Of Darwinism and Social Darwinism

[BonaFied_CriTic]

Darwin may have been a brilliant man but when it comes to his theory of evolution I lose interest in his luminosity, which is where I find him utterly diabolical. How could one ever compare two species by stating that there may have been a time when humans were beasts in the jungle? Survival of the fittest, that I can comprehend but evolution, I did rather be blessed with a fool's ignorance then accept that my ancestors were apes. And Social Darwinism is quite interesting when applied to the concept of natural selection to human cultural systems.

[Castro]

^ Evolution does not say your ancestors were apes, but if you insist....

 

Social Darwinism says you come from winners, that it's no accident that you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth. It both validates your existence and makes you feel less guilty. If it's merit that got your ancestors this far, obviously it's the lack of merit that keeps the unwashed masses downtrodden.

And this fits nicely with conservative agenda indeed.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Yeniceri:

So, can a scientist (you know, with his "facts" and "evidence") tell me EXACTLY the date and time that I'll die?

 

Yes. How'd you like to die?

 

Choose your preferred method of death and I'll provide you with 'facts' and 'evidence.'

 

Better yet, can a scientist (again, with his "facts" and "evidence") prolong my life beyond the pre-set time of death for me?

 

Not a question at all my friend but a statement cloacked as question. You assume that we know WHEN we'll naturally die but we don't. Since both us humans and science don't possess precience about our natural date of death, we have to work on the assumption that whatever we do CAN prolong our life...and forget about our 'pre-set' date of natural death.

 

And what happens to a person after he/she dies?

 

They face their creator. Shouldn't you know that?

 

We all know that person can no longer breathe. But other than that, what else can scientists with their magical "facts" and "evidence" tell us? There's no soul, there's no God?

 

There is no such thing as 'magical' facts and evidence. Facts are facts. Science doesn't tell us that there is no soul or that there is no God.

 

The same scientists who can cure illnesses, huh. But HIV/AIDS? No cure. Cancer? No cure. Alzeimer's Disease?

 

Science invented the cures for:

 

TB

Malaria

Polio

smallpox

Tonsilitis

Iritis

 

just to name a few...I'm sure you never got sick and needed treatment, right?

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

quote:Originally posted by Yeniceri:

So, can a scientist (you know, with his "facts" and "evidence") tell me EXACTLY the date and time that I'll die?

 

Yes. How'd you like to die?

Choose your preferred method of death and I'll provide you with 'facts' and 'evidence.'

[J.Lee]

Despot, your planned major is in what field again? : Common ancestor (anyone? hmmmmmm), Ah, I see the light bulb flickering, waa sax, Yes. Yes. Yes. You got it.

 

 

See you in poetry club Mrs.Darcy.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by SeeKer:

Darwin's theory in a nutshell was in nature there is a pitiless fight for survival, an eternal conflict. The strong always overcome the weak, and this makes development possible.

That is actually not true. Evolution is not about survival but about adaptility. Sometimes the 'strong' die out and the 'weak' survive.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Wordette:

Despot, your planned major is in what field again?

are you calling me a despot :confused:

[Castro]

^ No. It was to Despotic-Hitlerette*. The female architect of the final solution.

[Laba-X]

If nature's aim is to 'cause superior species to evolve' through natural selection where the weak are inevitably eliminated, where do you stand?

[Castro]

^ Me? Castro? I don't know where I stand. None of us could know. It will not be known for a while. Unlike Social Darwinism, natural selection works on a species level. Individuals within those species may (probably are) not that important. Personally, however, I hope to be among those whom nature selects to move forward.

[Johnny B]

^^ I´m convinced that where one stands is quite irrelevant here, all one can do is accept the reality that unfolds infront of one. Simple as that, the alternative is to philosophize.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Raganimo:

If nature's aim is to 'cause superior species to evolve' through natural selection where the weak are inevitably eliminated, where do

you

stand?

That is not nature's aim at all. Superiority or inferiority has nothing to do with evolution.

[BonaFied_CriTic]

OOh the fascinating issue about "natural selection" and the constantly changing template in its selection of winners and losers. But although Darwin correctly understood that natural selection is usually the most powerful mechanism of evolution, he did not fully comprehend how it operates. This was due to the fact that he was largely ignorant of the mechanisms of genetics. The cruelty of time, or so to say.

[Xoogsade]

Socod-Badne, Prophet Noah lived 950 plus years. How do we explain that in comparison to today's average lifetime of 70 years with access to advanced medicine which allegedly plays a role in prolonging life? Does curing a desease mean delaying the time of death? Can you explain why some healthy people die in their sleep while others who suffer from incurable ailments do carry on living?

 

PS: If was given the option to choose a time of death, I would be happy with Sixtish

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Xoogsade:

Socod-Badne

, Prophet Noah lived 950 plus years. How do we explain that in comparison to today's average lifetime of 70 years with access to advanced medicine which allegedly plays a role in prolonging life?

Science can't explain. But who knows one day we may live to that old thanks to SCIENCE!

 

The fact that science, technology, medicine, better diet,education, cleaner drinking water all contributed to the improvement in living standards and prolonging of life is not just mere allegation or claim that can't be substantiated. We have ample evidence showing that it was science and technology that reduced infant mortality rate, young age diseases, find cures to diseases (ie polio) that century earlier ppl regularly died from...

 

Lets take infant mortality rate for the US between 1900 and 1999 for example. Accoding to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), infant mortality rate was 100 for every 1000 infants born. By 1997, infant mortality rate declined by a whopping 99% to 0.1 deaths per 1000 new borns. This was only made possible by the advancement of medicine and improvement in living standardars. You can read more on this here (they also mention reduction in maternal mortality rate):

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

 

 

Does curing a desease mean delaying the time of death?

 

In my view, yes.

 

Can you explain why some healthy people die in their sleep while others who suffer from incurable ailments do carry on living?

 

Yes. Because healthy people don't die in their sleep. If you're healthy, you live. If you're sick, you die.