Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 121 of 265 (88260)
02-23-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Quetzal
02-23-2004 9:45 AM


Re: Raup and Extinction
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Quetzal, posted 02-23-2004 9:45 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Quetzal, posted 02-24-2004 9:40 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 122 of 265 (88264)
02-23-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dan Carroll
02-23-2004 9:53 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2004 9:53 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-24-2004 9:40 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 265 (88352)
02-24-2004 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Syamsu
02-23-2004 10:12 PM


Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
quote:
Actually Darwinists invent Darwinist ideology, such as Darwin in "Descent of Man", Haeckel, Galton, and more recently Singer, Pinker, Diamond, Dawkins etc.
Out of curiosity, Sy-baby, do you plan on posting a response at any point that doesn't translate to "nuh-uh"?
quote:
You don't believe it exists because you can't handle giving it a place in your view of evolution vs creation controversy.
That's right Sy... your pet theory just BLOWS MY MIND. It doesn't fit into my tight little buttoned-down world.
So instead, I'll just respond with a rousing "yuh-huh".

"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 122 by Syamsu, posted 02-23-2004 10:12 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Syamsu, posted 02-25-2004 1:21 AM Dan Carroll has replied

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


Message 124 of 265 (88353)
02-24-2004 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Syamsu
02-23-2004 9:47 PM


Re: Raup and Extinction
Once again you've shifted the goalposts. You really do have reading comprehension problems, even in the little bit that you actually read of the references I provided. Worse, you're guilty of selective quoting. To complete the bit you quoted from Wilson in a previous post:
quote:
The 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. (emphasis added)
. Gee, you must have missed the part where Wilson talks about much has been done. Try rereading page 2 (since you won't read anything past the introduction), for instance, where he waxes enthusiastic about the progress that has been made:
quote:
Scientists who once had devoted their careers to bits and pieces of biodiversity now became holists, or at least more approving of the holistic approach, and they were energized by a new sense of mission. For the good of society as a whole, they now realized that the classification of such organisms as braconid wasps and lauraceous shrubs mattered. Moreover, the ecologists also were included: the processes by which natural communities are assembled and their constituent species maintained have central importance in both science and the real world. The study of diversity subsumed old problems in systematics and ecology, and specialists in these and in related fields of biology began to talk in common parlance as never before.
Doesn't appear that Wilson thinks the field is "underdeveloped" - although he is advocating for increased funding and emphasis, especially on vanishing biodiversity. Wilson's entire approach has ALWAYS been "we don't even know what we're losing". He's also one of those that believes the current level of extinctions is equivalent to the "big five" mass extinction events. He (I think) coined the termn "Holocene Mass Extinction". He may or may not be overstating the case (I tend to agree with him, btw). However, he is certainly someone who can be considered an "expert" in the field - which is what you asked for in the first place. However, as shown in the quote you modified, he is quite plainly happy with the amount of attention that has been drawn to the subject - and wants even more attention paid to it (as it should, and is occurring).
Syamasu writes:
Besides I have seen other appraissals saying that it is underdeveloped.
Really? Why haven't you referenced them? And you still have failed to define what you mean by "underdeveloped". Given the number of references Mammuthus and I have provided, it appears we have a very different idea of what the term means than you do.
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.
As does Raup. What part of "our present understanding of its role in evolution is weak" (pg 123 of Raup's article "The Role of Extinction in Evolution" from the NatAcadSci book I referenced above) don't you understand? Interestingly, that is the rest of the sentence you selectively quoted here. In any case, I disagree with the statement. As do most of the book references I provided - our understanding is growing, and continues to grow - whatever you think Raup is trying to claim.
Again, I suggest you look up terms like "faunal turnover", "extinction pulse", etc, and see what various authors are saying about the consequences of extinction. Your statement is wrong. Ecological release is a well-documented evolutionary mechanism. Faunal turnover is well-documented. Character displacement (a survival tactic occasionally observed as a mechanism of species avoiding extinction under competition) is well-documented. Etc. Of course, you'd know all that have read so extensively on the subject.
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.
What are you babbling about now? What does this have to do with your claim that extinction is ignored? As far as evolution not providing explanations for mutualistic and symbiotic or competitive relationships - what the hell do you think the study of ecology IS? It is precisely the examination of the interrelationship of organism and environment (at multiple hierachical levels, no less). And it is a fairly mature science overall. Just because you don't understand it, have never read a word on the subject, and continually filter the tiny bits you do read through a wholly individual and idiosyncratic lens doesn't mean the rest of the planet doesn't understand what's going on. Grow up, Syamasu.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Syamsu, posted 02-23-2004 9:47 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Syamsu, posted 02-24-2004 9:41 PM Quetzal has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 125 of 265 (88438)
02-24-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Syamsu
02-23-2004 6:40 AM


Syamsu,
Dawkins just discredits the ridiculous claim nobody ever made of genetics controlling every last thing.
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.htm
This 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?
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.
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.
Huff'n puff, you can't get nothing right, huff'n puff.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 02-23-2004 6:40 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Syamsu, posted 02-24-2004 9:50 PM mark24 has replied

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


Message 126 of 265 (88475)
02-24-2004 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Quetzal
02-24-2004 9:40 AM


