Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

no that is resoundingly wrong
quality vs quantity are two evolutionary strategies
obviously the ones investing in quantity will have more offspring
that does not necessarily mean that they are better or worse
better or worse in this scenario are human value judgments

also, how does the manipulation of the environment
invalidate darwin’s selection principle?

No, Phoneutria.

You do not respond at all to what I said!

Also, I am not saying that the artificial environment invalidates Darwin’s selection principle, but I am saying that the artificial (man-made) environment can replace the natural environment. I said this several times in my post.

The Darwinistoc princle is neither true or false, it is based both on natural and Freudian economy with political contextual determinancy in it’s background. The prowess of the ruling intelligentsia will excercise it’s power in according fed back channels, and it is known that Darwin was no exception when he invalidated Kammerer’s experiment without knowing the results of his final findings.

Or another way of looking at it :

Both. genetic and memetic traits developments interplay, to assure survival. In a backtrAcking study , it would be difficult to ascertain ,that could be discern. to be more instrumental in gaining advantage more, brain or brawn.

If intelligence is compensatory to genetic adaptation, in the process of untangling the two modal operations, then a clearer picture would emerge.

Perhaps genetic advantige will include intelligence in it’s progressive development, so as to be unravelable at some point, as to invalidate Darain s anti- Kammarer bias, at a certain point, a point that includes only phisiological traits to be pervy to Darwin’s alleged interference with Kammerer’s. Onclusions. then it becomes all too clear, thAt Darwin’s conclusions may have been all too premature.


Nore" wrote this at night and must be edited hopefully in the morning.

yes I did
i am telling you that you are looking wrong

nominated for capt. obvious awards 2021

Humans are quite unfit from an evolutionary point of view, because the only fitness feature they have is their brain and therefore their intelligence.

Except their brain, humans do not have a single organ or anything else that can really be understood as „fit“. Only their brain is fit.

From a purely natural-evolutionary point of view:

  • The hands of the humans are atrophied (they can’t use them to move fast on trees like apes).
  • The feet of the humans are also atrophied (here the same applies as with the hands).
  • The internal organs of the humans are atrophied (especially the gut - the only exception is the brain, which has just evolved greatly at the expense of the gut).
  • The sensory organs of humans are not particularly well developed either (even the eyes are atrophied from a purely natural-evolutionary point of view).
    This allows only one conclusion: The humans possess only one organ, which corresponds to the requirements of the fitness: the brain, culturally said: the intelligence.

So it can be also only the intelligence which has let the human being survive.

Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” in 1864 in his Principles of Biology and introduced it into the discussion about Darwin’s book on the origin of species:

“If … individuals of a species … must necessarily diverge in innumerable directions and degrees, … then also among all individuals some must always be less exposed than others to the danger that their equilibrium will be completely destroyed by a special acting force … The necessary consequence will be that those individuals whose functions deviate most from the equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces must perish, while on the other hand those will survive whose functions come closest to the equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces.”" This survival of the fittest also results in the multiplication of the fittest. …" “This survival of the fittest … is the same thing that Mr. Darwin called natural selection …” The term “natural selection” is sometimes used in scientific terminology. - Herbert Spencer 1862–1896: A System of Synthetic Philosophy. The Principles of Biology. Vol. I, § 164, 1864. The view sometimes held in the literature on the history of science, that Spencer coined the “survival of the fittest” already in 1851 in his “Social Statics” or in 1852 in his “Theory of Population”, is not correct in this form. However, Spencer’s concept did not represent the “survival of the fittest” in a socio-political sense. He introduced the term “survival of the fittest” only in 1864 as described above in the “Principles of Biology” into the discussion about Darwin’s book of the “Origin of Species”.


That’s right.

Humans have only one possibility to prove themselves in nature, i.e. to survive: they have to use their brain - their intelligence. That is the only thing that can make them fit. And that is what it has done in the course of evolution.

One could also say with the anthropologist Arnold Gehlen that the human being is a “deficient being” in contrast to the instinctive animal. That is why the human is forced to develop culture again and again. The human being must use his intelligence. Otherwise he is lost and will say goodbye to evolution. He can survive only if he uses his brain - his intelligence.

What the human being can do with his intelligence, Arminius and you have described impressively.

[tab]I have read this thread. Others apparently have not.[/tab]

I can’t claim to have observed the development processes of humans but isn’t it laudable that humans only grew to dominance due to their social skills?

And without the, perhaps inadvertent, development of more diverse vocal cords (beyond the oo-oo–ay-ay stage) the human brain would never have developed the required communication diversity that led to logic and extended reasoning skills - the conscious intelligence (not merely instinctive intelligence).

Isn’t social communication the first step to domination over the wild and woolly? In higher realms of society, isn’t the media control (propaganda) the first step to national and global supremacy (exampled by recent events as well as many throughout history)?

Once the variations of sounds were capable of being broadcast and thus distinguished (many animals can distinguish them even tough not being able to replicate them) the, perhaps inadvertent, survival of the brains capable of utilizing that new function seemingly would have little choice but to rise and become more dominate - literal armies would form due simply from advanced propagation of danger alerts and direction signaling.

So I’m thinking, to be aligned more with historic social developments, it is really the vocal cords that deserve the credit - without which the brain would never had inspiration to advance past - “oo–oo – ay-ay”.

And socially it is the language, the written word, the documenting, the news paper, the radio broadcasting, the tele broadcasting, the internet connectivity, and finally at the moment “social platform” development and control. The brains behind it all are more of an post development - after seeing the utility of a new way to spread influence to more human creatures.

The tool develops the mind - the mind then develops new tools - the new tools then develop new minds.

The sophisticated automobile did not invent the wheel. I think that is a safe bet. :smiley:

Great Again:

The point in evolutionary crisis has been reached This point is emphatic for the reason that occured a break between humans and animals quite a while back, when god himself converted the genetic into the nemetic,.

This natural compensation proceeded to create follow up subsequent breaks, consistent within new sets of convolution.

The continuum of anthropological analogy broke down as did the idea that the earth was flat.

The references became pregnant with foreshadowed analogical possibilities of a kind of future shock.

The will to power ceased to refer to backward possible events except maybe in Ecce Homo, where fears of back sliding were pointed to.

The point is akin to levels of awareness between facts and fiction , overcoming the huge all incompassing categorical differences between natural and human criteria.

It is as the differences became fine tuned within the dame continua, a reversed calculative program of delimiting partially, the differences among sets and subsets.

General and partially differenciated sets can be prone to various comnections, and today the search of connecting the biggest with the smallest has become a trait of the post modern man.

Call him UberMan.

I think this part of the general consideration of ‘compensation’ has been downplayed by Darwin, and the rise of behaviorism downplaying the more cognitive aspects form a naturalistic fallacy that expands focus into the larger universal categories.

The decline of the West has certainly the larger categorical nuances of the Hobbsian social contract then Rousseau’s, but the cost of loosing the aspired to model is expensive .

there is no other animal in nature with better fine motor skills
it’s speculated that dolphins have more brain density than humans
however without hands, without the ability to manipulate things
with the physical bodies that they have
it would have been impossible to develop much in the way of technique
human ability with our hands
paired with our brains
(particularly our capacity for language and mimicking)
is what accounts for our domain over the world and over other creatures

yeah in sum that dude’s analysis was shallow af

I think in reality it has to just be the right combination at the right time - same as everything else.

The only thing wrong with natural selection is that the phenomenon is over used to explain things.

There is no doubt that successive generations will be better suited for their environment because only the best fit to that environment are capable of making viable progeny.
There is simply no escape from this fact.

But this indelible fact cannot be mobilized to explain every single trait or behaviour since most trait and behaviours, especially in the “higher” and more complex species do not always have any special bearing on the production of progeny or basic survival.

Except that now it is turning toward State sponsored progeny (based on State utility) and away from individual choices. The human-ant farm - genetically incapable of individual thought.

Yes, because the early paradigmn of anthropological effects of genetic superiority, are replaced by political varience later on. as control becomes a qualitative advantage for defining fitness, irrespective of the numbers which are oblivious to supressive control.

In this view. the numbers of successive progeny do not fairly represent the level of corresponding fitness.

When “fitness to the environment” is an issue of fitting into the collective, individuals become disposable and progeny is controlled by calculation of utility limited by numbers and hierarchical desires - totally artificial and incapable of independent survival.

Is that “Darwinistic scheme”? If so then everything is.

yeah but get real
natural selection is about biology
our physical bodies have the same abilities
as did our ancestors for 200000 years
we only just invented agriculture 10000 years ago
it’s not like we’ve gone retarded because we shop at the grocery
shit takes time

“We” didn’t have a CCP and genetic engineering 200,000 years ago.

do you have a point?

Not sure what you think you are trying to say here.
Presumably you are talking about Social Darwinism?
Natural Selection reuqires only references to successful progeny. By whatever means the next generation has only to live. Social success or being “sponsored” by the state has no relevance to Darwin.
Your last sentence is meaningless.
All humans are genetically capable of individual thought. In fact all more than any other animal on the planet.

Nearly all mammals, and certainly ALL homonids and simians have relied on the collective.
You seem to be struggling with something.

This is particularly funny since you live in the first time in history where society has meant a lower reliance on the collective that at any other time.
Maybe you are just pissed off that your dream of freedom is greater than your own personal ability to live that dream.
I say the fault seems to lie with you here and not the model, not society.