Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

I am late to the party.
I have to say it was a wonderful party.

Basically, what Arminius is saying is that Darwin is claiming that intelligent people have more offspring than non-intelligent people. By observing that this is not the case, we can conclude that Darwin is wrong. Unfortunately, Darwin never said such a thing.

When Darwin says that an organism is fit, what he means is that the organism has what is necessary – whatever that is – in order to reproduce within a given environment.

I would put. i do not know.
More and more people get cut off from realizing what it is that is known from the sources, and the processes of knowing. The cogito of self knowledge in terms of scientific analysis has become so diverse, that less and less can fathom an overall description of what is going on in what goes on in lthe reality of every day existence. The very few who are in touch with themselves , as a product of natural endowment, can still connect that part of themselves which understands the degenerative phenomena with the benefit that the Word has brought them.
The evolutionary cause of the idea of the idea behind the Superman, is beginning to show a shift of ideals from projecting absolutes from outside anthropomorphic to intrinsic neurological sources. This approach , eventually will be the savior and grace of humanity, because our absolute approach will diminish the projective need to compare and admonish qualitative diffwrences by alwausnlooking for outside extrinsic sources, whereas they are nothing else then an effort to styme qualitative changes from intrinsic quantifiable sources of the most determinative lowest common denomination.

Populism will defy nothing but It’s Self and the resulting contradiction will make for a sudden and new understanding of the ineffectiveness of this view. Understanding will tend to be more in line with less perspectivism, as the ideals will shift
from mere appearent justifications to the true nature of what is intended and expected from human beings.
After that, wars and reproaches will become the things of the past

Knowledge will be replaced by faith of doing and in and by doing the right thing. We will be back in the Garden. of True Understanding.

Yes. Selection of the fittest for selection. It is if not a circular then at least a spiralling concept.

Successful is meant as as in, successful in having offspring.

Hahah, this thread

I miss lev and arminius.

Me too, has this forum been concluded or, do You think there are unexplored areas yet to deal with?

Lev was keen, but was for some reason trolling me quite vehemently along with all the others that then left.

Someone should compile a book from good posts on this forum.

Actually there is no “selection principle” in Darwin. Maybe fair to note.
The principle at work here is that of sexual selection, nothing else.

What Darwin disclosed is the results of sexual selection, namely evolution in terms of appearances.

Actually, this is false. Standard Darwinism asserts that no matter how we fuck, the environment always determines the winners. It’s not a theory that says how we fuck determines the environment.

A very simple example of Galapagos finches demonstrates that finches did not change the trees. The trees are still the same.

But I can point to an important event where Darwin may have changed lab results to suit his theory.

Ill have to recall that, but sadly, it caused the suicide of a famous Viennese botanist

There is a very impressive claim that we fuck to change genetic immediate alternation. The periphery optics of that hinges on what sexual attraction really is, the willful power of changing characteristics through dominance and the use of the compensatory power of sexual perception to overcome inferior semblances of underlying power motives.

Well genetics proves Darwin’s main suggestion to be true. His moment of triumph is valid, the Beagle is the greatest ship of discovery in everlasting eternity. I think. All that happens on Enterprise is contingent upon it.

“The periphery optics of that hinges on what sexual attraction really is, the willful power of changing characteristics through dominance and the use of the compensatory power of sexual perception to overcome inferior semblances of underlying power motives.”

Yes, violent interpretation. Beauty in the eye of Sauron.

Of course, the second suggestion, of a continuous progression from amoeba to man, is problematic. Elegant though.
Do you think man came from ape?
And if so from what did ape come to your knowledge?

In terms of which species humans most act like (and this is well known) it’s actually drumroll ants !!!

Apes act less like ants than humans do, even though apes are genetically our closest relatives!

we don’t act at all like ants … b3074ec92f

well if bj campbell says so

We are too individualistic to be like ants who work together as a single collective to achieve a common goal
And other species like bees or wasps but we value our independence too much to be like these social insects

No one here actually read Origin of Species, eh?

I was waiting for someone to nuance my statements.


Anyone read Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene? High quality work.
He argues that it is not the organism but the genes themselves which must be seen as the agent. So you have to look at individual survival and procreation and group survival at once, which changes the logics, and gives another way of looking at “fitness”.

So, the group is its own primary environment.

all ants in a colony are sterile female clones
the whole colony is one individual