Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Is the Darwinistic selection principle false?

Yes.
6
24%
Probably.
4
16%
Perhaps.
0
No votes
No.
14
56%
I do not know.
1
4%
 
Total votes : 25

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Lev Muishkin » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:00 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Natural selection stops working when it stops being natural.

Exactly.

=D>


At which time it is NOT natural selection. You prick!
:D

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:35 am

When it stops being natural. :D

And stop trolling. You obviously do not remember what Only Humean said to you:

Only_Humean wrote:If you don't have anything to contribute to a discussion besides snide personal attacks, you'll find yourself warned and banned fairly quickly on the Philosophy board.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:53 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote: Individuals unfit to reproduce fail to pass in their genes.

That is only true if you define "unfit" as "did not reproduce", which makes the whole thing tautological and pointless.

Lev Muishkin wrote:You are only speaking from ignorance. Darwin, though writing 150 years ago was well ahead you you nay sayers. Every thing you've brought to the table he'd already thought through.

Bull
Shit


Please indicate any point made in this thread that Darwin did not cover in hsi vast series of writings that related the the thread, and I will try to quote him for you.


I just gave you one. Wake-up:
"That is only true if you define "unfit" as "did not reproduce", which makes the whole thing tautological and pointless."

the word "unfit" is used. But does that word really mean what is presumed?

If I do not like you because you are British and thus infect your children with a slowly fatal disease, does that make them "unfit"? Indirectly you are not reproducing either. So does that make you unfit?

Two men were fighting over a woman at the base of a mountain. It was clear that one was stronger and faster, clearly to be the victor. Unexpectedly, a large rock fell upon the stronger one and killed him. The other man had 7 children, two of which came to be known as Romulus and Remus.

Does that story (or the prior) tell of one man being more unfit than the other? How does that kind of scenario, very common even today in sports contests and real-world domination games, play into "Darwin's Principle"?

On any one day, any species might survive the day. The very next day, that same species might not survive that day. Even if they were exactly equally talented, every species is NOT given equal chances in life because the situation each day is unique to that day. Survival depends largely upon which day the species or individual happened to be on that particular island.

Darwin left out the most significant "force" of all - the immediate situation (also known as "God").

The Darwin principle plays into what is happening. It does NOT dictate nor perfectly describe what is happening.

So go educate yourself.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby statiktech » Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:08 pm

Does that story (or the prior) tell of one man being more unfit than the other?


Yeah, the dead guy wasn't able to make a genetic contribution to the next generation's gene pool.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:37 pm

Again:

Darwin's selection principle is partly false. Therefore the "natural selection" was "extended" by the "sexual selection", because the "natural selection" had partly failed; then the "sexual selection" was "extended" by the "kin selection", because the "seuxal selection" had partly failed; then the "kin selection" was "extended" by the "social selection", because the "kin selection" had partly failed; ... and so on, one day the "social selection" will be "extended" by the "godly selection" (again), because the "social selection" will have partly failed.

Who selects according to the Darwinistic selection principle?
Who is the breeder according to the Darwinistic selection principle?

1) According to the "natural selection" the breeder is the nature.
2) According to the "sexual selection" the breeder are the females.
3) According to the "kin selection" the breeder are the relatives.
4) According to the "social selection" the breeder is the social state.

These just keep getting funnier.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby statiktech » Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:07 pm

None of them failed. They are just different types of selection. You've yet to say how any of them have failed. You just site another type of selection as proof that another failed, which is false. They are just different mechanisms of selection.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 19, 2015 5:47 pm

statiktech wrote:
Does that story (or the prior) tell of one man being more unfit than the other?


Yeah, the dead guy wasn't able to make a genetic contribution to the next generation's gene pool.

And see .. that is just defining your own conclusion into validity - "unfit means 'unfit for the situation at that moment in time' such that reproduction did not happen".

It says nothing at all about the fitness of the individual, but merely of the situation on that day.

It is just a word game when you do it that way, because "unfit" doesn't normally mean that at all.

Thus anyone could equally say (actually more properly say and they have) that God chose who reproduces and who doesn't. Equally, they are defined to be correct because God is whatever it is that allows or forbids everything that happens. But in that case, one would say that the individual was unfit for God.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:53 pm

James S Saint wrote:Thus anyone could equally say (actually more properly say and they have) that God chose who reproduces and who doesn't. Equally, they are defined to be correct because God is whatever it is that allows or forbids everything that happens. But in that case, one would say that the individual was unfit for God.

That's absolutely right.

And even if the "different types of selection" are "different mechanisms of selection": they contradict each other, especially the "natural selection" and the "social selection". A social states can and does decide against the nature, the so-called "natural selection", and also against the "sexual selection" and "kin selection", ... and so on.

In almost all cases the "social selection" and the "natural selection" are diametrically opposed.

The "social selction" just allows the "social state" as the breeder to select whomever it wants to be selected - so: these people will die, those people will live just because of the decision of the "social state".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby statiktech » Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:03 pm

Darwinian "fitness" has a specific meaning that differs from the colloquial usage. A modicum of research on your part could have given you that information.

dictionary.com wrote:the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.


I said originally that Arminius is equivocating when he talks about fitness. You're either doing the same or you're just plain confused.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:05 pm

statiktech wrote:Darwinian "fitness" has a specific meaning that differs from the colloquial usage.

Typical Darwinistic excuse!

I know very well what "fitness" means. Stop equivocating!

But Darwin knew nothing about genetics.

Do you not know that there are the "sexual selection", the "kin selection", and especially the "social selection" as well? At the latest when we are talking about "social selection": the term "fitness" has already changed - often in its opposed meaning. So I did not change the term, but the Darwinists themselves did it. So the Darwinists themselves equivocate.

statiktech wrote:I said originally that Arminius is equivocating when he talks about fitness. You're either doing the same or you're just plain confused.

You are equivocating.

According to Darwin the fittest have more offspring and live on, while the unfittest have less and at last no offspring and die out. According to the "social selection" - thus to the "social state" - a decision of just the opposite is possible and happens in reality every day: the unfittest live on, while the fittest die out. If Darwin's selection principle were not false, the "social selection" could and would not be possible.

You Darwinists have no single argument but merely excuses and personal attacks.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:26 pm

It is hard for modern believers when they notice their idols are as dead as their ideologies.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:42 pm

Another Darwinistic fairy tale: When Darwin wrote his books every single word he used had a "specific meaning" and differed "from the colloquial usage". Today there is nobody - except the Darwinists of course - who is capable of understanding a single word Darwin used in his books.
Last edited by Arminius on Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby statiktech » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:49 pm

Oh boy.

A dictionary may help your current conundrum.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:29 pm

Oh, girl.

A dictionary would help you.

Have you never heard of Anti-Darwinism or any Darwinistic criticism?

News (examples):
- Individuals are not "blind" or absolutely dependent when it comes to the framework conditions of nature.
- The so-called "social selection" contradicts the so-called "natural selection" in many aspects.
- The immunity to any criticism indicates that Darwinism is a modern religious system.
- David Stove''s book "Darwinian Fairytales".
- Darwinism as an "Universal Darwinism".
- Darwinism as an "Ultra Darwinism".
- Darwinism explains NOTHING.

You push me in the role of an Anti-Darwinist, although I am not an Anti-Darwinist - but also not an Darwinist.

Darwinism is a system that makes humans dependent like pets. It is no accident that Darwinism and Marxism, Nietzscheanism, Freudianism have they have roughly the same age and are so much similar when it comes to speak about humans as absolutely dependent pets. Those isms have to do with compulsion systems, with dogmatism, with religion, but not with science.

Humans are not absolutely free, but they are relatively free. They do not depend on their environment like other living beings. Humans have the possibility to trick the nature. They are luxury beings. Their culture is a huge "island" in the "ocean" as nature. If they were not relatively free, then they could and would not be capable of destroying their environment, the whole globe, and meanwhile also the outer space, could and would not be capable of bringing every living being in an absoluetly foreign environment, could and would not be capable of having a technolgy that makes them more than demigods.

Humans do not absolutely depend on economic or fatalistic or unconscious restraints. They are relatively free. Humans are not pets, although they educate themselves as if they were pets.
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 20, 2015 6:17 am

Google wrote:fit·ness
ˈfitnəs/
noun
noun: fitness

1) the condition of being physically fit and healthy.
"disease and lack of fitness are closely related"
    synonyms: good health, strength, robustness, vigor, athleticism, toughness, physical fitness, muscularity; More
    good condition, good shape, well-being
"marathon running requires tremendous fitness"
2) the quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task.
"he had a year in which to establish his fitness for the office"
    synonyms: suitability, capability, competence, ability, aptitude; More
    readiness, preparedness, eligibility
"his fitness for active service"
Biology
an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment.
plural noun: fitnesses
"if sharp teeth increase fitness, then genes causing teeth to be sharp will increase in frequency"

So assuming all environmental concerns are removed such that only biology is dictating the results of evolution rather than all of the other factors, the word "fitness" is restricted to only the biological reproduction ability.

In other words, the Darwinian principle only applies after the other situational factors are disregarded (I think that I said that in the beginning).

1) According to the "natural selection" the breeder is the nature.
2) According to the "sexual selection" the breeder are the females.
3) According to the "kin selection" the breeder are the relatives.
4) According to the "social selection" the breeder is the social state.

And that is only a partial list.

The easier and more certain statement is:
If anything cannot reproduce due to either psychological, physiological, or physical conditions then it will not reproduce.

I don't recall Darwin saying anything close to that, yet Christianity and Judaism knew that thousands of years ago.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby statiktech » Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:22 pm

If anything cannot reproduce, it won't reproduce. Wow, that's a mind bender. I'm sure Darwin never considered that.

The elegance of the theory of natural selection lies in it's simplicity. It's very easy to understand. You guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
Last edited by statiktech on Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby statiktech » Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:37 pm

Arminius wrote:Oh, girl.

A dictionary would help you.

Have you never heard of Anti-Darwinism or any Darwinistic criticism?

News (examples):
- Individuals are not "blind" or absolutely dependent when it comes to the framework conditions of nature.
- The so-called "social selection" contradicts the so-called "natural selection" in many aspects.
- The immunity to any criticism indicates that Darwinism is a modern religious system.
- David Stove''s book "Darwinian Fairytales".
- Darwinism as an "Universal Darwinism".
- Darwinism as an "Ultra Darwinism".
- Darwinism explains NOTHING.

You push me in the role of an Anti-Darwinist, although I am not an Anti-Darwinist - but also not an Darwinist.

Darwinism is a system that makes humans dependent like pets. It is no accident that Darwinism and Marxism, Nietzscheanism, Freudianism are so much similar when it comes to speak about humans as absolutely dependent pets. That has to do with dogmatism, with religion, but not with science.


You're rubber, I'm glue, huh? I see I'm dealing with a very sophisticated conversationalist.

You don't even know what you're talking about when you refer to social selection. Look it up. It's basically sexual selection, but was originally intended to be an alternative to it. What you call "social selection" is basically eugenics, which is not what social selection seeks to explain. I wouldn't call you an anti-Darwinist because you'd first have to understand his ideas before being opposed to them. You're more like a pseudo-skeptic and a bit of a blow-hard. Darwinism has faced tons of good criticism, which is why the theory has been improved upon since Darwin.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:50 pm

statiktech wrote:If anything cannot reproduce, it won't reproduce. Wow, that's a mind bender. I'm sure Darwin never considered that.

That would seem to be all that Darwin said: "It ain't here because it stopped reproducing. And I am going to call that unfit."

statiktech wrote:The elegance of the theory of natural selection lies in it's simplicity. It's very easy to understand. You guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Don't confuse elegance with simple mindedness. If anything it was fumbling and now words have to be redefined to make it true. It is a typically ill conceived and poorly worded religion.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:19 pm

@ Statiktech.

You need a dictionary!

You have not the tiniest conception of "selection", let alone "social selection". "Social selection" is not "sexual selection". You have no conception of the "selection principle". So why do you not look for another thread? Currently there are 41032 ILP threads. Good luck!
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:31 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:1) According to the "natural selection" the breeder is the nature.
2) According to the "sexual selection" the breeder are the females.
3) According to the "kin selection" the breeder are the relatives.
4) According to the "social selection" the breeder is the social state.

And that is only a partial list.

Yes. Of course. Therefore I always added the words "and so on":

Arminius wrote:Darwin's selection principle is partly false. Therefore the "natural selection" was "extended" by the "sexual selection", because the "natural selection" had partly failed; then the "sexual selection" was "extended" by the "kin selection", because the "seuxal selection" had partly failed; then the "kin selection" was "extended" by the "social selection", because the "kin selection" had partly failed; ... and so on, one day the "social selection" will be "extended" by the "godly selection" (again), because the "social selection" will have partly failed.
Arminius wrote:And even if the "different types of selection" are "different mechanisms of selection": they contradict each other, especially the "natural selection" and the "social selection". A social states can and does decide against the nature, the so-called "natural selection", and also against the "sexual selection" and "kin selection", ... and so on.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby statiktech » Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:54 pm

Arminius wrote:@ Statiktech.

You need a dictionary!

You have not the tiniest conception of "selection", let alone "social selection". "Social selection" is not "sexual selection". You have no conception of the "selection principle". So why do you not look for another thread? Currently there are 41032 ILP threads. Good luck!


The classic wave of the white flag without having the balls to admit it.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:30 am

James S Saint wrote:
statiktech wrote:If anything cannot reproduce, it won't reproduce. Wow, that's a mind bender. I'm sure Darwin never considered that.

That would seem to be all that Darwin said: "It ain't here because it stopped reproducing. And I am going to call that unfit."

statiktech wrote:The elegance of the theory of natural selection lies in it's simplicity. It's very easy to understand. You guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Don't confuse elegance with simple mindedness. If anything it was fumbling and now words have to be redefined to make it true. It is a typically ill conceived and poorly worded religion.

Yes. It is a poorly worded religion, a very poorly worded religion.

The more the ILP Darwinists post the more I am an Anti-Darwinist. :D
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Moreno » Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:13 pm

Arminius wrote:Thesis:

The Darwinistic selection principle is false, unless human beings were not included.

Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.
Less offspring can be fine, from a Darwinian perspective, as long that the process continues.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 21, 2015 8:50 pm

Moreno wrote:
Arminius wrote:Thesis:

The Darwinistic selection principle is false, unless human beings were not included.

Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.
Less offspring can be fine ...

Yes.

Moreno wrote:... from a Darwinian perspective ...

No.

Moreno wrote:... as long that the process continues.

Which process do you exactly mean?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Moreno » Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:32 am

Arminius wrote:
Moreno wrote:... as long that the process continues.

Which process do you exactly mean?
The process of having offspring.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]