Forum: Darwnist Ideology

The largest known determining factor in behaviour is hereditary. This has been shown time, and time again in a multitude of studies, covering all aspects of apptitude and behaviour.Roughly 50% of behaviour is determined by heredity. 10% is determined by nuture. We don't know what accounts for the other 40%.These are facts determined by extensive scientific research.

I wasn't saying that everyone who accepts Darwinist theory as true suppresses investigation of the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism, I was just saying that people here do, and on talk.origins. Like I said before in this thread, no serious intellectual ignores the link of Darwinism to social darwinism because of the history of the holocaust.You give a title of a book, but you don't argue what's in it, what's more elsewhere you make argument to the effect that any discussion of the relationship is meaningless, and you support others who proudly make the most inane simplistic statements as if that settles all that is to be said about the relationship.Anytime you want to go into the usual let's ignore Syamsu from now on mode of argument, go ahead. As before, people who mess up threads I start with meaningless, vitriolic, inane and simply false argument, simply go to talk.origins where you will find much more of that kind of stuff."The influence on the German industrialists and militarists of the first World War was from a form of philosophy that owed everything to Herbert Spencer and the German Romantics, and literally nothing at all to biological Darwinism"
(John Wilkins talk.origins)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

I wasn't saying that everyone who accepts Darwinist theory as true suppresses investigation of the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism, I was just saying that people here do, and on talk.origins.

---

So you have been lying all this time i.e. making broad claims about entire scientific disciplines and now saying you did not? In any case, even if it were true (and it is not) what difference would it make what happens here? This is a debate forum and not an investigators source of information.

quote:

---

Like I said before in this thread, no serious intellectual ignores the link of Darwinism to social darwinism because of the history of the holocaust

---

No serious intellectual makes statements about subjects in which they are not well read...so by definition, you are not a serious intellectual.

quote:

---

You give a title of a book, but you don't argue what's in it, what's more elsewhere you make argument to the effect that any discussion of the relationship is meaningless, and you support others who proudly make the most inane simplistic statements as if that settles all that is to be said about the relationship.

---

I have brought this same book up many times. I have also discussed its content in various threads in which you have participated. You have universally ignored it and have never made the effort to find out about the book or the thousands of references directly to the publications of people involved in the eugenics movement that it contains. So you are the one here making inane statements.

quote:

---

Anytime you want to go into the usual let's ignore Syamsu from now on mode of argument, go ahead.

---

I'll make a deal with you. You go out and actually read some of the literature on eugenics and its origins and then come back and debate and I promise to be nicer to you.

quote:

---

As before, people who mess up threads I start with meaningless, vitriolic, inane and simply false argument, simply go to talk.origins where you will find much more of that kind of stuff.

---

Hey, you started it all by not preparing to back up your statements with fact...it is our pleasure to make fun of you for it.

quote:

---

"The influence on the German industrialists and militarists of the first World War was from a form of philosophy that owed everything to Herbert Spencer and the German Romantics, and literally nothing at all to biological Darwinism"
(John Wilkins talk.origins)

---

Hmmm taking quotes from Talkorigins now? How about we bring back the quotes made by you about Bosnian muslims being genetic degenerates? But humor me...how is the above statement wrong? And not based on your assertions but from credible independent sources.

Then answer the question I asked. What do you consider an "undeveloped field" and how long does it take to make it "developed" (i.e., acceptable in your view)? 10 years, 20 years, 500 years, what? Not that it matters - no matter how you slice it, biological diversity has grown into a mature science over several hundred years - from the days of the Victorian naturalists cataloging species to the modern study of metapopulation dyanmics and landscape ecology. It's been one long process. It's not a "new" field. It HAS changed over the decades, as more people thought about it, more observations were made, and more technology and techniques were brought to bear. It is, with the exception of the name "biodiversity" that Wilson coined for it, quite a mature field. At the same time, new insights beginning with Dobzhanski and Simpson, passing through Simberloff, Wilson and MacArthur (all hail!), Diamond, Ehrlich and the other greats in the field, have allowed us to start understanding the fundamental principles (if not the "laws") of ecology - making the field fascinating and ever-fresh. Coupled with the more recent awareness of the fragility and importance of natural ecosystems, the field is advancing in leaps and bounds. However, even Darwin wrote about extinction. Lyell wrote about extinction. Hundreds of scientists over decades of time have written about it, speculated on it, and studied it. Of course, since you've read so extensively in the field, you're aware of this. At best, Raup is guilty of overstating the case. Really? Then what were we supposed to understand from this statement of yours:"I see nothing but references to the field having been neglected on the web." (your post #99)Quite obviously, the field isn't even remotely "neglected". Utter and total nonsense. We understand a hell of a lot about it: from the assembly rules for ecosystems to the subtleties of the energy and nutrient web interactions in the microscopic aquatic communities formed from rainwater collected in the axil sheaths of rainforest epiphytes. We don't know everything - and arguments over explanations for the myriad details are on-going and vocal. However, not one single ecologist or biologist working in the field ignores the foundational framework of evolutionary theory - because NONE of it makes any sense otherwise. The only thing this last bit suggests is your complete ignorance of the subject.

"The rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution." (K. Fischer, as quoted from an email an evolutionist published on talk.origins) He also wrote a standard history book on Nazism.I don't consider myself a serious intellectual of course, I haven't the time or sense of purpose to become one.What book I would love to read is a book on the systemacy of Natural Selection theory. A book which starts with positig a unit of reproduction, and then layer after layer introduces other concepts, such as competition, population, etc. in a formalised abstracted way.
But this book doesn't exist, or anything like it. What is there in stead is prosaic books, and evolutionists and creationists alike making insightful comments about Natural Selection on internetforums. Comments which are not in any books, but which they invent themselves. It is all amateur level in Darwinism, and that's about my level.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The science of how orgaisms relate to one another would be welldeveloped if they would have the basic frameworks to describe, and if they had described some of the bigger biosystems with it in some detail.I never make these claims that I have researched the field extensively, I just take the word of people in the field.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

I don't consider myself a serious intellectual of course, I haven't the time or sense of purpose to become one.

---

blink blink blink...did you really mean to just say this?

quote:

---

What book I would love to read is a book on the systemacy of Natural Selection theory. A book which starts with positig a unit of reproduction, and then layer after layer introduces other concepts, such as competition, population, etc. in a formalised abstracted way.

---

The Principles of Population Genetics, Daniel Hartl and Andrew Clark
Get a copy and live your dream. Or perhaps Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma. There are lots of basic textbooks as opposed to pop literature.

quote:

---

It is all amateur level in Darwinism, and that's about my level.

---

There is a difference between an informed amateur and someone who does not know anything...you obviously failed to grasp this concept.

The book you're looking for is "Evolution and the Diversity of Life" by Ernst Mayr (Belknap/Harvard 1997). Enjoy.

quote:

---

Whatever... I really can't take anybody who denies the existence of Darwinist ideology seriously.

---

Or, in other words, "Nuh-uh, you're wrong."

quote:

---

The influences of Darwinism on intellectual climate of opinion is subject in every broad history text on Nazism that I know of.

---

As is the influence of Christianity, as is the influence of various economic theories, as is the influence of ANYTHING. An idea always influences people, it's what an idea freakin' does.But the way in which people choose to use an idea for their own ends says nothing about the idea itself. It's hard to see why you are unable to get this incredibly simple idea.

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?

---

People projecting their own morals onto an idea in order to suit their own ends is not a phenomenon exclusive to Darwinism. Therefore I would simply call shenanigans on you for trying to pass it off that way.

quote:

---

As before, all this talk of evolutionists about evidence curiously comes to naught when it's evidence evolutionsts don't like.

---

I'm sorry, you've been introducing evidence?Okay then, I'm the king of a small European nation. Queen Eliza and I will issue our decrees far and wide.I do so love games of "I say it, and that makes it so."How about we try something different now, Sy? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is. Outline what you think Darwinism is. Then, outline what you think Darwinist Ideology is. Not what it has done, but what the tenets of this ideology are.Then, as long as you can support these overviews with facts, we can avoid you ranting about "Darwinist Ideology" as if it's something that's obvious to everyone, while everyone stares at you cockeyed like the new David Icke. We'll simply know what the Hell you're talking about.

---

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

Half of the books I've referenced for you in this thread and others do precisely that! Note that you're right on one thing: the larger the scale (i.e., the "bigger biosystems" meaning global) the more speculative the proposed relationships - primarily because of the exponential increase in possible variables. This isn't the only science to have that problem either. Consider physics: physicists will confidently discuss the interactions between two masses in a vacuum, for instance. However, add another mass, and they start to get edgy and less sure of the possibilities. Throw in a fourth or fifth, and they sidle away from you and won't meet your eyes. Demand that they show the interactions of six or more bodies, and they start having nervous breakdowns. It's the same with ecology, biology, etc.However, we DO understand a lot of the smaller scale interactions quite well. And better yet, in spite of the patchiness of the fossil record, etc, we see traces of the same or similar patterns written in the rocks that we see in the living world. Ain't life grand?Edited to change a really strange word insertion - what my kids call a "brain burp".[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-25-2004]

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

But it's all nonsense, cause you can see that in the end Dawkins gets away with writing we are born selfish, we should teach altruism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Oh so then you could tell me, or reference me if selection should be the one or the other reproduces, or if it should be the one reproduces or not. You see in a systematic overview I could see exactly the place of selection in the context of the system of knowledge built around reproduction. But you already answered this before, but then you weren't so happy that I quoted you as saying that selection is reproduction or no reproduction for the one.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dan wrote:
"But the way in which people choose to use an idea for their own ends says nothing about the idea itself."It says among other things that Darwinism is highly conducive to ideology, because of obscure and emotive language in it like good, bad, success, selfish, goodness, struggle for existence etc. it says that Darwinism is prejudically focused on Malthusian scenario's of low resources, omitting scenario's of high resources. It says that statistically people who accept Darwinism tend afterwards not to believe in God whole, or deny the existence of God someplace. It says that people come up with eugenic ideas, which are on the face of it indistinguishable from Darwinist scientific writing, because of the use of words such as good and bad in Darwinist science. etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

It says among other things that Darwinism is highly conducive to ideology, because of obscure and emotive language in it like good, bad, success, selfish, goodness, struggle for existence etc.

---

And isn't it messed up how algebra uses such terms as "more than" and "less than", or "variable"?The possibilities for evil application are unlimited! Implying that one number is somehow "more than" or "greater than" another? What exactly makes five so much greater than three, anyway? Damned algebraic ideology!

quote:

---

it says that Darwinism is prejudically focused on Malthusian scenario's of low resources, omitting scenario's of high resources.

---

1) Read this.
2) See the end of this post.

quote:

---

It says that statistically people who accept Darwinism tend afterwards not to believe in God whole, or deny the existence of God someplace.

---

1) So?
2) The actual statistics don't bear this out. The number of theistic evolutionists out there is greater than the number of atheists. (Oops, there I go using obscure, emotive language like "greater than".)

quote:

---

It says that people come up with eugenic ideas, which are on the face of it indistinguishable from Darwinist scientific writing, because of the use of words such as good and bad in Darwinist science. etc.

---

Since I hate repeating myself...

---

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