Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it CaseLangVeirs Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer roadies roadies roadies  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Freud, Marx and Darwin


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 54 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 2:00:50 PM PDT
Evo-devo, self-organization, epigenetics, quantum biology, and genetic engineering are all happily ensconced in Evolutionary Theory. Biocentrism is as yet unfalsifiable, so it remains interesting speculation. Intelligent design is essentially creationism trying to sound scientific. In 25 yrs it has not produced a hypothesis, an experiment or a theory. The best you can say about it is that it is failed science.

I think you try understanding evolution and science better.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 2:10:37 PM PDT
Bertha

More epigentics. The paper reports that the accidental expression of a gene is usually gone in several generations. And we already know things in the environment improve longevity.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 2:15:41 PM PDT
Max Flash says:
MRA: Freud has been thoroughly discredited by the majority of Anglo-American Psychiatrist/Psychologists.

Max: While this may be true of much of his work, it isn't in the area of understanding the unconcious.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 2:23:35 PM PDT
Bertha wrote

"I don't have an altenative to evolution, but I've seen several alternatives to neoDarwiism, all of which include intelligent, purposeful adaptation. Evo-devo, biocentrism, self-organization, epigenetics, intelligent design, quantum biology, or James A Shapiro's genetic engineering are just a few who recognize the participation of an intelligent, creative force in biological adaptation."

I find this interesting in that the so called alternatives to neoDarwinism, (excluding intelligent design which is a different beast altogether) are rather varieties of neoDarwinism applied in slightly different ways, that don't require participation of intelligent forces in biological adaptation.

As for scientific proof and the claim that atheist materialism is a religion, this is a category error. It is like saying that no religion is a religion. I can accept it is an ideology, but ideologies are not religions.

When you say that "I view the organizing intelligence as a natural force." it sounds like you are accepting Virchow's and Henri Bergsons Vitalism.

Hope this helps

Regards

John

Posted on May 8, 2012 2:26:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 8, 2012 2:28:19 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 4:26:28 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 4:37:15 PM PDT
Bubba says:
Your "http://301457831" isnt working.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 4:38:39 PM PDT
http://30145.myauthorsite.com

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 4:49:19 PM PDT
Bertha

None of the things you claim support a purposeful universe, make any claims at all for a purposeful universe, except the discredited 'intelligent design' and the speculative bio-centrism.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 4:50:12 PM PDT
Omnireader says:
John,

Where did you get the idea that Darwin was Jewish?

You have posted this bizarre delusion on multiple threads.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 4:52:36 PM PDT
Omnireader says:
Please give us a link to a non-creationist site that has any data about your claim.

This is you claim: "legislatrues are considering whether or not criticism of Darwin should be allowed in the classroom."

Note I kept your misspelling.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 4:54:34 PM PDT
Omnireader says:
JDC thinks he is.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 4:55:32 PM PDT
Omnireader says:
Note:

Nobody sane is going to visit your blog spot.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 4:57:19 PM PDT
Omnireader says:
Why do want to discuss something you know and understand nothing about?

Here, I have a question for you.

When your shifter bushings go out, what are the most common causes?

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 5:03:36 PM PDT
Omnireader says:
Dude, try the beer!

Wash it down, 2 gulps of beer for every post of hers, and her nonsense begins to sound exactly like Firesign Theater!

There is a Seeker born every minute!
http://youtu.be/EtXGKqWz8nU

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 5:04:13 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 5:19:08 PM PDT
Bertha

Okay, I've read your blog. It states your opinion that you don't like a non-purposeful universe. So what? Why did you claim things supported you position when they do not? Other than not wanting science to be true, you have nothing.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 5:25:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 8, 2012 5:27:07 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
from your page, question 3, towards the bottom:

'There are two main views about the origin of the laws of nature: Theism, which claims a deity dictated such laws and suspends them when it suits His purpose - and Atheism, which envisions the laws of nature as popping into existence, for no particular reason, and accidentally creating a deterministic "perpetual motion machine", a mechanical reality in which change originates as errors.'

