Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 5/4/2001 12:20:47 PM EDT
OK, I am approaching this one as a learner, with a genuine question, NOT trying to convince anyone of anything. Actaully, I'd like to have some evolutionists test my theory. Admittedly, I'm a little confused by evolutionary theory, so help me out. [b]Theorem: Abortion is directly contradictory to evolutionary progress.[/b] Okay, here's my rationale (much of which I have gotten from reading evolutionists) - the species has progressed and advanced itself thru the "survival of the fittest" - i.e. when an individual of the species develops a trait that makes it stronger, that individual of the species survives, and the weaker individual dies, therefore reinforcing that trait, and the species as a whole. In order for this to occur, it follows that you want as many procreations within teh species as possible. Essentially, the greater number of individuals of the species there are, teh greater chance that a strong trait will emerge, thereby surviving, and enhancing the species. In fact, sexual prowess is encouraged by a number of evolutionists. The thinking is that it is the evolutionary role of the male to impregnate as many females as possible for this very reason. All within the constrainst of society, the disclaimer they usually tack on to this thinking. But abortion short circuits this process. it eliminates individuals from teh species, thereby REDUCING teh number of individuals, and the likelihood of producing a stronger trait, which would help teh species to "survive." APPLICATION - Estimates are that since Roe V. Wade, some 30 million babies have been aborted (I'll refrain from using stronger language in teh interests of open discussion) One has to wonder how many Nobel peace Prize winners have been aborted. Or if the person who had a cure for cancer was in that 30 million. Or someone who would provide world peace thru a new innovative idea, or end world hunger. So, evolutionists, what have I missed?? Surely this has been addressed by someone. I mean, I'm not smart enuf to have outsmarted the evolutionists, am I??? [;)]
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 12:36:01 PM EDT
I believe you are correct. If you are trying to argue that abortion is wrong this arguement is not going to work. Anytime a human goes against nature he is disrupting the evolutionary process. Imagine that a woman gets breast cancer before she has any children. If we left her alone and nature took its course she would die. But that doesn't happen, she has surgery, chemo, radiation, and makes a full recovery. That woman now has children that may have a cancer gene. So it is not survival of the fittest. Ever had to take penicillum. If you have you probably were cured of something that might of otherwise weakened your body enough that you would have died. Oh and I don't think that someone that has cancer should not have treatment, it was just an example, so don't start flaming me about it.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 12:51:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hg112: I believe you are correct. Anytime a human goes against nature he is disrupting the evolutionary process. Imagine that a woman gets breast cancer before she has any children. If we left her alone and nature took its course she would die. But that doesn't happen, she has surgery, chemo, radiation, and makes a full recovery. That woman now has children that may have a cancer gene. So it is not survival of the fittest. Oh and I don't think that someone that has cancer should not have treatment, it was just an example, so don't start flaming me about it.
View Quote
So you are kinda looking at this in a "closed universe" vs. an "open universe" viewpoint?? Anytime we mess with nature, we are screwing up the evolutionary process?And that evolution really works best in a closed universe (i.e., free of interference) ?? So how does a doctor who believes in evolution justify abortion? Is it an "acceptable level of collateral damage" to allow abortion in the evolutionary process??
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 12:55:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2001 12:56:52 PM EDT by Archangel]
I'm going to disagree with you on this one. As hg112 suggested, modern medecine is actually slowing / halting the evolutionary process. We have the ability to help people with various potentially debilitating / lethal genetic diseases lead normal or nearly normal lives, grow up, and have kids (with the same genetic diseases). If survival of the fittest were in effect, these diseases would cull the defective genes from the gene pool. So we no longer have "survival of the fittest," but "survival of those with health care." But that wasn't the orignal point. (sorry, I do go off on tangents sometimes!) The point I was going to make was that abortion can (not that it neccessarily does) [b]help[/b] the evolutionary process. If unborn children who are known to have defects are aborted, true, the number of potential "breeders" is reduced, but those that are available for breeding have a less defective (or more "fit," if you will) gene pool. That being said, let me say that I am not necessarily an evolutionist, nor do I think we should stop medical care or increase abortions in the name of evolutionary progress... [Edited because my proof reading skills apparently only work [b]after[/b] clicking submit.]
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:00:36 PM EDT
Abortion is not the only aspect of our present society that runs contrary to evolution. The welfare system is contr-evolutionary. Here in Canada it seems that those on welfare or low income support tend to have many more children then those who hold jobs. Myself I have two children ( one of each). I got snipped after the second, as with the taxation levels up here I was of the opinion that two was all we could afford. The silly thing is I am paying taxes to support people so they can OUTBREED ME!! Face it our society is going to the dogs...... abortion and the welfare state are only two of the symptoms!!
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:01:56 PM EDT
So you are kinda looking at this in a "closed universe" vs. an "open universe" viewpoint?? Anytime we mess with nature, we are screwing up the evolutionary process?And that evolution really works best in a closed universe (i.e., free of interference) ?? So how does a doctor who believes in evolution justify abortion? Is it an "acceptable level of collateral damage" to allow abortion in the evolutionary process?? I don't think that there is a "closed universe." I mean you could argue that the meteor that killed the dinosaurs was not part of the evolutionary process, but why? I think that mankind has been screwing with the evolutionary process ever since we learned to use simple tools. I don't think it is a big deal, it is just the way we are. Hear a lot of religious people, and I am not targeting you in particular, talk about abortion being against "God's way". Well anytime you take medication, or have surgery, or when a woman has a C-section, you are going against "God's will". By their own argument God gave them that disease or a birth canal that was too small, so why do they fight it? I don't view abortion as being wrong, it is just what people do. I personally would not want to abort my child but I am not going to stop someone else who wants or needs an abortion. To each his own I guess.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:02:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2001 1:05:58 PM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By Archangel: The point I was going to make was that abortion can (not that it neccessarily does) [b]help[/b] the evolutionary process. If unborn children who are known to have defects are aborted, true, the number of potential "breeders" is reduced, but those that are available for breeding have a less defective (or more "fit," if you will) gene pool. [Edited because my proof reading skills apparently only work [b]after[/b] clicking submit.]
View Quote
I can see the logic, but I think ALL here would HAVE TO admit that the abortion of "defective" infants is BY FAR the minority of abortions performed. In theory, yes. But in practice, NO WAY your theorem holds. I don't have the data, but I beleive the VAST majority of abortions is of perfectly healthy infants. BTW, I too have not yet evolved to the point where my ability to spell check preceeds clicking "submit." [:D]
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:06:51 PM EDT
You are both correct and incorrect. You are correct in the sense that yes, abortion does interfere with survival of the fittest (although it could be argued that someone who had a mother who would have aborted him if she had the chance isn't being given a proper upbringing and thus is less "fit"). Actually anything we do to 1) change our environment or 2) resist disease and parasitical infection interferes with evolution. But no, you're wrong in the sense that you are making evolution out to be a religious belief. It isn't. It is neither good nor bad, it simply
is
View Quote
...like gravity. Yes, breeding more means you will pass on more of your genes, but that doesn't mean there is a moral imperative to breed more, OR a moral imperative to follow schemes that are evolutionarily successful. People who accept the fact of evolution don't deify it (except the Social Darwinists, but they are a separate breed, so to speak), they simply acknowledge it happens. They don't (I know I certainly don't) think that I should order my life around successful evolutionary strategies. In fact, one of the best things about knowing which of our urges are spurred by instinct evolved over time is that we can know WHY we have urges to do things and can better control whether or not or to what extent we give into them. For instance, most males have urges to have sex with as many women as possible, whatever their marital status. Someone who was of the opinion that "This is just the way God made me, and it's a test to see if I can resist my nature" might beging to feel as if the deck were stacked against him, and feel resentful that he had been saddled, for some unknown divine reason, with urges to which he was not supposed to surrender. OTOH, someone who realizes that these urges come from the fact that down through the ages, our ancestors were the ones who spread their genes around to the most mates can take solace from that fact and not feel resentful about it: he knows the reason behind it. It isn't just that "Man is sinful" it's "this is the way it had to be for me to get here." And lacking the resentment and the feeling of "unfairness" he can better make logical judgements about extramarital affairs (eg, "there's no good reason for me to give into these urges since they are simply evolutionary vestiges, and it would be petty of me to risk hurting my wife and children by giving into something so mindless.") That's my opinion anyway.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:10:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2001 1:12:45 PM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: But no, you're wrong in the sense that you are making evolution out to be a religious belief. It isn't. It is neither good nor bad, it simply
is
View Quote
...like gravity. Yes, breeding more means you will pass on more of your genes, but that doesn't mean there is a moral imperative to breed more, OR a moral imperative to follow schemes that are evolutionarily successful. That's my opinion anyway.
