Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Certainly as a logical statement or solitary theory. My point was that Darwinism isn’t a solitary principle when it comes to evolution. There are other principles involved. So as far as being the god of evolution, Darwinism is certainly a false god (aka “incomplete controlling theory”).

And since I first heard of the phrase “survival of the fittest”, I immediately noted that it is actually the “survival of the fitted” (those who fit into their environment at the time).

Darwin was really asking, “Why do we see this variety of creature at this time?” His answer was “because these are the one that survived.” That much of it is unquestionably true. But then the idea got extended and extrapolated (as people seem to not be able to avoid) to suggest that absolutely nothing else was responsible for life being the way it is found. That was over-reaching the principle and certainly false.

What had some truth to it, became preached as a god. People do that with everything that they want everyone to believe in and use as an excuse for what is actually being done behind their backs. Often you hear it preached to the public that evolution is totally random, which is absurd. Such things are preached so as to disguise manipulation.

Yes. What is really very much questionable and partially not true is the selection principle - not more. Darwin*s theory of evolution is based on three principles: (1) variation, (2) heredity, (3) selection.

Those who claim to be “atheists” are antitheists, or theists, or both (that’s possible - cp. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=188125), and in this case Darwin is their false god. There are many of those false gods - as you know; but the main problem are not the false gods themselves but those stupid ideologists (modern-religious zealots) who believe in them.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI[/youtube]

What he left out was:
4) Environment (the current situation = the MOST critical of all concerns).

Are the producers of that video creationists respectively neo-creationists?

Videos got nothing to do with religion, in the christian sense. It’s got more to due with a new religion called the Church of Neo-Science which is headed by Lord Richard Kraust and worships the god Einstein, living in fear of the Fallen Angel Tesla (the devil of their religion.) Atheists are neo-science’s chosen people, and they must persecute any teaching or group of people that doesn’t promote it, including silencing the belief in any conspiracy, including extra-terrestrials or the harmfulness of GMO’s. In Neo-Science they promote the radical notion that “something is nothing” and that they can measure the distance of stars and existence of black holes using blind-faith.

Arminius,

You are making a mistake here.

Partially true and partially false simply means partially true and partially false, neither completely true not completely false, whether scientifically or philosophically.

Science does not have all answers. In other words, it still not get everything right. But, does this mean that the science is totally false and has not got any single thing right?

Then, how would you evaluate scientific achievements like mobiles, internet and enabling humans to land on the moon! Should we discard all scientific achievements just because it is not completely right!

The same applies to everything else, including Darwin and religions too. Typical Atheists make the same mistake when they hold all religions doctrines useless because they do not give all the answers or some wrong ones.

Let us take things as they are. Accept what is true and useful.

With love,
Sanjay

No. You have misunderstood me, Zinnat.

Yes. That is what I also said, Zinnat.

And here you have misunderstood me. I did not say that the whole science but merely its “theorist … has to provide a correct theory” (see above). The theorist must have the honest claim to provide a correct theory. Otherwise science would choke. Scientists have to do their jobs seriously, that means in the case of theorists to provide a correct theory, and a correct theory means correct according to the current knowledge about logic and observation/experimentation. Referred to Darwinisms scientists know or could know that the Darwinistic selection principle is partly false, and then they have to scrap or to correct the whole theory. Maybe that I did not choose the most adequate translation of my thoughts, Zinnat, but it was no mistake. Science consists of observation/experimentation as praxis and of theory, and the theorists do not have less responsibility than the practicians (observers/experimenters). Probably one can rescue the other two principles of the Darwinistic theory of evolution but not its selection principle, if humans are included in it.

Yes. That is what I also said, although I used some other words and put them in the correct position of the sentence. :sunglasses:

Darwin’s selection principle has not much to do with science in general but with a relatively small part of a scientific theory, if it really is a scientific theory. But the theory is as important as the praxis. If there were no kind of falsification in science, then all theories of the past would still be valid. Many theories are valid, although they are partlially false. So the Ptolemaic system could also be correct, because it is not totally incorrect. But that is not the way how science works. Ironically but not accidentally science works like Darwinism, Social-Darwinism, so to say. So if one says that Darwin’s selection principle is partly false, then this one will get a problem with some powerful people, but that does not mean that this one is wrong. The real reason why some theries are scrapped has more to do with power than with science itself.

No. I did not say that science is totally false.
Again:

And this part is even a relaitively small part of a theory.
But then:

This statement is okay. And as I already said: Many other theories are also merely partly false and regarded as being totally false, but some currently valid theories are regarded as being correct, although they are partly false as well.

A theory is falsified not only then, if a theory is false, but also then, if only one single part of a theory is false.

Technology is an applied science and belongs more to the praxis side of science than to the theory side of science. There have been many examples in the history of science and technology that have showed how theory can be strongly influenced by technology and/or scientifiic praxis (obsevations/experimentations): in some cases a theory got approved, in some cases a theorxy got scrapped (discarded). Allegedly some geological theories got approved by the landing on the Moon because of some rocks that were brought from the Moon to the Earth, whereas other geological theories got scrapped (discarded) by it because of the same rocks. Both science and technology and again both scientific praxis and scientific theory influence each other.

Dariwn’s selection principle insofar as it refers to humans (!) has not lead to any technological (!) success but merely to more belief in it.

Regarding a theory as false, although merely a small part of it is false, has often led to more science success than a conservative defence of it. And false theories are usually not “dead” theories, if science is not “dead”.

But, please, do not forget:
A theory is falsified not only then, if a theory is false, but also then, if only one single part of theory is false.

My question was not meant in a religious sense. Creationists are often but do not have to be religious, Darwinists are much more religious, namely modern-religious, thus ideological.

@ Zinnat.

I do not want to destroy the whole Darwinistic theory. What I want is to find out what happens to that theory without one of its three principles, because that one principles is false, if humans are included in it. This forum is called “I Love Philosophy”. So let’s do some philosophy, Zinnat!

If in only one single case, a hypothesis does not match the data, the hypothesis is false. Because of that, every hypothesis must include the degree of error allowed by the data gathering and analyzing technique (“significant error limit”).

The selection principle plays a role in the progression of evolution. But it is not the god of evolution, totally controlling principle. As long as the Darwinian Principle is stated as merely an influence (thus allowing for other influences and errors in its projections), rather than the only influence, it can be said to be true.

Yes. Of course. Duh!

Negligible quantity / amount. Okay, although it is a little fraud. :wink:

In order to push a concept into society, they always try to match the degree of thrust to slightly more than the degree of potential resistance (makes sense). And what that means to their little minds is that if people currently believe in X as the only influence, they must absolutely insist that Y is the only influence and forbid anyone to say otherwise.

You see that tactic in almost everything “they” do.
Nazis 100% Evil
Jews 100% good
Christians 100% evil
Jews 100% good
Muslims 100% evil
Jews 100% good
Conservatives 100% evil
Liberals 100% good
Men 100% evil
Women 100% good
Bible 100% evil
Scientism 100% good
Jesus 100% evil
Satan 100% good
God 100% evil
Darwinism 100% good
Old 100% evil
Young 100% good
.
.
.

No Darwin was an atheist.

Natural selection is as sound as; “bachelors are unmarried men.” You look at what happens and describe what you see. Nature “selects” x because y does not have viable progeny, and x does have viable progeny. nature cannot select what is not successful.
Evolution is the consequence of this fact.

It’s not ideological, its not religious, its not a belief. You look at the world of living things are observe. There is nothing more sinister or clever or ideological that than

Natural Selection happens bitch. That’s why they call it Natural.

You don’t get it.

Ignorance upon ignorance.
There is no such word as “Theologist”. At least it is not a proper word, but one invented by stupid people. The word you might be groping for is “THEOLOGIAN”.
Of course Darwin was neither of these things.

Vou have absoluetly no idea.

Darwin was a theolgist. If you do not believe it, go and google it and get that your false god Darwin was a theologist and a theist, exactly a pantheist, and pantheists are often confused with atheists, although pantheists are theists and there are almost no atheists. Also often confused with atheists are antitheists. But this thread is not about theologists, theists, antitheists, or atheists. So, please, search for another thread. And a new religion in modern times can be correctly called a modern religion, thus an ideology, of course with false gods, thus idols. But thsi thread is also not about religion. So, please, search for another thread.

[tab]

[/tab]

That is I all I wanted.

There may be some or many shortcomings in his theory but it still would not be wise to say that it was totally false. Yes, one can say that it does not fit in all conditions but this does not mean its all premises do play any role whatsoever.

Using the term “false” gives that impression. It is almost a synonym to “wrong”.

With love,
Sanjay

Hatefulness ladled upon upon ignorance upon ignorance upon wisdom.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

/thread

I do not believe in evolution, but for the naysayers this is how it works.

You get a rare positive mutation. A rare positive mutation is like “a chosen one”, and “anakin skywalker” or an “avatar”. This avatar guy special one has a wife and kids. Those kids have kids, and eventually they have a lot of avatar grandkids. Over several generations, his genes make a sizeable portion of the population. Then, the environment changes, either a calamity happens or a new predator enters the realm. All the non-avatar kids die. This is natural selection, and macro-evolution.

However I do not believe in evolution because the fossil evidence indicates humans were alive at the same time of dinosaurs. Evolution seems to violate the law of entropy also.

Though the method I described of evolution seems possible under rare circumstances…the law of entropy indicates that backwards evolution, evolutionary decay, is more likely.