Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

But they are not so distinct. And though science method involved independent observation when it comes to theories, it is all abstract - of the “devine” - of “theos” - “theo-ry”. The “gods” were merely the theoretical rules/laws that govern different aspects of nature and the universe. “Theology” being the study of those rules - long before the discipline of independent observation became the method of study for knowing - “science”.

Truth and what is publishable are two different religions.

One theory challenged the reigning authority - “masks don’t help” vs “masks are essential” vs “it’s our business not yours” vs “obey or else”.

My “agenda”? - would be?

And what have I not been truthful about? :confused:

[quote=“Great Again”]

That is rich coming from you.

That pretty much says it all.
You do not have the knowledge on the subject.

The the thing about “evidence” is that it can be shown. Please do so.
I suppose you also have evidence that the world is flat too?

If trolls are people that have educated themselves on topic that they are willing to share, then I am a troll.
But what seems to be going on is that I am showing peals to swine.

I did not say it was a barrier.
Maybe you would like to show which of these translations were available to Darwin before 1859, if you think Darwin was influnced by Shop.
… Oh wait. I’ll not hold my breath

Please cite!!

what a stupid thing to say, since all translations that have been written are still available. Whereas back in the day, there were fewer.

You continue to make my laugh.

Please cite!

Trying to cover your stupidity and ignorance.
You could try evidence.

You have nothing with which to feed me. All you have is bullshit, and blather. You might know something about shop, though I have seen very little evidence of that. But you know fuck all about Darwin.


Only to Katrina and Great Again. They do not understand the importance of evidence and knowledge.

Darwin had no interest in using god as an explanation. By the time he lost his favourite daughter, he had rejected god and refused to enter a church with his wife.

I said that Darwin was a theologian. It is true that he was a theologian. Newton was also a theologian. There were and are many theologians. I did not say that Darwin disregarded any method. I did not say that in a word.

This is what Kathrina said and what I supported:

The troll has no evidence, because he has no knowledge about Darwin and Darwinism.

Now can we get back to the real question of this thread instead of always dealing with trolls?

Thank you.

You got it. Also, you understood to point out what Arminius was about with his question as the title of this thread.

not just independent observation
also reproducibility
use of an adequate sample
accounting for a margin of error
discussing alternative hypotheses
and peer review

none of which are possible in the study of religion

where in theology you use the word “abstract”
as in something that cannot be rooted in a physical event
in science the process of abstraction
is to develop a model or idea that must not be dependent on any particular event
because it will always occur

i see you muddying the waters there kiddo
with etymology and word games
words are only useful to us
when they are used responsibly

the simple fact that a similar vocabulary
or words of similar origin
are used in both field
does not equate them

yes we know that historically
the scholars were the clergy
our academical culture was born from them
but we have come a long way since

i did not say a single word about “Truth”, sir
as far as I can tell this short exchange has been about
comparing theology with science
so you’re going on a tangent here
if you want to start a new thread i’ll follow

it seems that you may have lost the trailhead of the conversation
you said that consciousness [of a deity] ]is not required in theology
i said that under this context, that is the case
now this thing you just posted
is one of the wildest non sequiturs of my recent ILP history
do you typically get away with discussing like this, here?
not with me, kiddo
i am not going to address this
if you want to talk about masks, go to a covid thread

this science is indistinguishable from religion thing
that you’re trying to get off the ground
and dude
there is a case to be made about that
for sure
i may even throw a couple pennies at that
but there is no need to be dishonest about it

you have not flat out told a lie
but you are employing dishonest tactics

  • attempting to put theology on a equal footing with the scientific method simply because both use the root word “theos”
  • adding a third variable to a two-way comparison
  • throwing in a random contentious theme

i hope you realize that i am not picking a fight with you
i’m compelling you to tighten up your case
you must start by not lying to yourself
just to win an argument
don’t say things that you know are not true
you’re better than that

but you did say
that there is not much left of darwinism than a theology
that is precisely what I took issue with
there is a staggering amount of evidence
to the fact that darwinism is much more than a theology
such as the entire field of genetics

But theology does not violate the scientific methods. Not at all. That was the point. Why should theology violate scientific methods? I said that it does not, and it does not.

Besides, the word “logic” is in the compound word "theology. And the word “logic” is also in the compound word "biology.

If one wants to accuse a scientific discipline of a violation of scientific methods, then it is quite simple, but then one should also be so honest and say that one accuses all scientific disciplines. Because all scientific disciplines have been corrupt for a long time. If one wants to see it neutrally, then one must say that each science discipline is not allowed to violate the scientific methods.

it does
because it is dependent on belief, or faith
which is by definition the certainty of things that cannot be proven
the scientific method is based on observation
and it requires proof

besides, there are thousands of different gods and religions
and they are often mutually exclusive

this is not how language works
both words have a root in “logos”
which is also the same word used for thought, or study
it is just a label for a field of study about faith/gods
as biology is a label for the study of life

it does not make life logical to have logos in the label


as i stated above
i don’t consider theology to be a scientific discipline
and that there is corruption in the scientific community
is as far as I understand a plausible claim
however that does not invalidate any of the accomplishments of science
the fact that I am talking to you now through a computer
is evidence to the resounding success of this method
make your criticism
but be honest about it


You refer to your own (subjective) opinion. That is your right. But you have criticized me for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with any personal opinion, because all I have said is that theology - understood as theology (not as the corrupt system it has become) - does not violate scientific methods.

That can’t be so difficult to understand.

Language? Oh yes, science and philosophy as well as art are nothing without language! Just because it seems today that everything has nothing to do with language does not mean that it really has nothing to do with language.

[tab]Are you Sculptor?

I’m just asking.[/tab]

no right back at ya gurl

this is not subjective
it does violate scientific methods
for the reasons i stated in my previous post
you can make a case for that not being true
but you cannot claim that that’s just my opinion
it ain’t

my point exactly
is that language is a tool and a weapon
and it has to be used with precision
i cannot call a dog a duck
and make it so
“logos” is not the same thing as logic
and labeling something as logos
does not make it logical

and that is strike one bitch
address my argument
only my argument
or you can go fuck yourself

You can’t threaten me!

You have not spoken on the subject even once, you’ve always just said your very subjective opinion. Then I asked you something and you immediately became abusive.

Go read my posts again

ROTFLMFHO :laughing: :laughing:

Gracility (e.g. of human hands, their fine motor skills) has no use at all for an individual / species without a large brain / high intelligence.

Give a monkey gracile hands, and the monkey will die out with its low intelligence. Give a monkey high intelligence, and the monkey will survive with its ungracile hands because it can use intelligence in many other ways.

Intelligence can be an advantage also without gracile hands, but gracile hands can always be an advantage only together with high intelligence. Gracile hands without intelligence are like beautiful shoes without a single foot in this world.

So (as I have said several times): Not the gracility, but the intelligence is decisive in humans. The gracile hands of the humans are only a concomitant phenomenon of their intelligence, even if a beautiful one, just like the naked skin also, which is only luxury and has only disadvantages in the nature.

of course fine motor skills are nothing
and not even possible
without a very large and very dense brain
raccoons are very good with their hands

but again as i pointed out before
some cetaceans have larger and denser brains
than any primate
and more cortical surface area
however their bullet like bodies
and absence of any fingers or prehensibility to their limbs
make it impossible for them to manipulate the world
in any significant way

and if you have ever seen the diagram sensory/cortical humunculus
it becomes clear that most of the human brain’s
processing power
is dedicated to the use of the hands
as well as the production of linguistic signal
and sensory processing

of course intelligence is a distinguishable factor of our species
but it is not the only one
it is a combination of things
in which the capacity for fine motor skill and for language
play major roles

Yes. As you know, many developments came together in one development, so to say.

When it comes to nailing down Darwin’s Principle - I have a question -

It is clear that Darwin referred to environmental adaptations being essential survival skills that led to biological long term developments - those who did not adapt well to the environment failed to reproduce sufficiently and got replaced by those who did.

Normally dealing with a harsh environment is focused on as the propellant toward biological development. But the environment doesn’t only provide negative effects on survival. There is another category concerning environment that I am not certain that Darwin included - maybe didn’t even consider.

What if a species encounters something that alters it’s intelligence, for example, that it merely had never encountered before. Ignoring the aliens from space type of intervention theories for as long as possible, I have to think that there have been new biological ingredients forming and passing away throughout Earth’s history. These would include chemicals and drugs as well as viruses or germs of a variety of flavors. Isn’t it reasonable to think that perhaps an ape, for example, just accidentally while roaming into new territories bit into a fruit that contained something biologically active that enhanced his intelligence enough to do two things -

  • encouraged more of such experience
  • enhanced his ability to mate

It has been proposed that mitochondria is just such agent of change - strongly and permanently affecting an ape’s energy level and alertness (intelligence). The mitochondria gets passed on to offspring. And there could be others that perhaps no longer exist after causing a developmental change stage.

Does Darwin’s Principle account for such positive additives?