Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

If in only one single case, a hypothesis does not match the data, the hypothesis is false. Because of that, every hypothesis must include the degree of error allowed by the data gathering and analyzing technique (“significant error limit”).

The selection principle plays a role in the progression of evolution. But it is not the god of evolution, totally controlling principle. As long as the Darwinian Principle is stated as merely an influence (thus allowing for other influences and errors in its projections), rather than the only influence, it can be said to be true.

Yes. Of course. Duh!

Negligible quantity / amount. Okay, although it is a little fraud. :wink:

In order to push a concept into society, they always try to match the degree of thrust to slightly more than the degree of potential resistance (makes sense). And what that means to their little minds is that if people currently believe in X as the only influence, they must absolutely insist that Y is the only influence and forbid anyone to say otherwise.

You see that tactic in almost everything “they” do.
Nazis 100% Evil
Jews 100% good
Christians 100% evil
Jews 100% good
Muslims 100% evil
Jews 100% good
Conservatives 100% evil
Liberals 100% good
Men 100% evil
Women 100% good
Bible 100% evil
Scientism 100% good
Jesus 100% evil
Satan 100% good
God 100% evil
Darwinism 100% good
Old 100% evil
Young 100% good

No Darwin was an atheist.

Natural selection is as sound as; “bachelors are unmarried men.” You look at what happens and describe what you see. Nature “selects” x because y does not have viable progeny, and x does have viable progeny. nature cannot select what is not successful.
Evolution is the consequence of this fact.

It’s not ideological, its not religious, its not a belief. You look at the world of living things are observe. There is nothing more sinister or clever or ideological that than

Natural Selection happens bitch. That’s why they call it Natural.

You don’t get it.

Ignorance upon ignorance.
There is no such word as “Theologist”. At least it is not a proper word, but one invented by stupid people. The word you might be groping for is “THEOLOGIAN”.
Of course Darwin was neither of these things.

Vou have absoluetly no idea.

Darwin was a theolgist. If you do not believe it, go and google it and get that your false god Darwin was a theologist and a theist, exactly a pantheist, and pantheists are often confused with atheists, although pantheists are theists and there are almost no atheists. Also often confused with atheists are antitheists. But this thread is not about theologists, theists, antitheists, or atheists. So, please, search for another thread. And a new religion in modern times can be correctly called a modern religion, thus an ideology, of course with false gods, thus idols. But thsi thread is also not about religion. So, please, search for another thread.



That is I all I wanted.

There may be some or many shortcomings in his theory but it still would not be wise to say that it was totally false. Yes, one can say that it does not fit in all conditions but this does not mean its all premises do play any role whatsoever.

Using the term “false” gives that impression. It is almost a synonym to “wrong”.

With love,

Hatefulness ladled upon upon ignorance upon ignorance upon wisdom.

Lev Muishkin wrote:


I do not believe in evolution, but for the naysayers this is how it works.

You get a rare positive mutation. A rare positive mutation is like “a chosen one”, and “anakin skywalker” or an “avatar”. This avatar guy special one has a wife and kids. Those kids have kids, and eventually they have a lot of avatar grandkids. Over several generations, his genes make a sizeable portion of the population. Then, the environment changes, either a calamity happens or a new predator enters the realm. All the non-avatar kids die. This is natural selection, and macro-evolution.

However I do not believe in evolution because the fossil evidence indicates humans were alive at the same time of dinosaurs. Evolution seems to violate the law of entropy also.

Though the method I described of evolution seems possible under rare circumstances…the law of entropy indicates that backwards evolution, evolutionary decay, is more likely.

I used the word “success” instead of “fitness” just in order to rescue the Darwinistic theory, because the concept of “fIttness” is problematic. Those humans who are “fit” have less offspring than those humans who are “unfit”. You can easily observe and prove this as a fact.

By these standards the travelling train hobo who has a kid with a woman in every town he travels through is evolutionary successful…

Fitness in evolutionary context literally translates to a set of traits conducive to production of healthy offspring in a particular environment.

What you’re getting at is the fact that humans are capable of creating artificial environments which invert nature, in which the naturally unfit will reproduce by acting as parasites on those who would be considered more fit in nature itself. This is observable in socialism and similar leftist systems but they eventually collapse, either on their own or they are conquered by a system better aligned with nature. Socialism/leftism basically creates an environment which breeds weakness and slowly eats the system inside out, so such an outcome is inevitable. Evolution is slow though, so it may take a few generations to do so, depending on how extreme the socialism is, a minor degree of it might even prove useful. Remember, a few generations is a lot of time from a human perspective, but from an evolutionary one it is nothing.

The travelling hobo is likely to only have kids with not so genetically fit women, and since he is probably not very genetically fit himself and the woman will be a single mother, his offspring is likely to end up being an idiot criminal who contributes nothing to society, also very likely to end up in jail or dead.

This is also why quality matters even moreso than quantity.

Evolution does no deal with individuals or single generations. Evolutionary success would require that the hobo passes on a trait which his offspring use to multiply and their offspring use to multiply.

There is no such thing as quality in evolution. Either a life form is well adapted to an environment or it is not. The measure of adaptation is how successfully it passes on its DNA. That’s measured by quantities.

If an idiot criminal is well suited for an environment, then idiot criminals will proliferate in the long run.

You still got this notion in your head of “contributing to society”. Neither hobos, nor the goverment actually ever contributes to society. Contributions to society are a rare occurence, usually performed by the Tesla’s and rarities of the world. Criminals who work on roads technically contribute to society. I do not consider people who have shitty jobs and work at restaurants who hand out toxins, as contributing to society, except a negative contribution.

^^^I consider societal contribution a false dictomy.

FIT means appropriate to the environment. Its not the same as physically fit, physically fit physically fit, physically physically physically fit -
though this might help.

As long as you can attract a mate, and have progeny that can have progeny - that is tautologically fitness. this IS selection.

The failure is not with the theory. We’re still evolving, just means that Stephen Hawkins can make a contribution regardless, and if he also has kids then he is also selectively successful.

DOn’t think this is much of an argument.

I’m not sure “fittness” is that useful.

Yes, it does. Of course. Duh!

Only then, if he is supported by liberalism, socialism and other modern isms. … You do not want to become a travelling train hobo, do you?


Yes, although I do not think that it is only a thing of socialism but of liberalism and other modern isms as well. It is typical for modern humans.

This can only be certainly said if the environment is a natural environment - and not a human cultural environment. In a human cultural environment idiot criminals can be punished or not - thus: it depends on the human cultural (especially political) environment whether criminal idiots proliferate or not. This idiot criminals can be punished by death and do not proliferate but die out, and the same idiot criminals can be revered as heroes and do not die out but proliferate.

You can easily observe this.

I don’t think that putting declared/judged criminals to death affects the future population much at all. Most have already had whatever children they were going to have.