Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
First of all....I have not used the phrase "bashing my brains in."
That would suppose that you had said organ in the first place.
Secondly....I have proven over and over that you were wrong on both counts:
1. your claim that Stephen Gould was not a Marxist...
and
2. that Marxist theory was not the basis for his attempt to support Darwin's theory, by altering it via 'Punctuated Equilibrium'
Really I have. You're just too stupid to realize same....or too dishonest to admit it.
BUT....I do take a guilty pleasure in rubbing your face in it, so....even though I have given you far more education than I should allot.....here, one more time....and using the sources in this thread itself.....
Take notes:
1.' The Socialist Worker Online mentions that Gould was on the advisory boards of the journalRethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School.' Gasper, Phil, A scientist of the people, Socialist Worker Online, 7 June 2002, p8
2. '.... Gould followed in the footsteps of one of his intellectual heroes, Frederick Engels--Karl Marx's close collaborator....' Ibid.
3. "... Gould also shared Engels' enthusiasm for understanding the natural world dialectically--in other words, consisting of complex and dynamic interactive processes classical laws of dialectics [formulated by Engels]..." Ibid.
4. "WITH FELLOW paleontologist Niles Eldredge, Gould proposed the theory of "punctuated equilibrium." ...Gould freely admitted that he was attracted to the theory because of his knowledge of Hegel and Marx."
Ibid.
5. " A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism at his daddy's knee... , it is clear from Goulds work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change
MacDonald, Kevin, The Culture of Critique
6. Many agree that Gould allowed his Marxist philosophy to influence his science. He has even been labelled, by other evolutionists, muddle-headed, hypocritical, blinded by Marxism, and rhetorically dishonest
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? by David Noebel, Summit Ministries, 23 March 2007
7. " The figure he most closely resembled in these respects was the British biologist of the 1930s, J. B. S. Haldane, a founder of the modern genetical theory of evolution, a wonderful essayist on science for the general public, and an idiosyncratic Marxist and columnist for the Daily Worker who finally split with the Communist Party over its demand that scientific claims follow Party doctrine. What characterizes Steve Goulds work is its consistent radicalism....
.... Steves theory of episodic evolution and his adherence to Marxs theory of historical stages.. . He identified himself as a Marxist .... by insisting on his adherence to a Marxist viewpoint, he took the opportunity offered to him by his immense fame and legitimacy as a public intellectual to make a broad public think again about the validity of a Marxist analysis.
Stephen Jay Gould? What Does it Mean to Be a Radical? :: Monthly Review
8. "And in The Panda's Thumb Gould points out that: "In the Soviet Union, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change - the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational.... but it suggests that change occurs in large leaps following a slow accumulation of stresses that a system resists until it reaches the breaking point..... Oppress the workers more and more and bring on the revolution. Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many Russian palaeontologists support a model similar to our punctuated equilibria."..... Above all he provided more scientific evidence that strengthens the position of Marxism, for it proves that dialectical materialism is not a fantastic notion thought up by Marx himself, but it is simply the reflection of the real material world as it is.
A tribute to a great scientist: Stephen Jay Gould
9. Gould himself, like his colleagues Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose, freely acknowledged Marxist sympathies .... American National Biography Online: Gould, Stephen Jay
10. "The late Stephen Jay Gould; jewish palaeontologist, public intellectual and marxist,... Goulds involvement in Marxist causes; such as Students for a Democratic Society (along with his celebrated jewish confrere Richard Lewontin who still regularly writes for Trotksyite rags such as the New Left Review),... Gould was; like Lewontin, prolific in his support of Marxist causes...." Semitic Controversies: Lies, Damned Lies and Stephen Jay Gould
11. "Gould along with other Marxist and socialist critics ... the method he employed which is very clearly compatible with, if not derived from, Marxist methodology... Throughout his life Gould continued to participate in socialist forums, such as the annual Socialist Scholars Conference and events at the Brecht Forum (on whose board he served) including the meeting on the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto." An Appreciation of Stephen Jay Gould | Solidarity
Note, especially, how #3,4,5,7,8, and 11 speak to his derivation of 'Punctuated Equilibrium' from Marx's theory of history.
Go ahead.....deny.
Wanna retract
1. your claim that Stephen Gould was not a Marxist...
and
2. that Marxist theory was not the basis for his attempt to support Darwin's theory, by altering it via 'Punctuated Equilibrium'
Moron.
Hey, cocksucking Martian,
I already debunked everyone of these points.
You are simply repeating points that I already countered and demolished.
Go back and carefully reread this thread and the other stupid thread you started.
When you debate someone, you are supposed to respond to their counterpoints with something new, not ignore their counterpoints and regurgitate the same information that's already been debunked.
And I'm not going to waste my time reading through this mess (or it may have been on another thread) to find the quote where you claimed you were "bashing my brains in" but I remember that line distinctly.
No....you simply ignored them....because you are both stupid and a liar.
And the language to which I've reduced you indicates that you know it, as well.
Hey, cocksucking Martian,
I already debunked everyone of these points.
You are simply repeating points that I already countered and demolished.
Go back and carefully reread this thread and the other stupid thread you started.
When you debate someone, you are supposed to respond to their counterpoints with something new, not ignore their counterpoints and regurgitate the same information that's already been debunked.
And I'm not going to waste my time reading through this mess (or it may have been on another thread) to find the quote where you claimed you were "bashing my brains in" but I remember that line distinctly.
No....you simply ignored them....because you are both stupid and a liar.
And the language to which I've reduced you indicates that you know it, as well.
Here's an example of your stupidity.
MY claim that you are a Cocksucking Martian is one of the points I used to debunk your claim that Gould was a Marxist.
You completely ignored MY point, not vice versa.
Post #84 proves that everything I've said is correct, and that you are a lying sack of refuse.....
...I recommend that any who are interested in the truth read said post.
1. Darwin was incorrect in his theory of evolution.
2. A new species formed from an original one via accumulation of random mutations has never been observed either in nature nor in the laboratory.
I'll ignore the rest of your diatribe.
As to these two points you are 100% wrong. Entirely new species have been created in the lab. Further, there is a cornucopia of evidence showing origin of all different manner of species. Still further there is well documented evidence of the sharing of DNA between the various species.
Your mistake is thinking yourself God's mouthpiece. I would not assume, if I were you, that you know how god created this world, nor should you assume he did not use some form of directed evolution to do it, not unlike any other selective system that currently drives the continued creation and evolution of the various species, and/or by some other means that we may never understand.
There was no diatribe.
Here's the problem.....folks like you don't understand the issue under discussion. You're neither educated enough nor smart enough to grasp nuance.
For example....you deny that Darwin was wrong.....
...yet the greatest popularizer of evolutionary theory says exactly that.
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
This is why Gould has been called 'the accidental creationist.'
"THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST"
NONZERO
So, you see....I am correct, and you are a fool.
I'll ignore the rest of your diatribe.
As to these two points you are 100% wrong. Entirely new species have been created in the lab. Further, there is a cornucopia of evidence showing origin of all different manner of species. Still further there is well documented evidence of the sharing of DNA between the various species.
Your mistake is thinking yourself God's mouthpiece. I would not assume, if I were you, that you know how god created this world, nor should you assume he did not use some form of directed evolution to do it, not unlike any other selective system that currently drives the continued creation and evolution of the various species, and/or by some other means that we may never understand.
There was no diatribe.
Here's the problem.....folks like you don't understand the issue under discussion. You're neither educated enough nor smart enough to grasp nuance.
For example....you deny that Darwin was wrong.....
...yet the greatest popularizer of evolutionary theory says exactly that.
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
This is why Gould has been called 'the accidental creationist.'
"THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST"
NONZERO
So, you see....I am correct, and you are a fool.
diatribe - a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
Ayup that's what it was, a diatribe.
No I was not wrong. As others have tried to teach you, for which you are apparently to ignorant to understand, there are more things afoot than slow evolution and rapid evolution and/or accidents are not the only way changes occur. Just because I said darwin's theory of evolution was correct does not mean I said it was complete, and / or could not be improved upon. Apparently, the subtleties of the English language continue to escape your feeble mind.
I learned a long time ago pretending to be an expert on all matters, for which you are not, is a fools errand. How long have you been studying evolution? Please share your vast credentials with the class.
Rage on PC, I'm sure you are convincing someone of your superior grasp of biology.
Post #84 proves that everything I've said is correct, and that you are a lying sack of refuse.....
...I recommend that any who are interested in the truth read said post.
I'm embarrassed to say that I read your drivel.
And you are still a full-o-shit lying ****.
Happy Holidays.
There was no diatribe.
Here's the problem.....folks like you don't understand the issue under discussion. You're neither educated enough nor smart enough to grasp nuance.
For example....you deny that Darwin was wrong.....
...yet the greatest popularizer of evolutionary theory says exactly that.
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
This is why Gould has been called 'the accidental creationist.'
"THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST"
NONZERO
So, you see....I am correct, and you are a fool.
diatribe - a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
Ayup that's what it was, a diatribe.
No I was not wrong. As others have tried to teach you, for which you are apparently to ignorant to understand, there are more things afoot than slow evolution and rapid evolution and/or accidents are not the only way changes occur. Just because I said darwin's theory of evolution was correct does not mean I said it was complete, and / or could not be improved upon. Apparently, the subtleties of the English language continue to escape your feeble mind.
I learned a long time ago pretending to be an expert on all matters, for which you are not, is a fools errand. How long have you been studying evolution? Please share your vast credentials with the class.
Rage on PC, I'm sure you are convincing someone of your superior grasp of biology.
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
The complete opposite.
Yeah...you were/are wrong.
diatribe - a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
Ayup that's what it was, a diatribe.
No I was not wrong. As others have tried to teach you, for which you are apparently to ignorant to understand, there are more things afoot than slow evolution and rapid evolution and/or accidents are not the only way changes occur. Just because I said darwin's theory of evolution was correct does not mean I said it was complete, and / or could not be improved upon. Apparently, the subtleties of the English language continue to escape your feeble mind.
I learned a long time ago pretending to be an expert on all matters, for which you are not, is a fools errand. How long have you been studying evolution? Please share your vast credentials with the class.
Rage on PC, I'm sure you are convincing someone of your superior grasp of biology.
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
The complete opposite.
Yeah...you were/are wrong.
Apples are red. Oranges are orange. Like you, they are both fruit.
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
The complete opposite.
Yeah...you were/are wrong.
Apples are red. Oranges are orange. Like you, they are both fruit.
I provided dispositive evidence of my argument that Darwin's theory is incorrect.....
...you, the response of a fool.
Apples are red. Oranges are orange. Like you, they are both fruit.
I provided dispositive evidence of my argument that Darwin's theory is incorrect.....
...you, the response of a fool.
Are you retarded, or just slow?
Huh?I provided dispositive evidence of my argument that Darwin's theory is incorrect.....
...you, the response of a fool.
Are you retarded, or just slow?
Still no coherent response to the issue at hand:
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
Why is your behavior so typical of government school grads?
Huh?Are you retarded, or just slow?
Still no coherent response to the issue at hand:
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
Why is your behavior so typical of government school grads?
Apples: macroevolution
Oranges: microevolution
Dogs and cats living together.
I've explained and others have explained numerous times to you. How many times do we have to explain to you that both can be right without one of the two being wrong?
Huh?Still no coherent response to the issue at hand:
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
Why is your behavior so typical of government school grads?
Apples: macroevolution
Oranges: microevolution
Dogs and cats living together.
I've explained and others have explained numerous times to you. How many times do we have to explain to you that both can be right without one of the two being wrong?
Because macroevolution isn't possible.
a."Darwins theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.
b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis
Yet, because the fossil record repudiates Darwin's thesis.....Gould reverses the theory and claims that there is a sudden appearance of fully formed brand new species.
Beginning to see the scam unraveling?
Huh?
Apples: macroevolution
Oranges: microevolution
Dogs and cats living together.
I've explained and others have explained numerous times to you. How many times do we have to explain to you that both can be right without one of the two being wrong?
Because macroevolution isn't possible.
a."Darwins theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.
b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis
Yet, because the fossil record repudiates Darwin's thesis.....Gould reverses the theory and claims that there is a sudden appearance of fully formed brand new species.
Beginning to see the scam unraveling?
Wrong. Some portions of the fossil record support Darwin's thesis, some portions support other things at work. Again, you appear to not recognize or even be able to consider that there could most certainly be more than one way to for the species to have evolved.
BTW can you please explain how monkeys share our genes?
Darwin: accumulation of random mutations eventually results in the macroevolution that produces new species. Gradual.
Stephen J. Gould: new species pop up fully formed without any accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Sudden.
The complete opposite.
Yeah...you were/are wrong.
Apples are red. Oranges are orange. Like you, they are both fruit.
I provided dispositive evidence of my argument that Darwin's theory is incorrect.....
...you, the response of a fool.
Post #84 proves that everything I've said is correct, and that you are a lying sack of refuse.....
...I recommend that any who are interested in the truth read said post.
I'm embarrassed to say that I read your drivel.
And you are still a full-o-shit lying ****.
Happy Holidays.
I've found that the more vile a response is, the more the post represents one's realization that they are wrong...
Yours, a case in point.
Fool.
