Misuse of evolution

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]If I view cats or mice, or any other creature in terms of races encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct, then my view of those creatures tends to become racist, in my experience, to any extent that it is possible. I would tend to use language such as inferior and superior etc. Even a grass lawn can be made to look horrific in the context of Darwinist theory, by my experience.[/QUOTE]

​

This is a wierd way to think about Darwinism, if you are talking about
science.

​

quote:

---

This is less so if I view creatures in terms of a general theory of reproduction, because the emphasis is shifted there from comparison of organisms (and competition) to looking at how organisms interact with the environment in reproducing.

---

​

Do you agree that part of an organism's environment consists of OTHER ORGANISMS? Organisns do not exist in isolation from other organisms. There are billions upon billions of organisms on the planet, Syamsu.

​

quote:

---

Notice that Darwinists generally view nature as cruel,

---

​

No, they don't. They view the environment as a selector of traits and an agent of change.

​

quote:

---

where a superficial look on nature whole would find that for the most time it is sedate and peaceful, and for very little time is it apparently cruel.

---

​

You really do have a very difficult time separating your emotional reactions to things from their intellectual meanings and functions, don't you?

​

quote:

---

So since there is no observation that legitimizes the emphasis on cruelty, the emphasis on cruelty has to come from prejudices (or faults) inherent to Darwinism itself.

---

​

Strawman, as Darwinists do not think of the enironment as "cruel", as you have erroniously claimed.

​

quote:

---

But we weren't talking about cats, we were talking about people. Schrafinator, Quetzal, you, John etc. should simply demonstrate what you come up with on account of thinking about people in terms of races encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct.

---

​

I don't think of people in terms of races, because we are only one race. I think of cultures and traditions intermingling with each other, and sometimes one culture decides that it is superior to other cultures (Christians and Moslems imposing their beliefs upon native cultures and forcing conversions are common throughout history) and old cultures and religions die out.

---

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Schrafinator:
quote: "I don't think of people in terms of races, because we are only one race. I think of cultures and traditions intermingling with each other, and sometimes one culture decides that it is superior to other cultures (Christians and Moslems imposing their beliefs upon native cultures and forcing conversions are common throughout history) and old cultures and religions die out."So as a Darwinist you think of what has come to be called cultural genocide.[/QUOTE]No, as a HUMAN BEING I recognize that groups of people sometimes try to eliminate other groups of people or suppress their cultures. I recognized this when I was a little child, long before I ever heard of Charles Darwin. I learned about it in the Bible before I learned about it in history class. I didn't hear about it at all in science class.Do not put words into my mouth, Syamsu.

quote:

---

You have demonstrated my point I think, eventhough it's clear you didn't want to. Whatabout the descent of man from apelike progenitors? Do you have conceive of that in terms of racial encroachment?

---

Well, the different species of proto-humans certainly did compete, and our species were more sucessful, which is why we are here. Neanderthals were less sucessful, which is why they are not here any more.I don't think of Neandethals as inferior, just different. Given different environmental factors at the time, Nature might have favored them rather than homo sapiens sapiens.

quote:

---

You omit to mention science and Darwinism in particular as a potential culture destroyer. Dawkins' talk about countless "worthless" cultures in respect to Darwinism, comes to mind, and his express desire to teach to young children about Darwinism (selfish genes), in stead of teaching about "sacred hearts".

---

Like I said, you have a very difficult time separating your emotional responses about something from their intellectual meanings.In the context of this discussion, I don't care what is deemed a "culture-destroyer". Of course science can be viewed as a culture-destroyer. It has contributed to the fading of cultural notions such as the Earth being flat, and of Thor causing thunder, and of women being inferior to men.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B] You are welcome to your opinion.Perhaps Schraffinator, like myself, was raised in an area where
there was little variance in ethnicity, and aso never directly
encountered racism against us. We therefore do not have
emotive, knee jerk, over-sensitive responses to things that were
not originally intended as anything other than nuetral.[/QUOTE]My high school graduating class had over 800 people in it. Three of them were black. None were hispanic, a few were probably Jewish (but I didn't really know and it didn't occur to me at the time to wonder),
none were Arab or moslem. We were a big group of white kids, pretty much. My father and mother are both rather bigoted, although race wasn't really talked about much at all in my home.I decided as a child that racism was silly, irrational and wrong, and that's how I have lived my life.Syamsu, you are using the ToE inappropriately to bolster your own political feelings, and pointing to it's past misapplication and misuse...to what end? I am not sure that you have a reason other than to just poo-poo the whole field of Biology, perhaps.I ask you again;Do you blame the folding chair manufacturers because professional wrestlers beat each other over the head with folding chairs, thus using the chairs for a purpose never intended?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Again, I will not accept anything on this subject from people who will not give lenghty and open responses of what they come up with on account of Darwinist theory. In my experience it is useless to talk to people who are not open to that sort of evidence.

​

Your similarity with foldingchair manufacturers is not really complete. You would have to say that the manufactures themselves used the chairs for hitting over the head, as did Darwin, Galton, Haeckel, Lorenz, a large share of the most influential Darwinists, use Darwinism to give credibility to Social Darwinism in their works of "science". Your similarity, trying to make this into a joke, is also not appropiate for the subjectmatter discussed.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Look, you asked the question of what I came up with on account of Dawinist theory. I told you.If my honest, simple answer is not good enough for you, then I proplose that it is because I am not confirming your dearly-held, preconceived prejudices concerning what you are so sure you already know about what I think.If you don't want to accept my honest answer to your question because it isn't what you want to hear, then you are as rigid and pigheaded as they come, and there is no point in investing any more effort in this conversation.You are a dogmatist, unable and unwilling to hear anything other than what you already believe.Have a nice, closed life, Syamsu.Allison------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Do you think that Ghengis Khan was motivated by Darwinism? He did an awful lot of encroaching. What about the Roman Empire? Or the Huns?

​

---

Don't hold your breath for a reply to this point, John.

I am actually reminded of a former (completely nuts) employer at this point in this thread.I was working for her as a horse farm manager, and I left after 6 months. I would have left sooner, but the winter weather was terrible and the farm was out in the sticks.Anyway, and I found out that she had previously had another manager there for two years. It wasn't until I was getting ready to leave that I struck up a conversation with a neighbor about how many people had worked there in the 6 years since the farm had been built.The neighbor told me that 25 people had worked for this woman, some of whom lasted for only a couple of hours. I learned that she wasn't anywhere near as crazy and extreme in her ridiculous expectations and controlling behavior as she used to be. (I couldn't fathom her any worse, but...)Even though she had had no fewer than [i/]twenty five[/i] employees in almost 3 1/2 years, it never occurred to her that it might be her behavior driving them all away. It never once entered her mind that she might be behaving unreasonably. She was completely in denial of the reasons for all of these people running away as fast as they could, some of them angrily, even though the evidence was staring her in the face and was obvious to everyone else. She thought that there was something wrong with each and every one of those 25 people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
It just depends on how you define the words. 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).

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

If you understand that if Darwinism uses the words in a non-value-laden way, why then do you blame Darwinism for others misuse and misunderstanding of the words?Several of us have told you that we do not have genocidal thoughts when we think about humans and Darwinian evolution. You do not accept this to be true, yet you just said that in Darwinism, words like "inferior" are properly understood to be value-neutral.You often engage in overly-emotional misuse of evolutionary terms, making the exact same mistakes as others who have misused the terms.If you think that Darwinism currently promotes racist and genocidal thinking, then you are misusing the theory just as people who are racist do.Since John, Peter, and I all have a good grasp of the correct use of these terms and the theory, we fully understand that it does not make value judgements, etc.Those, like you, who think it does, are misusing and/or misunderstanding the theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
But Peter didn't immediately understand that being unsuccesfull and inferior can be understood as scientific terms even when I expressely said they could be understood as scientific terms, and influential Darwinian scientists like Haeckel, Lorenz, Galton, and Darwin didn't use it in a valuefree way, but in a confused way.

---

SO WHAT if this is true (and I don't think it is true of Darwin)? That was over one hundred years ago. Are you suggesting that the social values that some may have promoted back then are promoted now? Let me let you in on a little secret...science changes. A lot.

quote:

---

Besides, where is your evidence. You said that races of man don't exist, that there is only one race. You are just using concepts developed by anti-racists, not Darwinism as expressed by Darwin, Haeckel or Lorenz.

---

So what?

quote:

---

You have to demonstrate your thoughts on account of races of man encroaching until some finally become extinct, applied to your own situation, in stead of just saying you can easily do it in a valuefree way, but not actually demonstrating that use.

---

I have demonstrated my thoughts on account of "races of man encroaching, blah blah blah."I do not have racist or genocidal thoughts because of Darwinian theory. I never have.You just don't like my answer because it isn't what you have already decided is true.

quote:

---

Darwin used competitive survival / existence of races. Where races has a convoluted groupmeaning. The modern use is differential reproductive success of variants. Obviously where the value speech comes in, is with success and with comparison.

---

But you just said that the word "success" could have a non-value laden meaning if used scientifically!Please stop mixing social Darwinism, which is an inappropriate use of the concepts po further a political movement, with science.

quote:

---

But the requirement to compare for measuring makes no sense. It makes no sense to require a relative measurement to another variant, because you already have the real measurement of the number of offspring, or reproductive rate. It would only make sense to compare, if the two variants are encroaching on each other, which isn't neccessarily the case in all possible scenario's of 2 variants.

---

Can you please list several likely real-world scenarios in which individuals can reproduce without any competition for resources from other individuals?(hint: those that reproduce sexually will have to compete for resources with thir mate, too)

quote:

---

So you could just have a general theory of reproduction as the fundamental theory, which described organisms/traits in view of the event of their reproduction in relation to their environment.

---

Again, does this environment not also include other individuals and/or species which are competing for resources?

quote:

---

The selection is then between reproducing and not reproducing.

---

It's kinda hard to reproduce if you don't get enough food because your neighbor ate it all. Or ate you.

quote:

---

This theory would IMO work out as anti-racist, besides putting the focus on the more interesting data of how organisms reproduce, in stead of putting the focus on how much better the one reproduces then the other.

---

Since the current theory does not mention anything about race, and you have done nothing but confuse social Darwinism (which is a misuse of the scientific theory to promote a political/social agenda), with science, the above makes no sense.Besides, Evolutionary theory DOES pay attention to how species reproduce, as well as how many offspring they produce. You are again treating evolutionary theory WAY too simplistically.

quote:

---

The current theory, mainly the one conceived by Dawkins,

---

Can you PLEASE stop saying that Dawkins has somehow developed current evolutionary theory in it's entirety! There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, including Gould, Eldridge and many, many others who have contributed, and contunue to contribute, to the current understanding of the theory.What, did you read Dawkins' book and think that that's all there was?

quote:

---

is known to be promoting racism by anti-racists. Dawkins continuously has to write sidenotes that his theory is not supposed to be understood as promoting racism. But really his theory which he didn't present for peerreview, which he didn't present in a formulaic way but an emotive way, is convoluted from the start, neccessarily leading to confusion.

---

It's a good thing that Dawkins' book isn't all there is WRT evolutionary theory, then, isn't it?You have a strange obsession with the notion that "The Selfish Gene" is the be all and end all of Biology.So, you are blaming Dawkins for other people's misinterpretation of the statements in his book, even though he repeatedly goes out of his way to prevent it and explain that he is NOT promoting racism?Well, then, you are blaming Dawkins for other people's stupidity.

quote:

---

I think maybe you wrote this last post to seem to be reasonable so you would not get kicked or someting for your hateful previous post.

---

Now, now, you mustn't get abusive.Please show me whare I was "hateful" or abusive in any of my posts.Besides, I didn't mention you at all in that post about my past employer. What about the post made you think that I was talking about you? If you saw yourself in that post, then maybe there is a reason.

quote:

---

I think you should be compelled to answer each and every point I raised in this post to substantiate that your are being reasonable, in stead of rasing one point in opposition, and then writing something like that it's all ridiculous anyway. You haven't responded to the Genghis Khan post either, I think you will use that argument again and simply disregard my response to it.

---

Tell me, how are YOU being reasonable when you ask a question, get an honest answer, then when the anwer isn't what you want to hear, disregard the answer as not good enough?

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-26-2002][Added missing close-bold tag. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 07-29-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I have replied to something similar Peter wrote.

​

Ghengis Khan was genocidal bue he was not motivated by Darwinism, therefore Darwinism is not genocidal.

​

Genghis Khan was genocidal but he was not motivated by Nazism, therefore Nazism is not genocidal.

​

As shown, the logic is faulty.

​

Mohammad Nor Sysmsu

---

You are not using correct analogies.Genghis Khan was genocidal, but Darwinism hadn't been conceived yet, therefore Darwinism could not have been his motivation to be genocidal.So, you see, something else, not Darwinism, motivated his genocidal actions.The point of this little exercise is to get you to see that genocide and racism were alive and well LONG BEFORE Darwin came around.Do you or do you not agree with this?You have been trying to demonstrate that Dawinism is a major source of racism. and that the scientific theory, in fact promotes it.So far, you have provided only knee-jerk reactions and incorrect references to non-scientific, political movements like Social Darwinism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Science does change, but you are denying the value of the change from racial encroachment until extinction, to differential reproductive success of variants whenever it suits you.

​

I don't think Schrafinator should get away with her "post 666" on a forum that is supposed to be moderated, and after she was warned.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Wow, what a short response, Syamsu, I'm surprised.I did respond to your post, point by point, just like you requested and yet you do not return the same courtesy.I wasn't "warned", BTW, you were.Also, I responded to your Genghis Kahn pst like you wanted me to, as well. No response?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I'm sorry.... 'post 666'

​

I missed that and it sounds fun.

​

---

Oh, yes, I am obviously the Devil.LOL!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Your logic is still faulty, except if you would argue that Nazism is not genocidal.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

My logic is perfectly correct.My point was that you missed the original point.I asked you point blank if you did or did not agree that genocide and racism existed before Darwinism was concieved, and that Genghis Khan couldn't have been influenced by that which didn't exist. That was the original point. Please respond. A yes or no answer will suffice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Schraffinator made a post that solely consisted of a comparison between me and a "completely nuts" former employer of hers. This hatefull post was the 666th post she made to this forum.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

The important part of my 666th post about my employer was not that she was completely nuts. That was really just a colorful detail.The important part was that she held on desperately to the notion that it wasn't her own behavior which was driving all the employees away; it was always something wrong with the people, not her, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, including people telling her repeatedly that she was behaving unreasonably.What I find amazing, Syamsu, is that even though you finally admit that science can use terms like "competition" and "success" without value judgement, you STILL hang on to the belief that current evolutionary theory actively promotes racism.(BTW, do you or do you not agree that offspring often compete for resources with their parents? Please answer this question. A yes or no answer will suffice)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Yes there was genocide and racism before Darwin even existed, and before Ghengis Kahn even existed.

​

Your logic is still faulty, except if you deny Nazism is genocidal. Do you deny Nazism is genocidal?

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

No, of course I don't deny that Naziism is genocidal.What we are trying to explain is that racism came first, and then, through the millenia, people have looked for religious or intellectual justifications for that racism.You seem fixated on Darwinism, even though there are many other philosophical and religious justifications for racism to choose from.Considering that many, many racist organizations are also quite religious, and actually oppose/haven't heard of Darwinism/Evolution, don't you think that you are fighting the wrong battle?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[b]Saying "so what" is not much of a response.[/QUOTE]I said much more than that and you know it.

quote:

---

You did not apply races of man encroaching until they finally become extinct to your own situation. That is the main thing I expected in response.

---

There is only one race of humans. There are different cultures, and variations in morphology, but I am quite sure that we are all one species.We could blow each other up with nuclear weapons until we are all extinct, I suppose, but that isn't what you are talking about.I have already explained that cultures assimilate into other cultures through contact, intermarriage, war, etc.I do not consider the African American family that lives down the street from me to be "encroaching" upon me, because we are not of a different race. I might consider an invasion by the French, forcing all Americans to speak French, wear French clothes, eat French food, and only learn about French history to be an encroachment by a different culture, but the food would inevitably get better, so that part would be an improvement. The clothes, too.

quote:

---

For the rest of it. Do you really believe that all variations are competitive? Have you spend any time thinking about that?

---

No, I don't think that competition is the ONLY factor in evolution, but neither is it to be downplayed or ignored, which is what you are basically suggesting.Please answer the question:Please give several real-world examples of reproduction in which individuals do not compete for resources with other individuals, including their mates and/or offspring if they reproduce sexually.Have you thought about why women with diabetes have such large babies?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/b][/QUOTE]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-26-2002]