Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Darwin's natural selection, Dawkin's selfish genes, and "survival of the fittest" are fashionable beliefs about non-existent creatures and chemicals with attitude. These beliefs are based on the west's patriarchical religions and their obsession with inheritance, privilege, heirarchy, survival, sex, and fighting.

    But there are many alternatives. This earthbound jellyfish we call "a human" is not a "survival machine". We, all life, are not interested in "evolutionary survival", for nothing survives death, not creatures, not species, not genes, not anything alive. All we are interested in is being here, now, alive.

    The human, like all creatures, is not an individual. The human is composed of a large number of creatures working in harmony. These creatures include the brain, the liver, the bladder, the heart, while some, like the nervous and circulatory systems, are spread like a net across all the others.

    Religion, especially creationism, and evolutionary theory are almost indistinguishable in their animistic materialism and patriarchal supernaturalism. This is why we must abandon their view of nature, and come to new understandings, such as the one I have given you.
    Last edited by John Jones; January 1st, 2012 at 07:11 AM.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    I had a different response but I'd like you to clarify.

    What different view of nature did you provide? That "life" is only interested in being alive now?

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Sorry John but you have not offered understanding only perspective and one that is pretty jelly like.

    Evolution is largely observed and has little to do with notions of entitlement or inheritance. We know quite factually that the genetic material used to construct human beings is indeed based on that of its parents which in turn is based on theirs and so on. We have observed in populations that those who's genetic expression is best suited to persist does so while those unable to thrive in an environment quickly or slowly decline.

    It is not any kind of philosophy at work, just necessarily reactions to a system or pattern expressed.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    I had a different response but I'd like you to clarify.

    What different view of nature did you provide? That "life" is only interested in being alive now?
    Life is for itself and not for another, and understands this. Life is noble because it sees itself in another.

    ---------- Post added at 04:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Sorry John but you have not offered understanding only perspective and one that is pretty jelly like.

    Evolution is largely observed and has little to do with notions of entitlement or inheritance. We know quite factually that the genetic material used to construct human beings is indeed based on that of its parents which in turn is based on theirs and so on. We have observed in populations that those who's genetic expression is best suited to persist does so while those unable to thrive in an environment quickly or slowly decline.

    It is not any kind of philosophy at work, just necessarily reactions to a system or pattern expressed.

    Even if evolution was totally obseved and reproducible, we would want to ask what they observed. The answer will be a reflection of our expectations.

    But you also said this:
    "We have observed in populations that those who's genetic expression is best suited to persist "

    Hang on. Surely, that's vacuous? You are saying that the best suited become the survivors, because the survivors are the best suited?

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    But you also said this:
    "We have observed in populations that those who's genetic expression is best suited to persist "


    Hang on. Surely, that's vacuous? You are saying that the best suited become the survivors, because the survivors are the best suited?
    John, you are committing a fallacy. You have quoted someone out of context by not providing the complete thought, and then attempt to accuse them of circular logic.

    We have observed in populations that those who's genetic expression is best suited to persist does so while those unable to thrive in an environment quickly or slowly decline.
    This is the complete thought. It is not circular, it provides an explanation as to what has been observed in a population: a certain mix of genes will grant some members a better opportunity to survive long enough to pass them on, so that portion of the population will tend to thrive, whereas another mix of genes does not grant the same opportunity, and that portion of the population tends to diminish.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by tanstaafl28 View Post



    John, you are committing a fallacy. You have quoted someone out of context by not providing the complete thought, and then attempt to accuse them of circular logic.



    This is the complete thought. It is not circular, it provides an explanation as to what has been observed in a population: a certain mix of genes will grant some members a better opportunity to survive long enough to pass them on, so that portion of the population will tend to thrive, whereas another mix of genes does not grant the same opportunity, and that portion of the population tends to diminish.
    "We have observed in populations that those who's genetic expression is best suited to persist does so while those unable to thrive in an environment quickly or slowly decline. "

    That is circular. It says that the best suited are the ones that survive. But the ones that survive are by definition the ones that are best suited. It isn't a matter of explanation or cause that the best suited survive, its simply a definition of "survivor".

    ---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    I had a different response but I'd like you to clarify.

    What different view of nature did you provide? That "life" is only interested in being alive now?
    I hadn't gone into it, but I advocated moving away from the grammatically flawed model of evolutionary theory and heirarchy and replacing it with a morphism of forms.

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
    I hadn't gone into it, but I advocated moving away from the grammatically flawed model of evolutionary theory and heirarchy and replacing it with a morphism of forms.
    Well, perhaps you should put forth your "morphis of forms" before any else response respond. You have failed to show why life being "for itself" precludes it from being interested in others, if that is the best way to "survive". You haven't explain why they have to be mutally exclusive, only that you say so.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by John Jones
    "We have observed in populations that those who's genetic expression is best suited to persist does so while those unable to thrive in an environment quickly or slowly decline. "

    That is circular. It says that the best suited are the ones that survive. But the ones that survive are by definition the ones that are best suited. It isn't a matter of explanation or cause that the best suited survive, its simply a definition of "survivor".


    Not really. I agree that its not the best worded phrasing and does imply some circularity, but in reality its not. Experiments have shown that certain genotypes are better suited to surviving selective environmental conditions. One can also observe selection for specific alleles in the genome.

    The evidence is not circular at all.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    Well, perhaps you should put forth your "morphis of forms" before any else response respond. You have failed to show why life being "for itself" precludes it from being interested in others, if that is the best way to "survive". You haven't explain why they have to be mutally exclusive, only that you say so.
    LIfe is interested in others. Life for itself can be gregarious.

    ---------- Post added at 03:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 AM ----------

    Yes, "certain genotypes are better suited", but only because the survivors are called the better-suited. They are not the survivors because they are the better suited.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Yes, "certain genotypes are better suited", but only because the survivors are called the better-suited. They are not the survivors because they are the better suited.
    Right, and you can demonstrate this, then? If you would mind supporting any of the statements you've made in this thread, as opposed to continuing to make new ones, we would find some grounds for real debate. As is, all we are sure of is how sure you are of yourself, and that isn't what we come here to learn.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    JJ - Humanity, I believe uniquely among 'the animals', has a curiousity that not only asks how BUT ALSO why? How did we get here? {There must be more than just physical and temporal dimensions for this to occur set against infinity]. If no infinity, and indeed no 'acaused power/intelligence', then are 'we' assuming that 'nothing' begat 'something/the universe' from 'nothing'?
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by John Jones
    Yes, "certain genotypes are better suited", but only because the survivors are called the better-suited. They are not the survivors because they are the better suited.
    If the survivors are not the better suited then why do they survive?

    If you say anything along the lines of "chance" then you will have confirmed a stark ignorance of Evolution and Population Genetics.

    In Population Genetics, changes in allele frequency due to random events is called Drift. The mathematics of Population Genetics is sophisticated enough that we can identify and quantify the degree of Drift within a population. We can also identify and quantify the effects of Natural Selection. It is not a matter of semantics that we say that surviving progeny are the "fittest" it is a matter of experimentation and observation.

    "As genetic variants conferring resistance to infectious diseases spread through human populations over time through natural selection, they leave distinctive, detectable patterns of genetic variation in the human genome. These signals of selection can uncover novel resistance alleles or even novel evolutionary pressures. Also, as previously mentioned, as advantageous alleles under positive selection rise in prevalence, variants at nearby locations on the same chromosome (linked alleles) also rise in prevalence. Such genetic hitchhiking leads to a "selective sweep" that alters the typical pattern of genetic variation in the region. Selective sweeps produce numerous detectable signals of selection (Nielsen, 2005; Sabeti et al., 2006). As tests for selection have been applied to newly available genetic variation data across the human genome, many of the top signals of selection that have been identified have been at genes and alleles known to be involved with malaria susceptibility, including HBB, FY, CD36, and HLA. These signals were identified in just 90 individuals randomly chosen from the population, and they could have been identified without prior knowledge of a specific variant or selective advantage."

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...aptation-34539

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    If the survivors are not the better suited then why do they survive?

    If you say anything along the lines of "chance" then you will have confirmed a stark ignorance of Evolution and Population Genetics.

    In Population Genetics, changes in allele frequency due to random events is called Drift. The mathematics of Population Genetics is sophisticated enough that we can identify and quantify the degree of Drift within a population. We can also identify and quantify the effects of Natural Selection. It is not a matter of semantics that we say that surviving progeny are the "fittest" it is a matter of experimentation and observation.

    "As genetic variants conferring resistance to infectious diseases spread through human populations over time through natural selection, they leave distinctive, detectable patterns of genetic variation in the human genome. These signals of selection can uncover novel resistance alleles or even novel evolutionary pressures. Also, as previously mentioned, as advantageous alleles under positive selection rise in prevalence, variants at nearby locations on the same chromosome (linked alleles) also rise in prevalence. Such genetic hitchhiking leads to a "selective sweep" that alters the typical pattern of genetic variation in the region. Selective sweeps produce numerous detectable signals of selection (Nielsen, 2005; Sabeti et al., 2006). As tests for selection have been applied to newly available genetic variation data across the human genome, many of the top signals of selection that have been identified have been at genes and alleles known to be involved with malaria susceptibility, including HBB, FY, CD36, and HLA. These signals were identified in just 90 individuals randomly chosen from the population, and they could have been identified without prior knowledge of a specific variant or selective advantage."

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...aptation-34539
    The survivoirs are better suited by definition, not by implication or deduction.

    ---------- Post added at 05:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    JJ - Humanity, I believe uniquely among 'the animals', has a curiousity that not only asks how BUT ALSO why? How did we get here? {There must be more than just physical and temporal dimensions for this to occur set against infinity]. If no infinity, and indeed no 'acaused power/intelligence', then are 'we' assuming that 'nothing' begat 'something/the universe' from 'nothing'?
    see new post

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
    Darwin's natural selection, Dawkin's selfish genes, and "survival of the fittest" are fashionable beliefs about non-existent creatures and chemicals with attitude. These beliefs are based on the west's patriarchical religions and their obsession with inheritance, privilege, heirarchy, survival, sex, and fighting.
    These beliefs are based on millions of observations by thousands of scientists, over hundreds of years.

    Here is just one:

    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like
    Per the OP, if he organism isn't interested in the survival of the species, then what is sex drive? Why is sex pleasurable? Why protect your young? Why feel deeply saddened by the loss of a fellow organism, as many animals, not just humans, seem to?

    If survival of the species is not a big deal, why do women often want to reproduce, care for young who are not their own, and greive if they can't physically reproduce?

    It's all well and good to view man as an earthbound spirit from within gentrified society, but anyone who has spent a significant amount of time subsistence-based living in nature knows otherwise.

  16. #16
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by Rampantai View Post
    It's all well and good to view man as an earthbound spirit from within gentrified society, but anyone who has spent a significant amount of time subsistence-based living in nature knows otherwise.
    Not to argue your other points, but if this statement is true, then why do so many subsistence cultures (as in virtually all of them) view human beings this way?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not to argue your other points, but if this statement is true, then why do so many subsistence cultures (as in virtually all of them) view human beings this way?
    Good point. Viewing humans as "just another animal" is more a view of the gentrified than any subsistence culture.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like
    We're getting into evolutionary psychology here, but I would argue animistic beliefs are part of most early or pre industrial societies. Then you have places like Japan that stayed firmly rooted in Shinto as a respect for all things, living or otherwise.

    The fact that a belief is held isn't evidence for it's validity, or even invalidity. I'm not very clear on what the OP is driving at with the human jellyfish commentary, or how exactly that disproves or relates to evolution, but I'm hoping he'll clarify.

    As an irreligious heathen agnostic, I tend to think in animism, in some respects, has a point: respect and appreciation of one's surroundings, one's property, and the property of others. It's superior to the J/C/I idea of Dominion in that animals are recognized as living things with a will of their own, no matter how dim, and a will to survive that deserves empathy, rather than meat robots placed here for human enjoyment or use as property.

    I don't think the view of humans as "just another animal" is flawed. The flaw is in underestimating other animals and assigning a very low value to other life.
    Last edited by Rampantai; February 8th, 2012 at 04:45 PM.

  19. #19
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by Rampantai View Post
    The fact that a belief is held isn't evidence for it's validity, or even invalidity.
    You are 100% correct, however my point wasn't that it showed the theism's validity, but that your comment that I quoted was a non sequitor.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution theory is a patriarch's fancy

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    JJ - Humanity, I believe uniquely among 'the animals', has a curiousity that not only asks how BUT ALSO why? How did we get here? {There must be more than just physical and temporal dimensions for this to occur set against infinity]. If no infinity, and indeed no 'acaused power/intelligence', then are 'we' assuming that 'nothing' begat 'something/the universe' from 'nothing'?
    I will give you the fruit of my loins for this fruit springs up on unfallowed earth. Your earth is unfallowed.

    ---------- Post added at 04:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 AM ----------


    **Response edited by Apok**
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; February 18th, 2012 at 09:58 PM. Reason: personally attacked a member

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Faith: Evolution, Big Bang Theory, and God
    By Antibiotic in forum Religion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 13th, 2011, 07:16 PM
  2. The Theory of Evolution vs. Creationism and Intelligent Design
    By Dan4Reason in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 28th, 2009, 08:04 PM
  3. Fancy a Ride?
    By FruitandNut in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 19th, 2007, 09:46 AM
  4. Fancy a few $$$$?
    By FruitandNut in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 12th, 2006, 05:32 PM
  5. Fancy a career change?
    By FruitandNut in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2006, 09:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •