News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

reasons I likely won't make a good Xtian

Started by AngelOfDeath, December 14, 2017, 06:20:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: AngelOfDeath on December 16, 2017, 07:32:51 AM
I'm sure we've all been out and about and seen folks and thought to ourselves "oh boy, I really hope they don't breed", or you've seen terrible little children and wished they'd been aborted.  If you've ever felt this way you might be a fan of eugenics.

and

QuoteIt's all about building a better humanity and better society.

Yeah, sure. In case you were drooling on your school table during your history lessons, the Nazis (in relatively recent history!) wanted to better their society by killing off a lot of people they thought were less than human, you know.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Tank

Quote from: AngelOfDeath on December 16, 2017, 07:32:51 AM
...  If you've ever felt this way you might be a fan of eugenics.  ...
I wasn't, but the idea is becoming attractive.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Tank on December 16, 2017, 01:55:15 PM
Quote from: AngelOfDeath on December 16, 2017, 07:32:51 AM
...  If you've ever felt this way you might be a fan of eugenics.  ...
I wasn't, but the idea is becoming attractive.

:snicker:
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


AngelOfDeath

#18

Why not make the science better in any way we can?

AngelOfDeath

#19
Too bad Jesus didn't leave us with anything to go on.....

xSilverPhinx

Dude, I like science. I studied biology at uni. I am not a fan of eugenics. Quite frankly, I find your assertion that "If you're as big of fan of science and biology as I am it isn't a big leap to become a fan of eugenics" nonsensical.

It's an ethical issue, not a scientific one.

(It's almost like you're the caricature creationists refer to when they say that "Darwinism" will result in things like "Social Darwinism", which supports eugenics.)
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


AngelOfDeath

#21

It's got a bad rep from the ways it's been implemented in the past.

xSilverPhinx

And who gets to decide who gets to breed or not? You? People who think like you?

What happens if you yourself are put on the list of those who should forcibly commit genetic suicide?
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


AngelOfDeath

#23
 these are all questions that'd have to be addressed.

xSilverPhinx

Genetic diversity is a good thing, which is one reason why it seems like such a dumb idea to cull a population's genetic potential.* Human beings already have little genetic diversity compared to many other animals, most likely due to a near extinction which resulted in a genetic bottleneck in the past. We (obviously) didn't go down an extinction vortex then, and now with our very large global population such an event seems unlikely, but should something happen in the future to drastically lessen our numbers, well, who knows...   

* For instance, sickle cell anemia in Africa. People who are heterozygotic (have one allele out of two) for this hereditary condition survive malaria better than people who have normal red blood cells. Their red blood cells have an odd shape. This is not a 'normal' state, and these peoples' red blood cells carry less oxygen which make them more vulnerable to hipoxia, but while the person with normal red blood cells is getting infected with malaria, those with sickle cell anemia are surviving and passing on their genes.





I think you simplify the issue too much, then come waving an easy solution to the what you see as the problem. Let's just not let the intellectually and physically able, those with genetic defects, those that don't look a certain way, etc. pass on their genes in any shape or form for the betterment of society. You see yourself as one who gets to decide how to better society even though you have no clue as to what really constitutes a healthier society, as if having a higher frequency of intelligence genes in a population would solve a crisis. You base your assumptions on evolutionary theory but you are ignorant in the science.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


AngelOfDeath

#25


I'm not at all ignorant of the science.

xSilverPhinx

Can't reply to this now, I'm at the lab and don't feel like typing a lengthy reply on my cellphone, but will do so later.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


xSilverPhinx

Ok, let's do this. *cracks knuckles*

You consider yourself to be knowledgeable yet you do not seem to know what fitness is. Either you haven't been doing your homework or haven't been paying attention.

Recusant posted the following on your evolution thread:

Quote from: Recusant on December 18, 2017, 12:32:12 AM
All that evolution requires is a population of organisms that are fit enough to reproduce. In the case of the human species, perfect recovery from injury by individual organisms is superfluous to requirements.

QuoteIn evolutionary terms, fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation.

[source]

If you click on that little source at the bottom, you will be taken to the following:

QuoteMISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.

CORRECTION: In evolutionary terms, fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation. The more fertile offspring an organism leaves in the next generation, the fitter it is. This doesn't always correlate with strength, speed, or size. For example, a puny male bird with bright tail feathers might leave behind more offspring than a stronger, duller male, and a spindly plant with big seed pods may leave behind more offspring than a larger specimen — meaning that the puny bird and the spindly plant have higher evolutionary fitness than their stronger, larger counterparts.

which is followed by

QuoteMISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.

CORRECTION: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two "best" individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the "fittest" in the population, but they are "fit enough" to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation.



In my post in this thread, I mentioned sickle cell anemia (with a picture and everything  ::)). PEOPLE WITH THIS PHENOTYPE ARE NOT HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS! But...BUT! They are fitter than people without this condition in areas with high rates of malaria infection because they have higher survival rates and make more babies and the frequency of sickle cell anemia in that population grows.

Sexual selection too. Do you think for instance, that a peacock's massive colourful tail helps him survive? Of course not. It helps him get laid and pass on his genes. The bigger and brighter a peacock's tail, the fitter he is, even if such a thing makes it more difficult to escape from predators.

Now that you hopefully have a somewhat clearer idea of what fitness is in the evolutionary sense is, you could comment on why you think selective pressures are not acting on modern human beings, a bit more knowledgeably.

You keep mentioning how you think the population (in general) is becoming a lower IQ society, but have you ever heard of the Flynn Effect? Intelligence is a complex, multifactorial inheritance process that is not yet completely understood, but IQ tests have to be adjusted by around 15 points every generation or so, so that the average remains 100 points. So no, the population in general is not getting dumber, it is getting smarter...or at least people are better able to take IQ tests.

I suggest you educate yourself on multifactorial inheritance.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Ecurb Noselrub

A more Machiavellian observation would be that IF people are getting dumber then it will be easier for the intelligent to rise to the top, to acquire political power, and to accumulate wealth.  The dumb will be their servants.  I'm inclined to think that people are not getting dumber IQ-wise, but if they are, that benefits me.  The actual problem, I think, is that people are not being taught to think critically, so they are more likely to be manipulated by new forms of propaganda and subliminal persuasion. 

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 18, 2017, 06:42:50 PM
A more Machiavellian observation would be that IF people are getting dumber then it will be easier for the intelligent to rise to the top, to acquire political power, and to accumulate wealth.  The dumb will be their servants.  I'm inclined to think that people are not getting dumber IQ-wise, but if they are, that benefits me.

I think Dumb Trump sort of refutes that. :lol: The US hardly seems a technocracy...

QuoteThe actual problem, I think, is that people are not being taught to think critically, so they are more likely to be manipulated by new forms of propaganda and subliminal persuasion.

I think that's one of the problems. Critical thinking is hard, it requires energy, and sometimes it's just easier to swallow whatever pre-chewed filth you're fed.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey