Toward a Judeo-Marxist biology

[No Robots]

Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

 

[Elixir]

others are science fascists who seek to exterminate any view but their own.

I ain't no dam fashist!
I do invite you to give reason to subscribe to your "outlook".
I don't consider "the wish in action of the World-Will" to be of any real-world use, even if that is an applicable description of what truly occurs.
It's also non-falsifiable and non-predictive. Sure, it might survive in some form along side actual science (evolutionary biology) but it doesn't alter or add to - let alone supplant it.

 

[pood]

Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

I do believe it’s “rodomontade” and not “rhodomontade.”

 

[No Robots]

I do believe it’s “rodomontade” and not “rhodomontade.”

rhodomontade
noun
rho·do·mon·tade
less common spelling of RODOMONTADE

 

[bilby]

Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

Well, those are certainly all words.

(With the possible exception of "rhodomontade").

 

[steve_bank]

others are science fascists who seek to exterminate any view but their own.

1. The Earth is flat.
2. The universe revolves around the Earth.
2. Drill holes in the skull to let out evil spirits causing disease.

All 'eradicated' by science, but nobody says you cant believe. it.

The burden of proof is on the believer.

On the contrary it is religious zealots who reject obvious objective science . Yiong Earth Creationists who say humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Not just te religious, wacky prole who spin off into bizarre beleifs.

Oce n while I listen to George Noory's pseudo science radio show Coast To Coast AM. Alien abductions, backyard plants that cure and prevent COVID. Did you know if you put mushrooms in sunlight it creates vitamin D?

George Noory | Coast to Coast AM

Coast to Coast AM Radio

www.coasttocoastam.com

If you want alternates to science he is on the air every night. I think he is dangerous when he airs quack medicine.

If you want to disprove evolution with alternate explanations his show is where to go.

To be pedantic Darwinism is an obsolete term. Today it is Theory Of Evolution which includes physics, biology, genetics, chemistry, archeology, palentogy and other disciplines.

 

[No Robots]

Now science, having licked theology and pseudo-metaphysics almost to a frazzle, is attempting in its turn to Fascize the human mind. Professional, professorial and official science is the new Moloch. Reason, experience, hard-boiled facts are the new Trinity. Everything in the universe, including ourselves of course, is to be filed, carded, indexed, labelled and "explained.” There is a neat pigeonhole of a theory for everything. When science changes its mind, when it reverses itself, it merely re-letters the pigeonholes and juggles the contents. And it plays at this game as though the very existence of God, time, space and humanity was dependent on these juvenile pastimes! To question the divinity of science is now the new blasphemy.--DeCasseres

 

[pood]

Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

If aesthetics is the issue, I’ll go with this:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Indeed. The greatest show on earth, and the greatest aesthetics on earth, too.

 

[No Robots]

Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

If aesthetics is the issue, I’ll go with this:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Indeed. The greatest show on earth, and the greatest aesthetics on earth, too.

Indeed. No quarrel here. However, I draw your attention to "the fixed law of gravity", and merely affirm that all reality is part of the same fixed law.

 

[pood]

Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

If aesthetics is the issue, I’ll go with this:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Indeed. The greatest show on earth, and the greatest aesthetics on earth, too.

Indeed. No quarrel here. However, I draw your attention to "the fixed law of gravity", and merely affirm that all reality is part of the same fixed law.

Yes, gravity is universal. What does that have to do with evolution, apart from the fact that without gravity, nothing would exist anyway?

 

[No Robots]

Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

If aesthetics is the issue, I’ll go with this:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Indeed. The greatest show on earth, and the greatest aesthetics on earth, too.

Indeed. No quarrel here. However, I draw your attention to "the fixed law of gravity", and merely affirm that all reality is part of the same fixed law.

Yes, gravity is universal. What does that have to do with evolution, apart from the fact that without gravity, nothing would exist anyway?

All motion, all change, all progress is governed by determined law. This includes all biology. Just as the whole man is produced in a lawful way from the fertilized ovum, so does the entire biosphere evolve toward its fixed and determined destiny. And what is that destiny? It is to know itself as one with the whole of of reality: one in body, one in mind and one in soul. And what is the medium through which this realization is accomplished? It is mankind.

 

[pood]

Here is some background for my outlook:

What is "variation” in the Darwinian sense of the word? It is simply the wish in action of the World-Will to see itself under an infinite number of guises. Variation is Mother Nature trying on a new dress before the mirror of Mind. Variation—in its countless suits of clothes and dresses—is simply the Zeitgeist on parade. (This is a book—an essay—that no professional scientist, biologist or psychologist, professor or any variation of these endowed pimps of routine and rhodomontade will ever endorse. As it raises biology and psychology to an aesthetic and lifts an heretofore pathological term—exhibitionism—into the realm of universal law, it is a book solely for rowdy brains, free-lance minds and mellowed demonic seers.)--Benjamin DeCasseres, "Exhibitionism: A New Theory of Evolution"

If aesthetics is the issue, I’ll go with this:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Indeed. The greatest show on earth, and the greatest aesthetics on earth, too.

Indeed. No quarrel here. However, I draw your attention to "the fixed law of gravity", and merely affirm that all reality is part of the same fixed law.

Yes, gravity is universal. What does that have to do with evolution, apart from the fact that without gravity, nothing would exist anyway?

All motion, all change, all progress is governed by determined law. This includes all biology. Just as the whole man is produced in a lawful way from the fertilized ovum, so does the entire biosphere evolve toward its fixed and determined destiny. And what is that destiny? It is to know itself as one with the whole of of reality: one in body, one in mind and one in soul. And what is the medium through which this realization is accomplished? It is mankind.

Gravity is not a law. It does not prescribe anything. Gravity is a pheonomenon that is described in mathematical terms. There are no laws that “govern” anything. All so-called laws are descriptions, not prescriptions.

The biosphere has evolved stochastically, as mentioned. It has no goal and no destiny. This is not an article of faith — it is a matter of evidence. Mankind is an accident of contingent events stretching back billions of years. Had prior conditions been slightly different, mankind would not have evolved at all. And Man, like all species, will go extinct.

 

[lpetrich]

I freely acknowledge that there has been a process, call it evolution, wherein life has produced multicellular organisms from unicellular organisms. We know that we ourselves as individuals started as unicelluar organisms.

That's growth of an individual organism, not descent with modification over the generations.

However, we also know that the progress of an individual from unicellular to multicellular organism is not random, but determined. It is my contention that the progress of the biosphere as a whole is likewise not random, but determined.

I find that contention totally unconvincing. Evolution is too chaotic and complicated to be fit into any simple schema.

Following this same line of thought, just as it is useless to say that one organ of our body is derived from another, so is it useless to say that one life-form is derived from another. What is important is that each organ and each life-form has unique properties the understanding of which is the purpose of science.

No Robots, have you ever heard of reproduction?

The whole of reality is a process of self-expression. ...

Evidence?

 

[lpetrich]

... However, I draw your attention to "the fixed law of gravity", and merely affirm that all reality is part of the same fixed law.

No Robots, we don't work by parsing statements in sacred books.


How Did Multicellular Life Evolve? | News | Astrobiology

Unicellularity is clearly successful — unicellular organisms are much more abundant than multicellular organisms, and have been around for at least an additional 2 billion years,” said lead study author Eric Libby, a mathematical biologist at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico. “So what is the advantage to being multicellular and staying that way?”

The answer to this question is usually cooperation, as cells benefitted more from working together than they would from living alone. However, in scenarios of cooperation, there are constantly tempting opportunities “for cells to shirk their duties — that is, cheat,” Libby said.

“As an example, consider an ant colony where only the queen is laying eggs and the workers, who cannot reproduce, must sacrifice themselves for the colony,” Libby said. “What prevents the ant worker from leaving the colony and forming a new colony? Well, obviously the ant worker cannot reproduce, so it cannot start its own colony. But if it got a mutation that enabled it to do that, then this would be a real problem for the colony. This kind of struggle is prevalent in the evolution of multicellularity because the first multicellular organisms were only a mutation away from being strictly unicellular.”

Experiments have shown that a group of microbes that secretes useful molecules that all members of the group can benefit from can grow faster than groups that do not. But within that group, freeloaders that do not expend resources or energy to secrete these molecules grow fastest of all. Another example of cells that grow in a way that harms other members of their groups are cancer cells, which are a potential problem for all multicellular organisms.

noting
Ratcheting the evolution of multicellularity | Science

Multicellularity is one of the major transitions that allowed the evolution of large, complex organisms, fundamentally reshaping Earth's ecology (1). Early steps in this process remain poorly resolved, because known transitions occurred hundreds of millions of years ago (2) and few transitional forms persist. It is generally accepted that the first steps toward multicellularity were the formation of cellular clusters, followed by the success or failure of those clusters depending on their traits. As clusters of cells adapted, cells lost their evolutionary autonomy, becoming mutually reliant parts in a new higher-level whole (1, 3). This transition may be facilitated by a “ratcheting” process in which cells adopt traits that entrench them in a group lifestyle, stabilizing the group and paving the way for the evolution of multicellular complexity.

 

[No Robots]

I freely acknowledge that there has been a process, call it evolution, wherein life has produced multicellular organisms from unicellular organisms. We know that we ourselves as individuals started as unicelluar organisms.

That's growth of an individual organism, not descent with modification over the generations.

It is my contention that the entire biosphere is best understood as a single organism.

Evolution is too chaotic and complicated to be fit into any simple schema.

Perhaps that is the case for you. Perhaps you need to study the mathematics of complexity. Fractals and stochastics provide good models for how relatively simple processes can produce infinite variation.

No Robots, have you ever heard of reproduction?

Reproduction occurs in two forms: mitosis and meiosis. In terms of reproduction, the multicellar body of an organism is simply the delivery system for meiosis.

The whole of reality is a process of self-expression. ...

Evidence?

Your question is an example of self-expression. Everything is self-expression.

 

[lpetrich]

Multicellularity in animals: The potential for within-organism conflict | PNAS

To understand the problem, let us consider the problem of the evolution of altruism. Why would some organism do something self-sacrificing, something that would keep its genes from being represented in future generations? The favorite solution is kin selection: one helps other possessors of one's genes, in effect doing nepotism. That explains why worker insects do not need to reproduce: they help their parents reproduce, or at least their mothers.

Applying that to multicellularity, that explains the best-known form of it: growing from a single cell. As a result, most cells in an organism's body are just like worker insects, dying with the body, and often long before that. Many cells get specialized in ways that will induce their deaths, like skin cells and tree-trunk cells, and many cells do "programmed cell death" or apoptosis - suicide.

Current explanations for multicellularity focus on two aspects of development which promote cooperation and limit conflict among cells: a single-cell bottleneck, which creates organisms composed of clones, and a separation of somatic and germ cell lineages, which reduces the selective advantage of cheating. However, many obligately multicellular organisms thrive with neither, creating the potential for within-organism conflict.

Germline segregation is setting aside the cells that will become gametes: eggs and sperms. Many animals have germline segregation: vertebrates, ecdysozoans (arthropods, nematodes, etc.), mollusks, and some obscure ones.

Some animals can grow new gonads if their ones are destroyed, like starfish, some can reproduce by splitting, like planarians, and some by budding, like some cnidarians. So they have more potential for conflict among their cells, like rival stem cells competing.

Research into the evolution of multicellularity has focused on facultatively multicellular organisms, such as Dictyostelium slime molds, as they enable manipulation of the relative costs and benefits to cells of independent or group living. Yet, those same characteristics that make them good experimental systems may prevent them from evolving obligate multicellularity. Obligately multicellular organisms, like us, can be considered boringly predictable. However, we highlight that our conflict-free expectations are colored by our narrow set of model organisms, that within-organism selection among cell lineages may be more prevalent than often assumed and that, by exploring more broadly across the Metazoa, a broader understanding of multicellularity could emerge.

Saying that we need to research this issue more, because it's not very clear how they avoid conflicts among their cells. This is especially evident when one considers that some of them have fossil records extending as far back as the records of more conflict-resistant animals. Echinoderms (including starfish) and cnidarians go back to the Cambrian period, as far back as vertebrates, arthropods, and mollusks.

 

[atrib]

Just as the whole man is produced in a lawful way from the fertilized ovum, so does the entire biosphere evolve toward its fixed and determined destiny. And what is that destiny? It is to know itself as one with the whole of of reality: one in body, one in mind and one in soul. And what is the medium through which this realization is accomplished? It is mankind.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate. We have no evidence that the universe has some predetermined destiny, other than perhaps heat death from depletion of the energy tensor that gives rise to temporary gradients. Humanity is merely a tiny, tiny, insignificant step towards that end.

 

[No Robots]

Entropy is the downward movement from the Absolute to diffused matter, and evolution is the upward movement back to the Absolute. The universe does not tend towards absolute death, it tends back to the highest organization. When the earth was prepared for life, life appeared on the earth's surface; it started out in the form of primordial living cells, the monera; then life integrated the cells into groups of cells, and groups of groups of cells; and thus, in time, life brought out an infinite series of living beings, one higher than the other, until man was brought out. Man started as an animal, then in succession he became a savage, a barbarian, a civilized man, and he is destined to become a superman, a rational and morally autonomous person.--A true monistic philosophy, v. 1 / Harry Waton

Now science sees in existence neither purpose nor destiny; science sees in existence only changes and transformations. Hence science reached the conclusion that, while all else in existence, including evolution, may be relative, the law of entropy is absolute. According to this law the universe inevitably and absolutely is running down to the dead level so that the universe will inevitably reach the dead level, and all changes and transformations will cease forever. This is a false idea. The universe existed an eternity. If it is true that it is inevitably running down to the dead level, the universe would have reached this dead level long, long ago, for it already existed an eternity, and there was time enough for the universe to reach that dead level. And yet the universe is now just as much alive as it was ever before, and changes and transformation take place in existence just as ever before. The truth is this. Entropy and Evolution are correlatives; entropy is death, and evolution is life. Energy becomes matter, and matter becomes energy, and so in all infinite and eternal cases. But this is not all. Not only does the universe eternally and infinitely remain ever young, ever full of life and creation but infinitely and eternally it is realizing the supreme, infinite and eternal purpose of God. This is the soul and essence of the philosophy of the Bible. And this is shown by the אל־כם. Not only the universe but also God is infinitely and eternally passing to higher and ever higher perfection. This is the supreme, infinite and eternal purpose of God, and the realization of this purpose constitutes the destiny of existence.--Key to the Bible, p. 30 / Harry Waton

 

[pood]

Entropy is the downward movement from the Absolute to diffused matter, and evolution is the upward movement back to the Absolute. The universe does not tend towards absolute death, it tends back to the highest organization. When the earth was prepared for life, life appeared on the earth's surface; it started out in the form of primordial living cells, the monera; then life integrated the cells into groups of cells, and groups of groups of cells; and thus, in time, life brought out an infinite series of living beings, one higher than the other, until man was brought out. Man started as an animal, then in succession he became a savage, a barbarian, a civilized man, and he is destined to become a superman, a rational and morally autonomous person.--A true monistic philosophy, v. 1 / Harry Waton

Absolute horseshit. Entropy is alway increasing in the universe as a whole because it is a closed system. The earth, otoh, is an open system, and open systems can create islands of negentropy at the expense of an increase in universal entropy. The end result will be the heat death of the universe. And, man is an animal, in fact under the category great apes.

 

[No Robots]

Most people are quite content to live an ape-like life, dominated by lust, greed, hierarchy and tribalism.

You are of course free to bow to your god, your universal heat death Moloch.