"Darwinism led to the Holocaust."

[Berniewood Hogan]

NO IT DIDN'T, BROTHER!


http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf

11. Conclusion
Countless conservative religious and political tracts have attempted to undermine Darwinian evolutionary theory by arguing that it had been endorsed by Hitler and led to the biological ideas responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. These dogmatically driven accounts have been abetted by more reputable scholars who have written books with titles like From Darwin to Hitler. Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s great German disciple, is presumed to have virtually packed his sidecar with Darwinian theory and monistic philosophy and delivered their toxic message directly to Berchtesgaden—or at least, individuals like Daniel Gasman, Stephen Jay Gould, and Larry Arnhardt have so argued. Many more scholars are ready to apply the casual, but nonetheless, telling sobriquet to Hitler of “social Darwinian.” In this essay I have maintained these assumptions simply cannot be sustained after a careful examination of the evidence.
To be considered a Darwinian at least three propositions would have to be endorsed: that the human races exhibit a hierarchy of more advanced and less advanced peoples; that the transmutation of species has occurred over long stretches of time and that human beings have descended from ape-like ancestors; and that natural selection—as Darwin understood it—is the principle means by which transmutation occurs. Hitler and the Nazi biologists I have considered certainly claimed a hierarchy of races, but that idea far antedated the publication of Darwin’s theory and was hardly unique to it. There is no evidence linking Hitler’s presumption of such a hierarchy and Darwin’s conception. Moreover, Hitler explicitly denied the descent of species, utterly rejecting the idea that Aryan man descended from ape-like predecessors. And most of the Nazi scientists I have cited likewise opposed that aspect of Darwin’s theory. Hitler did speak of the “struggle for existence,” but likely derived that language from his friend and supporter Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an avowed anti-Darwinian. Moreover, by Hitler’s own testimony, his anti-Semitism had political, not scientific or biological roots; there is no evidence that he had any special feeling for these scientific questions. And in any case, remote and abstract scientific conceptions can hardly provide the motivation for extreme political acts and desperate measures. Among Nazi biologists, at least those publishing in an official organ of the Party, Mendelian genetics and de Vriesian mutation theory were favored, both vying at the beginning of the twentieth century to replace Darwinian theory. Moreover, the perceived mechanistic character of Darwinism stood in opposition to the more vitalistic conceptions of Nazi biologists and that of Hitler—or at least vitalism accords with the drift of his thought about race. Finally, though his own religious views remain uncertain, Hitler often enough claimed religious justification for racial attitudes, assuming thereby the kind of theism usually pitted against Darwinian theory.

If “Social Darwinian” is a concept with definite meaning, it would have to refer to individuals who apply evolutionary theory to human beings in social settings. There is little difficulty, then, in denominating Herbert Spencer or Ernst Haeckel a social Darwinian. With that understanding, Darwin himself also would have to be so called. But how could one possibly ascribe that term to Hitler, who rejected evolutionary theory? Only in the very loosest sense, when the phrase has no relationship to the theory of Charles Darwin, might it be used for Hitler.

In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences, neglecting altogether more straight-forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence. Yet, as I suggested at the beginning of this essay, there is an obvious sense in which my own claims must be moot. Even if Hitler could recite the Origin of Species by heart and referred to Darwin as his scientific hero, that would not have the slightest bearing on the validity of Darwinian theory or the moral standing of its author. The only reasonable answer to the question that gives this essay its title is a very loud and unequivocal No!

 

[blackzeus]

At some point there is only so much innovative sh*t a non-STEM grad/postdoc student can report on. They gotta start making up stupid sh*t

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

At some point there is only so much innovative sh*t a non-STEM grad/postdoc student can report on. They gotta start making up stupid sh*t

THE PAPER IS IN RESPONSE TO A FAIRLY COMMON MISCONCEPTION ABOUT EVOLUTION, DUDE!

 

[observe]

THE PAPER IS IN RESPONSE TO A FAIRLY COMMON MISCONCEPTION ABOUT EVOLUTION, DUDE!

No it's right..it's called social darwinism.. A real field of study back in the days in America to Europe why the white race is superior to other races ..and how the white race is more evolved..like you could earn real college degrees in that shyt..you've seen social dawinism in that movie Django when Leo cap was talking about the indents in that black skull and how it meant that black people were submissive..that's what it is..

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

this is exactly what happened

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

@Mephistopheles this is you, right?

you're op? No one will know...no one saw this thread...

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

@Mephistopheles this is you, right?

you're, op? No one will know...no one saw this thread...

What?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I was under the impression he used the 'Great Chain of Being' philosophy (among others) to justify his Weltanschaungg.

Haven't read Mein Kampf in a good while, though, and would rather not.

​

 

[Thsnnor]

No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.
- Richard Dawkins

 

[Camile.Bidan]

It's nice to believe in the fantasy that evolution stopped at the Eurasian Gate, but it is becoming increasing clear that this not reality.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29123062/...human-evolution-kicks-high-gear/#.VF43ZWDjhla

So to suggest that humans have undergone an evolutionary makeover from Stone Age times to the present is nothing short of blasphemous. Yet a team of researchers has done just that.
They find an abundance of recent adaptive mutations etched in the human genome; even more shocking, these mutations seem to be piling up faster and ever faster, like an avalanche. Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species’ history.

The new genetic adaptations, some 2,000 in total, are not limited to the well-recognized differences among ethnic groups in superficial traits such as skin and eye color. The mutations relate to the brain, the digestive system, life span, immunity to pathogens, sperm production and bones — in short, virtually every aspect of our functioning.

Many of these DNA variants are unique to their continent of origin, with provocative implications. “It is likely that human races are evolving away from each other,” says University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending, who co-wrote a major paper on recent human evolution. “We are getting less alike, not merging into a single mixed humanity.”

Harpending theorizes that the attitudes and customs that distinguish today’s humans from those of the past may be more than just cultural, as historians have widely assumed. “We aren’t the same as people even a thousand or two thousand years ago,” he says. “Almost every trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.”

Three ancient Modern Humans (30,000+ yo) have had their DNA sequenced and the results are shocking--these people have nearly no direct descendants. Their lineages ended abruptly. While there are many explanations as to why this seems to be the case, I strongly suspect that inter-tribal war and conquest led to the ultimate demise of these ancients.



Furthermore it seems, that with every revolutionary change in human history, a great change in Genetics either correlated with the change or preceded it. It's become quite clear that today's people are not the native people of the geographical regions that they now occupy.

Archaeologists have found that early farming culture didn’t change drastically for the next 3,700 years. But about 4,000 years ago, the Bronze Age arrived. People started using bronze tools, trading over longer networks and moving into fortified towns.

Dr. Pinhasi and his colleagues found that the era also brought a sudden shift in human DNA. A new population arrived on the Great Hungarian Plain, and Dr. Reich believes he knows who they were: the northern Eurasians.

“It’s very exciting,” he said. “It documents that by this time in Central Europe, this Eastern influence had already arrived.”

At the start of the Bronze Age, life settled down on the plain for a thousand years. But then came the Iron Age, bringing another shift in culture — and genes.
People began traveling across the plain by horse-drawn chariots and wagons, and the genomes from 2,800 years ago show that the people of the Bronze Age had begun to be supplanted by a new Iron Age population. These are the people most closely related to living Hungarians.

Surprisingly, Y chromosome haplogroups, such as E1b1b1 (M35), E1b1b1a1 (M78), E1b1b1b2a (M123), J2 (M172), J1 (M267), and R1b1a2 (M269), which were claimed to be associated with the Neolithic expansion [23–25], have not been found so far in the 6th millennium BC of the Carpathian Basin and Central Europe. Intriguingly, R1a and R1b, which represent the most frequent European Y chromosome haplogroups today, have been reported from cultures that emerged in Central Europe during the 3rd/2nd millennium BC, while a basal R type has been reported from a Palaeolithic sample in Siberia [60] in agreement with a proposed Central Asian/Siberian origin of this lineage. In contrast, G2a has not been detected yet in late Neolithic cultures [42,43]. This suggests further demographic events in later Neolithic or post-Neolithic periods.

A cautionary tale against over-reliance on modern distributions to trace ancient origins.

While most of these studies seem to center around the Europe, the various invasions into Europe and the subsequent demise of former "Native" Europeans. We know from linguistic genetic, and archaeological evidence that this has happened all across the world.

The Bantu expansion brought farming and y-dna Haplogroup E deeper into Africa and pushed people like the Khois/San into the Southern Tip.

The Austronesian expansion occurred 3000 yeas ago, which brought rice farming deep into South East Asia, and with it came Austronesian Genetics. South East Asia may have had one of the most telling and shocking changes in recent human history. Whereas 3000 years ago, South East Asia was home to Black Skinned, Nappy-haired Natives, after the Austronesian Expansion, it is completely dominated by fairer skinned straight haired people. Like modern day Europeans, only traces of these once dominate native people exist in modern day South East Asians. Moreover, with this change, came farming, civilization and empire.

But the Austronesians themselves were subject to the same pressures from another group of people. Studies of Chinese bones from 5000+ years ago have revealed that Austronesians were in great quantity in the areas now dominated by Han Chinese. Could it be that the Bronze age Han forced the Austronesians out of the mainland? Eventually, the newly iron age Han did catch-up with Austronesians in South East Asia. As a result South East Asians are even more fair, and my wife of Chinese descent has literally thousands of Genetic cousins in Indonesia and the Philippines--a testament to a new Han Expansion into SEA. Today, The Han now dominate South East Asia at least economically.

A similar story occurred in the North America. The Neo-Eskimos with their whale hunting, replaced the paleo-eskimos.

http://www.livescience.com/47604-first-american-arctic-people-genetics.html

No Descendants Are Left from the First Eskimos

It remains a mystery why the Dorset people ultimately died off. Previous studies suggested the Dorset were absorbed by the expanding Thule population — and the Thule did adopt Dorset harpoon types, soapstone lamps and pots, and snow houses. However, these new findings do not find evidence of interbreeding between the groups.
One possibility is that the rise of the Thule represented "an example of prehistoric genocide," Fitzhugh said. "The lack of significant genetic mixing might make it appear so." However, Thule legends of the Dorset "tell only of friendly relations with a race of gentle giants," Fitzhugh added.[/quo

but the story hasn't ended. The Native Americans have been nearly wiped out by the European invasion. Andamanese Blacks teeter on extinction as the Indians encroach on their land.

to outright dismiss that all these post- out-of-Africa events are not the product of Darwinism is intellectually dishonest at worst and lazy at best

 

[The Real]

No it's right..it's called social darwinism.. A real field of study back in the days in America to Europe why the white race is superior to other races ..and how the white race is more evolved..like you could earn real college degrees in that shyt..you've seen social dawinism in that movie Django when Leo cap was talking about the indents in that black skull and how it meant that black people were submissive..that's what it is..

You do realize that the idea of the ancestral purity of a group of people and the superiority or inferiority of different populations has not only little to do with Darwinism, but predates it, right? There's no such thing as "more evolved," by the way. That idea is non-Darwinian.

 

[observe]

You do realize that the idea of the ancestral purity of a group of people and the superiority or inferiority of different populations has not only little to do with Darwinism, but predates it, right? There's no such thing as "more evolved," by the way. That idea is non-Darwinian.

Social dawinism isn't the same thing as dawinism and from what I found wiki isn't telling the truth..this is what it really is

http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/pseudo-scientific-racism-and-social-darwinism-grade-11

 

[JahFocus CS]

No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.
- Richard Dawkins

So Dawkins isn't a capitalist then? Or is he not a "self respecting person?"

People make really silly arguments and lack an understanding of history. Conservatives (Hitler was a right-winger y'all, btw) alternately use Darwinism and attack it. They misapply it to human affairs to justify unjust social orders (social Darwinists), and they attack it when it would mean a leap in people's ability to think and progress ("religious" conservatives).

 

[Oville]

The concept of Social Darwinism is a contradictory idea. Darwin's "Survial of the Fittest" theory was based on natural selection. Meaning nature will ultimately determine what species lives or dies based on how their survival characteristics interact with their natural environment. Social Darwinism is a system which arbitrarily selects certain groups of people as being superior to others using whatever bullshyt reasoning they might have.

 

[Jatt]

The concept of Social Darwinism is a contradictory idea. Darwin's "Survial of the Fittest" theory was based on natural selection. Meaning nature will ultimately determine what species lives or dies based on how their survival characteristics interact with their natural environment. Social Darwinism is a system which arbitrarily selects certain groups of people as being superior to others using whatever bullshyt reasoning they might have.

The phrase "Survival of the Fittest" was actually coined by some capitalist Herbert Spencer. Darwin stressed that the species most fit to adapt would survive on, not the competitive "dog eat dog" concept of Social Darwinism that capitalists choose to focus on.