Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinism and Nazism
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 90 (26130)
12-09-2002 11:15 PM


For those of you who thought that it was only creationists who see a link between Darwinism and Nazism.
- some quotes from mainstream historians pertaining to the subject
- some examples of how Nazi's used Darwinism
- some quotes from Darwin to better judge how it might possibly have occured that a science theory became linked to political ideology
Please do not lawyer for either Darwinism or Nazism in response. I really can do without another magical incantation of the Naturalistic Fallacy to deny any significant link between Darwinism and Nazism.
(K. Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History)
(chapter one, page 8)
"In extolling the racial superiority of their tribe, racists adduced a
variety of different rationalizations. Since the last quarter of the
nineteenth century was dominated intellectually by Darwinian biology,
public discussion was intensely preoccupied with such magical phrases
as natural selection, heredity, struggle for existence, and the
survival of the fittest. A veritable flood of printed material was
devoted to racial stocks, racial behavior, and racial breeding,
creating the impression that racial issues could be reduced to the
level of scientific animal husbandry."
(chapter one, page 8)
"In the light of Darwin's discoveries, the public wanted to know who
was fittest and why; and invariably ethnocentric researchers jumped to
the hasty conclusion that skin color was the chief determinant of
biological and, therefore, social superiority. It was merely a
question of elucidating the racial traits of the strongest (fittest)
and the weakest (least fit) nations and demonstrating, by way of
comparative anthropology or physiology, which qualities promoted
survival and which did not. The general consensus was that
competition, boldness, bravery, and other assertive qualities made for
survival, while weakness, compromise, pacifism, altruism, in short,
passive traits, were sociobiologically undesirable."
(chapter one, pages 39, 40)
"There was considerable cross-fertilization of racial ideas and even
personal contacts between very respected academics, on the one hand,
and racial popularizers, on the other. In 1900, for example, the arms
manufacturer Friedrich Albert Krupp sponsored an essay competition on
the subject, "What can we learn from the principles of Darwinism and
its application to the inner political development and the laws of the
state?" The panel of judges was chaired by the social Darwinist Ernst
Haeckel, and the majority of the contestants were believers in Aryan
superiority and endorsed some form of anti-Semitism. First prize in
the competition went to a Munich physician by the name of Wilhelm
Schallmeyer, who colored all human activities with the crude social
Darwinian brush of survival of the fittest and recommended benign
neglect of the racially weak specimens. Schallmeyer strongly believed
that the Aryan race represented the apex of human achievement and that
stringent eugenic efforts, preferably state supported, would be
required to keep the Aryan race pure and predominant.
Another contestant in Krupp's competition, Ludwig Woltman, who
was awarded the third prize, later received much renown by publishing
a racial journal called Politisch-Anthropologische Revue (1902).
Woltman's journal, however, was only one of several scholarly journals
dedicated to racial studies. One of the most "respectable" was the
Archiv fur Rassen und Gesellschaftsbiologie, published by Alfred
Ploetz, the founder of the eugenic movement in Germany. Ploetz's
publication became a forum for avant-garde racial ideas. Ploetz later
coined the phrase "race hygiene," founded a secret Nordic society, and
was lavishly rewarded for his racial contributions with a university
chair by Adolf Hitler. As Leon Poliakov points out, some of the chief
eugenicists and geneticists of the next generation the scientists, in
other words, who flourished under the protective mantle of National
Socialism were influenced by Woltman and Ploetz. Among this group we
find Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz, and Otmar Verschuer, the man who
served as a mentor to the future "Angel of Death" at Auschwitz, Dr.
Josef Mengele. The most influential of these men was Eugen Fischer,
who applied Mendel's laws to racial hygiene. In 1934 he boasted that
he was the first scientist to promote Woltman's ideas within the
academic community and to have "inflamed young hearts with enthusiasm
for racial science." Fischer's colleague, Fritz Lenz, was a disciple
of Alfred Ploetz and a frequent contributor to his racial journal.
Before the outbreak of World War I, Ploetz's Revue was avidly read by
many German academics; it became a clearinghouse for all sorts of
racial doctrines, including the pseudoscientific rantings and
ruminations of Fritsch and Lanz von Liebenfels.
Thus, by a circuitous route we return to Adolf Hitler, whose
racial image of the world was not the product of his own delusion but
the result of the findings of "respectable" science. When Hitler read
Fritsch or Liebenfels, he merely absorbed ideas that were widely
entertained in both academic and popular circles. The message embodied
in these doctrines was unmistakable: any living organism is engaged in
a ceaseless struggle for existence and is doomed to extinction if it
does not fight. Nations, like individuals, are also engaged in a
ceaseless conflict in which only the fittest can hope to survive. The
fighting quality of a nation depends upon its racial purity and its
ability to breed the fittest specimens in the form of productive
workers, savage fighters, and charismatic leaders. Those who defile a
race of people Jews, Gypsies, Asiatic inferiors must be eliminated
through appropriate state measures. Of all the human racial stocks,
the Aryan race clearly represents the apex of human achievement; and
since Germany is the homeland of the Aryan race, the German people are
charged with a sacred mission to propagate the Aryan race and dominate
the world. Racial mongrelization, however, has gone so far that the
hour may be late indeed. Only state intervention can protect the Aryan
race from further infections by inferior races. In 1913 Eugen Fischer
boldly prophesied "with absolute certainty" that all Europeans would
become extinct unless governments, especially the German government,
developed and implemented a coherent racial policy. Adolf Hitler
provided that policy."
---
In a personal letter Fisher added that: "The rise of pseudo-biological
racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion
that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution."
(M. Burleigh, Ethics and Extermination - The racial state revisted)
"In contrast to this rather marginal reactionary figure (Gobineau),
the British naturalist Charles Darwin enjoyed enormous international
prestige, with his work on natural selection appealing to diverse
political constituencies, united in the belief that his findings had
prescriptive applicability to the society of man. His cousin Francis
Galton (1812-1911) for whom a chair was established at University
College, London (a bastion of anti-Establishment educational
progressivism), coined the term 'eugenics' to denote the science of
'fine breeding'. Social-Darwinists, an unsatisfactory umbrella term
covering a multitude of persuasions, shared the view that mankind
should take charge of its own evolutionary process. Some believed that
