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 Arminius » Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:21 pm

phoneutria wrote:Arminius, can you define "fit"?

Yes. I can. And what about you, Phoneutria? Can you define "fit"?
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 phoneutria » Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:47 pm

Indeed I can!

*high five*

Would you define it in this thread, right here, again if you have already defined it before, for focus/emphasis?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:38 am

phoneutria wrote:Indeed I can!

*high five*

Would you define it in this thread, right here, again if you have already defined it before, for focus/emphasis?

Oh, this would refresh the discussion we already had. But okay, the following quotes refer to the term "fitness" I subscribe:

Arminius wrote:In nature (in nature :!: ) fitness or success is measured by reproduction. Living beings that have the most offspring are the "fittest", thus are most successfull (because you can merely be most successful, if you are "the fittest"). Success is the consequence of fitness. The success follows the fitness. So when it comes to nature it is absolutely correct to say that successful living beings live on, because they have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings, whereas successful living beings die out, because they have no offspring or less offspring than the unsuccessful living beings. But when it come to humans, especially to modern humans culture/s, it is not correct to say that, because modern humans are fit, thus successful, when they have no offspring or less offspring than those humans who are not fit, thus unseccessful.

The said "social selection" contains the possibility of selecting against the Darwinistic selection principle. And this happened and happens. Thus it was and is a fact.

James S Saint wrote:And since I first heard of the phrase "survival of the fittest", I immediately noted that it is actually the "survival of the fitted" (those who fit into their environment at the time).

The following post refers to nothing else than to the human beings:
Arminius wrote:I used the word "success" instead of "fitness" just in order to rescue the Darwinistic theory, because the concept of "fItness" 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.

Arbiter of Change wrote: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.

James S Saint wrote: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?

James S Saint wrote:
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.

Arminius wrote: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.

James S Saint wrote:
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).

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.

Arminius wrote:
Moreno wrote:
Arminius wrote:Which process do you exactly mean?
The process of having offspring.

Yes. But if we assume that Darwin's theory of evolution is not false and that "less offspring can be fine", then having less offspring can merely be fine in a cultural sense and perhaps for a very short time (!) also in a natural sense but not in the sense of Darwin's theory of evolution, especially his "selection principle". So according to Darwin's theory of evolution having less offspring is always a disadvantage, because it leads to extinction. According to Darwin's "selection principle" the living beings with less offspring die out because of their unfitness and the fitness of the living beings with more offspring. That is the main point of Darwin's "selection principle". Darwin's theory of evolution refers to developments in the long run - otherwise it would not be accepted as a theory of evolution but "merely" as a theory of breeding - and by the way: the theory of breeding is very much older than Darwin's theory of evolution.

Moreno wrote:
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.

I am interested in getting exactly what your sense of the falsity is. If there is a post that sums it up, let me know. I will hop in here and probe a little.

It seems to me that the moment you have a social mammal, sexual selection and even what might be called natural selection is no longer natural. It is chosen by the society and even by individuals in that society, e ven if it is a society of wolves or ground hogs.

Yes. Cultures or societies often contradict nature. The so-called "social selection" is the selection of some rulers who decide against nature just because of their own interests - e.g. money, thus power -, just in order to remain powerful. The "social selection" can lead to the extinction of all who are involved in the "social selection", and in a global society of humans all humans are involved in that "social selection". Look what the rulers do: they destroy the human's environment, the whole globe, they sterilise the other humans (by poison and other means), and at last probably themselves too, they murder other living beings, ... and so on, ... and so on ..., just for money, thus power. If this human beings were nothing else than natural, thus living beings that completely depend on nature, then they could not do such nonsense. Humans are relativeley free (not absoluetly free - because they are not gods), so they can decide and act against nature, and they do decide and act against nature.

This "social selection" is mostly directed against the "natural selection", against nature at all, because those who select, want to exploit and to control anything and everything, thus also nature, want to wield power over anything and everything, thus also over nature.

Human beings are capable of killing alomost all other living beings on our planet. According to Darwin's "selection principle" this means that the species homo sapiens is the fittest species of all times while most of all other species are the unfittest species of all times, just because of the fact that homo sapiens is capable of replacing most of all other species. But in addition the species homo sapiens is capable of deciding and acting against nature and the so-called "natural selection". Instead of "fit" one can also say "capable", "competent", or "successful".

