 |
|
|
|
| If natural selection is correct, then why is it wrong to enslave or destroy those weaker than you? "Survival of the fittest" should rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hitler was a big believer in evolution. Look where it took him.
And yes, this is an edit. I want to clarify. I'm not racist - that is not the point of this
debate. I just wanted to see what people would say about this. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Genetic evolution is a dependable and versatile but slow and sloppy progression. When certain higher
functioning animals began to be able to remember or learn behavior within the course of their life
rather than having only instinctual inherited behavior things took a turn towards the more
streamlined and intricate. Because then an organism could actually be trained or learn from other
organisms around it. So then it became useful for higher functioning animals to interact more as
they could pass on learned behavior. Morality, language, and empathy are a natural progression for a
societal organism, as they facilitate a working society. This is exactly why it does not make
evolutionary sense for us to act amorally. It takes only a little effort to see that as individuals
Humans are impressively enabled for the whole survival of the fittest competition. It has only been
through humanities evolving ability to coordinate and work together that our current world
domination has occurred. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aside from the fact that none of this is even relevant to the science of evolution, it’s also a
very poor argument against natural selection (possibly one of the poorest I've ever seen). Evolution
is not racist. In fact, quite to the contrary, it’s the exact opposite. Genetic studies show that
human beings are remarkably homogeneous genetically. This implies that all humans alive today are of
only one biological race. How can a theory that links the human species to one biological race be
racist? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You misunderstand 'survival of the fittest'. It means that organisms with more desirable traits are
more likely to survive, because they are 'more fit', and therefore their genes are more likely to be
passed down, and therefore the organism changes, or 'evolves'. You seem to think it means the same
as 'might makes right'. Which it does not.
Evolution is a proven concept. If you don't already know how, I can give you a logical proof of it.
Just ask. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Evolution is utterly blind to race. In fact technically all the different "races" we label are all
one single race anyway, the separation is an arbitrary human distinction. If a Tiger goes hunting
people it doesn't care what color their skin are. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is just ridiculous, there's no way evolution could be racist because racism is a claim of
inferiority and obviously, if a species is alive at the moment, it is best suited for it's
particular environment and cannot be inferior or it would cease to exist.
It's really disgusting that people who are utterly ignorant of science keep throwing this ridiculous
nonsense out like they have a clue what they're talking about. You should be ashamed of yourself,
Denmom2413. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Your claim is disgusting revisionism on par with the lie that Christians didn't murder Jews in the
past.
All white supremacist groups in the US have been Christians. You can't name more than one racist
who's an atheist (Tom Metzger).
At the same time, all atheists - even the lone racist one - accept the fact that all humans are
descended from primates, that all humans have black ancestors from Africa and that DNA has proven
human migration across the globe in the past 40-200 thousand years.
The godbots are the racist ones, and use the buybull to "back up" their claim. |
| |
 K9  28 Jul 2008 19:14
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You speak on a animal level which is to broad. Speak on a human level. Humans have morals which some
humans have that state manipulation is wrong. How is it racist? I know plenty of black people
stronger than white and plenty of Mexicans stronger then whites. Survival of the fittest has nothing
to do with race it has to do with species. This guy has very little muscle and is very slow. That
guy is very athletic and has a decent IQ. They both have a boulder chasing after them. Who's more
likely to survive? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign In
