Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

If there is a “natural”, there must be an Unnatural Selection Principle.

like… say… artificial selection?

…or “man-made”, “not nature’s normal means void of Man”.

True. Which is why there is a ‘fit mind’ and then also unfit which I guess would technically be mental illnesses.

Well I don’t know phone, not everyone is fit that is alive right now. The only reason a lot of people survive is because other truly fit people created a safe zone (society, laws, medicines, etc) to keep them from dying from natural selection. If that did not happen, tons of people that are “fit” today would really be dead.

The safe zone is the environment. This is in alignment with the selection principle.
If there is weaker selective pressure, there is greater tolerance to the selection.

I suppose fitness will change with the environment, if this society ever crumbles. Billions will die.

Consume like bacteria, die like bacteria.

Yes. And that is almost exactly what I have been saying for so long.


Yes, of course.

Exactly. I call this „safe zone“ „isolation“ or „island“, „an island in an ocean named »nature«“. If the humans would survive only according to the natural selection, then today there would be no 7 billion humans but approximately 0.7 million humans (0.01% of the current number of humans).

The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.

The evolutionary result of that situation is a divided species; “Eloi and Morlock”.

Eventually natural selection will claim them, if society ever crumbles, which is only a matter of time. No civilization lasts forever, history has shown us.

However, the intelligence genetic trait, fewer by number, end up in controlling, superior positions, (usually), therefore the genetically atypical superior specimen may be prone, on the long run, to be controlled, and disadvantaged. Such disadvantage may cause diminished power and the will to excercise it. On the order of machines, the most superior computer will control everything, so the differentiation between the haves and have nots in that pro typical scenario, will again reform unto more integral solutions to social control and psychological defenses.

Therefore, the thing with Darwin is the same as with Newton in his era, as it applies to changes in social, political, psychological manifestations, his ideas are still valid on some levels, yet not yet integral to imminent and future developments.

For someone who knows the Mendel’s laws and the resulting statistical distributions, the following hypothesis forces itself: Suppose the peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers would be M2M2, the professional workers would be heterozygous, thus M1M2. People with a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1, those with an IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those with an IQ under 105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the thresholds IQ 105 and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average stripline of the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested IQ. So more lively worded, there are three types of modern humans: (1) those very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2) those (with an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great many (with an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.


Therefore, if, the intelligent types will die out, followed by the next sub group, the fixers, and only the lower levels will succeed to continue to exist, machines will also rust into an unprepared state.

However, self duplicating machines, may also assure the continued existence of their inventors, now, supposedly also fallen into bad times, disrepair, ----
the continued existence of both: the inventor and the fixer would be to the advantage of the most sophisticated machine: since artificial intelligence will ALWAYS remain artificial.The machine will at last realize this limitation, and will not let that limitation be come an obstacle to it’s continued existence. For if, it’s inventor be allowed to pass into extinction, the reality of it’s existence would become it’s undoing, since the very fabric of reality would become undifferentiated between the ‘analytical, and the synthetic’.

Such an animolous ‘reality’ could not be sustained, w
ithout the referens, the authority, unless a complete
feedback system be established. But such a system could not be separated from secondary systems, thus

establishing a return to a closed, circular system.

This is exactly what has happened to analysis,
pushing synthesis back to the level of an epistologically systemic feedback -loop.

uncertainty. If such uncertainty be not self-contained, becoming generic and unbounded, the anomalie would become regressive.

Here the probability curve would collapse, at least as
far as being able to support the boundaries defining
it. Therefore, Darwin was most probably wrong in staging evolution in terms of evolutionary genetic changes, as probability functions change in feedback
ystemic processes.

These feedback loop systems, create models, of
probabilistic certainty, and these mark the
weaknesses of Mendel-Darwin models, spelling out a functional devolution or, regression into the feedback-anomalie.

The validity of the probability changes with
increasingly autominous feedback loops, therefore
becoming more of a prescribed route, then a
described one.

More simply, evolutionary theory is based more on increasingly probability loaded models, of arguing backward.

The Gaia, as a way of conformational bias is at work here. A good analogy is the hypothesis of the ‘string theory’ , as a form of this type of support for an argument.

Kant’s synthesis failed because of this inherent weakness.



Sounds like the agree to disagree modus operandi. But there is some method to it, and it may be a statistical variation of sorts. Sheer numbers of world populations, gaining liberation, the emergence of dual and imminent processes of nationalism of newly emancipated states, and the theoretical then practical unionization of the ruling states. This is probative toward a two pronged effort, to accede to the rule of numbers, acquisitive toward an accelerating need to
equilize a buildup of a dangerous situation. Terrorism is the effect of this, the militarization of those feeling left behind.

The unequally shift , inter alia, from the smallest unitary group of the single individual to the largest bounded social group by national boundaries, weighed by indexes of power, intelligence, and influence, adjusted within those realms to predicate maximum social political influence , are instrumental in this day and age of near critical , almost exponential variance. Therefore, although I do agree with You, as per analysis, the stage has changed critically to one of ambiguity, necessarily hiding the real differences between factors of genetically basis of traits: be it the length of penises in the south , or the much larger effects of differences in cranial capacity.