Correct! I've said this before! Evolution does not assign moral value. Evolution does not care whether species thrive or face extinction. It's just a descriptor for a process!
8-) Right. That the "stronger," the superior, survive.
Does an explanation of how rain occurs state whether it is good or bad for you to get wet? Does it state whether flooding is a good or a bad thing? Then why do we attempt to scientifically study flooding? Does it state whether it's good or bad for crops to dry out and die during a drought?
Then why do we attempt to scientifically study weather and flooding? That the information derived from the study of these things is good and useful to people is assumed in the practice of scientific study.
OK, "creatures that survive" are "better adapted" than other creatures. In other words, they are superior to other creatures in their adaptation.
Yes, but only for their given environment. Change the environmental factors and you can drastically change which species are "superior" and which ones are history.
So evolutionary superiority is dependent on environment. So what? The species that survives in fact is indeed superior. In the deterministic evolutionary universe, there only exists what is, not what might be. The future is as determined and fixed as the past.
There is no futurabilia in the deterministic universe of evolutionary theory. Everything must occur the way that it does. The species that survives must be better adapted than the species that don't survive. Period.
1) Evolution does not postulate a deterministic universe.
Really? So God could have engaged in some form of Special Creation? Miracles are possible?
2) The species that survives does so because it is able to survive in its given environment. This is typically because it has physical traits that give it an advantage in finding food and reproducing. But this only works so long as the environment remains favourable to their physical makeup. Environments can change, and when they change, the species that were well-adapted for the previous environment might not be so fortunate in the new one.
How does this square with the actual fossil record which exhibits as a rule the fact that species appear in the fossil record fully formed and disappear from the fossil record thousands or millions of years later the same way?
Stop introducing the absolute concept of a "perfect" species.
Where did I say that?
Evolution speaks of no such thing. Sharks do quite well in the ocean, and chimpanzees do quite well in trees. They are thus well adapted for their environments, but neither would survive at all in the other's environment. Given that fact, you cannot say that one is "better" than the other from the standpoint of evolution.
8-) But you just said that "chimpanzees do quite well in trees." The term "well" denotes a value judgment. Is this value judgment a part of evolutionary theory?
"The chimpanzee is better adapted to tree living than the shark." Is this statement a legitimate statement in evolutionary theory?
The species that survives is superior. This isn't a relativistic statement, it is a definition at the core of evolutionary theory.
It is relativistic.
How is survival relative. As far as I can see, a species either survives or it doesn't.
The species that survives is "superior" for a given environment. Change the environment, and they might not be as able to survive. Sharks are the 'king' of the oceans. In an oceanic environment, chimpanzees would die out. Are sharks therefore superior to chimpanzees?
My point is that those species that survive are superior to those species that do not survive. Would you agree with this?
Is this statement a valid statement of evolutionary theory?
The implications of this doctrine regarding genocide are obvious.
No, this is a very particular definition. "Superior" in this case (evolutionary theory) refers to creatures who survive.
It refers to creatures who survive in a given environment. There are multiple, wildly varying, types of environments out there. Superiority in one might well be inferiority in another.
OK, so can we agree that in evolutionary theory some species are superior to other species with respect to their ability to survive in a given environment?
Did the Nazis ("Aryans") relative ability to survive in the "given environment" of 1944 Europe make them superior to the Jews under evolutionary theory?
Before their execution, they are superior. After their execution, they aren't superior. Which means that, in the long run, they lose out. That's really all that counts.
Define "the long run." In 1944, "the long run" was Nazi superiority. In 2004, "the long run" is Jewish superiority. In 2050, "the long run" may be Nazi superiority. So what meaning is contained in the evolutionary term "survival" when it is completely dependent upon time?
So survival superiority is dependent upon chronology.
It's dependent on environmental factors.
See argument above.
Environments can change over time. A species that creates a situation that causes the environment to change to their detriment is ultimately not going to survive. Genocidal maniacs tend to work to create an environment where ultimately they are overthrown and executed, therefore genocidal maniacs tend to behave in a fashion that is ultimately detrimental for their survival.
LOL! Tell that to the Jews in 1944, or the Russian people living under Josef Stalin.
In fact, survival superiority is so dependent upon time that it is meaningless, except in cases of complete extinction of a species. And then, who's to say that, under evolutionary theory, that the extinct species will not arise again?
Evolution theory doesn't say that extinct species will not rise again. Genetics suggests that such things are unlikely, however.
So then we can never know with any kind of certainty that any species has more or less of a survival advantage in a given environment than any other species. "Survival" under this evolutionary rubric has no practical meaning. Of what scientific value is the theory then?
Lions wipe out a species of deer and this is called evolution.
That's not evolution. That's the removal of a species.
Well, wasn't the lion better adapted to survive in its given environment?
For evolution to occur, alelle frequencies must change over time. If the species is wiped out, that won't be happening.
Again, as I said above, ow does this square with the actual fossil record which exhibits as a rule the fact that species appear in the fossil record fully formed and disappear from the fossil record thousands or millions of years later the same way?
One race of people wipes out another race of people and this is called "mass-murder."
Do you not like this definition?
Yet people are also supposed to have evolved, just like deer and lions. This is a contradiction.
You've not explained how one group of people deliberately wiping out another group of people is evolution.
"Yes, but only for their given environment. Change the environmental factors and you can drastically change which species are 'superior' and which ones are history." A species that survives in a given environment is superior to the species that does not, correct?
You've also not explained what your ultimate point is.
The Nazis survived in the given environment of 1944 Germany whereas the Jews did not. Therefore, in 1944, the Nazis could judge themselves to be superior to the Jews under the evolutionary rubric.