Neocon's Seminar Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Mitch Blevins who wrote (606)	5/15/2001 10:00:12 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) of 1112

The same can be said for the Darwinist arguement. The use of the term "neutral evolution" is _very_ commonly used within Neo Darwinism. Such a term is just a self contradiction. Neo Darwinism is littered with them. Another is "reciprocal altrusism". They are all symtoms of just one epistemological disease: a need by certain individuals to reverse testable cause and effect within evolutionary theory. This is why most debate of causation within Neo Darwinism is often discredited as just "old fashioned". Welcome to the Brave New World of Post Modernism, where any view at all can hide itself against testability and pose as valid "science". The real corpse that neutral theory leaves in its wake is variation _within_ selection theory. Development of this view was pioneered by people like S. Wright. His view of drift has been utterly misused as causative to evolution. I believe Wright only intended drift to be causative to variation within his gene balance view of evolution. So how can we get this thread back on topic? I propose a return to discussing the assent of postmodernism and using a history of philosophy as a guide, and determine what normally occurs in the cycle?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next