Darwinism and Nazism

My disagreement with Darwinists on this forum is:1. that the basic formulation of Natural Selection is widely known / accepted2. that the basic formulation has signficant scientific benefits over the commonly used definition.For the rest there isn't that much disagreement as far as I can tell.There is a perfectly neutral substitute for the term reproductive success, which is reproductive rate. The only reason "success" is most often used is to cojoin with notions of struggle/competition/purpose. Again, everybody cojoins these notions to the term, and that is intended by the people who invented the term.Mendel's paper are generally acknowledged to be highly formalized(good science), and Darwin's work is generally acknowledged to be prosaic (bad science).The theory of Natural Selection is not formalized even in the sciencepapers. There are lots of different definitions of Natural Selection. The more complete definitions present an assortment of principles of Natural Selection and then say something like "or similar". Dawkins also has his personal pet definition of Natural Selection, which reads "non-random survival of randomly varying organisms". I'm sure you also have your personal definition of Natural Selection. (I don't think this happens much in other sciences, that each has their personal definition of a fundamental theory) I'm sure your definition is wrong just like Dawkins definition is. Haeckel also had his pet-definition, which is generally acknowledged to be faulty even by Darwinists, but really, most all definitions out there are false.Dawkins includes selfishness into the definition of an organism, or DNA molecule. You cannot accept Dawkins theory and not acknowledge all organisms as mainly selfish. The altruism you refer to should be understood as geneselfishness, so it is selfish altruism.Some time ago someone came on to this forum asking if she could discard Dawkins selfish gene theory, or if it was accepted science. I'm not clear what you are saying here, can she discard it as mere metaphore and not science, or is she supposed to accept it?
Is metaphore excellent science to you?Selfish is used the same way by Dawkins and his "students" like Newton uses the word attraction. Both these words have technical meaning and colloquial meaning in language, where Dawkins defines a technical meaning but then curiously mixes up the tehcnical meaning with the colloquial meaning, as explained before.Dawkins writes that he doesn't present a morality in this book. Does Dawkins present a morality in this book? Yes. The morality to overcome your selfish genes and become altruistic adults.Dawkins says that geneselfishness normally gives rise to individual selfisness, except for some special cases. It is not just the genes which are selfish, but individuals also.Name me an influential Darwinist who is not highly politicized in conjunction with their Darwinism? Haeckel, Darwin, Dawkins, Lorenz, Gould etc. Perhaps Weizmann wasn't, but then I don't know that much about him.BTW in looking up quotes from Dawkins book I came across a site that discounts the story of the mantis female eating the male after mating. This most likely only happens much in stressful conditions like captivity.You have no point whatsoever.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Some added argument:I came across this book description of the Selfish Gene at amazon.com, which notes Dawkins as reformulating Natural Selection, and that his book has much interest within the scientific community."Book Description
Richard Dawkins' brilliant reformulation of the theory of natural selection has the rare distinction of having provoked as much excitement and interest outside the scientific community as within it. His theories have helped change the whole nature of the study of social biology, and have forced thousands of readers to rethink their beliefs about life.In his internationally bestselling, now classic volume, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains how the selfish gene can also be a subtle gene. The world of the selfish gene revolves around savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit, and yet, Dawkins argues, acts of apparent altruism do exist in nature. Bees, for example, will commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, and birds will risk their lives to warn the flock of an approaching hawk."You should also remember that while Dawkins explicitly doesn't want people to take morality from his book (eventhough duplicitly stating a morality in it), he explicitely wants his book and Darwinism generally to be used for psychology, as in evolutionary psychology.Dawkins seems to be surprised that psychology is largely free from Darwinism in his book, as if nobody had thought of applying it before. But of course Darwinists have already tried to apply Darwinism to psychology, and the results were a societal disaster, where large percentages of doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists, many of the influential founders of the field, espoused racist and eugenic beliefs in their works.I don't think evolutionary psychology will be much racist or eugenic in the West this time around, but considering it is based on the shoddy science of Darwinism, we should expect societal disaster again. If evolutionary psychology becomes accepted, I think it will more likely generate disasters like episodes of mass psychosis, and very high suicide rates, as is also typical of extremely rationalistic religions IMO, like Scientology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Is it an observation, not a theory? What observation? Reference please. I don't believe you know in detail what you are talking about, when you make assertive pronouncements like you do here. I believe you have a vague notional understanding of Natural Selection just like everyone else on this forum.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The meaning of Natural Selection is still highly vague and notional in your writings. I can't generalize your observation of Natural Selection of finches to observe Natural Selection of oaktrees, or a clonal bacteria population. To generalize the observation is to make it a theory. Your generalization reads "something about the habitat must pressurise the creatures into developing these features". It's vague and notional, and wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I can't see that Natural Selection is generally applicable to all living beings, since you didn't tell me the criteria for Natural Selection to apply. Those criteria are the theory of Natural Selection. Now you have a theory about finches, and a theory about moths, but no generally applicable theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu