Slashdot Mirror
Fish with Limbs
kpogoda writes "American scientists have unearthed the world's oldest arm bone, a 365-million-year-old fossil that provides key evidence that fish used limbs in water well before animals used them to climb up on land."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Second of all:
If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another. So what the heck has that got to do with being 'messed up'? It's just pure logic, and the necessary conclusion of darwinism.
Third of all, if I assume darwinism, then what do I care if you don't like the conclusions I draw from evolution? If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil. What I'm saying is there are no morals given darwinism. Darwin himself said,
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Darwin's letter to William Graham Down, dated July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including and Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin, 2 vols. (London: John Murry, Albermarle Street, 1887), 1:315-316)
So it's not a question of whether your arguments are reasonable or not. It's a question of whether it's worth me (if we assume I'm a darwinist) paying attention to them. What do I care if you don't like me? If I can fool you into thinking I'm your friend, then betray you and come out on top, then I have done no 'evil', for such does not exist. If you try to appeal to my emotions, what makes your conclusions any more trustworthy than mine, since we are both descended from lower animals? To suppose that Darwinism doesn't lead to racism is the ultimate in willful blindness. You absolutely, necessarily, have to be racist to be a Darwinist. Darwinism does not say which race is better - but at some point you have to say "this group is more worthy of survival than that group". You cannot have every group survive, because some must fail.
Yet this also brings up the question of care. Just because one accepts darwinism does not mean that they automatically think it is important to maintain evolution and the progress of the species. Why do I need to see the progression of my species? I won't be around to enjoy the greater evolution. So I may reasonably conclude that the destruction of my own race for my own greed and pleasure is better than any altruistic sacrifice for the good of future generations. Of course, I may not. The point is that there is no good or evil, and that we can't trust the convictions of our mind if we assume Darwinism.
Therefore if darwinism is true, we cannot trust our minds to determine that it is true. It defeats itself.
And how was this something I didn't know? I use the term "Darwinist" as opposed to "evolutionist", because darwinist makes it clear I am talking about that brand of evolution which states that all life descends from a common simple single celled lifeform, and that the method through which this occurred was natural selection of mutations.
How witty of you. Now on to your flawed reasoning...
What about if we took one human who could survive well in both environments and compare him to either one of these people? By your reasoning we'd then have to conclude that he's superior. You neglect to address the problem of other flaws which are not so easily measured, nor so easily interchanged. Take, for example, a mutation which results in internal bleeding after the softest blows. Would you consider that person to be superior or inferior to another who did not have it in that specific area?
If we take your intention with that argument to its conclusions we can then say that a single bacteria is not inferior or superior to a human. Or that if we switch places of a fish swimming deep underwater with a human walking in a dry desert, that since they would both die that they are 'equal'?
*If* you agree that one living thing can be considered superior or inferior to another (eg, a human vs a rat), then you cannot reasonably draw a line where such comparisons of superiority should end. And if no line can be drawn, then out of any two given humans, one is superior to the other - even if such superiority cannot be measured. If, however, you disagree and say that a human and a rat are equal, then I will be content to consider you either a madman (or woman) or one who is so blind he/she will accept any proposition, no matter how absurd, to defend a lie.
It is my belief that humans will be able to survive in more circumstances, with greater superiority, and achieve more, than rats ever could. If humans and rats were to "wage war" or strive against each other for limitted resources, that my money would be on the humans. And please don't mention the plague - since it is equally possible that humans could carry a disease fatal to rats. I would say humans are superior to rats.
Yes, and some creatures are more capable of surviving in more circumstances with greater results than others. Equality among living things is nonexistent. Is an adult equal with a child? Is a banana equal to a pear?