Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Yes. See my response to Obsvr.

The 19th century was a century of natural science. Everything was interpreted in terms of natural science. Philosophy was also strongly influenced by this, of course. This can be seen exactly in the history of phisosophy in the 19th century.

The turning point came with the turn to the 20th century, in dates: 1900; in terms of cultural history: World War 1 (1914-1918).

Let’s wait and see, because the 21st century will not be like the 20th century. That’s for sure!

Yes.

I have a tendency to investigate the root cause of things when accrediting their fruition or condemnation. And sometimes that gets tricky, mundane, and not really worth the effort to discern. So with that in mind, I will concede that the intelligence of the homosapian is the most noteworthy distinction that led to his dominance (and probably his demise as well).
:smiley:

Intelligence AND fine motor skill

Let us not forget the the thought that if something doesent feel right, if it does not appear sensible or just doesent cluck, it may be not worth pursuit

Until mimicking becomes a rote mascarade, always on the lookout for that self gratious model to follow, the direction of human progress will always be reactive and debolutiomary.

Just as you said, intelligence is the fitness characteristic of human beings, and therefore, according to Darwin, the most intelligent humans must be those humans who have the most offspring.

No that is not what Darwin says AT ALL.
Selection is just about viable progeny. If intelligent people decide to have no children then they shall not pass on that trait. If stupid people breed like rabbits, and the leads to viable progeny, then it is THEY that get to pass on their traits.
It is not rocket science.
During the last 120,000 years when anatomically modern humans energed from Africa it took intelligence to compete against Neanderthals, and to master the wild, build weapons and shelters and to colonise the whole world.
During those times it was only the smartest that could survive. Intelligence was selected because stupidity usually meant death and not reproductive success. These days, at least in the West, there are few pressures as there were before, and family planning is now a choice whereas before it never had been.
But what Darwin said stays- no matter what traits you have it is reproductive success ONLY that drives evolution.

Everyone here has so far agreed that it is true that Darwin was concerned with the survival of the fittest, and everyone here has also so far agreed that intelligence is a characteristic of fitness. That those will survive who have more offspring than others, that was probably known tens of thousands of years ago. But Darwin, clever as he was, also said that. :slight_smile:

So the characteristic of fitness and those with the most offspring must be related. And according to Darwin, they are related, namely causally. Their relation is the causality. Darwin was a typical 19th century scientist (thank you, Great Again, for pointing this out), always and everywhere looking after natural causes.

Natural selection does not only reuqire references to successful progeny - that would had been nothing new under the sun for Darwin -, but requires also the cause for the successful progeny! Regardless whether Darwin was right or not on this.

The way I understand it, to say that someone is fit in Darwin’s sense of the word is to say that that someone has reproduced or that he will reproduce at some point in the future. Thus, if you do not reproduce, you are unfit. Doesn’t matter how intelligent you are.

But to say that someone is fit in the usual sense of the word is to say that that someone has what it takes to perform certain task in a desirable way. So when your employer tells you that you are fit for the job, he’s telling you that he thinks that you have what it takes to do what he wants you to do. He’s talking about your potentials and not about what happened and/or what will happen.

It’s easy to confuse the two and I think it’s Darwin’s fault to an extent.

But I didn’t read Darwin, so there’s a possibility that I am wrong. Is there anyone here disputing my claim? What about you, Kathrina? Are you claiming that Darwin didn’t define the word “fitness” this way?

No. It is not Darwin’s fault!! LOL

He never used the phrase “survival of the fittest”. That was a shorthand for people who knew how to read, but the phrase originated with Herbert Spenser.
The fault lies with the people who do not take the trouble to find out for themselves.

Well, there are people who think that he did use the phrase.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

They aren’t saying that he invented the phrase but they seem to be saying that he used it.

Do you at least agree that whoever came up with that particular notion of “fitness”, as well as every single person who embraced it, did some harm by confusing it with the usual notion of “fitness”?

