Noted Atheist Philosopher Thomas Nagel: "Defenders of Intelligent

[Kalkidas]

"In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
University. It's a bombshell.

Already available on Kindle, Nagel's book carries the provocative title
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature
Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book's subtitle
declares that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is
Almost Certainly False." Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the
positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence
for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative
of the "iconoclasts" of the intelligent design movement for raising a
significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy....."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html

[deadrat]

On 8/23/12 4:22 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> "In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
> version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
> University. It's a bombshell.
>

If by "bombshell," you mean a yawn. Nagle isn't a scientist.

[Robert Camp]

The DI's "Evolution Moans and Groans" website is typical in its
effusive praise of something that likely does nothing for their case.
No, I haven't read the book, so I cannot be sure, but if history is
any indication...

Proposal: Nagel is just another pseudo-nonconformist, self-appointed
iconoclast (Fuller, anyone?) who takes pleasure in rocking the boat -
even one that is entirely on solid ground. His book will offer nothing
new in the way of arguments against materialist "Darwinism" and will
quickly be dismissed by biologists.

Suggestion: you avail yourself of the opportunity to read the book,
and post anything here that you think counters the materialist
perspective, offers support for ID, or just breaks some new ground.

Let's look this thing over and consider its significance. I will be
delighted to have been proved wrong.

RLC

[Kalkidas]

That's OK, because Darwinism isn't science.

[Kalkidas]

The point is not "Oh look, a prominent atheist philosopher says
materialistic neo-Darwinism is wrong, therefore it's wrong".

The point is "Oh look, someone else came to his senses. How nice."

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

This is a lie. Repeating it over and over does not make it true, it
just makes you look dishonest.

[Kalkidas]

If I cared about how I "look" to the likes of you, I wouldn't be posting
here.

Darwinism isn't science, and your kind isn't qualified to call anyone a
liar.

[deadrat]

There isn't any "Darwinism" any more. We have a consensus of the
scientific community on the issue. There are just biologists now.
"Darwinism" is simply your name for something you don't understand but
have been told you should disagree with.

It takes some understanding of the field to make valid criticisms.
Without the requisite background, people end up like, well, like you.
Perhaps I've misjudged the "renowned philosopher," and he's a skilled
biologist though an amateur. I doubt it though. You could convince me
with evidence, but you haven't read this "bombshell" book, have you?
But that's OK, because you don't know enough to evaluate it.

[deadrat]

No, your point is "Oh,look, another non-expert like me agrees with me.
Soon there will be a majority of non-experts and we win a vote on
whether modern biology is valid."

[Burkhard]

It's a yawn, but for different reasons I'd say. I don't care that much
about an abstract issue of "expertise", either his arguments hold water
or they don't.

It's a yawn mainly because he has argued this for a couple of years now,
so we have a good idea of the quality of his arguments - or in this case
the lack of them. He did for instance an endorsement piece of the
"Signature of the cell" which managed to combine pretty basic mistakes
on what modern biology actually says with misrepresenting of what the
author himself had to say in favour of ID.Essentially, its the usual
"probabilities plugged out of my backside" combined with "I can't think
of a way how evolution may have done it, and I'm exceedingly clever, so
if even I can't figure it out, there is no answer".

More worrying, given that he is mainly a legal philosopher (worked with
Rawls and Dworking a lot) was another piece he did on Dover, which
managed to describe the most abysmal strawman of what Judge Jones had
actually said, and (for someone working at a law department) amazing
ignorance of procedural law. (by contrast, his "The Myth of Ownership:
Taxes and Justice" I thought was quite good)

I know you dislike speculation about motives, but in this case, it seems
to me to be driven mainly by his philosophy of mind, or rather the
failure of his prediction (for a couple of decades now) that soon, we
will have a unified theory of mind and matter that is non-reductionists
and radically different from what either physics or cog science do
today.Since obviously, he can't be wrong about this (see above,e
exceedingly clever) some other sinister forces must be at work which
for some reason he sees in evolutionary biology rather than physics,
which would be much more logical.

Just as an aside, and in relation to the title of the OP, Nagel's
atheism was always rather..unorthodox as well - see in particular his
"fear of religion" which I always thought was just weird (but that may
be because it is pretty much the opposite of my own feelings on that
matter)

[Kalkidas]

It takes some stupidity to misunderstand "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian
Conception of Nature" to be science, and it takes a person with a severe
learning disability to think that when a philosopher writes about a
philosophy, he's not qualified because he's not a "scientist".

Neither Darwinism, nor neo-Darwinism, nor materialism is, nor any
combination thereof is science, and scientists who think it is are in
the wrong field.

[UC]

Of all the nonsense floating around in academe, the theory of
evolution isn't.

[Robert Camp]

I assume you don't grant that the mere publication of a book is
testimony to the the validity of the arguments therein, so if your
point about someone coming to his senses is to mean anything, it will
have to be supported by the specifics of those arguments.

Surely you won't be surprised that we don't take your word for Nagel's
sensibleness. So why not try something new and actually offer support
for your point?

RLC

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 23, 3:10�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

Yet you accept the main claim of Darwinism (evolution).

Ray

[deadrat]

On 8/23/12 7:23 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 8/23/2012 4:19 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 8/23/12 5:10 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2012 2:45 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/12 4:22 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> "In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the
>>>>> hardcover
>>>>> version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
>>>>> University. It's a bombshell.
>>>>>
>>>> If by "bombshell," you mean a yawn. Nagle isn't a scientist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's OK, because Darwinism isn't science.
>>
>> There isn't any "Darwinism" any more. We have a consensus of the
>> scientific community on the issue. There are just biologists now.
>> "Darwinism" is simply your name for something you don't understand but
>> have been told you should disagree with.
>>
>> It takes some understanding of the field to make valid criticisms.
>> Without the requisite background, people end up like, well, like you.
>> Perhaps I've misjudged the "renowned philosopher," and he's a skilled
>> biologist though an amateur. I doubt it though. You could convince me
>> with evidence, but you haven't read this "bombshell" book, have you? But
>> that's OK, because you don't know enough to evaluate it.
>
> It takes some stupidity to misunderstand "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian

> Conception of Nature" to be science, --

It takes an ignoramus to take seriously anything called "the Materialist
Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature."

> and it takes a person with a severe
> learning disability to think that when a philosopher writes about a
> philosophy, he's not qualified because he's not a "scientist".

And again, it takes an ignoramus to think that when a philosopher writes
about philosophy it will be a "bombshell" lobbed at any field of science.

> Neither Darwinism, nor neo-Darwinism, nor materialism is, nor any
> combination thereof is science, and scientists who think it is are in
> the wrong field.

And yet again, it takes an ignoramus to think he can eliminate the
evidence that supports a scientific theory by erecting straw men.

[Tom]

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:06:44 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Yet you accept the main claim of Darwinism (evolution).

So much ignorance, so little time...

The concept of evolution was not introduced by Darwin. By his time, it had been around for more than a century already. Upon his death in 1748, Benoit de Maillet's book, Telliamed, was published. It contained his proposal that fossils indicated that the earth was vastly older than had been previously thought and that species evolved into different forms gradually over long periods of time. Around the same time in Germany, and also upon his death, Gottfried Leibniz's "Protogaea" was published, which also proposed that fossils were to be explained by the slow transformation of species over millions of years. These were both well-known texts to scholars of that time and both served as foundational material for the development of both geological and paleontological sciences.

Also before Darwin's "Origin of Species" was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's "Philosophie Zoologique", published in 1809. Lamarck proposed that simple species originated spontaneously and evolved due to an innate life force that transformed them over long periods of time into more and more complex forms. That was actually the first attempt to go further than merely to acknowledge that evolution happens by trying to explain how it happens.

It is completely wrong to declare that the main claim of "The Origin of Species" was evolution. Darwin's main claim was that the force behind evolution was natural selection due to environmental pressures, which is still considered a pretty good theory by people whose thinking is not too seriously impaired by religious indoctrination.

[Attila]

The description of this book furnished by Oxford University Press quotes
Nagel's thesis as follows: "it is prima facie highly implausible that life
as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together
with the mechanism of natural selection.” Really people, is that it? That's
all he's got? An imaginary intelligent designer has more prima facie
plausibility than a extremely well supported theory brimming over with
testable empirical consquences that time and again is proved correct?!? I
think someone out there is taking the piss.

[Ron O]

Instead of putting up the stupid name you should put up the stupid
arguments and then you would know why people laugh at you. Have his
arguments amounted to anything, ever?

Ron Okimoto

[deadrat]

Physical accidents? See what happens when non-experts guess about
technical terms like "random"?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 24, 2:12�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > "In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
> > version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
> > University. It's a bombshell.
>
> > Already available on Kindle, Nagel's book carries the provocative title
> > Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature
> > Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book's subtitle
> > declares that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is
> > Almost Certainly False." Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the
> > positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence
> > for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative
> > of the "iconoclasts" of the intelligent design movement for raising a
> > significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy....."
>
> >http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html
>
> The description of this book furnished by Oxford University Press quotes
> Nagel's thesis as follows: "it is prima facie highly implausible that life
> as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together

> with the mechanism of natural selection.� Really people, is that it? That's

> all he's got? An imaginary intelligent designer has more prima facie
> plausibility than a extremely well supported theory brimming over with
> testable empirical consquences that time and again is proved correct?!? I
> think someone out there is taking the piss.

Also notice the continued conflation of the origins of life and its
subsequent development.

[Kalkidas]

Have I ever, ever asked or demanded you to "take my word" on anything?
No, I have not.

I believe that Nagel's book can add nothing to the *substance* of the
arguments against "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature".

I believe that conception imploded by self-contradiction as soon as it
was adopted, however many hundreds or thousands of years ago.

As I said, the point is not "Oh look, new arguments!" The point is "Oh
look, someone else has come to his senses".

[Kermit]

Fuller is a professor of the philosophy of the mind and ethics and
politics. He is so ignorant of science that he thinks the argument
from the ID crowd is a scientific argument. He dislikes materialism
and whatever he thinks reductionism is, and probably has what he
believes are coherent arguments.

I find it telling that his ideas(1) are not discussed in scientific
circles. Neither are the teachings of Ramtha. When an idea describing
reality is testable and interesting, it will find its way into the
scientific community.

(1) On evolution, at least. I have no idea about his ideas of mind,
but I wouldn't hold out hope.

Kermit

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

On Aug 23, 3:46 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

Would you explain what you mean by "my kind"? Is that perhaps anyone
who disagrees with you?

I assume that you are using "Darwinism" to mean the theory of
evolution as currently understood (if I'm wrong about that please
explain how you are using the term). The theory of evolution is most
certainly science, and is currently supported by massive amounts of
evidence from various sources (e.g. comparative anatomy, geographical
distribution, fossils, and genetic evidence).

[raven1]

No, the point is "a philosopher wrote a book making claims outside his
area of expertise. So what?".

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:22:42 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Philosophy's nice; it can be used to advance nearly
anything, given the properly-selected premises. And it can
even, under some conditions, point the way toward actual
scientific research (although IMHO this doesn't happen
often). What it *cannot* do is challenge science regarding
actual evidence and testing (the "elegant theory slain by
ugly fact" phenomenon).

Got anything by an actual scientist? You know, the kind
involving testable evidence?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:10:10 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Evolutionary theory is. But what's this "Darwinism"? No one
worships Darwin, any more than anyone worships Newton.

[Kalkidas]

On 8/24/2012 10:43 AM, johnetho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 23, 3:46 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 8/23/2012 3:36 PM, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 23, 3:10 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2012 2:45 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 8/23/12 4:22 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>>> "In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
>>>>>> version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
>>>>>> University. It's a bombshell.
>>
>>>>> If by "bombshell," you mean a yawn. Nagle isn't a scientist.
>>
>>>> That's OK, because Darwinism isn't science.
>>
>>> This is a lie. Repeating it over and over does not make it true, it
>>> just makes you look dishonest.
>>
>> If I cared about how I "look" to the likes of you, I wouldn't be posting
>> here.
>>
>> Darwinism isn't science, and your kind isn't qualified to call anyone a
>> liar.
>
> Would you explain what you mean by "my kind"? Is that perhaps anyone
> who disagrees with you?

Your kind is the kind that thinks you can win arguments by attacking
your opponents self-image ("makes you look dishonest"), rather than
addressing the substance of what he says.

The "Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature", which is what
Nagel's book is about, is not science. It is a metaphysical position,
which means it is properly in the field of philosophy.

Materialism, Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, are not science, much less
"theories". They are philosophical principles whose truth or falsity is
debatable within philosophy, not science.

[Burkhard]

On Aug 24, 6:42 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Aug, 14:22, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > "In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
> > version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
> > University. It's a bombshell.
>
> > Already available on Kindle, Nagel's book carries the provocative title
> > Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature
> > Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book's subtitle
> > declares that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is
> > Almost Certainly False." Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the
> > positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence
> > for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative
> > of the "iconoclasts" of the intelligent design movement for raising a
> > significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy....."
>
> >http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html
>
> Fuller is a professor of the philosophy of the mind and ethics and
> politics.

You mean Nagel surely? Fuller is professor for sociology

[deadrat]

Why not take is as a piece of potentially valuable advice?

> The "Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature", which is what
> Nagel's book is about, is not science. It is a metaphysical position,
> which means it is properly in the field of philosophy.

So it could hardly be a "bombshell" about science, now could it? I'm
sure a bombshell in philosophy would measure no more than a few
yoctoergs, making it hardly worthy of the name.

> Materialism, Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, are not science, much less
> "theories". They are philosophical principles whose truth or falsity is
> debatable within philosophy, not science.

But modern biology is science.

<snip/>

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 24, 12:35�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

<snip>

> Your kind is the kind that thinks you can win arguments by attacking
> your opponents self-image ("makes you look dishonest"), rather than
> addressing the substance of what he says.

You, personally, have demonstrated the use of personal attack as a
dismissive ploy.
You made ludicrously untrue claims about me; when called on it, you
neither retracted them nor defended them, not even apologized.
Worse, the lies you told about me had nothing to do with my
statements, but were an attempt to discredit what I said, because I
said it, rather than honestly addressing my point.

> The "Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature", which is what
> Nagel's book is about, is not science. It is a metaphysical position,
> which means it is properly in the field of philosophy.

"The Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature" (which, frankly,
sounds like the result of an unnatural act) may be what Nagel's book
is about, and it may be what you want to argue against--but it is
_not_ the set of explanations for observable reality that I, and
others like me refer to, variously, as "ToE", or the "theory of
evolution", or other similar things (I _do not_ refer to the congruent
evidences of nesting hierarchical structures, deep homologies, shared
derived characteristics, and hereditable variation leading to
differential situational reproductive success {to coin a phrase} as
'darwinism').

> Materialism, Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, are not science, much less
> "theories". They are philosophical principles whose truth or falsity is
> debatable within philosophy, not science.

See above, then explain to me why you think inflating your straw man
gives you a valid target...
<snip>

[Robert Camp]

Of course you have. You do it every time you base an argument on your
convictions rather than empirical observations.

> I believe that Nagel's book can add nothing to the *substance* of the
> arguments against "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature".
>
> I believe that conception imploded by self-contradiction as soon as it
> was adopted, however many hundreds or thousands of years ago.
>
> As I said, the point is not "Oh look, new arguments!" The point is "Oh
> look, someone else has come to his senses".

So, all appearances to the contrary, you're not interested in
convincing anyone of the validity of your, or Nagel's, perspective? Do
you post here, then, to satisfy some deep-seated emotional need,
fulfill a wager, just kill time?

You complain often about trolls. If you are unwilling to stand behind
what you post, how are you any different? (Besides the fact that you
meet the very minimal obligation of being on topic.)

RLC

[Kalkidas]

On 8/24/2012 12:12 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> On Aug 24, 12:35 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Your kind is the kind that thinks you can win arguments by attacking
>> your opponents self-image ("makes you look dishonest"), rather than
>> addressing the substance of what he says.
>
> You, personally, have demonstrated the use of personal attack as a
> dismissive ploy.
> You made ludicrously untrue claims about me; when called on it, you
> neither retracted them nor defended them, not even apologized.

Prove that I *initiated* a personal attack on you. Put up or shut up.

[snip]

[Kalkidas]

I post here for the same reason as you.

> You complain often about trolls. If you are unwilling to stand behind
> what you post, how are you any different? (Besides the fact that you
> meet the very minimal obligation of being on topic.)

LOL.

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

On Aug 24, 11:35�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> On 8/24/2012 10:43 AM, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 3:46 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2012 3:36 PM, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 23, 3:10 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>> On 8/23/2012 2:45 PM, deadrat wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 8/23/12 4:22 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>>>> "In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
> >>>>>> version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
> >>>>>> University. It's a bombshell.
>
> >>>>> If by "bombshell," you mean a yawn. �Nagle isn't a scientist.
>
> >>>> That's OK, because Darwinism isn't science.
>
> >>> This is a lie. Repeating it over and over does not make it true, it
> >>> just makes you look dishonest.
>
> >> If I cared about how I "look" to the likes of you, I wouldn't be posting
> >> here.
>
> >> Darwinism isn't science, and your kind isn't qualified to call anyone a
> >> liar.
>
> > Would you explain what you mean by "my kind"? �Is that perhaps anyone
> > who disagrees with you?
>
> Your kind is the kind that thinks you can win arguments by attacking
> your opponents self-image ("makes you look dishonest"), rather than
> addressing the substance of what he says.

I said that when someone constantly repeats something that is untrue
it makes him/her look dishonest. No attack on anyone, just a simple
statement of fact.

I note that you have nothing to say about the vase amount of evidence
supporting the theory of evolution.

[Slow Vehicle]

Your post, from August 16:
<quote Kalkidas>

"A fair question is one not posed by someone who, while styling
himself
as an expert champion of Darwinism and an intractable foe of
creationism, indulges in childish feigned ignorance of any arguments
against evolution by natural selection.
You want serious answers? Ask serious questions. "

</quote>

Multiple leis.
Several personal attacks.

All for _daring_ to ask you what evidence against natural selection
_you_ find persuasive, in a post about evidence against natural
selection.

And there it is.

Jesus is certainly lucky to have "your kind" on his side...

