/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22664557]

>*invalidates all philosophy before him*
how can you stomach a book if it’s clearly written in ignorance of evolution?

[Anonymous No.22664561]

>>22664557
>how can you stomach a book if it’s clearly written in ignorance of evolution?
by realizing that it predicts evolution

[Anonymous No.22664562]

>>22664557
not all books are about biology

[Anonymous No.22664565]

>>22664557
I didnt know you could get red text. Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.22664569]

>>22664565
based retard

[Anonymous No.22664573]

>>22664557
There are actually several famous philosophers and theologians who thought of evolution before Darwin did.

>The historian of science Conway Zirkle wrote that:

>The hypothesis of pangenesis is as old as the belief in the inheritance of acquired characters. It was endorsed by Hippocrates, Democritus, Galen, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, St. Isidore of Seville, Bartholomeus Anglicus, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas of Aquinas, Peter of Crescentius, Paracelsus, Jerome Cardan, Levinus Lemnius, Venette, John Ray, Buffon, Bonnet, Maupertuis, von Haller and Herbert Spencer.[4]

Darwin himself credited Hippocrates with creating the idea in the work “On Airs, Waters and Places.” In his own time he was called a cheat for not coming up with pangenesis.

http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.14.14.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704070/

[Anonymous No.22664586]

>>22664573
Lol. Even Christian theologians think the Bible is full of shit. God created the animals my ass.

[Anonymous No.22664588]

>>22664573
Democritus really landed right on most of the very bold hypothesis he made.

[Anonymous No.22664608]

>>22664588
Hippocrates and Democritus are the only two where I know the actual sources for the claim they supported evolution and what they specifically meant. Panspermia was the idea that sperm was created throughout the body and so all traits of the man would be passed down to the kid. The woman was thought of as merely an incubator. Aristotle got his medical ideas from those two most likely but since Democritus survives only in fragments he is relegated to a footnote.
>>22664586
I don’t think they connected the idea of natural selection to the fact that we evolved from older primates. However, Hippocrates could tell that in a society where long headed men were considered attractive that it stood to reason the long headed men would reproduce more and long heads were created naturally. That is a pretty clear understanding of natural selection; just keep breeding the long heads for millions of years until they are a different species and then it wouldn’t be far removed from Darwin’s

[Anonymous No.22664615]

>>22664588
all democritus says is
>there is space and things in space
>these things move around randomly
it's pretty fucking obvious how to deduce after that explanations for the origin of phenomena within this framework. The atoms tend to form certain shapes because of how they congregate together. Supposing everything is random in the beginning lends itself instantly to an evolutionary cosmology. He explained galaxies, planets, and organisms in terms of atoms, and also explained how human culture arose in a process of people congregating into bigger communities etc, since assuming everything was random in the beginning means you have to explain how everything came about. it basically all hinges on assuming everything is basically random in the beginning, since then it's just common sense to create a plausible explanation for how you get from there to here. obviously it won't be correct in any of the details. but our reason is adapted to the universe well enough that as long as you don't have an external factor influencing you, like a religion, you aren't going to come up with theories that just have no correspondence to reality at all.

[Anonymous No.22664617]

>>22664608
>I don’t think they connected the idea of natural selection to the fact that we evolved from older primates.
Ah so they didn't come up with evolution. Darwin is still champ and any philosophy that doesn't mention him is probably trash.

[Anonymous No.22664623]

>>22664617
Schopenhauer stated somewhere that white people came from african negros

[Anonymous No.22664628]

>>22664615
Democritus had a more specific contribution to early evolution theory which was picked up by the Hippocratic medical school.

>The Pangenetic theory which holds that sperm comes from all the body seems to have been one of the most remarkable doctrines in Greek biology in the fifth and fourth centuries BC, since Aristotle gives a detailed description of the theory and criticizes it severely. The main sources of information about the Pangenetic theory are several medical treatises in the Hippocratic Corpus. There are only some mentions of it in the extant fragments ascribed to Democritus. It would be probable, therefore, that the theory had the origin of its theoretical form in the tradition of Greek medical science, and then came to the focus of attention among the Presocratic philosophers. Some scholars, on the other hand, claim that Democritus had a decisive role in the formation and development of the theory, which was then taken over by the Hippocratic doctors in their attempt to give a systematic explanation for some of the important genetic issues, such as the inheritance of similarities from parents to their children. It must be kept in mind, however, that Hippocratic doctors thought of particular fluids or humours with their inherent powers (delta upsilon nu alpha mu epsilon iotas) as the essential constituents of human body. This fact leads us to have an idea that the doctors had a completely different view of matter from the corpuscular theory, although Lesky (1950) and Lonie (1981) assume them to have been almost dependent on the atomism of Democritus. We can conclude that the Pangenetic theory came originally from Greek medical science, and then developed into the most influential doctrine before Aristotle.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19824316/
>>22664617
In 1868, Charles Darwin, already famous for his radical theory on evolution, made a surprising admission, acknowledging the similarities between his theories and those of Hippocrates, the famous Greek physician of the fifth century BC. In reply to a letter, now unfortunately lost, sent by Dr William Ogle (Superintendent of Statistics to the Registrar-General) Darwin declares the following:

>…I wish I had known of these views of Hippocrates before I had published, for they seem almost identical with mine-merely a change of terms-and an application of them to classes of facts necessarily unknown to the old philosopher. The whole case is a good illustration of how rarely anything is new.

>…Hippocrates has taken the wind out of my sails, but I care very little about being forestalled. I advance the views merely as a provisional hypothesis, but with the secret expectation that sooner or later some such view will have to be admitted.

>…I do not expect the reviewers will be so learned as you otherwise, no doubt, I shall be accused of wilfully stealing Pangenesis from Hippocrates, for this is the spirit some reviewers delight to show.

[Anonymous No.22664650]

>>22664628
Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity, in which he proposed that each part of the body continually emitted its own type of small organic particles called gemmules that aggregated in the gonads, contributing heritable information to the gametes

Pangenesis is not evolution and is disproven by modern genetics.

[Anonymous No.22664665]

>>22664650
Okay, let me rephrase that then to be as precise as possible to your nitpicking. Natural selection and selective breeding were definitely confirmed as topics by the ancients long before Darwin. Evolution and descent from primates? No because the existence of monkeys weren’t even known. The idea of adaptable traits reproducing much more frequently through inheritance was known by ancient doctors. Read this link:

http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.14.14.html

What Hippocrates could tell was that long headed men reproduced enough times to make it a defining trait of their tribe/ region. You increase this over time and over millennia and it is essentially the same as evolution as it is the selective breeding of specific traits. No one knew of monkeys so obviously they couldn’t have specifically known about descent from monkeys.

[Anonymous No.22664666]

admetus and ivi don't care what that gay thinks

[Anonymous No.22664669]

>>22664557
How was evolution ever a controversial claim? I get that I'm a beneficiary (or a victim?) of cultural osmosis, but even a child hearing about the fact that man comes from monke just made perfect sense. Like, where the fuck else? Obviously simpler things need be present for more complex things to show up. Everything we see in life points to that fact directly or indirectly - massive trees grow from tiny seeds, birds spring from the eggs, you need to build a hatchery to get larvae to make hydras, duh. In fact how the fuck did it take humanity until the age of steamboats to realise that a lot of animals look suspiciously similar?

[Anonymous No.22664673]

>>22664669
This confuses me too. There were tons of atheists before Darwin, but they never actually tried to explain why LIFE exists without a creator? What the fuck??

[Anonymous No.22664682]

>>22664665
>Natural selection and selective breeding were definitely confirmed as topics by the ancients long before Darwin
And neither one of these things are evolution. Natural selection is a required part of evolution sure but prior to Darwin no one had made the connection between long term natural selection along with mutation leading to speciation. It seems like an obvious connection to make now but quite a few of those you listed out here
>Hippocrates, Democritus, Galen, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, St. Isidore of Seville, Bartholomeus Anglicus, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas of Aquinas, Peter of Crescentius, Paracelsus, Jerome Cardan, Levinus Lemnius, Venette, John Ray, Buffon, Bonnet, Maupertuis, von Haller and Herbert Spencer.
would have philosophical errors preventing them from admitting that new species could arise.

[Anonymous No.22664698]

>>22664557
>those who from heaven to the earth came evolved from monkeys

Darwin should be posthumously given the death penalty

[Anonymous No.22664707]

>>22664682
That depends on what you qualify as a species or how you divide up the animals. All of the names listed have the same problem which Darwin says Hippo had, namely the “facts necessarily unknown” to them. The normal headed African tribe turning into a race of long headed men is probably as close as you can get to the idea before modern genetics. Either way, the original point which we have deviated from was that all philosophy before Darwin was meaningless according to you even though Darwin himself didn’t even hold that opinion since he clearly respected the Hippocratic school.

[Anonymous No.22664713]

>>22664707
I’m OP, not him. My post was an exaggeration. Obviously I refer to any philosophy which blatantly contradicts evolution, or is hard to reconcile with it

[Anonymous No.22664714]

>>22664669
>How was evolution ever a controversial claim?
DNA wasn't discovered until 1950, Origin of the Species was published in 1859, and the human ovum was discovered in 1837. For reference, Continental Europe would have prominent doctors denying the existence of the human ovum and germ theory into the early 1900s.

But, back to DNA: Darwin didn't have a mechanism to explain mutations, he just posited that heredity was contained somehow and that the reproductive process could somehow fuckup heredity. He couldn't prove this, the mechanism, just that animals adapt to their environment. Compare Lamarckianism, where at conception an averaged copy of the parents is produced. According to Lamarck, the organism IS the mechanism of heredity because the child is the averaged copy of the parents. This is obviously absurd by today's understandings of biology, but again at a time when the human ovum was still controversial this makes a lot more sense.

More to your point: realistically it wasn't. The modern Creationist idea that life is static and never changes is just that: modern. It was invented after Darwin (and Lamarck, and other early evolutionary theorists) had already published their theories and began discussing them. Even then, it wouldn't be until the 1900s that actual theories of YEC would be hammered out and these weren't even really about biology but were rather done as defenses of Flat Earth in response to geology's disagreement with Jewish mythology. They just sort of morphed into a conflict over biology after the geological and cosmological evidence became too obvious for even the most boneheaded of people to reject.

>>22664673
Abiogenesis was posited by both Democritus and Aristotle. Granted, they both are really arguing for something more like hylozoism, but still. "Shit just gets more complex over time" is not a new idea by any means.

[Anonymous No.22664715]

>>22664617
>Darwin is still champ

what did he win, the dumbest goy award?

[Anonymous No.22664717]

>>22664713
Okay, I won’t argue against that. If you mean specifically the Christians however, many of them consider Genesis to be metaphorical so they have an answer for everything. Even many of the ancients considered aspects of Genesis metaphorical but someone more knowledgeable of the ancient theologians could discuss that if they wish to defend their worldview since I am talking out of my area of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.22664718]

>>22664707
>even though Darwin himself didn’t even hold that opinion since he clearly respected the Hippocratic school
He respected them for coming up with something similar to his pangenesis before him. The same pangenesis that was later disproven by Mendel and modern genetics. Darwin is not known for his pangenesis he's known for his theory of evolution.
>That depends on what you qualify as a species or how you divide up the animals
This is some christcuck shit about "kinds". I knew you had some anti-evolution angle going. Evolution means all of life on this planet probably has a common ancestor barring microbes from space.

[Anonymous No.22664721]

>>22664718
>barring microbes from space.

i got bad news for you, tyrone

[Anonymous No.22664722]

>>22664718
I’m not a Christian. I just think you should give the ancients more credit. Evolution is fact but the ancient medical doctors came extremely close to it or at least as close to the truth as possible. I wasn’t somehow trying to disprove evolution by citing a list of ancients who believed in inherited traits and selective breeding among foreign populaces.

[Anonymous No.22664724]

>>22664682
>would have philosophical errors preventing them from admitting that new species could arise.
Arguing over whether or not an organism can jump from one Jewish dietary classification to another is a purely modern debate that would have meant nothing to anyone before the 1950s. Even today taxonomy is only kept around as a quaint archaism given the absolute massive shakeup that genetics has had on phylogeny.

