JessieDreamer
Offline
Tango16
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:30:24 +0000
VoijaRisa
Expelled claims to be a documentary showing the persecution of those supporting Intelligent Design in the academic community.
In reality, it's nothing less than a distorted propaganda piece.
In order to produce the film, the producers knowingly lied to the evolution supporters it interviewed regarding the nature and purpose of the film. This was done in the case of PZ Myers, as well as Richard Dawkins, and Eugenie Scott in which they told they were being interviewed for a film called Crossroads which was intended to be a balanced look at evolution and Intelligent Design (we'll see later just how "even" this is). Although producer Mark Mathis has claimed that this was a "working title", this is belied by the fact that the domain name for Expelled was purchased two months before the interviews took place while no domain was ever purchased for any film of the name Crossroads.
In this film, they also claim to show how ID proponents were persecuted. However, the film apparently grossly misrepresents the cases of ID sympathizers.
One of their martyrs is Guillermo Gonzalez who was recently denied tenure from Iowa State. The ID crowd claims it was because of his ID views. They even went so far as to obtain departmental Emails under the freedom of information act and then quote mine from them. But in reality, the major factor cited was the wholesale drop in actual academic productivity and publications since beginning at Iowa state and failure to move into a primary position in the department. The film also ignores the fact that tenure in the Astronomical field is also notoriously hard to achieve, with only 4 out of 12 candidates at Iowa state gaining tenure in the past decade. Also cited in the tenure denial was the underwhelming lack of funds that Gonzalez was able to attract in grants for the university. Apparently, none of this information is passed along in the film.
Also presented in the film is the case of Richard Sternberg, who, on his way out of the door, put a paper by Discovery Institute Founder, Stephen Meyer into the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a scientific journal he edited. However, it became apparent that by allowing himself to be one of the reviewers and not used an assistant editor, he had intentionally biased the selection process which typically requires that reviewers not be inherently favorable to the topic as Sternberg was. As such, the council incharge of the paper, "deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content..."
Caroline Crocker is another ID advocate presented in the film, who claims that she was discriminated against and her academic freedom restricted for inserting pro-ID rhetoric into her cell biology course at George Mason University. She claimed that evolution was false because, "[n]o one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory." This is, of course, a pathetic strawman version of evolution and reveals either a profound misunderstanding of basic biology (which would have made Crocker inappropriate for the position) or outright dishonesty to students (which is similarly inappropriate). Regardless, Expelled and other ID advocates hide behind the guise of "academic freedom". GMU spokesman, Daniel Walsch, noted that
Incidentally, although the GMU had clear grounds for dismissal, Crocker was not fired, although her contract was not renewed.
Meanwhile, while the film proclaims to support academic inquiry and open discussion, press conferences have been staged with pre-written questions and actual questions from the press, being screened. Similarly, the producers have been attempting to control who is and is not able to see the movie and attempts to disinvite and remove people that are not sympathetic to their cause. Similarly, they have lied and claimed showings were canceled to those they deemed undesirable.
This is just a symptom of the refusal to offer itself for criticism (as with the rest of the ID movement). The film doesn't even bother defining Intelligent Design nor Evolution. Instead, it merely attempts to conflate Evolution with Nazis, eugenics, atheism, and racism. None of these are actually true.
Recently, Expelled has also become the target of a lawsuit for plagiarism when it was realized that an animation used in the film was a close replica of a film produced for Harvard by XVIVO. This film had earlier been used for profit in lectures by William Dembski who used an altered version with a Creationist narration and the Harvard credits stripped. Although some creationists would try to argue that the producers of Expelled tried to make their own animation separate than the XVIVO one, the Expelled animation makes the same simplifications, leaving out the same proteins. Additionally, Dembski admitted to being in contact with the producers who long ago set aside money for what was to be an inevitable law suit. Thus, we can only conclude that they fully understood their culpability in the infringement.
Additionally, to promote the film, the company is offering rebates and discounts, specifically targeting "faith ministries and organizations, church groups, youth and university groups" (and they wonder why people see a religious agenda? Especially when they keep giving screenings at infamous creationist "museums" and other religious institutions).
So, as we can see, Expelled has absolutely pathetic standards. It lied to get interviews, distorts positions, hypocritically stifles questioning, and intends to bribe students from classrooms to see this propaganda which doesn't even define its own position, but rather relies on emotional appeals and falsehoods to make their arguments. The dishonesty is so prevalent in this film, that even a major creationist organization (Reason To Believe) has critisized it. For more information on this topic, see Expelled Exposed.
Further reading:
Evidence & Testing in the Scientific Field
The Failure of Irreducible Complexity
Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Second Law
Is Intelligent Design Different that Creationism?
Why are ID Proponents/Creationists intellectually dishonest?
Evolution - What it is and isn’t
Evolution and its Compatibility with Creationism
Updates:
4-18-08 - Added criticism from RTB.
In reality, it's nothing less than a distorted propaganda piece.
In order to produce the film, the producers knowingly lied to the evolution supporters it interviewed regarding the nature and purpose of the film. This was done in the case of PZ Myers, as well as Richard Dawkins, and Eugenie Scott in which they told they were being interviewed for a film called Crossroads which was intended to be a balanced look at evolution and Intelligent Design (we'll see later just how "even" this is). Although producer Mark Mathis has claimed that this was a "working title", this is belied by the fact that the domain name for Expelled was purchased two months before the interviews took place while no domain was ever purchased for any film of the name Crossroads.
In this film, they also claim to show how ID proponents were persecuted. However, the film apparently grossly misrepresents the cases of ID sympathizers.
One of their martyrs is Guillermo Gonzalez who was recently denied tenure from Iowa State. The ID crowd claims it was because of his ID views. They even went so far as to obtain departmental Emails under the freedom of information act and then quote mine from them. But in reality, the major factor cited was the wholesale drop in actual academic productivity and publications since beginning at Iowa state and failure to move into a primary position in the department. The film also ignores the fact that tenure in the Astronomical field is also notoriously hard to achieve, with only 4 out of 12 candidates at Iowa state gaining tenure in the past decade. Also cited in the tenure denial was the underwhelming lack of funds that Gonzalez was able to attract in grants for the university. Apparently, none of this information is passed along in the film.
Also presented in the film is the case of Richard Sternberg, who, on his way out of the door, put a paper by Discovery Institute Founder, Stephen Meyer into the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a scientific journal he edited. However, it became apparent that by allowing himself to be one of the reviewers and not used an assistant editor, he had intentionally biased the selection process which typically requires that reviewers not be inherently favorable to the topic as Sternberg was. As such, the council incharge of the paper, "deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content..."
Caroline Crocker is another ID advocate presented in the film, who claims that she was discriminated against and her academic freedom restricted for inserting pro-ID rhetoric into her cell biology course at George Mason University. She claimed that evolution was false because, "[n]o one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory." This is, of course, a pathetic strawman version of evolution and reveals either a profound misunderstanding of basic biology (which would have made Crocker inappropriate for the position) or outright dishonesty to students (which is similarly inappropriate). Regardless, Expelled and other ID advocates hide behind the guise of "academic freedom". GMU spokesman, Daniel Walsch, noted that
Daniel Walsch
teachers also have a responsibility to stick to subjects they were hired to teach .... Does academic freedom "literally give you the right to talk about anything, whether it has anything to do with the subject matter or not? The answer is no.
Incidentally, although the GMU had clear grounds for dismissal, Crocker was not fired, although her contract was not renewed.
Meanwhile, while the film proclaims to support academic inquiry and open discussion, press conferences have been staged with pre-written questions and actual questions from the press, being screened. Similarly, the producers have been attempting to control who is and is not able to see the movie and attempts to disinvite and remove people that are not sympathetic to their cause. Similarly, they have lied and claimed showings were canceled to those they deemed undesirable.
This is just a symptom of the refusal to offer itself for criticism (as with the rest of the ID movement). The film doesn't even bother defining Intelligent Design nor Evolution. Instead, it merely attempts to conflate Evolution with Nazis, eugenics, atheism, and racism. None of these are actually true.
Recently, Expelled has also become the target of a lawsuit for plagiarism when it was realized that an animation used in the film was a close replica of a film produced for Harvard by XVIVO. This film had earlier been used for profit in lectures by William Dembski who used an altered version with a Creationist narration and the Harvard credits stripped. Although some creationists would try to argue that the producers of Expelled tried to make their own animation separate than the XVIVO one, the Expelled animation makes the same simplifications, leaving out the same proteins. Additionally, Dembski admitted to being in contact with the producers who long ago set aside money for what was to be an inevitable law suit. Thus, we can only conclude that they fully understood their culpability in the infringement.
