Darwinism and Nazism

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
In stead of referring to Nietzche you migh more appriopately note the anti-semtism of Christian orgin. However, it's clear to me that apart from other factors, Darwinism played a signifcant role.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Do you blame baseball bat manufacturers because some people have used them to bash other people's heads in?Why or why not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I don't, because I don't think baseballbats are the cause of people being hit by them.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

Do you blame Konrad Lorenz for integrating Nazi ideological elements into his books, and the ethnic cleansing in Poland he participated in as a member of a Nazi race office, and then hiding all this after the war and saying he was just very naive about the Nazi's?

---

Never read him.Also irrelevant.

quote:

---

Why do Darwin and Haeckel continuously write in terms of higher and lower about living beings, human beings, where the higher is always noted as the most worthy?

---

Most worthy? Darwin never wrote about anything being "most worthy", and who cares what Haekel wrote if we are discussing science?YOU are the one bringing up Naziism.Do you blame the train car manufacturers because their products were used to carry Jews to the concentration camps?Do you blame the people who invented Zyklon B, a rat and insect fumigant, because it was also used to kill Jews in the gas chambers?If the answer is no, then why do you blame Darwin for the MISUSE OF HIS THEORY by other parties?The baseball bat, the train cars, and Zyklon B are all items which were mis-used in terrible ways by the Nazis, and they MISUSED Darwin's ideas IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

quote:

---

Why is the definition of Natural Selection biased towards evolution and Social Darwinism?

---

Um, NS is an EXPLANATION of a MECHANISM of evolution. They are pretty much linked together, by definition.Social darwinism HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. How many hundreds of times do you need to be told this before you will understand?Could it be that you simply hold your beliefs and rehash them over and over again without taking in new information or learning any new things?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-14-2003]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Darwin continuously talks about lower and higher in "Descent of Man".[/QUOTE]Taken in context, the use of these terms does not mean "inferior" and "superior".

quote:

---

He also talks about what the highest state of morality is for a person, and he advises that people to any significant degree "inferior" should not marry.

---

He probably got that part from the Bible. Why don't you propose that we change the Bible because the Nazis used it to justify their actions?No one denies that Darwin was a PRODUCT OF HIS CULTURE AND OF HIS TIME. He was WRONG about his racism, and that is why it ISN'T PART OF THE CURRENT THEORY.

quote:

---

The theory of Natural Selection was largely derived from the work of Malthus,

---

Really? According to whom? What evidence do you have?

quote:

---

which in retrospect has come to be classed as a work of Social Darwinism, even if it was published before Darwin.

---

Social darwinism does not have anything to do with natural selection or Biology.Social darwinism is a misuse of scientific principles for a political or cultural end.In other words, you are AGAIN blaming baseball bat manufacturers for the fact that people have used baseball bats to bash other people's skulls in.Decide which position you hold, Syamsu. On the one hand, you say you do not blame the original theory for the fact that people have misused it, but then you go right ahead and do that very thing in the next breath.You have repeatedly blamed darwin's theory because other people have misused it.

quote:

---

Social Darwinism has been closely entertwined with Darwinism from the conception of the theory.

---

That is the fault of the people MISUSING THE THEORY.

quote:

---

Your reference to basebalbats is superficial nonsense.

---

No, it is a perfect analogy to show that you are illogically blaming a scientific theory because it is misused by others.

quote:

---

At least you have shut yourself up, because except for changing your mind, you can do nothing else now then repeat your nonsense argument, you are stuck with it.

---

You are the only one around here who thinks that my analogy is nonsense, Syamsu. You are pretty much on your own there.

quote:

---

Your argument doesn't allow for any further nuance, or looking at any evidence for that matter, like the books of Darwin, Haeckel or Lorenz for instance.

---

My argument doesn't need further nuance. You claim that Darwin's theory and one of it's proposed mechanisms, Natural Selection, is to blame for racism and Nazi ideology. All I have to do to show that you are utterly wrong is to show that;1) racism has been around long before Darwin's theory was invented, which you yourself admit, and that2) social darwinism is not part of the theory, which I have done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I doubt that is what Schrafinator intended to say. Natural Selection and evolution are not linked by definition (except for definitions of Natural Selection that are, as I argue, wrong) they are linked by the incidence of variation or actually mutation.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Um, that is EXACTLY what I said, let alone intended to say.Incidence of variation is the raw material with which natural selection works. The other part is the environmental pressures.Natural selection is the proposed mechanism of evolution.How on earth can you possibley deny this?

[QUOTE] I haven't found anyone whose position is exactly the same as mine, as before, only similar. But as far as Natural Selection being applicable on a clone population I "enlist" John, Quetzal and Peter in my "army" who will now force you to come up with an answer if or not Natural Selection can apply to a clone population I guess.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B][/QUOTE]I am wondering why it is impportant if NS applies to a clone population or not, as this almost never happens in the real world?I would also add that your objection to terms like "selfish" and "survival of the fittest" are emotional reactions to your misunderstanding of them. You are putting a great deal of significance and social meaning into them that are not intended.In other words, you are taking them out of context, changing their meaning to one which you can rail against, then wasting everyone's time arguing against straw men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
The clone-example is merely to clearly illustrate that some definitions, such as that of differential reproductive success of variants, are fundamentally wrong. Situations where variation is much irrellevant in Natural Selection are common in Nature, such as with endangered species.

---

What??Are you saying that endangered species are clones? What are you talking about?Please give SPECIFIC, DETAILED examples of populations of clones, since you say they are so common, in nature. Also, please give examples only of clones which do not exist in environments, because if there is an environment, which includes other clones in the population, there will be NS.

quote:

---

As before the main application of Selection would be to describe the relation of an organism to it's environment in regards to the event of it's reproduction. For example: light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection). It would be the main conceptual tool in biology.

---

You are describing natural selection.

quote:

---

Yes I do tend to take "selfish" out of context, and so does everybody, which is why it is wrong to use an emotive word like that in a science theory.

---

The word "selfish" is NOT part of a scientific theory, as I have explained to you many months ago, yet you STILL continue to use it as an argument!Dawkins used "selfish" in a popular press book."The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book, not a formal statment of any theory."The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.
"The Selfish Gene" is a popular press book.{Fixed a quote box -AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-30-2003]

So, in other words, there is nobody you can refer Percy to who shares you view that the ToE needs to be rewritten, right?Otherwise, you would just tell him who it is, correct?Instead, you have begun attacking him.

Any comments, Syamsu, to my message 42 in this thread?

quote:

---

As I mentioned before, Darwin's "Origin of Species" is also a popular press book,

---

Well, technically, yes, but only because there was no distinction 150 years ago betweeen popular science books and the professional literature.

quote:

---

just like Dawkins' "Selfish Gene", so is Konrad Lorenz's "On aggression" a popular press book.

---

No, no, no. Not, "just like" in the least.The two modern books are not comparable to Origins at all, because today we have a marked distinction between popular press books which are not peer-reviewed, and articles which are published in the peer-reviewed professional science journals.The Selfish Gene is NOT a peer-reviewed journal article.The Selfish Gene is a popular press book which should not be taken as a formal statement of any scientific theory.Again, I challenge you to find a FORMAL, professional or textbook definition or explanation of the ToE which uses the word "selfish" in it.

quote:

---

You really have no point with saying "The Selfish Gene" is a popular pressbook, since popular pressbooks are the mainstay of Darwinist science.

---

No, professional Science journals are the mainstay of any science. These are peer-reviewed highly technical professional papers.You can't get these in book stores. You get them in University Libraries and online in databases such as Pubmed or Medline.

quote:

---

I've never seen any Darwinist reference Darwin and Wallace's science paper on Natural Selection actually.

---

What paper is that?

quote:

---

The introduction of this site also doesn't refer to Darwin's sciencepaper, but to the "Origin of Species".

---

Like I told you months and months ago, formal scientific peer-review Journals didn't exist 150 years ago. The field of science wasn't professionalized back then. Rich clergy and gentlemen naturalists did all of this work. That's why we have a book, and that's why it is written the way it is.These facts and concepts seem to be extremely difficult for you.

quote:

---

The paper Darwin and Wallace jointly published in the journal of the Linneanian society (could be misspelling). That you don't even know of it's existence says much about the attitudes on peer-review in Darwinist science.

---

I did know about it, Syamsu, but the Linneanian society's Journal wasn't the same as a modern professional science journal. Science was not formalized or professionalized back them. The Linneanian society was a bunch of men interesed in naturalism, and they wrote up their findings and put it in the journal.Peer review happened, after a fashion, because everybody in the society chimed in with their thoughts, but it was much more casual and there was no before-the-fact, stringent approval for publication like there is today.Please do not forget that my whole point in this discussion is to help you understand that popular press books, like those you can find in the bookstore (Selfish Gene), no matter if they are based on peer reviewed research, are NOT to be considered formal definitions of any scientific theory. If you want to find a formal statement of a scientific theory, you have to look in a textbook.

quote:

---

The paper was also largely ignored at the time it was published.

---

Right.added by edit 2/3; Actually, Origins was not largely ignored. It was huge when it came out, getting a great deal of atention and scrutiny. See the following link:University Libraries - University Libraries | University of South Carolina

quote:

---

I think this is because the paper was substandard, and not as many Darwinists argue, because of unwillingness of creationists to accept it.

---

The science in Origins is excellent, which it still largely standt today.You are right about people rejecting it out of hand because of religion.added by edit 2/3: I realized I misread what you wrote. People did reject Origins out of hand because of religion, contrary to your claim.

quote:

---

I have seen reference to Dawkins selfish gene doctrine in a science paper,

---

Really? Which one. Please provide the citation so I can go look it up.

quote:

---

besides a large share of Darwinists have the opinion that his book "The Selfish Gene" is an "important" book.

---

So what? That it is an important book does not make it a formal explanation of the Theory of Evolution.

quote:

---

As before, I would be happy if Dawkins books were ignored within science as the books of an eccentric,

---

An eccentric who is also a brilliant scientist and correct, BTW.

quote:

---

but unfortunately they aren't. Dawkins also gives a technical definition of selfishness, and altruism in his book.

---

Really? Please post it here.

quote:

---

It is not as some people would like to believe a metaphore, but it is supposed to be used as a technical term.

---

Post it here and we will discuss it.

quote:

---

But before he defines selfishness technically he already uses the word to say that "people are born selfish", and says things like people can get insight into their "greed" and "genorosity" through his and Darwin's theory. I don't think he has a technical definition of greed.

---

Please post the entire quote here.

quote:

---

Am I to suppose that when Dawkins warns that people are born selfish, and they should learn to overcome their inborn selfishness in becoming adults, that that is just technical usage of the term selfish?

---

I think that Dawkins says that people are born with selfish "GENES".The GENES are selfish!THE GENES THE GENES THE GENES.

quote:

---

Then it would read something like people are born to try to get themselves to reproduce, and in becoming adults they should try to get others to reproduce at cost of not reproducing themselves. By the technical usage of selfish, Dawkins is a nut telling us we should try to help others to reproduce. By the more straightforward colloquial usage of selfishness, Dawkins mixes science with valuejudgement, so it should also be discarded.

---

The Selfish Gene is a popular press book, and that is why he uses the provocative language that he does.That you cannot separate your emotional response to, and understanding of how he uses the word, "selfish", is no reason to reject the ideas in the book.Just because the ideas are unpalatable to you doesn't make them wrong. It is my opinion that you don't (want to) understand his metaphor.Finally, do you understand that, contrary to what you have claimed, that The Selfish Gene is not to be taken as a formal definition of the Theory of Evolution?Can you provide a textbook definition of the ToE that contains the word "selfish"?

quote:

---

You are just pretending that the scientific process in Darwinism is just the same as in physics, or chemistry, much as a dialectical materialist Marxist ecnomotrist would, but unfortunately it's not.

---

Um, whatever, but yes, the scientific method is the same in Biology as it is in Physics as it is in Geology.Do you have any evidence that it isn't?

quote:

---

You also fail to answer questions about the validity of the formulation "differential reproductive success of variants". Would a physician or chemist also fail to answer such questions? Isn't it just unique to Darwinism, that the field is filled with highly politicized people, for who answering such questions presents political risk of defaming their science?

---

The field is filled with highly politicized people??Who?

quote:

---

"differential reproductive success of variants" is used in many science-papers.

---

That's because that is one way of describing natural selection.

quote:

---

It is not a highly technical term, it has an intuitive part about "success", which notionally refers to things like struggle/competition/purpose.

---

No, it doesn't.It only does in your mind, and yours alone.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-02-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-03-2003]

quote:

---

Mendel wrote a piece of formalized biological science at about the same timeperiod as Darwin. So Darwin really has no excuse for solely writing his theory up in prosaic common style.

---

No, Mendel didn't do that, because THERE WERE NO PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS, OR PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE JOURNALS, OR MODERN PEER REVIEW BACK THEN. None. Nada. They didn't exist.

quote:

---

Besides, Darwinists could have written his theory up in formalized style later, and not continue with the prosaic style.

---

Which they did, and continue to do, in the professional Journals.

quote:

---

Then you would only have to reference me the formalized theory of Natural Selection for the questions I have about selection applying to survival or reproduction or both, or selection applying to endangered species or not etc. In stead of this simple reference, I run into countless discussions with Darwin interpreters who have some sort of "notion", what Natural Selection "is about".

---

I don't have to reference you anything. Go find your own references.I am still waiting for you to provide to me a textbook definition of evolution that uses the word "selfish" in it. Why won't you provide what you say exists?

quote:

---

I don't understand how you can at once say that the science in Origin is excellent and at the same time still endorse peer-reviewed formalized papers. Either formalized papers are excellent science, which makes "Origin" abysmal (and Mendel excellent), or common prose is excellent science, which makes formalized peer-review papers abysmal science.

---

There is no either-or here. Your comparison makes no sense.Darwin used excellent scientific methodology, which is why his conclusions are still largely valid today.

quote:

---

You clearly have never read anything Darwin wrote with the intention of getting some formal knowledge out of it, which is when the common prose of Darwin becomes very frustrating.

​

Dawkins explicitely refers to reproduction as the "purpose" of organisms in "the Selfish Gene". It is not just me who notionally cojoins purpose to the word success in "differential reproductive success", but actually everybody, including you when you are not politically pressured.

---

Bullcrap. You have been told over and over by just about everybody here that your views are held only by you. We all disagree with your "intepretation" of Dawkins, and have had lengthy discussions with you explaining why, but you just decide that you know our minds better than we do. Whatever, you don't want to discuss anything. You just want everybody to agree with you. Well, you're wrong, sorry.

quote:

---

You are wrong that Dawkins just says that people are born with selfish genes, he says that people are born selfish and should learn to become altruist.

---

Please quote the passage from the book where he says that.

quote:

---

I don't have the name handy of a science paper with reference to Dawkins "The Selfish Gene". I will look it up if you tell me this will significantly change your opinion.

---

I don't know if it will change my opinion or not. It depends how the word is used. Try me.

quote:

---

Most all in this post I have written before on this forum, so I don't think it's very meaningful to respond to you anymore, unless you have some comments about changing the formulation of selection in the glossary of this site, into the basic formulation of selection.

---

I notice that you have not provided that list of "many highly-politicized scientists" in Evolutionary Biology I asked for. Nor have you provided that extbook definition of Evolution that includes the word "selfish". Nor have you provided any of the specific quotes fron "The Selfish Gene" that I asked for.I'll add another request with regards to your request above. I will consider supporting your desire to change the terminology in the glossary if you can provide some names of any respected professional mainstream Biologists who agree with you that the definition of evolution contains value judgement.

I spoke too soon! Excellent, quotes to examine.

quote:

---

Actually, he uses the word survival in stead of like I said, the word reproduction. He uses the word reproduction elsewhere, as if survival and reproduction are somehow interchangeable words.

---

If he is talking about survival of a species, they are very closely linked. Which does he mean?

quote:

---

Ever stood in front of a xerox copying machine and when you push the buttons all the machine does is "survive"? It's very annoying. Survival and reproduction are definitely not the same thing.

---

This makes no sense, because copiers do not reproduce in the first place, nor are they alive in the second place.

quote:

---

Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage

​

"Before going any further, we need a definition. An entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behavior has exactly the opposite effect.'Welfare' is defined as 'chances of survival', even if the effect on actual life and death prospects is so small as to seem negligible. ".

---

NOWHERE in this passage does Dawkins say that he is doing ANYTHING other than defining what HE means by these words for the purposes of his analogy. There is no "formal", all-encompasing definition here, meant to carry over into all of biology. Hos definition is very metaphorical and very specific.

quote:

---

Page not found - Christians in Science
(BBC christmas science lectures)
"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA Flowers are for the same thing as everything else in the living kingdoms, for spreading 'copy - me' programmes about, written in DNA language.

​

That is EXACTLY what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self sustaining process. It is every living objects' sole reason for living...

---

What is the problem with that?

quote:

---

For as far as Dawkins makes selfishness into part of the definition of evolution or Natural Selection:

​

Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage

​

"If you look at the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish."

---

Oh, come on, Syamsu! That isn't a definition of evolution! Even you should be able to see that. It is a premise to continue his analogy in the book.I have read the book, and basically, the book is about the idea that, as objects that live to reproduce our DNA, we all SHOULD be completely selfish, but we AREN'T. The book attempts to explain why we AREN'T completely selfish; why altruism and helping behavior exists.

Syamsu, this is a quote, from your own source, that you seem to not notice when you misunderstand Dawkins over and over.Emphasis added by meNothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage [QUOTE]This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all toll numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true. This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to."