Misuse of evolution

Syamsu, you claim that "the current theory, mainly the one conceived by Dawkins, is known to be promoting racism by anti-racists. Dawkins continuously has to write sidenotes that his theory is not supposed to be understood as promoting racism."Can you provide an example? If Dawkins has to explicitly remark that his explanation of Darwinian evolution is not promoting racism, who do you believe? Dawkins or "anti-racists"?I notice that in many of your posts you seem to apply your own interpretation of meanings and implications, despite the fact that they are obviously contrary to what the authors originally intend or how they are interpreted by many other people. You seem to be implying values to scientific theories and explanations which are not there.

It is just Darwinspeak. I am sure you would also imply values which are not there when you would demonstrate your thoughts on account of applying the Darwinist principle of "races encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct" to your own situation. Why don't you demonstrate your thoughts?I don't think you can substantiate that authors such as Darwin (who became increasingly eugenicist), the proto-Nazi Haeckel or the Nazi Lorenz, and even Dawkins obviously intended a valuefree interpretation of their works. If Dawkins intended the interpretation to be valuefree, then he wouldn't say that his theory disproves the existence of universal love. He wouldn't encourage people to use his theory to explain their greed, genorosity, lying etc. He wouldn't use the word selfish, but he would use a word like selfsustaining. He wouldn't contrast his theory with belief in creation by God, etc.The below quote of Darwin was defended by history professor J. L. Graves as just being neutral observation, and he argued that to put values on it, was an entirely different question."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." (Darwin, Descent of Man)Darwin attaches a value judgement to civilization, by hoping for man to be more civilized. He then contrasts this valued civilization with the lowness of a baboon, implying that baboons are lower worth. He then contrasts the negro with the gorilla, which then implies that negro's are less worth then caucasian, and gorillas are more worth then baboons. By some contortions of thought I guess you can separate the valuejudgement from the observation part, but by no means is this obviously intended. The context of the rest book doesn't give much clarity either if this quote is supposed to be construed in a valuefree way, or not. If superior should not marry inferior like Darwin says at the end of his book, then that would normally convey a value to superiority and inferiority to anyone reading it. The book is full of points where Darwin attaches values to concepts he also uses as part of his theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
But Peter didn't immediately understand that being unsuccesfull and inferior can be understood as scientific terms even when I expressely said they could be understood as scientific terms, and influential Darwinian scientists like Haeckel, Lorenz, Galton, and Darwin didn't use it in a valuefree way, but in a confused way.

---

SO WHAT if this is true (and I don't think it is true of Darwin)? That was over one hundred years ago. Are you suggesting that the social values that some may have promoted back then are promoted now? Let me let you in on a little secret...science changes. A lot.

quote:

---

Besides, where is your evidence. You said that races of man don't exist, that there is only one race. You are just using concepts developed by anti-racists, not Darwinism as expressed by Darwin, Haeckel or Lorenz.

---

So what?

quote:

---

You have to demonstrate your thoughts on account of races of man encroaching until some finally become extinct, applied to your own situation, in stead of just saying you can easily do it in a valuefree way, but not actually demonstrating that use.

---

I have demonstrated my thoughts on account of "races of man encroaching, blah blah blah."I do not have racist or genocidal thoughts because of Darwinian theory. I never have.You just don't like my answer because it isn't what you have already decided is true.

quote:

---

Darwin used competitive survival / existence of races. Where races has a convoluted groupmeaning. The modern use is differential reproductive success of variants. Obviously where the value speech comes in, is with success and with comparison.

---

But you just said that the word "success" could have a non-value laden meaning if used scientifically!Please stop mixing social Darwinism, which is an inappropriate use of the concepts po further a political movement, with science.

quote:

---

But the requirement to compare for measuring makes no sense. It makes no sense to require a relative measurement to another variant, because you already have the real measurement of the number of offspring, or reproductive rate. It would only make sense to compare, if the two variants are encroaching on each other, which isn't neccessarily the case in all possible scenario's of 2 variants.

---

Can you please list several likely real-world scenarios in which individuals can reproduce without any competition for resources from other individuals?(hint: those that reproduce sexually will have to compete for resources with thir mate, too)

quote:

---

So you could just have a general theory of reproduction as the fundamental theory, which described organisms/traits in view of the event of their reproduction in relation to their environment.

---

Again, does this environment not also include other individuals and/or species which are competing for resources?

quote:

---

The selection is then between reproducing and not reproducing.

---

It's kinda hard to reproduce if you don't get enough food because your neighbor ate it all. Or ate you.

quote:

---

This theory would IMO work out as anti-racist, besides putting the focus on the more interesting data of how organisms reproduce, in stead of putting the focus on how much better the one reproduces then the other.

---

Since the current theory does not mention anything about race, and you have done nothing but confuse social Darwinism (which is a misuse of the scientific theory to promote a political/social agenda), with science, the above makes no sense.Besides, Evolutionary theory DOES pay attention to how species reproduce, as well as how many offspring they produce. You are again treating evolutionary theory WAY too simplistically.

quote:

---

The current theory, mainly the one conceived by Dawkins,

---

Can you PLEASE stop saying that Dawkins has somehow developed current evolutionary theory in it's entirety! There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, including Gould, Eldridge and many, many others who have contributed, and contunue to contribute, to the current understanding of the theory.What, did you read Dawkins' book and think that that's all there was?

quote:

---

is known to be promoting racism by anti-racists. Dawkins continuously has to write sidenotes that his theory is not supposed to be understood as promoting racism. But really his theory which he didn't present for peerreview, which he didn't present in a formulaic way but an emotive way, is convoluted from the start, neccessarily leading to confusion.

---

It's a good thing that Dawkins' book isn't all there is WRT evolutionary theory, then, isn't it?You have a strange obsession with the notion that "The Selfish Gene" is the be all and end all of Biology.So, you are blaming Dawkins for other people's misinterpretation of the statements in his book, even though he repeatedly goes out of his way to prevent it and explain that he is NOT promoting racism?Well, then, you are blaming Dawkins for other people's stupidity.

quote:

---

I think maybe you wrote this last post to seem to be reasonable so you would not get kicked or someting for your hateful previous post.

---

Now, now, you mustn't get abusive.Please show me whare I was "hateful" or abusive in any of my posts.Besides, I didn't mention you at all in that post about my past employer. What about the post made you think that I was talking about you? If you saw yourself in that post, then maybe there is a reason.

quote:

---

I think you should be compelled to answer each and every point I raised in this post to substantiate that your are being reasonable, in stead of rasing one point in opposition, and then writing something like that it's all ridiculous anyway. You haven't responded to the Genghis Khan post either, I think you will use that argument again and simply disregard my response to it.

---

Tell me, how are YOU being reasonable when you ask a question, get an honest answer, then when the anwer isn't what you want to hear, disregard the answer as not good enough?

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-26-2002][Added missing close-bold tag. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 07-29-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I have replied to something similar Peter wrote.

​

Ghengis Khan was genocidal bue he was not motivated by Darwinism, therefore Darwinism is not genocidal.

​

Genghis Khan was genocidal but he was not motivated by Nazism, therefore Nazism is not genocidal.

​

As shown, the logic is faulty.

​

Mohammad Nor Sysmsu

---

You are not using correct analogies.Genghis Khan was genocidal, but Darwinism hadn't been conceived yet, therefore Darwinism could not have been his motivation to be genocidal.So, you see, something else, not Darwinism, motivated his genocidal actions.The point of this little exercise is to get you to see that genocide and racism were alive and well LONG BEFORE Darwin came around.Do you or do you not agree with this?You have been trying to demonstrate that Dawinism is a major source of racism. and that the scientific theory, in fact promotes it.So far, you have provided only knee-jerk reactions and incorrect references to non-scientific, political movements like Social Darwinism.

Science does change, but you are denying the value of the change from racial encroachment until extinction, to differential reproductive success of variants whenever it suits you.I don't think Schrafinator should get away with her "post 666" on a forum that is supposed to be moderated, and after she was warned.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Science does change, but you are denying the value of the change from racial encroachment until extinction, to differential reproductive success of variants whenever it suits you.

​

I don't think Schrafinator should get away with her "post 666" on a forum that is supposed to be moderated, and after she was warned.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Wow, what a short response, Syamsu, I'm surprised.I did respond to your post, point by point, just like you requested and yet you do not return the same courtesy.I wasn't "warned", BTW, you were.Also, I responded to your Genghis Kahn pst like you wanted me to, as well. No response?

I'm sorry.... 'post 666'I missed that and it sounds fun.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I'm sorry.... 'post 666'

​

I missed that and it sounds fun.

​

---

Oh, yes, I am obviously the Devil.LOL!

Your logic is still faulty, except if you would argue that Nazism is not genocidal.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Schraffinator made a post that solely consisted of a comparison between me and a "completely nuts" former employer of hers. This hatefull post was the 666th post she made to this forum.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Your logic is still faulty, except if you would argue that Nazism is not genocidal.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

My logic is perfectly correct.My point was that you missed the original point.I asked you point blank if you did or did not agree that genocide and racism existed before Darwinism was concieved, and that Genghis Khan couldn't have been influenced by that which didn't exist. That was the original point. Please respond. A yes or no answer will suffice.

Saying "so what" is not much of a response.You did not apply races of man encroaching until they finally become extinct to your own situation. That is the main thing I expected in response.For the rest of it. Do you really believe that all variations are competitive? Have you spend any time thinking about that?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yes there was genocide and racism before Darwin even existed, and before Ghengis Kahn even existed.Your logic is still faulty, except if you deny Nazism is genocidal. Do you deny Nazism is genocidal?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Schraffinator made a post that solely consisted of a comparison between me and a "completely nuts" former employer of hers. This hatefull post was the 666th post she made to this forum.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

The important part of my 666th post about my employer was not that she was completely nuts. That was really just a colorful detail.The important part was that she held on desperately to the notion that it wasn't her own behavior which was driving all the employees away; it was always something wrong with the people, not her, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, including people telling her repeatedly that she was behaving unreasonably.What I find amazing, Syamsu, is that even though you finally admit that science can use terms like "competition" and "success" without value judgement, you STILL hang on to the belief that current evolutionary theory actively promotes racism.(BTW, do you or do you not agree that offspring often compete for resources with their parents? Please answer this question. A yes or no answer will suffice)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Yes there was genocide and racism before Darwin even existed, and before Ghengis Kahn even existed.

​

Your logic is still faulty, except if you deny Nazism is genocidal. Do you deny Nazism is genocidal?

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

No, of course I don't deny that Naziism is genocidal.What we are trying to explain is that racism came first, and then, through the millenia, people have looked for religious or intellectual justifications for that racism.You seem fixated on Darwinism, even though there are many other philosophical and religious justifications for racism to choose from.Considering that many, many racist organizations are also quite religious, and actually oppose/haven't heard of Darwinism/Evolution, don't you think that you are fighting the wrong battle?