Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   cut variation = cut racism and atheism
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 7 (34878)
03-21-2003 8:03 AM


Since there are no arguments left anymore to include variation in the definition of Natural Selection, which I haven't already refuted at least a couple of times, I guess now it more becomes a matter of politics then argument to advance my case for a definition of Natural Selection without variation to be adopted. So I will now discuss why it is so important to cut variation from the definition of Natural Selection, and I refer all arguments why it should be included to my counterarguments in previous posts.
In my opinion it's self-evidently bizarre that Darwinists at the same time admit that Natural Selection can happen without variation, and still insist on including variation in the definition. This strange position leads to a number of serious errors, both within science, and in how Darwinism influences the intellectual climate of opinion in society generally.
First the errors in science. With the event of Darwinism, biologists attention turned largely away from the interdependency of organisms on each other, preferring in stead to focus on trying to find gradual changes in lineages. Overall this project to find gradual change has failed, leading to the new hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium by Gould which explains why Darwinists can't find gradual change. The late Gould should be commended for adapting Darwinism to facts (the cambrian explosion) which have been known since about a 100 years or so, but really this is not much production for the 140 years since the start of Darwinism. It can safely be concluded that if Darwinism was never invented, and biologists would have gone on in the same track as they did prior to Darwinism, that then our knowledge of biology would have been much deeper. Only fairly recently have biologists again taken up the task of looking at the interdependency of organic life to each other, but still Darwinism looms as a destructive force to that meaningful inquiry. The destructiveness is because the generally adopted definition of Natural Selection is inflexible to deal with the intricate complexities of Nature. Like in a bureacracy, a list of needless requirements has to be met first, for the theory of Natural Selection to apply. First there is variation, and not just any kind of variation, but variation where the one type reproduces more then the other type. Then there is also the requirement that this variation be within a population. Since there can't be Natural Selection with different type of organisms from another population, the relationhip to those different types of organisms in the other population becomes obscured by using Natural Selection theory. Also, the data gathered by application of Natural Selection theory is expressed in terms of a comparitive relationship, in stead of in terms of an actual physical relationship. The data arrived in Natural Selection is a comparison of reproductive rates. There really is no strict reason for comparitive relationships to be limited to a location or a population as Darwinists demand. For instance the eiffeltower would still be twice (guess) as tall as the tower of Pisa no matter if it stands in Paris, or next to the tower in Pisa. Similarly a variant plant in Paris, or a variant in plant in Pisa may have the same reproductive success, when apart or when together. The original reason why Darwin demanded the organisms to be together is because in his Malthusian version of Natural Selection theory, competition was required for Natural Selection to apply. However this requirement has been dropped since, leaving only a comparitive relationship as the final data arrived at in Natural Selection theory. Biologists investigating the relationships between organisms are not much interested in comparitive relationships, they are describing how organisms physically relate to each other. How they physically influence each other's reproduction cycle.
Any biologists who for instance wants to describe how wolves relate to rabbits, has a difficult task in framing their work to the standard definition of Natural Selection. How to deal with variants in both populations (especially when they don't exist), but at the same time ignore the variation between wolves and rabbits? How to describe physical relationships, but then in the end have to express this as comparitive relationships within each population? The solution to this difficulty seems to be to simply play fast and lose with the definition of Natural Selection, to mention Natural Selection and selection in a notional way, but not to actually apply the defined meaning of it. Lowering standards this way makes for easy reading, but for less reliable knowledge. Prosa has been the mainstay of Darwinist style of doing science, in stead of the usual technical architecturing of knowledge. Through the use of prosa, Darwinist work becomes much interpretative, and sometimes the books contain lies, deceit, and prejudicial views, which are found out very late. Who's to say the selfish gene theory is wrong, when it is highly interpretative what the selfish gene theory actually is? Who can argue with Haeckel's formulation of Natural Selection as survival of the strongest in the fight for existence, when Darwin used all the same words in his work? Same with Konrad Lorenz's theory about innate aggression, who really knows what innate agression looks like?
