Is This A valid Amendment to Darwin's Theory?

[Myth Healer]

Public schools in the US are in an endless territorial struggle between Creationism and that of Intelligent Design. Is there a way to get past this conflict and onto a more functional resolution? I wish to go beyond the contemporary controversy of "intelligent design" and "Evolution" serving a greater purpose.

The marked difference between the 'tools' of Christianity and the 'tools' of science must be understood before we proceed with the amendment. Christianity has a trend of resistance to modifying its teachings contained in the Holy Bible and for this reason, attempts at arguing for modification and/or Bible rejection usually stop at the church doorway. Although, science is founded upon the basis that If enough evidence is offered to modify contemporary conclusions, modifications can be made to the syntax of that popular scientific belief. Darwin's natural selection is within a scientific field of study, Naturalism, making it amendable when new facts suggest a change to be made.

I will provide symbolic logic for clarity.

I will begin with two sets of knowns, (A, B), (D, E) each set will be summarized independently as follows:

A + B = C
AND
D + E = F

The two final conclusions (C, F above ) will be summed down to yet an additional conclusion symbolized the following way.

C+F=G

G is representative of the Amendment to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection.

Beginning with the form A+B=C
A = Persons having suffered frontal lobe damage -- in every case where the majority of the frontal lobe is destroyed -- are mentally 'blind' to self control in areas of ethical restraint. They become antisocial, liars, unfair, cheating. They also have no conscious awareness that this is taking place. (source ????) Persons with this injury are like certain individuals suffering from the anti social personality disorder. They are less value to society than those who are ethical (that's why they get locked up!).

B = Prior to the injury the individual had no reported problems with extreme antisocial behavior. (source ???)

A + B = C
A + B =
C = The main function of the frontal lobe is to provide storage space for socially functional (ethical) cognitive templates, later to be accessed for self convictions when wrong has been committed against another human being. (source ???)

Next we will merge the constants-
D + E = F

D = The most significant distinguishing factor that separates the BEHAVIORAL characteristics between animals and mankind is vocabulary size (body language may be included in vocabulary size). (source ???)

E = The most significant biological physical property that impacts the behavior of the human (as opposed to the animal) is BRAIN SIZE, SPECIFICALLY THE FRONTAL LOBE REGION! (source ???)


Merging the two into their natural conclusion-
D+E=F
D+E=
F = The environment of communication evolved out of necessary survival needs. The frontal lobe was evolutions latest achievement. (source ???)

The final combination of the form...

C+F=G

I will give the conclusions C, F in their entirety followed by their merger.

C = The main function of the frontal lobe is to provide storage space for socially functional (ethical) cognitive templates, later to be accessed for self convictions when wrong has been committed against another human being. (source ???)

F = The environment of communication evolved out of necessary survival needs. The frontal lobe was evolutions latest achievement. (source ???)

C+F=G

C+F
G=The main function of the frontal lobe is to provide storage space for socially functional ethics. The environment of communication evolved out of necessary survival needs. The frontal lobe was evolutions latest achievement. (source ???)

Antitheses of the conclusion-
Persons who lie are not the fittest, but the unfit. They are neither fit for marriage or mating, they are additionally not fit to lead. The true alpha in the human population is an honest man or woman. (source ???)


The above G, and Antitheses should be added into all biology books, psychology books, evolution books. What effect would this scientific amendment to Darwin's theory have on the US? Would the world, as a whole, be better off if this were the way evolution had been taught? (source ???)

Myth Healerjavascript:emoticon(':-k')
Think

[Dion]

What you seem to be trying to do is shoe-horn a moral element into a process that is intrinsically morally neutral.

Exactly!


So much more concise and elegant than my ramblings.

[Myth Healer]

I am going back over Darwin's "Origin of Species" and will also find the canon of how Darwin is taught in public educational institutions. I encourage debate participants to do the same (If you are serious).

It would be a good idea to refresh your memory of all topics touched upon in this string. I don't wish for this debate to barely get beyond my correcting of falsely interpreted , or blatant ignoring of my innitial premises. Lets take this debate to a higher level. There are some good points I've made in the responses, and I don't think they were given adequate consideration. Also, try to base your posission on knowns (constants) that can be backed up by sources.


Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->

[Myth Healer]

In response to QED

QED
I don't think it's at all possible to draw the conclusion you do here.
There is evidence from game theory that lying Pays: for example
see Truth Bias in the Communication with Conflicting Interests.
But even simpler to grasp is the role of lying in the deceit of ones
enemies. I would argue that the tilt of the balance is far too chaotic
for us to make such predictions or generalizations. What you seem
to be trying to do is shoe-horn a moral element into a process that
is intrinsically morally neutral. It might sweeten the pill for some but it
would seem to me to be born out of hope rather than objectivity.

I wish to respond to the following two comments made by QED.
“…There is evidence from game theory that lying Pays…”

-AND-

“…you seem to be trying to…shoe-horn a moral element into a process that is intrinsically morally neutral…”

Myth Healer-
If it were morally ‘neutral’ why provide the link: “There is evidence from game theory that lying Pays…” ? That link doesn’t read morally ‘neutral’ to me (I’m not being flippant here, this is typical of the misapplication of the Darwinian canon).

I will now comment on the links provied by QED-

My Comments on the First Link-
"Truth Bias in the Communication with Conflicting Interests."

Myth Healer-
The above link dealt with a game between opponents where the sender of information was allowed the levity of telling lies about themselves. The receiver was given three choices {X, Y, Z,}. X) The sender was telling the truth. Y) The sender was lieing Z) the receiver was unable to make a choice, or was a wash, 50/50.

My conclusion about this research study is:

1) Participants were being paid yen as incentive to lie.
2) No one was physically harmed in the process.

It falls outside my concern on the grounds that with games: no harm has been done to any of the participants.

My amendment to Darwin's theory will have a direct impact in peoples lives. With people’s jobs on the line, where lying exists to one up the competition: harm done. The only thing this game research supports is that people lie. This is both redundant and irrelevant to my proposed amendment.

My Comments on the Second Link-
"Truth Bias in the Communication with Conflicting Interests"
Was provided by QED and is summarized in the following excerpt from that link-

...Sophisticated Allied
planners (or Mortal planners who make a point
of lying to Germans) conceal their preparations
for invading Normandy and fake preparations
for invading Calais, knowing that the cost of
faking is low; that the Germans may be the type
of Mortal who can be fooled this way; and that
even Sophisticated Germans prefer to defend
Calais. Mortal Germans who believe the Allies’
messages are fooled because they are too literalminded
(or perhaps too clever) to see through
the deception.16 Sophisticated Germans see the
possibility of deception, but still prefer to defend
Calais because they think the Allies are
probably Mortal, and they prefer ex ante to be
“fooled” at Normandy by Sophisticated Allies
over being “fooled at Calais by both types of
Mortal Allies.

Referring back to my logic provided in the initial post: {A+B} + {D+E} = G, suggests that certain personality types are unfit for leadership. This historical event of the Allies lieing to the Germans -- for the purpose of removing Hitler from power -- was justified. I see this as a removing of the imposter for the betterment of everyone's quality of survival.

Both links provided by QED do nothing to refute the specif points made in my proposed amendment to Darwin's theory.


Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->

[Myth Healer]

Dion-
"... If you don’t want to read the book that’s fine by me. Where ignorance is bliss … etc.!

Myth Healer-
Did you read the book? If you read the book and have a firm understanding to recommend such a book, I would assume you would have the capacity to quote its concepts? Furthermore, I will consider this a fallacy of irrelevancy and/or casting dispersions if quotes are not provided. When you bring a new author, study, or book recommendation into the debate -- please have the courtesy to juxtapose "your book" quotes to my amendment quotes. Otherwise, I will disregard reading recommendations when I know the one making that recommendation has proven to me they neither understand what the book is about, (offering no applicable direct quotes).

...and this negative comment of yours...

Dion-
Where ignorance is bliss

...will be identified as the ad hominem that it is...






Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->

[QED]

If it were morally ‘neutral’ why provide the link: “There is evidence from game theory that lying Pays…” ? That link doesn’t read morally ‘neutral’ to me (I’m not being flippant here, this is typical of the misapplication of the Darwinian canon).

The "it" that is morally neutral is evolution by natural selection. The reference to "Lying pays" was addressed to your conclusion that people who lie are not the fittest, but the unfit -- being unfit for marriage, mating, or leading other men. If lying is not universally harmful then each case must be assessed on its own merits.

The above link dealt with a game between opponents where the sender of information was allowed the levity of telling lies about themselves. The receiver was given three choices {X, Y, Z,}. X) The sender was telling the truth. Y) The sender was lieing Z) the receiver was unable to make a choice, or was a wash, 50/50.

My conclusion about this research study is:

1) Participants were being paid yen as incentive to lie.
2) No one was physically harmed in the process.

It falls outside my concern on the grounds that with games: no harm has been done to any of the participants.

Game theory is a name given to a branch of mathematics that has application beyond mere games. It has universal application hence may readily touch upon life and death situations e.g. the conduct of warfare.

My amendment to Darwin's theory will have a direct impact in peoples lives. With people’s jobs on the line, where lying exists to one up the competition: harm done. The only thing this game research supports is that people lie. This is both redundant and irrelevant to my proposed amendment.

