Replies

Yes. What does it mean? What is its defining principle?

It says that there are deterministic systems that are still unpredictable because of the intricacies of the components involved. That's why it's impossible to accurately predict the weather even if weather is based upon entirely deterministic properties.

Does free will exist in the evolutionary universe?

That's not a question that can be addressed by evolution.

But most evolutionists are materialists.

Please justify this assertion with evidence.

Also, I happen to be a materialist. I simply recognize that the theory of evolution itself does not 'prove' a materialistic universe. The theory is far too limited in scope to rule out non-materialistic properties in the universe.

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.

Yes. And?

Oh, I forgot to address the "lion eats all of the deer and is therefore superior" argument. I was going to comment on how consuming all of the resources in your environment, leaving nothing left, ultimately leads to extinction, because you run out of resources. Thus the lions will end up dying off just like their prey.

...is better at survival. Is better adapted to living in a given environment.

Yes. You're learning. Or at least you're learning to parrot.

No, I'm asking whether the statement is a legitimate statement in evolutionary theory. Is it?

Yes, it is.

Yes. And in the "given environment" of 1944 Germany, the Nazis were superior to the Jews, since they "out-survived" them.

Yes. Given a specific definition of 'superior', the Nazis were superior to the Jews. Because the Nazis controlled the environment.

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.

From a scientific standpoint, yes, their actions are ultimtely reducable to matter in motion. However, the predations of the Nazis on the Jews aren't really like other predator-prey relationships.

They didn't "create an environment" any more than the lion devouring his prey "creates an environment." Under evolutionary theory, the actions are equivalent.

Oh, so the Nazis did nothing at all to bring about the deaths of the Jews? They did not specifically create a social system that sought to arrest, detain and execute Jews? The Jews just died off on their own while the Nazis just happened to flourish on their own?

And no, the actions are not equivalent. A lion being able to capture and devour prey increases the lion's survival chances. You'll have a hard time convincing me that the Nazis wouldn't have survived as well if they didn't kill Jews.

Just like the spider and the fly. The lion and his prey.

Spiders and lions don't deliberately reshape vast environments. The best that the spider does is spin a web. But that's just a small suppliment in the environment. A lion doesn't even do that much.

Really? Didn't they do a better job of surviving in a given generation?

The regime didn't even last a single generation. They did a better job of surviving simply because they chose to eliminate a group of people. That doesn't prove 'fitness for an environment', that simply proves that they were able to exterminate a group of people.

Don't all predatory species do this?

No. Non-human predators don't typically deliberately reshape their entire environment to specifically exterminate an entire species of prey. Predators typically kill as a matter of survival. If a predator does not kill, it won't survive. The Nazis killed because they didn't think that Jews deserved to live. There is no evidence that the Nazis would have died off had they not decided to kill Jews. What is "self-defined superiority"?

The Nazis defined themselves as superior, and set about "proving" it by killing off those who they defined as inferior. Then, after doing the killing, they says "see! We survived, therefore we're clearly superior!" Nevermind that they survived because they're the ones that instigated the hostilities in the first place.

So the Jews were relatively inferior in a given environment. This is your understanding of evolutionary theory, yes?

At best, it's a weak analogy, because the Jews weren't dying off because they were genetically less fit, they were dying off because there were people actively seeking to eliminate Jews.

Evolution isn't typically driven by a wilfull act to eliminate a group.

A few nuclear bombs dropped on Israel.

What would lead to this event occuring? And make sure that you relate a rise of the Nazis to it. Islamic terrorists aren't the same thing.

In reality, yes. In the universe of materialistic evolution, no.

Even with a materialistic worldview, there's more to reality than just evolution. Stop pretending otherwise, don't tell me that you're so dumb as to believe that there are those who believe that everything in the universe operates based on evolution.

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.

Except that it's a meaningless statement, because simply allowing all people to live together peacefully is also evolution in progress. Evolution is simply descriptive, and it's something that happens all of the time. You don't 'force' it, it just occurs. It's the end-result of genes being passed on to successive generations.

Once again, evolution does not lead to genocide. Evolution does not justify genocide. The only way to make evolution justify genocide is to twist the theory into something that is no longer science.

"Once again, evolution does not lead to genocide. Evolution does not justify genocide. The only way to make evolution justify genocide is to twist the theory into something that is no longer science."

you are mostly correct here.

we have inductive and deductive reasoning going on at this point. deductive reasoning of evolution does NOT excuse genocide. however, inductive reasoning from genocide claims evolution.

...there are deterministic systems that are still unpredictable...

The existence of molecules (or any tiny particles) produces Brownian motion and thus precludes prediction. This is in addition to any instance of chaos. Determinism is not equivalent to predictability.