Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

[Carpophorus]

@phoneutria

I have a different impression from this latest exchange. This has been a thread where I participated amicably up to the point where you barged in with irrelevant comments and a beligerent attitude. You are the one constantly making it personal and writing long paragraphs with nothing but insults and little to no content, and the little content in them is irrelevant.
At least you went and read something on the subject I suppose, even if it shows you are wrong. Why don’t you go discuss some ~real philosophy~ back at kts and leave science discussions to people with a minimum of a science education?
Just search yourself dude. You are butt hurt because I cut you off from your very first post, so now you need to save face by playing tough. Sorry but I don’t have patience for this level of insecurity. You are eager to make me out the personification of everything abouy the world that rejected you, but I am sorry to say it is not so. Have some grace for once and leave the thread so we can resume a conversation that will actually go somewhere other than the toilet.

This is pathetic. Noone reading our exchange could come to that conclusion u dimwit. I have undermined literally everything you have said about how fitness is defined, how value judgements can be objectively reinforced, how on a personal level you make such value judgements in your own life, how refusing to contextualize modern human survival within the bounds of unrestrained reproduction is childish and cowardly, how only YOU have the hang-ups about race and project YOUR politics onto the other whilst pretending to be rational, how EVERYTHING I have said is completely pertinent the the fundamental premise of the thread and so on and so forth. Taking up this position makes you look like a deranged idiot. And worse still it was you who began slinging insults, not me, and why? Because YOUR political prejudices prevented you from being objective.

You are provably a complete hypocrite, congratulation. Noone in their right mind can now take you seriously.

=D>

What a stupid cow!

[phoneutria]

I am adding delusional to my diagnosis of you.
edit: yup just went back and checked, first insult came from you.
I have been exceedingly calm and patient with you.

[Carpophorus]

@phoneutria

I am adding delusional to my diagnosis of you.

You are free to do so, proving, again, as you have mutliple times in this thread, that you are a moron who contrives whatever answer she likes regardless of the facts

And you reproduced!! You see what I mean about fitness being nuanced?!? What a fool!

[phoneutria]

@Carpophorus

@phoneutria

Actually it was my first post to you. It is at the top of page 7.

But situated in an unprecedented population explosion which is entirely foreign to any species but human beings and this point just becomes utterly stupid.

Exponential growth of an organism is not unprecedented. It happens in the microcosmos of a petri dish and it culminates with exponential death of the colony.

What you are doing is erecting any and every barrier you can to avoid saying that there is an overproduction of unfit mutations in modern human social systems,

Yes I do avoid saying things that are irrelevant to the discussion. Mass population does not magically halt the process of evolution. Lack of environmental stress does. Mass population itself might be one of the next stresses we will endure and therefore contribute to natural selection. We might start killing off the retards so we can save resources for the bright. I recommend that you either hide or begin to stockpile.

and, when I point out to you that observation of nature, not just human nature, allows us to make value judgements which are highly objective as to who is more or less fit as a human being, you cop-out and say that that value judgements have no place on a philosophy forum,

Once again. There isn’t a single sexual organism on the planet who does not apply value judgments to mating. This is neither insightful nor edgy. However, what human individuals perceive as indicators of fitness is not what actual fitness is from an evolution theory point of view. In the theory, fitness is indicated by survival.

The rest is all butt hurt. Buy a punching bag dude. Vent that anger out.

[Orbie]

@Carpophorus

@James S Saint

@Carpophorus

And how? By weak genes being exposed to harsher environments and predation or culling right? Therefore one can make very reasonable inferences about who is fit and who
is not or at LEAST who is fitter and who is less fit.

ONLY under that particular environment at that
moment in time.

@Carpophorus

Nothing controversial about
that at all, speaking from an evolutionary biology
standpoint. But then that would involve you making value judgements on health, beauty, intelligence and all manner of things that you prefer remained
mysterious and subjective. Ergo: cop-out.

Change the percentage of oxygen in the air by a few percent and it is possible that an entirely different
species would emerge on top of the food chain. So
what “value judgements” apply? How can you use the word “fittest” to mean anything but a value judgement that is misleading as it ignores the exact
circumstances of the environment at the time.

“Fittest” is an inappropriate and misleading word.

Of course, but given that we have primate cousins
and other hominids who have survived for millions of
years a change of that magnitude would be far outside of the ‘probable’ range of potential circumstances and thus reasonable inferences can
clearly be made. If you are going to build a house in

a mild and temperate climate you don’t include contingencies for monsoons and hurricanes.

And even in such a scenario keen senses, efficient
nervous and cardiovascular systems and absence of
disease would all clearly serve to increase the probability of fitness right?

There is some trouble with ‘probable range’ and ‘reasonable inferences’ here, when mutations are considered,and a million years here and there, can misconstrue N.S. as a linear function.

[xfzgrwql]

Phoney perfectly represents the modern female Nitwit.

Phoney, you neither speak for “Philosophy” nor “Science”. Everybody should pay attention to how you avoid the (important and necessary) topic of Culling. For example, a father and/or mother protects its infant child from a predator. Isn’t this an example of human intervention? Are infant unfit to survive on their own? You know the answer. Infants require protection from adults/parents. Same with Down Syndrome children and the many mental retards of the world. They require a different form of parental protection, which is Societal, State, Authoritative, Egalitarian protections: “Human Rights”.

That you keep skipping over this fact, exposes you for both the retard, and liar you so desperately want to be.

Liessa maybe another stupid idiot, but, at least she’s right, correct, and true here. You’re wrong. Flat out, wrong.

Moderns should be called-out whenever they throw in “Evolution” and “Science” together, without Culling, without human Intervention (Rights). You can’t simultaneously talk about the protection of infants, and down syndrome, in modern environments, and “fitness” survivability of those same humans, while trying to seclude and ignore that system of protection.

However Phoney, if you were/are forced to talk about Human Rights here, then you are immediately disproved as a crock, a sham, a ruse. You are exposed (as either intentionally lying, or unintentional childlike ignorance). Take your pick.

[Carpophorus]

Your techniques are tired and boring. All you are doing is exposing how dishonest you are. Such an increase in a complex organism like man, not a petri dish of bacteria, is unprecedented. I posted the OP and related everything I said to it. Telling me how ‘uninsightful’ and ‘irrelevant’ my provably pertinent contributions have been only makes it more obvious that certain parts of this conversation are indigestible to you. You have an ‘outer limit’ to your philosophy, namely, when it transgresses your prepackaged moralisms and exposes your unjustified pre-judging of another’s posts. Time and again I have undermined and superceded your understanding of the issues, but perhaps you are just too stupid to see it. It is a distinct possibility. If the communicable truth of a thing appears to you to be an attempt at ‘edginess’ then we have found the explanation for your blinkered and mediocre philosophical contributions.

Yes I do avoid saying things that are irrelevant to the discussion. Mass population does not magically halt the process of evolution. Lack of environmental stress does.

Can you not see how stupid this statement makes you appear? Exponential growth of a population, you clown, is the result of a lack of environmental stress because environmental stress reduces numbers. Understand? So you contend that a) the mass population increase does not halt evolution and b) that the lack of environmental stress does, completely ignoring the fact that b) is in fact the cause of a)! Then you claim what I am saying is not relevant or related and refusing to accept that we can infer objectively very reasonable attributes that make some fotter than others! I can’t dumb it down for you any more: this is literally as simplified as the concept can be made. If you still don’t get it, fine, continue making an idiot of yourself. The thing about stupid people is they are to stupid to see how stupid they are. Maybe this type of logical conversation naturally make a feeble mind like yours retreat into itself and point the finger at the other. But frankly, you came here to explore philosophy and if you are too ill-mannered and unintelligent to introduce nuance and complexity into your models and to admit when you are blatantly and demonstrably wrong, then you really should fuck off and get another hobby.

[barbarianhorde]

@xfzgrwql

First realize that you, a womb-man, are one of the filtering agents of nature. The high quality seed (or low quality in your case) that you choose to pass through your womb, decides whether humanity progresses (Evolves) or regresses (Devolves). )

Er, no. Evolution does not mean ‘improvement’. Quality didn’t figure into Darwin’s writing, he knew that whether or not he thought the dodo was better or worse then the chicken didn’t really matter.

Evolution is a tricky subject, I have seen more people slip like this - it always reveals who is able to think and who simply re-utters phrases he hears in his environment/

It’s a popular subject, especially among the needy, but not well understood.

[Carpophorus]

@xfzgrwql

Phoney perfectly represents the modern female Nitwit.

Phoney, you neither speak for “Philosophy” nor “Science”. Everybody should pay attention to how you avoid the (important and necessary) topic of Culling. For example, a father and/or mother protects its infant child from a predator. Isn’t this an example of human intervention? Are infant unfit to survive on their own? You know the answer. Infants require protection from adults/parents. Same with Down Syndrome children and the many mental retards of the world. They require a different form of parental protection, which is Societal, State, Authoritative, Egalitarian protections: “Human Rights”.

That you keep skipping over this fact, exposes you for both the retard, and liar you so desperately want to be.

Liessa maybe another stupid idiot, but, at least she’s right, correct, and true here. You’re wrong. Flat out, wrong.

Moderns should be called-out whenever they throw in “Evolution” and “Science” together, without Culling, without human Intervention (Rights). You can’t simultaneously talk about the protection of infants, and down syndrome, in modern environments, and “fitness” survivability of those same humans, while trying to seclude and ignore that system of protection.

However Phoney, if you were/are forced to talk about Human Rights here, then you are immediately disproved as a crock, a sham, a ruse. You are exposed (as either intentionally lying, or unintentional childlike ignorance). Take your pick.

^^The above unfit mutation is right about everything in this instance, a very unusual occurrence. Except for the fact that I am not Lyssa.

[xfzgrwql]

Modern Nitwits cannot claim both to be in favor, support, or simply ignore the state of “Human Rights” while simultaneously “be objective” about Evolution, Science, and Fitness. You can’t have both here. You can’t talk about the survivability of a severely deformed, ugly, and grotesque child, while simultaneously protecting it and fending off predators which would otherwise eat it.

Instead what we have is “Humanity”, another system which is being ignored and not addressed.

What Phoney is doing, is acting as that protective parent. She is “standing-in” as the agent of fitness, and acting on behalf of the would-be victim, a child, or another weak mental retard.

She is trying to use her own strength (fitness) to stand-in for another.

This is what almost all, or maybe all Modern Mental retards must do, to justify and validate themselves.

[Zoot_Allures]

I can’t believe you guys are still arguing this same thing two pages later. Phoneutria is right but Carpophorous isn’t wrong wrong… just wrong.

There is some confusion regarding the meaning and use of the word ‘value’ here that is subtle and makes for long two page disagreements on how the word can be used.

Of course Carpo you could say that if a human being is adept at being P, living way X and doing Y things, and doing these things are good, then a fit human would the one who is P, lives way X and does Y things. A perfectly legal use of the word and concept ‘value’, but it isn’t purely scientific… as what Phoneutria is trying to explain.

It is easy to accidentally anthropomophize the concept of natural selection and evolution and see it as a process that is ascending or progressing. But in nature, concepts like ascending and progressing don’t exist. Change and repetition is permanent and the whole system isn’t getting ‘better’ or ‘worse’, only different.

That aside, human beings should (I’m sure Phoneutria agrees) anthropomorphize evolution, decide on an ideal type of human being, and try to realize it. That’s what intelligent human beings do; they value a certain kind of person and certain kind of behavior and want to make more of it while discouraging the other certain kinds of people and behaviors. The difficult part is justifying or supporting your reasons ‘philosophically’.

You two aren’t really disagreeing. This whole thing is about a misunderstanding. Any possible objective value judgements in evolution, whatever they are, are going to be about adaptability, life span and breeding success.

Anything else is a human, aesthetic or functional addition… not a fundamental requirement.

A colony of super huge mondo fat space people all hooked up to a machine that keeps them alive for thousands of years in coma induced virtual SIMS like worlds would be far more fit than you and I could ever be.

But we don’t like that. We’re going to step in and say those super huge mondo fat space people are disgusting because they can’t walk or work or anything. Ah, but walking and working are not necessarily required to be ‘fit’ in the strictest, scientific sense of the word in evolutionary theory.

If an environment can be manipulated by an intelligent creature this can fundamentally change the usual forces that move natural selection along, but it does not change the definition of ‘fit’. A human who has fifty percent less muscle mass would not be unfit in a artificial low gravity environment. So, to be fit would mean to be a skinny bastard able to flourish in this environment.

This is what Phoneutria is saying when she emphasizes the immediate circumstances, the ‘here and now’ at time X in environment Y. The definition of fit will always be: that organism in a specific environment that meets the requirements to able to survive and reproduce at time X.

[James_S_Saint]

@xfzgrwql

Instead what we have is “Humanity”, another system which is being ignored and not addressed.

That is true and why it has been said over and over, despite objections, that Man really is separate from the animals. Man chooses his “evolution” and thus it is not actually “natural evolution” but rather artificial “manevolution”.

[xfzgrwql]

@barbarianhorde

Er, no. Evolution does not mean ‘improvement’.

Yes, it does.

It means directly and implicitly, an improved chance of survivability of an individual or group of organisms.

Evolution is a function of increasing genetic complexity, that allows more evolved organisms (such as humans) to survive environments and circumstances that would otherwise be impossible to less evolved creatures.

For example a fish can survive in the deep ocean whereas a human cannot (yet humanity has created submarines, technology to survive in adverse environments).

[Orbie]

Retardation is in deed a terrible scourge, except it’ beyond the scope of proper evaluation within the scope of a want expressed as a futile defense, within this scope, to properly evaluate levels (of retardation). This level as a defensive sign of drawing a circle, as far as defining where a retard can be said to be normal,of coming to the only possible consequence, that retardation is non definable qualitatively, only through statistical determinants can the degree of memetic evolutionary
level be determined. It is a memetic gene in everyone, and the level of acutual actual occurance may be inhibited, and expressed as a potential.

This view is wanted by societal defenses as to the charge, that lesser genetically individuals may be in need of such guidelines.

[xfzgrwql]

@James S Saint

That is true and why it has been said over and over, despite objections, that Man really is separate from the animals. Man chooses his “evolution” and thus it is not actually “natural evolution” but rather artificial “manevolution”.

Yes, mankind is so far separated from nature, that entire religions were spawned to reflect and represent this fact as an analogy and mythology.

Deities and Divinities are the result of mankind separating from, and then “controlling” nature. Directing and redirecting destiny. Man controlling his own fate.

[xfzgrwql]

This thread is a clear example, and proof, about the extent “Humanity” has “progressed” today.

Today, since humanity has expanded civilizations across the world (no more borders), all environments have become humane environments, within which the otherwise weak, pathetic, stupid, and lowest denomination of humanity is protected (innately) under the banner of Human Rights.

A Global State Society, New World Order.

Almost everybody, especially here is complicit in this, within your value judgments, the very way you think is a reflection of the larger, wider state.

Obviously people lie and have double-standards, are hypocrites.

One of these hypocrisies is the ability to cull, reflected by the Modern, favored “Abortion” debate.

Who controls life? Who dictates who lives and who dies? Just everybody here is, conveniently, ignoring the crux of the matter, the core of it.

[Carpophorus]

@Zoot Allures

I can’t believe you guys are still arguing this same thing two pages later. Phoneutria is right but Carpophorous isn’t wrong wrong… just wrong.

There is some confusion regarding the meaning and use of the word ‘value’ here that is subtle and makes for long two page disagreements on how the word can be used.

Of course Carpo you could say that if a human being is adept at being P, living way X and doing Y things, and doing these things are good, then a fit human would the one who is P, lives way X and does Y things. A perfectly legal use of the word and concept ‘value’, but it isn’t purely scientific… as what Phoneutria is trying to explain.

It is easy to accidentally anthropomophize the concept of natural selection and evolution and see it as a process that is ascending or progressing. But in nature, concepts like ascending and progressing don’t exist. Change and repetition is permanent and the whole system isn’t getting ‘better’ or ‘worse’, only different.

That aside, human beings should (I’m sure Phoneutria agrees) anthropomorphize evolution, decide on an ideal type of human being, and try to realize it. That’s what intelligent human beings do; they value a certain kind of person and certain kind of behavior and want to make more of it while discouraging the other certain kinds of people and behaviors. The difficult part is justifying or supporting your reasons ‘philosophically’.

You two aren’t really disagreeing. This whole thing is about a misunderstanding. Any possible objective value judgements in evolution, whatever they are, are going to be about adaptability, life span and breeding success.

Anything else is a human, aesthetic or functional addition… not a fundamental requirement.

A colony of super huge mondo fat space people all hooked up to a machine that keeps them alive for thousands of years in coma induced virtual SIMS like worlds would be far more fit than you and I could ever be.

But we don’t like that. We’re going to step in and say those super huge mondo fat space people are disgusting because they can’t walk or work or anything. Ah, but walking and working are not necessarily required to be ‘fit’ in the strictest, scientific sense of the word in evolutionary theory.

If an environment can be manipulated by an intelligent creature this can fundamentally change the usual forces that move natural selection along, but it does not change the definition of ‘fit’. A human who has fifty percent less muscle mass would not be unfit in a artificial low gravity environment. So, to be fit would mean to be a skinny bastard able to flourish in this environment.

This is what Phoneutria is saying when she emphasizes the immediate circumstances, the ‘here and now’ at time X in environment Y. The definition of fit will always be: that organism in a specific environment that meets the requirements to able to survive and reproduce at time X.

No you idiot. You are wrong because simply, even in an environment where humans at hooked up to machines, the one who is least in need of assistance will be the most naturally potentially fit. Fitness is not just relative to an environment it is relative the organism/species within than environment. There is no magical scenario which you can offer where somehow, someone who is less fit and diseased and otherwise inferior now will suddenly gain a selection advantage by virtue of his inferiority and sickness, understand? There is no climate or environment you can describe where sickness and relative potential unfitness suddenly becomes virtuous and more fit. That is a fantasy. If not offer me a description of such an environment because your ‘mudno machine man’ failed the test. Fitness in a human sense will ALWAYS relate to the physical and mental capacities OF HUMANS IN HUMAN TERMS. And we can define and compare those human capacities for fitness: we have enough objective information to do so, in fact, we have so much that to AVOID doing so, is grossly irresponsible socially, and representative of a sick or stupid mind philosophically. Of course luck and fortune play a role and teh most fit might not survive, but if all else is equal, the most fit is the one with very best chance,so why elevate fortune and the encountering of fantastic environments where disease and inferior attributes are preferable to an equivalent level with genuine indicators of potential fitness?? This is not difficult to understand at all.

[Orbie]

Only, inasmuch as fitness becomes less and less tenable as more and more are becoming connected to machines. The situation becomes, issues surrounding more advanced machines, and those who can adapt or use them and understand them.

The fact that even those who are hooked up, down the line everybody will be hooked up, and the it becomes a hierarchy of functions, in totality, where the technocrats on the top would classify downward on that pyramid as mere retards. The number of retards may need to be controlled, eliminated or sent elsewhere, since the increasing need for population control. The multilevel problems suddenly breaking out may be no match to available rescourses. The number of fit individuals will plunge directly with the numbe of technocrats retaining total control, (by that time)

[James_S_Saint]

@xfzgrwql

This thread is a clear example, and proof, about the extent “Humanity” has “progressed” today.

Today, since humanity has expanded civilizations across the world (no more borders), all environments have become humane environments, within which the otherwise weak, pathetic, stupid, and lowest denomination of humanity is protected (innately) under the banner of Human Rights.

A Global State Society, New World Order.

Almost everybody, especially here is complicit in this, within your value judgments, the very way you think is a reflection of the larger, wider state.

Soooo… whatcha gunna do bout it?
Gotta plan?

[size=85]…want one? [/size]

[xfzgrwql]

Me? Adapt to it.

Teach my children to lie, pretend to be much stupider than they really are, slower than they really are. Teach them to feign humility, pretend to have no pride in themselves. Teach them to act crippled. Teach them to cry and whine and beg in public. Teach them to pretend to be victims.

We arrive now to a point in human history when all values are inverted, and perverted. When lions lay with lambs. When lions must deny their appetite at the behest of their “humane” handlers. The humans want to see the lion denying itself, “self-control” and “self-discipline”. They want the lion to only be hungry, when the humans are hungry.

The great individuals of tomorrow, of the future, will need to hide their greatness.

Within a New Dark Age.

Underground. Unseen. Invisible to the average. Occult. Hidden behind lies, proxies, mystifying language, and every manner of stealth and cunning.

The future will not be kind to those who rise much higher than everybody else. Until, finally, the greater humans can find an escape into further depths of space (and time), outside earth.