Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinism and Nazism
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 16 of 90 (29164)
01-15-2003 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by John
01-14-2003 7:01 PM


I doubt that is what Schrafinator intended to say. Natural Selection and evolution are not linked by definition (except for definitions of Natural Selection that are, as I argue, wrong) they are linked by the incidence of variation or actually mutation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John, posted 01-14-2003 7:01 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John, posted 01-15-2003 9:11 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 01-15-2003 9:43 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 27 by nator, posted 01-18-2003 7:57 AM Syamsu has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 90 (29178)
01-15-2003 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Syamsu
01-15-2003 1:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I doubt that is what Schrafinator intended to say. Natural Selection and evolution are not linked by definition (except for definitions of Natural Selection that are, as I argue, wrong) they are linked by the incidence of variation or actually mutation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That is exactly what Schraf did say. It may be that she meant something else, but she can comment if she wishes.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 01-15-2003 1:40 AM Syamsu has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 18 of 90 (29180)
01-15-2003 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Syamsu
01-15-2003 12:24 AM


I was referring to the interpretations you made in the message I replied to, #11 in this thread, and also reflected here in the message I'm replying to now:
I go a bit further then Fischer saying that the formulation of Natural Selection is unneccessarily conducive to Social Darwinism.
Yes, you go quite a bit further than Fischer. You believe that the theory of evolution and Social Darwinism are inextricably entwined, that this entanglement has been the root of much evil, that Darwin, Haeckel, et al, deserve much of the blame, that the association invalidates the science, and that the theory should therefore be reformulated. Is this wholly your own opinion, or does it come from somewhere else? I'm asking because you've been making this same point for a long time, but it makes as little sense to me now as when I first saw it, so I thought that maybe if your views are shared by others that I might find enlightenment there.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Syamsu, posted 01-15-2003 12:24 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brad McFall, posted 01-15-2003 10:17 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 21 by Syamsu, posted 01-15-2003 10:27 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 19 of 90 (29181)
01-15-2003 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Syamsu
01-15-2003 1:40 AM


Syamsu writes:
Natural Selection and evolution are not linked by definition...
Au contraire! The word "evolution" did not appear in the early editions of The Origin of Species. Darwin referred to what later became known as evolution as "the theory of descent with modification through natural selection."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 01-15-2003 1:40 AM Syamsu has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5109 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 20 of 90 (29183)
01-15-2003 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
01-15-2003 9:32 AM


It can and should be reformulated. I guess I understand your point now, P; it is possible in whatever this now to be known "structure of evolutionary theory" that NS will come out on concetual TOP. I doubt it and it will be the evidence that tells. The problem is that there is not enough momentum in the biological community dedicated to this problem but also it is because the evolutionists who know enough to actually attempt this (the motivation of Gould and Eldridge etc for the generalization of such an attempt so far etc from a nonadaptive etc etc perspective ...)are happy enough with their chairs' endowment and current ongoing protocols to attempt something as radical as finding a forest of trees with same root system but different gene flows.
It may take being in US to see that social Darwinism need not be only harmfully attached to evolution think. I have NEVER thought this point of Percy's to be a problem. There are SOCIAL problems and will continue to be ethical issues until the science is better worked on and out. This is why the c/e repose IS of some benefit to society. The issue of getting the anthropology as unified as possible really makes enough sense to promote only after the physico-chemistry is in its best order but the biological community is so divided that perhaps it will not have to take bioweapons to change this. I PRAY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 01-15-2003 9:32 AM Percy has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 21 of 90 (29184)
01-15-2003 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
01-15-2003 9:32 AM


Actually it is the theory of Natural Selection I'm talking about, not the theory of evolution. That the formulation is wrong is wholly my opinion yes, but it is wrong, as I argue, on purely structural grounds not because of it's association to Social Darwinism. I wish you could try to be more precise about my position.
John, Quetzal and Peter on this forum seem to agree with me that there can be Natural Selection on a clone population. But this does not then make them think as me, that the definition of Natural Selection as differential reproductive succes of variants is therefore wrong.
Apart from criticizng the structure of the theory, I also criticize the wordusage, words like selfish and succes. In my opinion you can dismiss the selfish gene formulation simply because it has the word selfish in it, without looking at it's content. Haeckel also tried to do something similar before, talking about the soul of atoms and whatnot. I think such theories can all be dismissed pending changes in wordusage, because in practice they make the standard for scietific knowledge to not contain valuejudgements meaningless.
edited to add: I forgot. There are many people who make similar arguments as mine, but they argue it with the formulaton "survival of the fittest" in stead of "differential reproductive success of variants". "Survival of the fittest" is both argued to be wrong, and also conducive to Social Darwinism.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 01-15-2003 9:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 9:57 AM Syamsu has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 22 of 90 (29375)
01-17-2003 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Syamsu
01-15-2003 10:27 AM


