Forum: Darwnist Ideology

Err, no. Raup's contention is that the study of extinction isn't well developed in relation to the way that (he claims) extinction is a driving force in evolution. I agree he's never said the subject is well-developed - that would be a tad inconsistent, don't you think? Of course, I completely disagree with him on the importance of extinction in that context. It's a factor in some instances of evolution, and has been a major factor in the great re-orderings of life that took place at least 5 times in history. However, to get from there to Raup's contention that extinction is a MAJOR cause of evolution is stretching it. Of course, you'd know that having read his book and all the other materials available on the subject, right? Especially the ones Mammuthus and I've referenced for you? Ya know, primary literature?BTW, since you're so familiar with Raup's work, what's your take on the Nemesis Hypothesis?

Sad, isn't it? Extinction is a really interesting topic. Even Raup's book that Syamasu claimed to have read - and apparently didn't - is worth a thread all on its own.Basically, IMO, any thread started by Sy ends its useful life around the third or fourth post. Kill it for all of me...

quote:

---

Basically, IMO, any thread started by Sy ends its useful life around the third or fourth post. Kill it for all of me...

---

Exactly the sort of eugenicist statement we'd expect from a blind adherent to an ideology that killed everyone in Europe.regards,
Esteban "Haeckler" Hambre

I really don't care to discuss extinction obviously, I care to talk about Darwinist ideology, which is the subject of this thread.Sorry but you again misrepresent Raup's appraisal, for about the 3rd time now. He says that the study of extinction in general is at a reconaissance level, read the reference you provided yourself. Reconnaissance level means it's underdeveloped.Then I also referred to Clarke talking about how Darwinism led biologists into the lab, rather then out into the field, saying that the study of ecology became sadly neglected.You referenced a book of Wilson about the new discipline of biodiversity which talked about strong progress being made in the last 15 years in the field of biodiversity. That also indicates to me that it is underdeveloped, a new study progressing fast does not sound welldeveloped to me.Every appraissal so far indicates that the study is underdeveloped. The reason that's it underdeveloped as I have argued, and as Raup and Clarke also indicate, is because of Darwinism.Apart from Quetzal and Mammuthus, who here actually believes that the studies of ecology and extinction are well developed? Who here believes Quetzal and Mammuthus on their word, without them referencing *any* appraisal what-so-ever that supports their postion? Or who here has read all the papers and books referenced by Quetzal and Mammuthus and came to any conclusion based on those references?This issue has some societal significance, because of the current mass extinction, so I guess it would not be good to just leave it unclear what the majority opinion is among biologists about the level of development of the studies of extinction and ecology.edited to add: we had the recent surprise discoveries of the oceanic pump which is failing, and the ozone shield which is also failing. Should we fear that there might be a dozen more nasty surprises in a field that is badly underdeveloped or is the ecosystem reasonable covered in broad scopes about now.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-09-2004]

If I were still a Christian then you would probably begin sulking about turning the other cheek. I'm very glad that the prozetelyzers of scientism haven't got a stranglehold on Islam yet like they do on Christianity.The hatefilled rancour is all on evolutionist side, I'm only trying to dismiss people from the thread who provide no meaningful argument, as the admin tried to do at the start of the thread.There was some meaningful argument in this thread. For instance talking with Loudmouth about my observation that about 100 percent (rounded of to the nearest whole number) of organisms that ever lived are not in any way ancestors to any new specie, even assuming evolution theory is true. But that discussion never developed into anything.Also Truthlover very selfconfidently asserted that the general public doesn't think that there is a link between evolutionary theory and immorality, that this is only an issue within creationist circles. This opinion of Truthlover was then shown to be very questionable by all the references to immorality linked to Darwinism in many popular books and movies. This lead to the interesting supposition that this popular conception of immorality linked to evolutionary theory is what makes the creation vs evolution debate popular. But this wasn't explored further because Truthlover just up and left.So you see there was interesting disussion in this thread, which was laid to waste by some people needing to huff and puff about all the things they've read a lot.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Apart from Quetzal and Mammuthus, who here actually believes that the studies of ecology and extinction are well developed? Who here believes Quetzal and Mammuthus on their word, without them referencing *any* appraisal what-so-ever that supports their postion? Or who here has read all the papers and books referenced by Quetzal and Mammuthus and came to any conclusion based on those references?

---

Apart from Syamsu, who here thinks that Syamsu is an uneducated, fanatical internet troll who has never read a book on or about science beyond the cover in his life? Raise your hands.Mine raised high

*Touches the ceiling*

Well, he may be an uneducated, fanatical internet troll who has never read a book on or about science beyond the cover in his life, but he's our uneducated, fanatical internet troll who has never read a book on or about science beyond the cover in his life.No hate here, Sy. Only love.And excessive giggling.

---

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

quote:

---

I really don't care to discuss extinction obviously, I care to talk about Darwinist ideology, which is the subject of this thread.

---

Then why. did. you. freakin'. bring. it. up? In post #71, you brought up extinction.

---

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

I brought up extinction only in relation to Darwinist ideology obviously. The study is underdeveloped and this is because of Darwinist ideology, as I argue.The thread title should have been a fair indicator to that, also my posts before that relate Darwinism to the underdevelopment of ecology. How could you have missed that?I'm beginning to notice that you only write incredibly stupid replies when things you don't like to hear about are at issue.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well, he said he'd read reviews of Gould's last book. Does that count?Raises hand...regards,
Esteban "Kid Mock" Hambre

quote:

---

I brought up extinction only in relation to Darwinist ideology obviously. The study is underdeveloped and this is because of Darwinist ideology, as I argue.

---

If the two are related, then why would you say that you don't care to discuss extinction, because you would rather discuss Darwinist Ideology?!?!Good lord, are you even reading your own posts?This man is astounding. Scientists and experts should be notified.

quote:

---

I'm beginning to notice that you only write incredibly stupid replies when things you don't like to hear about are at issue.

---

Did you not see all that stuff about Eliza Dushku's knockers? I write stupid posts all the time, not just when you begin to expose the truth. (Ba-ba-bummmm.)The difference between you and me is that I'm doing it intentionally.

---

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

Man, are you inconsistent or what? This is PRECISELY what I suggested back in post 190 on this thread. You responded that leaving it up to the peanut gallery was unacceptable. Now you ask the same question I did over 40 posts ago? Gaaakh, it's impossible to discuss anything with you, you know that? Read the books and papers and then get back to me.On another note, I notice your friend Nando from Nganjuk has the same style and inability to write coherent sentences as you do - you guys really have it in for Dawkins, don't you? (See this amazon.com review of Dawkin's "Extended Phenotype". Or this one on "Blind Watchmaker"). Is this a major coffee-house topic of conversation in Nganjuk? I mean, you both wrote almost identical reviews of Watchmaker, f'rinstance.

I just put that about someone reading the references you provided in as a joke. No one here is ever going to read the references you and Mammuthus provided of course, firstly because it's too much work, and secondly because it can't reasonably be expected that it contains enough information to come to a meaningful appraissal.Nando is my birthname, I prefer to use my muslimname now in public. I made this clear way back when I first posted on evcforum.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

I just put that about someone reading the references you provided in as a joke.

---

And I thought everything you post is a jokeIt would not surprise me if many of the people on this site who know how to read and are not lazy like you HAVE read at least some of the references posted by Quetzal and myself. Particularly the textbooks.

quote:

---

No one here is ever going to read the references you and Mammuthus provided of course, firstly because it's too much work,

---

..only if you are a lazy idiot. Since what we posted is primary literature and textbooks it means basically everyone in the sciences we are discussing has read the materials...except for you...

quote:

---

and secondly because it can't reasonably be expected that it contains enough information to come to a meaningful appraissal.

---

so according to you, you will not read anything, attempt to use your glaring ignorance as support for your assertions, and still maintain that you know what is in the literature you are not reading?...I was right, you really need to remove your head from your rectum..it must be really ripe by now.Here is a picture I found by googling Nganjuk...it shows Syamsu (which means "he who is lazy and ignorant") using the only technology he understands...since he is self admittedly lazy, I am assuming he is the guy sitting doing nothing on the right.