Arminius wrote: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.
=>#

James S Saint wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:Fitness is the ability to survive to have viable progeny

Only in biology. But biology doesn't dictate evolution.

Darwinism is NOT the "god of" evolution, merely one of the angels.

Arminius wrote:If you really wanted (you do not want) to discuss Darwin's "selection principle", then you would have to admit (a) that the "natural selection" is at least partly false,(b) that the "sexual selection" is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false "natural selection", although they already contradict each other, (c) that the "kin selection" is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false "natural selection" and the partly false "sexual selection", although they already contradict each other, and (d) that the "social selection" is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false "natural selection", the partly false "sexual selection", and the partly false "kin selection", although they all contradict each other and are absolutely contradicted by the "social selection". We are talking about fitness. And when the fittest die out, and the unfittest live on, then you have no right to speak of a "survival of the fittest". The whole theory is false then.

Arminius wrote:
fuse wrote:Evolutionary fitness is an independent category of "fitness."

No. Absoluetly no. Evolutionary fitness is not an independent category of "fitness".

Just because you and the other current Darwinists want the "fitness" to be more than the fitness does not change anything of the facts.

Are you satisfied, Phoneutria?
Last edited by Arminius on Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:17 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 James S Saint » Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:55 am

Arminius wrote:Are you satisfied, Phoneutria?

I can guarantee, that will never happen.
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 phoneutria » Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:35 am

Thank you arminius, for bringing me up to speed on the discussion.
I will reply in a bit. Hold on. Toys in the making.
lol lie... I actually hald one too many biers tonight.

James, why? Cuz woman?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:21 pm

Arminius, why do you say that unfit humans have more offspring?
If you define fitness as the one with most offspring, whoever has the most offspring is the most fit.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:19 pm

Social selection dictates that the most blindly devoted and faithful will live on, the religious.
Sexual selection dictates that the most willing to sexually unite with the most harmonious will live on.
Natural selection dictates that the most biologically suited to the environment will live on.
Kin selection dictates that the most family devoted will live on.

All in all, it is the most fitted who live on, those with the most Anentropic Harmony, as dictated by the pure logic of the situation (also known as "God").

And one becomes the most fitted and anentropically harmonious by the continuous process of:
1) Clarifying, Verifying, (clearing the confusion)
2) Instilling, and Reinforcing (ensuring the duration)
3) the Perception of Hopes and Threats (that which guides conscious beings)
4) - unto Anentropic Harmony (toward that which by definition, is the most fitted to any given situation).

In other words, that which is most fitted continues to be most fitted by ensuring that it is guided toward being the most fitted.

It is not a competition with each other. It is a competition with disharmonious, entropic situations (aka "evil").

Darwinism and Nietzscheanism imply direct competition between individuals, races, and species which creates a more hostile, entropic environment. Their strategy is to weaken others so as to become the last man standing, game theory. And that strategy then becomes a disharmonious environment for the truly most fit to dispel.

How does the most fit dispel Nietzcheanism and Darwinism?
By "clarifying and verifying" (letting the Threat be clearly perceived, witnessed) and "instilling and reinforcing" (establishing the alternative, the Hope) toward the most enduring survival, Anentropic Harmony.
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 » Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:23 pm

phoneutria wrote:Arminius, why do you say that unfit humans have more offspring?
If you define fitness as the one with most offspring, whoever has the most offspring is the most fit.

I am saying that the "social selection" (you may also call it the "human/cultural selection" or the "social state selection"), can and does often contradict the "natural selection", so that the "fittest" humans have less and at last no offspring and die out, whereas the "unfittest" have more offspring and at last the only offspring and survive (this you may call "survning of the unfittest"). Therefore Darwin's "selection principle" must be false, at least partly false.
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 » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:36 pm

Drones and androids are being programmed to:
"Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony"
and thus will be more fitted than You.
James S Saint wrote:
Amorphos wrote:
Militarized robots to enslave the world's population everywhere.....


How would ‘intelligent’ robots justify this? What is their logical utility to base an assumption upon, such as required to arrive at a decision where humanity is to the detriment. I mean et al, before we can even get into enslavement and destruction.

oh, do you mean that man will use machines to enslave us? as that's a different argument.

Currently drones are being trained to coordinate impromptu maneuvers with each other, not requiring an operator. They can maneuver around obstacles, reunite, and coordinate attack strategies, all without the aid of an operator. They are merely given a task and turned loose.

At the end of this video, YOU are the little red object.

Reassemble the troops:
Who/What is watching and judging YOU:
Programmed to intelligently pacify you:


More than a mere program:




Humans, You are NOT the fittest!
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 phoneutria » Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:52 am

Arminius wrote:
phoneutria wrote:Arminius, why do you say that unfit humans have more offspring?
If you define fitness as the one with most offspring, whoever has the most offspring is the most fit.

I am saying that the "social selection" (you may also call it the "human/cultural selection" or the "social state selection"), can and does often contradict the "natural selection", so that the "fittest" humans have less and at last no offspring and die out, whereas the "unfittest" have more offspring and at last the only offspring and survive (this you may call "survning of the unfittest"). Therefore Darwin's "selection principle" must be false, at least partly false.


I find it that peoples who die out are not the fittest.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 30, 2015 4:40 pm

And I find that people who live on were not the fittest, merely the fitted.

The Neanderthals were just standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.
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 phoneutria » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:25 pm

It's a poin it time thing. There can never be "the fittest", only "the fittest right now".
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:55 am

phoneutria wrote:I find it that peoples who die out are not the fittest.

Afterwards it is always easy to say said that those who die out are not the fittest, but that does not always prove or disprove the real fitness.

What did, for example, Pol Pot do? He eliminated all intelligent humans in his country, because intelligence was "antisocialistic", thus not allowed in his "socialistic" country. Were these humans really "not the fittest" (in your terms)? Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the only one. Pol Pot was one of many politicians who decided against the so-called "natural selection" by operating their own selection. According to them the people they murdered were not "fit" in the sense that they were not the "fitted".

James S Saint wrote:And I find that people who live on were not the fittest, merely the fitted.

So the Darwinistic "fitness" concept is problematic and thus almost useless.

James S Saint wrote:The Neanderthals were just standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In many aspects the Neanderthals were fitter than all other species of the genus "homo", but in spite of that fact the Neanderthatls died out. Yes.

phoneutria wrote:It's a poin it time thing. There can never be "the fittest", only "the fittest right now".

So the Darwinistic "fitness" concept is problematic and thus almost useless.
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:58 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 phoneutria » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:24 am

Arminius wrote:
phoneutria wrote:I find it that peoples who die out are not the fittest.

Afterwards it is always easy to say said that those who die out are not the fittest, but that does not always prove or disorove the real fitness.


There's no "proving the real fitness". That's nosense. There is no single fitness in present time that is above all others. There are more unicelular organisms living on your body than there are humans on the entire planet, and they don't even have a nervous system, let alone a brain.

Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest.
There's fit. Every living species on Earth right now is fit, thus they are alive. All of them are a success. If they were unfit they would be dead. Among the fit, all are doing everything in their power to perpetuate everything about themselves. The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a "better fit" means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of "the fittest" can only happen after the fact.

What did, for example, Pol Pot do? He eliminated all intelligent humans in his countrym because intelligence was "antisocialistic", thus not allowed in his "socialistic" country. Were these humans really "not the fittest" (in your terms)?


My terms don't matter one single bit. Neither do yours. We follow to the obvious conclusion that intelligence is the greatest indicator of fitness, but that is an antropocentric view. Intelligence has allowed us to colonize every terrain on the planet, and subdue all other creatures and the Earth itself, terraforming it to conform to our whims, but it would only take a well placed space rock of adequate size to wipe most of that away in a second and the rest of it in a few months. And guess what, cockroaches will still be roaming around, bitches.

Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the only one. Pol Pot was one of many politicians who decided against the so-called "natural selection" by operating their own selection. According to them the people they murdered were not "fit" in the sense that they were not the "fitted".



In fact, intelligence itself has already put us walking the plank at least once before, so I imagine that species who have existed on this earth for a long time, like crocodiles who have existed almost in the exact form that the are today for some 65 million years, must look at us whippersnappers who have only been around for a mere 160k years or so and wonder ah, kids these days... if they can wonder, hell if I know, you get the point.

(As a side note, lol @ people that go omg we r haltin evolution with our manmade envirumentz!1!
Are you fucking kidding me? You learn to make syrofoam and all of a sudden you think can shape the fate of the planet? From the rodents in our dumpsters to the dogs sleeping by our feet, to the tomatoes we had for dinner, they are laughing at us. Laughing.)

phoneutria wrote:It's a poin it time thing. There can never be "the fittest", only "the fittest right now".

So the Darwinistic "fitness" concept is problematic and thus almost useless.


Almost useles... hm. What uses do you think it should have?
And again, what's problematic about it? I still don't get your objection. It seems to me that what you are arguing is that sometimes we eliminate what we think might be the best among us. But then again, arminius, we don't get to decide what atributes make someone the fittest. All we can do is strive to be fit.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:24 am

Arminius wrote:
phoneutria wrote:I find it that peoples who die out are not the fittest.

Afterwards it is always easy to say said that those who die out are not the fittest, but that does not always prove or disorove the real fitness.


There's no "proving the real fitness". That's nosense. There is no single fitness in present time that is above all others. There are more unicelular organisms living on your body than there are humans on the entire planet, and they don't even have a nervous system, let alone a brain.

Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest.
There's fit. Every living species on Earth right now is fit, thus they are alive. All of them are a success. If they were unfit they would be dead. Among the fit, all are doing everything in their power to perpetuate everything about themselves. The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a "better fit" means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of "the fittest" can only happen after the fact.

What did, for example, Pol Pot do? He eliminated all intelligent humans in his countrym because intelligence was "antisocialistic", thus not allowed in his "socialistic" country. Were these humans really "not the fittest" (in your terms)?


My terms don't matter one single bit. Neither do yours. We follow to the obvious conclusion that intelligence is the greatest indicator of fitness, but that is an antropocentric view. Intelligence has allowed us to colonize every terrain on the planet, and subdue all other creatures and the Earth itself, terraforming it to conform to our whims, but it would only take a well placed space rock of adequate size to wipe most of that away in a second and the rest of it in a few months. And guess what, cockroaches will still be roaming around, bitches.

Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the only one. Pol Pot was one of many politicians who decided against the so-called "natural selection" by operating their own selection. According to them the people they murdered were not "fit" in the sense that they were not the "fitted".



In fact, intelligence itself has already put us walking the plank at least once before, so I imagine that species who have existed on this earth for a long time, like crocodiles who have existed almost in the exact form that the are today for some 65 million years, must look at us whippersnappers who have only been around for a mere 160k years or so and wonder ah, kids these days... if they can wonder, hell if I know, you get the point.

(As a side note, lol @ people that go omg we r haltin evolution with our manmade envirumentz!1!
Are you fucking kidding me? You learn to make syrofoam and all of a sudden you think can shape the fate of the planet? From the rodents in our dumpsters to the dogs sleeping by our feet, to the tomatoes we had for dinner, they are laughing at us. Laughing.)

phoneutria wrote:It's a poin it time thing. There can never be "the fittest", only "the fittest right now".

So the Darwinistic "fitness" concept is problematic and thus almost useless.


Almost useles... hm. What uses do you think it should have?
And again, what's problematic about it? I still don't get your objection. It seems to me that what you are arguing is that sometimes we eliminate what we think might be the best among us. But then again, arminius, we don't get to decide what atributes make someone the fittest. All we can do is strive to be fit.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:53 am

.
"FIT" for What??
fit
fit/
adjective
adjective: fit; comparative adjective: fitter; superlative adjective: fittest

1. (of a thing) of a suitable quality, standard, or type to meet the required purpose.
"the meat is fit for human consumption"
synonyms: suitable, good enough; More
relevant, pertinent, apt, appropriate, suited, apposite, fitting;

archaicmeet
"fit for human habitation"
    antonyms: unsuitable (of a person) having the requisite qualities or skills to undertake something competently.
    "he felt himself quite fit for battle"
    synonyms: competent, able, capable; More
    ready, prepared, qualified, trained, equipped
    "is he fit to look after a child?"
    antonyms: incapable
    suitable and correct according to accepted social standards.
    "a fit subject on which to correspond"
    informal
    (of a person or thing) having reached such an extreme condition as to be on the point of doing the thing specified.
    "he baited even his close companions until they were fit to kill him"
    synonyms: ready, prepared, all set, in a fit state, likely, about; informalpsyched up
    "you look fit to commit murder!"
    informal
    ready.
    "well, are you fit?"


2. in good health, especially because of regular physical exercise.
"I swim regularly to keep fit"
    synonyms: healthy, well, in good health, in (good) shape, in (good) trim, in good condition, fighting fit, as fit as a fiddle; More
    athletic, muscular, well built, strong, robust, hale and hearty, in the pink
    "he looked tanned and fit"
    antonyms: unwell
    Britishinformal
    sexually attractive; good-looking.
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 Moreno » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:23 am

phoneutria wrote:I find it that peoples who die out are not the fittest.
Though this ends up having to say that the fittest are people who don't get too stressed doing boring repetative jobs, who like the TV on during dinner, who try to stay up with fashion and believe a lot of rather idiotic stuff with the little passon they can muster. And they tended to like sitting in rows in school. They feel good in that kind of external disrespectful structure. They fit it. They are suited to being disrespected and being boring and are unfit for something else.

Those whose genes lead them to have trouble with this do not fare so well, are more likely to be diagnosed, and likely will soon have their 'problematic genes' isolated and weeded out.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:36 pm

Moreno wrote:
phoneutria wrote:I find it that peoples who die out are not the fittest.
Though this ends up having to say that the fittest are people who don't get too stressed doing boring repetative jobs, who like the TV on during dinner, who try to stay up with fashion and believe a lot of rather idiotic stuff with the little passon they can muster. And they tended to like sitting in rows in school. They feel good in that kind of external disrespectful structure. They fit it. They are suited to being disrespected and being boring and are unfit for something else.

Those whose genes lead them to have trouble with this do not fare so well, are more likely to be diagnosed, and likely will soon have their 'problematic genes' isolated and weeded out.

Agreed, fittED, not fittEST.
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 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:38 pm

phoneutria wrote:There's no "proving the real fitness". That's nosense.

That is a false quotation. You should quote my text correctly, Phoneutria. I said (see above): "... that does not always prove or disorove the real fitness." So I do not claim or demand a prove or a disprove, the reverse is the case: the Darwinists and nobody else have to prove or disprove, if they want their theory to be accepted. If the Darwinists want their theory to be accepted, then it is up to them to prove or to disprove. And if it is not possible to prove or to disprove a theory, then this theory has nothing to do with science.

phoneutria wrote:There is no single fitness in present time that is above all others. There are more unicelular organisms living on your body than there are humans on the entire planet, and they don't even have a nervous system, let alone a brain.

Who said that there was a "fitness in present time that is above all others"?

phoneutria wrote:Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest.
There's fit. Every living species on Earth right now is fit, thus they are alive. All of them are a success. If they were unfit they would be dead. Among the fit, all are doing everything in their power to perpetuate everything about themselves. The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a "better fit" means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of "the fittest" can only happen after the fact.

The knowledge of "the fittest" can almost always also not happen after the fact. You contradict yourself. First you say "there's no 'proving the real fitness'", then you say "knowledge of 'the fittest' can only happen after the fact".

I understand "proving" and "knowledge" in a scientific sense here.

Nobody really knows "the fittest". There are too many parameters.

phoneutria wrote:My terms don't matter one single bit. Neither do yours. We follow to the obvious conclusion that intelligence is the greatest indicator of fitness, but that is an antropocentric view.

No. Maybe that you "follow to the obvious conclusion that intelligence is the greatest indicator of fitness". But I do not:

I wrote:Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the only one.

I said: "not the only one". Did you not notice that?

If there is fitness, then there must be indicators of fitness, otherwise the concept of "fitness" can never be taken seriously.

The excuse of the Darwinists is, for example, that "fitness is more than fitness". So they do not want to be taken seriously. :lol:

phoneutria wrote:Intelligence has allowed us to colonize every terrain on the planet, and subdue all other creatures and the Earth itself, terraforming it to conform to our whims, but it would only take a well placed space rock of adequate size to wipe most of that away in a second and the rest of it in a few months. And guess what, cockroaches will still be roaming around, bitches.

Yeah. Do you consider cockroaches as "the fittest"? :)

phoneutria wrote:
Arminius wrote:
phoneutria wrote:It's a poin it time thing. There can never be "the fittest", only "the fittest right now".

So the Darwinistic "fitness" concept is problematic and thus almost useless.

Almost useles... hm. What uses do you think it should have?
And again, what's problematic about it? I still don't get your objection. It seems to me that what you are arguing is that sometimes we eliminate what we think might be the best among us. But then again, arminius, we don't get to decide what atributes make someone the fittest. All we can do is strive to be fit.

Again: Nobody really knows "the fittest", Phoneutria.

One can only say after some facts that this or that living being "fitted". There are some indicators of fitness, as I already said, but in some cases (for example in the case of the human "social selection") this indicators can also be used as if they were indicadors of unfitness.

The Darwinistic "fitness" concept is problematic, the Darwinistic "selection principle" is partly false, and that includes the possibility of being totally false but also being partly right. I would like to save the right parts of that theory, because I think that it is going to be completely eliminated, if nobody will have eliminated its false parts in order to save its right parts.
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 phoneutria » Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:48 am

Arminius wrote:That is a false quotation. You should quote my text correctly, Phoneutria. I said (see above): "... that does not always prove or disorove the real fitness."

I did quote you verbatim and assigned the quote to your name. The "proving the real fitness" part was not between quotes as in being assigned to you, it was in quotes to distinguish it as a phrase.
You meant to say that you can see after the fact that a species fitted, but that does not necessarily prove or disprove the fittest part.

My point was to say that that is nonsensical. When two species are competing for resources and only one survives, that is the fittest of the two. It is called survival of the fittest because the fittest is the one who is left standing.
There is nothing to prove or disprove. So maybe there were extinct species who were way more kickass at something than the remaining ones. It does not matter at all in evolutionary terns unless that kickassedness is put into staying alive


So I do not claim or demand a prove or a disprove, the reverse is the case: the Darwinists and nobody else have to prove or disprove, if they want their theory to be accepted. If the Darwinists want their theory to be accepted, then it is up to them to prove or to disprove. And if it is not possible to prove or to disprove a theory, then this theory has nothing to do with science.


You are incorrect. Theories that can be proved are no longer theories, they become laws. We call it theory of evolution, and not law of evolution, in admitting that as beautiful and complete as it may seem, it is only plausible. There is plenty of room for unproven ideas in science. That is all theories are, an explanation for phenomena that we are not currently able to determine is the only correct explanation with certainty.

Anyway, what, exactly, is up to darwinists to prove?

Who said that there was a "fitness in present time that is above all others"?

This is why I asked you above, what exactly do you think darwinists need to prove. It appeared to me that you want proof the whoever survives is the fittest.
I said that there is no one fittest species. Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation.

The knowledge of "the fittest" can almost always also not happen after the fact. You contradict yourself. First you say "there's no 'proving the real fitness'", then you say "knowledge of 'the fittest' can only happen after the fact".

I understand "proving" and "knowledge" in a scientific sense here.

Nobody really knows "the fittest". There are too many parameters.


Forgive me if I sound confusing. I can rephrase. You can say that we are the fittest of the Homo genus because we are the only ones left. This is after the fact because all the other ones are dead.

If you mean that that does not prove or disprove
that we are truly the fittest, I find that nonsensical because survival itself (as in perpetuation) is the very definition of fitness.

No. Maybe that you "follow to the obvious conclusion that intelligence is the greatest indicator of fitness". But I do not:

I wrote:Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the only one.

I said: "not the only one". Did you not notice that?


Yes I did notice that. Hence I used "we" meaning not you or me, but we as a human population.
I was making a point.

Besides you went on about humans damaging the environment in which it lives in another post and I fail to see how any other species would be different.

If there is fitness, then there must be indicators of fitness, otherwise the concept of "fitness" can never be taken seriously.


Survival.

The excuse of the Darwinists is, for example, that "fitness is more than fitness". So they do not want to be taken seriously. :lol:


I am not familiar with that argument.

[quote
Yeah. Do you consider cockroaches as "the fittest"? :)[/quote]

Which ones? There are about 4600 known species.

Again: Nobody really knows "the fittest", Phoneutria.

One can only say after some facts that this or that living being "fitted". There are some indicators of fitness, as I already said, but in some cases (for example in the case of the human "social selection") this indicators can also be used as if they were indicadors of unfitness.


Like what? Can you give me an example?

The Darwinistic "fitness" concept is problematic, the Darwinistic "selection principle" is partly false, and that includes the possibility of being totally false but also being partly right. I would like to save the right parts of that theory, because I think that it is going to be completely eliminated, if nobody will have eliminated its false parts in order to save its right parts.


I still don't understand your objection.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:49 am

there may be typos and shit, don't make me type so much
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:08 am

phoneutria wrote:Theories that can be proved are no longer theories, they become laws.

No, Phoneutria. You are wrong. Laws are like the instructional parts of any dogmatism and made for dictatorships. I do not care whether some people want to name them "laws", because (at least to me) laws are superordinated rules and should not have anything to do with science, otherwise science would become a religion (and - unfortunately - it has already partly become a religion).

phoneutria wrote:We call it theory of evolution, and not law of evolution ....

But I know some people who want it to be a law and why they want it to be a law.

phoneutria wrote:Anyway, what, exactly, is up to darwinists to prove?

The accent lies on the term "is up to Darwinists" not on the word "what". If I want to convince you, then it is up to me to prove my statements or to disprove their negation.

Concerning your "what" I already said several times: (1) "selection", (2) "fitness".

During the period of Realism and Naturalism (radical realism) almost everything was related to nature, based on nature - it was a reaction to the previous period: Idealism and Romantic.

phoneutria wrote:You can say that we are the fittest of the Homo genus because we are the only ones left. This is after the fact because all the other ones are dead.

One can say it, but that does not necessarily prove "our" fitness or disprove "our" unfitness. So it is nonsensical to say it as if it were something like the truth or a law (see above). If you have won a game, then that fact does not necessarily prove your fitness or disprove your unfitness. You may have had much luck or/and help.

phoneutria wrote:
If there is fitness, then there must be indicators of fitness, otherwise the concept of "fitness" can never be taken seriously.

Survival.

Survival is no sufficient indicator of fitness.

phoneutria wrote:Which ones?

The so-called "fittest"! :)

phoneutria wrote:
There are some indicators of fitness, as I already said, but in some cases (for example in the case of the human "social selection") this indicators can also be used as if they were indicadors of unfitness.

Like what? Can you give me an example?

I have already given several examples. This time I am not going to quote again. .... Sorry.

phoneutria wrote:
The Darwinistic "fitness" concept is problematic, the Darwinistic "selection principle" is partly false, and that includes the possibility of being totally false but also being partly right. I would like to save the right parts of that theory, because I think that it is going to be completely eliminated, if nobody will have eliminated its false parts in order to save its right parts.

I still don't understand your objection.

Let me ask you: Is your term "survival as in perpetuation" an objection?
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 Sep 17, 2015 12:36 am

phoneutria wrote:The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a "better fit" means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of "the fittest" can only happen after the fact.
phoneutria wrote:Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation.

So one would have to get after the "perpetuation itself" in order to get the "knowledge of 'the fittest'"; but It is not possible to get after the "perpetuation itself"; thus according to your own words it is not possible to know anything about the "fittest"; and that means, for example, Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is nonsense.
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 phoneutria » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:07 am

No, no. What is nonsense is wanting to have knowledge of the fittest.
That's not at all what the concept is meant to do.
In fact it is not meant to do anything other than explain the present.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Carpophorus » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:21 am

When the population grows from 1billion to 7.5 billion in less than 250 years it is undeniable fact that the selection pressures have been relaxed and that large numbers of unfit mutations are being produced. In fact, to claim that any type of achieved reproduction whatsoever is proof of genetic fitness is a total cop-out. Surely there are degrees and objective standards from which values can be drawn or inferred? Phoneutria's argument means that a male dwarf who is deaf and blind and a woman with downs syndrome and spina bifida, both of whom are HIV+ and asthmatic, who manage to reproduce will fall into the same category of fitness as two tall and athletic mensa members who reproduce. It is something she obviously doesn't believe and which begs for a more nuanced analysis but might encroach on territory which is not politically correct and she isn't willing to tread those waters.

Apologies if I described some poor soul on ILP. You matter. :romance-caress:
User avatar
Carpophorus
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:29 am

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]