Re: Think religion isn't a product of evolutionary forces?
- From: "John W Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:46:35 -0500 (EST)
John <sawireless2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:-
JE:-
Natural selection acting as an alone, irrefutable, default process has to
be
separated from natural selection operating within falsifiable Darwinian
evlutionary theory. They are not at all the same because natural
selection
as just an alone process has no frame of reference (you cannot tell what
is
being selected for and what is being selected against). Also "bottom up"
selection must always remain separated from "top down" selection within
evolutionary theory because only the latter remains cognitive. I like to
call "top down" selection, "unnatural selection" in an attempt to stress
the
critical difference between them (I do not mean to imply that top down
selection is somehow, outside of nature). It is noteworthy that the likes
of
Hitler et al failed to make this critical distinction in their utter
misuse
of Darwinian theory within proposed social theory.
unnatural selection redirects to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection
who says Darwin coined it and he certainly did mentioning it only once
"...Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
fittest...."
Is this what you are refering to ? If so what do you make of the word
"Fittest" in the passage which Darwin got from Herbert Spencer, were
you any way whatsoever having Spencer in mind with AS, which includes
fitness, which was lifted from Spencer because I can't for the life of
me find any reference as to what was Spencer's intent and if we don't
know his intent then why are we using his label ?
JE:-
"Nature's power of selection" is what Darwin originally termed "natural
selection" within his proposed ground breaking theory of evolution which
represents the single most important theory that science has ever produced.
Natural selection only presented a simple _choice by default and not a
choice by intent_ process (unnatural selection requires a non default act of
choice). Using just natural selection, Darwin could not suppose that nature
was cognitive as his opponents did and continue to do so today via
"Intelligent Design"(note: this requires unnatural selection).
Unfortunatley, Darwin and most of his contemporaries, up to the present day
(including W.D. Hamilton on which polycentric Darwinism was founded),
thought that Spencer's "survival of the fittest" was a good" rule of thumb"
for "natural selection" _when it was nothing of the kind_.Spencer destroyed
a better understanding of Darwinism for over a century by substituting a
falsifiable theory of evolution with just a non predicated, non falsifiable
tautology: those that survive are fitter only because the fitter better
survive. A tautology is just any reversible subject and predicate
proposition. Amazingly, modern Neo Darwinism remains based on just
mathemematical tautologies e.g. Hamilton's Rule. Without at least one
falsifiable non reversible fitness predicate evolutionary theory is reduced
to just a mathematical equivalent of Herbert Spencer's tautology. To this
day most people have not worked this out or they simply refuse to
acknowledge it. Never underestimate the destructive power of philosophy.
I have no idea as to what Spencer's intent was. All that I know is that he
successfully wrecked any full understanding of the single most important
theory that science has produced. His politics may have something to do with
it (mostly it does, unfortunately). My understanding is that Spencer was a
fascist. If this was the case Spencer's destructive misrepresentation of
Darwinism served his political ends extraordinarily well allowing racism and
providing dictatorships with the morality of: if I can kill you I am
naturally superior to _as falsely predicated on Darwinism_. You should note
that the reaction of the extreme left to Spencer's misuse of Darwinism
eventually produced Hamilton's mathematics which was supposed to allow the
evolution of organism fitness altruism after group selection (as it was
originally proposed by Darwin's contemporary A.Wallace) could not do so.
Monocentric Darwinism was and remains empirically refutable but only because
organism fitness altruism is 100% prohibited as a falsification of Darwin's
entire theory. This falsification was possible only because _just the one
type of unit of selection was allowed within Darwinism_. OTOH di-centric
group selection (allowing two unit of selection types such that
falsification could easily be evaded by moving the goal posts) and
Hamilton's tri-centric inclusive fitness leading to today's polycentic
position, allow the evolution of organism fitness altruism in however, just
non falsifiable way. This is because they prohibit nothing which can
_empirically falsified_ within these supposed theories (in fact they are not
theories at all, they are and remain simplified/oversimplifications of the
one same theory). Hamilton who was a member of the extreme left in the USA,
allowed his mathematically based non falsifiable heuristic _to replace
Darwinism_ allowing the evolution of prohibited organism fitness altruism
within nature. IOW the utter misuse of Darwinism by the extreme political
right meant that the political pendulum will inevitably swing the other way
allowing the misuse of it via the extreme left via their non empirically
based allowance of organism fitness altruism within just a non falsifiable
theory. Nobody can fail to understand that "altruism" was and remains the
preferred morality of the extreme left just as "selfishness" remains the
preferred morality of the extreme right. The _empirical_ reality is that
_nature is neither_ because natural selection quickly evolved _organism
fitness mutualism_ via the Baldwin Effect. This has not been realised by
synthetic Neo Darwinism because the mathematical models that they use to
this very day have _no falsifiable frame of reference_, i.e they only deploy
pre Galilean reasoning.
Since the early days of evolutionary theory being used as a political
football the political pendulum with regards to evolutionary science has
swung backwards and forwards moving back to the extreme right within
intelligent design under the stewardship George W. Bush. You should also
note that the founding father's of population genetics who produced a series
of useful but misused models built on uncorrected
simplifications/oversimplification of Darwinism, Haldane, Fisher and Wright,
went their separate ways. One of the reasons that they did so was because of
their political beliefs. Wright did not embrace Haldane's support of
communism or Fisher's support of fascism. Most of today's Neo Darwinism is a
production of the extreme political left which has allowed itself to embrace
any politically correct heuristic concept of organism fitness altruism that
it likes within just polycentric theories which cannot be tested to
falsification. Whenever they are quizzed on this they just blandly state
that they have removed any requirement for falsification....
Regards,
John Edser
Independent researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Think religion isn't a product of evolutionary forces?
- Next by Date: Bioinformatics Companies
- Previous by thread: Re: Think religion isn't a product of evolutionary forces?
- Next by thread: Levels of Selection: More Neo Darwinistic Denial
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
