quote:Despite the fact he considers the work one of the cornerstones of technical biological literature and evolutionary theory, he's never read past the title. That's why he asserts that Dawkins (and therefore evolutionary theory in general) believes people are 'born selfish' since they have this 'selfishness gene.' Even if you tried to explain to him Dawkins's admittedly reductionist but useful metaphor of genes using organisms for their own propagation, you'd get nowhere. Just ask zephyr and Primordial Egg.
Indeed... a few rounds in that arena reduced my reading of Syamsu's posts to an exercise in morbid curiosity. The brick marks on my forehead are almost gone, however... I think one more exfoliation might do the trick.
quote:Whatever... you people are just too smart for your own good. I mean you can make a good defense of the history of Darwinism and politics, attack every point, raise the standards of evidence higher and higher, you can make a complete whitewash of Darwinism in relation to politics and get away with it in public debate.
Once again, though I find debating you completely frustrating in the long run, I have to point out that nobody here has done what you claim. Many of us have acknowledged over and over that Darwin's ideas have been misused by zealots and self-seeking powermongers (among others) pretty much since day one. We also condemn those actions strongly. NONE OF THIS stops us from using a valid scientific theory to explain the origins of life.
quote:Some time later if you have some crisis in your life, you might go to a psychologist. At this point of weakness who of you will be able to resist rationializing your own personality in terms of selfish genes.... I come from the savanah..., that is who I am... that's what I am optimized for... I am born selfish, I must overcome my innate selfishness... Who of you rationalises their personality that way already? To become like that is the fate of the people who support the liarous talk.origins faq on the relationship of Darwinism to politics I referenced previously.
The fact is that you have produced no rationale whatsoever for your erroneous conflation of the following:
1) facts which are undeniably observed in nature, and theories that explain them best; and: 2) the choice of small minorities of people (generally not even scientists themselves) to hijack scientific learning in support of a pre-existing cause that is not motivated by said learning.
You further compound our frustrations by utterly ignoring those who point out that many other ideas are abused in the same manner without a whisper of protest from you.
quote:Again, the evidence I have provided earlier should be satisfactory. You are basically still just trying to catch me on a technical point of not providing full references, without showing any sign of actually weighing the arguments or evidence.
You have a really whacked-out idea of evidence. I am a minimally educated layman and I could probably cite more real evidence off the top of my head than you have ever presented in this forum.