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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinism and Nazism
nator
Member (Idle past 2246 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 76 of 90 (31031)
02-02-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Syamsu
01-31-2003 11:06 AM


quote:
The paper Darwin and Wallace jointly published in the journal of the Linneanian society (could be misspelling). That you don't even know of it's existence says much about the attitudes on peer-review in Darwinist science.
I did know about it, Syamsu, but the Linneanian society's Journal wasn't the same as a modern professional science journal. Science was not formalized or professionalized back them. The Linneanian society was a bunch of men interesed in naturalism, and they wrote up their findings and put it in the journal.
Peer review happened, after a fashion, because everybody in the society chimed in with their thoughts, but it was much more casual and there was no before-the-fact, stringent approval for publication like there is today.
Please do not forget that my whole point in this discussion is to help you understand that popular press books, like those you can find in the bookstore (Selfish Gene), no matter if they are based on peer reviewed research, are NOT to be considered formal definitions of any scientific theory. If you want to find a formal statement of a scientific theory, you have to look in a textbook.
quote:
The paper was also largely ignored at the time it was published.
Right.
added by edit 2/3; Actually, Origins was not largely ignored. It was huge when it came out, getting a great deal of atention and scrutiny. See the following link:
University Libraries - University Libraries | University of South Carolina
quote:
I think this is because the paper was substandard, and not as many Darwinists argue, because of unwillingness of creationists to accept it.
The science in Origins is excellent, which it still largely standt today.
You are right about people rejecting it out of hand because of religion.
added by edit 2/3: I realized I misread what you wrote. People did reject Origins out of hand because of religion, contrary to your claim.
quote:
I have seen reference to Dawkins selfish gene doctrine in a science paper,
Really? Which one. Please provide the citation so I can go look it up.
quote:
besides a large share of Darwinists have the opinion that his book "The Selfish Gene" is an "important" book.
So what? That it is an important book does not make it a formal explanation of the Theory of Evolution.
quote:
As before, I would be happy if Dawkins books were ignored within science as the books of an eccentric,
An eccentric who is also a brilliant scientist and correct, BTW.
quote:
but unfortunately they aren't. Dawkins also gives a technical definition of selfishness, and altruism in his book.
Really? Please post it here.
quote:
It is not as some people would like to believe a metaphore, but it is supposed to be used as a technical term.
Post it here and we will discuss it.
quote:
But before he defines selfishness technically he already uses the word to say that "people are born selfish", and says things like people can get insight into their "greed" and "genorosity" through his and Darwin's theory. I don't think he has a technical definition of greed.
Please post the entire quote here.
quote:
Am I to suppose that when Dawkins warns that people are born selfish, and they should learn to overcome their inborn selfishness in becoming adults, that that is just technical usage of the term selfish?
I think that Dawkins says that people are born with selfish "GENES".
The GENES are selfish!
THE GENES THE GENES THE GENES.
quote:
Then it would read something like people are born to try to get themselves to reproduce, and in becoming adults they should try to get others to reproduce at cost of not reproducing themselves. By the technical usage of selfish, Dawkins is a nut telling us we should try to help others to reproduce. By the more straightforward colloquial usage of selfishness, Dawkins mixes science with valuejudgement, so it should also be discarded.
The Selfish Gene is a popular press book, and that is why he uses the provocative language that he does.
That you cannot separate your emotional response to, and understanding of how he uses the word, "selfish", is no reason to reject the ideas in the book.
Just because the ideas are unpalatable to you doesn't make them wrong. It is my opinion that you don't (want to) understand his metaphor.
Finally, do you understand that, contrary to what you have claimed, that The Selfish Gene is not to be taken as a formal definition of the Theory of Evolution?
Can you provide a textbook definition of the ToE that contains the word "selfish"?
quote:
You are just pretending that the scientific process in Darwinism is just the same as in physics, or chemistry, much as a dialectical materialist Marxist ecnomotrist would, but unfortunately it's not.
Um, whatever, but yes, the scientific method is the same in Biology as it is in Physics as it is in Geology.
Do you have any evidence that it isn't?
quote:
You also fail to answer questions about the validity of the formulation "differential reproductive success of variants". Would a physician or chemist also fail to answer such questions? Isn't it just unique to Darwinism, that the field is filled with highly politicized people, for who answering such questions presents political risk of defaming their science?
The field is filled with highly politicized people??
Who?
quote:
"differential reproductive success of variants" is used in many science-papers.
That's because that is one way of describing natural selection.
quote:
It is not a highly technical term, it has an intuitive part about "success", which notionally refers to things like struggle/competition/purpose.
No, it doesn't.
It only does in your mind, and yours alone.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-02-2003]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Syamsu, posted 01-31-2003 11:06 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2003 11:19 PM nator has replied

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


Message 77 of 90 (31196)
02-03-2003 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by nator
02-02-2003 9:49 AM


Mendel wrote a piece of formalized biological science at about the same timeperiod as Darwin. So Darwin really has no excuse for solely writing his theory up in prosaic common style.
Besides, Darwinists could have written his theory up in formalized style later, and not continue with the prosaic style. Then you would only have to reference me the formalized theory of Natural Selection for the questions I have about selection applying to survival or reproduction or both, or selection applying to endangered species or not etc. In stead of this simple reference, I run into countless discussions with Darwin interpreters who have some sort of "notion", what Natural Selection "is about".
Origin was not ignored, but Darwin and Wallace's (substandard) science paper was/is ignored.
I don't understand how you can at once say that the science in Origin is excellent and at the same time still endorse peer-reviewed formalized papers. Either formalized papers are excellent science, which makes "Origin" abysmal (and Mendel excellent), or common prose is excellent science, which makes formalized peer-review papers abysmal science. You clearly have never read anything Darwin wrote with the intention of getting some formal knowledge out of it, which is when the common prose of Darwin becomes very frustrating.
Dawkins explicitely refers to reproduction as the "purpose" of organisms in "the Selfish Gene". It is not just me who notionally cojoins purpose to the word success in "differential reproductive success", but actually everybody, including you when you are not politically pressured.
You are wrong that Dawkins just says that people are born with selfish genes, he says that people are born selfish and should learn to become altruist.
I don't have the name handy of a science paper with reference to Dawkins "The Selfish Gene". I will look it up if you tell me this will significantly change your opinion.
Most all in this post I have written before on this forum, so I don't think it's very meaningful to respond to you anymore, unless you have some comments about changing the formulation of selection in the glossary of this site, into the basic formulation of selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by nator, posted 02-02-2003 9:49 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 10:09 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 78 of 90 (31210)
02-04-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Primordial Egg
01-31-2003 11:12 AM


Actually, he uses the word survival in stead of like I said, the word reproduction. He uses the word reproduction elsewhere, as if survival and reproduction are somehow interchangeable words. Ever stood in front of a xerox copying machine and when you push the buttons all the machine does is "survive"? It's very annoying. Survival and reproduction are definitely not the same thing.
Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage
"Before going any further, we need a definition. An entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behavior has exactly the opposite effect.'Welfare' is defined as 'chances of survival', even if the effect on actual life and death prospects is so small as to seem negligible. ".
Page not found - Christians in Science
(BBC christmas science lectures)
"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA Flowers are for the same thing as everything else in the living kingdoms, for spreading 'copy - me' programmes about, written in DNA language.
That is EXACTLY what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self sustaining process. It is every living objects' sole reason for living...
For as far as Dawkins makes selfishness into part of the definition of evolution or Natural Selection:
Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage
"If you look at the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish."
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-31-2003 11:12 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 10:17 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 79 of 90 (31406)
02-05-2003 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Syamsu
02-03-2003 11:19 PM


quote:
Mendel wrote a piece of formalized biological science at about the same timeperiod as Darwin. So Darwin really has no excuse for solely writing his theory up in prosaic common style.
No, Mendel didn't do that, because THERE WERE NO PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS, OR PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE JOURNALS, OR MODERN PEER REVIEW BACK THEN. None. Nada. They didn't exist.
quote:
Besides, Darwinists could have written his theory up in formalized style later, and not continue with the prosaic style.
Which they did, and continue to do, in the professional Journals.
quote:
Then you would only have to reference me the formalized theory of Natural Selection for the questions I have about selection applying to survival or reproduction or both, or selection applying to endangered species or not etc. In stead of this simple reference, I run into countless discussions with Darwin interpreters who have some sort of "notion", what Natural Selection "is about".
I don't have to reference you anything. Go find your own references.
I am still waiting for you to provide to me a textbook definition of evolution that uses the word "selfish" in it. Why won't you provide what you say exists?
quote:
I don't understand how you can at once say that the science in Origin is excellent and at the same time still endorse peer-reviewed formalized papers. Either formalized papers are excellent science, which makes "Origin" abysmal (and Mendel excellent), or common prose is excellent science, which makes formalized peer-review papers abysmal science.
There is no either-or here. Your comparison makes no sense.
Darwin used excellent scientific methodology, which is why his conclusions are still largely valid today.
quote:
You clearly have never read anything Darwin wrote with the intention of getting some formal knowledge out of it, which is when the common prose of Darwin becomes very frustrating.
Dawkins explicitely refers to reproduction as the "purpose" of organisms in "the Selfish Gene". It is not just me who notionally cojoins purpose to the word success in "differential reproductive success", but actually everybody, including you when you are not politically pressured.
Bullcrap. You have been told over and over by just about everybody here that your views are held only by you. We all disagree with your "intepretation" of Dawkins, and have had lengthy discussions with you explaining why, but you just decide that you know our minds better than we do. Whatever, you don't want to discuss anything. You just want everybody to agree with you. Well, you're wrong, sorry.
quote:
You are wrong that Dawkins just says that people are born with selfish genes, he says that people are born selfish and should learn to become altruist.
Please quote the passage from the book where he says that.
quote:
I don't have the name handy of a science paper with reference to Dawkins "The Selfish Gene". I will look it up if you tell me this will significantly change your opinion.
I don't know if it will change my opinion or not. It depends how the word is used. Try me.
quote:
Most all in this post I have written before on this forum, so I don't think it's very meaningful to respond to you anymore, unless you have some comments about changing the formulation of selection in the glossary of this site, into the basic formulation of selection.
I notice that you have not provided that list of "many highly-politicized scientists" in Evolutionary Biology I asked for. Nor have you provided that extbook definition of Evolution that includes the word "selfish". Nor have you provided any of the specific quotes fron "The Selfish Gene" that I asked for.
I'll add another request with regards to your request above. I will consider supporting your desire to change the terminology in the glossary if you can provide some names of any respected professional mainstream Biologists who agree with you that the definition of evolution contains value judgement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2003 11:19 PM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 80 of 90 (31407)
02-05-2003 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Syamsu
02-04-2003 4:04 AM


I spoke too soon! Excellent, quotes to examine.
quote:
Actually, he uses the word survival in stead of like I said, the word reproduction. He uses the word reproduction elsewhere, as if survival and reproduction are somehow interchangeable words.
If he is talking about survival of a species, they are very closely linked. Which does he mean?
quote:
Ever stood in front of a xerox copying machine and when you push the buttons all the machine does is "survive"? It's very annoying. Survival and reproduction are definitely not the same thing.
This makes no sense, because copiers do not reproduce in the first place, nor are they alive in the second place.
quote:
Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage
"Before going any further, we need a definition. An entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behavior has exactly the opposite effect.'Welfare' is defined as 'chances of survival', even if the effect on actual life and death prospects is so small as to seem negligible. ".
NOWHERE in this passage does Dawkins say that he is doing ANYTHING other than defining what HE means by these words for the purposes of his analogy. There is no "formal", all-encompasing definition here, meant to carry over into all of biology. Hos definition is very metaphorical and very specific.
quote:
Page not found - Christians in Science
(BBC christmas science lectures)
"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA Flowers are for the same thing as everything else in the living kingdoms, for spreading 'copy - me' programmes about, written in DNA language.
That is EXACTLY what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self sustaining process. It is every living objects' sole reason for living...
What is the problem with that?
quote:
For as far as Dawkins makes selfishness into part of the definition of evolution or Natural Selection:
Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage
"If you look at the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish."
Oh, come on, Syamsu! That isn't a definition of evolution! Even you should be able to see that. It is a premise to continue his analogy in the book.
I have read the book, and basically, the book is about the idea that, as objects that live to reproduce our DNA, we all SHOULD be completely selfish, but we AREN'T. The book attempts to explain why we AREN'T completely selfish; why altruism and helping behavior exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Syamsu, posted 02-04-2003 4:04 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 10:25 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 81 of 90 (31410)
02-05-2003 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
02-05-2003 10:17 AM