Now to talk about the errors by the influence of Darwinism on the intellectual climate in general. In Darwinism everyone is an expert, and everyone at the same time an amateur. The meanderings of typical posts on internetforums has no less scientific merit as far as I can tell, then the meanderings of Dawkins, Gould, Haeckel, Darwin, Galton etc. , or Kevin McDonald. Kevin McDonald has this theory about Jews and Judaism as a eugenic group. His writing was much respected up until recently when he appeared in a trial on behalf of a holocaust-denier. Only for this reason has McDonald been ostracized, because prior nobody could tell if or not his theory was valid science. After he appeared in the trial, the case was quickly settled, his science marked as pseudoscience. But on scientific standards, there is really no distinction between his work and the work of the most influential and respected Darwinists. So what I am saying is, is that there is no significant difference in scientific standards between Darwinian racist popularizers, and the work of professional Darwinian scientists.
Why Darwinism has such as strong relation to racism should be obvious. To talk about Natural Selection applied to human beings as it is now defined, you have to talk about one variant being more succesful in reproducing then then the other, because of it's higher fitness. Where this becomes especially hairy is when moral processes, processes of choice are conflated with natural processes. This can be done by denying anything supernatural, as is very typical of Darwinists, or by denying the existence of choice processes, or by describing choice processes as cause and effect processes. Several times I've tried to get a discussion going on the subject of choice and how it relates to the origin of things, only to be met with unbelievable ignorance on the subject from Darwinists. All the time when I was talking about choice, Darwinists would then reinterpret what I said in terms of cause and effect. Like in many other sciences pre-determinism rules the thoughts of Darwinists, and things turning out one way or another, is generally very difficult to grasp for them. Belief in a very high degree of biological pre-determinism is of course a pre-requisite for any kind of dangerous racism. This mixing of moral processes with natural processes occurs many times in the work of influential Darwinist scientists, as for example the moral philosophizing of Darwin about when it is right for superior to neglect inferior, about what the highest state of morality is, as also similar writing by Galton and his eugenic religion, Haeckel his monism, Lorenz's Nazilike eugenic ideology, and Dawkins's selfish gene theory and atheistic commentary. Those kind of mixed up moral and objective theories are a serious threat to freedom of religion, as opposed to factual claims about humans being descended from apelike creatures, which are not threatening to freedom of religion much IMO.
The question then becomes, if there was a cleaned up definition of Natural Selection that didn't require either variation or competition for selection to apply, would we then still see the same meandering on the part of biologists into moral, political and religious fields?
I don't think so. To cut out variation would mean to cut out the "is better then" and "is superior to" talk, from the definition. To cut out variation would mean to cut out That is the main point at which Darwinists cross over from science to morality. Besides that a cut down version would be more respecting of the complexities of Nature, which would make it less usable for simplistic moral reasoning. We would not see such bizarre things as the theory being part of the education material of a political party (the Hitleryouth), we would not see a young killer pre-occupied with Natural Selection theory (one of the killers in Columbine highschool). Apart from those bizarre things, for the average person it mainly would mean the theory wouldn't dominate anymore in how they appreciated Nature, or have much of any significance in "worldviews". The theory would just become a descriptive thingamujig as easily ignored as learned, in stead of the theory drenching the minds of the people who support it's use.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-21-2003 9:30 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 03-23-2003 9:34 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 7 (34891)
03-21-2003 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
03-21-2003 8:03 AM


Closing This Thread
Hi Syamsu,
Syamsu writes:
Since there are no arguments left anymore to include variation in the definition of Natural Selection, which I haven't already refuted at least a couple of times, I guess now it more becomes a matter of politics then argument to advance my case for a definition of Natural Selection without variation to be adopted.
Glad you won the debate, but this topic has been talked to death.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 03-21-2003 8:03 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 7 (34993)
03-23-2003 8:06 AM


Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 4 of 7 (34999)
03-23-2003 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
03-21-2003 8:03 AM


For context I post an explanation of what selection without variation is about again.
The basicly meaningful thing in selection is the relation of the organism to the environment in terms of the event of it's reproduction. That means for instance light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cell of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (is selected for). You can then say that the photosynthetic cell is *adapted* to the environment (light) because it's relation to light contributes to reproduction.
As you can see no mention of variation, or competition but still selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 03-21-2003 8:03 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 03-25-2003 1:37 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 5 of 7 (35173)
03-25-2003 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Syamsu
03-23-2003 9:34 AM


Another day, another rewrite. I'm still waiting for creationists to respond to my case for redefining Natural Selection.
I'm trying to get some response from creationists on redefining Natural Selection. Most creationists still accept Natural Selection even if in the limited form of "micro-evolution". So an acceptance would mean a personal responsibility to ensure it's truth. I never have gotten any response from creationists so far on redefining Natural Selection, any help on why no creationist is actually responding would also be helpful. Besides from having a responsibility to ensure the scientific merit of Natural Selection, I also think creationists have a responsibility to defend religion, from where Natural Selection tends to cros over from science into religious areas. While these reasons to respond also apply to evolutionists, I still think that creationists have more reason to respond to my case about redefining Natural Selection then evolutionists do, so what's stopping you from replying?
My case for redefining Natural Selection goes like this.
First I cut down the common standard definition of Natural Selection to it's simplest form by continuously asking the question if or not some phenomenon mentioned in part of the common definition is required to be there for Natural Selection to apply. For instance, is variation required to be there for Natural Selection to apply? is competition? how many individuals does it take at a minimum for Natural Selection to apply? and so on.
After much discussion with Darwinists I have found that neither variation or competition is neccessary for Natural Selection to apply. The cut down meaning of Natural Selection then becomes like:
the relation of an organism to it's environment in terms of the event of it's reproduction.
For instance light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (is selected for). As you can see no mention of variation, competition, or more then a single organism, but still selection. Apart from positive selective factors that contribute to reproduction, there are of course also negative selective factors like disease, or unsuitable weatherconditions, which decrease the chance of reproduction. The negative together with the positive selective factors make up the selective regime of an organism. Selection is then between reproduction and no reproduction, in stead of as in the common definition where selection is between one or the other variant, one variant reproducing and the other variant not reproducing.
This redefinition does not preclude evolution, the only thing is one would first have to add the principle of mutation or recombination to begin talking about evolution. To cut down to the simplest formulation is simply how knowledge is most efficiently, and clearly organized, and is applicable in all science. Apart from it being efficient, it is also true to observation, because most times stasis is observed in a population and not any interesting evolution.
The arguments against this reformulation are so far non-existant. That is the Darwinists I talked to admit that selection this way is valid, but still insist on including variation in the definition because there most always is differential variation in a population. When I point out there is most times stasis in populations, and that you still have to describe a trait regardless of whether or not it is varying, I get no response. So really as it is there are no valid arguments against it, but if you can find a reason why variation or something else should be required in the definition then please explain. I would like to ask though that any argument for including variation should incorporate the photosynthesis example I gave before. I would like to know how you are going to describe photosynthesis if you would include variation in the definition of Natural Selection.
Why this reformulation is so important is not in the first place for what benefits it has to science, but mainly what benefits it has in how science relates to religion. Unlike other science theories, Natural Selection theory has been extremely conducive to derive moral, political and religious views from. Not just by common people but especially Darwinian scientists themselves seem to be drenched in Darwinism in all their areas of thought and emotion. A recent example of this is Richard Dawkins who believes that Natural Selection disproves the existence of "universal love", and that Natural Selection shows that Nature at bottom is "blind, pitiless and indifferent". He proposed a "selfish" gene theory, which in his words could enlighten us about our "greed" and "genorisity". Associated to this meandering of Dawkins is the discipline of evolutionary psychology, which is really more appriopately called Darwinist psychology. Sometimes Darwinists say how ridiculous it is to take personal consequence from a mere scientific theory, and then compare it with taking personal consequence from gravity theory or something like that. But of course there is no gravitational psychology but there is a Darwinist psychology.
Other examples of influential Darwinian scientists being drenched in Darwinism are Darwin himself, Galton, Haeckel and Lorenz.
Darwin's pre-occupation with eugenics (finebreeding people), and his general judgementalism displayed in the context of Darwinism in his book "The Descent of Man", where he goes to talk about such esoteric things as what the highest state of morality is, and that superior should not marry inferior, and when it's right for the superior to "neglect" the inferior (so the inferior die), etc..
Francis Galton, one of the main inventors of the statistical method, conceived the need for a eugenic religion on account of Darwinism.
Ernst Haeckel is commonly known to have advanced proto-nazi ideas on account of Darwinism, (in)famously once judging a competition about applying Darwinism to state law, and he associated the credibility of his personal philosophy of monism to the findings in Darwinism.
The later nobel prizewinner Konrad Lorenz advertised Nazism based on Darwinism, and he even participated in ethnic cleansing in Posen, an area of Poland, during the second world war, as a member of a Nazi race office. His prosaic books which deal with such vague notional things as "innate aggression", are now seen to be slanted towards Nazi ideology. Konrad Lorenz remained a fanatic eugenicist after the war.
But really my evidence is not about some historical facts but it's about here and now, about how the common definition of Natural Selection affects my own thinking. If you don't have the experience sometimes that Natural Selection dominates in how you appreciate nature, or that it somehow pushes you in some direction in the area of "worldviews" when thinking about it, then basically you should consider this part of my argument without evidence. You should for instance have personal experience of Natural Selection leading you to think of Nature as cruel, or blind pitiless and indifferent for that matter, as is typical. When thinking about human beings you should for instance have personal experience of questioning the equality of people on account of describing people in Darwinian terms of fit and unfit. (often also called "better" and "worse", or "superior" and "inferior" in Darwinist literature).
When I flash some different kinds of pictures of Nature through my mind then it occurs to me how incredibly arrogant and hateful it is to make a generalising judgement on Nature as cruel this way. Nature is so big and complex that any general judgement could not possibly do it any meaningful justice. Even so it's not very meaningful to make a generalising judgements like that, I acknowledge that such generalising judgements have their place. Where it becomes creepy however is when people like Dawkins and other Darwinists before him, make this superficial judgement so much weightier then it ought to be, and bring the authority of science to bare on the subject. As if it is as undeniable that Nature is fundamentally cruel, or pitilessly indifferent as it is to deny that planets go around the sun.
These errors would IMO not happen if Natural Selection was redefined in the way I set out before. Where the common definition of Natural Selection mainly tends to cross over into religious and moral areas is where Darwinists talk about one being better or superior then the other, which is based on including variation in the definition. The second point where it crosses over into religious and moral areas is by the way competition is included. Including competition means to include teleological aspects into Darwinism. Often Darwinists talk about organisms "wanting" to achieve the highest reproductive "success", or "wanting" to survive. Competition in Darwinism does not only take place between organisms, but it also takes place between organism and environment. Darwin for instance talks about a plant struggling against the drought in order for it to survive. But this use of competition or struggle is not correct, and competition and struggle can even be said to work against Natural Selection in it's common definition. For instance you can conjecture "this one plant was more fit then the other plant, but the other plant struggled harder to survive, hence the less fit plant won out." The operation of competition in science always involves the operation of randomness, since science has no knowledge of any motives or goals like reproduction or survival. Organisms in one place that are identical would tend to go for the same resources, and in this situation competition is most strong. But which organism gets the resources on account of competition then, is a matter of flipping a coin in the air. Since the organisms are identical they have equal chance, like equal sides on a coin. This is not understood in the common definition of Natural Selection.
Besides that the faulty formulation tends to be more conducive to derive valuejudgements from, those valuejudgements that are derived tend to be prejudicial. Sometimes for instance Darwinists talk about the difficulties in getting a job as some kind of undeniable fact that Darwinism still rules society. Some years ago and in many areas of the economy still, there was/is a labour shortage, in stead of a labour surplus. You could get a free car if you took a job as an information-technology professional. Why then do Darwinists ignore the labour shortage situation, and focus their comments on labour surplus situations, where it is very hard for people to get a job? The explanation is the original Malthusian formulation of Natural Selection by Darwin, which relied on there being too many organisms to reproduce, and ignored situations in Nature were there is a wealth of oppurtunities for organisms to exploit.
When excluding variation and competition from the definition the view attained on Nature by Natural Selection theory then doesn't become more narrow, in stead it becomes more broad and cohesive. Where the common definition of Natural Selection forces you to look at a moth just by the one trait of wingcolor (as in the peppered moth example), or have you look at a human being by the one trait of skincolor, the cutdown version would note how all traits of the moth and the human being function in reproduction. Where the common definition stops to apply once the changes in the moth population have taken place, the cut-down definition continues to apply throughout. Think about how strange this is compared with other science theories like gravity theory, that the common definition of Natural Selection starts and stops to apply at the appearance and disappearance of differential variation. Should we also talk about differential gravitational success of planets in stead of normal gravitation theory? Should we only apply gravity when the objects are "different"? Seen this way, to include variation in the definition of Natural Selection is clearly absurd.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 03-23-2003 9:34 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 03-25-2003 4:22 AM Syamsu has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 7 (35180)
03-25-2003 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Syamsu
03-25-2003 1:37 AM


Why is it you wish to conflate anthropic concepts with natural selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 03-25-2003 1:37 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Syamsu, posted 03-25-2003 7:16 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 7 of 7 (35190)
03-25-2003 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
03-25-2003 4:22 AM


I wish no such thing, I wish that Darwinists like Dawkins "selfish genes explains greed" Darwin "inferior should not marry superior" etc. would stop doing that.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 03-25-2003 4:22 AM mark24 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