Elitism and Nazism

Maybe Syamsu is thinking of the links between the nazis and paganism. The SS in particular was associated with a number of attempts to bring about a new nazi neo-paganism.

Now where did I put my kilt?

Can't we all just get along?

I have wondered Syamsu, and I hope I don't digress too far from the topic of the thread, about your view on evolution. A number of people, both creationist and pro-evolution supporters, have reffered to you as being a creationist. I have certainly found your views on natural selection to be highly unorthodox and your critique of darwinism quite strident, but I don't remember anything that struck me as particularly creationist.Where would you say you sit on the evoltuiton-creation question, setting aside for a moment the question of the moral issues you have with Darwinism?Thanks,Wounded

So Syamsu, you are now claiming that astrophysicists don't compare the brightness of stars? Perhaps stars show no variation either.Tell us, how much has been learned about Stellar evolution (which I hope we all realise is a distinct concept from that of biological evolution) simply by counting the number of stars rather than by, say, comparing spectral lines and luminosity.

Suppose they suggested that one star was brighter than another? Would this not be 'venacular[sic] language which is conducive to judgementalism', and if not why not?

You have yet to show any prevalence of the use of the word goodness in the evolutionary literature. Fitness, yes certainly,has widespread usage but clearly isn't 'judgemental' enough for you. Goodness I have only seen in one paper so far, possibly one you yourself referenced although it might have been me, outside of the context of goodness of fit.

I'd be very surprised. the only, arguably, mainstream evolutionist you have presented as agreeing with you is SJ Gould. I would be interested if you could find many of his essays which agree with your viewpoint.No one is arguing that selective pressures do not act on individual members of a population, the point is that informative data about the process of Natural Selection and evolution within that population cannot be gained by looking at one individual alone. The data are only informative when you look at the population as a whole, which is where the comparison comes in.

I think it is perfectly correct to say that the structure of the haemoglobin molecule in the population varies, although it is a discontinuous rather than a continuous variation. As it is discontinuous ther is no average mean but there is an average mode and there might be a median, I'm not quite sure offhand how many isoforms of haemoglobin there are, but I know that it is more than one and therefore shows variation.You admit that genetic difference exist, in what way are these differences not variation?

So in fact you show no mainstream evolutionist who agrees with you. The actual selective pressures act on both the individual and the population but looking at the individual will not show you any trend. I personally don't care if you want to say that Natural selection, as in the force of a particular selective pressure, acts on the individual, but doing so gives you absolutely no explanatory ability, all you can say is that one specific creature died due to one specific selective pressure, this will not allow you to determine anything about the dynamics or genetics of the population as a whole. The only way to look at them as a whole is to study either the whole of, or a large sample of, the population it is this broad focus which brings the comparison in, in the same way that looking at a large sample of stars shows comparative differences in a variety of factors.

The blind eyes of a cave fish contribute 'either to survival, or to reproduction' in what way exactly?