[Kalkidas]

On 8/24/2012 2:27 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2:43 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 8/24/2012 12:12 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 24, 12:35 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Your kind is the kind that thinks you can win arguments by attacking
>>>> your opponents self-image ("makes you look dishonest"), rather than
>>>> addressing the substance of what he says.
>>
>>> You, personally, have demonstrated the use of personal attack as a
>>> dismissive ploy.
>>> You made ludicrously untrue claims about me; when called on it, you
>>> neither retracted them nor defended them, not even apologized.
>>
>> Prove that I *initiated* a personal attack on you. Put up or shut up.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> Your post, from August 16:
> <quote Kalkidas>
>
> "A fair question is one not posed by someone who, while styling
> himself
> as an expert champion of Darwinism and an intractable foe of
> creationism, indulges in childish feigned ignorance of any arguments
> against evolution by natural selection.
> You want serious answers? Ask serious questions. "
>
> </quote>

You are mistaken if you think that was a personal attack on you. It was
a retaliatory attack on Bob Casanova. You got in the way by repeating
the question which, when he asked it, was bogus.

So I have not initiated any personal attacks on you. But I have, and
will continue to, retaliate against personal attacks initiated against me.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I don't think Kalkidas is a Christian. Hindu maybe or some sort of
Eastern vedist tradition. Hindus could accept Jesus as an avatar into
their worldview, though I'm not sure how common this is.

[Kalkidas]

I'm an individualist, which explains why I don't take any "scientific
consensus" seriously.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/23/2012 05:22 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> "In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
> version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
> University. It's a bombshell.
>

> Already available on Kindle, Nagel's book carries the provocative title
> Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature
> Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book's subtitle
> declares that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is
> Almost Certainly False." Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the
> positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence
> for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative
> of the "iconoclasts" of the intelligent design movement for raising a
> significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy....."
>
> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html
>

There's some iconoclasm amongst biologists and philosophers that step
outside the standard neo-Darwinian framework. Bashing Darwinism was in
vogue back in the 90s when evo-devo was emerging (cringe) as a discipline.

Some outliers from the Darwinian mainstream are well known, like Ted
Steele and Brian Goodwin. Rupert Sheldrake went way off the reservation,
though work on mirror neurons as discussed by Goleman in _Social
Intelligence_ seems to indicate a neural resonance as brains converge on
parallel states <eg> .

Stephen Gould's iconoclasm was far milder than other more radical views.

Berlinski is a non-religious critic of evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

Not sure where Nagel falls on the spectrum.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Individualism is self-refuting. You must take consensus itself seriously
enough to use a common language, use a computer, and buy food at a
market, drive on a highway built by the government without killing
yourself or others...

The ultimate in individualism is egocentric solipsism, where you are
Maya creating your personal veil (aka bubble encased echo-chamber). But
without language, you could not express your self-conceptions to
yourself. Thus not even an echo. And unless you placed a garden or
cattle ranch inside this bubble, you will starve.

Individualism is Tom Hanks stranded on an island. He wound up talking to
a volleyball:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wilson_The_Volleyball.jpg

Individualism is thus refuted. You're welcome.

[RAM]

Again your stupidity about science is duly noted. Individualist is
another irrational excuse for being anti-science. Grow up.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I'll give him that. He is obsessed with topicality.

[Slow Vehicle]

You are mistaken if you think lying your way out of it obviates your
personal attack.
I asked you a question, that I characterized as a fair question.
You got your little panties in a wad about it.
Look back at the original thread...you are responding to my post. I am
the author of the question to which you attributed the falsehoods you
spewed.
You responded to me about the issue, with no sense of claiming that
you misapprehended who I was.
Now, in a different threads, you say you had me confused with someone
else?
...more bobbing and weaving that the "No one but Roberts" chapter of
the local Arachnanonomous...
*snerk*

[Slow Vehicle]

On Aug 24, 4:06�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

<snip>

> I'm an individualist, which explains why I don't take any "scientific
> consensus" seriously.

...not scientific evidence, apparently...

[*Hemidactylus*]

There is a subtle irony that someone could express anti-science opinions
on a networked computer. I wonder if he takes epidemiology seriously
enough to get vaccinated or take precautions against getting infected by
germs. I'm vaccinated against HepA & HepB and get a flu shot every year.
I use hand sanitizer often.

I suppose I'm an early adopter who helps protect the frail (elderly and
immune compromised) and freeriders from flu outbreaks by being part of
the herd (herd mentality yields herd immunity). The life I save may not
be my own.

OTOH there are those who fear needles and especially the vaccines they
deliver. They withhold protection from their children and thus the
children of others.

[RAM]

It is clear that his stupidity about science is such that he thinks
"scientific consensus" and "scientific evidence" are orthogonal.

[deadrat]

Fuck that golden rule. How Christian of you!

Well played!

[deadrat]

No, no. That would make you an ignoramus.

>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Is Kalkidas Christian? I have assumed not.

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 23, 9:40 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:06:44 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > Yet you accept the main claim of Darwinism (evolution).
>
> So much ignorance, so little time...
>
> The concept of evolution was not introduced by Darwin.  By his time, it had been around for more than a century already.  Upon his death in 1748, Benoit de Maillet's book, Telliamed, was published.  It contained his proposal that fossils indicated that the earth was vastly older than had been previously thought and that species evolved into different forms gradually over long periods of time.  Around the same time in Germany, and also upon his death, Gottfried Leibniz's "Protogaea" was published, which also proposed that fossils were to be explained by the slow transformation of species over millions of years.  These were both well-known texts to scholars of that time and both served as foundational material for the development of both geological and paleontological sciences.
>
> Also before Darwin's "Origin of Species" was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's "Philosophie Zoologique", published in 1809.  Lamarck proposed that simple species originated spontaneously and evolved due to an innate life force that transformed them over long periods of time into more and more complex forms.  That was actually the first attempt to go further than merely to acknowledge that evolution happens by trying to explain how it happens.
>
> It is completely wrong to declare that the main claim of "The Origin of Species" was evolution.

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and
dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most
naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that
each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully
convinced that species are not immutable" (C. Darwin "On The Origin"
1859:6; London: Murray).

I am not interested in your assertions.  If you choose to respond then
respond with scholarly references(s), like I have done.

Ray

[....]

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 23, 3:46�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 8/23/2012 3:36 PM, johnethompson2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 3:10 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2012 2:45 PM, deadrat wrote:
>

> >>> On 8/23/12 4:22 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>> "In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
> >>>> version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
> >>>> University. It's a bombshell.
>

> >>> If by "bombshell," you mean a yawn. �Nagle isn't a scientist.
>
> >> That's OK, because Darwinism isn't science.
>
> > This is a lie. Repeating it over and over does not make it true, it
> > just makes you look dishonest.
>
> If I cared about how I "look" to the likes of you, I wouldn't be posting
> here.
>

> Darwinism isn't science, [snip....]

Suddenly, Kalkidas has no answer....once again, if Darwinism is not
science why do accept evolution?

You really need to address Kalkid. Until you do everything you claim
to stand for is completely undermined.

Ray

[deadrat]

I'll confess that I did, but I don't really know. (Indeed how could I
even if he told me?) But his attitude is so in line with Christian
practice (which is to say, so opposed to Christian doctrine), that my
statement stands no matter the label he adopts. And even in the face of
my possibly erroneous assumption.

[*Hemidactylus*]

As an alternative to some other stuff that has been fouling talk.origins
recently (like a rotten crustacean) seeing you and Kalkidas engage in
some semblance of a discussion would be a very welcome diversion. Go for
it guys!

[Kalkidas]

None of the activities you list have anything to do with a scientific
consensus. Nor can they be performed by anything but individuals.

BTW, governments do not build highways. They use stolen money to pay
private individuals to build them.

> The ultimate in individualism is egocentric solipsism, where you are
> Maya creating your personal veil (aka bubble encased echo-chamber).

There is no such thing as "egocentric solipsism". But there are many
individualists.

But
> without language, you could not express your self-conceptions to
> yourself. Thus not even an echo. And unless you placed a garden or
> cattle ranch inside this bubble, you will starve.

Language is not dependent on a scientific consensus.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Scientific consensus is merely built on the substructure of lesser
consensus. Scientific consensus of epidemiology holds that vaccination
against communicable disease is a good thing. Do you go against that
grain? Scientific consensus is that things fall from higher points like
cliffs and buildings toward the ground. Dare to counter that wisdom?
Maybe you can fly or levitate instead.

Do you take the spread of pathogens or gravity seriously?

> BTW, governments do not build highways. They use stolen money to pay
> private individuals to build them.

Private individuals would have no motive to build infrastructure like
interstates or the nascent backbone of an internet. They wouldn't build
that (morphing the words of Obama...the man who killed Osama). If a
private firm built a road for its own use it would only extend within
the confines of "private property" and if they chose to let others
infringe on said property they would be free to charge exorbitant tolls.
Good luck driving anywhere in that system Ayn Rand. Bring your change
purse as you pay the owners of all those roads with no regulatory system
that standardizes tolls). The social beneficence of the invisible hand
is a con job (invisible hand job) with no happy ending. Money and gold
give people odd connotative feelings (similar to the effect of cotton
candy) that cause them to think up and believe some really oddball shit
about ideal economic systems. Maybe it's the way the reward systems in
the brain work on perception. I assume Ray Martinez would agree with me
here, though he worships Ayn Rand.

