Against “natural selection”:
Senescence:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
Old age. It has now been found out that bodies stop healing themself, decay and die due to automatically degrading processes within the cells and genes. Aging is genetic. The length of the telomeres reduces upon each cell replication. This is not seen in bacterial cultures the way that it is seen in animal cell structures. Bacterial cells can reproduce indefinitely, whilst the cells of an adult body cannot. If bacterial are so primitive, the first life, why do they not age like us? Why did we “evolve” the ability to kill ourselves? And is not suicide the exact opposite of “natural selection’s” “me before you” protocol?
It requires FAR LESS genetic difference to have non-aging cells, compared to having something as complex as a human brain, or, even having something as simple as a tail. So tell me, is “immortality” less of a survival enhancement in the genes than a fluffy tail is? We’ve got these billions of supposed years, so let’s be honest here. If any animal “evolved” in such a way that its auto-self-destruct genetic programs went missing
[it’s far easier to loose genetic information than it is to create new genetic information, and natural selection is SUPPOSEDTO BE based on “random mutations” anyways…] that very same animal would reproduce far more than the rest, and as its genes were inherited, those genes would become superior to all the rest, and the “mortals” would simply “die out”. Most beings die from old-age related diseases. Ex: the queen ant’s mouth-pieces and stomach shrink rapidly after its semenal cache is “used up”, and its body actually destroys itself in this way. It’s a different kind of “aging”, but it’s the same-old rapid-degeneration.
“Random mutations” in the DNA happen far more during each cell replication, than they do each time another baby is born. Think, with your brain, for a moment. Why do bacteria “evolve” faster than human bodies, even though we are both ACTUALLY made of microbes which reproduce in relatively the same way, and should, by principal, “evolve” in the same way, per micro cell replication!? And yet, “macro evolution” supposedly takes longer than micro?
Social-Darwinism:
etymonline.com/index.php?sea … hmode=none
“Social” has to do with association, and, in an ecosystem, there is NOTHING BUT “social” interactions between one life-form and another, whether they be direct or indirect. So, all “Darwinism” is “Social-Darwinism”. According to good-old-Darwin, if one nation declares war on another, consumes it, and destroys it, that winning nation is “superior”; after all, who’s genes are going to be spreading after this event? Not theirs, as they’ve been destroyed by the “superior” nation/race. But let’s think about that “superiority” and “fitness” for a moment. Humans are supposedly “superior” to the animals, too, and now, just look and the whole eco-system quickly getting wasted, polluted and destroyed! Darwinian “superiority” was basically a selection based on competition, BUT, competitions baring honest comparisons and rewards – require an actual mitigation or circumstance. Example: during a test of strength, two people must wrestle against each other, until one throws the other out of the ring. But, what happens if one of them brings a knife? In order for competitions to actually select “genetic fitness”, there must actually be “fair” competition. There are more than a few highly intelligent people in society which simply have far less friends, and may stay single for their whole life, because the people who are having sex constantly, and reproducing the most, aren’t the most “fit” in society, and wise, no-shit kinds of people are quite shunned by pop-culture. “Sexual selection” puts quantity above quality, it is a matter of A outsourcing B. Basically, how “contagious” are you? And who says that one’s mating frequency is a sign of genetic fitness? On the contrary, it has basically nothing to do with strength, intelligence and health. It simply has to do with how impulsive and powerful one’s craving for sex is, and how much reproductive materials one can produce [semi-regardless of reproductive material’s quality].
Cannibalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
When one species consumes its own kind, it is called “cannibalism”. When one form of life consumes another form of life, it is called “feeding”. But basically, the two words are the same event, the same thing: life consuming life. The ability to kill other beings who have resources which your species might want later, is yet another Darwinistic “superiority”, as “natural selection” is based on competition over “resources” [otherwise known as CORPSES, live bodies and excreta of plant+animal]. And if you were to destroy many other species on earth, you’d “win” and be coined “superior” soon after, as their genes are gone, and your genes are not, thus one exists in more mass than the other. Altruism and giving are the exact opposite of this “natural selection”, in that one gives out “power” and “resources”, thus becoming less “powerful”/“superior”. Do men become rich by giving money to the poor? Not at all. The richest bastards around, don’t even need what they have, and they got it by screwing everyone else somehow.
[A few quotes from Adolf Hitler]:
((Many Americans today actually think that this phrase exists in the bible somewhere, even though Hitler said it: “Got helps those who help themself.”))
“The conception of the new Movement, whose fundamentals can be expressed in a single sentence: “The Lord helps those who help themselves,” opposed this. That is not only a very pious phrase, but a very just one. For one cannot assume that God exists to help people who are too cowardly and too lazy to help themselves and think that God exists only to make up for the weakness of mankind. He does not exist for that purpose. He has always, at all times, blessed only those who were prepared to fight their own battles.”
((Hitler was a “Theist”.))
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
((What’s with this?))
“I have not come into this world to make men better, but to make use of their weaknesses.”
Perhaps the bastard is being honest here: “I have [not] come into this world [to make men better]”. How did he “come into this world”, if he was supposedly a naturalist also? More accurately, from what realm did be “come from”, and, somewhere behind the words and trickery, is that realm imposing itself on this one? His motto, and obviously his actions, were exploitation. “Make use of their weakness” is the exact principal behind Social-Darwinism. It is: a new, “scientific” “twist” on society, selfishness and imperialism. And also, it is “fascist by nature”. A food-chain, a pyramid structure, a vertical society.
“Natural selection” does not favor “strength” in a full-spectrum. There are different kinds of “strength”, in that, many KINDS of tasks can be done with various degrees of intensity or efficiency. But, those tasks are not “strength” until they defeat and outperform allot of other similars/relatives, because quantification [epistemologically] is the two poles of competition, during the socialization and familiarization of relation, imperialism, selfishness, etc. A gun is not “stronger” than a man, even though it can kill him. A rock is not “stronger” than a man, even if it is more solid when the two objects collide. All of these comparisons are part of desire, not “truth”. And have to do with: “how does the potentiality of this instance of perception make me feel?” (Thus purely seflish, is human knowledge.)
“Nature”:
Muslims say homosexuality is unnatural. Scientists say “God” is unnatural, ghosts are “supernatural”, thus do not exist, etc. “Natural”? “Unnatural”? These are moral ideas, pretending to be facts. They are dualistic “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong”, as usual, a form of mind-control, based on expectations and desires.
All things are said and thought for selfish reason, on earth.
Remember WHO invented these ideologies. It was humans, and it was their perspective, about “nature” in relation to themself. These thoughts would be much like “static” on an old, broken TV, if there was no desire involved to add value to “facts”. And for this reason alone, there is idea. I want, therefor I believe. And they become what they desire most. Darwinism is actually a new, “scientific” “twist” on society, selfishness and imperialism.
(I’ve had to use English again so that maybe some of you humans could relate to what I say, at least partially. But, I don’t really expect to be understood, at all, ever. I just wrote this as an experiment. My actual “beliefs†are not transferable by human methods. Ex: The “truth†is behind the song, which can be felt but by the soul but not explained by the body or the words.)