View Quote
Wow - fatalistic stuff, man. I guess I looked at it as more breeding = greater chance the species will improve = a good thing. But good input. That is a pespective I hadn't yet encountered.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:11:19 PM EDT
I am not trying to nitpick here but... A theory is something that has been supported by countless scientific tests, ie. the theory of evolution, or the germ theory, which states that you get sick because a bacteria or a virus infects you, yes that is still a theory. What we are saying are hypothesis'. Which is a idea that doesn't have enough scientific evidence to make it a theory. I point this out because people often think that the Theory of Evolution is something that Darwin just dreamed up. Something must have a huge amount of evidence to be called a theory.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:18:46 PM EDT
model your beliefs around reality, not reality around your beliefs
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:19:13 PM EDT
Human beings have largely removed themselves from the effects of evolution, primarily because we alone adapt our environment to fit ourselves, rather than being forced to fit into our environment. Physical shortcomings that could cause premature (the [i]literal[/i] meaning) death in ages past are often merely irritations now. Bad eyesight and juvenile diabetes are good examples. What you are actually asking, I think, is "through abortion how many geniuses have we killed"? The answer to which is "there's no way to know, really". From a genetic standpoint there is no difference between an abortion and lack of "successful" sexual intercourse between interested parties. How many geniuses has birth control (all forms) prevented? In any case the genetic fruit never reached sexual maturity. However, [i]genius[/i] isn't necessarily an evolutionary step. Only new traits that are passed on genetically can be considered [i]mutations[/i]. Genius is a very hit-and-miss thing that hasn't been associated with "breeding true". Dumb people can have a single, brilliant child, and brilliant people can have morons. And remember, quite brilliant people often lack what others consider "common sense". This can remove them from the gene pool, thus ending the viability of that strain. Now, if you're advocating eugenics then you'd have to force the most intelligent people you could find to get together and breed indiscriminately. That way you'd increase the probability of getting progressively more brilliant offspring, and your Nobel Prize winning, world-hunger ending end product. [sniper]
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:20:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hg112: I am not trying to nitpick here but... Something must have a huge amount of evidence to be called a theory.
View Quote
Actually, NOT so. A theory can be off the top of my head. For instance - I theorize that since hg112 communicates quite well, he has advanced university degrees, has enormous sexual prowess, can crush beer cans with ONE hand, and ALWAYS shoots sub-MOA. Its a LAW that must have MOUNTAINS of evidence to be called a scientific law - like the law of thermodynamics, or the law of gravity.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:27:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By hg112: I am not trying to nitpick here but... Something must have a huge amount of evidence to be called a theory.
View Quote
Actually, NOT so. A theory can be off the top of my head. For instance - I theorize that since hg112 communicates quite well, he has advanced university degrees, has enormous sexual prowess, can crush beer cans with ONE hand, and ALWAYS shoots sub-MOA. Its a LAW that must have MOUNTAINS of evidence to be called a scientific law - like the law of thermodynamics, or the law of gravity.
View Quote
Well I am not going to argue with you about the flattery but my biology professor would disagree with your definition. Here is the websters link so that everyone can decide for themselves. [url]http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=hypothesis[/ulr] [url]http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=theory[/url]
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:29:27 PM EDT
My url skills aren't that great but you get the idea. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=theory http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=hypothesis
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:33:08 PM EDT
why am i doing this? why am i here? ok i'll bite. g,man, yes i'm sure we lost some good ones. but the species is going to be ok. i swear. but your sword cuts both ways. how many idiots have we been spared? and do you really want the kind of people who are in favor of abortion to populate the planet and raise children with those values? is it not better that they not reproduce themselves?