Syamsu, this is a quote, from your own source, that you seem to not notice when you misunderstand Dawkins over and over.
Emphasis added by me
Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage
[QUOTE]This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all toll numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true. This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 10:17 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Syamsu, posted 02-05-2003 11:43 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 82 of 90 (31423)
02-05-2003 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by nator
02-05-2003 10:25 AM


My disagreement with Darwinists on this forum is:
1. that the basic formulation of Natural Selection is widely known / accepted
2. that the basic formulation has signficant scientific benefits over the commonly used definition.
For the rest there isn't that much disagreement as far as I can tell.
There is a perfectly neutral substitute for the term reproductive success, which is reproductive rate. The only reason "success" is most often used is to cojoin with notions of struggle/competition/purpose. Again, everybody cojoins these notions to the term, and that is intended by the people who invented the term.
Mendel's paper are generally acknowledged to be highly formalized(good science), and Darwin's work is generally acknowledged to be prosaic (bad science).
The theory of Natural Selection is not formalized even in the sciencepapers. There are lots of different definitions of Natural Selection. The more complete definitions present an assortment of principles of Natural Selection and then say something like "or similar". Dawkins also has his personal pet definition of Natural Selection, which reads "non-random survival of randomly varying organisms". I'm sure you also have your personal definition of Natural Selection. (I don't think this happens much in other sciences, that each has their personal definition of a fundamental theory) I'm sure your definition is wrong just like Dawkins definition is. Haeckel also had his pet-definition, which is generally acknowledged to be faulty even by Darwinists, but really, most all definitions out there are false.
Dawkins includes selfishness into the definition of an organism, or DNA molecule. You cannot accept Dawkins theory and not acknowledge all organisms as mainly selfish. The altruism you refer to should be understood as geneselfishness, so it is selfish altruism.
Some time ago someone came on to this forum asking if she could discard Dawkins selfish gene theory, or if it was accepted science. I'm not clear what you are saying here, can she discard it as mere metaphore and not science, or is she supposed to accept it?
Is metaphore excellent science to you?
Selfish is used the same way by Dawkins and his "students" like Newton uses the word attraction. Both these words have technical meaning and colloquial meaning in language, where Dawkins defines a technical meaning but then curiously mixes up the tehcnical meaning with the colloquial meaning, as explained before.
Dawkins writes that he doesn't present a morality in this book. Does Dawkins present a morality in this book? Yes. The morality to overcome your selfish genes and become altruistic adults.
Dawkins says that geneselfishness normally gives rise to individual selfisness, except for some special cases. It is not just the genes which are selfish, but individuals also.
Name me an influential Darwinist who is not highly politicized in conjunction with their Darwinism? Haeckel, Darwin, Dawkins, Lorenz, Gould etc. Perhaps Weizmann wasn't, but then I don't know that much about him.
BTW in looking up quotes from Dawkins book I came across a site that discounts the story of the mantis female eating the male after mating. This most likely only happens much in stressful conditions like captivity.
You have no point whatsoever.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nator, posted 02-05-2003 10:25 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Syamsu, posted 02-09-2003 6:18 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 84 by Peter, posted 02-12-2003 2:06 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 83 of 90 (31771)
02-09-2003 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Syamsu
02-05-2003 11:43 AM


Some added argument:
I came across this book description of the Selfish Gene at amazon.com, which notes Dawkins as reformulating Natural Selection, and that his book has much interest within the scientific community.
"Book Description
Richard Dawkins' brilliant reformulation of the theory of natural selection has the rare distinction of having provoked as much excitement and interest outside the scientific community as within it. His theories have helped change the whole nature of the study of social biology, and have forced thousands of readers to rethink their beliefs about life.
In his internationally bestselling, now classic volume, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains how the selfish gene can also be a subtle gene. The world of the selfish gene revolves around savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit, and yet, Dawkins argues, acts of apparent altruism do exist in nature. Bees, for example, will commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, and birds will risk their lives to warn the flock of an approaching hawk."
You should also remember that while Dawkins explicitly doesn't want people to take morality from his book (eventhough duplicitly stating a morality in it), he explicitely wants his book and Darwinism generally to be used for psychology, as in evolutionary psychology.
Dawkins seems to be surprised that psychology is largely free from Darwinism in his book, as if nobody had thought of applying it before. But of course Darwinists have already tried to apply Darwinism to psychology, and the results were a societal disaster, where large percentages of doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists, many of the influential founders of the field, espoused racist and eugenic beliefs in their works.
I don't think evolutionary psychology will be much racist or eugenic in the West this time around, but considering it is based on the shoddy science of Darwinism, we should expect societal disaster again. If evolutionary psychology becomes accepted, I think it will more likely generate disasters like episodes of mass psychosis, and very high suicide rates, as is also typical of extremely rationalistic religions IMO, like Scientology.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Syamsu, posted 02-05-2003 11:43 AM Syamsu has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 84 of 90 (32006)
02-12-2003 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Syamsu
02-05-2003 11:43 AM


Natural Selection isn't a theory ... it's an observation.
The theory lies in the nature of the effect(s) of NS
on a population over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Syamsu, posted 02-05-2003 11:43 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Syamsu, posted 02-12-2003 9:46 AM Peter has replied

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


Message 85 of 90 (32042)
02-12-2003 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Peter
02-12-2003 2:06 AM


Is it an observation, not a theory? What observation? Reference please. I don't believe you know in detail what you are talking about, when you make assertive pronouncements like you do here. I believe you have a vague notional understanding of Natural Selection just like everyone else on this forum.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Peter, posted 02-12-2003 2:06 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Peter, posted 02-13-2003 2:42 AM Syamsu has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 86 of 90 (32086)
02-13-2003 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Syamsu
02-12-2003 9:46 AM


Peppered moths show NS ... whether you like the example
or not ... it shows it ... by observation.
The galapagos finches show the results of NS, and studies
have been reported on this site (so I cannot claim them
to be accurate) that say if you remove the finch population
to another location the 'specialised' beak trends tend to fade
out of the population. It's an observation.
Darwin saw that different creatures, in different parts of
the world shared strikingly similar features if they shared
similar habitats.
He inferred that something about the habitat must pressurise the
creatures into developing these features. This inference
is supported by observation.
Like it or not NS is an observation of nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Syamsu, posted 02-12-2003 9:46 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Syamsu, posted 02-13-2003 6:54 AM Peter has replied

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


Message 87 of 90 (32099)
02-13-2003 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peter
02-13-2003 2:42 AM


The meaning of Natural Selection is still highly vague and notional in your writings. I can't generalize your observation of Natural Selection of finches to observe Natural Selection of oaktrees, or a clonal bacteria population. To generalize the observation is to make it a theory. Your generalization reads "something about the habitat must pressurise the creatures into developing these features". It's vague and notional, and wrong.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Peter, posted 02-13-2003 2:42 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Peter, posted 02-13-2003 7:22 AM Syamsu has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1556 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 88 of 90 (32102)
02-13-2003 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Syamsu
02-13-2003 6:54 AM


I thought generalisation of an observation was called a
'Law' .... like Newton's Laws of Motion.
The generalisation takes a set of observations and extracts
that which is the essential character of those observations.
The effect of gravity isn't a theory. I see an apple fall to earth from a tree. I check that a few other items fall when dropped.
I say that the effect of gravity is an observation of the natural
order on earth.
The nature of gravity has theories associated with it, but the effect
of gravity is an observable phenomenon.
Likewise, NS is an observable phenomenon and not a theory.
By generalisation one can see that NS is generally applicable to
all living things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Syamsu, posted 02-13-2003 6:54 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Syamsu, posted 02-13-2003 8:56 AM Peter has not replied

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


Message 89 of 90 (32114)
02-13-2003 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Peter
02-13-2003 7:22 AM


I can't see that Natural Selection is generally applicable to all living beings, since you didn't tell me the criteria for Natural Selection to apply. Those criteria are the theory of Natural Selection. Now you have a theory about finches, and a theory about moths, but no generally applicable theory.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Peter, posted 02-13-2003 7:22 AM Peter has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 90 of 90 (32118)
02-13-2003 9:25 AM


This thread is no longer addressing the orignal topic and will be closed.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024