Darwinism and Nazism

I'm curious - have you found anyone who shares your interpretations, or are they wholly your own?--Percy

I was referring to the interpretations you made in the message I replied to, #11 in this thread, and also reflected here in the message I'm replying to now: Yes, you go quite a bit further than Fischer. You believe that the theory of evolution and Social Darwinism are inextricably entwined, that this entanglement has been the root of much evil, that Darwin, Haeckel, et al, deserve much of the blame, that the association invalidates the science, and that the theory should therefore be reformulated. Is this wholly your own opinion, or does it come from somewhere else? I'm asking because you've been making this same point for a long time, but it makes as little sense to me now as when I first saw it, so I thought that maybe if your views are shared by others that I might find enlightenment there.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-15-2003]

Au contraire! The word "evolution" did not appear in the early editions of The Origin of Species. Darwin referred to what later became known as evolution as "the theory of descent with modification through natural selection."--Percy

There is no theory of NS. The theory of evolution includes NS. As I just stated a couple messages ago, Darwin referred to what later became known as evolution as "the theory of descent with modification through natural selection." What is wrong is your misformulation of evolution. First you misstate it, then you criticize the improper definition you created. As I've said, I'm not able to follow or make sense of your approach, and that is why I asked if there is someone else who shares your views that I might read.--Percy

What I think I'm beginning to sense is that making yourself clear isn't your goal. I didn't state a position, I merely quoted Darwin from The Origin of Species.If there are people out there who have written books or articles who share your particular view of how the TOE is structurally unsound and should be reformulated then I would be interested to know who they are. Right now you look like a army of one, and if that's actually the case then it's probably not worth the effort trying to understand what you're getting at, but if you're actually giving voice to a body of thought that has other representatives then I'd like to look into it.--Percy

Uh, Syamsu, I was playing devil's advocate as Percy in a fake debate with myself as Admin. I don't believe I've committed myself one way or the other on the topic. As I keep saying, my focus is on trying to understand what you're getting at. I've read many of your posts, and I don't understand where you're coming from. I don't think anyone else does, either. I finally gave up conversing with you shortly after you joined, but I've become amazed at your persistance and am now curious and wondering if there is some other source for the views you're espousing. I'm specifically asking you to *not* explain yourself again, but am instead asking for someone who believes pretty much (not "exactly") as you do that the theory of evolution is structurally unsound and needs to be reformulated. Where you lose me is when you say it is "structurally unsound" but then go on to talk about misuses of evolutionary theory by groups like the Nazis, and social darwinism, which have nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution itself.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-18-2003]

I didn't ask about selection, nor about NS on clone populations. I asked if there was anyone else I might read whose shares your views on how the theory of evolution is structurally unsound and should be reformulated.--Percy

Lying?First, this makes no sense since I only asked a question.Second, accusing fellow members of lying is a violation of rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines, as is your later statement that, "You don't belong on a discussion forum."I don't understand your position. If there's no one out there you can reference to provide clarification then just say so.--Percy

Feel free to invite the other moderators to take a look. Their emails are Adminaquility and Adminnemooseus.I must say your reaction seems a bit weird. I said I didn't understand your position, yet when I made my best attempt to describe what I thought you were saying you accused me of lying. If I thought I understood your position I wouldn't be asking for clarification.I *do* think you are incorrect to view NS separately from evolution. As I said earlier, Darwin's definition of evolution in The Origin of Species was "descent with modification through natural selection." And your proposal to replace NS with a General Theory of Reproduction just leaves me dumfounded.It is that you have gone on so long in this vein without either modifying your position or improving your presentation of it that led me to become curious if there are others who share your perspective from whom I might gain a better understanding.--Percy

This is a pretty clear and succinct summary. There's more than one way to say the same thing, and I think you may have missed something in Quetzal's perspective because it definitely makes a difference whether an organism is "deselected" before or after it's had a chance to reproduce, but this all seems pretty much the same to me.Perhaps the disagreement is only apparent, not real, brought on by slightly different perspectives. How you view the process of evolution could be the significant factor. For example, you could view evolution like this, which would tend to make you describe selection as surviving to reproduce: Or you could look at the same process just a little differently by starting the description at a different point like this, which might, possibly, cause a greater focus on reproduction, though I don't actually see it myself: But it doesn't matter which part of the process you choose as your starting point because the process is circular. No matter what the starting point it is still the same process. And no matter what words you use to describe it, it is still the same process.So unless the above is *not* the process we're talking about (give or take some quibbling about level of detail), this whole disagreement is about vocabulary.--Percy