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.
13
37%
Probably.
4
11%
Perhaps.
0
No votes
No.
16
46%
I do not know.
2
6%
 
Total votes : 35

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Carpophorus » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:12 am

Arminius wrote:
Carpophorus wrote:But we prepare for the future no? What you are saying is that it doesn't matter if we, as human beings, select for consumption, rotten fruit, bruised and battered, because in some possible though unlikely future rotten fruit may be the thing which suits the circumstances best somehow. Think about how fucking stupid that is and how politically and emotionally invested in that line of argument you must be to convince yourself that is rational and objective. If cancer has gone from 1 in 100 to 1 in 3 in a little over a century, does 'a drop in the ocean' still apply as a metaphor you fucking twit?

This is another example of the so-called "social selection", thus the selection with some of the humans as selectors. Humans have always "selected" (more appropriate is the word "breeded") humans.


Yes but it is and was via imposition, not nature. Similarly, moderns are bombarded with absurd social memes that distort and demonize logical and objective thinking about these subjects. What we have emerging is an upper/ruling class who can live freely and acknowledge these facts and a lower class who are taught to aim for a frictionless social utopia where every person with every possible type of behaviour (there are exceptions: think outspoken conservative) is received and accepted without any value judgements being permissable. Safe-spaces, fat and slut-shaming and micro-aggressions all symptoms of this trend.

Carpophorus wrote:YOU claim that any and all survival is a de-facto representation of fitness ....

She says this:

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.

The conclusion is that the Darwinistic "survival of the fittest" must be nonsense, because Darwin claimed to know something about the "fitness".


Which, as I say, reduces fitness to the level of mere existence and denies that any nuance is relevant to the the OP. This is why she is a dishonest dimwit who cannot be taken seriously.

Carpophorus wrote:7 fold population increase in past 250 years

In the past 200 years! If you consider 250 years, then it is the 9 fold population.


True. And you and I are not the only ones with an eye on this...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
User avatar
Carpophorus
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:29 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:19 am

Carpophorus wrote:Sexual, Kin and Social selection methods are all types of Natural Selection. It is the parent term.

That is the question. The "social state" as the selector according to the "social selection" does "select" against the Darwinistic "selection principle", thus against the "natural selection".
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 Orbie » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:52 am

Arminius wrote:
Carpophorus wrote:Sexual, Kin and Social selection methods are all types of Natural Selection. It is the parent term.

That is the question. The "social state" as the selector according to the "social selection" does






"select" against the Darwinistic "selection principle",
thus against the "natural selection".









But so what? If left to natural devices, how would
more complex and unnaturally developed people
survive the very changes, which bring about complexity? Intellectuals for one may be thwarted in their effort to overcome their short comings. These
in turn may deficit the use of their artifacts with
which would diminish on account of the adege,:'use it or, loose it'
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Carpophorus » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:01 am

I personally see this as something deliberate, not as the by-product of largess and over-achievement. The state wants dumb, illogical drones but will allow a technocratic, managerial class to rule over them. I think it is impossible for this class, with unimaginable information at their fingertips, to be propagating this new social morality and peer-pressure based ignorance with anything other than ill-intentions. This class is rational to the point of psychopathic, but they promote Sentimentalism, hyper-sensitivity and hysteria.
User avatar
Carpophorus
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:29 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:15 am

Orbie wrote:If left to natural devices, how would more complex and unnaturally developed people survive the very changes, which bring about complexity?

Nobody said that humans are independent of nature. Knowing me, you should know that I never said that humans are absolutely free, but that I always say that humans are relatively free. They can do something against nature, they fight gainst nature, they destroy nature, and they "select" against the "natural selection". But this does not mean that they are at last more powerful than nature. Humans are no gods but want to be (like) gods.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:49 pm, edited 2 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 phoneutria » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:18 am

Arminius, I will reply to your full post, but for now I want to just grab this little piece to make a comment:

Arminius wrote:The transition from animals to humans is an important boundary mark, because no animal and no other living being except the human beings are capable to live against the so-called "natural selection", for example by their own "selections" ("social state" as "social selection" and so on and so forth).