this should be achieved by doing nothing, so that the denizens of East
End London slums would die through processes of auto-extermination.
Others recommended various combinations of philoprogenitive measures,
or positive eugenics, to encourage enhanced reproduction among the
'fit'; with negative procedures, such as sterilization (either
voluntary or compulsory) which would curb the fertility of the 'unfit'
parts of the population. Being modern, progressive and scientific,
these ideas appealed across the political spectrum, including English
Fabian Socialists such as Sydney and Beatrice Webb, co-founders of the
London School of Economics, or the German Socialist doctor Alfred
Grotjahn, for whom they became a means of eradicating the marginal
Lumpenproletariat. In Germany, one of their most influential exponents
was the zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), originator of a
philosophy known as Monism, who, enthusing over what he probably
wrongly took to be ancient Spartan practice, recommended the killing
of the mentally and physically detective in the interests of
strengthening the culturally and physically superior 'central type of
people', whose most valuable part was the Indo-Germanic 'race'.
Already in the hands of Haeckel, these questions swam into the
dangerous orbit of health and emotional costs, a trend which would be
accelerated by the financial exigencies occasioned by the First World
War. A further aspect of these developments is most strikingly
represented by the racial hygienist Alfred Ploetz (1860-1940), namely
the idea that the health of society, construed as an atemporal genetic
collective, should be patrolled by medical experts, who would
determine who should marry or reproduce, or in other words, what type
of people should be born. Scope for this interventionist power-seeking
on the part of the medical profession and others was dramatically
enhanced as the rather modest concerns in this area of the early
nineteenth-century small state were replaced by the big government
reaching into most areas of life characteristic of the twentieth
century.
----
(12 year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany_ by Richard
Grunberger. )
"Since Nazi ideology leaned heavily on Darwinist notions, the Party's
education pioneers ... like to talk of the Adolf Hitler Schools
Institutionalizing the principle of continuous selection." pg 298
--- Quotes illustrating how Nazi's used Darwinism
---
Handbuch fur die Schulungsarbeit in der Hitler Jugend -
Vom deutschen Volk und seinem Lebensraum
(Handbook for schoolwork in the Hitler Youth - The German people and
their livingspace)
Herausgeber: Fritz Brennecke
Bearbeiter: Paul Gierlichs
1937
Chapter III. Race Formation: Heredity and Environment
Study of heredity
Gregor Mendel
Mendel's laws
(I) law of uniformity
(II) law of diversity -- dominant and recessive characteristics
(III) law of independence
inherited picture not always similar to apparent picture
species change
study of evolution
Charles Darwin
environmental influences not inheritable
hereditary transmission
changeability of the bearers of heredity
formation of races
(note: the Hitleryouth were not taught Gravity-theory or math or
anything like that, which was taught in regular schools not
Hitlerschools)
----
(Hitler's tafelgesprekken, 1980, p38)
(translated from Dutch version of Hitler's Tabletalk.)
"10 october 1941, midday
War is returned to it's primitive form. The war of peoples against
peoples has been replaced by a different kind of war - a war for the
possession of big spaces. Originally war was nothing other then a
struggle for pastures. Presently war is nothing but a struggle for the
riches of nature. Thanks to an inherent law these riches belong to
those who conquers them.
The big movement of peoples began from the east. With us ebb sets in,
from west to east.
This is in agreement with the laws of nature. Through the struggle,
the elites are constantly renewed. The law of natural selection
justifies this never ending struggle by letting the strongest win.
Christianity is a rebellion against the law of nature, a protest
against nature. Reasoned logically to it's ultimate end, Christianity
would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure."
(Wannsee-Protokoll,1942, quote from the minutes from the toplevel nazi-meeting where the details of the genocide against the Jews was worked out)
"The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"
---- quotes from Darwin's work
"Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be
applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally
become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is
obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the
affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals." (C.
Darwin, Descent of Man)
"At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting
barbarous nations, excepting where the climate opposes a deadly
barrier; and they succeed mainly, though not exclusively, through
their arts, which are the products of the intellect. It is, therefore,
highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been
mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection;" (C. Darwin,
Descent of Man)
"And natural selection arising from the competition of tribe with
tribe, in some such large area as one of these, together with the
inherited effects of habit, would, under favourable conditions, have
sufficed to raise man to his present high position in the organic
scale." (C. Darwin, Descent of Man)
"Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in
any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian
and will never be even partially realised until the laws of
inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids
towards this end." (C. Darwin, Descent of Man)
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will
no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian
and the gorilla." (C. Darwin, Descent of Man)
"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted
object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of
the higher animals,directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view
of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by
the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet
has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so
simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been, and are being evolved. (Darwin, Origin of Species)
" And as natural selection
works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and
mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." (Darwin,
Origin of Species)
"Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur, can we doubt, (remembering that many more indiviuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and procreating their kind?" (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
(note: I added this last quote, which is the main definition of Natural Selection of Darwin, because when Darwin makes a distinction between "having any advantage" and "chance of surviving and procreating" it leads to "advantage" having an unknown and therefore possibly moral meaning, otherwise it must be considered a tautology)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-09-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by DaveF, posted 01-08-2003 6:32 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 3 of 90 (28659)
01-08-2003 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by DaveF
01-08-2003 6:32 AM