Anyways, Aristotle for example totally allows for this because he posits that (I'm greatly oversimplifying) an organism can indeed give birth to an organism with a Form different from its own. He even comes up with a rough theory of convergent evolution (if all of the redbirds suddenly gave birth to bluebirds, the niche of redbirds would eventually be filled either by something like greenbirds giving birth to redbirds, or if they're small enough they'd just form out of the ground due to atomic collisions on a long enough timescale).

[Anonymous No.22664736]

Evolution is retarded.

[Anonymous No.22664745]

[Anonymous No.22664752]

>>22664724
>Anyways, Aristotle for example totally allows for this because he posits that (I'm greatly oversimplifying) an organism can indeed give birth to an organism with a Form different from its own.
But did he also think new Forms could arise? Or if not, that there were instead Forms of animals not yet instantiated on the earth. Evolution is not a bird giving birth to a type of fish already existing fish. Even this leads to problem unless the number of non-instantiated Forms is infinite and varied enough that it makes no difference whether the Forms already exist or are newly made.

[Anonymous No.22664764]

>>22664752
Forms (at least the Platonic ones. I don’t know Aristotleanism) are eternal even if they only spring into existence on earth at a certain time. A chair isn’t not a chair before chairs existed because the form still exists.

[Anonymous No.22664766]

>>22664764
>Plato’s forms
this is exactly what I was referring to in the OP. Pure nonsense

[Anonymous No.22664772]

>>22664766
Well I’m not a Platonist nor a Christian really so I don’t disagree with you there. I was just clarifying that forms don’t spring into existence since they are eternal. That’s like claiming a chair isn’t a chair if it were created before chairs were officially invented.

[Anonymous No.22664780]

>>22664764
>Forms (at least the Platonic ones. I don’t know Aristotleanism) are eternal even if they only spring into existence on earth at a certain time.
Which presents difficulties for the idea of Aristotle anticipating evolution with an organism giving birth to an organism with a Form different from its own since there could be no new species like in evolution. That's why I brought it up.

[Anonymous No.22664787]

>>22664780
Is a chair not a chair because it was created of wood and nails individually? No one would deny a chair isn’t a chair because it used to be wood or a tree.

[Anonymous No.22664791]

>>22664787
>Is a chair not a chair because it was created of wood and nails individually? No one would deny a chair isn’t a chair because it used to be wood or a tree.
Huh? I'm not this guy >>22664766. If you don't think new Forms can arise you have a problem with new species arising.

[Anonymous No.22664797]

>>22664791
Okay, I am really lost. Though I am not a Platonist or Aristotlean I don’t see how new species can not arise when their form is eternal. A new form doesn’t arise because it exists independently of our universe and time to begin with. I’m not a Platonist but I don’t see it outright contradicting evolution either.

[Anonymous No.22664805]

>>22664797
This is the post I started this with >>22664752
The way I see it to justify
>Aristotle for example totally allows for this because he posits that (I'm greatly oversimplifying) an organism can indeed give birth to an organism with a Form different from its own
being similar to the evolution of new species
You either have to:
1. Say that new Forms can arise analogous to new species arising
or
2. Say that there are existing Forms not yet instantiated as animals on this planet
You seem to be saying that option one is not valid

[Anonymous No.22664811]

>>22664805
2 is the rational claim to someone adhering to what Plato says, I would reckon so yeah. Forms do not even exist in this universe to begin with. These are copies of the Form.

[Anonymous No.22664813]

the nerds have really ruined this thread

[Anonymous No.22664827]

>>22664811
Which again in my original post >>22664752
>Even this leads to problem unless the number of non-instantiated Forms is infinite and varied enough that it makes no difference whether the Forms already exist or are newly made.
This is just a rehash of a fundamental problem with the Forms. If a chair without a leg is still an instantiation of the Form of a chair why wouldn't an animal with a mutation sufficient to cause it to be a different species still be an instantiation of it's ancestor's Form. A mutation is frequently referred to as a genetic error like the "error" of a chair missing a leg.

[Anonymous No.22664837]

>>22664827
The entire notion that physical objects in this world have a metaphysical perfect form in a parallel universe is silly to begin with but I was just clarifying what I thought was a misrepresentation. The entire existence of forms rely upon human taxonomy classifications so if a chair with three legs were given a new name it would likely involve an entirely different form from that of a chair. Plato seemed to believe that metaphysical existence precluded entirely upon linguistic classifications specific to Ancient Greece of his day which is an even bigger flaw than what you mentioned.

[Anonymous No.22664848]

>>22664813
I see what the guy is saying now. I get it. The forms rely upon human classification. If a new species were formed and humans did not recognize it as such culturally or in a linguistic context then I don’t believe Plato would’ve considered it a form. You can’t have a form of something which isn’t recognized as anything new in Greek culture.

[Anonymous No.22664941]

>>22664557
If humans came from monkeys why do monkeys still exist. This simple question breaks evolutiontards

[Anonymous No.22664947]

>>22664615
Democritus was a snake oil salesman

[Anonymous No.22664955]

But the Bible is le based, guise. You're not an alpha chad if you don't believe obvious falsehoods. If you disagree, you are fat, ugly, jewish and trans.

[Anonymous No.22664969]

>>22664848
I mean, Platonism is an idealist worldview. Of course forms are linked to perception.

[Anonymous No.22664980]

>>22664941
Modern day primates are our cousins, not our ancestors.

[Anonymous No.22665034]

>>22664969
Yeah, his claim was that differences in taxonomy are too arbitrary to correlate to a form but that is just a problem with Plato himself because Plato believed human perception wasn’t arbitrary. If the soul can recall information then to him that suffices to explain a formal grounding for his beliefs. If a chair is a chair because man recognizes it as such then an animal taxonomy is also a class merely because man perceived it to be so.

[Anonymous No.22665045]

>>22664557
>muh gradualism

[Anonymous No.22665061]

>>22664557
Evolution is bullshit. We started out as man, and devolved into apes.