If you want to continue the discussion, you should consider refraining from doing what you’re doing in the above two quotes.

No. You cannot legislate for idiots.
The word usage is perfectly reasonable. And the word never meat “physicall fit” until the 20thC. You can’t expect Darwin to have predicted a change in the meaning of the world.

etymonline.com/word/fitness

Have you ever thought of reading a book?

The Origin of Species is clear and well written.
You can read it free online.
darwin-online.org.uk

From the same link that you posted:

That’s not the same as “the number of offspring the individual has”.

See below (the bold print).

Have you ever been kind to people in your life? Always only communist? Anyone who disagrees with you is against you? Always only orders and obedience like in the communism!

Written by a communist.

[b]In the Darwinistic sense, “fit” or “fitness” describes the degree of adaptation to the environment (i.e. adaptive specialization), or the ability to reproduce despite low specialization. This means that not that species survives which defies everything and displaces other species, but the one which either adapts to the environment or manages to reproduce continuously despite adverse environmental conditions.

Darwin had recoined the 18th century idea of development through national economic tendencies, which he took from his teacher Malthus and projected into the highest animal kingdom.[/b]

Facts. Period. Facts are not for communists though, which can be seen in this forum.

This argument is more substantive than merely stating the genetic retro projection
, Katherine.
It may not make ’ sense’ but it is more arguable.

The human of the future shall be the artificial human. The humans have always tried to make themself different, somehow „new“. But this time it is a serious matter. Our consciousness shall have to learn to understand itself as the consciousness of a machine, as a made and yet in its factual being uninterruptible, self-contained Dasein.

The human of the future shall be the artificial human. The humans have always tried to make themself different, somehow „new“. But this time it is a serious matter. Our consciousness shall have to learn to understand itself as the consciousness of a machine, as a made and yet in its factual being uninterruptible, self-contained Dasein.

Microcomputers (nanobots) the size of a cell are supposed to improve our brain function (probably even when we don’t want them to!) This is to explore the brain, scan synapse by synapse, transmitter by transmitter, and be able to copy a brain.

Virtual spaces are created with such microcomputers. Billions of nanobots will be sent into our brains as artificial neurons, attaching themselves to every single nerve cord coming from our sensory organs.

“When we want to experience real reality, the nanobots hold still. For the virtual reality experience, they cut off the supply of real stimuli and put artificial signals in their place.” - Ray Kurzweil.

I withdraw my suggestion that you read a book, as it is quite clear you have difficulty reading.

You level of basic comprehension is woeful.

It is quite obvious that you are just offended because you do not tolerate any other opinion than your own, and that is typical for communists. Fact.

Go away, you stupid and unfriendly communist.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_ … the_phrase .

Darwin was a theologian and demonstrably influenced by the economist Malthus. Every child knows that. But you do not know it, you “Sculptor”.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_ … the_phrase .

"By “fittest” Darwin meant “better adapted for the immediate, local environment”, not the common modern meaning of “in the best physical shape” …" JUST WHAT I SAID IN MY LAST POST (and you illiterate communist could not read it):

Source: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 9#p2804346 .

So again, Scalped, go away, you illiterate and unfriendly communist. And don’t start with your insults again, because that’s the only thing you can.

Go away, ugly man.

It is quite obvious that you are just offended because you do not tolerate any other opinion than your own, and that is typical for communists. Fact.

Go away, you stupid and unfriendly communist.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_ … the_phrase .

Darwin was a theologian and demonstrably influenced by the economist Malthus. Every child knows that. But you do not know it, you “Sculptor”.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_ … the_phrase .

"By “fittest” Darwin meant “better adapted for the immediate, local environment”, not the common modern meaning of “in the best physical shape” …" JUST WHAT I SAID IN MY LAST POST (and you illiterate communist could not read it):

Source: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 9#p2804346 .

So again, Scalped “Sculptor”, go away, you illiterate and unfriendly communist. And don’t start with your insults again, because that’s the only thing you can.

Go away, ugly man.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: