SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Darwin Day is a celebration of Charles Darwin's birthday, the theory of evolution and science in general. This year marks his 210th birthday and 160 years since the publication of The Origin of Species. Those looking to celebrate or learn more about Darwin and evolution will find a wealth of events going on, or if you'd rather not leave the house, try a Darwin Day card with designs generated by simulated evolution.
Recently, an important finding in man's evolution was announced; the so-called Missing Link was confirmed. Australopithecus Sediba fossils were found in 2010 but it took a decade of research and debate for scientists to confirm that this was indeed the missing link that connects man's evolution in an unbroken chain back to primate ancestors.
Not everyone is down with Darwin. The Pew Research Center reports, "In spite of the fact that evolutionary theory is accepted by all but a small number of scientists, it continues to be rejected by many Americans. In fact, about one-in-five U.S. adults reject the basic idea that life on Earth has evolved at all." In Indiana, senator Dennis Kruse introduced a bill that would, among other things, "require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science."
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday February 11 2019, @05:17PM (2 children)
whichever groups have the best adapted traits are not inherently superior
That doesn't sound so logical. I think you're trying to say something like "not being a jerk to your inferiors is an inherent virtue worth cultivating" is probably what you're trying to say;
No, I interpret his comment differently. Superior traits in one situation may be inferior in a different one. Your genetically typical African is likely ill-suited to an arctic environment. Your average Inuit poorly suited to the savanna.
Genetic diversity gives a species flexibility. Look at cheetahs - they are extraordinarily vulnerable, which in this sense.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @05:36PM (1 child)
That gets questionable in terms of colonialism; if imperialistic colonial forces can fight the natives on native land better, they deserve that ivory or crude oil for being superior.
Colonial imperialistic invasions never seemed to fail because the invading army wasn't diverse enough; Why if we had just brought along some Koreans or Hawaiians we'd still be holding Rhodesia today, etc.
(Score: 4, Informative) by cubancigar11 on Monday February 11 2019, @07:12PM
You get 0 for history and advice to do more homework. Colonial armies were very diverse. In fact, all over history, any army that was successful was incredibly diverse.
Seriously, you didn't think a bunch of British people were enough to defeat the whole world without enlisting locals, right? In fact, the Chinese name for Indians is translated to 'red turban' because it was Sikhs wearing red turbans that fought all the wars (and also fought in Afganistan, and there is a memorial for them in London for their contribution in WW2). Genghis Khan was famously tolerant of all religions and people of all religious fought and rose to become prominent leaders in his army. Alexander assimilated every army he could get its hands on.