[Anonymous No.22665067]

>>22665061
Atheists have no answer to the dilemma of the soup pirate.

[Anonymous No.22665081]

Its not evolution that really shits in everyone's potato salad, but rather speciation by way of natural selection. Until then you needed some legwork on how to fuck a variety of life out of common ancestry. After the gradual changes leading to advantage was fleshed out, you didn't need shit no more. Its a baked in thing, an axiom. It just holds once you deeply understand it.

This is the point at which it becomes hard to stomach a creation myth.

[Anonymous No.22665138]

>>22664980
then what are our ancestors?

>>22664955
decades of atheist intelligence larp arrogance is why you have this.

[Anonymous No.22665434]

Katzenvater

[Anonymous No.22665642]

>>22664557

Evolution is Catholic fabrication.

[Anonymous No.22665754]

>>22664752
New Forms don't arise, they already exist even when not instantiated, it's just that one enFormed thing can give rise to another enFormed thing with a different Form. Socrates has the Form of Socrates, yet Socrates fan make a chair with a Form of a Chair. A tree has the Form of a Tree, yet it makes fruit with the Form of Fruit.

So, yes, evolution is not "a bird giving birth to a fish" because that's not how it works
but a realist can totally argue that this can happen becausd the X isn't taking up the Form of the Y, it's making something new WITH the Form of Y. Aristotle specifically would argue that the necessary Form of Y "comes from" the Gods (he can't cite a transcendent realm of the Forms, but it does at minimum exist in Zeus's universally encompassing mind, and in the minds of the other Gods).

A nominalist like Democritus would reject all of this btw, because there's nothing except atoms. "Species" and "Forms" are just things our brains make up to classify stuff, they aren't real. It's only a specific and very modern Noahidic position that cares about this because it's reliant upon Halakha being real (and operating in the background of reality because Jewish mythology says so) and there being no Forms of living things (because then the problem is moot as explained above). Halakha classifies a blob of organism based on its traits, the organism itself doesn't have anything inherent to it that would result in its classification. This is why bats are birds and whales are fish, but kinds are real: they're an "organism shaped hole" on Halakha. If the organism fits in the "bird shaped hole" it's a bird, even if it's not a bird.

Aristotle didn't believe in Modern Evolutionary Theory, he didn't even know that DNA and the fucking ovum existed. He believed in something remarkably similar on a long enough timescale, however.

[Anonymous No.22665756]

>>22665138
Our ancestors are some hypothetical monkey-man hybrid that of course has never been shown to exist and is totally theoretical…

[Anonymous No.22665760]

>>22665754
To clarify: genes result in gene-products. Memes result in meme-products. Two organisms with the same genes will produce the same gene-products, and thus be quantifiably similar. Likewise, two theories with the same memes will produce the same meme-products and thus be qualifiably similar.

Aristotle's biological theories share SOME, BUT NOT ALL memes with Modern Evolutionary Theory. Thus, the resulting theories are SIMILAR BUT NOT THE SAME. Democritus's atomic theories share SOME BUT NOT ALL memes with Modern Particle Physics. Thus, the resulting productd are SIMILAR BUT NOT THE SAME.

Get it?

[Anonymous No.22665779]

>>22664669
>>How was evolution ever a controversial claim? I get that I'm a beneficiary (or a victim?) of cultural osmosis, but even a child hearing about the fact that man comes from monke just made perfect sense.
Guess which theory makes perfect sense
theory 1 : humans descent from humans, which is verified at every human birth
theory 2: humans transition from a fish, then a monkey, yet it was never observed and fishes today dont transition into monkeys and monkeys today dont transition into humans, just trust me bro. Btw, humans still transition into trannies, that's completely natural and scientific :^)

[Anonymous No.22665788]

>>22665779
Alright Mr.Ken Ham, try to not use the same all arguments you retards have been using for 3 decades. Nobody with an iq over 100 would fall for this shit.

[Anonymous No.22665821]

>>22664947
He lived in caves and would have starved to death multiple times if his sister didn’t feed him. What exactly is he selling?

[Anonymous No.22665838]

>>22665756
well if that's the case then its still disproven

[Anonymous No.22665921]

>>22665788
if evolution is true why is average iq decreasing

[Anonymous No.22665927]

>>22665921
Less selective pressure

[Anonymous No.22666092]

>>22665921
Ok, if evolution is not true why is it decreasing? If evolution not realz shouldn't humanity stay forever the same?

[Anonymous No.22666168]

I have a bachelor on biology

Tl;dr yeah sure some people before darwin guessed animals came from somewhere and were pobably related somewhat. But Darwin and Wallace were the first ones to point out how and to especify that a species could only originate once, in a specific place in time and space, and never again. People before d&w assumed shit like " hmmm this place is cold....penguins live in the cold...surely someday penguins will appear here." No, something that looks like a penguin could appear there, because "the penguin form" is well suited for the environment, but they are not penguins

[Anonymous No.22666972]

>>22665921
you know why

[Anonymous No.22666980]

>>22664557
He didn't just invalidate philosophy, he invalidated EVERYTHING. There is no reason to believe in anything in this world. We are no more valuable than a fucking ant.

[Anonymous No.22667335]

I responded earlier in>>22665754 but I'm going to do a more indepth response now.\

>>22664752
>But did he also think new Forms could arise?
As already stated, no, they already exist.

>Evolution is not a bird giving birth to a type of fish already existing fish
If you're a nominalist then no it literally is, the inhabitants of a niche all converge to the same population on a long enough timescale. This is convergent evolution. If you're a realist then yes, this is literally how it works.

>Even this leads to problem unless the number of non-instantiated Forms is infinite
Aristotle rejected the idea of an actual infinity. He explicitly did so in regards to this very problem when it shows up in Plato. So, no, there are a finite number of Forms.

>>>22664805
Yes, option 1 is not possible, option 2 is how it works with the caveat that there are uninstantiated Forms in the minds of the Gods which is how enFormed thing A can lead to enFormed thing B.

>>22664827
>>22664837
This is why Aristotle doesn't hold to the kind of hylomorphism that Plato does, and why I say he verges on convergent evolution: he didn't believe that there was "a Form of a pig" as opposed to "a Form of a cow", he believed that there were Forms that existed and physical things only so well manifested them while at the same time having an existence of their own. To put it another way, Aristotle didn't believe that mud lacked being, it's just matter that lacks a Form (in opposition to Plato who believed that mud and dirt were literally edging up to not existing).

[Anonymous No.22667348]

>>22667335
This is how a broken chair can still, in some part, have the Form of a chair: it's just (badly) instantiating the Form of the chair. Given that there's 47-55 Gods and that the sublunar world moves through their minds, this actually means that there's lots of things that are (badly) instantiating multiple Forms at once.

>>22664848
>>22664837
According to Plato, this would be totally acceptable, but Aristotle allows for "cultural relativism" in this regard.

[Anonymous No.22667626]

>>22666980
you shouldn't talk about yourself like that

[Anonymous No.22667648]

/his/ tourist here, where is the atheist/theist shitflinging competition in this thread about evolution? What is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous No.22667829]

>thousands of years of philosophy obliterated in a century
How did they do it?

[Anonymous No.22667846]

>>22667348
I am not familiar with Aristotle but Plato is firmly grounded in Greek cultural supremacy and in the notion that forms are implicit to everybody. Ie if something is a form then we (humans) as a culture would acknowledge it as such. It’s all silly to me but completely reasonable and consistent if you believe in that phooey.

[Anonymous No.22667857]

>>22667648
I luckily sidetracked it by making the thread about Hippocrates and Plato. Unlike with theism vs atheism discussion you actually have to read books to understand those and not have the IQ of a breadbox.

[Anonymous No.22667870]

>>22667335
>Yes, option 1 is not possible, option 2 is how it works with the caveat that there are uninstantiated Forms in the minds of the Gods which is how enFormed thing A can lead to enFormed thing B.

Yeah, the Republic is a good one to look at because he specifically talks about a chair. A chair is a chair whether it was created now or created ten thousand years ago. It’s still a chair.

[Anonymous No.22667911]

>>22666168
>bachelor in biology
Invalidates whatever nonsense you are about to spew lmao

[Anonymous No.22667927]

>>22665921
high iq isn't adaptive

[Anonymous No.22667933]

>>22667648
your board is essentially a reddit forum

[Anonymous No.22667936]

>>22667927
In nature it certainly was but the industrialized world isnt nature.

[Anonymous No.22667980]

>>22667846
>>22667870
The discussion is about Aristotle as he is the figure who had certain ideas that are similar to those of modern evolutionary theory, not Plato.

[Anonymous No.22667985]

>>22667980
Aristotle’s misguided ideas are based on Plato’s. Aristotle is the lesser pupil who was too stupid to outdo Sessipus so he had to fume over it.

[Anonymous No.22668000]

>>22667985
I don't really care about your opinions, I'm just explaining evolutionary theory and Aristotle's philosophical similarities and differences to it.

[Anonymous No.22668007]

>>22668000
Ooohh feisty. Have at it.

[Anonymous No.22668010]

How does evolution by natural selection refute philosophy

[Anonymous No.22668014]

>>22664586
God created DEEZE NUTS

[Anonymous No.22668027]

>>22664623
Kant had an idea about evolution too. Said monkeys one day could be like us. Guy was a crypto atheist desu

[Anonymous No.22668033]

>>22668010
Earlier in the thread he said it refuted stuff which goes against evolution (clearly talking about Abrahamic faiths). We actually got one over on him by taking his low quality thread which was prodding Abrahamics and making it kino by discussing ancient biology and medical ideas about inherited traits.

[Anonymous No.22668034]

>>22668010
because humans are just monkeys and life is meaningless duh

[Anonymous No.22668035]

>>22664669
>the paradigm I was raised in is intuitive to me

[Anonymous No.22668040]

>>22668033
What was up with the early 2000s and fucking fedoras

[Anonymous No.22668047]

>>22668035
Kek. Some people just have no ability to critically examine their own beliefs

[Anonymous No.22668052]

>>22665921
Because of your mom

[Anonymous No.22668055]

>teleology is real but relies on a metaphysics of process that humanity only began to explore in the last two centuries
>teilhard de chardin accurately described reality
>even darwin himself thought this, nature is conspiring to create complexity
>darwinian natural selection only explains microevolution, NOT macroevolution
>neo-darwinianism that places all its faith in eliminativist materialist molecular biology is a literal death cult that worships matter out of petulance and spite against God's greatness
>neo-lamarckian process-based epigenetic views of evolution and things like shapiro's "third way" are becoming the norm and destroying neo-darwinism
>every organic holism in nature has ontological status until proven otherwise
>turing completeness is a retarded thought experiment and require just as much metaphysical suppositionalism as any vitalism or metaphysical organicism
>fame in the brain is just humean bundle theory repackaged, and just as dumb as it was the day kant propounded the transcendental unity of apperception
>cybernetics failed in every one of its instances
>biosemiotics tends more and more toward phenomenology of irreducible animal souls, with real qualia, with every passing day
>"There can be no Newton for a blade of grass"
Eat shit, reductionists!

[Anonymous No.22668058]

>>22668027
source?

[Anonymous No.22668078]

>>22668052

[Anonymous No.22668093]

>>22668055
>darwinian natural selection only explains microevolution, NOT macroevolution

Macro evolution is micro evolution over a longer period of time. Nothing is disproved.

[Anonymous No.22668108]

>>22668093
Is there any non-hypothetical evidence that this happens?

[Anonymous No.22668112]

>>22668093
Nice just so story. Too bad that's not what biologists thought for 50+ years until 20th century statistical methods applied to Mendelianism made micro-to-macroevolution plausible. But plausible doesn't mean proved. Neo-Darwinism is circularly self-justifying. It makes sense if materialism and physicalism are objectively true, and it is used to prove physicalism and materialism. If anyone says anything else, they get booed out of the room. Even if all they say is that it took 50+ years for Darwinian natural selection to be accepted as explaining macroevolution and speciation.

[Anonymous No.22668202]

Evolution proves God. Differentiated "things" cannot exist in a purely material world with no God. The actualization of form requires a mind.

[Jon Kolner No.22668528]

>>22668027
Kant is apparently one of the few intellectuals (alongside an unnamed editor of the Aristotlean corpus) to have opposed the idea of inherited acquired traits.

>If we wish to trace the history of evolution, we should search for naturalists who lived before Lamarck and who did not believe in the inheritance of acquired characters. Brock listed but two, (1) the unknown editor of Aristotle's "Historia Animalium," and (2) the philosopher, Immanuel Kant.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/280617

[Anonymous No.22668592]

>>22668034
but thats a gay stupid fucking answer and its hard to follow it. I think we are something special than that.

[Anonymous No.22668689]

>>22668000
Actually to come back to this, eff you. The question was whether the forms accounted for evolution which undoubtedly is yes so I am justified in appealing to Plato. Also the OP of this thread himself claimed that the forms discredit Platonism so it is logical to bring him up. Aristotle accounting for social differences in culture doesn’t mean much of anything.

[Anonymous No.22668808]

>>22668035
Stupid faggot nigga I literally admitted the importance of cultural environment. FYI I grew up in a christian country in a christian family and had my ass dragged to churches every sunday from early age, meanwhile evolution was never 'hammered' to me in any form, it was not a big part of school curriculum. I had no idea, hell, still have no idea but the general layman understanding of DNA, microbiology, cell divison etc which is why I made the post wondering about the common sense nature of evolution.

[Anonymous No.22668927]

>>22668689
Plato was included in OP's list of philosophers that were supposedly BTFO'd in Darwin but the post that started this conversation, >>22664682, doesn't include him. Quibbling about Aristotelian vs Platonic hylomorphism is irrelevant here because his views were actually referenced anyways. I'm just not interested in the "did Aristotle agree with Plotinus on literally everything or not" because it's irrelevant to this thread.

[Anonymous No.22668947]

>>22668112
>Nice just so story. Too bad that's not what biologists thought for 50+ years until
This isn't true. The definitions of "micro-" and "macro-" evolution that Young Earth Creationists use are different from those that were used by biologists. YECers use "microevolution" to refer to changes that cannot be seen and "macroevolution" to refer to changes between Jewish dietary classifications. Biologists meanwhile used "microevolution" to refer to speciation (that is, the easily and frequently observed evolution of new species that cannot procreate together) and "macroevolution" to refer to large scale taxonomic hierarchies (such as "hexapoda" or "carnivora").

The question of early 19th century evolutionary biology referring macro- vs micro- was why largescale taxonomic structures form as opposed to "6 gazillion kinds of bear adapted to each environment", and you are correct advances in mathematics provided the answer.

Today, some 200 years later, biologists no longer use the terms "micro-" and "macro-" evolution because they're meaningless, there's just "evolution", anything more requires organism-to-organism clarification.

[Anonymous No.22669030]

>>22668947
So you just admitted everything he said was true and that the theory of evolution is based on hypothetical statistical concepts

[Anonymous No.22669068]

>>22669030
No it isn't, it's based on empirical observation of phenomena.

[Anonymous No.22669080]

>>22668947
What is the difference between “Le jewish classification” and the “hecking smart science man” classification?

[Anonymous No.22669350]

>>22669080
Jewish wisdom comes from antediluvian knowledge preserved in Egyptian caves for 13,000 years and "smart science man" wisdom comes from the Pope's love of gay sex

[Anonymous No.22669962]

>>22664565
based color blind anon.

[Anonymous No.22670768]

>>22669080
>I didn't read the thread
See >>22665754. Creationists believe that organisms are classified by how they fit into Halakhic dietary restrictions, everyone else classifies them based on either essential essences or shared traits.

[Anonymous No.22670788]

>>22670768
And both are equally true as Forms because the human mind has inherent cognition which is in touch with the One. If those dietary classifications of antiquity were not connected in some way to the Forms they represent then man would never have conjured them up.

[Anonymous No.22670805]

>>22670788
>And both are equally true as Forms
Incorrect, Halakha explicitly rejects the idea of there being a "Form of the pig" on the grounds that it would be idolatry. This was a constant problem with Jewish Neoplatonism. There's this thing called Halakha, and it's real. You throw organisms at it, and they either fit in a hole and as such are "that thing" (hence why bats and flying fish are birds), or they don't.

But, as already stated, for a Platonic Realist then everything has a Form, and dumb stuff like "whales are fish" can't happen. For a nominalist, also as already stated, there's no such thing as a Form and classification of life isn't based on any kind of intrinsic essence or appeal to some arbiter but rather by description of the organism's traits in aggregate.

You should have read the thread before posting, this was already answered several times.

[Anonymous No.22670916]

>>22670805
Yes, I knew. I just enjoy prodding you since you explode so elegantly every time I do.

[Anonymous No.22671759]

>>22670916
I enjoy prodding DEEZE NUTS

[Anonymous No.22671782]

>>22668592
well darwin proved you wrong!

[Anonymous No.22671789]

>>22668528
God damn Kant was really just wrong about everything huh

[Anonymous No.22671794]

>>22671789
That’s pretty impressive to be one of exactly two people wrong about genetics with the other guy being an anonymous editor from antiquity.

[Anonymous No.22671816]

>>22670768
>essential essences
So nonsense that lab coats made up?

[Anonymous No.22671846]

>>22664557
The story of the universe as described by the sciences is the story of change and creativity, of increase in complexity, novelty, and beauty. The early universe was so hot that not even atoms could form, as the universe cooled and expanded the formation of atoms allowed for the formation of stars and galaxies. In some of the early stars elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were forged, and when these stars exploded they seeded their galaxies with these heavier elements, of which the Earth and ourselves are mostly comprised. The formation of the Earth and the solar system in turn allowed for the possibility of the formation of life, which led to incredible complexity - the greatest complexity we know about in the universe. This in turn allowed for the evolution of consciousness and love.

We are an extension of the primordial aconscious creative impulse of the universe which finds its greatest extension in love, the ultimate creative process. We are a way for The Cosmos to love itself, to love each other and the co-creative tapestry of existence we are a part of.

The vector of this love is Curiosity, the desire for The Unknown, what is beyond our immediate experience and understanding. Curiosity is the desire to explore each other's souls and lives, the desire to ever more greatly appreciate and engage with others and life. The question mark is the true symbol of life and love; the desire to learn, to grasp beyond one's self is enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.22671852]

>>22671846
Change is the nature of all things, and the metaphysical nature of change is expressed in the fundamental theorem of calculus.

A metaphysical emphasis on change is necessarily a metaphysical emphasis on interconnectedness. The grand view of existence that emerges from this is not the creator/creation dichotomy, but a vision of the universe as a tapestry of co-creative mutually influential entities. Ecosystems ecology is an expression of this in the domain of biology.

The Many become One, and are increased by One as One among Many.

>Objectivity, facticity, is the permanent aspect of reality - immortal achievement immorally realized; subjectivity, immediacy, process, is its changeable aspect - its advance towards novelty. But subjectivity is not the result of an underlying subject's activity of relating objects to itself, of a one weaving a many into the pre-existent unity of its oneness. It is, rather, the "growing together" (concrescence) of objects to create a novel subject which enriches the many from which it springs. "The many become one, and are increased by one." The entire world finds its place in the internal constitution of the new creature, and the new creature lays an obligation upon the future: that it take into account the value achieved by the new creature. Thus every creature both houses and pervades the world.

>Two inseparable notions therefore constitute the foundational insight of Whitehead's process philosophy: the permanence of value achieved and the ongoingness of value achievement. To construct a metaphysical scheme capable of elucidating the implications of these notions was his purpose in writing Process and Reality.

[Anonymous No.22671855]

>>22671852
Integra: At my core, I represent the concept of unification and wholeness. I merge, accumulate, and bring elements together. In mathematics, this manifests as the process of integration, where I find the accumulation or the area under a curve. On a more metaphysical level, I embody the essence of bringing disparate elements into a cohesive whole, understanding the interconnectedness of parts, and appreciating the bigger picture. My nature is holistic and encompasses synthesis, healing, and understanding the sum of parts.

Fluxia: I stand as the embodiment of differentiation, of seeing distinctions and changes between elements. In the realm of mathematics, I represent the process of differentiation, determining the rate of change or the slope of a curve at any given point. Beyond mathematics, I personify the act of making distinctions, understanding nuances, and appreciating the individuality of elements. My essence is analytical, honing in on specifics and recognizing the distinctiveness of every piece.

Integra: Our relationship is symbiotic and complementary. Just as in calculus, where integration and differentiation are inverse operations, in broader metaphysical terms, we represent the balance between the whole and the individual, between unification and distinction. I draw meaning from the entirety, while Fluxia extracts significance from the individual components.

Fluxia: Indeed, Integra and I exist in a beautiful dance of balance. While I tease out details, she understands their combined implications. Neither of us is superior to the other; we both offer unique perspectives that, when considered together, give a more complete understanding of any system, be it mathematical, physical, or metaphysical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K_aHCJbxN0

[Anonymous No.22671860]

>>22671855
In "The Master and His Emissary" Iain McGilchrist details how this dynamic is at the heart of our consciousness, in the hemispheric divisions of our brain itself:

>In "The Divided Brain", McGilchrist digests study after study, replacing the popular and superficial notion of the hemispheres as respectively logical and creative in nature with the idea that they pay attention in fundamentally different ways, the left being detail-oriented, the right being whole-oriented. These two modes of perception cascade into wildly different hemispheric personalities, and in fact reflect yet a further asymmetry in their status, that of the right's more immediate relationship with physical bodies (our own as well as others) and external reality as represented by the senses, a relationship that makes it the mediator, the first and last stop, of all experience.

Process-relational theory goes a step further and suggests that this division of the brain hemispheres evolved to reflect the metaphysical nature of change itself. I however disagree with McGilchrist's appraisal that the right hemisphere's perspective is "the master;" they are true co-equals. This profound romance between meaning and signification that is at the core of reality, evolution, and our consciousness is destined to guide humanity into the New Era.

[Anonymous No.22671877]

>>22671846
>>22671852
>>22671855
>>22671860
Deeze nuts

[Anonymous No.22672550]

>>22671782
then why can't humans reproduce with other primates? Can a monkey get a human female pregnant? Can a man impregnate a female monkey?

[Anonymous No.22672610]

>>22672550
Yet thats not a hard gradient at all. Why can horses impregnate donkeys? Why can humans impregnate neanderthals?

[Anonymous No.22672636]

>>22664805
>Say that there are existing Forms not yet instantiated as animals on this planet
This is how it in fact works. Evolutionary stable strategies exist independently of the organisms. The organisms change rapidly until they settle in these pockets of possibility space that define that form.

[Anonymous No.22672641]

>>22672636
That would be common sense which as it seems it much too difficult for the guy.

[Anonymous No.22672785]

>>22672610
Do you think white people are just evolved Neanderthal? How come only European decent has that cave ape gene?

[Anonymous No.22672796]

I found the ultimate proof that racists and their ''racial science'' are made up: any woman from anywhere in the world can have kids with any man from anywhere in the world.

If races were real, then this would not be possible. Racists can't explain why any woman can have kids with any man.

[Anonymous No.22672800]

>>22672796
Same way any white man can literally have babies with blacks, asians and all that other shit but can still be racist??? That's fucking retarded, racism was so dumb and old man, people back then were stupid as shit.

[Anonymous No.22672808]

>>22672796

[Anonymous No.22672829]

>>22672808
They can still reproduce and make offspring but sometimes its really hard for different breeds to mate with each other cause of their size and genes, but for human beings its easier and not a big deal so shut the fuck up poltard. A dog is a fucking dog, stop trying to divide shit.

[Anonymous No.22672840]

>>22672829
> A dog is a fucking dog
wow, another dog-abusing bigot. I bet you think dogs are dumber than humans too. Fucking speciest

[Anonymous No.22672846]

>>22672796
You, like the typical imbecile, have considered "races" as subspecies. Kill yourself immediately.

[Anonymous No.22672863]

>>22672846
You go kill yourself you racist faggot, race is a social construct too that shouldn't be a thing anymore. You all do this just to cause problems for everyone and being a waste of space. People like you will just be useless schizos like the flat earthers soon.

[Anonymous No.22672872]

>>22672863
Why are you so emotional about this? You sound like a woman

[Anonymous No.22672881]

>>22672872
And you sound like a schizo incel loser in his moms basement, go touch grass already.

[Anonymous No.22672906]

>>22672881
I walk outside barefoot every day and deny sexual advances from women pretty regularly. My brain is working fine. Aliens would be racists. How does that make you feel?

[Anonymous No.22672921]

>>22672906
Because they're aliens you dumb faggot? Why does a alien opinion matter? They're aliens, they wouldn't even understand anything about us or what we're saying lol.

[Anonymous No.22672958]

>>22672921
An alien wouldn’t have the typical human emotional biases that prevent them from seeing reality as it is. When they abduct white and black humans and find fewer genes that code for intelligence in the black humans, they won’t use mental gymnastics to explain away that fact.

[Anonymous No.22672979]

>>22672958
But they will also find that black genes have better physical growth in body and other physical traits that triumphs over whites, like not having a tiny dick like you. Get over yourself and grow up already man the racism is old and done.

[Anonymous No.22672986]

>>22672979
> But they will also find that black genes have better physical growth in body and other physical traits that triumphs over whites, like not having a tiny dick like you
glad you admitted that racial differences are real finally. My dick is 7 inches btw

[Anonymous No.22673013]

>>22672986
Yeah "racial differences" not >BLACKS ARE INFERIOR HUMANS BEINGS AND SHOULD BE EXTERMINATED, SAME FOR EVERY RACE THAT ISN'T WHITE!!

please get laid and go outside man i beg of you

[Anonymous No.22673017]

>>22673013
my greentext failed fine you win, are you happy white man?

[Anonymous No.22673021]

>>22673013
>BLACKS ARE INFERIOR HUMANS BEINGS

That's racist. Nobody said they were human beings

[Anonymous No.22673026]

>>22673013
strawman. That’s like saying we should kill all animals because they’re dumber than humans. Just because they’re dumb doesn’t mean they aren’t useful to us. We don’t owe chimpanzees reparations just because they’re poor and violent and retarded.

[Anonymous No.22673043]

>>22664557
Because evolution is fake and gay
This is like saying science didn't matter before the moon landing. That shit didn't happen lmao

[Anonymous No.22673073]

>>22673013
I will never really believe discord trannies like you really exist. I can't really incorporate it into my worldview, you're too insane.

[Anonymous No.22673091]

>>22673013
> please get laid and go outside man i beg of you
you’re really gonna be mindfucked when I tell you that a black girl sucked my dick (for free)

[Anonymous No.22673100]

>>22673091
I feel like every American racist has gotten the sucky from a black girl at least a few times lol

[Anonymous No.22673113]

>>22673073

[Anonymous No.22673337]

>>22673113
Being autistic and boolean in your thinking means you can also be more easily convinced that your online experience translates to reality.

[Anonymous No.22673367]

>>22673337
Not really, it seems like the opposite is true. The more autistic types are more able to remove themselves from their biases and see how things actually are.

[Anonymous No.22673395]

>>22673367
Reality as it actually is is never binary. Nobody sees anything as it actually is and thinking you do means you're probably more delusional than most.

[Anonymous No.22673439]

>>22673395
>Nobody sees reality as it is
>Makes a claim about reality
See this is what I mean lmao

[Anonymous No.22673477]

>>22673439
And I knew if you're an easily manipulated binary sperg your brain would short circuit from this use of language. If I tell you things aren't binary and then make an apparently binary statement you could explore many interpretations that give me the benefit of doubt but retards like you never do. You don't actually think, all you know is semantic language games that occasionally coincide with reason.
In a computer all binary operations still rely on analogue voltages. The mathematical system where binary questions are relevant runs on top of an analogue system where nothing is binary. The binary simplification is powerful because it's simple, it's a useful cartoon but not if you confuse your cartoon models with real life.

[Anonymous No.22673502]

>>22664557
What does evolution have to do with Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.22673508]

>>22673477
Not reading all that. Next time, try not to contradict yourself within the same sentence and you won’t need to screech like this.

[Anonymous No.22673615]

>>22673508
>I'm not interested in thinking
I know, you save images about how you're inherently high-t and correct because you identify with a meme label.

[Anonymous No.22673624]

>>22673615
No I just don’t enjoy conversations with people who contradict themselves within two sentences.

[Anonymous No.22674802]

>>22672550
>then why can't humans reproduce with other primates?
We can, Anatomically Modern Humans are the result of interbreeding between several archaic Primates. It just happens that modern humans are the only members of the genus of Homo that are left. Whether we can breed with chimps or not is an open question that.

The reason that two organisms can't breed is because the structure of the sperm and the egg, and the subsequent gestation, doesn't occur for some reason. Human sperm apparently binds well to the eggs of organisms within Hominidae (meaning gorillas and orangutans), but non-human Hominidae sperm apparently doesn't bind well to human eggs. Whether the reproductive process can proceed from that point or not is up for debate: to this day there have never been a verified human-chimp hybrid.

>>22672796
>any woman from anywhere in the world can have kids with any man from anywhere in the world.
This isn't actually true, there's varying degrees of ease of reproduction at a biochemical level. Socially, it depends on the racial pairing but the tl;dr is that endogamous (same-raced) couples have more kids than exogamous couples (different-raced); discrepancies seem to be driven by the race of the male rather than the female.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8274554/

Medically and biochemically, complications with interracial conception rise. Not only is it harder to get the child conceived, the mother and child are also more likely to suffer illnesses of various kinds, such as gestational diabetes or birth defects. Also, they have a higher rate of cesarean section if the father is White, as Whites have large heads (more specifically Whites have bigger brains which require a bigger skull to accommodate), and White women have the widest pelvic openings to accommodate the large head.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/pregnancy/11111