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:37:28 PM EDT
God doesn't make mistakes.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:40:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2001 1:39:32 PM EDT by KBaker]
[center]
God doesn't make mistakes.
View Quote
[/center] Have you ever [b]SEEN[/b] a duck-billed platypus? [sniper]
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:43:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: [b]Theorem: Abortion is directly contradictory to evolutionary progress.[/b]
View Quote
Excuse me but isn't evolution contradictory to Christian beliefs, i.e. Darwin vs. creationism?
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:50:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hg112: I believe you are correct. If you are trying to argue that abortion is wrong this arguement is not going to work. Anytime a human goes against nature he is disrupting the evolutionary process. Imagine that a woman gets breast cancer before she has any children. If we left her alone and nature took its course she would die. But that doesn't happen, she has surgery, chemo, radiation, and makes a full recovery. That woman now has children that may have a cancer gene. So it is not survival of the fittest. Ever had to take penicillum. If you have you probably were cured of something that might of otherwise weakened your body enough that you would have died. Oh and I don't think that someone that has cancer should not have treatment, it was just an example, so don't start flaming me about it.
View Quote
You guys kind of have a basic misunderstanding of evolution. First, you are attempting to apply morality to an essentially random, amoral process. It is not "fair." Sometimes, people with traits you would think make them unfit to pass on their genes will out-breed those with apparently stellar survival traits. This is all determined by the environment, the physical conditions that limit an organisms ability to live. If we subsidize welfare, for example, we will breed a class of people with no ambition because there is no evolutionary penalty for not hunting and gathering. The "unfit" will coexist with the "fit" hard-chargers. Maybe breeding more regularly because they actually have the evolutionary advantage, leisure time to seek mates. When the environment changes, maybe welfare benefits are curtailed, the survival penalty for not working will be starvation. Second you are attempting to place humans outside of evolution. Nothing we do disupts the evolutionary process. We do not "tamper" with nature. We are part of nature. The political climate is just another environmental condition.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 1:57:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gus Laskaris: ... you are attempting to place humans outside of evolution. Nothing we do disupts the evolutionary process. We do not "tamper" with nature. We are part of nature. The political climate is just another environmental condition.
View Quote
Well, yes and no. Our environment now largely has no effect on advancement of the species. Only in times such as the Holocaust, Stalinist purges and such is our species reproductively stressed. In other words, we are our own worst enemy. [sniper]
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 2:01:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2001 2:02:07 PM EDT by erickm]
If your asking in relation to strict evolution.. If someone's considering an abortion, then obviously BOTH partners were TOO STUPID & IRRESPONSIBLE to protect against unwanted pregnancy, thus if the child was born it has 'stupid genes' passed onto it and would've been hit by a bus or killed in a circular-saw accident most likely before it can have children of it's own. Abortion is not speeding up an evolutionary process any, it's just prematurely removing what would be an insignificant unused agent to the process before it has a chance to remove itself. It's also possibly preventing interference from this stupid gene carrying person to the process, say his stupidity gets a "strong" person killed, then he's messed up things. Now don't think that I'm pro-abortion by any means or that I really think hitler-like like what I said above but thats just what immediately popped into my head when reading your question.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 2:44:13 PM EDT
Survival of the fitest no longer comes into play in the modern socialized state. What we have in the USA now is actually explotation of the fitest by the least fit. GunLvr
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 3:24:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hipower: Excuse me but isn't evolution contradictory to Christian beliefs, i.e. Darwin vs. creationism?
View Quote
Actually no, it is not. Evolution is only contradictory to a strict, literal reading of Genesis. Most Christians in the world (including the Pope) can readily reconcile their beliefs with scientific discoveries. They reason there are two postulates: 1)God does not lie and 2)evolution has been shown to have an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it and reason from this that the first two chapters of Genesis are not meant to be read literally (eg 24-hour days, the exact order of creation, etc) but as a moral example of the sinful nature of humans.
Top Top