The defense industry and space industry have been the biggest farces of
all as government largess has benefit so-called "private" contractors
who vote Republican and receive their checks courtesy of Uncle Sam, just
like the downtrodden unemployed who suffer as a byproduct of private
things like boom-bust cycles in real estate that have ripple effects and
the all too tendency toward irrationalities like speculative bubbles.
How is Facebook's stock doing? Rational actors my ass!

Government entities like schools and libraries can have ripple effects
too. This is called "return on investment".

>> The ultimate in individualism is egocentric solipsism, where you are
>> Maya creating your personal veil (aka bubble encased echo-chamber).
>
> There is no such thing as "egocentric solipsism". But there are many
> individualists.

Solipsism is the ultimate form of egocentrism. Most people mature beyond
their youthful egocentric biases and realize there are others out there
who need some sort of organized safety net that can only come as an act
of government.

Given the population size of China, I would say there are quite a few
collectivists too. And they are kicking some get r done American ass
competitively speaking.

> But
>> without language, you could not express your self-conceptions to
>> yourself. Thus not even an echo. And unless you placed a garden or
>> cattle ranch inside this bubble, you will starve.
>
> Language is not dependent on a scientific consensus.

But it helps build that bridge. As much as government funding pays for
research that forges scientific consensus, private job creators didn't
build that either, but will act as opportunists whenever possible.

[RAM]

On Aug 24, 3:52�pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"

You must understand he is an individualist. For him scientific
consensus is just a collective delusion. He knows so much about the
practice of science form having done none. He just intuits it like a
Hindu deity. So what he thinks is moral correct and real. Science
practices be damned if they contradict his religious beliefs. All in
praise of Kalki the destroyer of filthy science.

[Kalkidas]

Anyone who uses a government to seize Peter's property and give it to
Paul is nothing but a god damned thief.

>
>> But
>>> without language, you could not express your self-conceptions to
>>> yourself. Thus not even an echo. And unless you placed a garden or
>>> cattle ranch inside this bubble, you will starve.
>>
>> Language is not dependent on a scientific consensus.
>
> But it helps build that bridge. As much as government funding pays for
> research that forges scientific consensus, private job creators didn't
> build that either, but will act as opportunists whenever possible.

Government doesn't fund anything. It robs one citizen and gives the
stolen loot to another.

[Robert Camp]

I don't suppose it should be much of a surprise that your ideological
blinders extend beyond biology, but I was somewhat hopeful.

So it goes...

RLC

[jillery]

Even when Peter stole it from Paul in the first place?

>>> But
>>>> without language, you could not express your self-conceptions to
>>>> yourself. Thus not even an echo. And unless you placed a garden or
>>>> cattle ranch inside this bubble, you will starve.
>>>
>>> Language is not dependent on a scientific consensus.
>>
>> But it helps build that bridge. As much as government funding pays for
>> research that forges scientific consensus, private job creators didn't
>> build that either, but will act as opportunists whenever possible.
>
>Government doesn't fund anything. It robs one citizen and gives the
>stolen loot to another.

So how small a government are you willing to accept in order to avoid
this particular problem?

[RAM]

He was a Christian creationist when he posted on TO as Chris Devol

[RAM]

On Aug 24, 1:57 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 6:42 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 Aug, 14:22, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > "In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
> > > version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
> > > University. It's a bombshell.
>

> > > Already available on Kindle, Nagel's book carries the provocative title
> > > Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature
> > > Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book's subtitle
> > > declares that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is
> > > Almost Certainly False." Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the
> > > positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence
> > > for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative
> > > of the "iconoclasts" of the intelligent design movement for raising a
> > > significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy....."
>
> > >http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html
>

> > Fuller is a professor of the philosophy of the mind and ethics and
> > politics.
>
> You mean Nagel surely? Fuller is professor for sociology

While Fuller is not the person of concern; it is notable that he was
trained as a philosopher first and then came to sociology. Further
his CV reveals he has done no empirical research and his testimony at
the Dover trial reveals he doesn't adequately understand the inductive
side of science.

I'm probably being generous in my characterization of his limited
empirical skills and general knowledge of research strategies.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Probably an anarchocapitalist. It's funny (or tragi-comic) the extent
people will go to to try to forcefit laissez-faire ideology into areas
where it don't belong. This could be termed Galt's glitch, a cognitive
disorder contagiously spread amongst rightwing pseudointellectuals who
get a raging hardon when someone quotes Greenspan on the gold standard.

[Attila]

Hmm. Do I detect a whiff of Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum's objectivism in the
wind? I understand it's all the rage over there these days.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Cherrypicked Rand is of course. Some twit like Glenn Beck says his
followers should read Rand. Many try, but never succeed. Those rare few
that comprehend her are appalled by her atheism and support for things
they hate like abortion.

The best book review of _Atlas Shrugged_ ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j56IiLqZ9U

But I was actually hinting at Murray Rothbard instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

I used to be a diehard libertarian. I also used to believe in the big
NWO conspiracy. That's why I'm immune to that crap now. Been
there...done that...like 20 years ago.

I think this is a most succinct dismissal of the Build-a-Bear
conspiracy, by none other than Beck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu-TOzEVgT4

[Tom]

The very first two sentences of the introduction to "Origin of Species":

"I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre existing forms."

> I am not interested in your assertions.  If you choose to respond then
> respond with scholarly references(s), like I have done.

I had given you three. I'll list them for you, since you seem not to be able to find them by reading them in full sentences.

Telliamed, by Benoit De Maillet, published 1750.
Protogaea, by Gottfried Leibniz, published 1690.
Philosophie Zoologique, by Jean Baptiste LaMarck, published 1809.

All three of these texts are currently available to anyone not too lazy or willfully ignorant to look for them.

And now I have given you a quote from the preface to "On the Origin of Species" itself in which Darwin states explicitly that the evolution of species is not an idea he invented but rather an idea which already existed and to which he had been persuaded by the evidence he found. And that means your claim that the main claim of "Darwinism" is evolution is flatly incorrect.




>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> [....]

[deadrat]

<quote src="?">
There�s an age when boys read one of two books. Either they read Ayn
Rand or they read Tolkien�s Lord of the Rings. One of these books leaves
you with no grasp on reality and a deeply warped sense of fantasy in
place of real life. The other one is about hobbits and orcs.
</quote>

[Ernest Major]

In message <979a84dc-da7f-4a0d...@googlegroups.com>, Tom
<dant...@comcast.net> writes

I think that your argument here is fallacious, in that it assumes a
false premise. The main claim of a work does not have to be novel to
that work.

Evolution ("transmutation") was, as you write, not novel to "On the
Origin of Species". Nor was natural selection. Someone more familiar
with the history of the idea will have to way in on common descent,
which if you are going to identify as single "main claim" perhaps has
the best claim.

Note however that Ray's idea of the main claim (any hereditary change to
the properties of a population) can be traced back to Genesis, if not
earlier.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Attila]

> There’s an age when boys read one of two books. Either they read Ayn
> Rand or they read Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. One of these books leaves

> you with no grasp on reality and a deeply warped sense of fantasy in
> place of real life. The other one is about hobbits and orcs.
> </quote>

For me, the two books had to have "catch" in the title.
The Catcher in the Rye and Catch 22. The former was just enjoyment and the
latter helped broaden my view of the world.

[Kalkidas]

Well if you can show me how government creates wealth, I'll concede that
government is able to fund something.

Government is able to take others' wealth by force, against their will
and give it to those who have not earned or created it. But that's
called robbery, not "funding".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:51:42 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 8/24/2012 2:27 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 2:43 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2012 12:12 PM, Slow Vehicle wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 24, 12:35 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Your kind is the kind that thinks you can win arguments by attacking
>>>>> your opponents self-image ("makes you look dishonest"), rather than
>>>>> addressing the substance of what he says.
>>>
>>>> You, personally, have demonstrated the use of personal attack as a
>>>> dismissive ploy.
>>>> You made ludicrously untrue claims about me; when called on it, you
>>>> neither retracted them nor defended them, not even apologized.
>>>
>>> Prove that I *initiated* a personal attack on you. Put up or shut up.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Your post, from August 16:
>> <quote Kalkidas>
>>
>> "A fair question is one not posed by someone who, while styling
>> himself
>> as an expert champion of Darwinism and an intractable foe of
>> creationism, indulges in childish feigned ignorance of any arguments
>> against evolution by natural selection.
>> You want serious answers? Ask serious questions. "
>>
>> </quote>
>

>You are mistaken if you think that was a personal attack on you. It was
>a retaliatory attack on Bob Casanova. You got in the way by repeating
>the question which, when he asked it, was bogus.

So a "bogus question" is one which you find inconvenient?
The question was valid (it's not up to me to find the
reasons you consider to be valid), and you consistently
refuse to answer it.

>So I have not initiated any personal attacks on you. But I have, and
>will continue to, retaliate against personal attacks initiated against me.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:27:11 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:22:42 -0700, the following appeared

>in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>

>>"In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover
>>version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York
>>University. It's a bombshell.
>>
>>Already available on Kindle, Nagel's book carries the provocative title
>>Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature
>>Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book's subtitle
>>declares that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is
>>Almost Certainly False." Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the
>>positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence
>>for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative
>>of the "iconoclasts" of the intelligent design movement for raising a
>>significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy....."
>>
>>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html
>

>Philosophy's nice; it can be used to advance nearly
>anything, given the properly-selected premises. And it can
>even, under some conditions, point the way toward actual
>scientific research (although IMHO this doesn't happen
>often). What it *cannot* do is challenge science regarding
>actual evidence and testing (the "elegant theory slain by
>ugly fact" phenomenon).
>
>Got anything by an actual scientist? You know, the kind
>involving testable evidence?

Well?

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 24, 10:00�pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, August 24, 2012 4:47:43 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Aug 23, 9:40�pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:06:44 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > Yet you accept the main claim of Darwinism (evolution).
>
> > > So much ignorance, so little time...
>

> > > The concept of evolution was not introduced by Darwin. �By his time, it had
> > > been around for more than a century already. �Upon his death in 1748, Benoit
> > > de Maillet's book, Telliamed, was published. �It contained his proposal that

> > > fossils indicated that the earth was vastly older than had been previously
> > > thought and that species evolved into different forms gradually over long

> > > periods of time. �Around the same time in Germany, and also upon his death,

> > > Gottfried Leibniz's "Protogaea" was published, which also proposed that
> > > fossils were to be explained by the slow transformation of species over

> > > millions of years. �These were both well-known texts to scholars of that

> > > time and both served as foundational material for the development of both
> > > geological and paleontological sciences.
>
> > > Also before Darwin's "Origin of Species" was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's

> > > "Philosophie Zoologique", published in 1809. �Lamarck proposed that simple

> > > species originated spontaneously and evolved due to an innate life force
> > > that transformed them over long periods of time into more and more complex

> > > forms. �That was actually the first attempt to go further than merely to

> > > acknowledge that evolution happens by trying to explain how it happens.
>
> > > It is completely wrong to declare that the main claim of "The Origin of
> > > Species" was evolution.
>
> > "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and
> > dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most

> > naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained�namely, that
> > each species has been independently created�is erroneous. I am fully

> > convinced that species are not immutable" (C. Darwin "On The Origin"
> > 1859:6; London: Murray).
>
> The very first two sentences of the introduction to "Origin of Species":
>
> "I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until >recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, >and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some >few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that >the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre existing forms."

First, these are not "The very first two sentences of the introduction
to Origin of Species," rather they are the first sentences of the
Historical Sketch that Darwin added to the 3rd edition "Origin Of
Species" of 1861 and later editions.

That said, what is your point concerning these sentences?

Note the quote says most naturalists accepted immutability, not
evolution.

>
> > I am not interested in your assertions. �If you choose to respond then

> > respond with scholarly references(s), like I have done.
>

> I had given you three. �I'll list them for you, since you seem not to be able to find them by reading them in full sentences.

>
> Telliamed, by Benoit De Maillet, published 1750.
> Protogaea, by Gottfried Leibniz, published 1690.
> Philosophie Zoologique, by Jean Baptiste LaMarck, published 1809.
>
> All three of these texts are currently available to anyone not too lazy or willfully ignorant to >look for them.

And these references are offered in support of what claim? I do not
contest existence of these works, I am merely asking why you have
presented them?

>
> And now I have given you a quote from the preface to "On the Origin of Species" itself in >which Darwin states explicitly that the evolution of species is not an idea he invented but rather >an idea which already existed and to which he had been persuaded by the evidence he >found. �And that means your claim that the main claim of "Darwinism" is evolution is flatly >incorrect.

I never said or implied that Darwin invented or originated the concept
of evolution. Produce the quote and I will promptly acknowledge my
error.

You have completely misread and misunderstood what I have written.
Evolution was not accepted when Darwin published, immutability was the
view of science; therefore mutability was a main claim of Darwin 1859
(along with natural selection).

Your next error is an assumption that the three works you have
presented, and the Darwin historical sketch quote, to somehow support
species mutability (evolution) accepted by science.

I have produced the Introduction Origin quote that says immutability
was accepted when Darwin published and you have produced the quote
from the historical sketch that says the same thing.

I fail to see what you do not understand?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Kalkidas is ignoring me. The guy with all the answers is suddenly
speechless. The reason he refuses to answer is because an answer
requires him to do one of three things: (1) Retract his statement that
Darwinism is not science; (2) or spew nonsense about how the evolution
he accepts is not Darwinian; (3) or declare species immutable.

I suspect the Kid is feverishly searching for an answer in the works
of DI "scholars."

I reserve the right to pursue him on this question until he coughs up
an answer.

Until then I own the Kid. I have him in high-heels, dress and painted
nails.

Ray

[Tom]

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:29:44 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> I think that your argument here is fallacious, in that it assumes a
> false premise. The main claim of a work does not have to be novel to
> that work.

Unless a work is entirely derivative, there must be some novel twist to the claims of that work. If there is such a thing as "Darwinism", it has to be that there is some claim by Darwin that is novel. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "Darwinism" in the first place.

> Evolution ("transmutation") was, as you write, not novel to "On the
> Origin of Species". Nor was natural selection.

I rather think that natural selection as a significant factor in the evolution of species *was* novel to Darwin's work. Can you point to any earlier texts that propose natural selection and defend it with evidence as Darwin did? If not, then one can say that the proposition of a defensible theory of natural selection as a mechanism of the evolution of species is Darwin's novel contribution and the main point of his work.

> Note however that Ray's idea of the main claim (any hereditary change to
> the properties of a population) can be traced back to Genesis, if not
> earlier.

Whose main claim is based on Genesis? Certainly not Darwin's. Wasn't it Darwin's main claim that we were talking about rather than someone else's?

[Robert Camp]

There are so many assumptions and misapprehensions packed into that
one platitude (which, by the way, isn't even internally logical) that
I'd hardly know where to start even if I were inclined.

It's obvious that government can fund things. It's less obvious
whether doing so creates wealth, though such an evaluation clearly
depends upon how one defines the term. I, for instance, am far less
interested in whether government creates more wealth for me than I am
in how it improves overall welfare - not because I'm such a swell guy,
but because better conditions for all inevitably redounds to my
benefit in ways that personal achievement cannot.

But that's beside *your* point, which is to express obtuse anger by
scapegoating something without which your life would be much worse.

> Government is able to take others' wealth by force, against their will
> and give it to those who have not earned or created it. But that's
> called robbery, not "funding".

No, that's called a silly straw man. We all agree, by virtue of taking
a willing place in this society, to abide by its rules. Unlike some
other societies, we can actually act to change those rules, but most
people who express themselves as you do have little interest in
learning anything that forces them out of their comfortable
bitterness.

This is what I find so laughably blinkered about trickle-down fairy
tales and Randian absolution. While people who espouse these ideas
wallow in their ideological fervor (which, as I see it, is little more
than an excuse for indulging tribal instincts to hoard resources),
they miss the real opportunity for accomplishment. A real rising tide,
one that actually does lift all boats - not just those of the rich -
will create much greater and more widely spread conditions for wealth
and welfare creation by virtue of sheer numbers: there will always be
many fewer wealthy than those in other classes.

Just compare wealth creation and tax rates during the Clinton and Bush
years, then tell me again about "robbery." The real tragedy here, and
it has a parallel in climate change denial, is that the net effect of
ideological selfishness is to impoverish one's own descendants (by
perpetuating a "low-tide" society) in the process of sticking it to
those greedy poor, sick and uneducated people.

RLC

[Tom]

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:27:32 AM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Aug 24, 10:00�pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > The very first two sentences of the introduction to "Origin of Species":
> >
> > "I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of
> > Species. Until >recently the great majority of naturalists believed that
> > species were immutable productions, >and had been separately created. This
> > view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some >few naturalists, on the
> > other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the
> > existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre
> > existing forms."
>
> First, these are not "The very first two sentences of the introduction
> to Origin of Species," rather they are the first sentences of the
> Historical Sketch that Darwin added to the 3rd edition "Origin Of
> Species" of 1861 and later editions.

You are correct. Those words are from the preface, not the introduction. That does not change their meaning at all.

> That said, what is your point concerning these sentences?

I thought I made that point quite clearly. I'll repeat it. "Darwin states explicitly that the evolution of species is not an idea he invented but rather an idea which already existed and to which he had been persuaded by the evidence he found. And that means your claim that the main claim of 'Darwinism' is evolution is flatly incorrect."

> Note the quote says most naturalists accepted immutability, not
> evolution.

And that "some few naturalists" did not. He goes on to name several, including LaMarck.

> > Telliamed, by Benoit De Maillet, published 1750.
>
> > Protogaea, by Gottfried Leibniz, published 1690.
>
> > Philosophie Zoologique, by Jean Baptiste LaMarck, published 1809.
> >
> > All three of these texts are currently available to anyone not too lazy
> > or willfully ignorant to look for them.
>
> And these references are offered in support of what claim?

You seem to be easily distracted for the flow of this conversation. These three texts are all earlier than Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and all of them introduce the concept of evolution, therefore the mere concept of evolution was not Darwin's main point and cannot possibly be his main point.

