Thread: A Twisted Notion of Natural Selection by Social-Darwinists

I notice recently that there is a frightening new trend in some young people who are adopting twisted Social-Darwinist ideas or even Nazism.

Actually, it is even more distorted and sinister than the former Social-Darwinism and mixes with a warped Nietzscherian phylosophy . They got this distorted notion that “Natural Selection” is about going on rampage killing people based on some ill personal criteria or at random because they consider themselves “superior” to the majority and hate them.

However these people have no real knowledge about the modern Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution or how natural selection really works.

Recently, a young man from Finland went to his school with a gun and killed five boys, two girls and the headmaster.

I just found an interesting video in the YouTube that makes a sharp criticism on this new dangerous ideological trend.

It is called “Finland Massacre : A lesson of Natural Selection ?”:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WUBuQMjJg6w

It would be nice if these boys would read on the origin of species first.

The inevitable conclusion would be that reproductive success is more important than killing yourself and some of your competitors.

This young man failed to leave any progeny. Reproductive success: zero!

A Darwinian failure.

His duty should have been to learn a trade, find a willing partner, and pump out as many children as possible and see to it that the message is imprinted on the offspring that they raise families themselves and pass on the message.

Of course, science education isn't what it used to be any more. And removing Evolution from the curriculum can only make things worse.

It is a very poorly delivered lesson. The author condemns random or prejudicial killings by neo-nazis, under the umbrella of social Darwinism, as having nothing to do with natural selection. This is incorrect. By removing individuals from the gene pool the distribution of alleles in the population is likley altered. That is natural selection. End of story.
The argument against the pointlessness of such action is lost, for me, in this basic misunderstanding on the part of the author.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

It is a very poorly delivered lesson. The author condemns random or prejudicial killings by neo-nazis, under the umbrella of social Darwinism, as having nothing to do with natural selection. This is incorrect. By removing individuals from the gene pool the distribution of alleles in the population is likley altered. That is natural selection. End of story.
The argument against the pointlessness of such action is lost, for me, in this basic misunderstanding on the part of the author.

on the other hand, if the removal of selected individual results in a random decimation then that will have zero effect on the composition of the resulting gene pool

Which is exactly why I placed the word likely in the phrase the distribution of alleles in the population is likely altered.
I have the antisocial habit of anticipating objections and covering my ass. 8) (A shame really: those in the know say it is an attractive ass.)

It is a very poorly delivered lesson. The author condemns random or prejudicial killings by neo-nazis, under the umbrella of social Darwinism, as having nothing to do with natural selection. This is incorrect. By removing individuals from the gene pool the distribution of alleles in the population is likley altered. That is natural selection. End of story.
The argument against the pointlessness of such action is lost, for me, in this basic misunderstanding on the part of the author.

Wrong.

You are confusing Genetic Drift ( random genetic fluctuation ) with Natural Selection.

Natural Selection as the name indicates is based on enduring environmental factors that cause the selection of adaptive genes for an specific trait in the population and slowly eliminates or diminishes the frequency of alternative lesser adaptive genes.

Random elimination of individuals like in random accidents ( as it seems to be the case ) or catastrophes is Genetic Drift, not Natural Selection.

The only chance of this incident being caused by Natural Selection on the victims it would be if the murderer selectively killed people based on identifiable common traits.

Originally Posted by blue_cristal

It is a very poorly delivered lesson. The author condemns random or prejudicial killings by neo-nazis, under the umbrella of social Darwinism, as having nothing to do with natural selection. This is incorrect. By removing individuals from the gene pool the distribution of alleles in the population is likley altered. That is natural selection. End of story.
The argument against the pointlessness of such action is lost, for me, in this basic misunderstanding on the part of the author.

Wrong.

You are confusing Genetic Drift ( random genetic fluctuation ) with Natural Selection.

Natural Selection as the name indicates is based on enduring environmental factors that cause the selection of adaptive genes for an specific trait in the population and slowly eliminates or diminishes the frequency of alternative lesser adaptive genes.

Random elimination of individuals like in random accidents ( as it seems to be the case ) or catastrophes is Genetic Drift, not Natural Selection.

The only chance of this incident being caused by Natural Selection on the victims it would be if the murderer selectively killed people based on identifiable common traits.

I'm sorry blue, but you are also wrong. Accidents like natural catastrophes are still elements of the environment acting on the population. Genetic drift occurs through the random distribution of alleles from one generation to the next, such that one allele might be lost completely simply because none of the offspring happened to receive it, or that one allele might increase in frequency simply because many offspring happened to receive it. That's all it is. And what Ophiolite is referring to is of course the selective killing of people, because he was talking about social darwinism and that's what social darwinism is. Either letting people die because they seem "unfit" (aka selectively letting "unfit" people die) or prejudicially killing people based on race or some other factor that is deemed to be inferior (aka selectively killing people with a certain trait). That is selection. You can argue whether or not it's "natural" since it's people doing the selecting and not the environment, but it's still selection.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

those in the know say it is an attractive ass.)

oh really .......

Wouldn't like to support that with some 'evidence' would you?

testimonials or a picture for analysis, perhaps we could vote via a poll?

Nope, paralith.

If the killing was at random as it seems to be the case in this recent massacre in Finland then it cannot be selection to start with.

And even if it was done by selecting specific traits, since it was done by people then certainly it is not Natural Selection. It is Artificial Selection.

Originally Posted by blue_cristal

Nope, paralith.

If the killing was at random as it seems to be the case in this recent massacre in Finland then it cannot be selectionto start with.

And even if it was done by selecting specific traits, since it was done by people then certainly it is not Natural Selection. It is Artificial Selection.

I agree that a 100% random set of killings probably wouldn't skew the population's gene frequency in any particular direction, except by chance. (Which, btw, is still not the same as genetic drift. Similar, but not the same thing.) However, most killings in the name of social darwinism are far from random. The murderers are most certainly looking for some set of characteristics that they feel warrants this or that person's death, something that makes them "less fit" than others.

And it is really artificial? Are not humans themselves a product of nature? The ability of humans to form culture is an adaptive behavior in itself, as cultures themselves are often greatly influenced by the environments in which they form. And if human culture brands certain characteristics as negative, then those people with those characteristics will become less fit because they will be singled out for suffering and/or death. Their reproductive success will most certainly be effected. Just playing the devil's advocate, here.

I agree with everything Paralith has said in each of her posts in this thread. Moreover, please note that all of the victims were young Finns. That is not a random subset of humanity.

Originally Posted by blue_cristal

Nope, paralith.

If the killing was at random as it seems to be the case in this recent massacre in Finland then it cannot be selection to start with.

And even if it was done by selecting specific traits, since it was done by people then certainly it is not Natural Selection. It is Artificial Selection.

Natural selection isn't measured by death. It is measured by reproductive success over many generations.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Originally Posted by blue_cristal

Nope, paralith.

If the killing was at random as it seems to be the case in this recent massacre in Finland then it cannot be selection to start with.

And even if it was done by selecting specific traits, since it was done by people then certainly it is not Natural Selection. It is Artificial Selection.

Natural selection isn't measured by death. It is measured by reproductive success over many generations.

I agree. However, if young individuals ( like in this incident ) were killed before even had the chance to reproduce then their death obviously translates also to zero reproductive success.

Declaring oneself as superior is a charge which could be leveled at many, including esteemed members of forum. Mercifully rare is the example of homicidal/suicidal "superior" individual.

If there is anything "natural" about selection of characteristics of next generations, soon there will not be, due to technology. What WOULD superior human look like to dotcomrades?