Why Did Darwinism Emerge?

[toggle]

there is absolutely nothing incompatable between an understanding of an organism adapting to changes in it's environment and an understanding that external events can cause changes in that environment.

 

[phildwyer]

what a crock of utter shit.

This is beneath you. It makes you look really stupid, which I don't think you are. Leave this kind of thing to Truxta and his ilk.

 

[Crispy]

Do they?

I thought they just basically slammed into the earth for no apparent reason, destroying millions of species in the process.

In what sense are they doing any "work," or "selecting" anything? And who is using the language of intentionality now?

The species that survive the event are selected for. Those that don't are selected against. The K-T impact drasticly reduced the available sunlight, thus killing off the majority of large land animals, who could not find enough to eat. Smaller animals survived on buried food, corpses of larger animals, underground animals, insects etc. The oceans were much less affected.

There's nothing in the response to the impact that conflicts with Darwin at all. In *this* environment* there are *these* species. Those that are best suited to this environment will reproduce more succesfully. The only thing he didn't fully anticipate was the rate of change in the environment.

 

[Crispy]

There should be a lot of evolution on the moon then

 

[toggle]

That's a fair question, which I missed before. Let me sum up my case.

My argument is that (A) Darwin's theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature.

From this it follows that (B) anyone who disagrees with Adam Smith's economics must also disagree with Darwin's theory of natural selection.

I take it that (A) is relatively uncontroversial. (B) is certainly controversial, but I have never shied away from controversy.

i would say that you are living in a dreamworld if you think that believing that darwin's theories are based on any economic theory is a non controversial position.

 

[bi0boy]

That's a fair question, which I missed before. Let me sum up my case.

My argument is that (A) Darwin's theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature.

From this it follows that (B) anyone who disagrees with Adam Smith's economics must also disagree with Darwin's theory of natural selection.

I take it that (A) is relatively uncontroversial. (B) is certainly controversial, but I have never shied away from controversy.

You remind me of my mate Dave who smokes too much skunk.

 

[toggle]

This is beneath you. It makes you look really stupid, which I don't think you are. Leave this kind of thing to Truxta and his ilk.

it's a simple statement of fact phil, you are talking utter shit. nothing about stating the blindingly obvious could possibly make me look stupid, certainly not when compared to the utter shit you are posting

 

[Crispy]

If Phil's meta-thesis is true, then we should be able to find major influences of political ideologies in other major scientific theories.

 

[gentlegreen]

This is all about Dogma.

What to do with all the nasty shit in the old testament ?

 

[phildwyer]

The species that survive the event are selected for. Those that don't are selected against. The K-T impact drasticly reduced the available sunlight, thus killing off the majority of large land animals, who could not find enough to eat. Smaller animals survived on buried food, corpses of larger animals, underground animals etc. The oceans were much less affected.

There's nothing in the response to the impact that conflicts with Darwin at all. In *this* environment* there are *these* species. Those that are best suited to this environment will reproduce more succesfully. The only thing he didn't fully anticipate was the rate of change in the environment.

It's a question of causality. Darwin located causality at the smallest possible level: the competitive adaptation of organisms. Today's Darwinists are even more extreme in this regard: they locate it at the genetic level.

But in reality, as the K-T event showed, causality must be located at a much higher level. The ultimate cause of evolution turns out to be the collisions between inconceivably distant, inconceivably huge galaxies, which produced the asteroids, one of which turns out to be the most important and ultimate cause of evolution.

The significance of these different approaches to causality is that Darwin's micrological approach is incompatible with intelligent design, while the macrological approach is not.

 

[Crispy]

This is all about Dogma.

What to do with all the nasty shit in the old testament ?

It's got nothing to do with the abrahamic god or their followers at all. Phil's got all sorts of weird beliefs, but Jahweh is not one of them.

 

[phildwyer]

If Phil's meta-thesis is true, then we should be able to find major influences of political ideologies in other major scientific theories.

Not only that, the distinction between science, politics and economics crumbles away.

 

[Crispy]

It's a question of causality. Darwin located causality at the smallest possible level: the competitive adaptation of organisms. Today's Darwinists are even more extreme in this regard: they locate it at the genetic level.

But in reality, as the K-T event showed, causality must be located at a much higher level. The ultimate cause of evolution turns out to be the collisions between inconceivably distant, inconceivably huge galaxies, which produced the asteroids, one of which turns out to be the most important and ultimate cause of evolution.

The significance of these different approaches to causality is that Darwin's micrological approach is incompatible with intelligent design, while the macrological approach is not.

No.
Not A OR B
But A AND B

 

[phildwyer]

You remind me of my mate Dave who smokes too much skunk.

That's more interesting than you may know. Where does your mate Dave live?

 

[bi0boy]

The significance of these different approaches to causality is that Darwin's micrological approach is incompatible with intelligent design, while the macrological approach is not.

Even this is wrong.

 

[toggle]

It's a question of causality. Darwin located causality at the smallest possible level: the competitive adaptation of organisms. Today's Darwinists are even more extreme in this regard: they locate it at the genetic level.

But in reality, as the K-T event showed, causality must be located at a much higher level. The ultimate cause of evolution turns out to be the collisions between inconceivably distant, inconceivably huge galaxies, which produced the asteroids, one of which turns out to be the most important and ultimate cause of evolution.

The significance of these different approaches to causality is that Darwin's micrological approach is incompatible with intelligent design, while the macrological approach is not.

so you are basically trying to redefine evolutionary theory in order to try to make it compatable with ID?

 

[Crispy]

It's a question of causality. Darwin located causality at the smallest possible level: the competitive adaptation of organisms.

That's not a cause, that's a response

Today's Darwinists

no such thing

are even more extreme in this regard: they locate it at the genetic level.

No. Evolutionary theory is the study of systems at all scales. Some researchers specialise in the very small, some in the very large.

 

[phildwyer]

it's a simple statement of fact phil, you are talking utter shit. nothing about stating the blindingly obvious could possibly make me look stupid, certainly not when compared to the utter shit you are posting

You disappoint me.

Anyone who knows anything about science, or the history of ideas in general, can see that I'm not "talking utter shit." In fact I'm doing little more than parroting SJ Gould (and to be honest sometimes quoting from him directly).

So while perhaps not stupid, you are most certainly ignorant.

 

[toggle]

You disappoint me.

Anyone who knows anything about science, or the history of ideas in general, can see that I'm not "talking utter shit." In fact I'm doing little more than parroting SJ Gould (and to be honest sometimes quoting from him directly).

So while perhaps not stupid, you are most certainly ignorant.

oh dear phil, i'm not going to fall for that one.nice try though

but i'm sure that Gould would be delighted to find out that you were attempting to use his work to proove ID.

 

[phildwyer]

Even this is wrong.

You give up even more easily than I'd expected. It seems that the only person capable of even constructing an argument against me is Crispy. The rest of you are reduced to incoherent splutterings of baffled rage within three pages. A poor show indeed, but perhaps indicative of the zeitgeist.

 

[bi0boy]

You give up even more easily than I'd expected. It seems that the only person capable of even constructing an argument against me is Crispy. The rest of you are reduced to incoherent splutterings of baffled rage within three pages. A poor show indeed, but perhaps indicative of the zeitgeist.

You appear to be under the illusion that having read your posts, people might think it worthwhile to construct an argument against you.

 

[phildwyer]

oh dear phil, i'm not going to fall for that one.nice try though

but i'm sure that Gould would be delighted to find out that you were attempting to use his work to proove ID.

Jesus Christ. Alright then, History of Science 101 it is.

Question 1. Which renowned evolutionary theorist said: "the theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature."

Was it: (a) Phildwyer, or (b) SJ Gould?

A grade of 100% in this test is a prerequisite for continuing to post on this thread.

 

[toggle]

You give up even more easily than I'd expected. It seems that the only person capable of even constructing an argument against me is Crispy. The rest of you are reduced to incoherent splutterings of baffled rage within three pages. A poor show indeed, but perhaps indicative of the zeitgeist.

that is simply because you repost the same tired old bollocks over and over again.

 

[phildwyer]

that is simply because you repost the same tired old bollocks over and over again.

Did you not read what I said above?

Answer the question before proceeding further please. In the meantime I have some things to do. I will return to answer any important objections to my case in due course.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think human thought is a totality, and that it develops as a totality, so that any division of it into "areas" or "spheres" is fallacious. So I think that all scientific developments are interconnected, but also that they are connected to developments in other spheres such as the one we call "economics." My interest in identifying the commonalities that unite such spheres is based on that premise.

So (having read the rest of the thread with some amusement) I hereby infer that you would also describe let's say a shortage of work causing Faraday's blacksmith father to move from the North to London as a 'higher cause of electromagnetism'?

 

[Greebo]

Did you not read what I said above?

Answer the question before proceeding further please. In the meantime I have some things to do. I will return to answer any important objections to my case in due course.

Sweetie, you're becoming even more tedious than usual. Haven't you got anything better to do?

 

[toggle]

Jesus Christ. Alright then, History of Science 101 it is.

Question 1. Which renowned evolutionary theorist said: "the theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature."

Was it: (a) Phildwyer, or (b) SJ Gould?

A grade of 100% in this test is a prerequisite for continuing to post on this thread.

i'm wondering why you are finding it necessary to continue this behavior. it's a fairly obvious attempt to try to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

i know who gould is. i have read some of his work, have a distinct impression I understood it better than you have, but understanding does not lead to aggreement. i also know that it's been widely used in attempts to discredit evolutionary theory by proponants of ID. i also know gould was distinctly unimpressed with this.

 

[toggle]

So (having read the rest of the thread with some amusement) I hereby infer that you would also describe let's say a shortage of work causing Faraday's blacksmith father to move from the North to London as a 'higher cause of electromagnetism'?

pmsl.

 

[phildwyer]

i know who gould is. i have read some of his work

In that case I take it you don't think he was "talking utter shit."

Well, it was he who said that "(Darwin's) theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature."

So while you presumably disagree with this, you also presumably admit that it is a position tenable by reasonable, knowledgeable scientists.

Now, all I am doing is drawing what seem to me the inescapable conclusion: those who differ from Adam Smith's economics must also differ from Darwin's theory of natural selection.

I really must go now, but I shall be interested to see, on my return, whether you have been capable of constructing a reasoned argument against my extrapolation.

 

[toggle]

In that case I take it you don't think he was "talking utter shit."

.

what makes you think I don't?

a lot of ' reasonable, knowledgeable scientists' think he was wrong about a lot of th. ings. perhaps you were hoping that i wasn't aware of this? that i would whimper and go away once i realised a real actual scientist had stated this idea? surely you can do better than that.