But isn't it dreadfully subjective? You yourself admit:

This historical event of the Allies lieing to the Germans -- for the purpose of removing Hitler from power -- was justified. I see this as a removing of the imposter for the betterment of everyone's quality of survival.

You see it that way, I see it that way but I'm afraid it is still subjective. Admittedly Hitler always serves as one of the most extreme and excruciating examples available -- but there remain an infinite number of in-between cases where objective assessments are thwarted by chaos. What I mean by this is that the consequences of any given human action are impossible to predict into the future and therefore outcomes have the potential, over any given time-span, to deliver what we might regard as either morally positive or morally negative situations with equal probability.

[Dion]

“Myth Healer-
Did you read the book? If you read the book and have a firm understanding to recommend such a book, I would assume you would have the capacity to quote its concepts?”

Such is the magnitude of your apparent misunderstanding of evolution that I would have to quote at least half the book, and probably several others too, in order to demonstrate that your simplistic equations don’t really make sense. I have no intention of doing so and anyway such extensive quoting would infringe copyright. As I said, if you don’t want to read the book then don’t; but don’t be surprised that people continue the “blatant ignoring of my innitial premises”. Your initial premise is based on a fallacious understanding of how evolution is thought to work. Until you address that point no one is going to take your suggestions seriously. (And when you have addressed that point you won’t take them seriously either.)


Quote:
Dion-
Where ignorance is bliss



...will be identified as the ad hominem that it is...


To suggest that someone is ignorant is not necessarily a personal attack; it can be a simple statement of fact. We are, after all, all ignorant of some (or in my case most) things. I do not, therefore, consider ignorance as a personal flaw. However, I do consider that a wilful and petulant ignorance is. I’m sure, though, that nobody could ever accuse you of being wilfully and petulantly ignorant, no matter how many books you refuse to read - so I withdraw the remark.

[Myth Healer]

Dion-
"... that I would have to quote at least half the book, and probably several others too, in order to demonstrate that your simplistic equations don’t really make sense..."

Myth Healer-
My premises are based on three things: 1) known facts that have been witnessed by Neuropsychologists and those who generate the latest fMRI data. 2) Understanding of the difference between humans and animals (specifically in the evolution of the language). 3) The understanding that evolution is a dynamic process subjected to change over time. Can you appreciate my ability to compile the most significant variables in this debate? What was that you called them? My "apparent misunderstanding of evolution." ?? Can you honesty believe that to be a fair assessment of my work?

...also...
If my premises are as simplistic as you claim, why would you have such difficulty understanding? You've complimented me (in my clear and concise syntax) simultaneously incriminated the level of your own intelligence (something you tried to throw up in my face). I know this is a fallacy of some type, but I don't think there is a phrase for it outside religious nomenclature.

Dion-
"...quoting would infringe copyright..."

Myth Healer-
You can't even paraphrase? hmmm... I will leave it for the observer to be the juror in determining level of integrity in this excuse.

Dion-
"...but don’t be surprised that people continue the “blatant ignoring of my [Myth Healer's] initial premises”. Your initial premise is based on a fallacious understanding of how evolution is thought to work..."

Myth Healer-
My premises are from reputable sources who were scientifically, or through naturalistic observation, trying to answer questions about localized brain functions. Their intent was to gather data. My intent is to merge the data together into a meaningful sequence along with the contemporary understanding of Darwin's theory. This is a great deal more substantial than, in your words, my "fallacious understanding." Your term "fallacious understanding," is more applicable to the one who has no supporting evidence to back their claim. Where is your supporting evidence?

Dion-
"...To suggest that someone is ignorant is not necessarily a personal attack;..."

Myth Healer-
To point out someone's ignorance is to question their intelligence. Considering you cant even paraphrase from the book of your own recommendation exposes something other than intelligence, ethical intelligence. This is becoming more and more, a lesson in ethical communication skills, or how to debate than an issue of my amendment to Darwin's theory.


Dion-
"...To suggest that someone is ignorant is not necessarily a personal attack; it can be a simple statement of fact..."

Myth Healer-
You are assuming your premises to have already been proven (being convinced of your position)? You've neither proven my ignorance, nor supported your assumption about the weight of your book recommendation. If you were above "ignorance" (your word) you would have eagerly responded with a paraphrasing of the text, contrasting it to my amendment.

Dion-
"...I’m sure, though, that nobody could ever accuse you of being willfully and petulantly ignorant, no matter how many books you refuse to read..."

Myth Healer-
Implied begging the question is done when you (through the recommendation of the book) gave the impression that you've either: read the book, or know how it refutes my amendment to Darwin's theory; neither of which has been supported. No book summary -- to prevent "copy write infringement" (your... ahemm... excuse) -- has been privided in support of your position.