Re: Raup and Extinction
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Quetzal, posted 02-24-2004 9:40 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 3:24 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 139 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2004 8:37 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 127 of 265 (88478)
02-24-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by mark24
02-24-2004 5:54 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by mark24, posted 02-24-2004 5:54 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by mark24, posted 02-25-2004 5:09 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 128 of 265 (88492)
02-25-2004 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dan Carroll
02-24-2004 9:40 AM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-24-2004 9:40 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 3:29 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 144 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-25-2004 9:32 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 129 of 265 (88497)
02-25-2004 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Syamsu
02-24-2004 9:41 PM


Re: Raup and Extinction
quote:
Deciding a name for something as basic as uh the diversity of organisms, only 15 years ago, suggests negligence obviously.
Quantum mechanics and epigenetics were not known 30 years ago..those damn Darwinists..covering up everyones eyes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Syamsu, posted 02-24-2004 9:41 PM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 130 of 265 (88498)
02-25-2004 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Syamsu
02-25-2004 1:21 AM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
quote:
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?
How about this for another word? Bullshit
Really Sy...watching Quetzal and mark24 rip you to shreds and then your pathetic repetitive ignorance disorder makes you a truly pitiful figure. Most creationists by now would be tempted to actually read something about the subject to spare themeselves the humiliation (either that or crawl into a corner in a fetal position)..obviously the Nganjuk school system churns out some great success stories in obliviousness.
Hey, I saw the forward of a book recently..it had the word "the" in it...maybe you can use that in your conspiracy babbling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Syamsu, posted 02-25-2004 1:21 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Syamsu, posted 02-25-2004 5:02 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 131 of 265 (88508)
02-25-2004 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Mammuthus
02-25-2004 3:29 AM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
I see that you rewrote your post of the month nomination...
It is a pattern among evolutionists to invent lawyer ploys to sabotage investigation of Darwinist ideology. There is the naturalistic fallacy which supposedly makes investigation of the relationship between darwinist theory and darwinist ideology meaningless, then it just doesn't exist, then genetic determinist is defined into non-existence etc.
Obviously you all are just pontificating your authority to suppress investigation into an issue you don't like to hear about, the scientific demerits of Darwinism, and it's relationship to social Darwinism. But for anyone willing to entertain the notions, the evidence is very broad, and straightforward.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 3:29 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 5:51 AM Syamsu has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 132 of 265 (88509)
02-25-2004 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Syamsu
02-24-2004 9:50 PM


Syamsu,
Well name me a single genetic determinist then ever.
Oyama (1985 if your interested), not that you are, of course.
Show me where anyone has ever accused Dawkins of saying every single last behaviour is genetically determined.
All you have to do is READ!
Rose 1978. Gould 1978. Nabi 1981 to name but three.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Syamsu, posted 02-24-2004 9:50 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Syamsu, posted 02-25-2004 6:45 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 133 of 265 (88511)
02-25-2004 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Syamsu
02-25-2004 5:02 AM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
quote:
I see that you rewrote your post of the month nomination...
I wanted to nominate you for Stupid Post of the Month but the category does not exist...must be a Darwinist conspiracy to suppress the fact that you are ignorant...it must be a massive conspiracy considering you are probably the least informed person on this site.
quote:
It is a pattern among evolutionists to invent lawyer ploys to sabotage investigation of Darwinist ideology
In order for one to investigate..one actually has to do some investigating to be sure that what they say is not utter bullshit. Guess what? You don't even want to read what anyone has ever said even if it might mean you could potentially find information that supports your blathering. I assume you don't want to "investigate" because you know you will find out you are wrong in every way and then you won't have anything to do in Nganjuk except cry in your milk.
quote:
Obviously you all are just pontificating your authority to suppress investigation into an issue you don't like to hear about, the scientific demerits of Darwinism, and it's relationship to social Darwinism.
Well funny enough, investigation has not been surpressed at all. In fact a simple thing called "reading" (look it up Sy..oh forgot, you might have to read to find out what that entails ) would show that people look into exactly the subject you claim is suppressed..for example.
In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity
by Daniel J. Kevles
quote:
But for anyone willing to entertain the notions, the evidence is very broad, and straightforward.
For anyone willing to read and educate themselves, the evidence for what Syamsu says is restricted to his blathering. He actually does a bigger disservice to the cause of exposing the misuse of science by society by being such an uninformed twit as his ignorance actually distracts from the actual issues which are important....but I hear he can do a mean wash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Syamsu, posted 02-25-2004 5:02 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Syamsu, posted 02-25-2004 7:34 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 134 of 265 (88513)
02-25-2004 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by mark24
02-25-2004 5:09 AM


But you are simply wrong once more, Oyama doesn't believe all behaviour is genetically determined, nor did Gould, Rose, or Nabi say that of Dawkins, they just accused of him of making highly speculative ideas about a very high degree of genetic determination. Any very cursory reading on the web will show this. What's more you will also find other people who accuse Dawkins of deception for his renounciation of his ideas as genetic determinism.
regards.
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by mark24, posted 02-25-2004 5:09 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Mammuthus, posted 02-25-2004 7:04 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 136 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2004 7:18 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 146 by mark24, posted 02-25-2004 10:58 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 135 of 265 (88515)
02-25-2004 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Syamsu
02-25-2004 6:45 AM


Why don't you read Dawkin's yourself? Is it so hard for you to read? There is help available for people with reading disabilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Syamsu, posted 02-25-2004 6:45 AM Syamsu 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