Yes. What does it mean? What is its defining principle?
Does free will exist in the evolutionary universe?
Really? So God could have engaged in some form of Special Creation? Miracles are possible?
The Theory of Evolution does not rule out such events.
Your theory of evolution doesn't, which is good. But most evolutionists are materialists.
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?
Because it is possible for an environment to remain relatively unchanged for millions of years, to the point where the creature is already doing quite well with its existing physical makeup.
But the fossil record shows this to be the case with every discovered species.
It's an implication when speaking of an absolutely "superior" species above all others. If a species is "superior" to all others, and such a definition of superiority is absolute rather than relative, then there is an implication that there is a "perfect" species, one that is ultimately superior to all others.
Except I never said that one species is superior to all others under evolutionary theory. I've said that evolutionary theory claims that any species that survives is superior to any species does not.
I now know that, according to you, evolutionary theory claims that a species that survives in a given environment is superior to a species that does not survive in the same environment, depending on the time at which you assess that one species has done survived better than another.
By "well" I mean that individuals within the species continue to survive, reproduce and continue the species through successive generations. From a purely scientific standpoint, this is neither good nor bad, it simply 'is'.
...is better at survival. Is better adapted to living in a given environment.
"The chimpanzee is better adapted to tree living than the shark." Is this statement a legitimate statement in evolutionary theory?
Are you suggesting that sharks could survive and reproduce in the same environment as chimpanzees?
No, I'm asking whether the statement is a legitimate statement in evolutionary theory. Is it?
I didn't say that survival was relative, I said that superiority is relative.
In a given environment, the species that survives is superior to the species that doesn't. Correct?
Yes, but I would be forced to add the qualifier that they are only superior "for their given environment". A relative superiority only.
Yes. And in the "given environment" of 1944 Germany, the Nazis were superior to the Jews, since they "out-survived" them.
The implications of this doctrine regarding genocide are obvious.
1) It's not a doctrine, it's just a definition.
Yes, a supposed "fact of science."
2) Yes, the implications regarding genocide are obvious: it does not in any way support genocide.
Again, in the given environment of 1944 Germany, the Nazis out-survived the Jews. In the evolutionary universe, the predations of the Nazis are equivalent to the predations of any other species. In fact, like everything else, their acts are ultimately reducible to matter in motion.
Did the Nazis ("Aryans") relative ability to survive in the "given environment" of 1944 Europe make them superior to the Jews under evolutionary theory?
It made them superior for a Nazi-created environment.
They didn't "create an environment" any more than the lion devouring his prey "creates an environment." Under evolutionary theory, the actions are equivalent.
So yes, there is a conditional temporary superiority.
How would you know that the superiority would be temporary in 1944?
This doesn't mean that, from a universal standpoint, they are superior to the Jews, however.
What's "a universal standpoint." Where is it located in the evolutionary universe?
They specifically crafted an environment that was hostile to Jews, and thus Jews started having a lower survival rate, so from a survival rate, Jews were "inferior" in that they could not survive in an environment that was specifically designed to be hostile to them.
Just like the spider and the fly. The lion and his prey.
A number of dishonest creationists will use this to claim that evolution "vindicates" the Nazis by "proving" that the Nazis were the superior race. The argument is total crap.
Really? Didn't they do a better job of surviving in a given generation?
The Nazis created the environment specifically to remove the Jews...
Don't all predatory species do this?
...thus the "superiorty" was self-defined and -- as I have been saying all along -- purely relative.
What is "self-defined superiority"?
If you create an environment that is hostile to a specific group, it's not surprising to watch that group start to fail to survive.
Certainly not under evolutionary theory. That's how we got here, right? "Survival of the fittest" and all that.
That's not proof of absolute inferiority, it's just proof that the group is in a hostile environmet.
So the Jews were relatively inferior in a given environment. This is your understanding of evolutionary theory, yes?
Define "the long run."
The ultimate outcome of their actions.
8-) You're beggging the question. What's the definition of the "ultimate outcome"?
In 1944, "the long run" was Nazi superiority.
So in 1944, the "ultimate outcome" was Nazi superiority. Could Hitler have argued that given your definition above?
In 2004, "the long run" is Jewish superiority.
Which came about, in part at least, as a reaction to the efforts of the Nazis, which would seem to indicate that their efforts were self-defeating.
In 2050, "the long run" may be Nazi superiority.
Okay. What events would lead to such an outcome?
A few nuclear bombs dropped on Israel.
So what meaning is contained in the evolutionary term "survival" when it is completely dependent upon time? The ability to carry on genes to successive generations instead of not being able to reproduce effectively enough to keep the genes passed on to future descendents...
So in 1944, which group, the Jews or the Nazis, were better able to pass on their genes?
Of course, Nazism is more than just genetics. A lot more. Same with Judiasm.
In reality, yes. In the universe of materialistic evolution, no.
So evolution doesn't really apply very well at all.
Your theory of evolution is different from the dominant materialist evolutionary view.
LOL! Tell that to the Jews in 1944, or the Russian people living under Josef Stalin.
I can't. It's not 1944 anymore, and Josef Stalin has been dead for years. Behold the fruits of the efforts of the Nazis and the communists of the USSR.
Do you have a point here?
Any current repressive regime, or any regime that engages in genocide can claim, under the dominant evolutinary rubric, that their actions represent evolution in progress, a simple fact of nature.
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.
They could only judge themselves "superior" with respect to the very environment that they created with the intention of establishing superiority. A relativistic and very narrow definition of "superior".
Nevertheless, a real superiority under the evolutionary rubric.