Re: Cure for Alzheimer and autism by creationist technology

I've a good enough grasp of history. I'm sorry to say, Darwinists are
generally liars about the history of the holocaust. They start out as
lawyers defending the reputation of Darwinism, but end up as brazen
liars. This is not confined to some single Darwinist, they all engage
in lying about the holocaust. They all, without any exception in my
experience, bend the truth of the holocaust so to save the reputation
of Darwinism.

Hitler wrote about natural selection as instrumental in his politics in
Mein Kampf.

Then there's the wannsee protocol where the top level nazi's talk about
exterminating the Jews in terms of natural selection.

Then there's the schoolbook for the Hitleryouth where Darwin and
natural selection is part of the indoctrination of the students.

Then you have the great support among medical professionals for the
Nazi's. The university scholars instrumental in the program to kill the
disabled, and from there expanding to deathcamps.

Then you have a notable like Konrad Lorenz, who helped popularize
Nazism, and actually worked for the Nazi's. Or Ernst Heackel who
propaganized killing the disabled. Schallmeyer, Ploetz, Fischer and
many more respected darwinists who all thought to make natural
selection theory instrumental in politics.

So there's ample evidence to warrant a serious investigation into the
Darwinist discipline, and any Darwinist should take this issue
seriously.

One of the first things to notice in investigating Darwinism, is it's
curious formulation that makes it mostly indistinguishable from
ideology. Natural selection is formulated with phrases such as,
differential reproductive success, struggle for life, beneficial,
superior, inferior. The Darwinists use words which are normally
associated to acts of will and judgement of value, which makes their
theory much indistinguishable from ideology. One can't say the same
thing of gravity theory for instance. That theory is much distinct from
acts of will, and therefore one can distinguish gravity theory from
ideology. To survive, the preservation of the race, the increased
fitness of the Aryan race, are stated goals of Hitler's policies as
described in Mein Kampf.

Ok so there is a problem here with distinguishing natural selection
from ideology. One can't just put the blame on the politicians misusing
Darwinism, because a great many influential Darwinist scientists have
been guilty of promoting natural selection as instrumental to politics,
including Darwin himself in various ways.

What Darwinists should learn from the holocaust then, is to make
Darwinist language much more separate from ideological language. This
issue goes right to the heart of the formulation of natural selection
theory. To take out the ideological aspect of Darwinism, natural
selection theory needs to be redefined to occur on an individual basis,
rather then on a comparitive group or type basis.

The normal structure of natural selection theory is as follows:
type A who is fitter (often said to be better or superior) then type B,
is more succefull at reproduction then type B, the relative proportion
of A in the population increases towards optimal fitness.

If we take this as our base theory of selection, with the better than
and success, we have a defacto ideology. We can very easily see, that
if we would formulate gravity theory the way Darwinists formulate
natural selection theory, we would have an ideology of gravity. For
then we would say something like; the theory of gravity is the
differential gravitational success of types of bodies in the struggle
for depth. So you see when we apply the structure of Darwinist theory
it makes any scientific theory into an ideology.

So we should reformulate natural selection in terms of the logic as;

Reproduction preserves the form of an individual over certain death of
it's progenitor.

So in stead of focusing natural selection on struggle, or focusing
natural selection on a comparison, we should focus natural selection on
the relationship of an individual organism to the environment in terms
of reproduction. We are looking at an organism knowing it will
certainly die, and that if the form is to be preserved, it must be
reproduced. Applying natural selection to an entire population is then
an itteration of applying individual natural selection.

This reformulation takes out the ideology from natural selection
theory. From this basic individual formulation we can now reconstruct
the theory towards the old formulation, but then without the
ideological overtones. Because now we are not supposing anymore that
struggle, or comparison are occuring in nature. Now we are saying that
comparison between types is occuring in the mind of the observer, in
stead of in nature. We want to compare averaged selective regimes of
types of individuals, we find this useful. There aren't any comparisons
occuring in nature however, we have never seen such a bond of
comparison, comparison has no physical or chemical reality. There also
aren't any types of organisms in nature, there is no physical or
chemical bond between objects in nature based on their similarity. So
with differential rate of reproduction of types we are then merely
making an interpretation of individual selection, which we suppose to
be a real physical relationship of an organism to the environment.

The resulting theory clears up some problems in the old one. In the old
formulation reproduction was actually assumed as a goal of organisms.
They were trying to reach this goal, but some didn't make it. But in an
individual formulation, reproduction is not assumed as a goal, in stead
the event of reproduction becomes the criterion of selection. In common
language selection has to have a criterion, such as being able to type
is a selectioncriteria for becoming a secretary. In nature the
criterion is reproduction. But actually in the old formulation of
natural selection the criterion was not reproduction, the criterion was
a fudge of replacing the other, or being more fit then the other. That
is because of it's focus on comparison, and struggle, thereby the
criterion of selection became to be to replace the other, and we didn't
end up with reproducer organisms, but we ended up with superior
organisms.

This mistake of superiority over reproduction is also clearly seen in
the formulation of natural selection as surival of the fittest. When
there are a few fitter organisms in a large population where the
average chance of reproduction is very low, the most likely result is
that the fittest become extinct. Obviously when the least fit go on to
reproduce it isn't covered by the phrase survival of the fittest. This
clearly shows that the criterion of selection in the old formulation is
not reproduction, but being better as another. For when an organism is
better as another, only then can it be selected for, but when it is
reproduced but is not better as another, then it is not selected for.
If we take reproduction as our criterion, there would be no problem to
acknowledge when a less fit is selected for. Darwinists should be
terribly aware of what this means in relation to thinking about more
and less fit people, for it means that it is an accurate representation
of survival of the fittest that the fittest people *should* reproduce,
and that the less fit *should not*, as a moral imperative.

And so the methaphor for natural selection should not be "nature red in
tooth and claw", about replacement of one type by the other type, but
it should be "nature wet in penis and vagina", as indicating selection
is about reproduction any which way it works.

And another lesson to be learned is to make a proper place for "will",
which is at points of decision. To say organisms want to reproduce, is
to make pronouncements about the purpose by which organisms decide
things. It is pseudoscience, science can't describe what goes on inside
decisions, because there one is largely making judgement of value. It
is saying that organisms apparently value reproduction a lot. But
organisms might value the moon, the sun, a cool breeze, and each
other's company. It is basically an art to determine what organisms
value, not a science. We know that whatever they value, if they
reproduce then their form is preserved. And so the event of
reproduction shapes the next generation of organisms, who go about not
knowing anything about reproduction, and most organisms have no will to
speak of at all.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... > reproductive success) that inhabit these environments. ... > reproduction tries to prevent the creation of variants (but only to the ... >> proccess of natural selection in nature, Darwinists are comparitive, ... > organisms that inhabit that environment. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... >>> variant compared to is actually extinct already. ... there's no choosing in natural selection. ... The blackwingcolor facillitated reproduction, the form is ... Organisms do not optimize, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... success for an organism by acting on phenotype. ... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are ... of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable ... and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... success for an organism by acting on phenotype. ... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are ... of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable ... and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
    ... Reproduction involves inheritance. ... natural selection to be a short list of truisms that Darwinists refer ... is exactly what Darwinists do. ... Natural selection as word term has got nothing to do with the ...
    (talk.origins)