Misuse of evolution

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I have considered that possibility but they, including you, NEVER demonstrate that evidence. They never demonstrate their thoughts on account of races of man encroaching in a way substantial enough that I can consider it to be meaningful evidence of anything. So I think extreme fear, not even being able to openly talk about it, is the more parsimonious explanation.

---

I have consistently demonstrated my thoughts on the phrase
in question, and you insist that I am deceiving you, or am
guilty of termininological inexactitude.I have been openly discussing my view on your suggestion ... just
because I disagree doesn't mean that I am scared to agree ...
it means I don't think you are right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Actually Darwinists typically don't consider their theory a "mere" theory, but rather consider it the greatest achievement in the history of thought, or something like that, sometimes going into religious emotionality when talking about it like with Haeckel or Dawkins.

---

Some might, I guess, I don't think you can claim ALL do.I certainly don't. It's important and interesting but hardly
the greatest achievemtn in thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

You probably don't know this, but also Newton's theory of Gravity has been applied to give credibility to some theology about Natural Rights, from which the American Constitution was largely formed. So that is another example of a scientific theory having much influence on moral questions. It's problematic to at the same time hold as true "all people are created equal" (derived from Newton), and "the races of man encroach on one another until some finally become extinct" (Darwin), since racial encroachment assumes some sort of inequality. Two different theories leading to two often diametrically opposed moral positions.

---

You are comparing apples with oranges.'All people are created equal' refers to the rights they should
expect. All people should be TREATED equally is the aim of that
phrase.Racial encroachment doesn't assume superiority/inferiority it
assumes that some resource is contended for. That one race
might utilise that resource better doesn't make them superior
in the sense of the 'equality' referred to above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

More recently with the genocide in Rwanda, it was argued that the theory about where the Tusi's and Hutu's derived from was much instrumental in the genocide. This theory was made mainly by a creationist Speke before Darwin published his "Origin of Species. But the elements in Speke's work that are identified as being instrumental towards genocide, are where he talks about the struggle for existence, and talks about races encroaching, where the one is noted as inferior and the other as superior, which are the same words Darwin uses to describe. Regardless of whether or not Speke's work was pre-Darwinist, all the evidence points towards some theories to have the potential to be highly influential in the moral state of people.

---

First, how can you use a pre-Darwinist example as evidence that
Darwinist thinking causes this problem ... doesn't that suggest
the exact opposite ?Charles Manson claimed that the Beatles songs motivated he
and his family's killing spree ... individuals will mis-use
anything that suits them to justify their actions ... that
doesn't mean that it actually motivated their actions!!Most racist thought is ingrained into people at a very young
age, before they have had the opportunity to learn much of anything.Once educated, the vast majority of people reject racism.

No. I have simply found that the phrase has no relevence
to my situation, just as Newtonian gravitational theory has no relevence to a body at rest.I can consider areas where races do encroach, hypothetically,
and see it as a problem of limited resources rather than
racially motivated slaughter.Two 'tribes' for example, may compete for the same wild herd,
and the best hunters will survive ... nothing to do with directly
attacking one another.Racism is about treating people with inequality because
they are of a different race, not differential survival due to
characteristics of the individuals involved (which is all
evolutionary theory is about).

I think it was directly evident to them. They were suggesting
that all members of society had a right to equal treatment.They were not suggesting that all people are physically equal ...
becuase people are all different ... so they are not
physically equavalent.Scientific theories cannot be shown to have an effect on
the morality (or otherwise) of anyone. Morals are societally
generated and have more to do with the religous background of
a culture (even amonst atheists) than science.

I believe that scientific theories can be used to
influence people, but not that the existence of the
theory influences people.That's different.Pretty much anything that has a source of perceived authority
behind it can be used to manipulate the masses. Religous
doctrine is no exception to this. Wasn't christianity used as
a motivation to slaughter 'heretics' during the inquisition,
and Muslims during the crusades ?Some people will use a corrupted version of any knowledge if they
feel it will serve their ends. It's an unfortunate fact of
life that many people are not even remotely altruistic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I get the distinction.

​

Jack, who has no children, is an unsuccesfull member of an inferior race.

​

This doesn't neccesarily contain a valuejudgement, it can be held to be a scientific observation in Darwinspeak.

---

No. The above has two value judgements. One that jack is
unsuccesful. Success can only be judged against some
soecietally derived norm.Inferior is automatically a value judgement, since it is a comparative. Inferior with respect to what (in this case
again the inferiority is socio-cultural judgement).Jack, who has no children, is an IC1 male with no employment,
fixed address, or other source of financial support.Is a value nuetral statement.The way you used it imposes emotion onto fact, and can thus
be considered manipulative not descriptive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Yet it is IMO clearly irresponsible to talk like that about anybody, because it is indistinguishable from talk where you would be making valuejudgements.

---

It is indistingishable becuase it DOES make value judgements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

The word success is suggestive of desirability, and inferior and superior supports a judgemental use, rather then a neutral use.

---

And that's why the statement as you phrased it is not nuetral.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
/B]

---

The phrase we have been debating has no judgemental language within
it.Different races (or species or sub-species) encroach on one another
until one becomes extinct.Is a description of competition, and is value nuetral.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

It just depends on how you define the words.

---

Now there's a shock! The meaning ascribed to text is somehow
related to the definitions of the words, who woulda guessed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Inferior and success have a different definition in Darwinism then in normal language. Superior meaning something like producing more offspring then the other, and success is used interchangeably in Darwinist discourse with rate. (differential reproductive success, differential rate of reproduction).

---

So in Darwinism 'superior' and 'success' are qualified in a
way which makes them value nuetral.So how can value neutral discourse be cited as a cause for
value laden political agendas ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
the requirement to compare for measuring makes no sense.

---

Try measuring time without a comparison.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
As before......... you already have the event of reproduction for measuring, or the number of offspring.

---

But that tells you nothing in terms of potential causes
for changes in extant features of a population.If breed my pet rats, and want a particular coat color, I note
which breeding pairs produce the most offspring of the desired
type ... and then breed those.I have made a comparison of offspring numbers in order to
hone my selections.Looking at the number of offspring from one breeding pair
tells me nothing about the traits I am interested in, nor
how they affect my 'population'.Sometimes a comparison is the only meaningful measure for
what you wish to observe.That's why control engineers use derivatives ... a comparison
between previous and current values indicative of a rate of
change ... in order to produce complex control strategies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
The cause in change of heritiable features of a population is mutation. Some work to reproduce, others don't.

---

It's not mutation alone though. There has to be selection as well.In any case, how does the number of offspring of one individual
tell us anything about the change of heritable features in
the population?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Currently many species are going extinct. Who cares about proportional frequencies here? Environmentalists, fundamentally, have to look at how organisms reproduce, what they need for reproduction, that should obviously be the main thing in any theory of reproduction.

---

Surely they have to look at ALL of the factors that enable
survival.It doesn't matter what a mountain gorilla needs to reproduce if
a poacher blows its brains out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Seen like this, to have a special case of reproduction as the main thing, differential reproductive success of variants, is quite bizarre.

---

You need to develop a measure that is meaningful to what you
wish to study and/or explain. Differential reproductive success
(which can be measured by trait frequncies if you like) is the
only meaningful indicator of natural selection.Once we have found a set of dominant phenotypes we can look at
environmental factors that make those phenotypic features
beneficial or not.If we trace this over a sufficient number of generations we have an indicator for evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, I already acknowledged that to my best guesses comparison between variants is valid in so far as they compete for the same resources.

---

When do variants NOT compete for the same resources ?

I have had a sense of de ja vu a few times now

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Again, this is not how science is supposed to work. You make a general theory, which applies all the time. You don't make a theory which seems to apply very much with something that has your peculiar interest (evolution). That is being prejudicial.

---

You create a theory to explain a particular phenomenon.ToE is not aimed at explaining reproduction, it is aimed at
explaining the diversity of life on earth. It is thus aimed
at the level of collections of species.Creating a theory to explain a narrow range of phenomenon is
what scientists do ... it's called reductionism and is a paradigm
in which the mainstream sciences have been grounded for centuries.Gravitational theory is not prejudiced towards gravitational
effects ... that's what it is designed to explain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Elsewhere you have yourself suggested that a general theory of reproduction can serve as an umbrella theory for neutral selection and natural selection. Why you now play ignorant to what you already have seen yourself, and also forget about all the other theoretical possible situations we have previously discussed in which variation is not wholy competitive, is beyond me.

---

Sarcasm is lost on some people.Whether there is variation in a population or not, the individuals
compete for resources.All members of a herd are on the same grazing ground, and there
is not infinite grass.All predators (from one or many prides/packs in a particular
environment ) have the same herds to prey on.They all must find a slot in the same living space.Competition in this sense is as much a part of life as anything
else ... despite what your hundred dollar answer was, all animals
are in competition at some level most of the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Differential reproductive success of variants

​

- almost never applies, since there is almost never meaningful variation (variation that has a relative reproductive success over other variants) present in a population most of the time

​

---

What evidence do you have to support this ?If it is not present most of the time, it IS present some of
the time .... that's what natural selection says.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

- is misleading to apply with variations that have a balancingpoint in a population, with variations that do not encroach until extinction

---

How many generations are you considering when you state the
above ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

- is misleading to apply with variations that go into a different environment then their ancestor through their variation being applicable to different resources

---

Why ?Different environments with give advantages to different
variants ... what's wrong with that ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

- leads to false thinking of incremental or gradual change which is based in the longsince discarded theory of blended inheritance, where Mendel's theory shows discrete heritable factors being able to give rise to discrete changes

---

Gregor Mendel's work was a long time ago, and I believe that
most evolutionists will consider mutations and genetic inheretence
as existing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

There are of course many more reasons why a peculiar theory of reproduction would be misleading to have as the fundamental theory, in stead of a general theory of reproduction. For instance it has priority to look at what happens to the same creature in different environments, over looking at what happens to variationfrequencies in a population, in the same environment.

---

Natural selection is NOT a theory of reproduction!! An niether
is ToE!!If you wish to study population genetics, do so ... if you wish
to study evolution formulate theories with which to explore the
possibilities.Don't try to suggest that one theory is blatantly wrong becuase it
does not explore the area of your interest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Darwinists are making people look to organisms in a comparitive way making them say one is better then the other, which obviously is conducive to valuejudgements.

---

Not 'better' ... better suited to an environment.A gorilla isn't better or worse than a man, it's just different.Early thinking may have belaboured man's superiority (in general)
over the 'animals', but that is largely a societal issue ... and
rooted in christian belief of man as God's pinnacle of creation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

You can know that it is conducive to value judgements by thought experiment, but I guess this should be proved by psychologists researching the subject.

---

Back to this.Do you know much about psychology? In particular I was thinking
of how an expressed opinion says as much about the person
expressing as about the subject matter.You seem to hung up of racism (and perhaps in your situation
you have every reason to be), but that does not mean that
everythin is racist nor that there are simple cause-effect
explanations for racism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

A superficial survey of the most influential Darwinist literature, such as that of Haeckel, Lorenz, Dawkins, Darwin, Galton, Singer etc. shows most of them to make valuejudgements on account of Darwinist theory.

---

In your opinion ... give us a list of quotes and see if we agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Same as with Schrafinator, all the questions you ask, have already been answered by me. Unless your bring something new then I don't think it is worth responding anymore.

---

I am of much the same opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
The reason examples of very vile and violent pre-Darwin racism and genocide were brought up was because they showed that racism and genocide could not have possibly originated with Darwin, but was alive and well for millenia before Darwin was even born.

​

---

​

The reason examples of very vile and violent pre-Nazi racism and genocide were brought up was because they showed that racism and genocide could not have possibly originated with Nazism.

---

Racism didn't ORIGINATE with Nazism. It was present as a part
of the Nazi ethos.The reason, as far as I see it, that it is incorrect to raise the
second as an objection to the first is partly that racism was
deliberately provoked in Nazi germany as political tool to win
over the masses. It was aimed at stirring up the xenophobic
instincts by saying 'THEY are taking your jobs!'It was a deliberate manipulation of people, the initial target
of the racism were the Jews becuase on the whole in that place
and time they were among the more successful, so it was easy to
get the poorer masses to turn against them. Hitler was already
anti-semitic apparently, and the atrocities that he authorised
were almost beyond belief.Ghengis Khan had similar, territorial, power-base reasons for
persecution.Perhaps the existence of racism today should be laid at Hitler,
or Ghegis Khan's feet ... or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Ramses the Great,
or Moses, or ... well just about any other politically motivated
leader who used a part of human nature for their own ends.

OK.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
The previous argument raised still lets it open for Darwinism to be just as conducive to racist and genocidal thought as Nazism. Therefore in the context of this discussion the argument is meaningless.

---

In so much as anything can be used by racists to justify their
racism, then yes.That there is any inherent racism with ToE, then no.The argument as put forward by you is that Darwinism promotes
racists and genocidal thought.A number of Darwinist supporters have said, after considering the
matter, that they don't.No Darwinist here has said that they do.The sample size is too small to be conclusive, but equally casts
doubt on your original assertion.A line of reasoning has been put forward that suggests that racista
and genocidal thinking pre-dates Darwinist thought, and implies
that such behaviours/attitudes are a part (whether we like it
or not) of the human condition/mentality.Historical observation bears this out.From a behavioural point of view we may consider it a manifestation
of a vestigial 'xenophobic' survival instinct as exhibited by our
closest genetic reletive the chimpanzee. Chimp males patrol
their tribal territory, and upon finding a chimp from another
group, they attack and kill it/them. This is so that the resources
of their territory can be used for their group's survival alone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

This has been one of yours and many other's main arguments, and therefore much of yours and other's counterargument should be discarded as meaningless. Please acknowledge

---

I have elaborated why the line of reasoning has been used above.It is not meaningless when used in the intended context.