In stead of referring to Nietzche you migh more appriopately note the anti-semtism of Christian orgin. However, it's clear to me that apart from other factors, Darwinism played a signifcant role.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by DaveF, posted 01-08-2003 6:32 AM DaveF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 01-08-2003 8:32 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 6 of 90 (28685)
01-08-2003 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
01-08-2003 8:32 AM


I don't, because I don't think baseballbats are the cause of people being hit by them.
Do you blame Konrad Lorenz for integrating Nazi ideological elements into his books, and the ethnic cleansing in Poland he participated in as a member of a Nazi race office, and then hiding all this after the war and saying he was just very naive about the Nazi's?
Why do Darwin and Haeckel continuously write in terms of higher and lower about living beings, human beings, where the higher is always noted as the most worthy?
Why is the definition of Natural Selection biased towards evolution and Social Darwinism?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 01-08-2003 8:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-08-2003 3:15 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 10 by nator, posted 01-14-2003 8:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 9 of 90 (28732)
01-09-2003 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by DaveF
01-08-2003 11:05 AM


That has some point, but it's of course not a complete answer. As Fischer says, the rise of pseudobiological racism can be partly explained by the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution. Pseudobiological racism is not the same as Darwinism, but they facillitated each others popularity/credibility. Pseudobiological racism is a constituent part of Nazism.
You shouldn't suppose that Darwinism is such an innocent thing because it is supposedly amoral, just as Christians shouldn't suppose Christianity is such an innocent thing because it is supposedly the word of God. I think these attitudes are somewhat parallel bewteen scientists and religionists. The one claims moral infallibility on account of it being amoral, the other claims moral infallibility on account of Divinity. Both attitudes can throw up a barricade for normal functioning of conscience.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DaveF, posted 01-08-2003 11:05 AM DaveF has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 11 of 90 (29103)
01-14-2003 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by nator
01-14-2003 8:58 AM


Darwin continuously talks about lower and higher in "Descent of Man". He also talks about what the highest state of morality is for a person, and he advises that people to any significant degree "inferior" should not marry. The theory of Natural Selection was largely derived from the work of Malthus, which in retrospect has come to be classed as a work of Social Darwinism, even if it was published before Darwin. Social Darwinism has been closely entertwined with Darwinism from the conception of the theory. Your reference to basebalbats is superficial nonsense. At least you have shut yourself up, because except for changing your mind, you can do nothing else now then repeat your nonsense argument, you are stuck with it. Your argument doesn't allow for any further nuance, or looking at any evidence for that matter, like the books of Darwin, Haeckel or Lorenz for instance.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 01-14-2003 8:58 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 01-14-2003 4:46 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 13 by wj, posted 01-14-2003 6:52 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 26 by nator, posted 01-18-2003 7:52 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 15 of 90 (29162)
01-15-2003 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
01-14-2003 4:46 PM


Klaus Fischer is a mainstream author, so I would guess that his opinions are widely accepted. But he does not blame Darwin for the holocaust, nor do I. That is just Darwinist politics to caricature positions.
I go a bit further then Fischer saying that the formulation of Natural Selection is unneccessarily conducive to Social Darwinism. I have found one essay on the web saying that the shift of focus from struggle to reproduction in formulating Natural Selection also made the theory less conducive to value-judgement.
Gould also had some criticism of Darwinists, and especially Haeckel, who was/is far more influential then Darwinists today make out to be, and much closer to Darwin's opinions as is shown in "Descent of Man". A book historian Leon Poliakov notes with some disgust in his book "The Aryan Myth".
It seems there is some renewed interest in the links between science and Nazism from historians, because of the new finds about Konrad Lorenz's extensive involvement with the Nazi's.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 01-14-2003 4:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 01-15-2003 9:32 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 16 of 90 (29164)
01-15-2003 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by John
01-14-2003 7:01 PM


I doubt that is what Schrafinator intended to say. Natural Selection and evolution are not linked by definition (except for definitions of Natural Selection that are, as I argue, wrong) they are linked by the incidence of variation or actually mutation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John, posted 01-14-2003 7:01 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John, posted 01-15-2003 9:11 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 01-15-2003 9:43 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 27 by nator, posted 01-18-2003 7:57 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 21 of 90 (29184)
01-15-2003 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
01-15-2003 9:32 AM


Actually it is the theory of Natural Selection I'm talking about, not the theory of evolution. That the formulation is wrong is wholly my opinion yes, but it is wrong, as I argue, on purely structural grounds not because of it's association to Social Darwinism. I wish you could try to be more precise about my position.
John, Quetzal and Peter on this forum seem to agree with me that there can be Natural Selection on a clone population. But this does not then make them think as me, that the definition of Natural Selection as differential reproductive succes of variants is therefore wrong.
Apart from criticizng the structure of the theory, I also criticize the wordusage, words like selfish and succes. In my opinion you can dismiss the selfish gene formulation simply because it has the word selfish in it, without looking at it's content. Haeckel also tried to do something similar before, talking about the soul of atoms and whatnot. I think such theories can all be dismissed pending changes in wordusage, because in practice they make the standard for scietific knowledge to not contain valuejudgements meaningless.
edited to add: I forgot. There are many people who make similar arguments as mine, but they argue it with the formulaton "survival of the fittest" in stead of "differential reproductive success of variants". "Survival of the fittest" is both argued to be wrong, and also conducive to Social Darwinism.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 01-15-2003 9:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 9:57 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 23 of 90 (29386)
01-17-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
01-17-2003 9:57 AM


I can't make sense of your position.
You disagree then with John, Quetzal and Peter that there can be Natural Selection on a clone population?
The definition of differential reproductive succes of variants is a strawman definition of mainstream Natural Selection?
Again, there are many people who criticize the formulation "survival of the fittest" in a similary way. Do you also not understand these people, or have you never read them?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 9:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 12:32 PM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 25 of 90 (29462)
01-18-2003 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
01-17-2003 12:32 PM


I think I have already made it clear enough, I think your attitude is the problem here, as I remember you previously insisted on a partisan attitude for debate. What about intellectual curiosity as an attitude for discussion over partisan politics?
It seems your position is the exception, on this forum at least, since it seems you don't accept Natural Selection on a clone population. When there can be Natural Selection on a clone population, it should be clear that there can be Natural Selection without evolution. From that IMO follows that the formulation of differential reproductive success of variants is a definition of Natural Selection biased towards evolution.
I have also written numerous lenghty posts to make it clear why another definition of Natural Selection is better. Maybe you should read those. But since you show no interest, don't ask or answer specific questions, I feel it would be useless to post every argument once again.
I haven't found anyone whose position is exactly the same as mine, as before, only similar. But as far as Natural Selection being applicable on a clone population I "enlist" John, Quetzal and Peter in my "army" who will now force you to come up with an answer if or not Natural Selection can apply to a clone population I guess.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-17-2003 12:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 01-18-2003 8:06 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 01-18-2003 11:08 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 29 of 90 (29488)
01-18-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
01-18-2003 8:06 AM


The clone-example is merely to clearly illustrate that some definitions, such as that of differential reproductive success of variants, are fundamentally wrong. Situations where variation is much irrellevant in Natural Selection are common in Nature, such as with endangered species. As before the main application of Selection would be to describe the relation of an organism to it's environment in regards to the event of it's reproduction. For example: light (environment) falls on the photosynthetic cells of a plant (organism) which contributes to it's reproduction (positive selection). It would be the main conceptual tool in biology.
Yes I do tend to take "selfish" out of context, and so does everybody, which is why it is wrong to use an emotive word like that in a science theory.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 01-18-2003 8:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 01-20-2003 8:35 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 32 of 90 (29554)
01-19-2003 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
01-18-2003 11:08 AM


I don't see how Selection as I stated it for example with photosynthesis of plants, is somehow not understandable. I'm confident that this lack of understanding is solely due to creation vs evolution politics. My guess is no single "innocent" student would have a problem of not understanding selection as I set out with photosynthesis, nor have any problems with a formulation of selection that covers that. So I would guess that my position on this point is in principle easily accepted.
That comparison of organisms in terms of good and bad (as is commonly done with differential reproductive success of variants) is conducive to valuejudgements of good and bad, is perhaps a little more difficult to grasp. That would probably need to be substantiated with psychological research for it to be accepted.
Quetzal, Peter and John seem to think that Natural Selection is *already* understood exactly the same way as I said with photosynthesis of plants by mainstream science. Why then Natural Selection is not commonly formulated in a way that suits this usage you would have to ask them, that is in turn not understandable to me. Also I had numerous biologists explicitely denying that my use of selection without variation is valid. Elsewhere I did find one reference on the web which in passing talked about Selection on a clone population.
I think more likely there is much uncertainty about the meaning of Selection in mainstream science on this point, as you also seem to have demonstrated by not comitting yourself if or not Natural Selection applies to a clone population.
I guess you would need to look among philosophers who occupied themselves with Natural Selection theory, like Popper or Denett, if or not they made similar arguments as mine already (and dismmissed those arguments for some reason), arguments about whether or not variation should be included in the basic formulation of Natural Selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 01-18-2003 11:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 01-19-2003 9:01 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 01-20-2003 5:08 AM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 34 of 90 (29564)
01-19-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
01-18-2003 7:57 AM


Reproducing organisms is the raw material Natural Selection works with, not neccesarily variation. That is much of the whole point here to have a definition of Natural Selection which doesn't require variation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 01-18-2003 7:57 AM nator has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 35 of 90 (29565)
01-19-2003 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
01-19-2003 9:01 AM


Strawman\avoidance\lying etc. Your misconstrual of my position into evolution is wrong because of it's link to Social Darwinism is just politics.
Politics from a person who even decides it's too politically risky to answer if or not Natural Selection applies to a clone population, for fear of showing some uncertainty.
You don't belong on a discussion forum.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 01-19-2003 9:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 01-19-2003 10:41 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 37 by wj, posted 01-19-2003 11:46 PM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 38 of 90 (29623)
01-20-2003 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
01-19-2003 10:41 AM


You did not only ask a question, you first misstated my position, and then asked if there was somebody else who had a position similar as mine. I then corrected your misstatement and referred you to people who argue something very similar as me about the formulation "survival of the fittest". Maybe you also don't understand these people, which includes many evolutionists. Maybe you will also say about them that they think evolution is wrong because of it's link to Social Darwinism and therefore has to be reformulated, but reasonably, you cannot be that dim.
You continue to misconstrue my argument saying that I am arguing about evolution, when I explicitely stated I am arguing about Natural Selection. Ridiculously you are now upset that I stick to the word selection in stead of use your misconstrual evolution. Seeing that you continue to misconstrue in this way, I assumed you have not taken back your orignial misstatement of my position that I supposedly argue evolution is wrong because of it's link to Social Darwinism.
I don't think anymore you are genuinely interested in finding people who think the same as me, I think you just want to say that nobody has the exactsame argument as me, to give credibility to an argument from majority. All elements in my argument are widely shared in some form eventhough nobody makes the exactsame argument as me.
I would be glad if an independent moderator judged whether or not you lied, since I think a moderator would be inclinded to be more careful then the average participant in coming to an opinion.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 01-19-2003 10:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 01-20-2003 8:41 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 01-20-2003 9:21 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