Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum: Darwnist Ideology
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 256 of 265 (94921)
03-26-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Mr. Bound
03-25-2004 2:02 PM


Re: Forgive and forget
But dont forget to forgive not backfeed. I am not suggesting you are doning this, just preparing my self for the reality. It really is looking more difficult for me to seperate HOW I know from WHAT but there is a difference of "absolute" and "unique" but once you become able (nor not) to read differences into my OWN uniquie take of evo-cre (maybe warmer America is "closer" to it than UK EVEN AS UNDERSTOOD BY HARVARD LIGHTS) (my Grandfather TAUGHT evolution from the 30s to the 70s SOUTH of Buffalo and practically out of reach of the garment district in NYC). I learned natural history from him not the notheastern establishment (wherein I grew up) as he was from South Dakoda by way of Illionis. He was "the authority" both on stamp collecting and biology and nature in Chataqua County. Computers have enabled me to go beyond him however, in terms of communication of/in the same. God Bless and Thanks ADDminimus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-25-2004 2:02 PM Mr. Bound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-28-2004 6:53 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Mr. Bound
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 265 (95460)
03-28-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Brad McFall
03-26-2004 10:15 AM


Re: Forgive and forget
No worries, I just cant decipher your ramblings at all. I'm sure there's something in there worth thinking about, but it's beyond my reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Brad McFall, posted 03-26-2004 10:15 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Brad McFall, posted 03-30-2004 4:30 PM Mr. Bound has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 258 of 265 (96049)
03-30-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Mr. Bound
03-28-2004 6:53 PM


One last try
before the fact After the FACT
` ~
` ~
` $
` ~ $
` $ $ ~
` ~ ` $ $ $
` $
`Directional directionaL
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gould questions chapter 4, STOET with " For we still struggle with adaption and constraint just as Paley and Aggassiz contrasted the comparable positions in natural theology:" The creator foresaw the needs of each species and created just those organs that were necessary ot carry them out" vs "God had in the beginning established laws, and nature was left to unfold in accordance with them" (characterizations of Appel 1987p7). Do not Fisher vs Wright, or Cain and Maynard Smith vs Goodwin and Kaufmann carry on the same debate, evolutionarily transmorgified of course?" and yet IN CONTINUITY (no matter the materiality of the boar's watch or watching the boar's morph etc) and yet I find it FALSE(p269) that "Paley enjoyed no conceptual access to this legitamte adaptationist exit from the dillemma." but it is necessary to access the level of conceptual advancement that Gould underwent in before his passing/exit in order to explain Gould's curious ommsion of Wright/Fisher in the VS"" passage on his second entry % "Evolution does not establish an ultimate divide for all transitions in the history of biology. Several themes pass right through this great revision, only altering their terms and explanations. Formalism vs functionalism may be the most prominent and persistent of issues too grand even for evolution to undo (or fully resolve). Paley an Agassiz once fought this battle in grand style; Dawkins and Goodwin cannot cast so broad a conceptual net, or muster the same stylistic panache today, but they pursue the same conflict"%of the same framed on page (no matter the wrench for the watch or boar bone etc) for/as the word "environment"comes under observation there thru there-where. I do not NEED to discuss the change in names provided I accept the fractal fracture in page 256 footnote (WHICH I, BSM,DO( I prefer a detailed enumeration of uses of the word "dimension" rather than the neologisms fractalwise="frustration" (spelling chagri''n instead))
Gould assumed that "ancestral adapation" was localized logically Gould legged strucutre not to Aggazi's GOD of higher classifications. Instead I find the faliure to reexit Wright/Fisher there as NOT depending on the connotations of "environment" but rather because of Lerner's us of location lexically in word MEso VS "point of no return" of microevo published in the 50s for any denotation of the symbology Gould signed in with Aggasiz's "four". I will show that Cantor's continous motion in discontinuous space provides the "perfection" thus versioned inter alia and that (natural) selection can be futher discected by ONLY Einstein's SECOND axiom , necessarily. Subsequently I wil try to demonstrate the logic by explaining MODE changes of stabalizing selection from central to extreme via disruptive selection of this disconinutiy WHICH WAS aforesaid continity ONLY VIA negentropy sinks CORELATED with cell death explaining directional LEFT VS RIGHT selectability in apodian scale symmetry breaking under "constraint" of sound dependence on light independece of the source Mendel common denominator. I would prefer simply to comment on the so-called sand contrast of Paley and Aggassiz and have that reasoning accepted but I know really better that that can not be accepted as of yet here on EVC even if it was CVE. Part of that difficulty is that unlike physics which progresses by reducing national styles Gould insisted on constraining biology this way unwisely but should the math work up the physical modifcation in new stats unevetfully such explanination of GOuld's passing work would not need the comments I provide here.We have instead the "good old days" of creationism but that is my choice.Gould misadjudicated modern biology when he adjudged in sum his opening to his chapter Four, p278. After I caught my first milk snake by saving the specimen from the matchtte of my father clearing briars for goats I NEEDED to know why the milk snake had 13 different names NOT how to calculate its speed when challgenged instead by a ditch I put it and other differently named speices for the distance crawl as reveled orginally on my watch I had got from dad instead of a two-edged sword for track training. Agassiz and Paley supplied the science behind the kind of question my father was concurrently asking of Jesus to Peter's mother rather than the location that birds depart for Canada for good my Grandfather had implied applied to snakes as well as birds but eventually knew less than I did as well as that my father knew as well. Why I had to be asked if I ever thought I was JESUS is beyond me. Gould had intellectually confused "dimension" with "transversal". Still ,he may have also failed to appreciate Lerner's divide of 'mathematical genetics', 'biometrical genetics', and 'population genetics' in the name of God but I am not prepared to find that yet on Earth. Life on Mars etc would "accelearate" that research however.Today I will remark that contraaccount Bridges we may indeed be staring atthe affect of"p115The last parameter, "motion," according to the usual implication may be anyting, accelearted in any way or not. Logically this is probably demanding more than we need, and we could get along with the postulate that the velocity of light is independent of any UNIFORM moiton of the source. It could then be left open to experiment whther in fact there may be any effects due to acceration of the source. As far as we know, there is no reason to expect the existence of such effects, except insofar as they may be connected with intense gravitational fields." because in Aggaszis style Paley's eye by light might be writ materially (not just entropically as this paper details cotra contrast any pigeon holed) by melaning black body Plankemmission become ADAPTION itself never hardened(only not manipluated in the recpetion) as the likes of the current baramin of evolutionary bioloigsts dont suggest can gain say the physical rigor of Enstein studying physicists actively. We need indeed this faculty of reason. I hope my son will understand I am not dead down beat but up beating still this drum bommeranged in life. A firsbee is not the bommer that the hula hooped the snake that my Grandfather was the first to find swamped in south illionis. NO myth noindeed. This is the "exception" I personally wrote to ICR to participate with me on but I had not the degree. I probably need some time before I can revision my first idea aka Bridgman that involved gravity where now it simply depends hopefully only on biological details. I guess there is maturity after all! And I accept that ascii of GOuLD!!. One does not need to "drinK" A pilattte to "get it". Note Aggasiz gave MORE to geology!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-28-2004 6:53 PM Mr. Bound has not replied

  
SweeneyTodd
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 265 (98632)
04-08-2004 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Syamsu
02-16-2004 9:36 AM


Re: Creationists goodguys, Evolutionists badguys
Here we go...a broad assessment of Creation versus Evolution and your desire for some "Darwinian" impact.
Preface: As someone who agrees with the ToE as an explaination for the diversity of life on earth, I do not know anyone who is a "Darwinist". I have friends that are Creationists, anti-creationists, and ones that think they understand evolution but don't. None of us see any value in eugenics, the haulocaust, or social engineering in any way. My area of study in science is Environmental/Ecological, in which inter-connectedness and synergy of relationships is explored, so thats where I'm coming from.
Evolution Assessment: I don't see any huge impact by ideology in any sense you are argueing for. As one of my professors said in an evolution class, one of reasons the ToE works so well and helps explain so much in biology is the "absence of inconsistancies." If your claim that ideology has undue influence on ToE is true, then every scientist and every enthusiest with evolution would need to be indoctrinated somehow. There are no holy places, no hierarchy, no required reading, no absolute world view. It is not faith, it is hard work to "get" evolution. As far as contributions to the world, just open your eyes. Evolution could be viewed as a synthesis of other disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, math, geology, etc...
Some home work for you to see how you think "Darwinism" would analyze this scenerio...You have two stands of trees in similar geographical areas that are to be cut for timber. Both are pine trees, they are different species of pine, but each is commonly harvested as timber. Each stand of trees grows to a typical harvesting age of twenty years. The first stand of pines produces twice the board feet of the second stand of pines. Which is the superior pine tree? Should we only plant the one type of pine in the future?
Creationism Assessment: Hope I don't disappoint. My personal experience with creationist, and especially YECers, is with people who piggy-back and bastardize real science to achieve a predetermined agenda. There is rampant, willful misinformation directed at young people in order to win them over. I see no freedom of choice as you claim, no open minds. The theories that may be expressed seem to less about "proving" Creationism and more about bashing ToE. No scientific study in evolution that I know of had at any point a goal of getting one up on the YECers. In contrast, I believe that every argument for Creationism is simultaneously an argument against the ToE.
In Closing: All the claims that you have made about attrocities committed with a Darwinian mindset, such as "survival of the fittest" seeming to allow and even call for eugenics and genocide, are wholely outside of the ToE. Misunderstood aspects of a scientific theory should not lead any fair minded person to conclude that the science behind the misunderstanding is driven by some isidious agenda. I don't think anyone who really understands the ToE, such as the fine people you are arguing with right now, feels that it in anyway shows superiority from one organism so the next. It demonstrates successful and unsuccessful organisms. It is only in the tenets of religion and Creationism where special status is implied and organisms are judged as good or bad, or clean or unclean.
I think your assessment of the CvE debate of amazingly off. I don't think you could possibly be more wrong.
P.S. Wasn't there a touch of the occult to the Nazi's? Neo-Nazis today are surely not ideologically driven Darwinists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Syamsu, posted 02-16-2004 9:36 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Brad McFall, posted 04-08-2004 7:12 PM SweeneyTodd has not replied
 Message 261 by Syamsu, posted 04-13-2004 3:26 AM SweeneyTodd has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 260 of 265 (98770)
04-08-2004 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by SweeneyTodd
04-08-2004 4:57 AM


Re: Creationists goodguys, Evolutionists badguys
The reason they are "absent" is because there is no current account of incidences vs frequencies. Perhaps however this is presently only an issue"" I,BSM, preceive, but real it is nonetheless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-08-2004 4:57 AM SweeneyTodd has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 261 of 265 (99594)
04-13-2004 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by SweeneyTodd
04-08-2004 4:57 AM


Re: Creationists goodguys, Evolutionists badguys
Clearly your idea about how to do the science of history leaves something to be desired. To say that people misunderstood and misused the theory is false, when many of the most influential scientists in the field stimulated ideological application, and mixed ideology into the theory in their most influential works. You paint a picture of an innocent science, done by innocent scientists who have nothing much but intellectual curiosity in mind, a fairytale. At the end you make some vague reference to Nazi's being influenced by the occult. Obviously your attitude towards science of history is a pick and choose kind of affair, you pick and choose whichever facts happens to defend your postition.
Darwinist is a common nomer, and once people were proud to be identified as such, and I guess some still are.
It's interesting that you talk about pine trees in similar area's, and not the same area. Could there also be natural selection happening now between us and similar people on a similar planet in another galaxy? Your scenario suggests that this is a proper application of natural selection. To avoid this bizarre application, you would really have to do away with the comparitive element in natural selection. So I would say that each pine has their reproductive rate in it's selective regime, individual, in stead of saying this pine has a reproductive rate that is higher then one in another galaxy..... The comparitive element in natural selection is essentially ideological, it doesn't belong there.
You just blandly assume that evolution theory is wholy without ideology, without doing any investigation whatsoever, a piece of rhetoric. Not doing any real investigation into things that might discredit their theory, is standard practice for most all Darwinists in my experience.
edited to add: and since you're an environmental scientist, can you give an estemation at the state of development of environmental science, as previously discussed in this thread? Is it badly underdeveloped like I say it is, or is it already well developed in your opinion?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 04-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-08-2004 4:57 AM SweeneyTodd has not replied

  
catapam
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 265 (103032)
04-27-2004 9:52 AM


Who create early human beings?
Hi!
I’m from Romania and I have a question for you.
Recently because of genetics and molecular biology, the scientist declare that Neanderthal Man is a different species from Homo sapiens sapiens (descendents of modern humans).
Evidence discover by archeologists show that Neanderthal man can handle fire, create and use tools, create clothes, create colored paintings on the walls of caves, buried their dead.
Even we reject genetics, only judging after the skulls or bones found by archeologists, we must admit that they look highly different from humans.
So we must conclude that they are an intelligent species different from humans.
Now, I want to ask you, in Creation theory, who create those intelligent species?

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Dr Jack, posted 04-27-2004 10:16 AM catapam has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 263 of 265 (103037)
04-27-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by catapam
04-27-2004 9:52 AM


Re: Who create early human beings?
Posting the same message more than once is spamming, Catapam, and very rude. Please also try to only post messages which are relevant to the actual topic - your post has no place here. Either post to a thread it does have a relevance to, or as I suspect would be better for this post, propose a new topic.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by catapam, posted 04-27-2004 9:52 AM catapam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by catapam, posted 04-27-2004 10:59 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
catapam
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 265 (103050)
04-27-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dr Jack
04-27-2004 10:16 AM


Re: Who create early human beings?
Sorry,
It wasn't my intention to post many times the same article.
My connection is slow so maybe I hit the send button more than once.
I don't now how to propose a new topic.
I search between topics and I thought that my post can be connected with 2-3 topics found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Dr Jack, posted 04-27-2004 10:16 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2004 1:41 PM catapam has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 265 of 265 (103089)
04-27-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by catapam
04-27-2004 10:59 AM


rules and procedure for new topics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by catapam, posted 04-27-2004 10:59 AM catapam has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024