Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

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:

Troll !

I’ve studied Darwin.
You really do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

As you have proven here with your unqualified remarks, you have no idea at all about Darwin and Darwinism. If you have read the name “Darwin”, it does not mean that you have “studied Darwin”.

“Sculptor” is a troll.

And trolling includes lying. What Sculptor says has nothing to do with Darwin, but everything to do with him. He wants attention, and that makes him a troll. Being a stupid troll forces him to lie.

You are right in what you say, Kathrina.

Wikipedia, which you quoted, has also put here even something correct on the Internet.

The later steals from the earlier, the better, the teacher, the master.

Freud stole from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (as Newton from Leibniz, Marx from Hegel and Einstein from Hilbert), and Schopenhauer already anticipated Darwinism. He was the “better Darwin”.
But Schopenhauer drew pessimistic conclusions from his philosophy, left the occidental “church of reason” and became the first European Buddhist.

The line led from Schopenhauer, who preceded Darwin, over Nietzsche to Freud; so Nietzsche and thus also Freud were influenced by Darwin. Nietzsche and thus also Freud were already forced by the zeitgeist (Hegel) into the optimistic direction.

Schopenhauer was right when he stated that consciousness is bodily affective determined. Yet the opposite is also true. Consciousness determines the body affectively.

Darwin, in turn, started from Malthus, and Malthus was an economist. But what you call “Freudian economics” actually goes back to Schopenhauer. From Schopenhauer’s “will” Freud made “drive” to cover what he had stolen. It is not much different with the “economy” behind it.

Although Malthus was part of Darwin’s reference I do not think it makes sense to imply that Natural Selection NS started from Malthus.
Darwin’s thinking is part of a long tradition of evolutionary thinking that can name sources as diverse as Aristotle, Lamarck, the French philosphes of the enlightnement, and even his own relative Erasmus Darwin. His materialist basis relies from Lyell’s Principles of Geology, and the proposal of uniformitarianism.
Clues to Darwin being most highly influnced by Lamarck is evident, as it is clear that Darwin accepted his theory of acquired inheritance and included in in the 1859 edition of Origin of Species as part of the explanation along with NS (with Wallace) for evolution.
I can’t remember when Darwin removed references to Lamarckian evolution, but he spent many hours with his cousin Francis Galton, mutilating generations of rabbits to see if they could induce changes through this process. They failed.
He even had a tentative “gene” theory in which gemules were supposedly released inside the body to enact the appropriate changes in the germ cells for the next generation.
Malthus provided an idea that populations crash when they are too big. Which forms a tiny, but necessary, part of the theory of NS which was mainly based on observations of domestic breeders of farm animals and pets.

Darwin was NOT a scholar of any philosophy, nor did he have any interest in Shop or any other outside the direct interests of geological sciences.

Darwin himself admitted that he was influenced by Malthus.

That Lamarck was in the game, is not contradictory to that at all. But Lamarck’s theory is fundamentally different from the one Darwin arrived at via Malthus. As I said: Darwin admitted this.

Darwin was also a theologian (Kathrina has already said that). I don’t know any theologian who was not also influenced by philosophers. Moreover, Malthus was an economist and demographer, but not a philosopher.

You still have a lot to learn.

I did not argue he did not. But the thrust of Malthus’ work is of a completely different complexion. It no more than one small part of a puzzle that had people vexed for millenia, but a puzzle that Malthis was not even addressing; evolution.

No. Darwin’s theory INCLUDED Lamarck. I can quote you chapter and verse if you like. What Darwin and Wallace did was to ADD Selection by Natural Selection.
Darwin was eventually to completely eject Lamarckism, but not for decades afterwards.

Try not to be a patronising twat. I know more on this subject than you do.

No one was allowed in to University unless you took holy orders. This did not make Darwin a “theologian” in ANY sense. On the contrary Darwin was always a skeptic and eventually embraced atheism as he made clear in his autobiography.
Darwin had ZERO interest in philosophy except as I have outlined.
I challenge you to find ONE quote from Darwin where he so much as mentions any philopher other than Aristotle who he mentions in the 1872 edition. It does not appear in early folios but I cannot say exactly when it first appeared, since my personal copies are the 1872, and the 1859 editions.
Aristotle, in his ‘Physicæ Auscultationes’ (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. 2) is quoted, in particular.

Darwin spoke no German. But as a fellow atheist he may could have shown interest in Schopenhauer, but I have found no reference to him in Darwin’s work. Though it is clear that others have references Darwin and Schopenhauer together; Darwin had no need of Schopenhauer. e.g. Norré (Ludiwg) Der Monistische Gedanke (Schopenhauer & Evolution).
Many have referenced Darwin, but Darwin mostly referenced NATURE, because he was a tireless seeker of knowledge.