Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Wake up.
The issue with wheels is NOT that they can’t evolve incrementally. The issue is that they cannot GROW from DNA cells, from birth. Even if they magically sprang into existence in a generation, they would not be able to become the nest.

I hope you’re not talking about metal wheels with rubber tires.
We are obviously talking about an organic equivalent.

The materials are not the concern. Organic systems are innately fluid so as to distribute nutrients throughout. A free rotating wheel doesn’t allow for such distribution networking (blood vessels, neurons). It is an issue of the mechanics. It probably isn’t totally impossible to come up with some limited form of a wheel that can be grown, but I serious doubt that it would be efficient in use.

It is just a lousy strawman example to try to use to support evolution (typical of Dawkins).

Maybe a plant, but an animal I don’t know about that one.

The ISS is such an “absolute island”. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.


There are more than this human-made “islands”, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric “islands”:


All of the are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.

As long as all these “islands” will exist and will contradict their “ocean” nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.

Life resists entropy. Otherwise it would not be capable of self-preservation and would decay, thus die. Self-preservation means preservation of the competences during the actual life, whereas reproduction means preservation of the competences beypond the own life. There are three evolution principles: (1) variation, (2) reproduction, (3) reproduction interest. Living beings get recources out of their environment in order to reproduce their competences by the resources of the environment, thus to preserve (conserve) and renew their competences. So they strive to reproduce their competences.

According to this the meaning of life is the avoidance of the loss of the competences.

If you have the impression that you are not needed anymore, then you have the impression of the loss of your competences.

Note: “Competences” means more than"fitness", it is more like “capital”, “power”, “acceptance”, “appreceation”.

Sorry buddy, but in classic forms of reproduction, money isn’t a gene.

I never said that “money” was “a gene”.

Youre acting like we pass on “capital”, “power”, “acceptance”, and “appreceation” through our DnA.

He is referring to your “abilities” (“competencies”, “skills”, “talents”, “social prospects”). Some are passed on through DNA. Some are taught, trained, or conditioned. Any can be taken away.

Skills are not carried in the DNA nor are abilities or competencies.

“Propensities” are passed on. That is why a child born to a stockbroker can be raised and succeed in a hunter/gatherer society, and vice versa.
Humans are the ultimate generalists since they are born with very little in the way of innate abilities, the brain being almost completely empty at birth, and able to absorb culture and learning.

It’s for this reason that racism is complete bullshit.
And this is also why a person with the propensity to psychopathy can, in a poor family become a serial killer, whilst those born into a rich family become captains of industry and stockbrokers.

You would have to adopt a special definition for “skills” to try to make that true.

Try swinging from one branch of a tree to another by using only one hand and your tail.
Perhaps try to catch a rattle snake using only your teeth.
Catch a mouse with one fingernail?
Get a job as a stripper?
How about the Iranian Prime Minister? President?
Chinese People’s Party Leader?
How about ask someone with angelman disorder to work out the first few digits of the square root of Pi?
Ask a colorblind man to accurately describe the difference in your lawn and your neighbor’s?
How about play basketball with a dwarf or midget? … with Oscar Robertson?
President of the NAACP? …Women’s League of America?
Weight lifting or Karate competition with your girlfriend (dubiously assuming that she is a “she” in your case)?

Your new-age mentality of “all people are equal until those white men program us to be different” is bullshit.

But as you say:

… or at least new-age liberal globalists seem to be. But science disagrees with you.

Fighting lies with lies just makes for a lot more lies.


It is based on information.

There are many different information memories (storages), two of them are biological (genetical and neurological) - genes and memes (short-term and long-term)-, all others are cultural (artificial) like all culturally made things, for example books / libraries, pictures, photographs, audiotapes, videotapes, memories of computer, robots, androids.

Memory is the first stage to Anentropy (no matter the form) and is always achieved by the same process; refurbishing as fast as eroding.

Yes. Of course. And he himself is the super racist. He “argues” like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did who fanatically dictated: If there are persons who are more intelligent than others, then this persons do not have a right to exist, thus must be murdered.

In order to prevent misuses of a phenomenon you have to know what it is and to explain, to illuminate, to clarify it.

Yes. Absolutely. His egalitarianism is so insane, so that I would not be surprised if he demanded that “all living beings must be equal” and “those who do not agree” with that insane statement “must be murdered”.

Maybe it is because he is not taught but “teached”. :wink:

Yes. Absolutely. …

The statement “all people are equal” refers to the notion that they all have sentience.

However, I am not sure if that is true, that is a lot of sentience (and suffering) to go around. I’d say only 1 out of 10,000 have sentience.

The statement “all people are equal” is a juridical statement and means “all people are or should be equal before the law”, “people have or should have the same rights”. People are not really equal.

And that makes the Darwinistic Selection Principle True.
I’m glad you finally realised that.