Misuse of evolution

Before you have numerous times said you had applied racial encroachment until extinction to your own situation. Now you say that you deny it's use. Do you now retract all your previous argument that was based on you having applied the theory of racial encroachment until extinction to your own situation?When trying to describe something complicated you need to look for simple principles, and then add complexity to your theory in stages when needed. You don't start out with a complex theory, because that provides much less flexibility to deal with different situations. So will you now acknowledge that to describe complex situations you need a flexible theory to start with? Will you acknowledge that a general theory of reproduction is obviously much more flexible then differential reproductive success of variants?Differential reproductive success of variants doesn't mean competition at all, as I have numerous times explained to you. Competition is not a neccessary part of it.In my theoretical example longbeaks and shortbeaks have different resources, they have their own environmental niche. Again, what is the point of comparing reproductionrates in my theoretical example? (do not change the theoretical example and then discuss that changed example, because then you are not answering my question)Your example of large babies, in the end is only an example of reproduction any which way it works. You are wrong not to even mention reproduction in your example. Describe this in terms of differential reproductive success, which is what you are supposed to be defending here.Some "thousands" of years ago there were babies who did suppress insulin, and babies who did not much etc. The rate of reproduction of those that ....This doesn't strike me as very meaningful way of describing insulin suppression by babies. You even ommitted the whole thing yourself here, even when you are supposed to be defending it's use!regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What Bin Laden said is obviously conducive to thoughts about genocide and racism, as you point out. And so is races of man encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct applied to your own situation, obviously conducive to genocidal and racist thinking. This (edited to clarify: this means the theory of racial encroachment) was what Darwin posited at the beginning of his book, saying that this will be proved to be true in the rest of his book.Whether or not the Quran is conducive to that sort of thinking, then you would have to look at the Quran. Psychologists would have to investigate what thoughts come up on account of specific texts with numerous subjects reading those texts.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

He didn't warn me. He only said that those frustrated with you should stop replying to you. I have been reminded of the rules once or twice here, but Percy does so in a very direct way, so I don't take it a warning. I just needed to take a break from your non-responsiveness.

quote:

---

Again, you are continuosly combative and defensive, and many times openly hateful.

---

If I am combative, or defend myself during a DEBATE, why are you surprised? Aren't we supposed to be arguing, then providing support to my defense?I don't think you want to start pointing fingers with regards to being "openly hateful". Didn't you basically call some of us racists a little bit ago, and didn't you call one of my posts "depraved?" I'm no saint, but there's plenty of nastiness to go around for all of us, Syamsu.

quote:

---

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.

---

Um, if I am having trouble understanding your argument at this point, I don't think it's my fault. Blaming the student because they were taught by a confused, unclear teacher isn't quite fair.I think you might be confusing my totoal disagreement with you as somehow not understanding you. I think you also might be quite sensitive to my bluntness and aggressive debate style.

quote:

---

So once again, I ask the admin to take action for your post in which you compared me to your former employer.

---

I will remind you at this point that it is against the rules of debate here to continually repeat the same assertions and to simply ignore relevant questions put to you.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.Gould accepted differential reproductive success as correct.Show me in-context quotes by Gould which say otherwise.While you are at it, why don't you provide quotes for those "many Darwinist philosophers" you referred to to support your assertion that they think that darwinism contains value judgements.While you are at it, why don't you answer all the other points and questions you have avoided answering?[Repaired the quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 07-29-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

Nobody has ever denied that Darwinism has the potential to influence racism, but this is only when people MISUNDERSTAND and MISUSE the theory.Besides, this is not what you were claiming. You were claiming that Darwinism ACTIVELY PROMOTES racism.If all you want to say is that Darwinism has the potential to influence people who misunderstand it to think in a racist way, then so what? The same thing can be said of practically any religion or philosophy.You are blaming Dawkins for the stupidity of some people.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-28-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]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. [/QUOTE]The only "correct" answer is the one you have come up with, right? Because the answers we have come up with are different from yours, they are wrong. Don't you see a problem with this?Considering that many of us have actual advanced University training in Biology and science, and you have no college level science at all (if I remember correctly) perhaps you don't want to be so confidenct that you are applying the theory correctly.In fact, I know you aren't applying the theory correctly.We have repeatedly pointed out your errors of confusing social darwinism with actual science, but you continue to confuse the two.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Before you have numerous times said you had applied racial encroachment until extinction to your own situation. Now you say that you deny it's use. Do you now retract all your previous argument that was based on you having applied the theory of racial encroachment until extinction to your own situation?[/QUOTE]

​

I deny it's use in the way you mean it.

​

How many races of man do you think there are? I think there is one.

​

quote:

---

When trying to describe something complicated you need to look for simple principles, and then add complexity to your theory in stages when needed. You don't start out with a complex theory, because that provides much less flexibility to deal with different situations. So will you now acknowledge that to describe complex situations you need a flexible theory to start with? Will you acknowledge that a general theory of reproduction is obviously much more flexible then differential reproductive success of variants?

---

​

Thank you for the scince 101 lecture.

​

No, I will not agree that your "theory" is more flexible. Your theory does not describe how nature actually works, so it is inaccurate and simplistic.

​

Your theory does not take into account or downplays competition among individuals as a factor in reproduction, which is clearly not the case, as you have agreed to. This is evidenced by the competition between mates, siblings, parent/offspring, etc.

---

Differential reproductive success of variants doesn't mean competition at all, as I have numerous times explained to you. Competition is not a neccessary part of it.[/QUOTE]Then it doesn't describe how nature really works, so it isn't a very useful theory.

quote:

---

In my theoretical example longbeaks and shortbeaks have different resources, they have their own environmental niche. Again, what is the point of comparing reproductionrates in my theoretical example? (do not change the theoretical example and then discuss that changed example, because then you are not answering my question)

---

You misrepresented what ACTUALLY happens when two similar species, living in the SAME environment, are put under selection pressure by that environment.You don't understand evolutionary theory, so I corrected your example to reflect what happens in nature and how evolutionary theory describes it.If you want to pick a different example, such as, say, bacteria that live on the top of a mountain somewhere and bacteria that live near deep sea ocean vents somewhere, then yes, they would mainly be competing for completely different resources.But this is not the example you gave. You gave an example which implied that the longbeaks and shortbeaks were under the SAME ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES because they were in the SAME ENVIRONMENT.

quote:

---

Your example of large babies, in the end is only an example of reproduction any which way it works. You are wrong not to even mention reproduction in your example. Describe this in terms of differential reproductive success, which is what you are supposed to be defending here.

​

Some "thousands" of years ago there were babies who did suppress insulin, and babies who did not much etc. The rate of reproduction of those that ....

​

This doesn't strike me as very meaningful way of describing insulin suppression by babies. You even ommitted the whole thing yourself here, even when you are supposed to be defending it's use!

---

So, do you deny that this is an evolutionary arms race, and that both child in utero and mother are competing with each other?That was my point in bringing it up. To show that competition occurrs DURING REPRODUCTION ITSELF, even though you want to downplay or eliminate it from the ToE.How do you deal with this competition, which in past years (without dibetes medications) probably led to the deaths of many mothers and children, in a theory of reproduction which ignores competition?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
What Bin Laden said is obviously conducive to thoughts about genocide and racism, as you point out. And so is races of man encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct applied to your own situation, obviously conducive to genocidal and racist thinking. This (edited to clarify: this means the theory of racial encroachment) was what Darwin posited at the beginning of his book, saying that this will be proved to be true in the rest of his book.

​

Whether or not the Quran is conducive to that sort of thinking, then you would have to look at the Quran. Psychologists would have to investigate what thoughts come up on account of specific texts with numerous subjects reading those texts.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-28-2002]

---

How predictable.You seem to have "missed" a whole section of my post. Please reply. Here is it again, for your convenience:"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?"[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-28-2002]

Given that you have said that it is possible to use words like "competition" and "success" in a non-value-laden way in a scientific context, why are we contunuing with this discussion?Are you suggesting that the science of Evolutionary Biology, as it is practiced today, actively promotes racism and genocide?If so, then provide examples as evidence.If not, then the discussion is over.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]It is a clear formulation of your false logic. You implicitly deny Nazism is genocidal, because Ghengis Kahn was not motivated by Nazism.[/quote][/b]This is YOUR argument, not mine. This is YOUR argument--- the one that we have been telling you is invalid.

quote:

---

Now you bring in other argument that covers your mistake

---

It is the same argument.

quote:

---

but this is false also, because conspicuously ALL of you do not apply Darwin's Darwinism

---

We do not apply it as per your biases. Besides which, Darwin is NOT the final word on evolutionary theory. The idea has evolved over the past hundred years. Why focus on a century old theorist anyway? I am sticking my neck out a little here but I'd bet that NO SCIENTIST today applies strict Darwinian theory.

quote:

---

as in races of man encroach on one another until some finally become extinct, to your own situation, you deny it's use.

---

What you are not getting is that evolution does not imply this. Look, take a thousand people and put them on a small island. Those people best adapted to deal with the conditions on the island--- say, high temperature, high humidity, restricted diet-- will survive and reproduce. Over time the poulation will change. That doesn't mean that the people on the island are slaughtering one another. Your ideas are just way too simplistic.

quote:

---

The one person that did apply it, me, did have genocidal and racist thoughts on account of it.

---

Sucks to be the ONLY PERSON CAPABLE OF THINKING CORRECTLY doesn't it?

quote:

---

I think you should acknowlege your mistakes.

---

I gave you hard logic. You've ignored it.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I exchanged Nazism for Darwinism in your argument. This shouldn't have been a problem if your logic actually worked, which it doesn't.Now you bring in *many* more arguments. You have to lead arguments to a conclusion, before bringing in new ones.Since you do not acknowledge your mistakes I will not respond to you any further.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]I exchanged Nazism for Darwinism in your argument. This shouldn't have been a problem if your logic actually worked, which it doesn't. [/quote][/b]But you are not using my argument, a point you seem incable of understanding....------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Actually, as I realise now, there is a relatively easy way in which races of man encroaching can be understood in a non-racist way. As far as I know when you have plants with 3 (heritable) leaves, and a plant with 4 (heritable) leaves, you have already 2 races of plants, irrespective of what other heritable differences the plants might have. So by this definition of race there are thousands of human races, each person belonging to many different races at once. It's a shame that Darwin didn't use this more consistently accurate, and less conducive to racism way of describing. In retrospect he spent too much of his effort on thinking about inferior should not marry superior and things like that, and not enough time formalizing his theory.Again I would change my opinion on this issue if research by psychologists would show otherwise, or if you or anybody else on this forum would demonstrate their thoughts on account of it, and they wouldn't come up with racist or genocidal thoughts on account of it. You are wrong to repeat an accusation/argument without acknowledging my previous counterargument. You do not apply Darwin's racial encroachment to your own situation, therefore no evidence has been provided by which I could change my opinion. Please acknowledge your mistake in not acknowledging my counterargument in repeating your accusation/argument.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have already expressed exactly how I think current theory is conducive to valuejudgements elsewhere in this thread.You have to stop shifting from argument to argument and mixing arguments up. If you acknowledge below then that would invalidate most of what you previously have brought up as counterargument.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?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are using an entirely wrong way to formulate scientific theories. A general theory of reproduction neither denies or affirms competition. There is competition, mutual benefit, and mutual loss between organisms, and independent reproduction besides that. Differential reproductive succes prejudices to see things only in terms of competition, and not the others. Especially since the world of living beings is much unique a general theory of reproduction as the basis is much more usefull. You can add the complicating factor of competition to the general theory of reproduction whenever you see it.Differential reproductive success of variants is the current standard way of describing in Darwinism. You say not to agree with the current standard.Again, please respond to any realworld, or theoretical example where the variants through their variation use different resources. What is the use of comparing in such a situation?Again, a general theory of reproduction doesn't ignore competition, it just doesn't assume it. All it does is describe how organisms reproduce. If competition is a part of reproduction, then it will be described by the general theory of reproduction with the added factor of competition.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Actually, as I realise now, there is a relatively easy way in which races of man encroaching can be understood in a non-racist way. As far as I know when you have plants with 3 (heritable) leaves, and a plant with 4 (heritable) leaves, you have already 2 races of plants, irrespective of what other heritable differences the plants might have. So by this definition of race there are thousands of human races, each person belonging to many different races at once. It's a shame that Darwin didn't use this more consistently accurate, and less conducive to racism way of describing. In retrospect he spent too much of his effort on thinking about inferior should not marry superior and things like that, and not enough time formalizing his theory.[/QUOTE]

​

You actually haven't established that he spent very much time on it at all. All you have been doing is endlessly repeating a couple of lines from Darwin's writings while ignoring everything else he ever did.

​

Can you please quote Darwin's opinions about whom should marry whom again? Source of quote also, please.

​

quote:

---

Again I would change my opinion on this issue if research by psychologists would show otherwise, or if you or anybody else on this forum would demonstrate their thoughts on account of it, and they wouldn't come up with racist or genocidal thoughts on account of it.

---

​

I have told you repeatedly that I have thought and thought about this issue, and I do not come up with racist or genocidal thoughts.

​

Of course, my honest answer is not acceptable to you.

​

You have stacked the deck so you won't have to consider or accept that which you haven't already decided is true.

​

You do realize, of course, that the findings of psychologists concerning people's reaction to reading Darwin's theory have NOTHING to do with the validity of the theory.

​

I mean, people were imprisoned for suggesting that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system. The Church's extreme reaction to Galileo's findings didn't make the findings any less true.

​

[QUOTE]You are wrong to repeat an accusation/argument without acknowledging my previous counterargument. You do not apply Darwin's racial encroachment to your own situation, therefore no evidence has been provided by which I could change my opinion. Please acknowledge your mistake in not acknowledging my counterargument in repeating your accusation/argument.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B]

---

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!