Forum: Darwnist Ideology

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

You have read Dawkins Selfish Gene, Mammuthus is an expert in the field of extinction, and so is Quetzal. This is no argument, or providing evidence, it is just pontificating authority. As we have already argued in this thread, you, like several people I've argued before you, misconstrued Dawkins book to say that people are basicly genetically altruist.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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]

Ok, I'll take that quote on complexity from an "ideological" standpoint. I'll believe that the book is the selfish gene and not the Blind Watchmaker. That would have been my guess. But first Gould and some ideology Darwin style...IN The Structure (of Evolutionary Theory) Gould has a chapter "Pattern and Progress on the Geological Stage where he serializes his disucssion of Cuvier and Thompson and I guess I think I read an anti-creationist slant in connected"" pages from 484 to the end of the Chapter8 without putting my two panbiogeographic cents in the same sense. Gould is presenting a view that seems new. The question I had was WHY is it only being described NOW when the subjects lived more than 150 years ago??My answer is that at the same time (then) Boole wrote THE LAWS OF THOUGHT p50 Should it be said the existence of the equation x^2=x necessitates also the existence of the equation x^3=x, which is of the third degree, and then inquired whether that equation does not indicate a process of trichotomy; the answer is, that the equation x^3=x is not interpretable in the system of logic. For writing it in either of the of the forms
x(1-x)(1+x)=0, (2)
x(1-x)(-1-x)=0, (3)
we see that its interpretation, if possible at all, must involve that of the factor 1+x, or of the factor -1-x. The former is not interpretable, becuase we cannot conceive of the addition of any class x to the universe 1; the latter is not ....."but 50 yrs later Russel wrote, p285 PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICS "There is nothing in the definitions above enumerated to show that a real number and a rational number van ever be either equal or unequal, and there is are very strong reasons for supposing the contrary. Hence also we must reject the proposition (p.24 IN CANTOR) that, if b be the real number defined by the fundamental series (av) then, v=potential infinity Lim av=b. Cantor is proud of the supposed fact that his theory renders this propsition strictly demonstrable. But as we have seen, there is nothing to show that a rational can be subtracted from a real number, and hence the proof is fallacious."Why would this matter for "darwinian ideology?"-- Well. I take it panbiogeographically that X^n=X IS a part of what Gould intends qua Dawkins (not creationism) to expand heirarchically and that my insistence via levels of selectin vs levels of organization potentially and not thing wise (in Dawkins not Gould's support)is containted in BOOLE's "interpretation" Russel denied to us but IS within Gould's epirically plooding instence that Dakwins GENE ACCOUNT is false. Economics is ONLY X^2=X (liabilites+equity=asset). Gould views the issue of evolution, "we can only assess the the speed of evolution by calibration against elapsed geological time...If Kelvin has now demonstrated that time must be shorter, we can only conclude that evolution has generally been faster." But we dont have an ideology of the generatlity. Indeed Gould would have us have it in particular as well (even if a creationist (such as Cuvier of today could disagree at this point I dont think it is even homologous to Solomon juding the women with two babies) where he quotes Darwin and Darwin's recirocal "move" "It is, however, probable, as Sir Thomspon
[sic] insists, that the world at a very early period was subjected to more rapid and violent changes in its physical conditions thabn those now occurring; and such changes would have tended to induce changes at a corresponding rate inthe organisms which then existed".p498The reason that I brought in the math is that I have begun to notice Einstein's reasoning that this biological literature may be falisfying but I would need to relate my reading of "The Feynmann Processor" (perhaps Pasteur's grand assymetry only applies to Booles (3) above) which is not strictly in this thread at this time) where AE agreed to disagree with Ritz over spectral line combinations as to if the OBSERVATION spoke to 2nd law of thermo OR to where probablities could be applied. It is clear to me that a group vechicle for Dakwins can remove the ACCOUNT argument of Gould but the ideology against Creationism remains and this I object for the reason that if Russel was going to be as Specious as he was to Cantor he might as well have taken Kronecker's poistion but for philsophical reasons instead he did not. Philosophy is not plodding in empirical time. Yes I may believe in a skyhook anti-Dennet but then I expect instead that all of this ideology will need replacing first.If creationism can bring in a new MATH (not differential as Einstein relied on) by challenges rates then I think this math will be by showing how the irrevesibility of the 2nd law and the reason for Kelvin's generating "fear" in Darwin is due to domains of sequences of rationals (not mere segements"" as Russel had them) first being not one to one AND onto both ways with an ability to subtract a rational 1/3 mendel number (Naglei denied integers here)from a real (possibly coherent but not necessarily perfect algothrim of a projeciton of geography) then ONCE THIS HAPPENS in time it may happen becuase unlike quatum inteanglement genetic correlations can be triply decomposed not becuase Boole said he couldnt interpret it but becuase Russel on getting a scribbled page of notes from Cantor circular filed it in his mind. It may even be that creationist issues on rates of radioactive decay carry over into research on rates of biological change. I would guess that reptile wings change at aslower rate than bird wings wich would change more slowly than bat mammal wings. Eisntein's 16 year old thought may become commonly available in Darwin's fear but let me not overreach.

I make an argument saying that when any of you are at a low moral ebb, then you might likely come to think like "I am born selfish", "my purpose is to reproduce", that you will make Dawkins genetheory observations the basis of your beliefsystem. You then counter saying I don't understand Dawkins because Dawkins says people are born altruist. This is then shown to be false, since Dawkins says people are basicly born selfish, and the altruism is a limited exception. Besides that Quetzal was also wrong about what Raup said about the study of extinction, where I was right. He also doubtfully referenced a book saying the study of biodiversity was developed much over the last 15 years, to support that the study of ecosystems is welldeveloped.You all produce no argument, you pontificate your authority, and conversely discredit my authority, while you are actually wrong on facts at issue and I'm right. You all produce lots and lots of vitriol, talking about my ass all the time, that's all you do.- Make an argument as to how Dawkins would influence people's beliefs according to you.- Reference me someone saying that the study of ecosystems / extinction is welldeveloped, and or that Darwinism provides an important view of these systems which are mostly in stasis.Those things would be of value in this debate, you produce nothing of value.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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

People are perfectly free to use Dawkins observations as fundamental to their beliefsystem (at least in the West they are by law..), logical imperative has nothing to do with it. It is tempting to do so, and Dawkins entices the temptation by noting it as "the truth" (in denial of religious truth), and by saying you can get a handle on your loving, hating, greed and giving by understanding it (which is much of what beliefsystems are supposed to do), and evolutionary psychology entices even more to believe like that.So if you cut through all the noise in the creation vs evolution debate, you can just see that creationists are legitimately defending their religion from ideological attack. And as this example shows, and history shows, it is mainstream, very influential evolution scientists who are the main cause of it in their main works, not some secondary, or tertiary or lunatic fringe class of intellectuals reinterpreting the works of evolutionists. Established religion has to deal with the ideological attack, and if that means stonewalling evolution theory altogether, then so be it, it's all warranted.You're wrong about Dawkins once again, how absurd. You forgot again that Dawkins adds in the next part of the sentence, we should teach altruism. There is no corollary altruism in "we are born selfish", Dawkins is already talking about the individual level, not about genelevel selfishness.I haven't won anything, since we basicly haven't even started debating yet.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Now what? I showed you where you had taken Raup out of context. I even provided a link to an article written by Raup himself that shows how wrong your misquote was. I've also patiently explained and provided numerous references to both primary literature (which you refuse to read) as well as several books which directly and completely refute your statements. Since you haven't even read one of them - and it is becoming doubtful that you read even Raup's book on extinction - then I can't see how you can continue to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm dogmatically insisting that I'm right simply because I know a bit about the subject (i.e., "an authority" - which I'm not). On the contrary, I have based the entire argument with you on the carefully detailed and peer-reviewed writings of others. Writings which you have consistently failed to address or even acknowledge.Like your utter and complete failure to understand the first thing about natural selection, your understanding of extinction, ecology, or anything else scientific is pitifully and willfully lacking.

Syamsu, your entire post to me is one big "nuh-uh." You don't address anything that I actually said in my post.You might want to muse a bit on that before tossing around the words like delusional.Regardless... I think I've squeezed what comedy I can out of this thread. Just remember, big guy... when it seems like the rest of the world is crazy, and you're the only one who sees the truth, it probably a good sign that you're not some sort of raving paranoid madman.

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

It is just groupdynamics, I have no doubt that you would acknowledge the existence of Darwinist ideology in another setting, like in history class.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

And a hearty "yuh-huh" back to your "nuh-uh", Syamsu.And I must stress that it is in fact I who am rubber, while you are merely glue.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 03-01-2004]

---

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

You falsely stated that Raup says the study of extinction is only underdeveloped in relation to evolution. I mean you referenced a book, and a link to it, which on the first bloody page says that the study of extinction in general is at a reconnaissance level, and that in particular it's development in relation to evolution theory is weak. Then you keep on insisting I haven't read Raup well, while clearly you were yourself mistaken about Raup, reading only the top half of the page you referenced I'm sure. How dumb is that?You have to reference appraisals of the field, like you did with Raup, but then appraisals which actually support your position. Look, if Raup said, the field of extinction is an accomplished discipline, now let's develop the science further into some detail, then that would have supported your position.I understand Natural Selection better then most evolutionists here I'm sure. Percy said that Natural Selection describes comparisons being made in nature in context of competition, what's your opinion on that, do comparisons occur in nature?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It just says that our ethics should be informed by facts, and that selfish gene theory is the most important fact that our ethics should be informed by.Notice also that the superimportance of genetheory is not only derived from it supposedly explaining our loving and hating (which is basicly most all that beliefsystems do), but the importance is emphasized again in Dawkins superior people from outer space lunacy.What is more important a fact to inform our ethics by, that people are much the same, or that people have slight heritable differences? Darwinist ideologists have tended to say the last, resulting in undermining their views of equality, that's the way it works.Ah you're still wrong as ever. Since he's talking about teaching altruism in the next part of the sentence, it can't be that he's talking about genetic altruism in saying we are born selfish. Also the context of where he says it, shows that he is talking about the individual level. not the gene level.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You took one small phrase out of one sentence from a 200-page book and proclaim you know what you're talking about? This is beyond absurd. I referenced you numerous papers and books on the field. Raup's entire BOOK rests on his claim that the role of extinction in driving evolution is little studied. It is a grand tour of the field. It is, for what it's worth, a reasonable primer on extinction (if you can get past Raup's own ideas). It is by far NOT the last word on the subject - or even the second last. As the other references I cited quite clearly state, in numerous places: extinction IS understood to drive evolution through the opening of vacant niches allowing adaptive radiation, etc. - an idea that was originally proposed 50 years ago.