This is not exclusive to humans. There are several examples in nature and I can give you a common one. The massive tail of the male peacock disrupts its ability to fly and makes it slower and clumsier and morenprine to predation. It serves no purpose other than to attract females. That is an example of sexual selection.

As to human power to destroy its own ecosystem, we do it because we can. If other creatures could modify thenenvironment to suit them, they would. Ine example is thenbeaver, who blocks and alters courses of rivers and floods massive amounts of space in forests just to make it easier to move around.
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Orbie » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:36 am

Arminius wrote:
Orbie wrote:If left to natural devices, how would more complex and unnaturally developed people survive the very changes, which bring about complexity?

Nobody said that humans are Independent of nature.
Knowing me, you should know that I never said that humans are absolutely free, but that I always say that humans are relatively free. They can do
something against nature, they fight gainst nature,
they destroy nature, and they "select" against the "natural selection". But this does not mean that they are at last more power ful than nature. Humans are
no gods but want to be (like) gods.



Yes, that is true, and as I know you, I would add that this is almost to a T a substantiation if someone saying that in the process of shift fro, natural to social selection, the product no longer resembles the agent . I was only trying to lay a logical foundation to a premature hypothesis. it just indicates the quality of the transition, and does not indicate a break. Sorry Arminius to have given that impression.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:05 am

phoneutria wrote:Arminius, I will reply to your full post, but for now I want to just grab this little piece to make a comment:

Arminius wrote:The transition from animals to humans is an important boundary mark, because no animal and no other living being except the human beings are capable to live against the so-called "natural selection", for example by their own "selections" ("social state" as "social selection" and so on and so forth).

This is not exclusive to humans. There are several examples in nature and I can give you a common one. The massive tail of the male peacock disrupts its ability to fly and makes it slower and clumsier and morenprine to predation.

We all know this examples, Phoneutria, but I do not want to go in too many details again, because I have already mentioned those and similar examples in other posts. But "sexual selection" and "social selection" are different types of selection. Animals have no politics that can destroy the whole planet or eleminate some other animals just because of their social status or their color of skin, hair, eyes and so on and so forth.

phoneutria wrote:As to human power to destroy its own ecosystem, we do it because we can.

As I said several times.

phoneutria wrote:If other creatures could modify thenenvironment to suit them, they would.

Of course, they would, but they do not. It is a question of quality. And there is no other living being that is capable of acting against nature in a threatening extent. Only human beings are capable of doing that. In that case the difference between humans and animals is more than huge. Humans are the only creatures on this planet that can be so much threatening that they even accept to murder 99% of them or to completely die out.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:53 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 Arminius » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:14 am

Orbie wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Orbie wrote:If left to natural devices, how would more complex and unnaturally developed people survive the very changes, which bring about complexity?

Nobody said that humans are Independent of nature.
Knowing me, you should know that I never said that humans are absolutely free, but that I always say that humans are relatively free. They can do
something against nature, they fight gainst nature,
they destroy nature, and they "select" against the "natural selection". But this does not mean that they are at last more power ful than nature. Humans are
no gods but want to be (like) gods.



Yes, that is true, and as I know you, I would add that this is almost to a T a substantiation if someone saying that in the process of shift fro, natural to social selection, the product no longer resembles the agent . I was only trying to lay a logical foundation to a premature hypothesis. it just indicates the quality of the transition, and does not indicate a break. Sorry Arminius to have given that impression.

Never mind, Orbie.
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 Lev Muishkin » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:09 pm

phoneutria wrote:If other creatures could modify the environment to suit them, they would.


Actually they do, but not consciously.

Rabbits nibble the buds off tree buds and sapling but do not eat them. This maintains grassland where they can see predators coming; it also helps the grass remain pasture.
And of course all ruminants by nibbling grass, and defecating on the same spot maintain prairies; also trampling saplings in the migrations.

Many animals make beds, dens, nests etc... The number of examples goes on and on...

"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 phoneutria » Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:51 am

Arminius, I read your post again, and it seems that your objection to darwinistic selection principle is that the indivicuals with the best features in a species are not always the one who are getting selected.

Leaving out of the discussion the notion of what the best might be, since we can only evaluate what the best might or not be from a human from the 21st century point of view, basically yes. That is true. How does that falsify the principle?
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Lev Muishkin » Thu Sep 24, 2015 11:44 am

phoneutria wrote:Arminius, I read your post again, and it seems that your objection to darwinistic selection principle is that the indivicuals with the best features in a species are not always the one who are getting selected.

Leaving out of the discussion the notion of what the best might be, since we can only evaluate what the best might or not be from a human from the 21st century point of view, basically yes. That is true. How does that falsify the principle?


It doesn't. In fact it asserts it. The principle is a natural occurrence not affected by Arminius' view about what is or is not "best".
Nature selects what is 'best' not because it is 'best'. It IS best because it is selected! There is no calculation about value or worth- just simply reproductive success.
I think the confusion lies in his head as he is coming from a teleological theistic perspective that assumes that nature is purposeful.

NS: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as be the main process that brings about evolution.

The adaption is simply measured by reproductive success, and that is what is meant by adaptive.

"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 » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:41 pm

phoneutria wrote:Arminius, I read your post again, and it seems that your objection to darwinistic selection principle is that the indivicuals with the best features in a species are not always the one who are getting selected.

Leaving out of the discussion the notion of what the best might be, since we can only evaluate what the best might or not be from a human from the 21st century point of view, basically yes. That is true. How does that falsify the principle?

I have given the answer already several times, Phoneutria. Just read the posts, please. In addition: I have no time now ... because I have to get the airplane ...: .... Holiday .... :)
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 24, 2015 2:53 pm

Arminius, none of your posts prove the darwinistic selection principle to be false.

Enjoy your holiday, even if it is just a cover for your human disguise, robot.
:)
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:36 pm

phoneutria wrote:Arminius, none of your posts prove the darwinistic selection principle to be false.

Your statement is false, Phoneutria.

Try again.

phoneutria wrote:Enjoy your holiday ...
:)

Thank you.

Maybe you are interested in the place where I spend my holidays. :)
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 Lev Muishkin » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:23 pm

Arminius wrote:
phoneutria wrote:Arminius, I read your post again, and it seems that your objection to darwinistic selection principle is that the indivicuals with the best features in a species are not always the one who are getting selected.

Leaving out of the discussion the notion of what the best might be, since we can only evaluate what the best might or not be from a human from the 21st century point of view, basically yes. That is true. How does that falsify the principle?

I have given the answer already several times, Phoneutria. Just read the posts, please. In addition: I have no time now ... because I have to get the airplane ...: .... Holiday .... :)


It does not matter how many times you say a falsehood. It does not get more true by repeating it.

"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 Lev Muishkin » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:26 pm

Arminius wrote:
phoneutria wrote:Arminius, none of your posts prove the darwinistic selection principle to be false.

Your statement is false, Phoneutria.

Try again.




The statement he made asserts the truth of Natural selection. And whilst your posts make you think you have refuted it, in fact they assert it.
The principle is a natural occurrence not affected by Arminius' view about what is or is not "best".
Nature selects what is 'best' not because it is 'best'. It IS best because it is selected! There is no calculation about value or worth- just simply reproductive success.
I think the confusion lies in his head as he is coming from a teleological theistic perspective that assumes that nature is purposeful.

NS: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as be the main process that brings about evolution.

The adaption is simply measured by reproductive success, and that is what is meant by adaptive.

Nature doe not "know" what is best. Nature does not "know" at all. And the law of Natural Selection is not intensional. What is selected, is simply by definition what remains.

"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 Orbie » Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:11 pm

I think, Lev, wer'e begging the question here. wHat is 'best' is defined as the best quality in nature, what is selected, right?

And , what is selected is, the best survival value, right? I can not get out of the convertibility of the terms, yet, not the concepts.

If beautiful woman chooses an inferior man , on basis of other than survival value, and the have offspring, does this mean, that. Within the woman's genetic heritage there is more beneficial survival adaptable value? The male may , indeed be the product of less then optimal genetic value, in this regard, and may be on the verge of a disappearing genetic strain. Perhaps , had he not met this particularly stunning and succeful line in this woman,
The whole family line may have died out as a result. Happens all the time. But this woman chose him above all alpha males, other then on basis of survival value. She may not cared about it consciously, nor had let. Herself be driven by her own inherent natural impulses, fueled by sexual selection.

Here is a not too uncommon example, where the adaptability index may be offset by other than survival value based on genetic traits. I can question , whether survivability, as a conscious force in natural selection can be entertained as general rule.

Here, at least, a suspension of it is called for. Perhaps, this may also occur in lower species. If the above criteria would hold through , coming up from the annals of time, by now, nature would always present the most excellent of species, and inferior types would never present themselves, they would most certainly would have been weeded out by now.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby xfzgrwql » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:56 pm

I agree with Lev on this point. Most people have Darwin and natural selection backward. They're approaching the idea from the wrong side. What is "best" is measured by female's selection of males, not the inverse. The problem is that people invert this dyanmic, and blame "the evil white man!!!" irrationally.

Imagine for a moment that no males, not a single one on this planet, "Choose" to mate or reproduce, but that it is entirely and completely a female endeavor.

Just imagine, do a thought experiment. What does the world look like, through this lens, through this possibility?


What then can you say about Darwin and natural selection? How about sexual selection?
xfzgrwql
Thinker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:46 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:37 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:It IS best because it is selected! There is no calculation about value or worth- just simply reproductive success.

Redefining the word "best" to suit the preference.
best (bĕst)
adj. Superlative of good.
1. Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality; most excellent: the best performer; the best grade of ore.
2. Most satisfactory, suitable, or useful; most desirable: the best solution; the best time for planting.
3. Greatest; most: He spoke for the best part of an hour.
4. Most highly skilled: the best doctor in town.

So what you are saying is that whoever survives, by whatever means, is in fact "the most good". If I kill off the entire world, it can only be because I am best, the most good, the superior. Whoever destroys the most (leaving himself the survivor), is the most good, the "best".

xfzgrwql wrote:What is "best" is measured by female's selection of males, not the inverse.

Again, redefining "best" to suit the preference.

Good ==
1) the most destructive force
2) whatever women choose

I wonder what happens if a woman inadvertently doesn't choose the most destructive force? Universe collapses in on itself?
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 Lev Muishkin » Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:36 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:It IS best because it is selected! There is no calculation about value or worth- just simply reproductive success.

Redefining the word "best" to suit the preference.?


Nope.
Nature does not give a rat's arse about what YOU think it best.
As for Darwin, he never even used the word.


Now run along...

"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 Lev Muishkin » Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:51 pm

Nothing presented here has shown any Darwinian principle false.
There are more factors to consider than simply Natural selection that were identified by Darwin; Sexual Selection and Domestic Selection also play a part in explaining evolution.
Where these have been touched on, no effort or argument has been brought to bear the show them false either.

Without doubt the entire thread has been a blast of hot air from people who do not have the slightest clue about Darwin, nor the meaning of the words "false" or "principle".

"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 James S Saint » Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:50 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:Nothing presented here has shown any Darwinian principle false.
There are more factors to consider than simply Natural selection that were identified by Darwin; Sexual Selection and Domestic Selection also play a part in explaining evolution.
Where these have been touched on, no effort or argument has been brought to bear the show them false either.

Without doubt the entire thread has been a blast of hot air from people who do not have the slightest clue about Darwin, nor the meaning of the words "false" or "principle".

Quite the opposite.

Lev Muishkin wrote:Nature does not give a rat's arse about what YOU think it best.

That's right. It is YOU who are redefining your words so as to make the theory sound good. Nature doesn't know anything about "success" or "best".

So why are YOU calling what nature does "best" and "success"?
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 Lev Muishkin » Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:47 pm

James S Saint wrote:So why are YOU calling what nature does "best" and "success"?


I'm not. I'm talking about what Darwin called success. And he says that selection is reproductive success. And that is how evolution occurs

Not all individuals have reproductive success, but those that do pass their inheritance to their progeny.
The reason this is called 'natural' selection, is that it happens without interest, purpose or cognisance: automatic.

QED you are still wrong.

"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 James S Saint » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:08 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:QED you are still wrong.

..as if you had even the slightest credibility in knowing the difference.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users