Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...

I'm mostly sold on evolution, but there is some empirical evidence to the contrary. Take for instance the flagellum, the 'tail' on certain kinds of bacteria that allows them to swim around. The flagellum is an irreducibly complex biological mechanism, which means that its parts, in and of themselves, are worthless.  Only when all parts are in place does it serve any function. All or nothing, in other words. Thus, it is unlikely that these parts of the flagellum could ever be evolved and compounded upon as they would provide no advantage in fitness by themselves. On the other hand, odds of evolving an entire flagellum in one mutation are extremely slim, due to genetic factors I don't fully understand. So, what accounts for these irreducibly complex systems if Darwinian evolution is supposed to be incremental? Archetypes would be a convenient explanation.

(see this article: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/001-science-and-design-10 )

Like all evolutionary adaptations, The flagellum evolved from an earlier form that provided another function. The flagellum has been explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY&feature=related

Interesting. So Behe is full of shit... Good to know!

EDIT: Behe is full of shit insofar as he ignores evidence against his claims about the irreducible complexity of the flagellum. I cannot speak for his other ideas.

I would think so!

Firstly, traditionalists do reject natural selection, which is self-evident, or the modification of a species by natural selection.  What traditionalists reject outright is the assertion that all biological diversity is a production of the modification of species in this way.  On the contrary, for the traditionalist, every species is an emanation of a metaphysical archetype and it is really only the loss of a metaphysical understanding of reality that has led people to try and invent a theory which would account for biological life in the absence of supernatural causes. 

This is especially significant with regard to the particular nature of man, who alone is gifted with an intelligence capable of a realization of his metaphysical essence whilst remaining in the manifest world and is thus the central point of this world, since he opens onto the Absolute, and is capable of sanctifying it, by becoming the manifest presence of the Absolute in the world.  The theory of evolution, by positing a material origin of man completely obliterates man's inward nature and sanctity, thereby removing all metaphysical compulsion to act in accordance with his higher nature.  It is of no coincidence that a materialist understanding of reality is directly linked to moral and intellectual decadence and ecocide.

Not to preempt our discussions on other threads at all, but related to this matter, do you realise how bad your comments sound? How anti-intellectual?

You offer no account of how the emprical evidence for evolution does not vindicate evolution. You offer no account of how wrong conclusions are being drawn from the evidence. You simply hold 'evolution is wrong because it would contradicts x y and z'....

If I have not offered an account of the evidence this is because our discussion has not yet entered this realm.  I was simply stating, at your request, the traditionalist position, not its justifications.  If these comments sound 'bad' or anti-intellectual this is because you are reading them with the existing bias that the theory of evolution is an unquestionable truth.  This is usually the case with anyone who has received a modern education.  What is interesting is the characteristically aggressive attitude of those who seek to defend this theory, an attitude that exists precisely because of the precariousness of the theory, and the fact that it is one of the fundamental pillars on which the modern understanding of the world is based.  If one acknowledges that biological diversity cannot be explained by purely physical causes, then one is obliged to accept that the whole materialist paradigm is false.  I will acknowledge that part of the aggression towards opponents of the theory is caused by the unfortunate intrusion of extremely unintelligent religious fundamentalists into the discussion.


The theory of evolution, by positing a material origin of man completely obliterates man's inward nature and sanctity, thereby removing all metaphysical compulsion to act in accordance with his higher nature.  It is of no coincidence that a materialist understanding of reality is directly linked to moral and intellectual decadence and ecocide.

Well this means NEW philosophers and free spirits are going to have to create a noble account of man's nature FROM THE NEW FACTS. There is something extremely embarassing about clinging to arcane notions because you can't bear to face the consequences? Don't other people think (yes you, reading this)?

This is not my motivation, I am simply pointing out one of the significant consequences of the theory, this is only indirectly related to the reasons why it is rejected by traditionalists.  Also I find the idea that something like nobility could even exist in a world which is not the outward expression of metaphysical principles, but rather a more or less arbitrary arrangement of subatomic particles perplexing to say the least.  Does it not occur to you that the very fact that you can recognise something as elevated as nobility implies its transcendence, and the transcendental capacity of your own intelligence?  I can imagine your response so perhaps this is a discussion best left for another time...

As far as the dialogue regarding evolutionism is concerned, suffice it to say there is no shortage of traditionalist literature on the subject of which I will provide some examples.  It has also been discussed, although not in enough detail on this forum here.  One day soon I will write my own account of the errors of modern science and evolutionism in particular which will address some of the issues that have been raised on this forum, but I don't have time for this project at the moment.

Here is some traditionalist literature on the theory of evolution...

Julius Evola - Revolt Against the Modern World (See page 178 – 183 of the original text (page 108 of the pdf).  Not really a traditionalist authority but a worthy critique nonetheless.  I also chose this text because I know that Evola has already drawn some attention around these parts, although from what I can gather he has been pretty badly misinterpreted.)

Harry Oldmeadow - The Critique of Modernism  (The critique of the theory of evolution starts of page 7)

Frithjof Schuon - Sophia Perennis and the theory of evolution and progress  (This well known text outlines the traditionalist position on the theory of evolution)

James Cutsinger - On Earth As it is in Heaven

If we discussed the theory of evolution for a year I doubt I would say anything that you could not find at some point in these texts.  We could discuss this subject endlessly but we will not reach an agreement because our disagreement is more fundamental than a particular theory, it is based on our understanding of what reality is, which is more or less what we are discussing in another thread.  For this reason I will return to that thread and, although I am willing to answer questions and continue this discussion if necessary, I don't really want to spend too much time restating the traditionalist position on a particular theory until we have dealt with the more fundamental problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20nuTITfhko

I could be wrong but he seems to be an authority...

See particularly from 21:00

"in scientism there is no place for consciousness, no place for humans to feel like the universe is constructed for them and stroking their egos bla bla bla, evolution is psudo-religion, fap fap".."we have descended from the perfect archetype". No room for transcendence at all with stupidity like this. Give me evolution.

In fact, science can 'redisover the sacred', which is a phrase this guy parrots about regularly, by realising we are permeated with the same energy as suns and that, possibly, something has come from nothing.

Hey man,

I watched the video twice, and, well...

I never once heard him say or imply there there is "no place for humans to feel like the universe is constructed for them and stroking their egos".

Nor did I ever hear him say or imply that "evolution is pseudo-religion".

Could you perhaps point to where he said those things?

Also, why should we value, honor, respect, revere (or consider sacred) a physical (whether by form of matter or energy) connection between things, between us and things, and between us and others when there is already a much more fundamental connection between all things and all of us: a causal connection.

And, I could be wrong here, but I think we already know that something cannot ever come from nothing. This is because there is no such thing as nothing. It is a logical impossibility, like a married bachelor, or a square circle.

cheers

"Something" most certainly came from "nothing", but "nothing" must be qualified, here: the nothingness, void, Death, stability out of which thingness, space, Life, change originate is a state of there not being "things"; there is most certainly the existent non-thing (Brahman), because that non-thing is synonymous with the "nothing" out of which all things arise.

Cheers for the links, Eleison!  Time to get me some studying done.

Firstly, traditionalists do reject natural selection, which is self-evident, or the modification of a species by natural selection.  What traditionalists reject outright is the assertion that all biological diversity is a production of the modification of species in this way.  On the contrary, for the traditionalist, every species is an emanation of a metaphysical archetype and it is really only the loss of a metaphysical understanding of reality that has led people to try and invent a theory which would account for biological life in the absence of supernatural causes. 

This is especially significant with regard to the particular nature of man, who alone is gifted with an intelligence capable of a realization of his metaphysical essence whilst remaining in the manifest world and is thus the central point of this world, since he opens onto the Absolute, and is capable of sanctifying it, by becoming the manifest presence of the Absolute in the world.  The theory of evolution, by positing a material origin of man completely obliterates man's inward nature and sanctity, thereby removing all metaphysical compulsion to act in accordance with his higher nature.  It is of no coincidence that a materialist understanding of reality is directly linked to moral and intellectual decadence and ecocide.

Not to preempt our discussions on other threads at all, but related to this matter, do you realise how bad your comments sound? How anti-intellectual?

You offer no account of how the emprical evidence for evolution does not vindicate evolution. You offer no account of how wrong conclusions are being drawn from the evidence. You simply hold 'evolution is wrong because it would contradicts x y and z'....

If I have not offered an account of the evidence this is because our discussion has not yet entered this realm.  I was simply stating, at your request, the traditionalist position, not its justifications.  If these comments sound 'bad' or anti-intellectual this is because you are reading them with the existing bias that the theory of evolution is an unquestionable truth.  This is usually the case with anyone who has received a modern education.  What is interesting is the characteristically aggressive attitude of those who seek to defend this theory, an attitude that exists precisely because of the precariousness of the theory, and the fact that it is one of the fundamental pillars on which the modern understanding of the world is based.

First of all, I would ask that you get off your high horse. Stop making sweeping statements about your interlocutor's eduction and position, and stop being oversensitive (if you think I was aggressive in the post you responded to, you're way off the mark).

I am not taking evolution to be an absolute truth. I can see there is good evidence for it. It is a justified belief (set of beliefs). If you are going to criticise it I suggest, strongly, that you need to suggest to us why this evidence is not good evidence. You have to engage with the theories constructed from this evidece. I study evolution, and have just begun to study molecular genetics. So i can see evidence for it. Evidence from so many different areas of enquiry.

For example: I really cannot fathom what you think is going on in reality when, for example, in every cell in your body dna is being transcibed and translated into proteins. This builds and them maintains the organism. Also I can't fathom what you think is going on in reality when cells divide and cross over, creating genetic variation before the genetic information form an organism is transferred to its sperm or egg. Scientists have seen these processes occuring. Literally seen them. If evolution is not occuring, then why would scientists have discovered what seems to be a perfect material basis for (1) genetic information constucting proteins and organisms (2) the creation of genetic variation? These are just a handful of molucular biological processes, and there are heaps of others.

Waddia think is happening here (1): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41_Ne5mS2ls ?

Bill, are you autistic or something?  To openly declare that another's fully reasoned and reasonable view is "bad" and "anti-intellectual" is aggressive because it implies that only your view can be correct - as such, it is imposition (or mindless retaliation).  Imposition is the forceful placement of unwanted restriction upon another - this is an act of aggression, regardless of whether that aggression is physical or not.

Perhaps not autistic, but unmannered.  I'm beginning to see why you can't identify your own behaviour as fundamentally antagonistic.

Edit: also, Bill, you didn't fucking read his post.  He said that micro-evolution is all well and good (I think he missed out a "not" in a sentence) - everyone knows you can create different dog and cat breeds, that there are different races of men, that a donkey is not a horse, etc.  What he's arguing against, and what I can find piss-bugger-all evidence for upon searching (haha, god damn it), is "macro-evolution", or evolution between species.  No evidence of the process, no "transitional fossils", nothing that supports any of the numerous theories as to how a particular species with a particular genome might somehow "become" another species.

Bill, are you autistic or something?  To openly declare that another's fully reasoned and reasonable view is "bad" and "anti-intellectual" is aggressive because it implies that only your view can be correct - as such, it is imposition (or mindless retaliation).  Imposition is the forceful placement of unwanted restriction upon another - this is an act of aggression, regardless of whether that aggression is physical or not.

What I meant it to imply is not that only 'my' view can be justified but rather that Eleison's critique of my view cannot be justified. It was an anti-intellectual critique because it went to zero effort to engage with the view it was directed against.

Edit: also, Bill, you didn't fucking read his post.  He said that micro-evolution is all well and good (I think he missed out a "not" in a sentence) - everyone knows you can create different dog and cat breeds, that there are different races of men, that a donkey is not a horse, etc.  What he's arguing against, and what I can find piss-bugger-all evidence for upon searching (haha, god damn it), is "macro-evolution", or evolution between species.  No evidence of the process, no "transitional fossils", nothing that supports any of the numerous theories as to how a particular species with a particular genome might somehow "become" another species.

http://youtu.be/CQUP03vL5Gk?t=6m10s - goes through the major transitions (incl. found whale skeletons with feet and toes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Ah this is what I love about scientific debate (as opposed to 'metaphysical' debate)! It can catually progess! You can ask for evidence, and either it exists or it doesn't. Call me autistic, I find it invigorating.

How is that a transitional form?  Simply because the piece of the skull is only found in modern whales does not mean that a carnivorous mammalian species "evolved" into a whale; I could just as well argue that God decided to re-use that piece!

If we didn't have a theory of macro-evolution, we wouldn't interpret that skull as being an instance of macro-evolution.  Do you not see that using such things as "evidence" causes circularity?  In order to have evidence of macro-evolution, we must observe it.  That is called empiricism.

How is that a transitional form?  Simply because the piece of the skull is only found in modern whales does not mean that a carnivorous mammalian species "evolved" into a whale; I could just as well argue that God decided to re-use that piece!

If we didn't have a theory of macro-evolution, we wouldn't interpret that skull as being an instance of macro-evolution.  Do you not see that using such things as "evidence" causes circularity?  In order to have evidence of macro-evolution, we must observe it.  That is called empiricism.

You asked for a transitional skeleton. That was one. An arcane whale skeleton with toes and feet. Where is this animal now? It presents a bridge between land and sea mammals that is extinct (or a transitional skeleton).

What I meant it to imply is not that only 'my' view can be justified but rather that Eleison's critique of my view cannot be justified. It was an anti-intellectual critique because it went to zero effort to engage with the view it was directed against.

Read his post again.  He did not reject your view, he simply stated his own.  You interpreted this as a rejection, because you are defensive about your position.  Why is this?

You asked for a transition skeleton. That was one. An arcane whale skeleton with toes and feet. Where is this animal now? It presents a bridge between land and sea mammals.

Only if you want to interpret it that way.  I could say that glasses evolved from mugs through tankards, and it would be just as apt a theory if it weren't known that the three are generated independently!

Edit: nice, quick edit, by the way.  Glad to see that you realised the gravity of my assertion.

Edit 2: let me put this plainly.  Fossils are not evidence for evolution; they are evidence of dead animals.  Evolution is evidence for evolution.  In order to know that evolution occurs, we must observe it - this is called the "collection of evidence".

You asked for a transition skeleton. That was one. An arcane whale skeleton with toes and feet. Where is this animal now? It presents a bridge between land and sea mammals.

Only if you want to interpret it that way.  I could say that glasses evolved from mugs through tankards, and it would be just as apt a theory if it weren't known that the three are generated independently!

Edit: nice, quick edit, by the way.  Glad to see that you realised the gravity of my assertion.

Edit 2: let me put this plainly.  Fossils are not evidence for evolution; they are evidence of dead animals.  Evolution is evidence for evolution.  In order to know that evolution occurs, we must observe it - this is called the "collection of evidence".

Does anyone else think Cargest is increasingly being obtuse? What is happening here. I feel raped  :o

*sugh* I edited my post 'quickly', because I suddenly realised I needed to be 100 per cent explicit. I see that this still doesn't address your point: that we cannot 'witness' the actual transformation of species in real time. Great! Let's all pack up our tools and go home, seeing as we can't literally see species transforming, before our eyes. God did it!

EDIT: Forget that we've isolated a general process involving

1. Variation (genetic mutations & crossing over in meiosis studied by molecular biology)
2. Selection (interaction between organisms and their environment, studied by Behavioural ecology)
3. Retention (the passing on of beneficial variations, gene leneages, studied by molecular biology)

Which, when combined necessarily implies natural selection (the appearance of design)

Forget that we've found transitional skeletons.
Froget that we've found the molecular basis for variation and retention (genes)
Forget the evidence from Medical biology regarding decsent by modification driving arms races between viruses and drugs
Forget it, because we can't see the transitional species literally going home in boxes

Your high empirical standards are admirable here (a pity you don't apply them to your own theories), but do you realise that we wouldn't even be able to try a crinimal in a court of law?

"The prosecution has in no way established the presence of any witness to the crime, Judge, therefore the DNA evidence on the knife, the torn clothing of the accused, and his semen stains are void and this case must be thrown out of court!!"

Has a virus, in all this long conflict, ever become a non-virus?  No.  No evolution has taken place; only variance.

Is variance at odds with Tradition?  Absolutely not - it's commonly observable in various species.  Hell, before genetic theory, people may have believed that their bodies changed in fundamental ways as they grew older and wiser (which epigenetics may support?), which might allow for the progression - or regression! - of humanity, as well as other species of animal.  Edit: evolution, in contrast, allows only progression - no matter that we're almost universally morally reprehensible, unfit, self-absorbed idiots; because of evolution, we're advancing!  Things can only get better!

I don't employ empirical standards to my theories because the theories you are criticising are not born of inquiries into physical things; evidence is not required for metaphysical enquiry, invidence is the key!