Forum: Darwnist Ideology

I managed to get you-know-who to agree to a statement regarding differential reproductive success, he then proceeded to continue to rubbish drs whilst still agreeing with the original statement !?. So I fourth MrH's recommendation.Mark

Syamsu, Please reread the thread in question, I never said Dawkins claimed altruism was anything but an exception. I ASKED YOU TO SHOW THAT IT WAS! You didn't, so your arse was talking again. Right?Given your inability to read for context this error is hardly surprising. I do find it strange, however, that you thought catching me in a Dawkins related error was somehow a victory, but the X number of times you have been shown to know NOTHING about his writings isn't. A curious double standard.There are countless examples of your complete ignorance of the texts you are supposed to be familiar with, & nearly as many posts trying to get you to answer direct & relevant questions, so no, I don't mind Mammuthus reminding you about how your backside got handed to you on a platter again & again & again.....Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-19-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Syamsu, Spot on, the quotes you made must be taken in the wider context of the book, & not be exclusive of it. But you can't do that because you have never read the books in question. Very simply, this means you have no way of getting any of Dawkins words in context. This is not an intellectually good place to be, Syamsu, when you oppose his views so vociferously. This is why talking with you is such a waste of time.I never claimed Dawkins said anything about the level of behaviour that was & was not altruistic. I therefore cannot be wrong because I made claims about Dawkins' view. Therefore your claim that you somehow caught me out is false. Please understand the difference.I MAY be wrong about the level of altruistic behaviour, however, & we'll find that out just as soon as you decide to quantify & support your claim (& your Dawkins quote) that altruistic behaviour is a minor exception. I don't suppose you will, though. I have proffered my argument & that altruism isn't an exception in human behaviour because we are so obviously & overtly social animals, & that the family is such a strong hierarchical unit of society.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Syamsu, I have every reason to blame you for misrepresentation. You are misrepresenting ME. I never said anything about Dawkins opinion in this specific case. Your claim that I am wrong about Dawkins opinion is false because I never said anything about it.Let me put it another way. If Dawkins had said XYZ, & I said Dawkins believed ABC rather than XYZ, & you then showed me that Dawkins actually does believe XYZ, THEN I would be wrong. But I never expressed a preference of what he said, did I? I expressed my own opinion.Therefore, the following quote in message 83 is wrong. I was not wrong. I never claimed Dawkins said anything else.Perhaps you are conflating this particular issue with all your other ignorances & misconceptions? Please try to separate them.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Syamsu, That's right, that's why Dawkins devotes so many chapters to why altruism is intrinsically selfish. I even listed them for you on a different thread.Regardless, the specific instance I'm arguing with you about isn't "we are born selfish", but that I am not wrong because I made no claim either way to Dawkins quantifiability of altruism vs non-altruism. You are trying to conflate two things & make it look like I'm saying Dawkins says "we are/n't (delete as applicable) born selfish & it is in no way a limited exception". I am not.You can't even get the context of the "we are born selfish" quote right as regards our own conversation. The argument was in the context of genetic determinism. Dawkins is NOT a genetic determinist & you are quoting out of context. It is an inescapable FACT. Dawkins devotes an entire chapter to this subject in the extended phenotype. But you haven't read it which is why you look such an idiot pretending you know anything about Dawkins at all.Put those goalposts back where they belong.Mark

Syamsu, As far as behavioural genetic determinism goes you've accurately described genetic determinism. It IS the idea that genes control every last aspect of our behaviour.http://www.webref.org/anthropology/g/genetic_determinism.htmThis definition (do you want more?) is entirely in accordance with every scientific mention I have ever seen of "genetic determinism".This is precisely what Dawkins has been accused of & precicely what he refutes. You are simply using a personal definition of genetic determinism. Using the commonly accepted definition Dawkins is NOT a genetic determinist. Can't you get anything right? As you have learned, or should of by now, genetic determinism doesn't take the position that some behaviours are genetically determined some of the time, but all of them are all of the time. Dawkins does not take the view that all behaviours are absolutely genetically determined, therefore he is not a genetic determinist.Please use the same terms as the rest of us. A good dictionary is a boon. Your little house was blown away many, many threads ago, Syamsu, trust me.I simply did not say what you needed me to have said in order for me to be wrong about it (re message 83). Sorry, bucko boy, try again!Proof positive you have a comprehension skill approaching zero. This is reaffirmed by the fact that you have tried to defend your reading age deficit several times since.Mark

Syamsu, Oyama (1985 if your interested), not that you are, of course. All you have to do is READ!Rose 1978. Gould 1978. Nabi 1981 to name but three. Not ignoring it, mate, just pointing out you are using a definition not in general usage. Using the definition that is in general usage Dawkins is not a genetic determinist. You could define the word "negro" so that Dawkins & Dawkins alone is a negro, but it would be just as meaningless.Reading is so important Syamsu if you don't want to be shot down in flames.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-25-2004][This message has been edited by mark24, 02-25-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Syamsu, I'm wrong all the time, Syamsu, ask the wife. Just never with you. You see, I read the literature before firing my mouth off. I make sure I understand things, namely the context of writing before I put a finger on the keyboard.And yes they did, Susan Oyama may well have renounced, but she was a gd. All of the others have accused Dawkins of genetic determinism. Why not read the cites for yourself. Failing that why not read the extended phenotype where Dawkins refutes the accusations levelled at him in detail, quotes, cites & all.Again, this is why you are such a pointless waste of time. You think your, "no they didn't" is actually a good argument against someone who has actually read the literature involved & knows exactly what has been said, & by whom. And they are wrong. Dawkins simply has said nothing that is taken in context that warrants a renunciation. It's that context bit you have a problem with, methinks. Again, you and Dawkins other critics would be advised to read Dawkins before firing off half cocked.It's a shame that you feel reading a few tidbits enables you to understand the actual intended meaning in detail. There is a reason an entire book/paper follows an introduction, you know.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

More out of context rambling. Have you no shame?

Syamsu,Don't be a twat all your life. You haven't read Dawkins & have no right whatsoever assuming you understand the context context. You can pull sound bites out of any book & make it look like XYZ is actually saying the opposite if you want.But hey, Syamsu, you believe what you want, my days of arguing with someone who can't be arsed to read the texts he is criticising are over.Mark

Syamsu,I refer you to the text in my previous post. Particularly sentence one.Mark

Syamsu, Yaaaaawn. Read the texts you wish to criticise, Syamsu, & you won't look quite the fool. I mean, the level of your citations has sunk to *reviews* of books you haven't read (Structure of Evolutionary Theory). You simply have no shame whatsoever.I assure you, mate, there is nothing faulty about my representation of Dawkins literature. How in the hell would you know either way, anyway? It's not like you've read the relevant stuff to know. Come back when you're in long trousers. The only reason I post to you is to see how long you are going to insist you are right without having read the literature. There is a perverse kind of entertainment value involved.Purely out of interest, what made you think we were talking about selfish vs. altruism being dichotomous, falsely or otherwise? Another diversionary attempt, perhaps? Well whoopy f*****n doo! It is, however, an irrelevant text as regards the Selfish Gene. ie The text actually under discussion.Mark

Syamsu, Bullshit.If everything that has been presented to you isn't good enough, then what level of argument do you think you present when you haven't read the literature you criticise? An argument from non-authority? What a hypocrite.The evidence you are talking out of your arse is the literature you haven't read, pure & simple, there is no appeal to authority involved.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-29-2004]

Syamsu, No, it has never happened. It would be inconsistent of me to do so. This is why your argument is false. There is no logical imperative whatsoever that compels me to do this. That some people may do this is their inconsistency, not evolutions. Blame them. This is exactly what I mean. Dawkins means we are born selfish. But altruistic behaviour is actually a corollary of "selfish" behaviour. You are in no position to deny this since you haven't read the texts. Your arguments are simply reduced to you expecting us to accept your words at face value despite us having read the relevant texts & you not having read them. Why are you telling me this? You mean Quetzal actually referenced you a paper/book that he has actually read, you haven't, yet you feel confident of its contents? I suggest you inform Quetzal of your "victory".Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Syamsu, *Gasp*You mean people can legitimately & logically take human slaves because there are species of ants that take slaves? You are perfectly happy with people being "free" to do this?Logical imperative has EVERYTHING to do with it. If a logically sound argument cannot be made that observations from nature must & should be transplanted onto our ethics & politics then it isn't logical to do so. The people who do are to be blamed for their worldview rather than the observations themselves. There is no reason why we cannot be informed by science, however, but be aware that the way in which we are informed by science & make changes to our society is based on our ethics, our ethics aren't made by the science. I'm not wrong about Dawkins. I've read him, you haven't. You are in no way qualifieed to render a judgement.Get this, as far as Dawkins & the selfish gene theory is concerned individual altruism is a function of gene selfishness. It's what the book is about. Hence your statement "there is no corollary altruism in "we are born selfish" is patently false. Dawkins is clearly, in the context of the book you haven't read, is talking about genetic selfishness & individual altruism. I repeat, it is what the book is about. Anything to the contrary is saying a black object is white, & in your case it would be saying it without having viewed the object.Please don't bother yourself by responding, this is like having a conversation with someone who insists on a particular interpretation of something without having read the relevant text. What am I thinking? It is a conversation with someone who insists on a particular interpretation without having read the relevant text!Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall