Darwin the Mythmaker

Audio of author on his book on Darwin

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#21  Postby Wortfish » Oct 06, 2017 12:02 am

Thommo wrote:
What do you want me to say? The audio link is just a book plug for a polemic that is widely reported as being biased and factually inaccurate. I haven't read the book and having heard the author and read various reviews and review extracts I'm not going to.

Negative reviews were inevitable given the provocative title of the book. But, as you have shown, the reviews are themselves emotional polemics by Darwinists who consider the man to be their guru and consider Wilson's arguments blasphemous.

If you want to try and provoke a fight by wittering on about "arguments from authority" where none are present, I guess that's your prerogative, but I've got better things to do.

It helps to form an opinion of your own rather than delegating this responsibility to someone else.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#22  Postby Shrunk » Oct 06, 2017 12:07 am

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Why do you assume I didn't?

Because you didn't actually comment on what he said, only on what others have written.


What others have documented, not just "said", is that Wilson committed numerous errors of fact. That alone is reason to ignored this alleged biography.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25967
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#23  Postby Shrunk » Oct 06, 2017 12:09 am

Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
What do you want me to say? The audio link is just a book plug for a polemic that is widely reported as being biased and factually inaccurate. I haven't read the book and having heard the author and read various reviews and review extracts I'm not going to.

Negative reviews were inevitable given the provocative title of the book. But, as you have shown, the reviews are themselves emotional polemics by Darwinists who consider the man to be their guru and consider Wilson's arguments blasphemous.


Nice objective assessment there, Wort. :roll:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25967
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#24  Postby Wortfish » Oct 06, 2017 1:36 am

Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Why do you assume I didn't?

Because you didn't actually comment on what he said, only on what others have written.


What others have documented, not just "said", is that Wilson committed numerous errors of fact. That alone is reason to ignored this alleged biography.

He may have made some scientific and historical errors, that's true, but his broader argument is correct in that Darwin based his theory of natural selection not so much on a study of biology but rather on population economics and social policy. He also, quite rightly, claims that Darwin arrogantly wanted to explain the mysteries of the biosphere with one central concept...natural selection among individuals. He didn't even want to consider symbiosis, collectivism and cooperation.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#25  Postby laklak » Oct 06, 2017 2:43 am

Why do creationistas constantly attack Darwin? He was a pioneer in his field, his theories have been modified, changed, and in many cases completely replaced. You might as well attack James Maxwell because his equations didn't predict quantum entanglement. It's dishonest bullshit, aimed at the ignorant (who are the only ones who will listen to specious creationist garbage).

Face it, you're wrong.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 16377
Age: 63
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#26  Postby Macdoc » Oct 06, 2017 2:47 am

Wortfish
I don't think you know very much about
a) Darwin
b) the emergence of evolution as the prevailing theory in biology
c) evolution itself

Not mentioning the role of the incredible Wallace as the co-founder simply establishes this should be placed in pseudo-science/pseudo history.

Remedial reading .....and highly worthwhile as opposed to the OPs trash

Image

The incredible effort to establish the science and evidence of evolution against the prevailing nonsense of the time..and hardly by Darwin alone. :roll:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 11468
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#27  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 06, 2017 8:48 am

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It's a transparent piece of polemics aimed at discrediting the current ToE by attacking it's founding father. This is nothing new Worfish, we've seen theists do this for decades.

Wilson makes no religious arguments.

Note that I did not say he did.
I said his polemics are incredibly similar to the dishonest shit we've already seen from theists.
Also one does not have to make religious arguments to write a theistic polemics against ToE.

Wortfish wrote:He points out that the ToE as a concept was established well before Darwin. What Darwin did was try and explain evolution, for which there were many explanations at the time, in terms of Malthusian economics and Victorian racism.

No, what he does is write a transparent piece of ill-informed polemics.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#28  Postby Rumraket » Oct 06, 2017 10:24 am

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Why do you assume I didn't?

Because you didn't actually comment on what he said, only on what others have written.


What others have documented, not just "said", is that Wilson committed numerous errors of fact. That alone is reason to ignored this alleged biography.

He may have made some scientific and historical errors, that's true, but his broader argument is correct in that Darwin based his theory of natural selection not so much on a study of biology but rather on population economics and social policy. He also, quite rightly, claims that Darwin arrogantly wanted to explain the mysteries of the biosphere with one central concept...natural selection among individuals. He didn't even want to consider symbiosis, collectivism and cooperation.

Even if we accept all that, evolution is still true. You evolved from other animals that no longer exist.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12596
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#29  Postby Rumraket » Oct 06, 2017 10:30 am

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
This AN Wilson dude, and your thread about his irrelevant and terrible pseudo-biography, is just one big red herring fallacy having sex with an ad hominem fallacy.
Life evolved, you are an ape, your distant ancestors were primitive primates and you should just grow up and get over it.

Maybe you should actually listen to the audio transcript? It is obvious you cannot be bothered to even understand the author's argument. A.N.

Yes, I outright concede it. I simply couldn't give any less of a shit about Darwin and his motives, how much he happened to bother people around him in his time, or bother intensely butt-hurt abrahamic religionists living today.

It doesn't matter. The evidence is what the evidence is. And the evidence is rationally undeniable. We share common descent with all other organisms on known on the planet, and we evolved.

Whatever the fuck Darwin did or said, why he said or did it, and how terrible it was, is entirely without consequence. Evolution is true no matter how utterly terrible you think the people responsible for alighting upon it, were or are. All the worlds biologists and biochemists could be racists, rapists and eugenicist dictators, and evolution would still be true.

1+1=2 no matter who says it or first found out.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12596
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#30  Postby Shrunk » Oct 06, 2017 10:37 am

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Why do you assume I didn't?

Because you didn't actually comment on what he said, only on what others have written.


What others have documented, not just "said", is that Wilson committed numerous errors of fact. That alone is reason to ignored this alleged biography.

He may have made some scientific and historical errors, that's true, but his broader argument is correct in that Darwin based his theory of natural selection not so much on a study of biology but rather on population economics and social policy.


:rofl:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25967
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#31  Postby zulumoose » Oct 06, 2017 11:07 am

Whatever the fuck Darwin did or said, why he said or did it, and how terrible it was, is entirely without consequence. Evolution is true no matter how utterly terrible you think the people responsible for alighting upon it, were or are. All the worlds biologists and biochemists could be racists, rapists and eugenicist dictators, and evolution would still be true.


This is where evolution and science differ radically in approach compared to religion.

In religion it matters most WHO said something and how long ago. The older the better, it does not appear to matter whether there is evidence supporting either what was said, or whether it is true, only whether people can be persuaded to believe it.

In science what matters is whether the theory has merit, can be verified, is consistently supported by existing evidence, has explanatory and predictive utility, and is good enough to supersede competing established ideas. Yes the person who is most associated with introducing it can become famous, and yes personality, politics and persistence have an impact on the adoption of the idea, but they have no effect whatsoever on the VALIDITY of the idea/theory in question.

If an apple fell on a priest's head and he proposed gravity theory, he would be just as right.
If Newton tried to re-establish the Viking gods based on authority, antiquity, and personal conviction, he would be just as wrong.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 2109

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#32  Postby Shrunk » Oct 06, 2017 11:18 am

He didn't even want to consider symbiosis, collectivism and cooperation.


Whether that's true, I honestly don't know. I'm not able to read the minds of people who are dead, and your sole source seems to be a book that has received excoriating reviews and which has been demonstrated to be rife with obvious errors.

What we do know is that those factors have been considered since Darwin, often by people with clear ideological axes to grind (c.f. Lynn Margulis), and have failed to find substantial evidentiary support. So it appears, for whatever reasons, that Darwin was correct in rejecting them.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25967
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#33  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 06, 2017 1:31 pm

Sounds like A.N. Wilson is playing the sensationalist card. Could he be trying to maximise sales of his book, by any chance? :scratch: :o
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14290
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#34  Postby Rumraket » Oct 06, 2017 6:50 pm

I'm reminded of this quote of Darwin:

"I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power" –Charles Darwin
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12596
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#35  Postby Rumraket » Oct 06, 2017 6:51 pm

Then I discovered it had some context:

"Once as a very little boy, whilst at day-school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters." - Charles Darwin
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12596
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#36  Postby Wortfish » Oct 06, 2017 8:08 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Yes, I outright concede it. I simply couldn't give any less of a shit about Darwin and his motives, how much he happened to bother people around him in his time, or bother intensely butt-hurt abrahamic religionists living today.

The book is about Darwin,and by extension Darwinism, not about the theory of evolution or creationism.

It doesn't matter. The evidence is what the evidence is. And the evidence is rationally undeniable. We share common descent with all other organisms on known on the planet, and we evolved.

And Wilson is not disputing the evidence for evolution.

Whatever the fuck Darwin did or said, why he said or did it, and how terrible it was, is entirely without consequence. Evolution is true no matter how utterly terrible you think the people responsible for alighting upon it, were or are. All the worlds biologists and biochemists could be racists, rapists and eugenicist dictators, and evolution would still be true.

From a historical and scientific perspective, it does matter what Darwin said and what led him to his all-encompassing idea of natural selection as the principal force/mechanism behind evolution.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 506

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#37  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 06, 2017 8:18 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Yes, I outright concede it. I simply couldn't give any less of a shit about Darwin and his motives, how much he happened to bother people around him in his time, or bother intensely butt-hurt abrahamic religionists living today.

The book is about Darwin,and by extension Darwinism

Please define Darwinism. I only know it as a anti-evolution slur.,

It doesn't matter. The evidence is what the evidence is. And the evidence is rationally undeniable. We share common descent with all other organisms on known on the planet, and we evolved.

And Wilson is not disputing the evidence for evolution.[/quote]
Just writing a non thinly veiled attack on it via its founder.


Whatever the fuck Darwin did or said, why he said or did it, and how terrible it was, is entirely without consequence. Evolution is true no matter how utterly terrible you think the people responsible for alighting upon it, were or are. All the worlds biologists and biochemists could be racists, rapists and eugenicist dictators, and evolution would still be true.

From a historical and scientific perspective, it does matter what Darwin said and what led him to his all-encompassing idea of natural selection as the principal force/mechanism behind evolution.

It really doesn't, your blind counterfactual assertion notwithstanding.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#38  Postby Shrunk » Oct 06, 2017 8:20 pm

Wortfish wrote:From a historical and scientific perspective, it does matter what Darwin said and what led him to his all-encompassing idea of natural selection as the principal force/mechanism behind evolution.


From a scientific perspective? How, exactly?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 25967
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#39  Postby Animavore » Oct 06, 2017 8:22 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It's a transparent piece of polemics aimed at discrediting the current ToE by attacking it's founding father. This is nothing new Worfish, we've seen theists do this for decades.

Wilson makes no religious arguments. He points out that the ToE as a concept was established well before Darwin. What Darwin did was try and explain evolution, for which there were many explanations at the time, in terms of Malthusian economics and Victorian racism.

Lol. Utter bollox. Darwin argued against The racists of his time, people like Galton, for instance. Darwin saw no reason to classify Africans and Asians as separate species like his counterparts. Anthor unique thing about Darwin's theory is that it doesn't put humanity on a pedestal. A human is no more evolved than a blade of grass. This rubbished racist ideas that white people are 'more' evolved.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38818
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Darwin the Mythmaker

#40  Postby Macdoc » Oct 06, 2017 9:19 pm

Just a reminder - ToE was a joint effort with Wallace and they published together .... the waves only came later with Darwin's book.

The 1858 Darwin-Wallace paper | The Alfred Russel Wallace Website
wallacefund.info › Biography of Wallace
10 Jun 2008 - Wallace's annotated copy of the Darwin-Wallace paper on natural selection. pp. ... of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin ... those of his able correspondent, should together be laid before the public. ..... of some others—powerful wings accompanying weak feet, or great ...


and

July 1, 1858: Darwin and Wallace Shift the Paradigm

1858: The Linnaean Society of London listens to the reading of a composite paper on how natural selection accounts for the evolution and variety of species. The authors are Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Modern biology is born.

Scientists of the time knew that evolution occurred. The fossil record showed evidence of life forms that no longer existed. The question was, how did it occur?

Darwin had been working on his theory since 1837, soon after his epic voyage on the HMS Beagle. The hypermethodical naturalist wanted not only to classify the prodigious variation he had observed, but also to explain how it came to be.

He felt he would need to publish extensive documentation of natural selection to overcome popular resistance to so radical a notion. So he planned a comprehensive, multivolume work to convince scientists and the world.

Darwin was still working on his magnum opus when in June 1858 he received a letter from an English naturalist working in Malaysia. Alfred Russel Wallace was young and brash. When he conceived of natural selection, he didn’t plan a 10-volume lifework. He just dashed off a quick paper on the subject and mailed it to the author of The Voyage of the Beagle, asking him to refer it for publication if it seemed good enough.

Darwin was crestfallen. Was he about to lose credit for two decades of work? Wallace had suggested that Darwin forward the paper to Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Along with English botanist Joseph Hooker, Lyell was one of a small handful of people Darwin had shown early drafts of his own work on natural selection.

Darwin wrote to Lyell and Hooker, and they arranged for a joint paper to be read at the forthcoming meeting of the Linnaean Society of London. (Founded in 1788 and named for Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish scientist who devised the binomial system of taxonomy, it is the world’s oldest active biological society.)


more
https://www.wired.com/2011/07/0701darwi ... ty-london/

The OP reference is just ignorant trash... :nono:

He should be ashamed of promoting it .....of course if he has an agenda ...... :roll: :ask:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 11468
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest