A Fight To The Death!

[RKMBrown]

PC you are very confused. This appears to be due to you not understanding perspective and context in writings.

For example, if someone says Gould was "dedicated to using Marx's uniquely valuable contributions…to study conditions today and possibilities for transcending capitalism and building an emancipatory society" that does not mean Gould was a communist. It means he saw some contributions to political science that could be derived from Marx's contributions. It means the guy wanted to propose ways for society to maturate beyond where it was at the time, said capitalism, to some future state called an emancipatory society. I suspect you don't know what emancipatory society means. The literal translation is a society where a person can obtain autonomy and is free from domination. IOW a free society also free from domination by any group be they the mob, monopolies, oligopolies, and governments. That does not sound like communism at all.

 

[manifold]

PC you are very confused...

You give her too much credit (or not enough as the case may be).

She's not confused, her obfuscation and distortion of the facts is wholly intentional.

You'll eventually learn this as many others have.

 

[Steven_R]

PC you are very confused. This appears to be due to you not understanding perspective and context in writings.

For example, if someone says Gould was "dedicated to using Marx's uniquely valuable contributions…to study conditions today and possibilities for transcending capitalism and building an emancipatory society" that does not mean Gould was a communist. It means he saw some contributions to political science that could be derived from Marx's contributions. It means the guy wanted to propose ways for society to maturate beyond where it was at the time, said capitalism, to some future state called an emancipatory society. I suspect you don't know what emancipatory society means. The literal translation is a society where a person can obtain autonomy and is free from domination. IOW a free society also free from domination by any group be they the mob, monopolies, oligopolies, and governments. That does not sound like communism at all.

More to the point, so what if Gould was a communist or a Marxist or a fascist or a Democrat or a Republican or an anarchist or adherent to any other political and/or economic ideology? It isn't like that somehow invalidates his work as a biologist.

 

[Synthaholic]

1. In post #49 you agreed to this:
Quote: Originally Posted by WinterBorn View Post
I have seen the occasional atheist who is anti-religion. But most are simply apathetic about it.

I notice you have a serious thing about attacking Darwin, the theory of evolution, and atheists.

Funny that you want to point fingers at people for doing what you have been doing.
And yet she still manages to fool almost 30% of the membership here.

But whatcha gonna do?




2. Can you explain this:
Post #53.....
Me: Where have I attacked Darwin, or atheists?

You: the emoticon of laughter, meaning that my statement was laughable.




3. Post #58

Me: An admission that you have no examples of attacks on Darwin?

Or on those who choose to be atheists?


Accepted.

You: You accept a lot of shit that is demonstrably false. Why should this be any different?




4. Post #67
You: The entire premise of your failed argument is an attack on Darwin.

But I digress...



5. Post #70
You: You've given me the impression that you have contempt for Darwin, Darwinism, the scientific study of evolution and yes, even atheists.





Are you about to deny that the import of the above is exactly as I stated...and, as your efforts are untrue....

....you're a liar.

That's a long way to go for absolutely nothing PC.


Again, you have not produced this alleged untruth that I posted.


Why?



Because I never posted one.




The only liar in this exchange is you.

I'm content to allow any readers to see your series of posts, and decide who the liar is.

Oh, we've decided.

 

[RKMBrown]

PC you are very confused...

You give her too much credit (or not enough as the case may be).

She's not confused, her obfuscation and distortion of the facts is wholly intentional.

You'll eventually learn this as many others have.

To bad then.

I always hold out hope it's just not having a background in subject, or even of reading said types of text, or maybe even a goof. Usually the massive cut and pasting, though, is indicative of someone holding out hope that the message being pasted will somehow backup what they have been convinced as the truth by their circle of influence. The ole cognitive dissonance thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC you are very confused...

You give her too much credit (or not enough as the case may be).

She's not confused, her obfuscation and distortion of the facts is wholly intentional.

You'll eventually learn this as many others have.

To bad then.

I always hold out hope it's just not having a background in subject, or even of reading said types of text, or maybe even a goof. Usually the massive cut and pasting, though, is indicative of someone holding out hope that the message being pasted will somehow backup what they have been convinced as the truth by their circle of influence. The ole cognitive dissonance thing.

Useless though it may be....once again:

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.

3. Stephen Gould's attempt to rescue same was based on Marx and Engels' theory of history, and he called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

Interesting because it is the exact opposite of Darwin's theory, and actually conforms to a religion's view of spontaneous species formation.

4. Yet, Darwinism is advanced because it serves the Left's view of political history: Marxism.
Were academic institutions not so invested with Leftist thought Darwin would just be one more view assigned to the waste bin of history.




Everything I've posted, including the summary above, is accurate.
You folks are not educated enough to realize same.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You give her too much credit (or not enough as the case may be).

She's not confused, her obfuscation and distortion of the facts is wholly intentional.

You'll eventually learn this as many others have.

To bad then.

I always hold out hope it's just not having a background in subject, or even of reading said types of text, or maybe even a goof. Usually the massive cut and pasting, though, is indicative of someone holding out hope that the message being pasted will somehow backup what they have been convinced as the truth by their circle of influence. The ole cognitive dissonance thing.

Useless though it may be....once again:

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.

3. Stephen Gould's attempt to rescue same was based on Marx and Engels' theory of history, and he called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

Interesting because it is the exact opposite of Darwin's theory, and actually conforms to a religion's view of spontaneous species formation.

4. Yet, Darwinism is advanced because it serves the Left's view of political history: Marxism.
Were academic institutions not so invested with Leftist thought Darwin would just be one more view assigned to the waste bin of history.




Everything I've posted, including the summary above, is accurate.
You folks are not educated enough to realize same.

Seeing science as a communist plot is even more comprehensively nutty than the old Birchers' fluoride in the water conspiracy.

 

[Hollie]

You give her too much credit (or not enough as the case may be).

She's not confused, her obfuscation and distortion of the facts is wholly intentional.

You'll eventually learn this as many others have.

To bad then.

I always hold out hope it's just not having a background in subject, or even of reading said types of text, or maybe even a goof. Usually the massive cut and pasting, though, is indicative of someone holding out hope that the message being pasted will somehow backup what they have been convinced as the truth by their circle of influence. The ole cognitive dissonance thing.

Useless though it may be....once again:

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.

3. Stephen Gould's attempt to rescue same was based on Marx and Engels' theory of history, and he called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

Interesting because it is the exact opposite of Darwin's theory, and actually conforms to a religion's view of spontaneous species formation.

4. Yet, Darwinism is advanced because it serves the Left's view of political history: Marxism.
Were academic institutions not so invested with Leftist thought Darwin would just be one more view assigned to the waste bin of history.




Everything I've posted, including the summary above, is accurate.
You folks are not educated enough to realize same.

How interesting to note that via a collection of fraudulent, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes", you have come to the conclusion that you have shown Darwin was incorrect in his theory of evolution.

What you actually accomplished was making a complete fool of yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

At the risk of causing PC's head to explode and thus add copious quantities of methane to the atmosphere,

here's a creationist insisting that speciation is a fact...


"...no reputable creationist denies speciation..." and then embarks on a crazy explanation as to how speciation vindicates the Biblical story of how it all happened.

too funny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To bad then.

I always hold out hope it's just not having a background in subject, or even of reading said types of text, or maybe even a goof. Usually the massive cut and pasting, though, is indicative of someone holding out hope that the message being pasted will somehow backup what they have been convinced as the truth by their circle of influence. The ole cognitive dissonance thing.

Useless though it may be....once again:

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.

3. Stephen Gould's attempt to rescue same was based on Marx and Engels' theory of history, and he called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

Interesting because it is the exact opposite of Darwin's theory, and actually conforms to a religion's view of spontaneous species formation.

4. Yet, Darwinism is advanced because it serves the Left's view of political history: Marxism.
Were academic institutions not so invested with Leftist thought Darwin would just be one more view assigned to the waste bin of history.




Everything I've posted, including the summary above, is accurate.
You folks are not educated enough to realize same.

Seeing science as a communist plot is even more comprehensively nutty than the old Birchers' fluoride in the water conspiracy.

Where does it say 'science is a communist plot'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Useless though it may be....once again:

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.

3. Stephen Gould's attempt to rescue same was based on Marx and Engels' theory of history, and he called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

Interesting because it is the exact opposite of Darwin's theory, and actually conforms to a religion's view of spontaneous species formation.

4. Yet, Darwinism is advanced because it serves the Left's view of political history: Marxism.
Were academic institutions not so invested with Leftist thought Darwin would just be one more view assigned to the waste bin of history.




Everything I've posted, including the summary above, is accurate.
You folks are not educated enough to realize same.

Seeing science as a communist plot is even more comprehensively nutty than the old Birchers' fluoride in the water conspiracy.

Where does it say 'science is a communist plot'?

Bolded.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

At the risk of causing PC's head to explode and thus add copious quantities of methane to the atmosphere,

here's a creationist insisting that speciation is a fact...


"...no reputable creationist denies speciation..." and then embarks on a crazy explanation as to how speciation vindicates the Biblical story of how it all happened.

too funny.