Closing comments-
The dictionary of Philosophy has an interesting comment about the appropriate use of the word "difference." Different, but compatible was the application of the word's proper usage. I don't see that my amendment to Darwin's application to be incompatible with evolutionary theory. Although, the reaction to my amendment (individuals countering my position) does bare a striking resemblance to the apropriate application of an additional word, discrimination. Discrimination is aplicable in such instances when a conclusion has been drawn without substantial proof. Additionally, my theory is different yet compatible with Evolutionary thought.

Brief summary-

My amendment to Darwin's theory is differnt relative to the cannon.
different yet compatible

The counter arguments against my theory (in this debate) are discriminatory.
without supporting evidence.
(note: evidence was either not quoted and/or paraphrased; and/or deemed outside the scope of this debate's focus. Additionally, the information about the Normandy attack link simply allowed me to aply the Amendment to a situation where the leader was ill chosen. if you knew to look out for such behavioral patterns as being against the evolutionary standard (according to this amendment) how could a collective of any nation allow such a person to lead?



Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->

[Dion]

“Can you appreciate my ability to compile the most significant variables in this debate?”

It would seem not.


“What was that you called them? My "apparent misunderstanding of evolution." ?? Can you honesty believe that to be a fair assessment of my work?”

Yes.


“If my premises are as simplistic as you claim, why would you have such difficulty understanding?”

Perhaps I do understand. Perhaps that’s the problem.

“You've complimented me (in my clear and concise syntax) simultaneously incriminated the level of your own intelligence (something you tried to throw up in my face).”

No, I’m pretty sure I haven’t complimented you on anything (but if I did then I most earnestly assure you that it was entirely inadvertent) and I don’t think that we need to go far beyond the above sentence to understand why.


“Myth Healer-
You can't even paraphrase? hmmm... I will leave it for the observer to be the juror in determining level of integrity in this excuse.”

Whether I can or can’t is not the issue. I simply won’t. Given that the information is already out there and is readily available, the extensive paraphrasing you suggest would, in effect, be a case of reinventing the wheel. Now ’silly’ might be my middle name, but even I draw the line somewhere.


“Myth Healer-
My premises are from reputable sources …”

I don’t recall disputing that.


“Where is your supporting evidence?”

Oh dear, I know that I’m going to regret this but … err … in the book?!


“Myth Healer-
To point out someone's ignorance is to question their intelligence.”

But I made a special point of emphasising my own ignorance of some things. Am I therefore questioning my own intelligence? Gosh, I must be even more humble than I thought!


“Myth Healer-
You are assuming your premises to have already been proven (being convinced of your position)? You've neither proven my ignorance, …”

I wasn’t trying to prove anything, I was merely making a reading suggestion.


“The dictionary of Philosophy has an interesting comment about the appropriate use of the word "difference." Different, but compatible was the application of the word's proper usage. I don't see that my amendment to Darwin's application to be incompatible with evolutionary theory. Although, the reaction to my amendment (individuals countering my position) does bare a striking resemblance to the apropriate application of an additional word, discrimination. Discrimination is aplicable in such instances when a conclusion has been drawn without substantial proof. Additionally, my theory is different yet compatible with Evolutionary thought.”

Hmm … why does it not surprise me that you should quote from a dictionary of philosophy I wonder? May I suggest that in addition to looking up the words ‘difference’ and ‘discrimination’ you also look up ‘conspiracy’. I just have a feeling that you might want to use it soon.


“Additionally, the information about the Normandy attack link simply allowed me to aply the Amendment to a situation where the leader was ill chosen. if you knew to look out for such behavioral patterns as being against the evolutionary standard (according to this amendment) how could a collective of any nation allow such a person to lead?”


Confused? I certainly am! A case of mistaken identity I think, but I can certainly understand why those “… individuals countering my position …” can seem to all merge into one after a while.


Closing comments-
Don’t read the book if you don’t want to.


Brief summary-
No! Really! Don’t!

[Cathar1950]

What are we talking about? I got lost some place along the way. I have read "The Selfish Gene" it was interesting and had some great insights as I recall. I would look it up but I loaned it to someone. Personally I don't think there is one evolution Mechanism, but many at work probably reinforcing each other and some times in conflict. I make no claims except my intelligence is only surpassed my my ignorance and I am grateful. I remember after taking some IQ test, I was told 99.% of the people were dumber then me. That sucked and put me into depression.
My friends tell me I have no common sense. They are being kind.

[Myth Healer]

This string is getting way off topic.

Please read the posting at the top before responding!

Thanks



Myth Healer --> --> --> --> --> -->