benefit of the
first.
> An example that comes to mind is that cowbirds sometimes come back
and
> destroy the nests of birds that eject cowbird eggs, thus exerting
> selection in favor of accomodating the cowbird.

Yes. But why would the distinction be made when it comes to say war,
or genocide, and what does "in a metaphorical way" mean?
>
> >>>>>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?
>
> I don't know if dogs actually eat other dogs.

I retract "eat" and replace with "kill".

>But if so, that's only one
> aspect of natural selection. Selection can also result in
cooperation,
> even altruism. Are you making some kind of claim that natural
selection
> is evil? Are you further supposing that natural selection is some
kind
> of guide to morality?
>
No. I'm trying to get Chris to actually support what he claims.
"Selection on humans guided by humans is artificial." So what does
"artificial" mean, why is the word used, what is the relevance?








.

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)
  • In the news: Cornell finds natural selection in humans
    ... N.Y. -- The most detailed analysis to date of how humans differ from ... one another at the DNA level shows strong evidence that natural selection has ... scientists analyzed 11,624 genes, comparing how genes vary not only among 39 ...
    (talk.origins)