Replies

Why wouldn't his genocidal acts be considered a part of the evolutionary process?

They would be a part of the evolutionary process. He was creating an environment that selected certain individuals from the breeding pool. But, as I keep saying over and over again in the vain hope that you will someday understand it, that does not define the actions as "good" or "bad", because evolution theory, just like everything else in science, is not about making moral judgements.

The logic wasn't lost on Hitler.

Under evolutionary theory, every form of life that exists today exists because it has survived the battle for survival. Under evolutionary theory, the creatures or species that survive the battle for survival are superior to those that do not.

Wrong. The creatures that survive are simply the creatures that are best adapted for an environment. Had the enfironment been different, a different species might have survived and the current "superior" species might have died out.

Superiority only goes as far as the environmental factors. It's all relative.

Therefore, those humans who survive the battle for survival are superior to those who do not.

"Superior" only in that they survived, which is a tautology.

Therefore, those who practice genocide are superior to those who are victims of it.

Not if those who practice genocide find themselves getting executed for their crimes. And again, this only defines superiorty through those who survive. Genetics doesn't even play into it, you just kill a group of people and call yourself "superior" simply because you didn't end up dead. That's not evolution, that's just mass-murder.

The logic wasn't lost on Hitler.

I don't see how any logic could have been lost, since there wasn't any logic in it to begin with.