FANDOM


Origin of species as myth Edit

http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth/

The Origin of the Species is “myth,” in the way Mircea Eliade uses the word myth – a story that tells how “a reality came into existence.”

Eliade wrote: “To tell how things came into existence is to explain them and at the same time indirectly to answer another question: Why did they come into existence? Eliade explains: “The why is always implied in the how — for the simple reason that to tell how a thing was born is to reveal an irruption of the sacred into the world, and the sacred is the ultimate cause of all real existence.”

The Origin of the Species is, in this sense, a religious story. Although Darwin’s intention was to tell a story that did not involve God, it makes us think of God, not just because it reminds us of Genesis, but because its genre is myth.

In the story told in The Origin of the Species, the species have emerged through a long struggle for survival. The struggle theme is also found in the ancient near eastern myths in which the cosmos emerged from a struggle between a god and a great sea monster, the god representing order and the sea monster representing chaos. (Enûma Elish) Through the course of history, that myth became part of the western mosaic of myths and became a paradigm that has guided our attitudes and actions, which is what Eliade said myths do. The Origin of the Species is the latest retelling of that myth, but in the retelling the paradigm has changed.

In the new myth, order is not imposed on chaos by a god, but by the organisms of life themselves. The organisms have fought the battle themselves. This is the paradigm that guides our attitudes and actions in modernity.

The ancient myth explained the existence of an agrarian world ruled by kings and queens and emperors. The myth retold in The Origin of the Species explains an industrial world ruled by democracies and free markets. In the retold myth, we do not fight sea monsters, but each other and the world is not one given to us by a god, but one we have won or made for ourselves.

Other Edit

http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/reading-darwin-with-eliade/

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/585ce619796dd7b9#

http://lostborders.wordpress.com/



myth Edit

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/13/oz_killeroo/ Because of Australia's relative remoteness, marsupials were the only mammal group lucky enough make it there in pre-human days. The lack of competition from others allowed them to diversify to fill niches that might have been occupied by wolves or big cats elsewhere in the world.

NOTES: If something else filled the niche we would have been told the same story, it can't be Popper falsified, neither verifiable or refutable. The proposition is formulated in such a way that in the words of Charles Darwin .... the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed..... and thus it isn't testable and thus useless as an explanation if your premise is testability.

post 11 Edit

See http://localhost:8080/FalseDichotomy#preview {{{ On Mar 14, 11:58 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the story told in The Origin of the Species, the species have > emerged through a long struggle for survival. The struggle theme is > also found in the ancient near eastern myths in which the cosmos > emerged from a struggle between a god and a great sea monster, the god > representing order and the sea monster representing chaos.

The post below is relevent to the sea monsters fighting Gods and what have you.....

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=2382 "....I wouldn't entirely agree that "survival of the fittest" is just a metaphor - as I tried to show in the last paragraph of my previous post, I think it's more accurately described as a quick catchphrase that nevertheless sums up one important aspect of the evolutionary process, the idea that there is a struggle for existence in which individuals with genetic advantages tend to survive and reproduce. It's a bit like "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" as a statement of Newton's 3rd law of motion, a pithy verbal formula that can be used to vividly package an idea for the benefit of non-scientists.

Accordingly, I think biologists should continue to use the phrase, although I think we also need to get across the idea that "the fittest" are fundamentally defined as those with advantageous traits, rather than those that happen to have the most viable offspring at the end of the day...."

Numerous time I pointed out to Howard on Talk.origins which have now banned me from posting there that "struggle for survival" is a red herring because it doesn't explain how both the dead and live chicken managed to implement the IPC (Inverted pendulum control) algorithm from a blob of jelly. He said that it is "irrelevant". In a sense Howard is our university secular priest with a Gandalf pointy hat, he has replaced the Christian chaplain and engages in myth making derived from sea monsters fighting Gods mixed with Tautological fallacies from Aristotle to James Hutton - http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/aefd3884630a72bb# }}}


post 12 Edit

{{{

On Mar 21, 5:56 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Numerous time I pointed out to Howard on Talk.origins which have now
> banned me from posting there that "struggle for survival" is a red
> herring because it doesn't explain how both the dead and live chicken
> managed to implement the  IPC (Inverted pendulum control) algorithm
> from a blob of jelly. He said that it is "irrelevant". In a sense
> Howard is our university secular priest with a Gandalf pointy hat, he
> has replaced the Christian chaplain and engages in myth making derived
> from sea monsters fighting Gods mixed with Tautological fallacies from
> Aristotle to James Hutton -http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread...

Another observation that ties in with this whole slaying of sea monsters, order gaining over chaos is the concept "reproductive success". For who is what a success? Who a reached a goal or as I put it to Howard: If a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would it still be a success? In ancient mythology when the God slayed the sea monster he achieved a "success" and thus it seems this where this whole success business comes from. Somehow fairy tales like Lord of the Rings have found it's subtle way into the upper reaches of academia. The Bible says there is nothing new under the sun, if people could engage in myth making thousands of years ago then why would modern man not do the same? 

}}}


post 10 Edit

{{{ On Mar 19, 10:59 pm, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> "Why" has many meanings. If you are asking for a teleological "why" > >> biology offers no such answer. > >The abstract authority Mr. Biology certainly doesn't , which > >individual are you referring to? > I mean the science of biology. Various scientists may well have a > notion of teleology, but not when working as a scientist.

Still the same fallacy the abstract authority Mr.Science-Of-Biology doesn't offer any answers because he doesn't exist, who is the person you are interpreting? In Christianity for example we interpret Paul or Peter, Christians can't just dream up their own theology. Which scientist where hasn't got what notion.

> >Biology's dictionary definition is 'study of life', > It is the *scientific* study of life.

What does scientific mean and who has defined what it means? }}}


reply to Matt Edit

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> It kind of depends on what "explain" means. Darwin took us from having > no explanation at all to knowing that species are formed via descent > with modification. That was an enormous step.

It was Halloy not Darwin that wrote a paper about "descent with modification" as discussed here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thread/d138b2c03c35d64f

> "Why" has many meanings. If you are asking for a teleological "why" > biology offers no such answer.

The abstract authority Mr. Biology certainly doesn't , which individual are you referring to?

Biology dictionary definition is 'study of life', but since we don't know what life is lets redefine it as "study of frogs". A frog is the result of life but not life itself. In what way does the study of frogs not provide the answers to teleological why's? It all depends on what you define as biology.

> How nice: you now play another rhetorical trick, equating the specific > supported differential reproductive success (Natural Selection) with > some story about some different struggle.

Darwin never said "reproductive success" who are you referring to?

> This reads like the work of someone who has never actually studied > biology. That is, there is no actual biology in the analysis.

rephrase: This reads like the work of someone who has never actually studied frogs. That is, there is no actual study of frogs in the analysis.


The Origin of Species as Myth Edit

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thread/585ce619796dd7b9


http://lostborders.wordpress.com/ The Origin of the Species is “myth,” in the way Mircea Eliade uses the word myth - a story that tells how “a reality came into existence.”

Eliade wrote: “To tell how things came into existence is to explain

them and at the same time indirectly to answer another question: Why did they come into existence? Eliade explains: “The why is always implied in the how — for the simple reason that to tell how a thing was born is to reveal an irruption of the sacred into the world, and the sacred is the ultimate cause of all real existence.”

The Origin of the Species is, in this sense, a religious story. Although Darwin’s intention was to tell a story that did not involve God, it makes us think of God, not just because it reminds us of Genesis, but because its genre is myth.

In the story told in The Origin of the Species, the species have emerged through a long struggle for survival. The struggle theme is also found in the ancient near eastern myths in which the cosmos emerged from a struggle between a god and a great sea monster, the god representing order and the sea monster representing chaos. Through the course of history, that myth became part of the western mosaic of myths and became a paradigm that has guided our attitudes and actions, which is what Eliade said myths do. The Origin of the Species is the latest retelling of that myth, but in the retelling the paradigm has changed.

In the new myth, order is not imposed on chaos by a god, but by the organisms of life themselves. The organisms have fought the battle themselves. This is the paradigm that guides our attitudes and actions in modernity.

The ancient myth explained the existence of an agrarian world ruled by kings and queens and emperors. The myth retold in The Origin of the Species explains an industrial world ruled by democracies and free markets. In the retold myth, we do not fight sea monsters, but each other and the world is not one given to us by a god, but one we have won or made for ourselves.

   Reply    Reply to author    Forward       Rate this post: Text for clearing space


You must Sign in before you can post messages. To post a message you must first join this group. Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting. You do not have the permission required to post.


sv07171024 View profile Translated (View Original) More options Mar 15, 12:11 pm Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism From: "sv07171024" <svh_oe...@telenet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:11:40 +0100 Local: Sun, Mar 15 2009 12:11 pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Species as Myth Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author "backspace" <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:74f54383-be5b-4e17-a7bd-135a79224ba7@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> A while ago I posted that even Scientific American now admits Darwin > never explained the origin of species.

> http://lostborders.wordpress.com/ > The Origin of the Species is “myth,” in the way Mircea Eliade uses the > word myth - a story that tells how “a reality came into existence.”

Origin of species is not equal to origin of life. As has been explained here a zillion times.

Evolutionist reason wins again, fingers in the nose. Creationist mumbles an excuse "well, I wasn't well prepared, and didn't really know what I was talking about". Exactly!

   Reply    Reply to author    Forward       Rate this post: 

asdf Edit

{{{

here is Wilkins entry on this issue of the origin of species 
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/02/myths_about_darwin.php
It is at number one out of  537 000 hits. This thread is at nr.4

"...The notion became common currency amongst scientists and geneticists in particular over the next decades, culminating in a book by Guy Robson in 1928, The Species Problem, in which variation was taken to be an indication that species were not real things, influencing Dobzhansky and others in the "modern" synthesis...."

This "modern synthesis" thing is fraud, it was called Neo-Darwinism in the Journals. One can't  by renaming something arbitrarily remove all the journal papers on Neo-Darwinism such as this one:

"There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does, as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?", Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179. 

And if you go to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis you will note that Neo-darwinism or modern whatever isn't defined. 

   1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists. ----  What is an evolutionary phenomena? 

   2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).  ----- Or some lived and some died. 


   3. Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment. The role of genetic drift is equivocal; though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained. 
----- Selection isn't a mechanism but a word we use to communicate consciousness. Note the tautology about slight advantages being important, how could it not be important. 


   4. The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild was greater than expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.

------ Natural population as opposed to a supernatural population ? What else than "natural" could it be. 

}}}


post 15 Edit

{{{ http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro22.html "...The problem for the early evolutionists, who knew nothing about genetics, was the actual mechanism that produced the inherited variability required for natural selection to work...."

The problem really was that genetics proved a spanner in the works of the ancient myth of sea monsters being slain by Gods retold for modern man in 1859 in the book Origin of Species. Thus the invention of Neo-Darwinism or modern synthesis or green cheese or whatever people wish to call some concept that nobody has yet defined somewhere around 1940 about it seems.

The situation today has grown worse for our University Gandalf's posting their spells in journals , blogs and Usenet because we can't define Life within materialism. Posters like backspace have noted how they used "natural selection" and "evolution" interchangeably - it doesn't really matter what term they use in the same way a gamer doesn't really take himself to serious when he casts a blue lightning spell instead of a death star in a role playing game.

Backspace for example have posted "what is the difference between theory of evolution and theory of natural selection?". Finally with this thread backspace knows what is going on. I can only pray that my fellow YEC fundamentalists can stop fighting or disproving the Theory of Evolution, since you can't refute something which doesn't exist. }}}

post 16 Edit

{{{ http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/message-theory-%E2%80%93-a-testable-id-alternative-to-darwinism-%E2%80%93-part-2/

Note the struggle for existence theme as djmullen interprets Origin of Species:

djmullen: "...Darwin didn’t need a book to describe his theory, he used the book to provide evidence to support it. Here’s Darwin’s theory in a nutshell: Offspring vary from their parents. There are not enough resources for all offspring to survive to adulthood. Any offspring born with a difference that makes them more likely to survive will replace those less favored. Can you give us Message Theory in one paragraph? Or tell us how to test it, like the OP’s title suggests you can?..."

Rephrase

Offspring vary from their parents. There are not enough resources for all offspring to survive to adulthood. Any offspring born with a difference that makes them more likely to survive will replace those less favored.

Rephrase

1). Offspring vary from their parents. - Truism 2) Those more likely to survive will replace those less favored - Tautology

The truisms and tautologies disguises the underlying slaying of sea monsters theme.

}}}


post 18 Edit

{{{

On Mar 27, 8:08 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> >http://www.counterbalance.net/evolution/direct-frame.html
> > Notice the words  battle, struggle, survive, existence and the obvious
> > tautologies surrounding his concept of natural selection which most of
> > you should by now be able to identify by looking at multiple words
> > that alludes to the same fact.

The same struggle, battle, challenges, enhance and "tackle" for existence as the sea monster is vanquished by the flaming sword of "natural selection" rhetoric and the God smoting the sea monster "enhances" his "battle" abilities can be seen with this old Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=46640609
Natural selection is the phrase Charles Darwin used in in his 1859 book The Origin of Species to refer to the natural process he proposed to be responsible for the origin of new species and the obvious adaptation of organisms to their environments. Darwin coined the term as an analogy to the way farmers selected crops or livestock for breeding, referred to as artificial selection.

Natural selection occurs when individuals differ in reproductive output for functional reasons, i.e., when differences in reproduction follow from the fact that individuals differ from each other in their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their internal biology and by the biological and physical environment. This ability is a function of the physical structures (traits) of life forms and of how these structures affect their ability to tackle the aforementioned challenges.

Natural selection results in adaptive evolution when traits that enhance organismic abilities and thus the reproductive output of individuals displaying them, are heritable. Such traits should become more frequent over the generations.

}}}

post 19 Edit

{{{

On Mar 28, 9:39 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/darwin-on-the-origin-of-b...

> He argued that natural selection would
> have eliminated these traits if they caused harm to the descendent
> species, but would not necessarily have eliminated them if they caused
> no harm.

=== rephrase === 
Roger Rabbit would have eliminated these traits if they caused harm to the descendent species ....

=== rephrase === 
Wizard of Oz eliminated the traits that caused harm ....

=== finally === 
Those traits that caused harm resulted in the death of the animal. 

Question:
Other than noting the animal died how did you deduce that he had harmful traits? 

> A final conclusion about such things seems beyond the reach of
> science.
What is beyond the reach of our culture is the lack of understanding that the Abstract Authority Mr.Science doesn't exist hence there is nothing that can be beyond his "reach".  

> Much remains at stake here. 
Much remains at stake, such as the inability of Ken Ham, Dave Scott and Wilkins to understand what a tautology is, resulting in endless debates between them over something which doesn't exist: Theory of Evolution and Theory of Natural Selection.

}}}

Popper Edit

http://www.uncommondescent.com/religion/david-berlinski-and-the-devils-delusion/

Popper says: "....that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths..."


".....At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles’ theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides’ myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein’s block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or “metaphysical” (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or “meaningless,” or “nonsensical.” But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the “result of observation.” ........................"

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.