Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misuse of evolution
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 141 (14314)
07-28-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Syamsu
07-28-2002 1:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]I have already expressed exactly how I think current theory is conducive to valuejudgements elsewhere in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Humor me, oh wise and learned teacher. Indulge this poor, ignorant student and please repeat for me exactly how you think that modern Evolutionary Biology actively promotes racism and genocide.
Examples from the real world, such as scientific papers, would help this ignorant neophyte gain the tiniest bit of wisdom.
quote:
You have to stop shifting from argument to argument and mixing arguments up.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
Hello? You are STILL mixing up social Darwinism and science after how many repeated attempts at clarification by how many people?
You never have completely let go of the silly idea that Dawkins is the sole originator of current evolutionary theory, although you have blissfully not brought him up in a while.
[QUOTE]If you acknowledge below then that would invalidate most of what you previously have brought up as counterargument.
Do you now acknowledge that the question of "races of man encroaching on each other until some finally become extinct" leading to racist or genocidal thinking is irrellevant to the question when the first instance of racism or genocide was?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B]
Yes, I agree that this is true, but please explain to me how this invalidates the original point?
You are claiming that modern Evolutionary Biology actively promotes racism. Support this claim or be quiet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Syamsu, posted 07-28-2002 1:17 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Syamsu, posted 07-28-2002 10:21 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 141 (14315)
07-28-2002 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by nator
07-28-2002 10:47 AM


Syamsu, you "missed" replying to several of my messages. I will repeat the really important questions here, for your convenience. Please respond:
From message #108:
"Gould accepted differential reproductive success as correct.
Show me in-context quotes by Gould which say otherwise.
While you are at it, why don't you provide quotes for those "many Darwinist philosophers" you referred to to support your assertion that they think that darwinism contains value judgements.
While you are at it, why don't you answer all the other points and questions you have avoided answering?"
From meassage #109:
quote:
quoteriginally posted by Syamsu:
Since Dawkins has to write sidenotes that his theory is not supposed to be understood as promoting racism, your argument that noone else sees it as promoting racism but me is clearly false.
Please acknowledge your falsehood.
You also misrepresent my position about Dawkins theory. I don't consider his selfish gene theory to contain valuejudgement, but that his theory is conducive to valuejudgements. I have repeatedly and explicitly said this. Any promotion, which is a word somebody else introduced, should be seen in this light.
Please acknowledge your misrepresentation.
I would also like to ask the Admin that this discussion be moved to the great debate forum, where the argument will be moderated. That arguments that are shown to contain errors are retracted, and not endlessly repeated. From the beginning on I have said several times that I don't think Darwinism contains valuejudgements, yet it has the potential to influence valuejudgements IMO. If that distinction is too fine for someone to grasp, then I think such a person should consider leaving the discussion because of that.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Nobody has ever denied that Darwinism has the potential to influence racism, but this is only when people MISUNDERSTAND and MISUSE the theory.
Besides, this is not what you were claiming. You were claiming that Darwinism ACTIVELY PROMOTES racism.
If all you want to say is that Darwinism has the potential to influence people who misunderstand it to think in a racist way, then so what? The same thing can be said of practically any religion or philosophy.
You are blaming Dawkins for the stupidity of some people.
From message #110:
quote:
It is a clear formulation of your false logic. You implicitly deny Nazism is genocidal, because Ghengis Kahn was not motivated by Nazism.
Now you bring in other argument that covers your mistake, but this is false also, because conspicuously ALL of you do not apply Darwin's Darwinism, as in races of man encroach on one another until some finally become extinct, to your own situation, you deny it's use. You imply that you all use Darwinism, but this is demonstrably not the case. The one person that did apply it, me, did have genocidal and racist thoughts on account of it.
The only "correct" answer is the one you have come up with, right? Because the answers we have come up with are different from yours, they are wrong. Don't you see a problem with this?
Considering that many of us have actual advanced University training in Biology and science, and you have no college level science at all (if I remember correctly) perhaps you don't want to be so confidenct that you are applying the theory correctly.
In fact, I know you aren't applying the theory correctly.
We have repeatedly pointed out your errors of confusing social darwinism with actual science, but you continue to confuse the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 07-28-2002 10:47 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 123 of 141 (14316)
07-28-2002 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Syamsu
07-28-2002 1:43 PM


[QUOTE]Again, a general theory of reproduction doesn't ignore competition, it just doesn't assume it. All it does is describe how organisms reproduce. If competition is a part of reproduction, then it will be described by the general theory of reproduction with the added factor of competition.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B][/QUOTE]
This is what is already being practiced by Evolutionary Biologists.
Reproductive success is affected by many factors; competition is but one factor.
We have told you this over and over again, but you ignore it.
You have twisted your misunderstanding of science and your obsession with social darwinism together, thinking you have come up with something novel, but you haven't.
What you are really doing is insisting incessantly that scientists change the name of what they already do but continue to do exactly the same thing they have always done.
(sidenote: at this point you have already said:
1) the terms "sucess", and "competition" can be used by science in a non-value laden way. IOW, racism is not automatically understood to be an outcome if the theory is being understood and used properly.
2) competition is, indeed, a factor which affects reproduction. You told me flat out that there is competition for resources between parent and offspring.
Please, in ALL future discussion, remember that you have agreed to these things being correct, so we don't cycle through, yet again, a long series of posts where you deny these things.)
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Syamsu, posted 07-28-2002 1:43 PM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 124 of 141 (14339)
07-28-2002 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by nator
07-28-2002 5:29 PM


Your original argument was that since there was racism and genocide before there was Darwinism, as with Ghengis Kahn, that this proves that Darwinism does not lead to genocidal or racist thought because racism and genocide can happen without Darwinism.
I am not mixing up Darwinism and Social Darwinism, I am arguing that Darwinism is conducive to valuejudgements, as I have explained numerous times.
I don't see any benefit in discussing this issue any further with you.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 07-28-2002 5:29 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by nator, posted 07-29-2002 3:49 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 125 of 141 (14363)
07-29-2002 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Syamsu
07-25-2002 10:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

It just depends on how you define the words.

Now there's a shock! The meaning ascribed to text is somehow
related to the definitions of the words, who woulda guessed?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

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).

So in Darwinism 'superior' and 'success' are qualified in a
way which makes them value nuetral.
So how can value neutral discourse be cited as a cause for
value laden political agendas ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Syamsu, posted 07-25-2002 10:22 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 126 of 141 (14364)
07-29-2002 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Syamsu
07-25-2002 11:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
the requirement to compare for measuring makes no sense.
Try measuring time without a comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Syamsu, posted 07-25-2002 11:46 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Syamsu, posted 07-29-2002 4:54 AM Peter has replied

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


Message 127 of 141 (14371)
07-29-2002 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Peter
07-29-2002 3:13 AM


As before......... you already have the event of reproduction for measuring, or the number of offspring.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 3:13 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 5:03 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 128 of 141 (14372)
07-29-2002 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Syamsu
07-29-2002 4:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
As before......... you already have the event of reproduction for measuring, or the number of offspring.

But that tells you nothing in terms of potential causes
for changes in extant features of a population.
If breed my pet rats, and want a particular coat color, I note
which breeding pairs produce the most offspring of the desired
type ... and then breed those.
I have made a comparison of offspring numbers in order to
hone my selections.
Looking at the number of offspring from one breeding pair
tells me nothing about the traits I am interested in, nor
how they affect my 'population'.
Sometimes a comparison is the only meaningful measure for
what you wish to observe.
That's why control engineers use derivatives ... a comparison
between previous and current values indicative of a rate of
change ... in order to produce complex control strategies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Syamsu, posted 07-29-2002 4:54 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Syamsu, posted 07-29-2002 6:33 AM Peter has replied

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


Message 129 of 141 (14376)
07-29-2002 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Peter
07-29-2002 5:03 AM


The cause in change of heritiable features of a population is mutation. Some work to reproduce, others don't.
Currently many species are going extinct. Who cares about proportional frequencies here? Environmentalists, fundamentally, have to look at how organisms reproduce, what they need for reproduction, that should obviously be the main thing in any theory of reproduction. Seen like this, to have a special case of reproduction as the main thing, differential reproductive success of variants, is quite bizarre.
Again, I already acknowledged that to my best guesses comparison between variants is valid in so far as they compete for the same resources.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 5:03 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 8:00 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 130 of 141 (14380)
07-29-2002 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Syamsu
07-29-2002 6:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
The cause in change of heritiable features of a population is mutation. Some work to reproduce, others don't.

It's not mutation alone though. There has to be selection as well.
In any case, how does the number of offspring of one individual
tell us anything about the change of heritable features in
the population?
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Currently many species are going extinct. Who cares about proportional frequencies here? Environmentalists, fundamentally, have to look at how organisms reproduce, what they need for reproduction, that should obviously be the main thing in any theory of reproduction.

Surely they have to look at ALL of the factors that enable
survival.
It doesn't matter what a mountain gorilla needs to reproduce if
a poacher blows its brains out.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Seen like this, to have a special case of reproduction as the main thing, differential reproductive success of variants, is quite bizarre.

You need to develop a measure that is meaningful to what you
wish to study and/or explain. Differential reproductive success
(which can be measured by trait frequncies if you like) is the
only meaningful indicator of natural selection.
Once we have found a set of dominant phenotypes we can look at
environmental factors that make those phenotypic features
beneficial or not.
If we trace this over a sufficient number of generations we have an indicator for evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, I already acknowledged that to my best guesses comparison between variants is valid in so far as they compete for the same resources.

When do variants NOT compete for the same resources ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Syamsu, posted 07-29-2002 6:33 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by nator, posted 07-29-2002 3:57 PM Peter has replied
 Message 133 by Syamsu, posted 07-29-2002 10:47 PM Peter has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 131 of 141 (14401)
07-29-2002 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Syamsu
07-28-2002 10:21 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Your original argument was that since there was racism and genocide before there was Darwinism, as with Ghengis Kahn, that this proves that Darwinism does not lead to genocidal or racist thought because racism and genocide can happen without Darwinism.[/QUOTE]
No, sorry, that was not the original point.
YOU originally attempted to make the point that since some people have misused the ToE in order to make their racist opinions seem more legitimate, that meant that the Theory WAS racist, and was a big source of racism in the world.
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.
quote:
I am not mixing up Darwinism and Social Darwinism, I am arguing that Darwinism is conducive to valuejudgements, as I have explained numerous times.
...and you agree that those value judgements would NOT be a result using the theory correctly, right, because you have already agreed that science can use words like "success" and "competition" in a non-value-laden way?
Why do you blame a scientific theory, which is meant to be used to decribe without value jugments, if some people incorrectly understand the theory and put value judgements in terms that aren't supposed to be there?
quote:
I don't see any benefit in discussing this issue any further with you.
I'll bet you don't!
I have finally realized that asking you simple, yes and no-type questions which refute your claims, then holding you to your admissions is the best way to debate with you.
Point by point allowed you too much wiggle room to go around and around in cirrcles, and also allowed you to avoid addressing important points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Syamsu, posted 07-28-2002 10:21 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Syamsu, posted 07-29-2002 11:18 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 132 of 141 (14403)
07-29-2002 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Peter
07-29-2002 8:00 AM


[QUOTE] When do variants NOT compete for the same resources ?[/B][/QUOTE]
So far, Syamsu has agreed that:
Mates compete with each other for resources.
Offspring and parents compete with each other for resources.
Yet, in spite of his agreement that these scenarios occur, he still repeats the same thing he has always repeated; that cometition isn't important to reproduction.
I don't have any idea, save complete inability to learn new information, why or how Syamsu can agree with the above and still say that competition isn't important to reproduction.
Be careful. You might end up on "around the same block with Syamsu" for the third or fourth time. I have lost count of how many times this has gone around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 8:00 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 2:45 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 133 of 141 (14444)
07-29-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Peter
07-29-2002 8:00 AM


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.
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.
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
- is misleading to apply with variations that have a balancingpoint in a population, with variations that do not encroach until extinction
- is misleading to apply with variations that go into a different environment then their ancestor through their variation being applicable to different resources
- 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
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.
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. You can know that it is conducive to valuejudgements by thoughtexperiment, but I guess this should be proved by psychologists researching the subject. 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.
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.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 8:00 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 3:06 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 134 of 141 (14453)
07-29-2002 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by nator
07-29-2002 3:49 PM


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.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by nator, posted 07-29-2002 3:49 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 3:18 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 135 of 141 (14467)
07-30-2002 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by nator
07-29-2002 3:57 PM


I have had a sense of de ja vu a few times now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by nator, posted 07-29-2002 3:57 PM nator 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