Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 181 of 265 (89589)
03-01-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Quetzal
03-01-2004 2:22 PM


Quetzal,
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.
Syamsu is able to read the introduction/abstract/various snippets of anything, & is able to understand the entire intent & context of any larger associated text. Whereas you, who went to the trouble of actually studying the text don't. Well, he thinks that's the way it works, anyway. Which is why he is such a waste of time.
Syamsu is creationism in a microcosm. Any detail can be plucked from it's context & used as if the rest of the information never existed.
Personally I can't be bothered with him anymore.
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2004 2:22 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2004 5:11 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 182 of 265 (89590)
03-01-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dan Carroll
03-01-2004 1:27 PM


Re: Darwinist Ideology Is the New Rock & Roll
There is no end to the amount of fun you could make from Darwinist ideologists writings like Dawkins, Galton, Haeckel, Darwin in Descent of Man etc. As a selfstyled humorist, you obviously chose the wrong side.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-01-2004 1:27 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

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


Message 183 of 265 (89597)
03-01-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Quetzal
03-01-2004 2:22 PM


What no appraisal but your own? Sorry, I require something a little more independent then that.
And I don't just base it on reading Raup's appraisal, I have seen several more appraisals saying that the study of ecology is underdeveloped. Unfortunately I lost the references for them, and it's difficult to find an appraisal on google. And of course, it makes sense that it is underdeveloped since it largely falls outside the Darwinist / evolutionist perspective.
On some other forum somebody told me that only a few years ago Gould began to talk about species selection, in a noncomparitive way. The issue was that this shouldn't be called selection but sampling. Seeing that Gould began to talk about it only a few years ago, it clearly indicates underdevelopment caused by Darwinist theoretical problems.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2004 2:22 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2004 5:10 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 184 of 265 (89623)
03-01-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Syamsu
03-01-2004 2:55 PM


What no appraisal but your own? Sorry, I require something a little more independent then that.
I gave you a dozen references. That's sufficient to show your position is wrong - or at least questionable. End of story.
And I don't just base it on reading Raup's appraisal, I have seen several more appraisals saying that the study of ecology is underdeveloped. Unfortunately I lost the references for them, and it's difficult to find an appraisal on google. And of course, it makes sense that it is underdeveloped since it largely falls outside the Darwinist / evolutionist perspective.
Lost references hunh? And the dog ate my homework... Last refuge of the desperate - inventing unverifiable references that "just prove I'm right if I could only find them". Nice try. I agree that it's difficult to find any references that support your contention on google. The reason being they don't exist: there IS no support for your assertions. All the references you'll find are going to be contrary. Why do you think that might be? Finally, as previously noted, the theory of evolution completely underpins the science of ecology - without it nothing in the science makes sense.
On some other forum somebody told me that only a few years ago Gould began to talk about species selection, in a noncomparitive way. The issue was that this shouldn't be called selection but sampling. Seeing that Gould began to talk about it only a few years ago, it clearly indicates underdevelopment caused by Darwinist theoretical problems.
Nice topic shift. Was that before or after he died? And considering the idea of group selection has been around (and argued about) for quite a while (since at least the 1960's) - Wilson wrote an entire chapter about group selection in his textbook on sociobiology in 1975 - means you're wrong again. The idea may or may not be valid - depends on what the person using the term means by it. Of course, you'd know that since you've read all about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Syamsu, posted 03-01-2004 2:55 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Syamsu, posted 03-01-2004 11:00 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 187 by Syamsu, posted 03-01-2004 11:00 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 188 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-02-2004 12:17 AM Quetzal has replied

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


Message 185 of 265 (89625)
03-01-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by mark24
03-01-2004 2:31 PM


Yeah, I know. About every couple months I vow to never engage him again because he's such an idiot. Must be like worrying a loose tooth, or something...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mark24, posted 03-01-2004 2:31 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 186 of 265 (89687)
03-01-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Quetzal
03-01-2004 5:10 PM


You didn't give any references to appraisals that support your position, don't deceive please. I said the references will turn up, and they are turning up, Raup is one, Wilson saying the study of bidoiversity is developed much in the last 15 years another, I just thought it would be more easier to find them.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2004 5:10 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Quetzal, posted 03-02-2004 8:14 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 187 of 265 (89688)
03-01-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Quetzal
03-01-2004 5:10 PM


You didn't give any references to appraisals that support your position, don't deceive please. I said the references will turn up, and they are turning up, Raup is one, Wilson saying the study of bidoiversity is developed much in the last 15 years another, I just thought it would be more easy to find them.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2004 5:10 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 265 (89700)
03-02-2004 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Quetzal
03-01-2004 5:10 PM


Quetzal,
Just an anecdote, but for years Chris Smith and I argued over the questions: why are species formed (or behave) as the are (do.), versus, Why are species distributed and have the abundance that they do? Chris always argued that these were the same question, and that evolution provided the answer, while I said that one was an evolutionary question (the "Why" questions), while the other was ecological. I went on, motivated no doubt by Chris's stubborness, to develope with Oksanen the theory of food chain dynamics, that said, given the phenotypes we have, how will populations be distributed, and what pressures will these distributions have on directional selection in the species? When we last left it, I could take my food chain dynamics, and predict various morphological/geographic patterns (e.g. prey species are adapted to be smaller in body size as predator pressure increases.) I left Chris trying to predict variations in the population dynamics based on evolutionary patterns. Well, we did agree that the skewed distribution of population sizes on islands was related to the increased variability of sizes. But which was cause, and which was effect? Probably some of both. I was even prouder of the population dynamic theory on distributions and competition (MacArthur-Levins models) for small-large versus middle size or jack of all trades species. This also showed population dynamics and competition setting up the adaptive landscape over which selection pressures would make species evolve.
So, I proposed a "central theory of ecology" to compete with "evolution." It's coming into its own, and I believe will at least balance evolutionary thinking, if not overshadow it.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2004 5:10 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Quetzal, posted 03-02-2004 8:12 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

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


Message 189 of 265 (89747)
03-02-2004 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-02-2004 12:17 AM


Hi Stephen,
This would be an interesting topic I'd like to persue. Especially your take on the community assembly principles that were developed by Simberloff, Connor, Gilpin, Diamond, et al back in the 70's. I'm curious about how food-chain dynamics are related in the context of the "why" of nanism and giantism on islands, particularly. Also, how your "central theory of ecology" conflicts with evolutionary theory. However, we'll get our fingers slapped by Mighty Moose if we try and pursue it here. Maybe if you have time you could open a new thread with a precis of your ideas? If not, I understand time constraints, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-02-2004 12:17 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-23-2004 6:14 PM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 190 of 265 (89748)
03-02-2004 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Syamsu
03-01-2004 11:00 PM


Tell you what - we'll let whomever bothers to read the various references make the determination on who's right and who's wrong, shall we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Syamsu, posted 03-01-2004 11:00 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Syamsu, posted 03-02-2004 10:34 AM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 191 of 265 (89768)
03-02-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Quetzal
03-02-2004 8:14 AM


I don't think that's workable, just keep an eye open for an appraisal if you happen to come across it, and I will also keep looking. But actually I done my duty already by referencing Raup, or you done my duty for me.
I guess I will reference Loennig's essay on why Mendel was ignored again:
http://www.weloennig.de/mendel05.htm
R. E. D. Clark (1967, p.122): "The immediate effect of Darwinism was to stimulate biological research. Yet this stimulation, for which evolution has received so much credit, was by no means always of a healthy character. On the whole, naturalists were driven into laboratories2 instead of into the fields. They spent their time constructing "family trees", instead of discovering how animals lived. Organisms came to be thought of as isolated units divorced from their surroundings and the study of ecology, the study of the organism in relation to its surroundings, which had formed a large part of the older natural history, was now sadly neglected."
-------
And since all the huffing and puffing on authority, and all the vitriol might have clouded my original assessment I will post that again as well.
This is my assesment of the creation vs evolution debate.
Evolutionists, specifically Darwinists, have produced very little knowledge in 150 years. The knowledge they have produced is shoddy and highly intermixed with ideology. The ideology was instrumental in attrocities, most notably the holocaust. Also, nothing has fundamentally changed, Darwinists are still producing little and shoddy knowledge with a high ideological content, and we can reasonably expect the ideology to be instrumental in attrocities once again.
On the other hand creationists have been mainly been the defenders of common values, such as equality, the wonder of creativity, freedom of choice, that they have provided and continue to provide an extremely valuable service to more advanced science in providing an independent framework of thought, which is routinely used by scientists as an important referencepoint to explore the more fundamental aspects of their theories.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Quetzal, posted 03-02-2004 8:14 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Mammuthus, posted 03-03-2004 5:04 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 192 of 265 (89968)
03-03-2004 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Syamsu
03-02-2004 10:34 AM


quote:
On the other hand creationists have been mainly been the defenders of common values
,
I thought they defended creationism as being the truth? What support do you have for this statement?
quote:
such as equality
What support do you have for this statement? The christians claim anyone who disagrees with them (including other christians) are hell bound morons..how equal is that?
quote:
, the wonder of creativity
I will give you that..I have never seen a group with as many varied and ridiculous "just so stories" with no evidence or logical support as creationists...very creative.
quote:
, freedom of choice
Fundamentalists loathe freedom of choice. They wish to force their dogma on everyone else. So this is plainly wrong.
quote:
, that they have provided and continue to provide an extremely valuable service to more advanced science in providing an independent framework of thought
Name a single creationist that has ever made a scientific contribution based on creationism or describe a single scientific discovery that has EVER benefitted from creationism..the answer, none.
quote:
, which is routinely used by scientists as an important referencepoint to explore the more fundamental aspects of their theories.
Yet another unsupported statement...worse, there is only counter-evidence for this absurd statement.
You know, Darwinsterrier got banned by Adminimoose for violation of forum guidelines but he seems perfectly willing to let a jackass like Syamsu get away with making unsupported assertions and not debating in good faith as he pleases...nice moderating
How about forcing Syamsu to actually back up his statements as opposed to repeating them endlessly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Syamsu, posted 03-02-2004 10:34 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Syamsu, posted 03-03-2004 8:15 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 193 of 265 (89986)
03-03-2004 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Mammuthus
03-03-2004 5:04 AM


The post you are replying to contained a reference that backs up my assessment. Of course, the main reference is that Natural Selection should be individual in stead of comparitive, the sum of environmental factors that enhance or limit reproduction.
Where are the independent appraissals of ecology, and extinction saying that they are well developed disciplines?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Mammuthus, posted 03-03-2004 5:04 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Mammuthus, posted 03-03-2004 8:28 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 194 of 265 (89988)
03-03-2004 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Syamsu
03-03-2004 8:15 AM


quote:
The post you are replying to contained a reference that backs up my assessment.
No, it contains a bunch of half assed opinions translated from German. And did you know that forum guidelines state that you should not just post links but should state how they support your arguments? I guess that is something else you never read either.
Anyway,
Since you are so repetitive, I will be as well..
Support the following
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand creationists have been mainly been the defenders of common values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,
I thought they defended creationism as being the truth? What support do you have for this statement?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
such as equality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What support do you have for this statement? The christians claim anyone who disagrees with them (including other christians) are hell bound morons..how equal is that?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, the wonder of creativity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will give you that..I have never seen a group with as many varied and ridiculous "just so stories" with no evidence or logical support as creationists...very creative.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, freedom of choice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamentalists loathe freedom of choice. They wish to force their dogma on everyone else. So this is plainly wrong.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, that they have provided and continue to provide an extremely valuable service to more advanced science in providing an independent framework of thought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name a single creationist that has ever made a scientific contribution based on creationism or describe a single scientific discovery that has EVER benefitted from creationism..the answer, none.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, which is routinely used by scientists as an important referencepoint to explore the more fundamental aspects of their theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another unsupported statement...worse, there is only counter-evidence for this absurd statement.
quote:
Where are the independent appraissals of ecology, and extinction saying that they are well developed disciplines?
Quetzal and I have given you more than enough materials to read on the subject to get an independent appraisal. Until you read them you should post less and think more...you have that ratio badly skewed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Syamsu, posted 03-03-2004 8:15 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-03-2004 9:21 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 198 by Syamsu, posted 03-03-2004 11:18 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 265 (89999)
03-03-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mammuthus
03-03-2004 8:28 AM


Don't bother with the "equality, wonder of creativity, freedom of choice" business, Mammuthus. Syamsu and I already went through it a couple pages back. After ignoring my responses for ages, he finally established that he what he means is that creationists promote these things when it comes to promoting creationism, and not at other times.
And I agree as far as your earlier post goes... the next time I hear about evolution-slanted moderating around here, I'm going to laugh until I choke on my tongue and die. After many, many informative posts, DT was suspended for making an altar boy joke. Meanwhile, who knows how many absolute nutcases post endless belligerent diatribes that directly contradict the forum rules, without action.

"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 194 by Mammuthus, posted 03-03-2004 8:28 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Mammuthus, posted 03-03-2004 10:29 AM Dan Carroll 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