i'm sorry bertha, but your atheism piece, to a physicist, is not terribly accurate. whatever the laws of nature are, they are conceived as being necessary, essential. moreover, IF the world is deterministic, it is certainly not by accident, but by some physically prescribed causal mandate. additionally, current cosmological thought would seem to indicate that the universe will one day rundown into a cold, empty husk - hardly a 'perpetual motion machine'. lastly, it may be a mechanical reality, but change is anything but error -- it is intrinsic dynamics.

Posted on May 8, 2012 7:21:02 PM PDT
Tero says:
Jimmy Carter!

Did that work? I was trying the random words post so popular here.

Sage grouse.

Helium.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:16:22 PM PDT
Three of the four were Jewish Germans.

Darwin obviously wasn't

Peter Watson's "the German Genius" explains why German Jews figure so predominantly in science. Look at Jews in the list of Scientific Nobel Prizes as a proportion of world population.

Regards

John

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 11:17:01 PM PDT
Omni, no way! But as I have said repeatedly - the other three were.

Regards

John

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 12:18:29 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
Thank you for your post.

Thank you for referencing my post wherein I gave the number of Jews in the list of Scientific Nobel Prizes as a proportion of world population.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:45:07 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"Other than not wanting science to be true, you have nothing."

Mark, I believe you've identified the common ground that Bertha and Haynes share.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:51:17 AM PDT
My pleasure Omni.

I find it interesting this huge over preponderance of Jews in this activity is fascinating. It comes I feel from three sources.

1. The prohibition against Jews owning land or employing non-Jews, found in Western and Central Europe - forced Jews to subsist by engaging in merchandising activities, which requires a focus upon rational intelligence.
2. The traditional Jewish scholasticism of debating with the Torah practiced in yeshiva schools.
3. The desire of Jewish parents for their children to succeed in formal education, as a means of integrating into a host Christian community.

Given these imperatives, it seems that the over-representation of Jews begins at high school in subjects involving mathematics and science and becomes ever greater all the way upwards to post doctoral level.

It is interesting that a similar tendency is being now reported amongst Asian students in American schools, perhaps based upon the traditional respect found within Confucianism for learning as a means of social mobility. One can compare this with the routes for social mobility available for African Americans within the sport and entertainment industries.

There has been some research on this I know but it is interesting nevertheless.

Regards

John

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:17:54 AM PDT
Rukbat says:
@Bertha

"Evolution may be a fact, but the notion that it can be explained as "natural selection" doing something (heaven knows what!) to a collection of genetic accidents is pure fantacy."

So you think that if conditions change (that's what drives natural selection), those variants (what you call "genetic accidents") that are LESS fit to survive the new conditions are the ones that survive? (ALL natural selection says is that those MORE fit to survive will be the ones that survive. Or as I phrase it, "what works, works".)

It gets colder, so the LESS hairy members of a species are the ones that will survive? That's what your claim that "natural selection is fantasy" means. Natural selection isn't some mysterious process driven by some mysterious force, it just means that those better fit (not fittest) to survive are the ones that will survive. Finches with longer thinner beaks will outsurvive those with shorter thicker beaks when they find themselves living where the seeds they need to live are deep inside thin flowers. That's what Darwin saw, and it made him realize that those less fit to survive probably wouldn't.

What natural selection ISN'T is a chimpanzee giving birth to a human being, or whatever you think the alternative to evolution is. (In fact if that could be documented as having happened, it would be pretty good DISPROOF of all current evolutionary theory.)

BTW, evolution isn't "explained" as anything, it's DEFINED as "change in allele frequencies in a breeding population over time". And since your children aren't clones of you, that's observed evolution. It's not speciation either, although evolution is what drives speciation.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  54
Initial post:  May 7, 2012
Latest post:  May 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions