Forum: Darwnist Ideology

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

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

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

Yeah whatever. Quetzal and Mammuthus will not reference anyone but themselves saying the study of extinction is well developed, since it isn't. I can't believe anyone would fall for such a simple trick to just dump some science papers to avoid the issue.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But you have no cause to blame me for misrepresentation in the scathing way you do, because I accurately reflected Dawkins opinion on the matter, in stead of your opinion. Besides if I remember correctly you talked about Dawkins book the selfish gene on a previous occasion, without saying you presented your own opinion about it. BTW the limited altruism that Dawkins posits for people in the form of kin-selection is seen by many people as a cause of racism (anti-racists), or a validation of racism (racists). I was well aware this was in Dawkins book, but the quote is quite clear to say that we are born selfish, and altruism has to be learned.And as a topical note of interest, I just read in a Dutch newspaper that an evolutionary pscyhologist, Kalma, has been reprimanded by an education committee for teaching Rushton's racial theory without context of talking about scientific racism, societal impact of racial theory, and criticism of the scientific merit of Rushton's theory, after a complaint from a student.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But your references don't show that the study of extinction is well developed, they just show that extinction is studied. Are biologists scrambling to get a foothold in studying the current mass extinction, studying the dynamics of ecosystems that are essentially in stasis, trying to figure out some fundamental approaches to it, because they have long been preoccupied and misfooted by Evolutionist / Darwinist theory, or otherwise did Evolutionism / Darwinism provide a frame of reference that had the fundamental insightful viewpoints for these fields of study leading them to be well developed? As far I can tell Raup is saying that extinction has long been regarded as another Darwinist nobrainer. Species are competed into extinction by their fitter modified offspring. Again, you obviously need to reference some outside source giving an appraisal of the field of study.EO Wilson et al eds. 1996 Biodiversity II.
Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources (1996)Introduction:
"Biodiversity," the term and concept, has been a remarkable event in recent cultural evolution: 10 years ago the word did not exist, except perhaps through occasional idiosyncratic use. Today it is one of the most commonly used expressions in the biological sciences and has become a household word. It was born "BioDiversity" during the National Forum on BioDiversity, held in Washington, D.C., on September 21-24, 1986, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institution. The proceedings of the forum, published in 1988 under the title BioDiversityThe present volume is a 10-year report on the state of the art in biodiversity studies, with an emphasis on concept formation and technique. Overall, it makes a striking contrast with the original BioDiversity, showing how extraordinarily far we have come and at the same time mapping how far scientists yet must travel in their reinvigorated exploration of the biosphere.
---
is Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem SolvingUnfortunately the introductory page of this book where some appraisal might have been found is upside down.
----
Raup:
The extinction of species is not normally considered an important element of Neodarwinian theory, in contrast to the opposite phenomenon, speciation. This is surprising in view of the special importance Darwin attached to extinction, and because the number of species extinctions in the history of life is almost the same as the number of originations; present-day biodiversity is the result of a trivial surplus of originations, cumulated over millions of years. For an evolutionary biologist to ignore extinction is probably as foolhardy as for a demographer to ignore mortality. The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in extinction, yet research on the topic is still at a reconnaissance level, and our present understanding of its role in evolution is weak."For as far as I can tell Raup is saying that in *general* the state of study of extinction is at the reconaissance level, and in particular the state of study of extinction in relation to evolution is weak.The references you give broadly indicate that the field of study is underdeveloped. Maybe you can argue that despite the field of study being underdeveloped evolution and Darwinism can or do provide the fundamental framework for studying it, but it appears that I was right in saying it's underdeveloped.Typically the role of variation in Darwinist theory is cannonfodder. It's hardly possible to contemplate a cooperative, or mutually beneficial relationship between variants in terms of reproduction or persistence with the Darwinist competitive frame of reference. Actually I would guess that this is an impossibility in a consistent organization of knowledge based on Darwinism. This does not sit well with studying biodiversity obviously.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-21-2004]

Mark:
"I never said anything about Dawkins opinion in this specific case."Dawkins:
we are born selfish, we should teach altruismMark:
"There is only one conclusion, that the quote "we are born selfish" is not intended to be taken absolutely, but in context, primarily because Dawkins spends so much time explaining why we are not born selfish. It is inescapable.""Intended" by Dawkins, not "intended" by you. It sure looks to me that you're portraying Dawkins opinion on selfish genes rather then your own, and you are broadly mistaken.But again, I'm the only one here making meaningful argument about Dawkins selfish gene theory, and that's the point on a debatingforum.- I argued about his theory based on systemacy of knowledge
- I argued about it's ideological impact in detail
- I argued about if "selfish" genes causing infertility when not in a homologous pairing, could better be understood as a safeguard against mutations.
etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So do my blundering dectractors have anything to say after I showed that the study of extinction is underdeveloped?Perhaps it's time for you all to entertain some serious doubts about your position in the creation vs evolution controversy. To realise that Darwinist ideologists stink up society and science, and that's the bigger problem. That broadly creationists rightfully protect their rich cultural heritage and science from hateful ultra-rationalist Darwinist ideologues. A point of view like that makes sense of the debate, things fall into place, while otherwise the debate makes no sense to have lasted so long, and to be so "popular".regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Huff'n puff, you can't get nothing right, huff'n puff.Dawkins just discredits the ridiculous claim nobody ever made of genetics controlling every last thing. But the ridiculous claim aside, Dawkins ascribes very much control to genes in human behaviour, which makes him a genetic determinist, and the statement "we are born selfish" is testament to that position.He also supports Darwinist ideologists such as Pinker and others, urging that politics inform themselves of this true view of human nature, and that their policies should be in accordance with these facts. So history just repeats itself, shoddy highly ideologized science, shoddy politics, and we can reasonably fear that these things will lead to attrocities once again, in countries such as China, or otherwise it may lead to high suicide rates in the West if evolutionary psychology gets to supplant standard psychology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In the intro is the appraissal, and both Raup and Wilson indicate that the study is underdeveloped. Your opinion that the study of how organisms relate to one another in biosystems, and extinction is well developed is not shared by the references you gave to support that they are well developed..

In the intro is the appraissal, and both Raup and Wilson indicate that the study is underdeveloped. Your opinion that the study of how organisms relate to one another in biosystems, and extinction is well developed is not shared by the references you gave to support that they are well developed. Besides I have seen other appraissals saying that it is underdeveloped. Note also that your reading of Raup is wrong, since he says the study of extinction in general is at a reconnoissance level, where you say he only says it is underdeveloped in regards to evolution.My point was that the study of biosystems as they exist now is underdeveloped. The point of view of biosystems from ecological timespans does little to enhance this view. It's always like this with evolution theory, it just doesn't really apply to the day to day life of organisms, except a few bacteria. And as before the narrow and illogical Darwinist frame of reference, doesn't really provide for noting mutually beneficial, or mutually detrimental relationships between organisms, or to focus of the relationship of an organism to the environment, without bringing up the ridiculous token fitter / less fit other. Those are the sort of reasons why the study is underdeveloped.Some time ago it was alleged on this forum that you can't see how an organisms / population works in regards to reproduction / persistence, without having it's evolutionary less fit ancestors to compare them to. Ridiculous stuff like that, which makes the study of how these organisms actually work a pain for Darwinist evolutionists.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-23-2004][This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-23-2004]

Actually Darwinists invent Darwinist ideology, such as Darwin in "Descent of Man", Haeckel, Galton, and more recently Singer, Pinker, Diamond, Dawkins etc. You don't believe it exists because you can't handle giving it a place in your view of evolution vs creation controversy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I did quote that piece you say I omitted. Obviously development for only the last 10 / 15 years, is not a well developed field of science, even if progress has been fast. For as far as I can tell, you are still wrong about what Raup says, it's underdeveloped in general *and* in particularly underdeveloped in relation to evolution.Besides, you do yourself what you accuse me of, moving the goalposts. I never said that extinction was completely ignored, which is a ridiculous strawman, I said it was underdeveloped.With underdeveloped I mean that biologists know little about how biological systems function, in general and in particular. And this is because they have neglected to study it because of Darwinism.Obviously it will not do to convince anybody (except internet evolutionist activists) when you reference somebody saying the field of study has been developed in the last 15 years, while Darwinism is 150 years old. Deciding a name for something as basic as uh the diversity of organisms, only 15 years ago, suggests negligence obviously.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well name me a single genetic determinist then ever. By this definition there never was one.Show me where anyone has ever accused Dawkins of saying every single last behaviour is genetically determined.Anyway I explained to you before what I meant by genetic determinist in saying it, so there should have been no misunderstanding. Of course if you think that the word is not good, then you should just offer another word that indicates that Dawkins ascribes a very high degree of determination to genes. Which is the point you blissfully ignore.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Whatever... I really can't take anybody who denies the existence of Darwinist ideology seriously. The influences of Darwinism on intellectual climate of opinion is subject in every broad history text on Nazism that I know of. If you don't like the term Darwinist ideology, then what other word would you like to use to describe this phenomenon of Darwinism influencing intellectual climate of opinion, both personally and societally?As before, all this talk of evolutionists about evidence curiously comes to naught when it's evidence evolutionsts don't like. I mean to just deny the existence of a current and common phenomeon is really very bizarre.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu