Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misuse of evolution
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 136 of 141 (14468)
07-30-2002 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Syamsu
07-29-2002 10:47 PM


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many generations are you considering when you state the
above ?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

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

Why ?
Different environments with give advantages to different
variants ... what's wrong with that ?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In your opinion ... give us a list of quotes and see if we agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

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

I am of much the same opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Syamsu, posted 07-29-2002 10:47 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2002 4:53 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 137 of 141 (14469)
07-30-2002 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Syamsu
07-29-2002 11:18 PM


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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Syamsu, posted 07-29-2002 11:18 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2002 4:41 AM Peter has replied

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


Message 138 of 141 (14480)
07-30-2002 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Peter
07-30-2002 3:18 AM


The previous argument raised still lets it open for Darwinism to be just as conducive to racist and genocidal thought as Nazism. Therefore in the context of this discussion the argument is meaningless.
This has been one of yours and many other's main arguments, and therefore much of yours and other's counterargument should be discarded as meaningless. Please acknowledge
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 3:18 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 5:01 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 139 of 141 (14483)
07-30-2002 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Peter
07-30-2002 3:06 AM


I agree, this discussion is definitely finished. So I will just leave with the thought for people to try to apply a general theory of reproduction, because all the benefits I am talking about should be immideately obvious on application.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 3:06 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 4:54 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 140 of 141 (14484)
07-30-2002 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Syamsu
07-30-2002 4:53 AM


OK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2002 4:53 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 141 of 141 (14485)
07-30-2002 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Syamsu
07-30-2002 4:41 AM


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

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

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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Syamsu, posted 07-30-2002 4:41 AM Syamsu 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