Whoops. Here's the link on that:

Refuting Evolution 2 -- chapter 4: Argument: Natural selection leads to speciation

Now you creationists who think speciation never happened can argue with the creationists who admit that it did.

 

[RKMBrown]

At the risk of causing PC's head to explode and thus add copious quantities of methane to the atmosphere,

here's a creationist insisting that speciation is a fact...


"...no reputable creationist denies speciation..." and then embarks on a crazy explanation as to how speciation vindicates the Biblical story of how it all happened.

too funny.

Did you mean to include something?

Anyhow, I don't see how evolution rules out the bible in any shape form or fashion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Hey Politicalchic,

I thought you were supposedly bashing my brains in.

In boxing the boxer who fails to react to counterpunches is the one who is getting their brains bashed in.

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 Gould’s 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 1930’s, 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 Gould’s work is its consistent radicalism....
.... Steve’s theory of episodic evolution and his adherence to Marx’s 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,... Gould’s 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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey Politicalchic,

I thought you were supposedly bashing my brains in.

In boxing the boxer who fails to react to counterpunches is the one who is getting their brains bashed in.

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 Gould’s 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 1930’s, 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 Gould’s work is its consistent radicalism....
.... Steve’s theory of episodic evolution and his adherence to Marx’s 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,... Gould’s 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&#8217,... 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.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

"It was your claim that Gould was a Marxist. You made no case for that."


Oh.....hallelujah!

I was soooooo hoping you'd fall into that trap....and I could coax you into making that insane claim!!




Now....I'm perfectly willing to allow any readers to compare your babble to post #84, and to get a glimpse at your character and make a judgment about your mental stability.

Befuddled is the normal state of affairs for you.


With so many of your fraudulent, cut and paste "quotes"shown to be lies, why would you attempt to pass off a science fiction writer as an authority on biology?


When you litter every thread with phony " quotes", I understand you're not interested in their truth or accuracy. However, a reasonable person would make some effort to assess the veracity of posts.


You just mindlessly cut and paste from creationist ministries and are clueless as to the innaccuracies and lies you promote on behalf of charlatans and frauds.


Thus, you are an accomplice to fraud.


Wouldn't you agree?

This is really great.

Hey....did you notice that the sad sack who actually posted that Gould wasn't a Marxist, and that he didn't cop 'Punctuated Equilibrium" from Marxism wandered off to lick her wounds, as I neatly destroyed her denials?

You didn't notice?

And that left you, the wanna-be, to continue the failed denials.




Funny how you've been used, huh?

I stopped posting because this thread is a boring waste of time and all your points have been thoroughly debunked. You ignore my points. Why should I keep posting and repeating myself over and over when you ignore my points and simply regurgitate the same material that I already debunked?

Settled science is all a communist plot? What a joke.

Besides I have a life--I had to take time to play kinky tickle games with my wife. (I am a man. The avatar is obviously not me, shithead.)

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

You give her too much credit (or not enough as the case may be).

She's not confused, her obfuscation and distortion of the facts is wholly intentional.

You'll eventually learn this as many others have.

To bad then.

I always hold out hope it's just not having a background in subject, or even of reading said types of text, or maybe even a goof. Usually the massive cut and pasting, though, is indicative of someone holding out hope that the message being pasted will somehow backup what they have been convinced as the truth by their circle of influence. The ole cognitive dissonance thing.

Useless though it may be....once again:

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.

3. Stephen Gould's attempt to rescue same was based on Marx and Engels' theory of history, and he called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

Interesting because it is the exact opposite of Darwin's theory, and actually conforms to a religion's view of spontaneous species formation.

4. Yet, Darwinism is advanced because it serves the Left's view of political history: Marxism.
Were academic institutions not so invested with Leftist thought Darwin would just be one more view assigned to the waste bin of history.




Everything I've posted, including the summary above, is accurate.
You folks are not educated enough to realize same.

See here's an example of a point of mine that you ignored.

You claimed punctuated equilibrium was the exact opposite of Darwin's theory.

On a previous thread I already explained how it's not. It's an alternate model of evolution. And as I linked on another thread, the theory of evolution can accomodate both slow and rapid change models.

You refused to learn--evidence of your stupidity, and why I'm not going to waste any more time on this thread.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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 Gould’s 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 1930’s, 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 Gould’s work is its consistent radicalism....
.... Steve’s theory of episodic evolution and his adherence to Marx’s 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,... Gould’s 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.

I think cocksucking Martian is more imaginative and intelligent than "moron" and "birdbrain.:

Reread the thread. Try paying attention to what I wrote.