Destroying Darwinism

You have no justification for including variation in the definition, no justification for comparing, you have no argument.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This last comment (among others was) [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 06-06-2003]

Now draw some pictures of- Darwinists comparing reproductionrates of elephants and frogs- selfish genes as mean worms with teeth- Konrad Lorenz "selecting" people in Posenregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I will do better..I will draw a picture below of the sum total of your understanding of natural selection...see the empty space below[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 06-06-2003]

Syamsu, I am glad to see that you finally have realized the Darwinian Natural Selection is a key component of evolution < !--UB

quote:

---

Darwinists comparing reproduction rates of elephants and frogs

---

-->< !--UB

quote:

---

Darwinists comparing reproduction rates of elephants and frogs

---

-->

quote:

---

Darwinists comparing reproduction rates of elephants and frogs

---

< !--UE-->------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

How do these numbers make sense? And, since you're just making them up, why should I accept them as support for your points? This is just stupid. Why? You don't believe white and black moths compete for food and mates? Even though they're the same species in the same niche?You keep going on about frogs vs. elephants, but they're not the same species. But the population of moths we're talking about are. I'll thank you to keep your analogies relevant, please. Please work on your reading comprehension. Perhaps you missed my 30-odd posts in this thread.

I basicly included all the justifications you have given for including variation in post 1. You should have simply not replied, since you didn't provide anything new.Next time... I will simply refer to the authority of Darwin, and will give as the justification for including variation Darwin's encroachment until extinction, as in the opening of Descent of Man, and the Malthus part in Origin of Species.C.Darwin Descent of Man
"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."the logic of Darwinists:
increase at rapid rate....struggle for existence....beneficial preserved....injurous eliminated...encroach and replace....become extinct.That is the justification for including variation in the standard definition of Natural Selection, and it works, in part.Now simply don't respond to this, since you have no new logic to add.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Ah you're just another bulldog for Darwin, defending tooth and nail. That is the reason you don't bother to engage the imaginary experiment.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The question you were being asked is 'what do the numbers
mean?' without that info. no one can discuss your post.Example::
Red 31.
See that prooves evolution.
Without some explanation of what it means it cannot be
discussed.

What is your justification for discarding variation from
the definition, and what would that make your definition
of natural selection?Comparing what?Natural selection is not a theoretical framework that requires
deductive reasoning to support it. It is a description of
something observed in nature.If I was to describe a red hot-air balloon to you, would it
be irrelevent to mention that it can float at different
altitudes just because that is not 'about' the balloon
itself ... after all floating is just something that we don't
need to know about with hot air balloons ... it's just a
comparison between the ground and the position of the balloon
how is that relevent to hot-air balloons!!!!

After several months or so, Syamsu seems to be holding fast to what he believes, that Darwin. Lorenz, Dawkins, and evolution by natural selection is evil, ar at least is used to promote evil.Okay, I've seen your arguments and I can agree with some and disagree with some. But I have another question. Most people who had objections to Darwinism simply point out a dubious link between evolution and Communism, secularism, zionism etc. But Syamsu seems to have focused on mid-20th century atrocities by Nazi, and pointing out some previously unknown (to me) facts such as Konrad Lorenz being a Nazi supporter... which made me suspect that maybe Syamsu himself might ever actually suffer from these actions. This is only my conjecture, but I am truly curious of his motives.Syamsu, what made you dislike natural selection and Darwinism so much? Did something terrible happened to you in the past or anything?[With apologies if offensive]

Well hell, I can make up numbers too. It's a fun game. But why should I play with your made up numbers? Why engage in thought experiments about biology when the real truth is there to find? Pull up a real study so we don't have to play games. The data is out there; I suspect you're afraid of it however.I suspect, however, you'd rather play games because the reality does not confirm your position, but rather ours.

Nothing of that sort. Holocaust teaching and teaching about WWII was very pervasive when I grew up. Even the smallest details are discussed endlessly, and Darwinism is a lot more then a small detail in relation to Nazism. It does make me angry sometimes that Darwinists commonly do not wish to see any serious investigation of the relationship of Darwinism to Nazism, and most times disparrage such investigation.There is fairly obvious evidence of such links, like that the Hitleryouth were taught Darwinism in Hitler-schools that instituted the Darwinist inspired principle of "continuous selection". Hitler schools existed separate from the regular school system. AFAIK pupils weren't taught about gravity theory there, but they were taught Darwinism as part of their ideological indoctrination. Scattered references to Natural Selection by top Nazi's, like in the Wannsee protocol (the minutes from the meeting where the practicalities of organizing the holocaust were discussed), and Hitler's book, and his recorded conversation, Haeckel, Galton and Darwin's position in the history of racism etc. You can read much about the relationship of Darwinism to Nazism in Klaus Fischer's historybook about Nazigermany.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What is not to understand? +50 means the population grows by 50. Or you can also disregard the number 50 if that would make a problem, and just note that it has a contributory effect on reproduction. The populationsize is left unknown so you can theorize that maybe the white moths went extinct by decreasing, or maybe they didn't.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Evolutionary biology is full of just-so stories to fill the gaps where data is missing, and besides that they're continuously playing theoretical what if games.Anyway the point in the example is that encroachment is just another selective factor among many. You therefore can't include it in the basic definition of selection, as the rules of proper organizing of knowledge demand. So you have lost your justification for including variation in the definition.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu