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.