> I never said or implied that Darwin invented or originated the concept
> of evolution.

You stated that evolution was Darwin's main point. It was not, as demonstrated by the fact that he acknowledges that this point was made by a number of earlier writers. Darwin's main point was that natural selection by environmental pressure was a significant factor in the evolution of species.

Let me make that clear once again. Darwin's main point was not that evolution happens. His main point was that natural selection is a highly significant means (but not the only one) by which evolution operates to transform species. To claim that evolution is the main point of "Darwinism" is false.

> You have completely misread and misunderstood what I have written.
> Evolution was not accepted when Darwin published, immutability was the
> view of science; therefore mutability was a main claim of Darwin 1859
> (along with natural selection).

The fact that the immutability of species was the view of the majority at the time is irrelevant. It was not Darwin's main point. He noted that LaMarck and others had already made the point that species evolved. That was nothing new. It was a minority opinion, but not new. Natural selection as the means by which evolution operates was Darwin's real contribution to that controversy and the main point of "On the Origin of Species".

> Your next error is an assumption that the three works you have
> presented, and the Darwin historical sketch quote, to somehow support
> species mutability (evolution) accepted by science.

There was no evidence generated by scientific research at all that demonstrated the immutability of species, therefore the conclusion that species were immutable was not a scientific one, even though it was widely accepted by naturalists of the time. It was a religious belief, not a scientific theory.

> I fail to see what you do not understand?

You fail to see what I don't understand because I'm not misunderstanding you at all. I'm disagreeing with you.

[Ernest Major]

In message <d8fe87fa-be99-4b39...@googlegroups.com>, Tom
<dant...@comcast.net> writes

>On Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:29:44 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>> I think that your argument here is fallacious, in that it assumes a
>> false premise. The main claim of a work does not have to be novel to
>> that work.
>
>Unless a work is entirely derivative, there must be some novel twist to
>the claims of that work. If there is such a thing as "Darwinism", it
>has to be that there is some claim by Darwin that is novel. Otherwise
>it wouldn't be called "Darwinism" in the first place.

IMO, the importance of "On the Origin of Species" was the weight of
evidence that it adduced for transmutation and common descent.

>
>> Evolution ("transmutation") was, as you write, not novel to "On the
>> Origin of Species". Nor was natural selection.
>
>I rather think that natural selection as a significant factor in the
>evolution of species *was* novel to Darwin's work. Can you point to
>any earlier texts that propose natural selection and defend it with
>evidence as Darwin did? If not, then one can say that the proposition
>of a defensible theory of natural selection as a mechanism of the
>evolution of species is Darwin's novel contribution and the main point
>of his work.

Several people came up with natural selection before Darwin and Wallace,
including James Hutton, William Charles Wells, Edward Blyth and Patrick
Matthews. The latter two only recognised the conservative side of
natural selection, but the former (and earlier) two recognised the
creative side, but with limited scope.

The wider scope of natural selection does seem to be novel to Darwin and
Wallance.

>
>> Note however that Ray's idea of the main claim (any hereditary change to
>> the properties of a population) can be traced back to Genesis, if not
>> earlier.
>
>Whose main claim is based on Genesis? Certainly not Darwin's. Wasn't
>it Darwin's main claim that we were talking about rather than someone
>else's?
>

Ray has strange ideas. In the case he is claiming that mutability of
populations (microevolution) is Darwin's main claim. (Ray denies any
evolution whatsoever.) Mutability of populations can be found in
Genesis.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Kalkidas]

You haven't shown how government creates wealth. So I don't concede that
government is able to fund anything. You will no doubt continue to use
the euphemism "fund" in place of "distribution of stolen goods". But
rational people know better.

[Robert Camp]

And you will continue to view the world through fear-based self-
justification and credulity. But leaning so heavily on platitudes and
dogma hardly distinguish you as "rational."

RLC

[Kalkidas]

You're making some really bizarre statements in defense of the
indefensible. Do you perhaps work for the government? Or do you depend
on government "funding" for you livelihood?

[deadrat]

Yeah, the TVA and the Interstate highway system just built themselves.

> You will no doubt continue to use
> the euphemism "fund" in place of "distribution of stolen goods".

Without the government-financed banking and court systems, commerce in
this country would cease. No one would care to exchange money for goods
and services, and no one could rely on contracts. I suppose some could
get wealthy under the resulting barter system, but not you. Exchanging
ignorance and abuse for valuable commodities would be almost impossible.

> But rational people know better.

They know better than to do anything but laugh at your ignorance.

[Tom]

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:10:29 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <d8fe87fa-be99-4b39...@googlegroups.com>, Tom
> <dant...@comcast.net> writes
> >

> > Unless a work is entirely derivative, there must be some novel twist to
> > the claims of that work. If there is such a thing as "Darwinism", it
> > has to be that there is some claim by Darwin that is novel. Otherwise
> > it wouldn't be called "Darwinism" in the first place.
>
> IMO, the importance of "On the Origin of Species" was the weight of
> evidence that it adduced for transmutation and common descent.

I fully agree that it added considerable weight to the argument in favor of the fact of evolution, but it did so by pointing out the first truly plausible mechanism by which evolution of species could work. LaMarck also tried this but his assumption of some invisible and unexplained "life force" that guided evolution was violation of Occam's Razor.

> > I rather think that natural selection as a significant factor in the
> > evolution of species *was* novel to Darwin's work. Can you point to
> > any earlier texts that propose natural selection and defend it with
> > evidence as Darwin did? If not, then one can say that the proposition
> > of a defensible theory of natural selection as a mechanism of the
> > evolution of species is Darwin's novel contribution and the main point
> > of his work.
>
> Several people came up with natural selection before Darwin and Wallace,
> including James Hutton, William Charles Wells, Edward Blyth and Patrick
> Matthews. The latter two only recognised the conservative side of
> natural selection, but the former (and earlier) two recognised the
> creative side, but with limited scope.

That's interesting. You've named some names here, but can you cite specific available texts I can look for?

> The wider scope of natural selection does seem to be novel to Darwin and
> Wallance.

Darwin had heard of Wallace's work but got a garbled impression that it was a kind of progressive creationism. The two really had worked out the idea of natural selection independently. Darwin was considered less of a radical that Wallace, which is perhaps why he gets more credit than Wallace did. More people took Darwin seriously. Sic transit gloria mundi. Being right isn't enough by itself. You have to be both right and believable.

[Mark Isaak]

You're right; your current conditions are horrible, and you should get
out of them. There is little effective government in Somalia, so I'm
sure you will find lots of wealth there. Bon voyage!

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 25, 11:58�am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:27:32 AM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 10:00 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > The very first two sentences of the introduction to "Origin of Species":
>
> > > "I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of
> > > Species. Until >recently the great majority of naturalists believed that
> > > species were immutable productions, >and had been separately created. This
> > > view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some >few naturalists, on the
> > > other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the
> > > existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre
> > > existing forms."
>
> > First, these are not "The very first two sentences of the introduction
> > to Origin of Species," rather they are the first sentences of the
> > Historical Sketch that Darwin added to the 3rd edition "Origin Of
> > Species" of 1861 and later editions.
>

> You are correct. �Those words are from the preface, not the introduction. �That does not change their meaning at all.

You have it WRONG again!

I didn't say "preface" I said "the first sentences of the Historical

Sketch that Darwin added to the 3rd edition "Origin Of Species" of
1861 and later editions."

>

> > That said, what is your point concerning these sentences?
>

> I thought I made that point quite clearly. �I'll repeat it. �"Darwin states explicitly that the evolution of species is not an idea he invented but rather an idea which already existed and to which he had been persuaded by the evidence he found. �And that means your claim that the main claim of 'Darwinism' is evolution is flatly incorrect."

Your points are not supported by the Darwin sentences whatsoever.

>
> > Note the quote says most naturalists accepted immutability, not
> > evolution.
>

> And that "some few naturalists" did not. �He goes on to name several, including LaMarck.

>
> > > Telliamed, by Benoit De Maillet, published 1750.
>
> > > Protogaea, by Gottfried Leibniz, published 1690.
>
> > > Philosophie Zoologique, by Jean Baptiste LaMarck, published 1809.
>
> > > All three of these texts are currently available to anyone not too lazy
> > > or willfully ignorant to look for them.
>
> > And these references are offered in support of what claim?
>

> You seem to be easily distracted for the flow of this conversation. �These three texts are all earlier than Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and all of them introduce the concept of evolution, therefore the mere concept of evolution was not Darwin's main point and cannot possibly be his main point.

Your claim presupposes, based on the three works, the concept of
evolution enjoyed scientific acceptance up until the time of Darwin----
it did not.

I already posted the quote from Darwin 1859:6 that said most
naturalists accepted immutability.

Since evolution was not accepted by science until Darwin published,
his view of the concept was his main point. I fail to see what you
don't understand?

>
> > I never said or implied that Darwin invented or originated the concept
> > of evolution.
>

> You stated that evolution was Darwin's main point. �It was not, as demonstrated by the fact that he acknowledges that this point was made by a number of earlier writers.

The existence of the concept in the writings of a few others does not
harm the fact that evolution was Darwin's main point. To say
otherwise, like you are, is to say evolution was accepted. Not even
Darwin accepted the "evolution" of these other workers.

I could post a quote by Darwin that says Lamarck's theory was
"extremely poor" and he "got not a fact or idea from it."

> Darwin's main point was that natural selection by environmental pressure was a significant
> factor in the evolution of species.
>

Since species were considered immutable when Darwin published (Darwin
1859:6), evolution was also his main point.

> Let me make that clear once again. �Darwin's main point was not that evolution happens. �His main point was that natural selection is a highly significant means (but not the only one) by which evolution operates to transform species. To claim that evolution is the main point of "Darwinism" is false.

>
> > You have completely misread and misunderstood what I have written.
> > Evolution was not accepted when Darwin published, immutability was the
> > view of science; therefore mutability was a main claim of Darwin 1859
> > (along with natural selection).
>

> The fact that the immutability of species was the view of the majority at the time is irrelevant. �It was not Darwin's main point.

Tom admits then dismisses. It HAD to have been his main point (along
with natural selection) since immutability was accepted!

[snip repeat of points not supported by the facts....]

>
> > Your next error is an assumption that the three works you have
> > presented, and the Darwin historical sketch quote, to somehow support
> > species mutability (evolution) accepted by science.
>

> There was no evidence generated by scientific research at all that demonstrated the immutability of species, therefore the conclusion that species were immutable was not a scientific one, even though it was widely accepted by naturalists of the time. �It was a religious belief, not a scientific theory.

Darwin 1859 says no such thing. Again:

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and
dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most
naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained�namely, that

each species has been independently created�is erroneous" (C. Darwin
1859:6).

Darwin 1859 argued against immutability because it was the paradigm of
science.

Your points/conclusions are not supported by the facts----my only
point.

>
> > I fail to see what you do not understand?
>

> You fail to see what I don't understand because I'm not misunderstanding you at all. �I'm disagreeing with you.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 25, 3:02�pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

[snip political/social "debate" by Kalkidas with Robet Camp.....]

Kalkidas is more than happy to get away from topic (origins/
evolution). He uses the derailment to hide from my demand to either
retract his claim that Darwinism is not science or explain why he
accepts an unscientific claim (evolution)?

You exist on a grisly meat hook.

Kalkidas declares Darwinism not science yet he accepts its main claim,
and he refuses to address or explain the egregious contradiction.

His continued silence could only mean that he is not willing to admit
to any errors or knowledge limitations. But he posts all day long here
at Talk.Origins under the assumption that he is honest, forthright and
knowledgeable.

Ray

[Kalkidas]

Hey, genius, government doesn't "finance" anything. Government takes
wealth from its creators at the point of a gun and gives it to those who
didn't create it. Maybe you signed that "contract", but I didn't.

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 25, 12:10嚙緘m, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <d8fe87fa-be99-4b39...@googlegroups.com>, Tom

> <danto...@comcast.net> writes

>
> >On Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:29:44 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> >> I think that your argument here is fallacious, in that it assumes a
> >> false premise. The main claim of a work does not have to be novel to
> >> that work.
>
> >Unless a work is entirely derivative, there must be some novel twist to

> >the claims of that work. 嚙瘢f there is such a thing as "Darwinism", it
> >has to be that there is some claim by Darwin that is novel. 嚙瞌therwise

> >it wouldn't be called "Darwinism" in the first place.
>

> IMO, the importance of "On the Origin of Species" was 嚙緣he weight of

> evidence that it adduced for transmutation and common descent.
>
>
>
> >> Evolution ("transmutation") was, as you write, not novel to "On the
> >> Origin of Species". Nor was natural selection.
>
> >I rather think that natural selection as a significant factor in the

> >evolution of species *was* novel to Darwin's work. 嚙瘠an you point to

> >any earlier texts that propose natural selection and defend it with

> >evidence as Darwin did? 嚙瘢f not, then one can say that the proposition

> >of a defensible theory of natural selection as a mechanism of the
> >evolution of species is Darwin's novel contribution and the main point
> >of his work.
>
> Several people came up with natural selection before Darwin and Wallace,
> including James Hutton, William Charles Wells, Edward Blyth and Patrick
> Matthews. The latter two only recognised the conservative side of
> natural selection, but the former (and earlier) two recognised the
> creative side, but with limited scope.
>
> The wider scope of natural selection does seem to be novel to Darwin and
> Wallance.
>
>
>
> >> Note however that Ray's idea of the main claim (any hereditary change to
> >> the properties of a population) can be traced back to Genesis, if not
> >> earlier.
>

> >Whose main claim is based on Genesis? 嚙瘠ertainly not Darwin's. 嚙磕asn't

> >it Darwin's main claim that we were talking about rather than someone
> >else's?
>
> Ray has strange ideas. In the case he is claiming that mutability of
> populations (microevolution) is Darwin's main claim. (Ray denies any
> evolution whatsoever.) Mutability of populations can be found in
> Genesis.
> --
> alias Ernest Major

Imagine that; Genesis contains a correct scientific claim!

Ray

[Earle Jones]

In article
<a0914ba6-5fc4-48d6...@kn3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

*
Ray, you are such a sweet brute when you're angry!

earle
*

[Kalkidas]

On 8/25/2012 4:06 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/25/12 12:21 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 8/25/2012 11:12 AM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On Aug 25, 9:36 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Government is able to take others' wealth by force, against their will

>>>> and give it to those who have not earned or created it. But that's,>>>> called robbery, not "funding".

>>>
>>> No, that's called a silly straw man. We all agree, by virtue of taking
>>> a willing place in this society, to abide by its rules.

Um, no, we don't *all* agree to that.

Some of us, like you for instance, think that you are the property of a
mythical "society" which is superior to you and to which you must
sacrifice yourself and others.

Others, like me, know that we are owned by no one, and that no one and
no group has the right to initiate force against us, not for any reason
whatsoever.

If you want to be owned by your government, and use your government to
get favors for yourself at the expense of others, you should move to
another country. Your values are contrary to the American sense of life.

[RAM]

Your ideological commitments are as silly as your misunderstandings of
science.
For you they seem to go hand in hand. Calling taxation stealing is as
rational as calling stealing a legitimate redistribution of wealth.
Your bizarre statements cannot be found in serious academic texts on
tax policies. Why should anyone ever take any thing you say as having
substantive worth? I've read many of your pronouncements and most are
empty rhetoric. Just like your present attempt to stigmatize
governments and their legitimate functions as political institutions.

[RAM]

Wow a reactionary nitwit making an asinine statement that no serious
academic would ever support as a legitimate answer to the question of
how government is funded. No one signs a contract to be taxed.
Taxing is a legitimate function of government. Grow-up. You sound
like an immature emotionally insecure teenager who distorts reality to
meet his needs. Out of curiosity how old are you?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/25/2012 07:45 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 8/25/2012 4:06 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/25/12 12:21 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2012 11:12 AM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On Aug 25, 9:36 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Government is able to take others' wealth by force, against their will
>>>>> and give it to those who have not earned or created it. But
>>>>> that's,>>>> called robbery, not "funding".
>>>>
>>>> No, that's called a silly straw man. We all agree, by virtue of taking
>>>> a willing place in this society, to abide by its rules.
>
> Um, no, we don't *all* agree to that.
>
> Some of us, like you for instance, think that you are the property of a
> mythical "society" which is superior to you and to which you must
> sacrifice yourself and others.
>
> Others, like me, know that we are owned by no one, and that no one and
> no group has the right to initiate force against us, not for any reason
> whatsoever.
>
> If you want to be owned by your government, and use your government to
> get favors for yourself at the expense of others, you should move to
> another country. Your values are contrary to the American sense of life.

Why don't you move to another country. Don't tell me what that "American
sense of life" is Ayn Rand.

I say we give Texas back to Mexico and you can move there.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mentally or chronologically?

We are detracting Kalki from his pending appointment with Ray.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Stand in line behind Ray. He has first dibs.

[Tom]

On Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:10:59 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Aug 25, 11:58�am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > You are correct. Those words are from the preface, not the introduction. That does not change their meaning at all.

>
> You have it WRONG again!
>
> I didn't say "preface" I said "the first sentences of the Historical
> Sketch that Darwin added to the 3rd edition "Origin Of Species" of
> 1861 and later editions."

That's the preface. And no matter what you choose to call it, it still doesn't change the meaning.

> > I thought I made that point quite clearly. I'll repeat it. "Darwin states explicitly that the evolution of species is not an idea he invented but rather an idea which already existed and to which he had been persuaded by the evidence he found. And that means your claim that the main claim of 'Darwinism' is evolution is flatly incorrect."

>
> Your points are not supported by the Darwin sentences whatsoever.

They certainly seem supportive to me. How does Darwin's statement that evolution is an idea previously advanced by others make evolution the main claim of "Darwinism"? Why aren't you railing against "LaMarckism", since evolution was at least as central to Philosophie Zoologique as it was to On the Origin of Species and LaMarck came first? The reason is that evolution itself was not the main point of either book. The main point in both cases was the proposition of a mechanism by which evolution worked, not simply to declare that it existed. The reason you identify "Darwinism" as your principal foe instead of "LaMarckism" is that Darwin's theory of natural selection was much more plausible than LaMarck's theory of an innate life force and thus has gained wide acceptance among modern scientific naturalists. That's why I maintain that natural selection, rather than the mere fact of evolution, is Darwin's main point.

> Your claim presupposes, based on the three works, the concept of
> evolution enjoyed scientific acceptance up until the time of Darwin----
> it did not.

You're mistaken again. Not only did I not presuppose that the majority of naturalists agreed with it, I stated plainly that it was a minority opinion. I also noted that the notion of the immutability of species was never a scientific theory. It was and always had been a religious belief.

> > You stated that evolution was Darwin's main point. It was not, as

> > demonstrated by the fact that he acknowledges that this point was
> > made by a number of earlier writers.
>
> The existence of the concept in the writings of a few others does not
> harm the fact that evolution was Darwin's main point.

Why not?

> To say otherwise, like you are, is to say evolution was accepted.

No it isn't. It has nothing to do with how many people accepted the idea of evolution at all. It had to do with the discovery of a plausible means by which evolution worked. And that plausible means is the theory of natural selection, which is the main point of his book.

> I could post a quote by Darwin that says Lamarck's theory was
> "extremely poor" and he "got not a fact or idea from it."

But that supports my claim, not yours. Darwin was completely correct in saying that LaMarck had got it wrong when he described his theory about the mechanism by which evolution worked. Thus, Darwin's own book was about his theory of how evolution *did* work, the theory of natural selection.

> Since species were considered immutable when Darwin published (Darwin
> 1859:6), evolution was also his main point.

It was also a point, but not the main one. The main point was that the mechanism by which evolution worked was natural selection, Darwin's one original contribution.

> > The fact that the immutability of species was the view of the majority at

> > the time is irrelevant. It was not Darwin's main point.

>
> Tom admits then dismisses. It HAD to have been his main point (along
> with natural selection) since immutability was accepted!

I see you've shifted your ground a bit. Where you had previously claimed that evolution was the main point of "Darwinism", you now have decided that natural selection was also the main point. It's a small shift in your thinking, but I find it gratifying. If you don't backslide, I'll regard this as progress.

I tell you what. Since "Darwinism" is just a made-up term used by religious people who don't believe in evolution and don't really care about the details except for the purpose of hair-splitting and sowing confusion, I'll let you give both evolution and natural selection top billing as the "main points of Darwinism".

> > There was no evidence generated by scientific research at all that
> > demonstrated the immutability of species, therefore the conclusion that
> > species were immutable was not a scientific one, even though it was widely

> > accepted by naturalists of the time. It was a religious belief, not a

> > scientific theory.
>
> Darwin 1859 says no such thing. Again:
>
> "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and
> dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most

> naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained, namely, that
> each species has been independently created is erroneous" (C. Darwin
> 1859:6).

There's not one mention of an accepted scientific theory of independent creation of species in that quote. The word "science" and/or "scientific" doesn't appear at all. Would you like to try again?

While you're at it, see if you can find any mention of an accepted scientific theory of God, because I'm pretty sure most naturalists believed in God too.

> Darwin 1859 argued against immutability because it was the paradigm of
> science.

You have yet to establish the existence of any accepted scientific theory of independent creation of species. You have asserted it but provided no evidence of it. Religious beliefs are not scientific theories.

[deadrat]

I have long advocated giving Texas back to Mexico, but I now think this
could be considered an act of war under international law.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I humbly apologize to Mexico for my callous remarks. I hope I have not
caused a an international crisis. Maybe we can give Texas to Venezuela
instead. Hugo doesn't like us much anyway. How could relations get any
worse?

[Garamond Lethe]

On Aug 25, 9:36 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> Government is able to take others' wealth by force, against their will
> and give it to those who have not earned or created it. But that's

> called robbery, not "funding".

The government creates wealth by regulating business activity.

Put another way, unregulated markets are grossly inefficient.

To give you an example that even you might understand, in the absence
of government contracts are unenforceable, and so I will be very
reluctant to do business with strangers for anything other than "cash
on the barrelhead". Once there is enough government to make contracts
enforceable I'm now willing to let your signature stand for goods that
will be provided to me at a later time, without even having met you.
I have some amount of confidence that if you screw me over I can
(using the government apparatus I helped fund with my taxes) screw you
over in a much bigger way. You know this as well, and so you're much
less likely to try to screw me over.

You might point out that the government isn't actually creating wealth
here so much as allowing wealth to be created. I think that's a
distinction without a difference.

Here's another example: the FAA. Flying passengers around is subject
to a huge amount of government regulation, and it works: stepping off
of an airplane ends the safest part of your trip. Without that
regulation we'd have something that looks much more like the
automobile industry, except the crashes are a lot more spectacular.
At some accident rate consumers would really rather just drive, and
airlines go out of business. The fact that the government keeps the
accidents rates so low means that we have a multi-billion dollar
aircraft industry.

The FDA is another good example. Ditto the interstate highway
system. And student loans have probably been known to create a bit of
wealth over time.

(Not that long ago the Libertarian presidential candidate was running
on the platform of "Would you be willing to end your favorite federal
program if you didn't have to pay federal income tax?". The first
example that popped into my mind was the Department of Agriculture's
federal meat inspection program. I like eating meat. I like being
alive. And I'm willing to pay a substantial amount in taxes to be
able to do both reliably.

[deadrat]

The scare quotes must mean you have your own peculiar definition of
finance. Let me repeat, "Yeah, the TVA and the Interstate highway
system just built themselves."

> Government takes
> wealth from its creators at the point of a gun and gives it to those who
> didn't create it.

In fact recently, the government takes wealth from the bottom of the
income brackets and stuffs it into the top brackets until you'd think
they'd burst.

> Maybe you signed that "contract", but I didn't.

There is no contract, or even a "contract." And now that you mention
it, that's entirely unfair to you. So I suggest that you decamp
immediately for Somalia. Here's what you do. Get yourself to New York
City on Monday, and take Lufthansa flight 411, which departs JFK at
5:40P and arrives in Munich at 7:55A the next day. You'll have less
than an hour's wait to catch Turkish Airlines flight 8550 to Istanbul,
which arrives at 12:10P. Unfortunately you'll have a bit of a wait to
board Turkish Airlines flight 686 to Mogadishu, which doesn't depart
until 11:25P. Also unfortunately flight 686 makes an intermediate stop
in Khartoum, so you won't arrive in Somalia until 7:00A. For the local
time, set your watch back about 1200 years.

The wait will be worth it, as you'll end up in rightard paradise -- no
government taxes, no government regulations, no government intrusions,
no government at all. As for the rest of us, you'll be gone. I think
this is what Steven Covey called a "win-win."

How about it?

[Ernest Major]

In message <e3e279ff-e589-4823...@googlegroups.com>, Tom
<dant...@comcast.net> writes

>On Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:10:29 PM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <d8fe87fa-be99-4b39...@googlegroups.com>, Tom
>> <dant...@comcast.net> writes
>> >
>> > Unless a work is entirely derivative, there must be some novel twist to
>> > the claims of that work. If there is such a thing as "Darwinism", it
>> > has to be that there is some claim by Darwin that is novel. Otherwise
>> > it wouldn't be called "Darwinism" in the first place.
>>
>> IMO, the importance of "On the Origin of Species" was the weight of
>> evidence that it adduced for transmutation and common descent.
>
>I fully agree that it added considerable weight to the argument in
>favor of the fact of evolution, but it did so by pointing out the first
>truly plausible mechanism by which evolution of species could work.

I used to think that. But historically it's not true. Darwin was more
successful in convincing his contemporaries of the fact of common
descent, than in convincing them of the importance of natural selection
as a mechanism.

> LaMarck also tried this but his assumption of some invisible and
>unexplained "life force" that guided evolution was violation of Occam's
>Razor.

>> > I rather think that natural selection as a significant factor in the
>> > evolution of species *was* novel to Darwin's work. Can you point to
>> > any earlier texts that propose natural selection and defend it with
>> > evidence as Darwin did? If not, then one can say that the proposition
>> > of a defensible theory of natural selection as a mechanism of the
>> > evolution of species is Darwin's novel contribution and the main point
>> > of his work.
>>
>> Several people came up with natural selection before Darwin and Wallace,
>> including James Hutton, William Charles Wells, Edward Blyth and Patrick
>> Matthews. The latter two only recognised the conservative side of
>> natural selection, but the former (and earlier) two recognised the
>> creative side, but with limited scope.
>
>That's interesting. You've named some names here, but can you cite
>specific available texts I can look for?

You should be able to get the citations from the Wikipedia articles on
them.

>
>> The wider scope of natural selection does seem to be novel to Darwin and
>> Wallance.
>
>Darwin had heard of Wallace's work but got a garbled impression that it
>was a kind of progressive creationism. The two really had worked out
>the idea of natural selection independently. Darwin was considered
>less of a radical that Wallace, which is perhaps why he gets more
>credit than Wallace did. More people took Darwin seriously. Sic
>transit gloria mundi. Being right isn't enough by itself. You have to
>be both right and believable.
>
>

That Darwin was part of the scientific establishment of his day was an
advantage. But he also got there first (even if they published
simultaneously), and produced a greater volume of work.
--
alias Ernest Major