Additionally, to promote the film, the company is offering rebates and discounts, specifically targeting "faith ministries and organizations, church groups, youth and university groups" (and they wonder why people see a religious agenda? Especially when they keep giving screenings at infamous creationist "museums" and other religious institutions).
So, as we can see, Expelled has absolutely pathetic standards. It lied to get interviews, distorts positions, hypocritically stifles questioning, and intends to bribe students from classrooms to see this propaganda which doesn't even define its own position, but rather relies on emotional appeals and falsehoods to make their arguments. The dishonesty is so prevalent in this film, that even a major creationist organization (Reason To Believe) has critisized it. For more information on this topic, see Expelled Exposed.
Further reading:
Evidence & Testing in the Scientific Field
The Failure of Irreducible Complexity
Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Second Law
Is Intelligent Design Different that Creationism?
Why are ID Proponents/Creationists intellectually dishonest?
Evolution - What it is and isn’t
Evolution and its Compatibility with Creationism
Updates:
4-18-08 - Added criticism from RTB.
I was listening to PZ Myers a few weeks ago talk about being EXPELLED from viewing the screening. Funny thing is is that they didn't catch that one of his guest was Richard Dawkins.
789789789789p
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:37:12 +0000
JessieDreamer
Risa,
Your anti-ID threads are getting old. Pick a new topic already. I swear, you're starting to become that one kid that's obsessed with making threads about *****.
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
Your anti-ID threads are getting old. Pick a new topic already. I swear, you're starting to become that one kid that's obsessed with making threads about *****.
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
Because Nobody likes Bush and saying ID is science is something Bush would do
N3bu
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:14:46 +0000
JessieDreamer
Risa,
Your anti-ID threads are getting old. Pick a new topic already. I swear, you're starting to become that one kid that's obsessed with making threads about *****.
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
Your anti-ID threads are getting old. Pick a new topic already. I swear, you're starting to become that one kid that's obsessed with making threads about *****.
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
Who defends mike moore these days? Ill admit when I first watched I found it a clever and amusing way to support my veiws, now all it does is reek of propaganda.
789789789789p
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:32:35 +0000
White Wolf of Nebu
JessieDreamer
Risa,
Your anti-ID threads are getting old. Pick a new topic already. I swear, you're starting to become that one kid that's obsessed with making threads about *****.
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
Your anti-ID threads are getting old. Pick a new topic already. I swear, you're starting to become that one kid that's obsessed with making threads about *****.
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
Who defends mike moore these days? Ill admit when I first watched I found it a clever and amusing way to support my veiws, now all it does is reek of propaganda.
He pissed off Matt Stone and Tray Parker. He's got no friends now.
Celedrin
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:39:52 +0000
I don't agree with Expelled. ID is a religious belief, and as said in the Bill of Rights, you can't force a religious belief in schools. neutral
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:03:56 +0000
Shokushu
I'm explaining the emergence of these traits. If you have two people, one who does the things you're 'defending' as biology unrelated and one who does not...
well, if doing those has any kind of expense and does nothing for the person then they're not going to be as successful as the other guy.
Sorry but Biology trumps everything else because if you don't have babies you walked your heritable traits into a dead end.
-
I don't even understand what you're going on about with evolution being a program- maybe a list of some alternative programs would clarify this?
-
Hrm, I think I've got a way to use your words here- our biology has preloaded us with a program for modifying our own responses to our drives which makes any learned reaction to a drive teh "naturally planned" behavior.
Motivation is irrelevant, statistical benefit is all that is required.
But the "intention" you're talking about in the cases of nonreciprocal altruism could still be that of impressing others. That we aren't specific enough about it to withdraw the behavior when not in a situation that is likely to have a payoff would just be a case of maladaption.
Such a thing could stick around because it does statistically benefit us, even if the "intention" was not such a long term investment.
-
Dieing young isn't typically an intentional action and choosing to not have children makes sense in the kinds of smaller communities man once lived it. Controlling your population size is rather important when you're nearing the carrying capacity of your environment and this could be another maladaption as our current environment would be sending many of the kinds of signals we might be receptive to.
And if they improve the fitness of their close relatives they will have still have done quite a bit to promote their genes in the next generation. Obviously they lose out on whatever particular mutations they got that generation but that's not statistically important, and most of them were probably not in active coding regions anyway so they couldn't have had an effect on the individual's fitness this generation anyway.
-
Regardless of what you think about memes I should still be able to use the word to refer to the nurture aspect of our behavior in contrast to the genetic nature aspect.
If you die without doing something to pass your traits to someone else does it make sense that people would be very much like you after you're gone?
No, zero or even less than average contribution of genes and ideas is going decrease the frequency of those genes and ideas in the next generation. If those genes or ideas themselves were the cause of that lesser contribution doesn't it make sense that over time they would be phased out except whenever a mutation or some eureka moment comes along to create an unrelated copy? Well, mutations and forming new ideas are pretty common but but particular mutations and are not so common so if they're working against their own ability to be passed on how could they possibly stick around?
-
You're using hard wired in a different context. you're talking about specific behaviors while I am, again, talking about broad capabilities.
...if we are not born with the ability to learn how to behave then how could we possibly pick up the behavior? Well maybe we could learn i- oh dang, just now you were complaining about how I said that we start off with the ability to do that in the first place.
-
The disagreement here is taking place on different scales. You are looking at things on the level of particular behaviors and trying to sort them into two piles while I am working at the smaller level of particular behaviors and trying to quantify how much of them is due to our biology and how much is due to our environment. Biology plays some role in all of them at some level and it would be rather nonsensical to argue against that in a very broad way but luckily I don't think that's what you're trying to do here.
well, if doing those has any kind of expense and does nothing for the person then they're not going to be as successful as the other guy.
Sorry but Biology trumps everything else because if you don't have babies you walked your heritable traits into a dead end.
-
I don't even understand what you're going on about with evolution being a program- maybe a list of some alternative programs would clarify this?
-
Hrm, I think I've got a way to use your words here- our biology has preloaded us with a program for modifying our own responses to our drives which makes any learned reaction to a drive teh "naturally planned" behavior.
Motivation is irrelevant, statistical benefit is all that is required.
But the "intention" you're talking about in the cases of nonreciprocal altruism could still be that of impressing others. That we aren't specific enough about it to withdraw the behavior when not in a situation that is likely to have a payoff would just be a case of maladaption.
Such a thing could stick around because it does statistically benefit us, even if the "intention" was not such a long term investment.
-
Dieing young isn't typically an intentional action and choosing to not have children makes sense in the kinds of smaller communities man once lived it. Controlling your population size is rather important when you're nearing the carrying capacity of your environment and this could be another maladaption as our current environment would be sending many of the kinds of signals we might be receptive to.
And if they improve the fitness of their close relatives they will have still have done quite a bit to promote their genes in the next generation. Obviously they lose out on whatever particular mutations they got that generation but that's not statistically important, and most of them were probably not in active coding regions anyway so they couldn't have had an effect on the individual's fitness this generation anyway.
-
Regardless of what you think about memes I should still be able to use the word to refer to the nurture aspect of our behavior in contrast to the genetic nature aspect.
If you die without doing something to pass your traits to someone else does it make sense that people would be very much like you after you're gone?
No, zero or even less than average contribution of genes and ideas is going decrease the frequency of those genes and ideas in the next generation. If those genes or ideas themselves were the cause of that lesser contribution doesn't it make sense that over time they would be phased out except whenever a mutation or some eureka moment comes along to create an unrelated copy? Well, mutations and forming new ideas are pretty common but but particular mutations and are not so common so if they're working against their own ability to be passed on how could they possibly stick around?
-
You're using hard wired in a different context. you're talking about specific behaviors while I am, again, talking about broad capabilities.
...if we are not born with the ability to learn how to behave then how could we possibly pick up the behavior? Well maybe we could learn i- oh dang, just now you were complaining about how I said that we start off with the ability to do that in the first place.
-
The disagreement here is taking place on different scales. You are looking at things on the level of particular behaviors and trying to sort them into two piles while I am working at the smaller level of particular behaviors and trying to quantify how much of them is due to our biology and how much is due to our environment. Biology plays some role in all of them at some level and it would be rather nonsensical to argue against that in a very broad way but luckily I don't think that's what you're trying to do here.
So, according to you, the evolutionary needs of humans caused us to make computers and develop religious myth? Sorry. No. Simply because biology exists, and evolution exists, does not mean it "trumps" everything else in terms of explanation, which is what this discussion is about.
This is not about HOW, this is about WHY, and evolution does not explain WHY humans perform certain actions. It doesn't. If you claim it does, you have not researched humans enough. neutral
One does not measure instances of human behaviour in statistics in order to understand them. At least, proper social scientists don't.
Delayed payoff, or social payoff, does not count as non-reciprocal altruism. Non-reciprocal altruism counts as an action that has no payoff. Ever. Evolutionary explanations do not account for it. For example, sacrificing your life to save another. If you have no children, or relatives capable of producing children, then you are not exchanging your life in the hope of your own genetic continuation. You are losing it for nothing. No evolutionary benefit comes out of this action: so why do people do it? Because of how society influences our minds, which is also what causes the majority of human actions.
Someone doesn't know about smaller communities that man once lived in. In smaller, hunter-gatherer societies (what most anthropologists consider to be a "default" state in humanity), it is most beneficial for the self and the group to have as many children as possible, due to infant mortality rate. Plus, the only method of contraception is to be lactating, which suppresses ovulation (I could be wrong on this, I may have misheard my lecturer, but it sounds right). Generally smaller communities would only be able to sustain a certain amount of people which would be difficult to surpass due to nature itself. Only when humanity started settling in the past 10,000 years would "population control" be an issue. And 10,000 years isn't enough for evolution, not even according to the biggest evolutionary psychologists. Ergo, choosing not to have children does not make evolutionary sense.
Use it all you want, I will not recognise it as an actual theory. It was conjured by a hack.
Ideas generally don't "stick around". Memes are as much "cultural genes" as a horse is a donkey. The idea of passing on cultural information from generation to generation does not bear any resembelence to genetics. The ideas "passed on" often change within a generation. They are not static, but fluid, and are therefore "constantly mutating". I was not aware that every gene constantly mutates.
Then you're not understanding the debate. I am not arguing about ******** broad capabilities or potential. I am arguing about ACTUAL behaviours and their causes. I am not disputing the presence of evolution, I am debating the EXTENT to which it causes us to act, and am arguing that culture determines more of our choices and actions as humans than our biology does. I'm sorry, but if you're not getting this part now, then you're ******** dense. I am not saying it plays no part. I am saying that to say "evolution determines our behaviour 100%, that's it" is moronic, reductionist, and bad science. If you are not arguing that evolution determines our behaviour 100%, then leave me alone. Because you are arguing something I'm not disagreeing with.
Your last sentence did a better job. I am not looking at a behaviour and going "this behaviour is 42% biology, 58% culture". Instead I am looking at individual actions, and seeing whether or not their causes or biological in nature, and I have to say that the majority of individual actions cannot be justified in terms of evolution, nor can culture simply be dismissed as a "tool of evolution".
Nzumbe
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:31:10 +0000
Why Ben Stein, why? gonk
I used to watch your game show...
I used to watch your game show...
VoijaRisa
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:00:20 +0000
JessieDreamer
Your anti-ID threads are getting old.
JessieDreamer
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
And this canard of Ben Stein = Michael Moore is patently absurd. Since when did Michael Moore lie to get interviews, infringe on copyright, use genocide as an emotional appeal....
Yeah... they're so the same thing.
Shokushu
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:17:23 +0000
Blind Guardian the 2nd
So, according to you, the evolutionary needs of humans caused us to make computers and develop religious myth? Sorry. No. Simply because biology exists, and evolution exists, does not mean it "trumps" everything else in terms of explanation, which is what this discussion is about.
Because we're capable of seeing intention beyond our own.In fact, not only are we capable of seeing intention but we prefer to.
Is this a perfect system? No, but getting some false positives is a lot less expensive than missing the cases when something actually is happening.
And making computers is just tool production which has plenty of evolutionary explanation.
Quote:
This is not about HOW, this is about WHY, and evolution does not explain WHY humans perform certain actions. It doesn't. If you claim it does, you have not researched humans enough. neutral
If you'd give me more examples of the actions you keep talking about I could tell you how they fit in to our biology.
Quote:
One does not measure instances of human behaviour in statistics in order to understand them. At least, proper social scientists don't.
"So Mr. Cornelius, do you or do you not prefer to drink water based fluids when you become thirsty, if you ever become thirsty at all that is?"
Quote:
Delayed payoff, or social payoff, does not count as non-reciprocal altruism. Non-reciprocal altruism counts as an action that has no payoff. Ever. Evolutionary explanations do not account for it. For example, sacrificing your life to save another. If you have no children, or relatives capable of producing children, then you are not exchanging your life in the hope of your own genetic continuation. You are losing it for nothing. No evolutionary benefit comes out of this action: so why do people do it? Because of how society influences our minds, which is also what causes the majority of human actions.
Just because we're doing something for complete strangers doesn't mean the machinery is really making that distinction.
B: You're assuming that all genes should make it so that you pass on your particular set of genes but you could very well have some behaviors that don't care about the rest of your genes. Should such a gene become widely enough spread through the gene pool sacrificing yourself for complete strangers would still improve that particular gene's fitness.
Quote:
Someone doesn't know about smaller communities that man once lived in. In smaller, hunter-gatherer societies (what most anthropologists consider to be a "default" state in humanity), it is most beneficial for the self and the group to have as many children as possible, due to infant mortality rate.
That's quite untrue. It's beneficial to mate quite a bit but should you end up with too many children you may be faced with the horrible decision of which one to kill so that the others can live. In modern society we've all but made that kind of thing nonexistent but for hunter gatherer groups harsh times are a frequent reality so they cannot get by without population control.
*I was actually been taking a class that covered that recently.
Quote:
Plus, the only method of contraception is to be lactating, which suppresses ovulation (I could be wrong on this, I may have misheard my lecturer, but it sounds right).
You're correct about breast feeding acting as a contraceptive but there are some other ancient methods available to some groups (I think I recall one involving lemon juice.)
Quote:
Generally smaller communities would only be able to sustain a certain amount of people which would be difficult to surpass due to nature itself. Only when humanity started settling in the past 10,000 years would "population control" be an issue. And 10,000 years isn't enough for evolution, not even according to the biggest evolutionary psychologists. Ergo, choosing not to have children does not make evolutionary sense.
Aside from infanticide we seem to actually have a bit of a biological ability to control the gender of our offspring somewhat.
*If I were a better student I could list another trait related to population control but I can't seem to recall it.
My knowledge of anthropology seems to be putting you at a rather significant disadvantage. If you don't have too much of an aversion to reading a lot of information in a short amount of time I'd recommend you look up some information about the lives of the Yanamamo and Netsilik tribes, as the researchers were careful not to modernize them while collecting their information (though I believe they gave the Yanamamo smallpox shots or one of those kinds of vaccines.)
Quote:
Use it all you want, I will not recognise it as an actual theory. It was conjured by a hack.
Quote:
Ideas generally don't "stick around". Memes are as much "cultural genes" as a horse is a donkey. The idea of passing on cultural information from generation to generation does not bear any resembelence to genetics. The ideas "passed on" often change within a generation. They are not static, but fluid, and are therefore "constantly mutating". I was not aware that every gene constantly mutates.
There is some very heavy selection against mutations in certain critical genes though so with those deadend-ing right away you could sort of say they aren't mutating very much at all.
Though in terms of the "constant" change of ideas rather than changes that can be passed on only occurring once in a generation can just be likened to populations that use us as their environment, such as parasites or any of the symbiotic bacteria that live within us. Some of those things have generations even faster than we usually modify ideas~
Quote:
Then you're not understanding the debate.
I understand perfectly well that you're reacting to words that conflict with your overall philosophy.
Quote:
I am not arguing about ******** broad capabilities or potential. I am arguing about ACTUAL behaviours and their causes.
Quote:
I am not disputing the presence of evolution, I am debating the EXTENT to which it causes us to act, and am arguing that culture determines more of our choices and actions as humans than our biology does.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but if you're not getting this part now, then you're ******** dense. I am not saying it plays no part. I am saying that to say "evolution determines our behaviour 100%, that's it" is moronic, reductionist, and bad science. If you are not arguing that evolution determines our behaviour 100%, then leave me alone. Because you are arguing something I'm not disagreeing with.
Evolution is absolutely necessary for our behavior. If it's harmful evolutionarily it's going to be selected against. Period.
Quote:
Your last sentence did a better job. I am not looking at a behaviour and going "this behaviour is 42% biology, 58% culture". Instead I am looking at individual actions, and seeing whether or not their causes or biological in nature, and I have to say that the majority of individual actions cannot be justified in terms of evolution, nor can culture simply be dismissed as a "tool of evolution".
I am applying this to individual actions as well as broader behaviors. Go ahead and present a variety of actions and I would be happy to explain the biological benefit of performing them.
789789789789p
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:26:05 +0000
Quote:
JessieDreamer
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
And this canard of Ben Stein = Michael Moore is patently absurd. Since when did Michael Moore lie to get interviews, infringe on copyright, use genocide as an emotional appeal....
Yeah... they're so the same thing.
In Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore had an interview with Matt Stone and Tray Parker. He never asked for their opinion on guns, he just talked about how much high school sucked. Then he showed a cartoon clip about how awful guns were. Now everyone assumed that Matt and Tray made the cartoon. But in fact Michael Moore had hired a team of animators to draw the cartoon so that it looked like Matt and Tray had drawn it.
So Matt and Tray blew him up in Team America biggrin
But Michael Moore does play dirty when making his movies. crying
DapperSam
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:35:34 +0000
JessieDreamer
Risa,
Your anti-ID threads are getting old. Pick a new topic already. I swear, you're starting to become that one kid that's obsessed with making threads about *****.
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
Your anti-ID threads are getting old. Pick a new topic already. I swear, you're starting to become that one kid that's obsessed with making threads about *****.
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
nice tu quoque fallacy there champ
aisebon
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:00:22 +0000
Phht. Humans were created by an intelligent designer? Bullshit.
Humans eat and breathe through the same hole. Baaad idea.
Our immune system is prone to not having a clue what it should (and misses out cancer) and shouldn't (and goes for completely random things in allergies) attack.
The body, despite its best attempts, needlessly throws away a huge amount of the vital nutrients we consume, either by not digesting them well or by literally throwing them away. Thus, we need to eat more than necessary.
The eye, whilst often quoted as perfect, is subject to thousands of problems, and variations in things like blood pressure can seriously affect its functioning: and it's an open hole for all sorts of bacteria to get into the body.
Almost half of our natural lifespan (~35-40) involves growing: even more excess energy is required, and we are effectively out of action for much of this period.
During the end of each cell cycle, a telomere is cut off the end of every chromosome. This contributes significantly to ageing, and is an example of how crudely DNA is replicated. The number of improper replications is also very significant.
The body is not suitable for where and when we are. It needs many minerals that are in plants that are now quite rare or only in specific places, and punishes those who migrate to a less harsh climate.
All this suggests an unintelligent designer.
Humans eat and breathe through the same hole. Baaad idea.
Our immune system is prone to not having a clue what it should (and misses out cancer) and shouldn't (and goes for completely random things in allergies) attack.
The body, despite its best attempts, needlessly throws away a huge amount of the vital nutrients we consume, either by not digesting them well or by literally throwing them away. Thus, we need to eat more than necessary.
The eye, whilst often quoted as perfect, is subject to thousands of problems, and variations in things like blood pressure can seriously affect its functioning: and it's an open hole for all sorts of bacteria to get into the body.
Almost half of our natural lifespan (~35-40) involves growing: even more excess energy is required, and we are effectively out of action for much of this period.
During the end of each cell cycle, a telomere is cut off the end of every chromosome. This contributes significantly to ageing, and is an example of how crudely DNA is replicated. The number of improper replications is also very significant.
The body is not suitable for where and when we are. It needs many minerals that are in plants that are now quite rare or only in specific places, and punishes those who migrate to a less harsh climate.
All this suggests an unintelligent designer.
pockybot
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:06:02 +0000
JessieDreamer
Why is it that Michael Moore can make a bullshit propaganda movie that people defend, but Ben Stein can't do the same thing?
Bullshit? You really thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was bullshit?
Am I the only one here who is an anti right wing, anti government and anti fundamentalist religion person who LOVED this documentary?
I thought the documentary actually slams creationism and the far right religious people
while simply asking "why should Darwinism be absolute?"
Also, was interesting that this documentary had the balls to show what REALLY fueled the Nazi racial ideologies and holocaust, and the racial eugenics backbone of the original abortion movement in America.
