That is not the reason. 
what a fine contribution
you wanna say something to me
just say it bitch
The only thing I think about you is that you have not been understanding my questions. So I leave it alone.
And perhaps now - that you might consider being a little less suspicious and paranoid.
Yo who is attacking science?
i understood your question to be
“Is natural selection all that there is?”
my answer was
“not necessarily, but it is all that is required”
if you want to elaborate
or feel that that answer is insufficient
be my guest
and i am not suspicious
i am short fused
there’s a difference
the difference is that
i don’t want to have to fucking dance around
an open ended fucking sentence
or milk information out of you
either you say “that’s not why”
immediately followed by the why
or you don’t fucking say anything at all
respect my time
So what exactly is “Darwinistic selection principle”?
Mostly an excuse for global manipulation of populations - 
But in loose terms it seems to just be -
But I see that as insufficient to adequately define social evolution.
“Mostly an excuse for global manipulation of populations”
See you just did that. Darwin didnt do that… just like marx didnt do what happened when some who claimed to be marxists created a disaster instead of a revolution.
Both creationists and evolutionists have used their doctrines to enforce hierarchies, claiming them to be natural and unchangeable. For the former, class structure rightfully mirrored cosmic order - the polis represented the law of god on erf, and each took their station by god’s order. The church was the first institution to use creationism as a weapon in class warfare. Long story and very marxist so you wouldnt like it.
For the latter, Darwin was the license for, and translates to, nationalism, fascism, imperialism, and all political forms that take these hierarchies for granted. There is no god, and man must take his place.
The latter camp is right, but they’ve by and large abused the power and responsibility that comes with playing god.
Alls I’m saying is, how committed to science can you be if you take any attack on Darwin as an attack on science?
To make an argument that philosophy has no competition with, but a claim on science, is not an argument against science. And in fact, who can it benefit to deny the philosophical component of science, or in general to attempt to discredit philosophy? See the love of wisdom, as a pursuit, precludes the love of, say, the king. In today’s world, the king’s equivalent. Now, a strong technocratic body of engineers, that a king can stand. Meanwhile science stagnates, because without the love of wisdom as the pursuit it is a part of, no advances can be made. This also would not bother a king much, they would as much rule a mass of goat farmers as the world of The Jetsons. Whatever advances were already made suits them fine, and also, only in so far as they can be twisted to suit whatever royal agenda he has. Which, unfailingly, is tighter control of his royal dominions. Knowledge will never be the goal, much less wisdom.
Philosophy is also the only field from which the charge of “boot-licker” can come. As many have proven on this very website, coming from any other camp it only means “we want different boots to lick.” I mean, as soon as the “right camp” came to power, all these rebels suddenly became very pro-authority.
So, to any with any interest in actual knowledge, actual wisdom, read my post from the last page again and confront these charges against Darwin.
Being whelmed is a necessary part of life and experience, and sometimes being underwhelmed is better than being overwhelmed.
Dumb question.
Darwin’s principle is unavoidably scientific. It’s as sure and apples fall from trees.
You have to be pretty stupid to pretent the earth is flat, or that apples fall upwards.
You have not laid any charges against Darwin, since you simply enough do not understand the principle of natural selection.
You can make up your little straw men as much as you like and have fun setting light to them. But that is not the same as laying charges.
On a lighter note.
I see you include George C. Scott’s little fantasy about Patton, in which he claims to have read Rommel’s book. I suggest you read some of Darwin’s work before you claim to know better.
Well actually it’s Francis Ford Coppola’s little fantasy. George C. Scott just directed it.
I see we have a Silhouette on our hands. What is the first and last name of your lady friend who died from the covid herr young man?
I would say that’s a pretty bad explanation.
The fantasy of Patton was generally the creation of Scott’s anbsurd invention. Writers are wirth shit in the film business.
It was Franklin J. Schaffner hw directed it.
Directors and stars (when has all powerful as Scott anyway) are the guys with the creative power.
Coppola is only 1 of 4 writing credits.
As for naming names. This is about Darwin and not about COVID.
But I suppose for you, its one way to avoid addressing any issues of substance.
But you are not talking about Darwin or referencing anything he said. You are off topic at best. Dozens of 20thC ideologies any well haeve employed some of the ideas, from Hitler to Stalin and Milton Friedman, none of that can you lay on the door of Darwin.
You might as well blame the inventor of gunpowder rockets in Medival China, for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.
Darwin, strictly scientifically pointed out a relationship between heredity and change. If you don’t like it blame god FFS.
@ Obsvr
@ Magnus Anderson.
Principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to what was in the beginning. Thus, selection principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to the beginning of evolution.
So we have for instance:
[list][list]list The (decisions, interrests of [God or randomness or]) “nature” as a selector for the “natural selection”.
(2) The decisions, interrests of the sexual partner as a selector for the "sexual selection".
(3) The decisions, interrests of the kinship as a selector for the “kin selection”.
(4) The decisions, interrests of the society, their politics, their rulers/deciders over the society as the selector for the “social selection”.[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]
Life is about self-preservation (cell division, cell renewal) and reproduction, which can happen in two ways: (1) parthenogenesis (one reproduces oneself again and again) and (2) sexual reproduction. This happens in space and time. For humans, this space is not only the environment, but also and even the whole world. Darwin included however only the environment into the development of an individual and a species. And apart from the modern human being, individuals and groups of individuals are exposed to an environment as an immediate space.
Well if you know anything about Francis Ford Coppola, you know this Patton was his creation, and he wrote all the best lines.
By the way all this bitching about how writers are treated, this job gave Coppola the pathway to eventually directing The Godfather.
The real Patton:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYjnWXFTQkM[/youtube]
“Whose names I can’t pronounce, but whose places I have removed.”
Well I could call what you write insane ramblings, but I try to employ a little bit more style.
Sculpatory, that’s what I’m sayin. I’m sayin obsrvr is sayin that. I’m agreeing witchu.