Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum: Darwnist Ideology
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 265 (86276)
02-14-2004 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Syamsu
02-14-2004 10:33 AM


quote:
vs your boring idea to revive the old goat of socialism once again to fight the nonexistant evil capitalists.
Showing yet again just how much you ever listened to me.
I own my own business you jackass. I have nothing against free market economies and believe there is nothing evil about free enterprise. I champion free enterprise.
I am also for removing all government control from personal lives. I champion freedom from government parentalism.
My only advocacy of socialism was for... oh what's the point?
Forget I said anything. Go back to sleep.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 02-14-2004 10:33 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 62 of 265 (86638)
02-16-2004 9:36 AM


Creationists goodguys, Evolutionists badguys
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-16-2004 9:43 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 64 by Mammuthus, posted 02-16-2004 10:15 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 259 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-08-2004 4:57 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 265 (86639)
02-16-2004 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Syamsu
02-16-2004 9:36 AM


Re: Creationists goodguys, Evolutionists badguys
quote:
Evolutionists, specifically Darwinists, have produced very little knowledge in 150 years.
Especially if, every time you are shown knowledge produced, you cover your ears, close your eyes, and start yelling "can't hear you la la la la la!"
quote:
On the other hand creationists have been mainly been the defenders of common values, such as equality, the wonder of creativity, freedom of choice
So we can assume that major creationist groups will be actively defending gay marriage (equality) encouraging the government to give more money to the NEA (the wonder of creativity) and trying to strike down the new laws against abortion (freedom of choice)?

"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 62 by Syamsu, posted 02-16-2004 9:36 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 64 of 265 (86644)
02-16-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Syamsu
02-16-2004 9:36 AM


Re: Syamsu...the expert in nothing
quote:
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.
If you fail to address this post you should seriously consider putting your head in the washing machine next time you do laundry.
Please show how any of the following randomly picked evolutionary studies have 1. contriburted little knowledge 2. are shoddy 3. are intermixed with ideology 4. have ynathing to do with the holocaust. Please feel free to compare and contrast each study I am sure you are about to read with any article from any other scienctific discipline.
Anders S. Nilsson, Joakim L. Karlsson, and Elisabeth Haggrd-Ljungquist
Site-Specific Recombination Links the Evolution of P2-like Coliphages and Pathogenic Enterobacteria
MBE Advance Access published on August 29, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg223
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 1-13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Jori O. Ruuskanen, Henri Xhaard, Anne Marjamki, Erik Salaneck, Tiina Salminen, Yi-Lin Yan, John H. Postlethwait, Mark S. Johnson, Dan Larhammar, and Mika Scheinin
Identification of Duplicated Fourth 2-Adrenergic Receptor Subtype by Cloning and Mapping of Five Receptor Genes in Zebrafish
MBE Advance Access published on August 29, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg224
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 14-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Gangqiao Zhou, Yun Zhai, Xiaojia Dong, Xiumei Zhang, Fengying He, Kaixin Zhou, Yunping Zhu, Handong Wei, Zhijian Yao, Shaofei Zhong, Yan Shen, Boqing Qiang, and Fuchu He
Haplotype Structure and Evidence for Positive Selection at the Human IL13 Locus
MBE Advance Access published on August 29, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg231
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 29-36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Koichiro Tamura, Sankar Subramanian, and Sudhir Kumar
Temporal Patterns of Fruit Fly (Drosophila) Evolution Revealed by Mutation Clocks
MBE Advance Access published on August 29, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg236
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 36-44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Andrew P. Jackson and Michael A. Charleston
A Cophylogenetic Perspective of RNA—Virus Evolution
MBE Advance Access published on August 29, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg232
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 45-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Jesper Brohede, Norman Arnheim, and Hans Ellegren
Single-Molecule Analysis of the Hypermutable Tetranucleotide Repeat Locus D21S1245 Through Sperm Genotyping: A Heterogeneous Pattern of Mutation but no Clear Male Age Effect
MBE Advance Access published on October 6, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg242
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 58-64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Grant H. Pogson and Kathryn A. Mesa
Positive Darwinian Selection at the Pantophysin (Pan I) Locus in Marine Gadid Fishes
MBE Advance Access published on August 29, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg237
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 65-75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Michael Klinger, John S. Taylor, Thomas Oertle, Martin E. Schwab, Claudia A. O. Stuermer, and Heike Diekmann
Identification of Nogo-66 Receptor (NgR) and Homologous Genes in Fish
MBE Advance Access published on August 29, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg241
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 76-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Vincent Daubin and Howard Ochman
Quartet Mapping and the Extent of Lateral Transfer in Bacterial Genomes
MBE Advance Access published on August 29, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg234
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 86-89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Huai-chun Wang, Gregory A. C. Singer, and Donal A. Hickey
Mutational Bias Affects Protein Evolution in Flowering Plants
MBE Advance Access published on October 31, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msh003
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 90-96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Mara Silvina Fornasari, Diego A. Laplagne, Nicols Frankel, Ana A. Cauerhff, Fernando A. Goldbaum, and Julin Echave
Sequence Determinants of Quaternary Structure in Lumazine Synthase
MBE Advance Access published on October 1, 2003, 10.1093/molbev/msg244
Mol Biol Evol 2004 21: 97-107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
quote:
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.
Detail a single scientific discovery made EVER based on creationist dogma. Also please address Dan's questions about how creationists have ever supported creativity, freedom of choice or equality. Finally, demonstrate that there is a single science that uses creationism as a reference point for exploring their theories.
From most recent Journal of Chemical Physics, Volume 120, Issue 7, pp. 3049-3520, show specifically that this "advanced science" uses creationism as a reference point for any of the following papers
Vibrational zero-point energies and thermodynamic functions beyond the harmonic approximation
Vincenzo Barone
pp. 3059-3065
Abstract Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (76 kB) GZipped PS ] Order
On the use of Bennett's acceptance ratio method in multi-canonical-type simulations
Michael K. Fenwick and Fernando A. Escobedo
pp. 3066-3074
Abstract Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (197 kB) GZipped PS ] Order
Slow manifold for a bimolecular association mechanism
Simon J. Fraser
pp. 3075-3085
Abstract Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (176 kB) GZipped PS ] Order
On the efficient path integral evaluation of thermal rate constants within the quantum instanton approximation
Takeshi Yamamoto and William H. Miller
pp. 3086-3099
Abstract Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (264 kB) GZipped PS ] Order
Path integral calculation of thermal rate constants within the quantum instanton approximation: Application to the H + CH4H2 + CH3 hydrogen abstraction reaction in full Cartesian space
Yi Zhao, Takeshi Yamamoto, and William H. Miller
pp. 3100-3107
Abstract Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (127 kB) GZipped PS ] Order
Auxiliary field Monte Carlo for charged particles
A. C. Maggs
pp. 3108-3118
Abstract Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (196 kB) GZipped PS ] Order
finally stick your head in he washing machine Sy because you will clearly fail to address anything in this post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Syamsu, posted 02-16-2004 9:36 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Syamsu, posted 02-16-2004 11:02 PM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 65 of 265 (86829)
02-16-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Mammuthus
02-16-2004 10:15 AM


Re: Syamsu...the expert in nothing
But it's not the point to lift a few papers, you have to give a broad assessment in response, like I gave a broad assessment. I wonder how you are going to do that, are you gonna say that Darwinists were deeply involved in mixing in ideology in their works in the beginning, but they have cleaned up their acts since then?
In a few years again we might look at Chinese genocides and find that fanatic Darwinist ideologists urging progress, filled the beliefs vacuum left by an ailing atheist communist ideology. This is not some unlikely scenario. The anti-religious attitudes of the government, coupled with unrestrained popular demand for progress, might well give oppurtunity to Darwinist ideologues. China has adopted farreaching eugenic laws, but it's unclear to me what role the Chinese science establishment played in adopting those laws, and particularly what role Darwinist scientists played, because I can't read Chinese, and China is not very open about it's policies. Are you going to change sides in the creation vs evolution debate if it were to happen? Or are you then still going to say that the creation vs evolution controversy is a dispute about some facts, in stead of the political conlfict it really is?
For as far as the shoddy science goes:
- Darwinists held back Mendellism the basics of genetics for up to 72 years
- having not found much of any intermediate fossils in 150 years, they finally decided to follow the evidence that indicates punctuated equilibrium. the known fossilrecord was essentially the same as it was over 150 years in broad scopes, however it took about 150 years to say what the record says, because of Darwinist opposition.
- one of the major goals of Darwinism, creating new species in the lab, has been largely unsuccesful
- the discovery of controlgenes although not inconsistent with Darwinist theory, makes the theory less useful, and is not in line with Darwinist expectations according to it's discoverer
- after 150 years Darwinists know that there is a unit of selection that is being selected on, however they are still not clear about what the unit of selection is, gene, individual, population, species or matingcouple.
- the science of how organisms relate to one another in biological systems is badly underdeveloped, due to Darwinists being preoccupied with finding specks of sands on the beach, finding and naming yet another specie or variant, and placing it in a historical lineage.
Now you name a big thing Darwinists did, or a collection of small things that amounts to a big thing, in response to this sample of scientific faults of Darwinism. And let's not forget that it's the ideological content that's the main wrong of Darwinists, which is now continued mainly in evolutionary psychology and selfish gene theory, and natural selection theory.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Mammuthus, posted 02-16-2004 10:15 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Mammuthus, posted 02-17-2004 3:19 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 67 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-17-2004 9:13 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 66 of 265 (86881)
02-17-2004 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Syamsu
02-16-2004 11:02 PM


Re: Syamsu...the expert in nothing
quote:
But it's not the point to lift a few papers, you have to give a broad assessment in response, like I gave a broad assessment. I wonder how you are going to do that, are you gonna say that Darwinists were deeply involved in mixing in ideology in their works in the beginning, but they have cleaned up their acts since then?
It is the point to "lift" evolutionary biological primary literature and substantiate your point. I will give you a broad assessment then, there is not a single ideological work in any issue of the journals Evolution, Journal of Heredity, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, Science, Cell, the Journal of Virology, Genetics, Molecular Ecology that have to do with evolution....if I am wrong, you go and find it. These are all primary literature journals in my field. There are many more...so get to work Syamsu...prove that all of this is just pure ideology..find one article..should be easy if you are correct.
quote:
Are you going to change sides in the creation vs evolution debate if it were to happen? Or are you then still going to say that the creation vs evolution controversy is a dispute about some facts, in stead of the political conlfict it really is?
Why? If politicians or whoever chose to use physical principles to build weapons I am not going to change my mind and stop obeying the laws of gravity. Show me again in any of the journals I listed where there is a single article that could support the Chinese governments or anyones eugenics policies..good luck
quote:
For as far as the shoddy science goes:
Reading your list made me reconsider something about you Sy..previously I thought your were merely ignorant. But your following list suggests you are actually rather stupid.
quote:
- Darwinists held back Mendellism the basics of genetics for up to 72 years
The great synthesis was the only context in which to understand Mendel's laws. Thus score one for evolutionists.
quote:
- having not found much of any intermediate fossils in 150 years, they finally decided to follow the evidence that indicates punctuated equilibrium. the known fossilrecord was essentially the same as it was over 150 years in broad scopes, however it took about 150 years to say what the record says, because of Darwinist opposition.
Care to explain away each and every transitional fossil that has been found? Start with equids and work your way to hominoids.....good luck
And that you think the fossil record is the same as it was as 150 years ago suggests you are so blindly unaware of the weekly discoveries of new fossils that I think you actually must have taken my advice and put your head in the washing machine last night. score another one for evolution.
quote:
- one of the major goals of Darwinism, creating new species in the lab, has been largely unsuccesful
First, demonstrate that this is a major goal of "darwinism" like everything else you say it is an unsupported load of shit. But in any case, for some organisms, it has been largely successful...so again, one for evolution zero for the empty pumpkin Sy calls a head.
quote:
- the discovery of controlgenes although not inconsistent with Darwinist theory, makes the theory less useful, and is not in line with Darwinist expectations according to it's discoverer
Control genes, whatever the hell you mean by that..I assume Hox and Pax genes are one of the foundations of current evolutionary theory and the basis of a new subdiscipline called Evo(evolutionary)-Devo (developmental biological) research. This has been recognized since their discovery. Score another one for evolution and still zero for Syamsu's startling ignorant noodle.
quote:
- after 150 years Darwinists know that there is a unit of selection that is being selected on, however they are still not clear about what the unit of selection is, gene, individual, population, species or matingcouple.
The fact is, all are units of selection depending on the selective pressure. There is a mountain of literature based on actual studies (as opposed to your uninformed blathering). So again score for evolution...Syamsu left bleeding on the pitch.
quote:
- the science of how organisms relate to one another in biological systems is badly underdeveloped, due to Darwinists being preoccupied with finding specks of sands on the beach, finding and naming yet another specie or variant, and placing it in a historical lineage.
this incoherent rambling is presumabley a result of Syamsu trying to chew gum and type at the same time overloading the limited capacity of his brain. I'm feeling generous..I'll say no score since you don't make any sense here.
quote:
Now you name a big thing Darwinists did, or a collection of small things that amounts to a big thing, in response to this sample of scientific faults of Darwinism.
Name a big thing that Darwinists did? Ok, from your own list of things they did not do, they demonstrated that population genetics and the laws of heredity are the underpining of the changes in population over time i.e. evolution i.e. the great synthesis
Demonstrated the link between morphological determinants at the molecular level and evolution of morphological traits
Have allowed for the development of the first round of vaccines against HIV by providing and understanding of its evolution and explaining why single target drugs will always fail.
Have provided us with our current understanding of gene structure function relationships using comparative genomics.
Have pioneered the discovery of disease genes by use of searches for homology among different model organisms.
I can go on all day as this was just stuff I pulled off the top of my head..but given your next bullshit statement why bother, you would be completely unaware of any scientific advancement made since at most you have skimmed the editors notes of 150 year old books on the subject of evolution.
quote:
And let's not forget that it's the ideological content that's the main wrong of Darwinists, which is now continued mainly in evolutionary psychology and selfish gene theory, and natural selection theory.
And lets not forget that this is your unsupported, often refuted assertion born of your profound laziness and unwillingness to actually find out what the theory of evolution states, what the current state of the subject is, and your refusal to learn about the eugenics movement. Again, an interesting topic..but too bad it is always brought to this board by such a pathetically uninterested person such as yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Syamsu, posted 02-16-2004 11:02 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Syamsu, posted 02-17-2004 10:07 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 265 (86940)
02-17-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Syamsu
02-16-2004 11:02 PM


Re: Syamsu...the expert in nothing
*cough*
Dan writes:
So we can assume that major creationist groups will be actively defending gay marriage (equality) encouraging the government to give more money to the NEA (the wonder of creativity) and trying to strike down the new laws against abortion (freedom of choice)?

"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 65 by Syamsu, posted 02-16-2004 11:02 PM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 68 of 265 (86952)
02-17-2004 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Mammuthus
02-17-2004 3:19 AM


Re: Syamsu...the expert in nothing
You are not giving a broad assesment of the creation vs evolution controversy. I want to see if you're going to run of the standard lines, enlightened science vs dogmatic religion. I want to see if you have the gall to completely shove Darwinist ideology under the carpet, or if you are going to reduce it to some footnote in the controversy. IMO you can't mention Darwinist ideology and not let it dominate your assessment of the controversy. You can't just ignore all those corpses, in favour of focusing on what, the virtues of methodological naturalism?
There is ideology in the prejudicial definition of Natural Selection itself, so I assume all the papers you mentioned are ideological this way. You neglect to mention evolutionary psychology of course.
I have never heared of the great synthesis being the only way to understand Mendel's laws, I have read that Darwinists ignored, and denied Mendel, and that those biologists who accepted Mendel, became to be known as mutationists, in stead of Darwinists. Anyway I will not address each and every point. The point you failed to understand said that Darwinists have neglected particular fields of study, most importantly the study of how organisms relate to one another in a biological system.
As before, my knowledge of the eugenics movement seems to be broader then yours. You seem to fail to mention anything meaningful about it in your rambling. Yes there was a eugenics movement prior to Darwin. As I noted before in this thread, Darwin, Wallace and Spencer all independently got much inspiration for their highly similar theories of the mechanism of evolution from a eugenics essay. So eugenics being at the conception of Darwinism means eugenics existed prior to Darwinism obviously. You might say that one of the bad things that eugenics produced was Darwinism.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Mammuthus, posted 02-17-2004 3:19 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Mammuthus, posted 02-17-2004 10:25 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 70 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-17-2004 10:28 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 69 of 265 (86959)
02-17-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Syamsu
02-17-2004 10:07 AM


Re: Syamsu...the expert in nothing
quote:
There is ideology in the prejudicial definition of Natural Selection itself, so I assume all the papers you mentioned are ideological this way. You neglect to mention evolutionary psychology of course.
You have never restricted your commentary to evolutionary psychology. And you "assume" the papers I mentioned are ideological? I did not ask for your assumptions. I have challenged you to find a single f$#cking paper from ANY of them that supports what you are saying. Are you truly so lazy?
quote:
I have never heared of the great synthesis being the only way to understand Mendel's laws,
...that is what you get if you don't read but only talk to yourself
quote:
I have read that Darwinists ignored, and denied Mendel, and that those biologists who accepted Mendel, became to be known as mutationists, in stead of Darwinists. .
How about some specific citations to support this assertion?
quote:
Anyway I will not address each and every point
Presumably because you are unable even though you brought the points up yourself
quote:
The point you failed to understand said that Darwinists have neglected particular fields of study, most importantly the study of how organisms relate to one another in a biological system.
And the point you failed to grasp is that by never bothering to actually read or find out what evolutionary biologists actually do (even though much of the current literature is free and accessible on the net) that this is precisely where evolutionary biology has made the greatest strides in our (well not your) understanding of biodiversity...you missed the boat.
quote:
As before, my knowledge of the eugenics movement seems to be broader then yours.
...you seem to be keeping this knowledge a closely guarded secret from everyone on this site.
quote:
You seem to fail to mention anything meaningful about it in your rambling.
...pot calling kettle...
quote:
You might say that one of the bad things that eugenics produced was Darwinism
You might say historical revisionists such as yourself have produced nothing except a lot of wasted hard drive space at EvC.
I am eagerly awaiting the results of the research you will be doing to find the ideological paper among the journals I listed
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 02-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Syamsu, posted 02-17-2004 10:07 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Syamsu, posted 02-17-2004 9:56 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 265 (86962)
02-17-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Syamsu
02-17-2004 10:07 AM


Re: Syamsu...the expert in nothing
*COUGH*
Dan... again... writes:
So we can assume that major creationist groups will be actively defending gay marriage (equality) encouraging the government to give more money to the NEA (the wonder of creativity) and trying to strike down the new laws against abortion (freedom of choice)?

"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 68 by Syamsu, posted 02-17-2004 10:07 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 71 of 265 (87152)
02-17-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Mammuthus
02-17-2004 10:25 AM


You know what the creation vs evolution controversy is about?
You seem to have missed the topic of the thread which is the role Darwinist ideology plays in the creation vs evolution controversy. You stil have not given a broad assessment of the creation vs evolution controversy, I still don't know what role you attribute to Darwinist ideology in it. I'm beginning to think you don't have a broad assesment of the creation vs evolution controversy.
In *broad* terms Darwinism produces little. We don't know the differential reproductive success of most every variant organism and we don't care to know, You must have read comments like that on the futility of Natural Selection theory in the literature several times. The comments about the study of the relationship between organisms being underdeveloped due to Darwinism I've seen several times also. Natural Selection doesn't really cover extinction, because there's always one that keeps reproducing, while the other may usually go extinct. Extinction is important in studying ecological systems, so a Darwinist is out of the scope of vision of his theory when studying it. Also, only since punctuated equilibrium have evolutionists begun to see the largely unchanging systems, stasis, as data. Before that the logic of evolution was, what does not evolve is of no interest. etc. etc. The points still stand as far as I'm concerned. They are the considered opinions of people I find reliable, evolutionists mostly, and they make sense to me in context of what I know of the logic and research interests of Darwinist science.
As before the ideology in the definition of Natural Selection is in the reliance on comparison between organisms, in stead of simply focusing on the relationship of the organism with the environment. I won't explain here again exactly how that is so, but I will note again that you don't know which is the better theory.
I'm not really sure how to interpret the many big achievements of Darwinism you mentioned. It seems you mentioned finding DNA as some kind of achievement of Darwinism where you talk about morphologies. I think this discovery is more in line with Mendel, and the information conception of creationists, and that Darwinists needed to reconfigure the generic gradualism they presupposed was characteristic of hereditary material when DNA was discovered. Even granting that these discoveries can be titled to evolutionism / Darwinism, that your job is not completely useless, in broad perspective the negative aspects still dominate IMO, for the reasons mentioned before.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Mammuthus, posted 02-17-2004 10:25 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 02-18-2004 3:02 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 72 of 265 (87178)
02-18-2004 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Syamsu
02-17-2004 9:56 PM


Re: You know what the creation vs evolution controversy is about?
quote:
You seem to have missed the topic of the thread which is the role Darwinist ideology plays in the creation vs evolution controversy. You stil have not given a broad assessment of the creation vs evolution controversy, I still don't know what role you attribute to Darwinist ideology in it. I'm beginning to think you don't have a broad assesment of the creation vs evolution controversy.
My broad assesment of the controversy is simple enough for even you to understand. People like you who have no background, understanding or even willingness to inform yourself about methodological naturalism whine and scream bloody murder when science does not 1. address your religious doctrine 2. conflicts with your religious dogma. Thus, creationists rail against evolution because they 1. don't know anything about it and don't want to 2. but have heard from some other fundie that it is bad so they must knee jerk oppose it regardless of the unbelievable requirments of ignoring evidence sitting under their noses.
quote:
In *broad* terms Darwinism produces little. We don't know the differential reproductive success of most every variant organism and we don't care to know, You must have read comments like that on the futility of Natural Selection theory in the literature several times.
I am sure you are well into the evolution literature I posted looking for your 1 example of ideology but can you find a single paper that deals with fitness where they do not measure reproductive fitness and claim to not care to know? Answer..no. And no I have not read comments about the futility of natural selection in any scientific literature.
quote:
The comments about the study of the relationship between organisms being underdeveloped due to Darwinism I've seen several times also.
That is also funny considering you admit you have never read any scientific literature...you may want to give your crack pipe away so that you stop imagining such strange things. Note to anyone following this thread...isnt it lovely how Syamsu gives references and quotes to support his assertions
quote:
Natural Selection doesn't really cover extinction, because there's always one that keeps reproducing, while the other may usually go extinct. Extinction is important in studying ecological systems, so a Darwinist is out of the scope of vision of his theory when studying it.
That is funny Syamsu. I have a $480,000 dollar grant to study the genetic effects of extinction on populations and evolution of specific related groups of animals. It is my second grant on the subject. My former institute had an entire program on extinction in the context of mammalian evolution. One of my colleagues runs a program on extinction and conservation also in the context of evolution. And this is just the circle I work in. There are labs all over the world studying extinction....do you ever feel pain in your gut from being so full of shit?
quote:
Also, only since punctuated equilibrium have evolutionists begun to see the largely unchanging systems, stasis, as data. Before that the logic of evolution was, what does not evolve is of no interest. etc. etc. The points still stand as far as I'm concerned. They are the considered opinions of people I find reliable, evolutionists mostly, and they make sense to me in context of what I know of the logic and research interests of Darwinist science.
Obviosly you have never read anything about PE or the common hypotheses prior to PE....but my guess considering the level of your discussion as to who you find reliable are probably other Indonesian laundry specialists who make themselves feel better by going to the Aceh province and beating up little girls on the weekend.
quote:
As before the ideology in the definition of Natural Selection is in the reliance on comparison between organisms, in stead of simply focusing on the relationship of the organism with the environment. I won't explain here again exactly how that is so, but I will note again that you don't know which is the better theory.
And I will note again that you don't know anything about any theory and that you are unwilling and to lazy to educate yourself as you have shown by your running in terror at the thought of substantiating the claims YOU MADE in this thread regarding the pervasiveness of ideology in evolutionary literature...and all I asked you for was 1 paper in a huge list of journals..but no...you can't even do that.
quote:
I'm not really sure how to interpret the many big achievements of Darwinism you mentioned. It seems you mentioned finding DNA as some kind of achievement of Darwinism where you talk about morphologies.
Well, look what else Syamsu does not know ...so you think that morphology is independent of DNA..yes or no?
quote:
I think this discovery is more in line with Mendel, and the information conception of creationists, and that Darwinists needed to reconfigure the generic gradualism they presupposed was characteristic of hereditary material when DNA was discovered.
What "information conception" of creationists? Or are you now going to answer the challenge that I and others made to you so often which is to give a single example of a scientific discovery ever made or aided by creationism as opposed to methodological naturalism? And as to the great synthesis and the impact of the rules of heredity and the discovery of DNA on the ToE...go out and read about it..there are only dozens of books on the subject..oops forgot who I am talking to..it is Mr. Willful ignoramus who rather have an uninformed opinion than bring anything substantive to a debate.
quote:
Even granting that these discoveries can be titled to evolutionism / Darwinism, that your job is not completely useless, in broad perspective the negative aspects still dominate IMO, for the reasons mentioned before.
Your opinion is worthless to anyone with a single neuron in their head.
Regards
ActuallyReadstheLiterature Mammuthus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Syamsu, posted 02-17-2004 9:56 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Syamsu, posted 02-18-2004 9:30 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 73 of 265 (87222)
02-18-2004 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Mammuthus
02-18-2004 3:02 AM


Re: You know what the creation vs evolution controversy is about?
Clearly you're just making single observations and you're not making those observations into a broad perspective where you have to look at all data, and not just the data that suits you. The focus on extinction is a recent development due to the catastrophic extinction that's happening now. When I read an ecologist complaining that her science is underdeveloped, while in the same article she says that Natural Selection is basicly irrellevant in the current wave of extinctions, because it happens too fast for any species to adapt and escape extinction, then I can put 2 and 2 together to make 4. The reason it's underdeveloped is because it doesn't fall in the scope of Darwinist / evolutionist theory. This conclusion I make then falls in line with other things I read such as Gould saying that only recently have evolutionists begun to consider stasis as data, and complaints of mutationist evolutionists in the 1920's that Darwinism tends to drive biologists into the lab, in stead of out in the field investigating the relationships between organisms. These are all broad observations evolutionists made about their own science, while you are just giving single observations all the time. So is it your honest opinion that the science of how organisms relate to one another in biological systems is not badly underdeveloped like that evolutionist I read said it was, or do you just disagree about the reasons why it is badly underdeveloped?
Your opinion on CvE is likewise shallow. That evolution theory conflicts with (a particular) literalist reading of the Bible doesn't remotely seem a sufficient explanation for the "popularity" of the debate. I may well find other sciences that are in conflict with the particular kind of literalist interpretation of the bible on some points, but no such big controversy results from it. As before you can't detach the evolution vs creation controversy from broadly held opinions about immorality linked to evolutionism / Darwinism, as talked about in many books and movies by people who are not dogmatic creationists.
As twice before, I've already met your demand to show the ideology in the papers by showing the ideology in the definition of Natural Selection before.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 02-18-2004 3:02 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Mammuthus, posted 02-18-2004 10:05 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 74 of 265 (87229)
02-18-2004 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Syamsu
02-18-2004 9:30 AM


Re: You know what the creation vs evolution controversy is about?
quote:
Clearly you're just making single observations and you're not making those observations into a broad perspective where you have to look at all data, and not just the data that suits you.
Um first, that is false..from my own work and actually reading the literature I have a broad perspective of the field of evolution. However, it is truly ironic that you claim I should look at all of the data when you have looked at NONE of it...you are talking out of your ass.
quote:
The focus on extinction is a recent development due to the catastrophic extinction that's happening now.
Funny then that the research and literature on the subject goes back almost as far back as that of speciation...bzzzt Syamus talks out of rectum again.
quote:
When I read an ecologist complaining that her science is underdeveloped, while in the same article she says that Natural Selection is basicly irrellevant in the current wave of extinctions, because it happens too fast for any species to adapt and escape extinction, then I can put 2 and 2 together to make 4.
You must have used a calculator to do that math given the unreal lack intelligence in the beginning of your sentence. Duh..if you kill off a species in one go,there is no natural selection and adaptation..just death..and?..so in that context evolution and natural selection are irrelevant. You would not be guilty of making a false observation and "making those observations into a broad perspective where you have to look at all data, and not just the data that suits you."?
quote:
The reason it's underdeveloped is because it doesn't fall in the scope of Darwinist / evolutionist theory.
Sure it does..you kill all members of a species, they do not pass on their genes ever again, they are extinct...their are several fields of research that study the impact of this including its ecological consequences.
quote:
This conclusion I make then falls in line with other things I read such as Gould saying that only recently have evolutionists begun to consider stasis as data, and complaints of mutationist evolutionists in the 1920's that Darwinism tends to drive biologists into the lab, in stead of out in the field investigating the relationships between organisms.
What the hell drugs are you on? Are you going to support this lie with evidence or will you let the label liar stick to you?
quote:
These are all broad observations evolutionists made about their own science, while you are just giving single observations all the time.
You misquote one ecologist and claim I am only making single observations?...or which article from which journal that I cited are you basing this falsehood on...volume number and page please.
quote:
So is it your honest opinion that the science of how organisms relate to one another in biological systems is not badly underdeveloped like that evolutionist I read said it was, or do you just disagree about the reasons why it is badly underdeveloped?
No, it is not underdeveloped, and she did not say what you are implying she said. The only thing underdeveloped is your education in the relevant fields. This would normally be called ignorance..but since you refuse to educate yourself, it is willful ignorance i.e. stupidity.
quote:
Your opinion on CvE is likewise shallow. That evolution theory conflicts with (a particular) literalist reading of the Bible doesn't remotely seem a sufficient explanation for the "popularity" of the debate.
Funny then that so few scientists are aware of the debate and that the majority of creationists are biblical literalists.
quote:
. I may well find other sciences that are in conflict with the particular kind of literalist interpretation of the bible on some points, but no such big controversy results from it.
Guess you never have been in the Dates and Dating forum or the Big Bang forum
quote:
As before you can't detach the evolution vs creation controversy from broadly held opinions about immorality linked to evolutionism / Darwinism, as talked about in many books and movies by people who are not dogmatic creationists.
Yuo can if you detach your caudal region from your posterior
quote:
As twice before, I've already met your demand to show the ideology in the papers by showing the ideology in the definition of Natural Selection before.
Does your personal religion have as its number one commandment "Thou shalt lie"? Show me where you have ever even answered a challenge I have given you...
It's ok Syamsu...we know you don't know how to read..otherwise, what could explain your complete reluctance to actually independently of this forum, go out and read about this subject you pretend to be concerned about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Syamsu, posted 02-18-2004 9:30 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Syamsu, posted 02-18-2004 11:59 AM Mammuthus has replied

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


Message 75 of 265 (87250)
02-18-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Mammuthus
02-18-2004 10:05 AM


Re: You know what the creation vs evolution controversy is about?
Well I don't have the link handy saying that the particular field of science is badly underdeveloped, but I will simply assume that your contrary opinion is biased, seeing that you are almost drowning in your own vitriol saying it.
Once again you forget that in Darwinism when talking about extinction, you have to have a comparitive unit of selection which does not go extinct. You can't actually focus on the extinction itself within a Darwinist framework of reference. Extinction is evolution because the genes are forever lost? Is that the study of nonexistant evolution? You are not making sense.
You call me a liar, then you prove it. If I remember correctly I've given you the link to that kind of criticism of Darwinists tending to go into the lab in stead of the field, when discussing Darwinists denial of Mendel's theory. I assume you don't know that Darwinism "eclipsed" somewhere early 20th century, which means it was briefly out of favour with the scientific community in general.
But enough, you must go now and quibble about dates with some creationist, which is what evc is really all about, according to you.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Mammuthus, posted 02-18-2004 10:05 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Brad McFall, posted 02-18-2004 12:11 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 77 by Loudmouth, posted 02-18-2004 1:05 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 02-19-2004 3:10 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024