Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

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: … 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: … 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: … 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.

You are arrogant, have no idea at all about what you are talking about. I have evidence that Darwin really said what I quoted. He even said it in one of his major works. You have no idea, but you always talk big.

You are a troll, as has been said many times, not only by me.

And your pseudo-argument about the language barrier is more than ridiculous.There were already translators at that time, even more than today, because today there are machines for it (but you have no idea about that!). Darwin knew also non-English texts, and that by means of translation, you fool.

It is useless to discuss with trolls.

I should not have fed this stupid troll.

Yes, and finally there is not much left of Darwinism than a theology. Considering nature as a selector - and Darwin has done that (also he has admitted that) -, means considering nature as God or God as nature. And at that time this was nothing special.There was the insanely rising natural science, there was romanticism, idealism, realism, naturalism, impressionism. Darwin was also just a typical “child of the 19th century”.

Theologians, by the way, have always been interested in philosophy. The first philosophical topics were even without exception theological. Moreover, “theology” and “theory” are related to “theo”, thus: to God. This is still the case today, but fewer and fewer admit it. Darwin was a theologian. That is a historical fact.

If theology is underestimated today, it is not my fault.

Do not forget that “Sculptor” is illiterate. He is not capable of reading properly. Of course, he has also not read that you, Great Again, did not speak at all about Darwin having stolen from Germans, but only that Newton had done it.

i have never replied to sculptor
as i noticed that every posts of his
is nothing but provocation
I hope in time people here will learn
not to dignify sculptor with a reply
he deserves nothing but your complete indifference

You are absolutely right with what you said about that stupid troll “Sculptor”.

Besides, isn’t his name an insult to you, because you really are a sculptor, as you once said?

Unfortunately, I was the first in this thread to respond to him.

Okay, I am done with this stupid troll.

The maxim is: Do not feed trolls!

it is absurd to say this
the work that Darwin published was in accordance with the scientific method

there is the critical element of difference between the two
that in nature there isn’t a driving consciousness, or a will, or a mind, whatever have you
that is clearly present in most creation myths
particularly true of the christian belief

and at that time this was a major shitfest

it most certainly is underestimated today
but that does not bring validity to any of what you said above

I don’t think being of scientific mind or method alters whether a theory is theology (virtually the same word - for a reason).

I don’t think consciousness is required in theology - it is just most common - for commoners.

It’s appearing that Great Again is the most educated concerning the history of all of this.

Answering the title question logically requires knowing the very precise definition of “Darwinistic Principle”.

but it does
given that theology and science
are distinct realms of study
in which different rules apply
it is not at all honest to equate the two words
given that they have had distinct uses
for over 100 years
a theological theory
is not comparable to a scientific theory
and would not be accepted in a scientific publication

which is why i used the word “most” instead of “all”
But in the particular context of this conversation
which is darwinism vs the prevalent religion of the time
that was the case

it certainly does not seem to be you
though i can tell you are just disingenuously pushing your agenda
and not necessarily being truthful or fair to the context of this conversation
as you are supposed to be
if that thing in your sig means anything

that would be a start