CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:35
Arguments:32
Total Votes:59
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 The theory of evolution and equality (24)

Debate Creator

cruzaders(341) pic



The theory of evolution and equality

The base of the theory of evolution is that the living beings with the best caracteristics survive while the others die, how can that be compatible with the idea of equality between races and societies?
I think we can all aggree that whites build societies that are overall better than the ones built by blacks, so according to the theory of evolution we are better than them and therefore it is normal that the unferior race dies off while whites prosper (I dont want to fight, this is just an example)

What do guys think, are evolution and equality compatible? If so how?
(I will ban Nom, and insulters)
Add New Argument
4 points

The concept of human equality is an observable absurdity.

If blacks were denied access to the medical and scientific inventions/discoveries made by whites, they would be well on their way to extinction with only a few primitive tribes surviving in isolated regions of Africa.

The imposition of equality laws doesn't change the inferiority of blacks nor improve the superiority of whites or Asians.

Handouts and aid programmes have meant the artificial survival of these prehistoric throwbacks who cannot compete successfully in the modern competitive societies of whites and Asians.

So, there's your answer, force blacks to prove they are equal by living on their own innovations.

How long would these equal blacks survive without computers, electricity, automobiles, telephones, antibiotics, life saving and pain relieving drugs, aid etc.etc.?

That of course was a rhetorical question as we all know they wouldn't last more than a decade of so.

LRyuuzaki(51) Banned
1 point

This question is nonsense. There can never be equality in a literal sense, people have different IQs, different wank sizes, different species and races have different attributes. But that has nothing to do with having equal rights or opportunities within the framework of society. Two different kinds of equality, I can have a bigger wank and a higher IQ but that doesn't mean I have more rights than you.

1 point

They would only conflict if the norm for mating was to use brute force to rape. If instead the norm is for a mutual selection then the ability of a brute to pass those genes on to future generations actually requires the brute to learn compassion for the less brutal. Which would then be no conflict with evolution. Because then natural selection simply favors the people who can appeal to a mate.

marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

Because then natural selection simply favors the people who can appeal to a mate.

Unfortunately, the mate selection process does not overall favor compassion, but strength. Females are the ones with the option to select, in general, and women do not tend to select for the nicest/most compassionate mate, but rather the most dominate one. This is generally a function of ambition, aggressiveness, and brute force. Because brute force also garners resources, selection in favor of aggressiveness and strength tends to put the compassionate male at a disadvantage when hoping to be selected by a female.

Grenache(6103) Clarified
1 point

True for most of human history. Not really true in a Western Society today. In fact, a lot of the criticism about the woosification of men and society actually is a symptom instead to the fact the brutes don't rule the bedroom anymore.

Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
0 points

That’s called sexual selection dumb dumb and it is integral in evolutionary law.

1 point

When considering differences between races, you are dealing in statistics, not individuals. You cannot look at a person and know anything substantive about them from their race alone. Similarly, you cannot put a man next to a woman and know that the man is a criminal.

The concept of human equality does not concern ability. People obviously have different abilities. Human equality concerns fundamental value. Equality means that a human being is treated, from the outset, with basic human decency, not because of their race or station, but because they are human.

Societies are not equal. Neither are cultures. Nor are they all deserving of being regarded with decency. Societies and cultures are not individuals. Some societies and some cultures are shit. You can look at societies and cultures and know some important substantive things about them.

Considerations of society and humanity are not related to evolution. Evolution tells us nothing about how we should treat our fellow humans.

1 point

What does evolution and equality have to do with theory ?

1 point

Evolution and selective inheritance is science.

All that woo about equality between races is not science. Its liberal propaganda. Designed to get the votes and the constituency of the minority and far inferior races.

The Caucasians race is superior insofar as intelligence and leadership are concerned. This is why over 95% of all the great inventions and innovations and scientific discoveries of all time have been made by us Caucasians. Blacks always do poor in IQ tests sobthry whine about the tests being unfair and biased.

Whites proved their superiority by enslaving and conquering lesser peoples. If the laws of biology and selective inheritance were allowed, we would weed out the minority races. But manmade equality laws prevent that.

Those laws are the only thing the lesser races have going for them. The laws are not science, though. In fact, they prevent natural biological Survival of the Fittest from doing its work.

xMathFanx(1737) Clarified
1 point

@Arsenal

The Caucasians race is superior insofar as intelligence and leadership are concerned.

East Asians do notably better than Whites on IQ tests as well as Academic achievement and career/income success. If you are interested in exploring this topic, I have a previous debate Thread on Charles Murray's work "The Bell Curve"

www.createdebate.com/debate/show/TheBellCurve

Arsenal(219) Disputed
1 point

Wrong.

You are referring to a small percentage of Asians. Like those in america and those of higher income level. The vast majority of Asians live in squalor and work mundane jobs and are not very inventive or creative. What Asians do well is follow orders and take discipline. Then they learn by sheer repetition. Hence the 13 year old trained monkey Asian girl violin players we see.

And those Asians in America are prospering from bring taught By us Caucasians and emulating our ways.

One could argue that ‘modern’ society is bad for its inclusive members because once they are removed from all Darwinian selection processes, and I think we can all agree considering the most unfit male specimen can still win a lottery nowadays, these humans are more susceptible to diseases, parasites and just plain old wrath of nature because of the lack of Darwinian selection.

So any group that exists outside these natural laws won’t be hearty stock, incapable of subsisting in environments that other so called primitive individuals can thrive in. The laws of natural selection made us into incredibly strong intelligent beings living in conjunction with nature. Anyone who would remove oneself from this nature and then claim that they are more advanced is in for a rude awakening upon the return of a natural enemy that they no longer have the means to defend against. Anyone who believes one race is more advanced intellectually because of the shade of their pigments is too stupid to converse with.

0 points

The base of the theory of evolution is that the living beings with the best caracteristics survive while the others die, how can that be compatible with the idea of equality between races and societies?

How is putting black people in chains compatible with the idea that you have "better characteristics"?

Which characteristics specifically do you think makes whites "better" than blacks, and why do you believe all whites share these characteristics while all blacks lack them?

I think we can all aggree that whites build societies that are overall better

No, I do not agree with this. In fact, I think you're an impossibly stupid racist moron who struggles to write in his own language and then lays claim to being "better" than those who can simply because the colour of their skin is different.

Many of the most successful civilisations in history have been coloured, such as the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Benin Empire and of course the Persian Empire.

Nobody with any intelligence agrees with you because your beliefs are based on ignorance and bigotry rather than knowledge and intellect.

marcusmoon(581) Clarified
1 point

Number,

Many of the most successful civilisations in history have been coloured, such as the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Benin Empire and of course the Persian Empire.

Just a small correction that does not affect the validity of your point at all:

The Persians were/are white (or Caucasian, or whatever you want to call it.)

How is putting black people in chains compatible with the idea that you have "better characteristics"?

Yeah, slavery has been one of two common denominators in cultures throughout history. (The other is genocide.) It is demonstrable of pretty deep ignorance for anybody to use historical slavery as an attempt to try to gain high ground (moral or otherwise.) We all have ancestors who took and kept slaves, and we all have ancestors who were slaves.

Even after one and three-quarters centuries of efforts to eradicate the practice, slavery persists. It is more overt in Africa and the Arab world, but pimps and child traffickers worldwide still take and keep slaves.

cruzaders(341) Disputed
0 points

Nomenclature you have clearly not understood the question

Also goodbye

0 points

I think we can all aggree that whites build societies that are overall better than the ones built by blacks, so according to the theory of evolution we are better than them and therefore it is normal that the unferior race dies off while whites prosper (I dont want to fight, this is just an example)

This exhibits a basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, and survival of the fittest.

- 1 - An evolutionary change is only valuable insofar as it makes the evolved organism more fit for survival because the only criterion for (Darwinian) evolutionary success is fitness for survival.

- 2 - In Darwinian terms, survival is not based on the individual, but on the progeny. It does not matter what you accomplish in life, if you never pass on your particular genes to fertile offspring (who can then pass them on further), then you did not survive, and are therefore an evolutionary failure.

- 3 - In Darwinian terms, fitness is specifically genetic, NOT cultural. Fitness is defined specifically as the capability of living long enough to pass one's DNA on to fertile offspring, and subsequently having that offspring pass on one's DNA.

- 4 - An organism's (or even gene pool's) accomplishments (civilization, technology, law, art, morals, justice, etc. ad nauseum) are irrelevant to Darwinian evolutionary success. Degree of success is measured primarily in terms of how long one's DNA continues to be passed on.

This means that Homo Sapiens (200,000 years old) are much less successful than Cyanobacteria (2.8 billion years old), Sponges (580 Million years old), Jellyfish (505 Million years old), and Nautilus (500 million years old) even though no sponge ever built a Sistine Chapel, wrote a Constitution, or invented an iPhone.

What do guys think, are evolution and equality compatible?

Evolution happens because all organisms are subject to the same rules (equality) but they survive at different rates (inequality) because genetic differentiation and natural selection favor the fittest, and select against the unfit(inequality.)

0 points

You have cleared my misunderstanding thank you very much

Have a nice day!