Actually it is the theory of Natural Selection I'm talking about, not the theory of evolution.
There is no theory of NS. The theory of evolution includes NS. As I just stated a couple messages ago, Darwin referred to what later became known as evolution as "the theory of descent with modification through natural selection."
That the formulation is wrong is wholly my opinion, yes, but it is wrong, as I argue, on purely structural grounds not because of it's association to Social Darwinism.
What is wrong is your misformulation of evolution. First you misstate it, then you criticize the improper definition you created. As I've said, I'm not able to follow or make sense of your approach, and that is why I asked if there is someone else who shares your views that I might read.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Syamsu, posted 01-15-2003 10:27 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2003 11:18 AM Percy has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 23 of 90 (29386)
01-17-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
01-17-2003 9:57 AM


I can't make sense of your position.
You disagree then with John, Quetzal and Peter that there can be Natural Selection on a clone population?
The definition of differential reproductive succes of variants is a strawman definition of mainstream Natural Selection?
Again, there are many people who criticize the formulation "survival of the fittest" in a similary way. Do you also not understand these people, or have you never read them?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 9:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 12:32 PM Syamsu has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 24 of 90 (29391)
01-17-2003 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Syamsu
01-17-2003 11:18 AM


Syamsu writes:
I can't make sense of your position.
What I think I'm beginning to sense is that making yourself clear isn't your goal. I didn't state a position, I merely quoted Darwin from The Origin of Species.
If there are people out there who have written books or articles who share your particular view of how the TOE is structurally unsound and should be reformulated then I would be interested to know who they are. Right now you look like a army of one, and if that's actually the case then it's probably not worth the effort trying to understand what you're getting at, but if you're actually giving voice to a body of thought that has other representatives then I'd like to look into it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2003 11:18 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 01-18-2003 2:24 AM Percy has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 25 of 90 (29462)
01-18-2003 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
01-17-2003 12:32 PM


I think I have already made it clear enough, I think your attitude is the problem here, as I remember you previously insisted on a partisan attitude for debate. What about intellectual curiosity as an attitude for discussion over partisan politics?
It seems your position is the exception, on this forum at least, since it seems you don't accept Natural Selection on a clone population. When there can be Natural Selection on a clone population, it should be clear that there can be Natural Selection without evolution. From that IMO follows that the formulation of differential reproductive success of variants is a definition of Natural Selection biased towards evolution.
I have also written numerous lenghty posts to make it clear why another definition of Natural Selection is better. Maybe you should read those. But since you show no interest, don't ask or answer specific questions, I feel it would be useless to post every argument once again.
I haven't found anyone whose position is exactly the same as mine, as before, only similar. But as far as Natural Selection being applicable on a clone population I "enlist" John, Quetzal and Peter in my "army" who will now force you to come up with an answer if or not Natural Selection can apply to a clone population I guess.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 12:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 01-18-2003 8:06 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 01-18-2003 11:08 AM Syamsu has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 90 (29479)
01-18-2003 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Syamsu
01-14-2003 11:31 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Darwin continuously talks about lower and higher in "Descent of Man".[/QUOTE]
Taken in context, the use of these terms does not mean "inferior" and "superior".
quote:
He also talks about what the highest state of morality is for a person, and he advises that people to any significant degree "inferior" should not marry.
He probably got that part from the Bible. Why don't you propose that we change the Bible because the Nazis used it to justify their actions?
No one denies that Darwin was a PRODUCT OF HIS CULTURE AND OF HIS TIME. He was WRONG about his racism, and that is why it ISN'T PART OF THE CURRENT THEORY.
quote:
The theory of Natural Selection was largely derived from the work of Malthus,
Really? According to whom? What evidence do you have?
quote:
which in retrospect has come to be classed as a work of Social Darwinism, even if it was published before Darwin.
Social darwinism does not have anything to do with natural selection or Biology.
Social darwinism is a misuse of scientific principles for a political or cultural end.
In other words, you are AGAIN blaming baseball bat manufacturers for the fact that people have used baseball bats to bash other people's skulls in.
Decide which position you hold, Syamsu. On the one hand, you say you do not blame the original theory for the fact that people have misused it, but then you go right ahead and do that very thing in the next breath.
You have repeatedly blamed darwin's theory because other people have misused it.
quote:
Social Darwinism has been closely entertwined with Darwinism from the conception of the theory.
That is the fault of the people MISUSING THE THEORY.
quote:
Your reference to basebalbats is superficial nonsense.
No, it is a perfect analogy to show that you are illogically blaming a scientific theory because it is misused by others.
quote:
At least you have shut yourself up, because except for changing your mind, you can do nothing else now then repeat your nonsense argument, you are stuck with it.
You are the only one around here who thinks that my analogy is nonsense, Syamsu. You are pretty much on your own there.
quote:
Your argument doesn't allow for any further nuance, or looking at any evidence for that matter, like the books of Darwin, Haeckel or Lorenz for instance.
My argument doesn't need further nuance. You claim that Darwin's theory and one of it's proposed mechanisms, Natural Selection, is to blame for racism and Nazi ideology. All I have to do to show that you are utterly wrong is to show that;
1) racism has been around long before Darwin's theory was invented, which you yourself admit, and that
2) social darwinism is not part of the theory, which I have done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Syamsu, posted 01-14-2003 11:31 AM Syamsu has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 90 (29480)
01-18-2003 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Syamsu
01-15-2003 1:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I doubt that is what Schrafinator intended to say. Natural Selection and evolution are not linked by definition (except for definitions of Natural Selection that are, as I argue, wrong) they are linked by the incidence of variation or actually mutation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Um, that is EXACTLY what I said, let alone intended to say.
Incidence of variation is the raw material with which natural selection works. The other part is the environmental pressures.
Natural selection is the proposed mechanism of evolution.
How on earth can you possibley deny this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 01-15-2003 1:40 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2003 9:37 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 90 (29481)
01-18-2003 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
01-18-2003 2:24 AM


[QUOTE] I haven't found anyone whose position is exactly the same as mine, as before, only similar. But as far as Natural Selection being applicable on a clone population I "enlist" John, Quetzal and Peter in my "army" who will now force you to come up with an answer if or not Natural Selection can apply to a clone population I guess.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B][/QUOTE]
I am wondering why it is impportant if NS applies to a clone population or not, as this almost never happens in the real world?
I would also add that your objection to terms like "selfish" and "survival of the fittest" are emotional reactions to your misunderstanding of them. You are putting a great deal of significance and social meaning into them that are not intended.
In other words, you are taking them out of context, changing their meaning to one which you can rail against, then wasting everyone's time arguing against straw men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 01-18-2003 2:24 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 01-18-2003 9:41 AM nator has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5667 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 29 of 90 (29488)
01-18-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
01-18-2003 8:06 AM


The clone-example is merely to clearly illustrate that some definitions, such as that of differential reproductive success of variants, are fundamentally wrong. Situations where variation is much irrellevant in Natural Selection are common in Nature, such as with endangered species. As before the main application of Selection would be to describe the relation of an organism to it's environment in regards to the event of it's reproduction. For example: light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection). It would be the main conceptual tool in biology.
Yes I do tend to take "selfish" out of context, and so does everybody, which is why it is wrong to use an emotive word like that in a science theory.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 01-18-2003 8:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 01-20-2003 8:35 AM Syamsu has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 30 of 90 (29494)
01-18-2003 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
01-18-2003 2:24 AM


Syamsu writes:
I think I have already made it clear enough, I think your attitude is the problem here, as I remember you previously insisted on a partisan attitude for debate. What about intellectual curiosity as an attitude for discussion over partisan politics?
Uh, Syamsu, I was playing devil's advocate as Percy in a fake debate with myself as Admin.
It seems your position is the exception, on this forum at least, since it seems you don't accept Natural Selection on a clone population.
I don't believe I've committed myself one way or the other on the topic. As I keep saying, my focus is on trying to understand what you're getting at.
I have also written numerous lenghty posts to make it clear why another definition of Natural Selection is better. Maybe you should read those. But since you show no interest, don't ask or answer specific questions, I feel it would be useless to post every argument once again.
I've read many of your posts, and I don't understand where you're coming from. I don't think anyone else does, either. I finally gave up conversing with you shortly after you joined, but I've become amazed at your persistance and am now curious and wondering if there is some other source for the views you're espousing. I'm specifically asking you to *not* explain yourself again, but am instead asking for someone who believes pretty much (not "exactly") as you do that the theory of evolution is structurally unsound and needs to be reformulated. Where you lose me is when you say it is "structurally unsound" but then go on to talk about misuses of evolutionary theory by groups like the Nazis, and social darwinism, which have nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution itself.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 01-18-2003 2:24 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 01-18-2003 11:39 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2003 6:44 AM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024