Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Because they are teached and not taught. :laughing:

Because they are teached and not taught. What I meant was this: They are influenced by the propaganda without even realizing it. So they also do not realize that the Darwinistic selection principle is partly false. They are just teached, not taught.

That is the difference between “intellectuat historians” and real historians. “Intellectuat historians” will never realize how religious Darwinists are, because they are just teached, not taught. So it is also no surprise to me when “intellectuat historians” do not know the difference between “fit” and “unfit”, or the difference between “spelling”" and “conjugating”, or many other differences, because they are teached, not taught. :laughing:

Arminius, can you define “fit”?

Yes. I can. And what about you, Phoneutria? Can you define “fit”?

Indeed I can!

high five

Would you define it in this thread, right here, again if you have already defined it before, for focus/emphasis?

Oh, this would refresh the discussion we already had. But okay, the following quotes refer to the term “fitness” I subscribe:

The following post refers to nothing else than to the human beings:

Are you satisfied, Phoneutria?

I can guarantee, that will never happen.

Thank you arminius, for bringing me up to speed on the discussion.
I will reply in a bit. Hold on. Toys in the making.
lol lie… I actually hald one too many biers tonight.

James, why? Cuz woman?

Arminius, why do you say that unfit humans have more offspring?
If you define fitness as the one with most offspring, whoever has the most offspring is the most fit.

Social selection dictates that the most blindly devoted and faithful will live on, the religious.
Sexual selection dictates that the most willing to sexually unite with the most harmonious will live on.
Natural selection dictates that the most biologically suited to the environment will live on.
Kin selection dictates that the most family devoted will live on.

All in all, it is the most fitted who live on, those with the most Anentropic Harmony, as dictated by the pure logic of the situation (also known as “God”).

And one becomes the most fitted and anentropically harmonious by the continuous process of:

  1. Clarifying, Verifying, (clearing the confusion)
  2. Instilling, and Reinforcing (ensuring the duration)
  3. the Perception of Hopes and Threats (that which guides conscious beings)
    • unto Anentropic Harmony (toward that which by definition, is the most fitted to any given situation).

In other words, that which is most fitted continues to be most fitted by ensuring that it is guided toward being the most fitted.

It is not a competition with each other. It is a competition with disharmonious, entropic situations (aka “evil”).

Darwinism and Nietzscheanism imply direct competition between individuals, races, and species which creates a more hostile, entropic environment. Their strategy is to weaken others so as to become the last man standing, game theory. And that strategy then becomes a disharmonious environment for the truly most fit to dispel.

How does the most fit dispel Nietzcheanism and Darwinism?
By “clarifying and verifying” (letting the Threat be clearly perceived, witnessed) and “instilling and reinforcing” (establishing the alternative, the Hope) toward the most enduring survival, Anentropic Harmony.

I am saying that the “social selection” (you may also call it the “human/cultural selection” or the “social state selection”), can and does often contradict the “natural selection”, so that the “fittest” humans have less and at last no offspring and die out, whereas the “unfittest” have more offspring and at last the only offspring and survive (this you may call “survning of the unfittest”). Therefore Darwin’s “selection principle” must be false, at least partly false.

Drones and androids are being programmed to:
“Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony”
and thus will be more fitted than You.

[size=150]Humans, You are NOT the fittest![/size]

I find it that peoples who die out are not the fittest.

And I find that people who live on were not the fittest, merely the fitted.

The Neanderthals were just standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It’s a poin it time thing. There can never be “the fittest”, only “the fittest right now”.

Afterwards it is always easy to say said that those who die out are not the fittest, but that does not always prove or disprove the real fitness.

What did, for example, Pol Pot do? He eliminated all intelligent humans in his country, because intelligence was “antisocialistic”, thus not allowed in his “socialistic” country. Were these humans really “not the fittest” (in your terms)? Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the only one. Pol Pot was one of many politicians who decided against the so-called “natural selection” by operating their own selection. According to them the people they murdered were not “fit” in the sense that they were not the “fitted”.

So the Darwinistic “fitness” concept is problematic and thus almost useless.

In many aspects the Neanderthals were fitter than all other species of the genus “homo”, but in spite of that fact the Neanderthatls died out. Yes.

So the Darwinistic “fitness” concept is problematic and thus almost useless.

There’s no “proving the real fitness”. That’s nosense. There is no single fitness in present time that is above all others. There are more unicelular organisms living on your body than there are humans on the entire planet, and they don’t even have a nervous system, let alone a brain.

Evolution doesn’t stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest.
There’s fit. Every living species on Earth right now is fit, thus they are alive. All of them are a success. If they were unfit they would be dead. Among the fit, all are doing everything in their power to perpetuate everything about themselves. The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a “better fit” means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of “the fittest” can only happen after the fact.

My terms don’t matter one single bit. Neither do yours. We follow to the obvious conclusion that intelligence is the greatest indicator of fitness, but that is an antropocentric view. Intelligence has allowed us to colonize every terrain on the planet, and subdue all other creatures and the Earth itself, terraforming it to conform to our whims, but it would only take a well placed space rock of adequate size to wipe most of that away in a second and the rest of it in a few months. And guess what, cockroaches will still be roaming around, bitches.

In fact, intelligence itself has already put us walking the plank at least once before, so I imagine that species who have existed on this earth for a long time, like crocodiles who have existed almost in the exact form that the are today for some 65 million years, must look at us whippersnappers who have only been around for a mere 160k years or so and wonder ah, kids these days… if they can wonder, hell if I know, you get the point.

(As a side note, lol @ people that go omg we r haltin evolution with our manmade envirumentz!1!
Are you fucking kidding me? You learn to make syrofoam and all of a sudden you think can shape the fate of the planet? From the rodents in our dumpsters to the dogs sleeping by our feet, to the tomatoes we had for dinner, they are laughing at us. Laughing.)

Almost useles… hm. What uses do you think it should have?
And again, what’s problematic about it? I still don’t get your objection. It seems to me that what you are arguing is that sometimes we eliminate what we think might be the best among us. But then again, arminius, we don’t get to decide what atributes make someone the fittest. All we can do is strive to be fit.

There’s no “proving the real fitness”. That’s nosense. There is no single fitness in present time that is above all others. There are more unicelular organisms living on your body than there are humans on the entire planet, and they don’t even have a nervous system, let alone a brain.

Evolution doesn’t stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest.
There’s fit. Every living species on Earth right now is fit, thus they are alive. All of them are a success. If they were unfit they would be dead. Among the fit, all are doing everything in their power to perpetuate everything about themselves. The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a “better fit” means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of “the fittest” can only happen after the fact.

My terms don’t matter one single bit. Neither do yours. We follow to the obvious conclusion that intelligence is the greatest indicator of fitness, but that is an antropocentric view. Intelligence has allowed us to colonize every terrain on the planet, and subdue all other creatures and the Earth itself, terraforming it to conform to our whims, but it would only take a well placed space rock of adequate size to wipe most of that away in a second and the rest of it in a few months. And guess what, cockroaches will still be roaming around, bitches.

In fact, intelligence itself has already put us walking the plank at least once before, so I imagine that species who have existed on this earth for a long time, like crocodiles who have existed almost in the exact form that the are today for some 65 million years, must look at us whippersnappers who have only been around for a mere 160k years or so and wonder ah, kids these days… if they can wonder, hell if I know, you get the point.

(As a side note, lol @ people that go omg we r haltin evolution with our manmade envirumentz!1!
Are you fucking kidding me? You learn to make syrofoam and all of a sudden you think can shape the fate of the planet? From the rodents in our dumpsters to the dogs sleeping by our feet, to the tomatoes we had for dinner, they are laughing at us. Laughing.)

Almost useles… hm. What uses do you think it should have?
And again, what’s problematic about it? I still don’t get your objection. It seems to me that what you are arguing is that sometimes we eliminate what we think might be the best among us. But then again, arminius, we don’t get to decide what atributes make someone the fittest. All we can do is strive to be fit.

.
“FIT” for What??

Though this ends up having to say that the fittest are people who don’t get too stressed doing boring repetative jobs, who like the TV on during dinner, who try to stay up with fashion and believe a lot of rather idiotic stuff with the little passon they can muster. And they tended to like sitting in rows in school. They feel good in that kind of external disrespectful structure. They fit it. They are suited to being disrespected and being boring and are unfit for something else.

Those whose genes lead them to have trouble with this do not fare so well, are more likely to be diagnosed, and likely will soon have their ‘problematic genes’ isolated and weeded out.