On Darwinism and Survival of the Fittest

[JANdad]

If we here at DU are really progressive and believe in natural selection...then why the uproar over the stronger taking out the weaker?

It's a Presidential race folks...they are in it to win! And if the Top 3 can weed out the field*...so what! That's how elections are won. I suggest we move on..nothing here to see!


*If in fact that is what they were really discussing

[ima_sinnic]

1. your lack of understanding of "Darwinism" is pathetic

--but typical. I don't feel like getting into it right now as I need to get some lunch. I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain it to you.

[JANdad]

3. Thanks

I know I am an uneducated fool...keep pluggin away for Dennis though...

[Warpy]

4. Nobody did that, you know.

I think you'd better reacquaint yourself with DU rules. You seem to be heading for trouble.

[JANdad]

5. How so?

[BlooInBloo]

2. Hi Bell-Curver!

[Tesha]

6. Just as long as you don't mind if I pass on voting for your sleezebag later. (NT)

[Adsos Letter]

7. I suspect you are thinking more along the lines of

Herbert Spencer...not so sure we want to go with his theories...

[rudeboy666]

9. Yes, Herbert Spencer. You beat me to it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Darwin called it natural selection,

the idea of "survival of the fittest" actually has a colonialist/racist tint to it, and implies it is perfectly ok to manipulate the playing field, as it were. Natural selection allows things to just happen.

Besides, I feel it is far too early to "weed out" candidates. The full dialog is needed, if only for contrast. The "lesser known" candidates have some good ideas, and if they get a boost in monetary support, it would behoove the front runners to sit up and take notice. If the ideas of those candidates are outright looney, two things will happen-their contributions will dry up and they will make the other candidates look measured and sane. So in a way, keeping all the candidates in play right now is really only helpful to the front runners. Besides, natural selection-that is, decrease in contributions-will eventually weed out many of the lesser known candidates. No reason for the other candidates to do anything-in fact, to do something now gives them a bad rep with many voters, myself included.

[JANdad]

11. You make some good points

and thanks for the education...

Listen...if I cited the wrong scientist or theorist...my bad. I am not highly educated person (high school grad) and I am always willing to listen and learn from those that can teach...rather than make snippy remarks. I hope that my meaning and point was made clear. If in fact JE and HC were discussing weeding out the crowd, the one clear statement I could pick up from the audio was "this fall"...several months from now...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. You don't like snippy remarks?

Why'd you start this thread then?

[Richard Steele]

10. You seem to have a very Republican interpretation of what "Natural Selection" is.

Why am I not surprised?

[malaise]

12. Since when did Darwin's stronger mean

more corporate money.

[BlooInBloo]

14. It never did, of course... It was always a purely *retrospective* compliment....

... paid to *whatever* ended up surviving. That (species of) critter is ipso facto dubbed "the fittest". The idea that the concept can be used *prospectively* is asinine.

[wuushew]

13. So you will accept that Edwards was "naturally selected" when he doesn't win the nomination?

I doubt it

[JANdad]

15. Of course I will

Will I have a choice if that happens...

[mike_c]

16. "survival of the fittest" has very little to do with the way it's popularly understood....

Fitness in that context refers to REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS, not strength, meanness, etc. It refers to phenotypes that produce the greatest number of viable offspring.

"Survival" means the long term survival of alleles, not the survival of individuals.

This message brought to you by your friendly neighborhood biologist. We now return you to this DU flamefest.

[malta blue]

20. Exactly

:rofl:

Thanks for the explanation....

"We now return you to this DU flamefest":rofl:

[buzzard]

21. This friendly biologist agrees as well, it is a completely different discussion when political

survival is being contemplated.

[buzzard]

22. I just noted my sig line one of Darwin's just thought it was relevant.n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

26. This biologist agrees too!!

I have a B.A. in biology from the best pre med school in the state, and I agree that natural selection is terribly misunderstood.

That person thinks that political survival = corporate money = election. Has nothing to do with Darwin. Has more to do with corruption and lobbyists and lack of election reform.

Yes I am a lawyer but I do NOT play one on TV!!! :evilgrin:

[soothsayer]

17. i much prefer the ruskie biologist's competing theory

a dude who was a contemporary of darwin's. he said what you actually see is increasing symbiosis. it's a kinder, gentler paradigm.

[JacquesMolay]

19. My question would be 'what makes them the top 3?"

Is it money? Polls? Which polls? The GOP is shutting out Ron Paul because he is telling the truth about Iraq, even though he now has more cash than McCain. If you shut out the Kuciniches, who's going to tell the truth about the Dems, and the direction the party is taking? I agree that less of them should be invited to these debates, but the primary races serve more purpose than just picking a winner - they show you where the party is at, ideologically, and what goals it will or (often more importantly) will not pursue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Well, if you consider ruthlessness an admirable trait in politicians, you're right.

Though, in my opinion, most politicians are pretty low on the evolutionary ladder, somewhere between cockroaches and maggots.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. You're comparing apples and bicycles.

What you're describinb is the ideology of social Darwinism, as applied to the political process. Natural selection is about changes in gene frequency in populations over time, not the stronger taking out the weaker. It's not something that you believe in or don't believe in, it simply is, like gravity.

Next you'll be suggesting that if we believe in Newtonian gravity, we should be okay with throwing people out windows.

Why don't you argue this issue on it's own merits instead of making yourself look foolish by bringing pop science into it.

In American electoral politics, the voters weed out the field, not the candidates. Do you think that Edwards believes in social Darwinism?

[NMMNG]

25. I'm hankering for some popcorn

It goes so well with flamebait.

:popcorn: