|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Forum: Darwnist Ideology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6474 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Well, S actually is not the M. Cohn to Monod's superhero.---------------
quote: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote:. 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
99 was good enough to be a last straw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024