Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

Sharf,You shouldnt mispeak, YOu may THINK I have contradicted my self but that IS NOT THE CASE for indeed I believe I had caugt S the same way but that was the LOGIC he used. I recognized that. Using logic does NOT entitle one to be labled beligerant or a gentleman who knows too much for his own good. And if in debate it often wins even mistaken points.

I actually find Brad's posts easier to read,
and a lot more consistent

I'm not interested in discussing whether or not Natural Selection should be called a theory or a description of a phenomenon.I would be interested in response from creationists. If you cut variation from the definition, then the theory becomes more flexible, more useful. So it's scientifically beneficial to cut variation from the theory, but that's really not so important IMO.Besides it being beneficial for science, cutting variation also has much potential political benefits. By including variation Darwinists talk in terms of this variant being better then the other variant, and this kind of talk feeds into social darwinism, nazism, atheism etc. So when you cut variation, you cut the source which people like Konrad Lorenz and Ernst Haeckel very succesfully used to promote social darwinism.History can then be rewritten to say that basically evolutionists were in scientific error (the error of including variation in the standard definition of selection), and used that scientific error to promote ethical error.I think to people who know much about the debate, the most significant event in the creation vs evolution debate is the Scopes trial in the 19 twenties. The trial was about a teacher who teached evolution theory, which was against the law in that state. The trial was later made into a play and a movie, called "Inherit the wind", which was generally favourable towards evolutionists and disfavourable to creationists.But this history can be reinterpreted into a story favourable to creationists, according to the facts that the teacher taught a racist version of evolutiontheory, the fact that the prosecutor William Jennings Bryan had a trackrecord of battling racist Darwinist imperialist in central government, the fact that the journalist Mencken who famously publicized the trial, was himself a social Darwinist talking about large percentages of the population being worthless, and the fact that the lawyer Darrow previously defended the accused in the Loeb case from capital punishment, who were on trial for them having killed a "worthless" human being, as some kind of intellectual game.That leaves the matter of whether or not everything was created as is 6000 years ago, or whether it evolved over more then a billion years unresolved, but that question would then have no significant societal interest anymore. Probably none of us would be here discussing creation vs evolution, if it weren't for darwinism feeding into social darwinism, nazism, atheism etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-09-2003]

This only verifies my theory that if there were no creationism, evolutionists would have to invent it. I fail to understand what possible benefit could come from debating a person whose notion of science is both completely divorced from reality and scornful toward reasonable responses. The same goes for debating those here who are quite obviously mentally ill.Before you fundie-haters get your clubs out for Seor Syamsu, I'd like to make a comment about the 'sport' involved in engaging people like your worthy opponent here: whenever I play chess with my four-year-old daughter, I win every game! You people should be just as proud of yourselves.------------------
Quien busca, halla[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-09-2003]

Ouch.a bit vitriol for the constituents! The difference is your daughter doesn’t proclaim that she won the game upon its conclusion, sighting your nonsensical rules. This forum is intended to house debate. That means people with different agendas and communication skills are going to have input. Perhaps you should work on your own tolerance levels!

quote:

---

he trial was later made into a play and a movie, called "Inherit the wind", which was generally favourable towards evolutionists and
disfavourable to creationists.

---

Have you actually watched the Spencer Tracy, Frederick March (and
Gene Kelly incidently) movie at all?It focusses on the wrong-ness of prosecuting someone for their
beliefs and indicates that the defence attorney actually
is a religous man.

quote:

---

If you cut variation from the definition, then the
theory becomes more flexible, more useful. So it's scientifically beneficial to cut variation from the
theory, but that's really not so important IMO.

---

This cuts to the crux of my question here.Natural selection is NOT a theory ... it is a description
of something that happens.Removing variation is like saying we can discuss the sky,
but don't mention that it's blue.The rest of your arguments (re: political mis-use) are not
about natural selection.Religion has been used by evil men for their own ends too.We cannot account for what such poeple will do with ANY
piece of knowledge, so blaming a minor aspect of the support
for evolutionary theory is ridiculous.Evolution didn't massacre the Jewish people during the Holocaust,
Hitler, by his anti-semitic policies, did. Hitler hated the
Jewish peoples ... he would have used any excuse to rationalise
his mis-treatment of and atrocities toward them.

Creationists wishing to respond should not be intimidated by the likes of Mr Hambre. There is no justification for including variation in the definition of Natural Selection. You should be clued into the fact that there isn't any justification, by noting that Peter and a host of other evolutionists on this board agree that selection without variation is valid. They could never deny it's validity because that would mean to deny the validity of the most basic biology.Natural Selection without variation describes the relationship of an organism to the environment in terms of reproduction / preservation. Looking at organisms this way gives you the basic knowledge you want about any organism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

AutoC, your worthy opponent just proved my point.The reason you don't play chess with four-year-olds is because they're likely to move the pieces however they see fit and object to any attempt to correct their behavior. This way they can claim to be able to beat Kasparov. But they can't claim it's CHESS.You're absolutely correct that we're here to debate. What definition of debate describes the way your opponent here chooses to behave? Ordinarily if a person can't or won't agree to terms or guidelines, we decide it's a waste of time dealing with that person. Judging bya) the literally hundreds of postings that your opponent's incoherent rantings have produced, andb) the fact that his current arguments (see post #18) are absolutely indistinguishable from the ones with which he started threads such as "Darwinism and Nazism,"there's every indication that this is indeed a colossal waste of time. I keep asking what possible good could emerge from further engaging him.I have no problem with people who have a different agenda, and your worthy opponent certainly has that. I also have nothing against people with different communication skills, but your opponent has yet to demonstrate that he has any at all.------------------
Quien busca, halla[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-09-2003]

You don't have to see this in relation to the holocaust and Hitler, you can just test it in your own mind if thinking about organisms in comparitive terms of one variant being better then another etc. etc. leads you to give credibility to racism, nazism and atheism and the like, in your own mind.In my own mind this first gives credibility to some generic judgementalism, and then some eugenicism. So then I check against that influence by pointing myself to the "intended" valuefree meaning of good and bad, fit and unfit, but when I point out the valuefree meaning of good and bad, then that tends to make me think atheistically, as if there was no effort involved in making living beings, as if values aren't real.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It doesnt make ME think that way. I rejected Dawkins on that basis and LATER found JUSTIFICATION for the judgement FIRST against GOD and then when on good and bad finding out that I was bad from bing bad bang on etc & even Gould admited this point in the two magesteria book that one can not change what God could have changed before man can change it but that may not have been part of your thought on good and bad, it was (in) mine. A" eLLe is esentailly ( I have not found a difference in logic here) the same (which is why one needs really to find some of Russel's notions on compactness etc that Quine thought he could not need to get beyond what this moved thread at least demonstrated to me. BEst Brad.

There is surprisingly little effort involved in creating human beings, at least from the male point of view, and even for a female the initial steps are surprisingly problem free, if it was that difficult would practically every ding dong on the face of the planet be able to do it?
Some living beings are even easier still, just give me a flask of LB and I can create you millions of E.coli.The main problem with social Darwinism is that the criteria applied to fitness are arbitrary ones determined by the society. In an evolutionary sense the only arbiter of fitness should be natural selection. It is perhaps arguable that a policy of no medical intervention in the treatment of disorders could be seen as an application of natural selection in a eugenic context, but the proponents of such a scheme would have to be happy to do without all the fitness enhancing technologies they themselves enjoy, like clothing, houses, cars, penicillin or pretty much any form of medecine if they wished to stay true to these principles and not appear hypocritical.The fact that evolutiopnary theory may lead you to believe that a tribe living in the andes have a lung capacity and endurance more suitable for people living in the Andes than in Holland does not involve a value judgement. Having a higher lung capacity is not a morally relevant concept. Good and bad in this context are 'value free' at least morally. If I judge a meal to be good or bad am I making a moral statement? Of course not. Good and bad are relative concepts, even in the case of morality.No one denies that values are real, but that doesn't mean that values are fundamental.In my mind Natural selection certainly doesn't lead me to lend credibility to Racism or Nazism. Atheism is arguable I suppose,certainly, as Brad points out, certain proponents of evolutionary theory try and make a strong case for this. But unless one was absoloutely married to a strictly literal interpretation of the bible there is no reason that evolution requires the non-existence of god, it simply doesn't require that he exist either, as is the case for pretty much everything else in the universe.

Which basic biology would have ts validity denied by saying that variation is required for NS? Just out of interest.That certainly wouldn't give me the information I'd want if I was hoping to perform a triple bypass operation, but then neither would an evolutionary analysis of heart morphology, Dobzhansky's claim that "nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" may be arguably true, but there is plenty of biology which is perfectly comprehensible and usefull without even thinking about evolution.

I have to admit I have personally stoped engaging him in debate. Not because of his poor arguments, but because he argued his point by lying about what I had posted. He is completely unswayable on any point, incapable of conceding even agreement on moot points. However, I am still interested to see where he goes whit his argument. Besides every 20 or 30 posts something new comes into his writing, or at least a new phrasing! Of course any thinking person can see his argument is without grounding. It’s becoming increasingly unlikely that he will add anything meaningful to his dialogue. So I concur with you mostly. But beware that daughter of yours; I first beat my father at chess when I was 10. LOL. The tide might turn on you soon!

Oh, peter, you do? You should get some help as soon as you can.

Sorry, Brad. Didn't mean to make you upset.