Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum: Darwnist Ideology
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 265 (87702)
02-20-2004 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Jack
02-20-2004 10:44 AM


Back in college, I wrote a really insightful essay on the cliff notes of Ulysees.

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Jack, posted 02-20-2004 10:44 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Mammuthus, posted 02-20-2004 11:01 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 92 of 265 (87705)
02-20-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dan Carroll
02-20-2004 10:51 AM


Oh yeah? Well back when I was an unemployed drunk who slept in a laundromat, I heard about a guy who wrote something about a criticism of Ulysees. I assume it will substantiate anything I say. You are just empty posing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-20-2004 10:51 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 93 of 265 (87730)
02-20-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Jack
02-20-2004 10:44 AM


I'll rewrite if this comes acorss a slant.
Well, S actually is not the M. Cohn to Monod's superhero.---------------
quote:
The weakness of response surprised me, maybe I began to actually believe that people here actually think about what Dawkins wrote, like they imply they do. I must remind myself that the authorititive gibbering many people engage in here is mostly empty posing.
said SYAMSU
I have made an observation here (on my own) in the first sentence before and indeed now wonder what this second one means if it is not mere "posing" struck from all performances before. Sorry if I overstep someone else's bounds for I have not been reading as much of the board lately as I used to.
So to answer you sysamsu wrote
quote:
I see, so first you accuse me of quoting out of context for quoting that Dawkins says "we are born selfish" and that "altruism has to be learned" that genetic altruism is a limited special exception,
which for me at least puts his above period between two sentences into abeyance. There is a way that "learning altruism" still may remain for biology and have to do with what was mentioned less 100 relative to 'extinction' having to do with the idea of cell death. But I would have to explain first how Monod as well as being incorrect on many material details may have been mistken to speak about differentiation AFTER anti-repressors or anti inducers provided the creationist knowledge in the different applications of the 1st and 2nd laws be accepted in research given. I have not established this much here so beg for more time awaiting to see one else understand that Syamsu could be correct about Dawkins in a post-Selfish Gene writing (Gould makes a distinction in the periods of Dawkin's work) but I have not gone head to tail with S lately and I have NOT internalized Dawkins' claim against Gould which I had thout posters here did hence my observation in the first sentence and resason to see that not reading the Selfish Gene is not reason in itself to dismiss for summary judgement.
A for my own repose I was disinclined to read anything else that Dawkins wrote after the SGENE (which with Gould's understanding (as my own then was) that the warmblooded brain IS NOT a herp brain on drugs or drugs on top of the brain etc) and still I have yet to sit down to dinner with one of his newer bound plates of pages as the side dish but EITHER marxist biology (French or otherwise) or Gould's latest voluminous ouput which declines creationism EXPLICITLY will at some point force me to take up the luxury of commentary meanwhile I am satisfied to explore the error. I am getting MORE than less conviced of some kind of mental phenomena of trans(XXX)between Larmkianism and Creationism that was cashed in in the late 70s against thermodynamic equilibrium which implies to me at least that a board such as EVCF should stablize over time no matter how many of us personally "mutate" exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Jack, posted 02-20-2004 10:44 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 94 of 265 (87754)
02-20-2004 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Jack
02-20-2004 10:44 AM


Dawkins doesn't deserve to be read, but I read the blind watchmaker, and parts of the selfish gene.
It seems to me that my criticism of Dawkins concerning ideology and systemacy of theory, is more to the point then the theoretical meandering about families Mark engages in. I was rather surprised about the weak response to my criticism of the systemacy of selfish gene theory. I should remind myself again that the authoritive gibbering you all commonly engage in, is mostly just empty posing. It seems unfair that evolutionists don't actually criticize Darwinist ideological pseudoscience such as Dawkins selfish gene. That they seem to actually support Darwinist pseudoscience as a weapon against traditional religion, as history also shows in the case of Haeckel, Lorenz, Galton, Darwin etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Jack, posted 02-20-2004 10:44 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-20-2004 3:14 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 265 (87759)
02-20-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Syamsu
02-20-2004 3:00 PM


Syamsu writes:
I should remind myself again that the authoritive gibbering you all commonly engage in, is mostly just empty posing.
Wouldn't want anyone posing emptily, firing off authoritive gibberish without backing it up, would we?
In that spirit:
Syamsu writes:
On the other hand creationists have been mainly been the defenders of common values, such as equality, the wonder of creativity, freedom of choice
Dan writes:
So we can assume that major creationist groups will be actively defending gay marriage (equality) encouraging the government to give more money to the NEA (the wonder of creativity) and trying to strike down the new laws against abortion (freedom of choice)?
Do you have a response yet?
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 02-20-2004]

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Syamsu, posted 02-20-2004 3:00 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Syamsu, posted 02-20-2004 9:11 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 96 of 265 (87822)
02-20-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Quetzal
02-19-2004 5:20 PM


Re: Raup and Extinction
Obviously what you need to do is reference some article on the web which talks about the state of the field of study. So far I have your word and Mammuthus word, against that of Raup, and the other ecologist I read, and implied from Gould and the logic of Darwinism.
Extinction caused by a comet impact doesn't seem such an original idea to me if you're focused on extinction, yet the full study of this idea is quite new.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Quetzal, posted 02-19-2004 5:20 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Quetzal, posted 02-20-2004 10:37 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 97 of 265 (87826)
02-20-2004 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dan Carroll
02-20-2004 3:14 PM


Abortion and gay marriage aren't clearcut issues. You might better argue in terms of the racism that existed and continues to exist in the south of America, where creationism is also widespread. As before you have to see creationism in a multicultural context. If the beliefs of native Americans would be dominant then the devils associated with those beliefs would be in the forefront. They are champions of equality and freedom of choice and the wonder of creativity in respect to the evolution versus creation controversy.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-20-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-20-2004 3:14 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-21-2004 12:49 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 98 of 265 (87836)
02-20-2004 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Syamsu
02-20-2004 8:55 PM


Re: Raup and Extinction
You must really be losing it to expect to tackle me on my own turf successfully.
Here is a very small sampling of relatively recent peer-reviwed articles. You can probably find these on line, and certainly in any decent library.
Dunham J, Peacock M, Tracy CR, Nielsen J, Vinyard G, 1999, "Assessing Extinction Risk: Integrating Genetic Information" , Conservation Ecology vol 1
Hanski A, Ovanskainen O, 2002, "Extinction debt at extinction threshold", Conservation Biology 3:666-673 (Hanski also wrote a book. Unfortunately not as "popular" as Raup's. His was titled "Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, evolution", 1996 Academic Press. It contains a number of articles by scientists on extinction. I especially liked Foley P, "Extinction models for local populations". A must read...)
Lande R, 1993, "Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes" American Naturalist 142:911-927
Pimm AL, Jones HL, Diamond J, 1988, "On the risk of extinction" American Naturalist 132:757-785.
Myers N, Knoll AH, 2001, "The biotic crisis and the future of evolution" PNAS 98:5389-5392 (about the human impacts on species extinction - I'm pretty sure this one is on line).
Jablonski D, 2002, "Survival without recovery after mass extinctions", PNAS, 99:8139-8144.
Beissinger SR, 2000, "Ecological mechanisms of extinction", PNAS, 97:11688-11689 (you really should look this one up even if you ignore the others. It is directly contrary to Raup's organism/species level approach. IMO the systems-level approach is a much better treatment.)
In short Syamasu, there are a lot of scientists doing a lot of work on extinction - regardless of how you've misinterpreted Raup. The simple equation is: if you want to conserve species, you have to understand metapopulation and community/ecosystem dynamics AND you have to understand extinction. So the best work is being done by ecologists and pop geneticists. Maybe you should read some sometime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Syamsu, posted 02-20-2004 8:55 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 12:03 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 100 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2004 12:38 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 99 of 265 (87848)
02-21-2004 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Quetzal
02-20-2004 10:37 PM


Re: Raup and Extinction
As before reference a general assessment of the state of the study of extinction, and don't dump science papers. I see nothing but references to the field having been neglected on the web. It appears I was right and Mammuthus and you are wrong, about your own field of study, now how could that happen?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Quetzal, posted 02-20-2004 10:37 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Quetzal, posted 02-21-2004 10:06 AM Syamsu has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 100 of 265 (87851)
02-21-2004 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Quetzal
02-20-2004 10:37 PM


Restricted priveledges
If simple ended up in the corner, I don't see why Syamsu can't be put to one side as well. He clutters things up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Quetzal, posted 02-20-2004 10:37 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 2:35 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 265 (87855)
02-21-2004 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Syamsu
02-20-2004 9:11 PM


quote:
Abortion and gay marriage aren't clearcut issues.
.
Sure they are. The words you used were "equality" and "freedom of choice". Restricting gay marriage promotes inequality. Outlawing abortion prevents the ability to make a choice. Any moral crap you want to tack on is irrelevant.
This isn't rocket science, big guy. Equality and freedom of choice restricted by fundie Christian groups... the major proponents of creationism. And I notice you didn't touch the NEA...
quote:
They are champions of equality and freedom of choice and the wonder of creativity in respect to the evolution versus creation controversy.
So in other words, where it serves their self-interest, and only where it serves their self-interest. My goodness, what champions of decency.

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Syamsu, posted 02-20-2004 9:11 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 2:21 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 102 of 265 (87857)
02-21-2004 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dan Carroll
02-21-2004 12:49 AM


It's not the point that creationists aren't saints. What would be terryifying if creationists just call it a day and became Darwinist ideologists in stead.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-21-2004 12:49 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2004 9:53 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 103 of 265 (87859)
02-21-2004 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by NosyNed
02-21-2004 12:38 AM


Re: Restricted priveledges
That's rich. I don't clutter things up, it's evolutionists who clutter up threads I post in by giving meaningless, inane and vitriolic responses. Which post of mine do you consider clutter, as an example?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2004 12:38 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2004 3:16 AM Syamsu has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 104 of 265 (87862)
02-21-2004 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Syamsu
02-21-2004 2:35 AM


Re: Restricted priveledges
99 was good enough to be a last straw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 2:35 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by berberry, posted 02-21-2004 3:37 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 106 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 4:07 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 265 (87863)
02-21-2004 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by NosyNed
02-21-2004 3:16 AM


Y'all leave Ebb alone
I can see how frustrating it is to argue with this guy. The fact that he apparently sees himself as the one making sense is downright frightening when you consider how many more like him are out there doing all sorts of dangerous things like voting.
But if you can get past that, some of his posts are hilarious. Reading through this is like watching a scientific debate being moderated by characters from the old Green Acres TV show.
[This message has been edited by berberry, 02-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2004 3:16 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024