It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I don't understand evolution.

page: 21
26
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Mengele worked for 'his' science of evolution as well, didn't he?
The concept of genetics and eugenics controled masses as well, we're talking about ethics and moral scruples in science here.


Social darwinism has nothing to do with the science of evolution. Evolution isn't about exterminating anybody that doesn't fit your ideal "person type". It's about modification with decent and changing the frequency of alleles in a population via natural selection and genetic mutation. Social darwinism is not based on any type of science, although many claimed it was in the past. The problem is that there is no justification for it, and I do not see it controlling anybody today.




posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Always good to see you around A.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Subnatural




I think they just want you to be a bit more mindful before you establish. It doesn't take much to respect, right?



And this thread is a perfect example of the intelligence I'm supposed to repect?
Respect without integrity is fear.

When evolution is finally vindicated, when men finally produces that common
ancestor and I believe someday, someone will. They will fall to their knees and worship
him.


Hopefully worship itself will go the way of sacrificing virgins: obsoletion.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

An absolutely mundane aspiration in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

An absolutely mundane aspiration in my opinion.


Adventure? Excitement? Jedi crave not these things.
edit on 20-10-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your contrast is as sharp as your swords.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Mengele worked for 'his' science of evolution as well, didn't he?
The concept of genetics and eugenics controled masses as well, we're talking about ethics and moral scruples in science here.


Social darwinism has nothing to do with the science of evolution. Evolution isn't about exterminating anybody that doesn't fit your ideal "person type". It's about modification with decent and changing the frequency of alleles in a population via natural selection and genetic mutation. Social darwinism is not based on any type of science, although many claimed it was in the past. The problem is that there is no justification for it, and I do not see it controlling anybody today.


Why do you think some terrorists burn down shelters full of asylum-seekers today? You don't think it may relate to racism and some nasty concepts of eugenics? You don't think decades of agitation and materialistic misconceptions did their part in this?

How about modern biology then?



Scientific advances and the ways they may be used are often unfamiliar to us and may even be frightening. Consider the possibility of genetically engineering humans to enhance desirable traits, or perhaps taking a test that provides you with a list of diseases you are likely to develop in the future. New technologies such as these are often developed before we can integrate them into our lives in a meaningful way, thereby generating a need for open discussion of what is ethical, what society deems acceptable or unacceptable, and what legal protections are required to ensure that we are safe from harm.

www.nature.com...

Übermensch 2.0 on the rise. Social darwinism anybody?
Natural selection and genetic mutations are concepts from the past. We'll see financial selection and genetic manipulation, mark my words.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Why do you think some terrorists burn down shelters full of asylum-seekers today? You don't think it may relate to racism and some nasty concepts of eugenics? You don't think decades of agitation and materialistic misconceptions did their part in this?

How about modern biology then?


Terrorism is irrelevant to modern biology. Killing people, simply because they are different from you and follow a different belief system is wrong and isn't how evolution works. That is just an egotistical viewpoint that these people have. They think they are cleansing the world of lesser people, but in reality they have no proof of that in the least. They think that their holy book is good enough to make them the supreme people, but it's not. This isn't evolution related. It's almost like artificial selection akin to dog breeding, or it's simply mass murder.


Scientific advances and the ways they may be used are often unfamiliar to us and may even be frightening. Consider the possibility of genetically engineering humans to enhance desirable traits, or perhaps taking a test that provides you with a list of diseases you are likely to develop in the future. New technologies such as these are often developed before we can integrate them into our lives in a meaningful way, thereby generating a need for open discussion of what is ethical, what society deems acceptable or unacceptable, and what legal protections are required to ensure that we are safe from harm.

www.nature.com...

Übermensch 2.0 on the rise. Social darwinism anybody?
Natural selection and genetic mutations are concepts from the past. We'll see financial selection and genetic manipulation, mark my words.

It's artificial selection, not natural. Financial selection is silly because it's not a genetic trait. You are referring to concepts that are not justified by evolution in the least. If we do eventually learn how to guide our own evolution it will be a huge step for mankind, provided it is not used in a harmful way. If we could alter our DNA as children to make our future children smarter overall, wouldn't it be worth it? Eugenics is a bit different from that, however. In the past it was used as a justification to not allow certain people to breed, which is wrong.
edit on 22-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I agree, thanks for the reply! There is just this one thing I would like to add:




If we do eventually learn how to guide our own evolution it will be a huge step for mankind, provided it is not used in a harmful way.



The problem is, that it will be abused. Humans did so many times in the past, they will do so in the future. Same sh!t different toilet, so to speak.





posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs
"I don't want to understand evolution"

Fixed the title for ya...



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: randyvs
"I don't want to understand evolution"

Fixed the title for ya...



Actually I think that is is scared because he is understanding evolution, makes sense and is worried that his fatherly figure will strike him down for this...



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog




Actually I think that is is scared because he is understanding evolution, makes


What ever you were trying to say nope that's not it.
edit on Rpm102215v28201500000058 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Hahahaaa. Thats your same argument for evolution.




top topics



 
26
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join