tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post252637144445718620..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: David Sloan Wilson's EVOLUTION FOR EVERYONELarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-6587545008294457342008-05-16T15:05:00.000+01:002008-05-16T15:05:00.000+01:00Larry: Question from random Google hit with intere...Larry: Question from random Google hit with interests in your Wilson review of June 22, 2007. I'm a sociologist trying to think about these matters. You say in your blog that, "(I have argued that parental care is one of the twenty natural desires that constrain and guide cultural evolution.)" I'd love to read this. Can you send me the reference/cite/paper? I'm at chris.smith@nd.edu. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-71049643007754878702007-08-24T18:23:00.000+01:002007-08-24T18:23:00.000+01:00Looking at the questions that you raise to the Slo...Looking at the questions that you raise to the Sloan work, I can see that Sloan is too naive and , at the end, a bit outside of his very own line of thinking: If such a ideal belief system that solves confilcts peacefully is possible, then how the social evolution could not have discover it?. It´s a bit silly not to expect this result, since the conflicts appears at all scales, so conflicts are not a new evolutionary pressure in modern life, it is here since te beginning of our specie if not before.<BR/><BR/>That convinces me that there is no possible interpretation for evolution than the conservative one, where there are no genial shorcuts for social human life.<BR/><BR/>I don´t expect for a evolutionary biologíst to even start to think about the "perfect animal". but it is a tradition among many progressive social science thinkers not to study real societies but to think about the perfect society. David Sloan here, at the end, is following the same tradition, but really darwinian science thinking whould have been enough for him to think that this uthopy is nonsensical at the social level too.<BR/><BR/>In the other side, the group selection theory of David S. Wilson seems solid, and is a very good framework for studying human societies.Memetic Warriorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04075754592464935296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-16340907802944786842007-06-25T14:40:00.000+01:002007-06-25T14:40:00.000+01:00Many people, when they can't provide evidence for ...Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists. <BR/><BR/>If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell. <BR/> <BR/>After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.<BR/> <BR/>If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.<BR/> <BR/>Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.<BR/> <BR/>Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!<BR/> <BR/>Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-52765179363660632007-06-23T09:00:00.000+01:002007-06-23T09:00:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com