Misuse of evolution

I have not "finally" admitted that, I wrote this in my first post. Incedentally there are numerous Darwinist philosophers who would disagree that Darwinist science does not contain valuejudgement.Yes offspring would often compete with their parents.They are mostly exactly the same, so they go after exactly the same resources. But when you have variation then that gives rise to the possibility of the variants using different resources, because of their different trait.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[b]Saying "so what" is not much of a response.[/QUOTE]I said much more than that and you know it.

quote:

---

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.

---

There is only one race of humans. There are different cultures, and variations in morphology, but I am quite sure that we are all one species.We could blow each other up with nuclear weapons until we are all extinct, I suppose, but that isn't what you are talking about.I have already explained that cultures assimilate into other cultures through contact, intermarriage, war, etc.I do not consider the African American family that lives down the street from me to be "encroaching" upon me, because we are not of a different race. I might consider an invasion by the French, forcing all Americans to speak French, wear French clothes, eat French food, and only learn about French history to be an encroachment by a different culture, but the food would inevitably get better, so that part would be an improvement. The clothes, too.

quote:

---

For the rest of it. Do you really believe that all variations are competitive? Have you spend any time thinking about that?

---

No, I don't think that competition is the ONLY factor in evolution, but neither is it to be downplayed or ignored, which is what you are basically suggesting.Please answer the question:Please give several real-world examples of reproduction in which individuals do not compete for resources with other individuals, including their mates and/or offspring if they reproduce sexually.Have you thought about why women with diabetes have such large babies?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/b][/QUOTE]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-26-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]I have not "finally" admitted that, I wrote this in my first post.[/QUOTE]OK, so then why, oh why, have you been going on and on about how Darwinism promotes racism, then????

quote:

---

Incedentally there are numerous Darwinist philosophers who would disagree that Darwinist science does not contain valuejudgement.

---

Which ones? Citations, please.

quote:

---

Yes offspring would often compete with their parents.

---

Then competition is an important part of reproduction, no?

quote:

---

They are mostly exactly the same, so they go after exactly the same resources. But when you have variation then that gives rise to the possibility of the variants using different resources, because of their different trait.

---

The offspring are not exactly the same, actually.Sure, variation might give rise to using different resources, but it is highly unlikely that this would happen in a single generation.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-26-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

This is formulated incorrectly.You are trying to make a causal relationship between Darwinism and genocide. That would be formulated:If genocide, then Darwinism.via a rule of inference known as modus tollens if you deny the latter:not darwinismYou should get:Not genocidal.Which contradicts history. Ghengis Khan was genocidal and not Darwinists.If you formulate it the other way:If Darwinism, then genocidal.not genocidalThen not Darwinism.Which is contradicted by all of us not-genocidal people who happen to believe Darwin got things more or less right.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

But this argument about racism coming first presupposes that anything later like Nazism doesn't have the potential to facillitate an increase in racism, or sustain it, just because it came later then the first instance of racism.Is Nazism a justification for pre-existing racism? It is also an originator of racism through indoctrination of the Hitleryouth for instance.So would you acknowledge that the question of when the first instance of racism was, is irrellevant to the question if or not Nazism facillitates an increase in racism or sustains racism?Even if Darwinism would be a relatively small factor it would be worth it to discuss it at length.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Competition of variants isn't required for differential reproductive success of variants to apply. I only said that in my opinion comparing of variants is only meaningful when the variations are competitive. Differential reproductive success of variants, compares the variants, even when they are not competitive, when they use different resources. So the change cuts out the comparison which suggests (not requires) competition between variants.So what I'm saying is that when describing a variant A, you describe the environment it uses for reproduction, and if another variant B shows up in it's environment then you describe it, but only in so far as it influences the reproduction of the variant A, just like you would with any other environmental factor. If you would compare at all, then it has priority to compare the exactsame organisms, in different environmental condiditions, over comparing variants.There seem to be an awful lot of different sorts of organisms about. So it is generally true that differences are not neccesarily wholy competitive, since if they were absolutely competitive we would only have a single sort of organism, which had competed the rest into extinction. It's also ridiculous to compare the rate of reproduction of ants, to that of bacteria. So in a broad sense, competitive and differential reproductive success of variants is clearly nonsensical. The same goes for the narrow sense in which Darwinists apply it, although I don't know of any specific example. But this is not a problem, because you would have to give reasons why it wouldn't be equally nonsensical in the narrow sense. It could only not be nonsensical, if there were some other not-mentioned mechanisms at work, which wouldn't make it nonsensical to describe in terms of differential reproductive success.There are short and longbeaked finches, which use different resources through their different beaksize. When the first longbeak appears, it's reproducionrate is much higher then the shortbeak, since it has much more resources at it's disposal. And then when it reaches a populationlimit it would have a reproductionrate same as shortbeaks. So what's the point here in comparing? There is no point in that, the point is in the relation of the long beak with the resources, in view of the event of it's reproduction.You are not using the theory of races of man encroaching until some finally become extinct, you are denying it's use. First you make it into cultural encroachment, and then you say that even this cultural encroachment doesn't apply to you. Does the theory of gravity also not apply to you? A general theory of reproduction would apply to you, even if you didn't actually reproduce. Darwin suggest you belong to some race, and some other race is encroaching on your race, or vice-versa, which is a deceptive way of using a theory of reproduction.I don't know why women with diabetes have large babies.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

SyamsuWhat are the examples of Dawkins' writings which are implicitly or explicitly "known to be promoting racism". You need to provide the evidence to support such a repugnant assertion. Your message #77 failed to provide any evidence to support your assertion.

His theory about selfish genes and kinselection in context of sociobiology. This translates into natural selection has provided us with the inherent morality to care for people based on their biological similarity to us.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Since the Admin replied to your message calling me pigheaded and wishing me a nice closed life, I took it to mean you were warned also. Again, you are continuosly combative and defensive, and many times openly hateful. You are also continuously wrong on points, you don't seem to have made any effort to find out what my argument actually is before dismissing it. So once again, I ask the admin to take action for your post in which you compared me to your former employer.I am just arguing in a similar way Gould argued about Darwinists and their science, including Dawkins and Haeckel, although maybe not Darwin. Gould criticized adaptionists and Haeckel's biogenetic law for being both objectively false, and inappriopately leading to valuejudgements at the same time. Since you previously referred to Gould for support, this should mean something to you. I am doing the same thing, but then with the main application of Darwinism, differential reproductive success. The comparisonpart is false on scientific standards, and it leads to valuejudgements also.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is a clear formulation of your false logic. You implicitly deny Nazism is genocidal, because Ghengis Kahn was not motivated by Nazism.Now you bring in other argument that covers your mistake, but this is false also, because conspicuously ALL of you do not apply Darwin's Darwinism, as in races of man encroach on one another until some finally become extinct, to your own situation, you deny it's use. You imply that you all use Darwinism, but this is demonstrably not the case. The one person that did apply it, me, did have genocidal and racist thoughts on account of it.I think you should acknowlege your mistakes.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]But this argument about racism coming first presupposes that anything later like Nazism doesn't have the potential to facillitate an increase in racism, or sustain it, just because it came later then the first instance of racism.[/QUOTE]I agree that Naziism promotes racism. Read ANY Nazi or white supremacist writing and it is rife with genocide and racist notions (and religious references, actually).What you are suggesting (correct me if I am mischaracterizing your views) is that the SCIENCE of Evolutionary Biology, as it is practiced today, actively promotes racism and genocide.Darwin carried some of the social attitudes of his day, it's true, but this did not affect the validity of his science. One can be an "ist" and still do brilliant scientific work.I mean, look at all of the horribly mysoginist scientists who have done great work. They just hated women, too.

quote:

---

Is Nazism a justification for pre-existing racism?

---

In the mind of Nazis, I would imagine so.Just like religion is the justification for pre-existing racism for some religious people.

quote:

---

It is also an originator of racism through indoctrination of the Hitleryouth for instance.

---

Naziism didn't invent racism. It promotes it.Certain religions didn't invent racism. They promote it.See the difference?

quote:

---

So would you acknowledge that the question of when the first instance of racism was, is irrellevant to the question if or not Nazism facillitates an increase in racism or sustains racism?

---

At this point, I am wondering why we are even talking about Naziism?

quote:

---

Even if Darwinism would be a relatively small factor it would be worth it to discuss it at length.

---

I think that we would be much better served to discuss religion's role in promoting and sustaining racism and genocide, considering that most of the world's population believes in some kind of God/gods, and only a tiny fraction of the world's population has ever even heard of Charles Darwin, let alone has ever read any of his work, let alone understands it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
His theory about selfish genes and kinselection in context of sociobiology. This translates into natural selection has provided us with the inherent morality to care for people based on their biological similarity to us.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

SyamsuYou fail to provide any reference to any writing of Dawkins which promotes racism. I think that the way you interpret the selfish gene analogy and kin slection is more revealing about your thinking than evidence against Dawkins. You are seeing things which are not there and which no one else sees.

You are confusing arguments about science being neutral as per definition, and your argument about what comes first. Please answer the question.Do you now acknowledge that the question of "races of man encroaching on each other until some finally become extinct" leading to racist or genocidal thinking is irrellevant to the question when the first instance of racism or genocide was?I think when discussing racism it's more important that you have to try to make your argument very specific and precise, then to make generalising guesses about where racism is mainly coming from.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Competition of variants isn't required for differential reproductive success of variants to apply. I only said that in my opinion comparing of variants is only meaningful when the variations are competitive. Differential reproductive success of variants, compares the variants, even when they are not competitive, when they use different resources. So the change cuts out the comparison which suggests (not requires) competition between variants.[/QUOTE]

​

Please provide several real-world examples of reproduction without ANY competition for resources.

​

This would be the second time I have asked you this.

​

quote:

---

So what I'm saying is that when describing a variant A, you describe the environment it uses for reproduction, and if another variant B shows up in it's environment then you describe it, but only in so far as it influences the reproduction of the variant A, just like you would with any other environmental factor. If you would compare at all, then it has priority to compare the exactsame organisms, in different environmental condiditions, over comparing variants.

​

There seem to be an awful lot of different sorts of organisms about. So it is generally true that differences are not neccesarily wholy competitive, since if they were absolutely competitive we would only have a single sort of organism, which had competed the rest into extinction. It's also ridiculous to compare the rate of reproduction of ants, to that of bacteria. So in a broad sense, competitive and differential reproductive success of variants is clearly nonsensical.

---

​

It is not nonsensical. It is COMPLICATED.

​

No one ever said that competition is the only factor in NS.

​

It is, however, a major factor, and cannot be ignored, as you seem to want to.

​

Differential reproductive success doesn't mean ONLY competition, which is what you still cling to even though you have been told repeatedly that this is not the case. If the end result, for ANY reason, is that individuals with trait A produce more offspring than indiviuals with trait B, the individuals with trait A are, by deninition, more sucessful at proliferating their heritable traits.

​

quote:

---

The same goes for the narrow sense in which Darwinists apply it, although I don't know of any specific example.

---

​

If you can't actually come up with a specific example of "how Darwinists apply it", then how can you claim to know "how Darwinists apply it?"

​

quote:

---

But this is not a problem, because you would have to give reasons why it wouldn't be equally nonsensical in the narrow sense. It could only not be nonsensical, if there were some other not-mentioned mechanisms at work, which wouldn't make it nonsensical to describe in terms of differential reproductive success.

---

​

I don't understand this.

​

quote:

---

There are short and longbeaked finches, which use different resources through their different beaksize. When the first longbeak appears, it's reproducionrate is much higher then the shortbeak, since it has much more resources at it's disposal.

---

​

There wouldn't be a "first appearance of a longbeak".

​

There is already slight variation within any population, including shortbeak finches. Some shortbeaks have slightly longer beaks than other shortbeaks, just like some people have slightly longer noses that other people, or longer arms, or legs, etc.

​

When the environment produed conditions favorable to food that is more easily obtained by a longer beak, the shortbeaks with slightly longer beaks might have an advantage, so with the ability to utilize food less available to their shorter-beaked shortbeak relatives, they are more likely to be able to produce numerous and healthy offspring than the undernourished shorbeaks.

​

Eventually, gradually, over generations, if the environment continues to favor longbeak-type food the average beak length of the shortbeaks will increase.

​

Of course, if the environmental change is so great and sudden that even the longest beaked shortbeak cannot get enough food to survive/reproduce, the population might be wiped out. IOW, go extinct.

​

This is a very simple example, however, and many, many other factors and traits come into play which affect the outcome of the scenario.

​

{QUOTE And then when it reaches a populationlimit it would have a reproductionrate same as shortbeaks. So what's the point here in comparing? There is no point in that, the point is in the relation of the long beak with the resources, in view of the event of it's reproduction.

---

Ask the shortbeaks, which might be driven into extinction in your scenario, what the point of comparing is.

quote:

---

You are not using the theory of races of man encroaching until some finally become extinct, you are denying it's use.

---

Bingo. At least the social Darwinist way you frequently use it.So, how many races of man do you think there are? I think there is one.

quote:

---

First you make it into cultural encroachment, and then you say that even this cultural encroachment doesn't apply to you.

---

When did I say that culteral encroachment didn't apply to me? Cultural encroachment applies to everyone who isn't a hermit or isn't kept prisoner in their parent's basement.

quote:

---

Does the theory of gravity also not apply to you?

---

OK, there is no such thing as a "theory of races of man encroaching until some finally become extinct" except to you, Syamsu.

quote:

---

A general theory of reproduction would apply to you, even if you didn't actually reproduce. Darwin suggest you belong to some race, and some other race is encroaching on your race, or vice-versa, which is a deceptive way of using a theory of reproduction.

---

You are treating science as if it was literary interpretation, taking isolated bits of text, fragments of sentences, and trying to wrestle some kind of social dictate out of the ToE that ISN'T THERE.I can do the same thing:Who Is Bin Laden? - Edicts And Statements | Hunting Bin Laden | FRONTLINE | PBS"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.""The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."These are strongly religiously-influenced genocidal and racist quotes from Osama Bin Ladin.Am I to conclude, then, that Islam is inherently racist and genocidal, and that Islam actively promotes genocide and racism?Maybe you know better than me what is inside my head, or maybe you are psychic and can read my mind, Syamsu, so I leave it up to you...What do I feel about races encroaching on me? What am I supposed to think about it, according to you? What is the "correct" answer, according to you? Obviously, there is only one possible "correct" answer, and it's one you have already decided upon, right?Why bother asking the question if you aren't even going to pretend to care about the replies?You are trying to demonstrate that racism is promoted by Evolutionary theory by pointing some isolated words of Darwin. Demanding that we examine what the idea of "races encroaching, etc." means to us, then rejecting the answers we provide when it isn't what you want to hear, takes up the rest of your time.What you haven't demonstrated is that the theory, as it is used today, promotes racism. Misuse of the theory might add fuel to someone's fire, but misuse of religion/politics/philosophy does the same thing on a MUCH grander scale, no?

quote:

---

I don't know why women with diabetes have large babies.

---

Because women with diabetes are at a competitive disadvantage with their babies! Indeed, babies will often induce gestational diabetes in their mothers; women with pre-exisiting diabetes will lose out. Babies supress the insulin in their mother's bodies, and mothers tend to produce large amounts of insulin to compensate. This situation only makes sense as an example of competition; this is an evolutionary arms race.Thus, competition exists between parents and children. How do you suppose to extract the idea of competition from your "Theory of Reproduction", when the very act of reproduction creates a situation of competition?Mother-Fetus Competition------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Since Dawkins has to write sidenotes that his theory is not supposed to be understood as promoting racism, your argument that noone else sees it as promoting racism but me is clearly false.Please acknowledge your falsehood.You also misrepresent my position about Dawkins theory. I don't consider his selfish gene theory to contain valuejudgement, but that his theory is conducive to valuejudgements. I have repeatedly and explicitly said this. Any promotion, which is a word somebody else introduced, should be seen in this light.Please acknowledge your misrepresentation.I would also like to ask the Admin that this discussion be moved to the great debate forum, where the argument will be moderated. That arguments that are shown to contain errors are retracted, and not endlessly repeated. From the beginning on I have said several times that I don't think Darwinism contains valuejudgements, yet it has the potential to influence valuejudgements IMO. If that distinction is too fine for someone to grasp, then I think such a person should consider leaving the discussion because of that.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu