but you did say
that there is not much left of darwinism than a theology
that is precisely what I took issue with
there is a staggering amount of evidence
to the fact that darwinism is much more than a theology
such as the entire field of genetics
But theology does not violate the scientific methods. Not at all. That was the point. Why should theology violate scientific methods? I said that it does not, and it does not.
Besides, the word “logic” is in the compound word "theology. And the word “logic” is also in the compound word "biology.
If one wants to accuse a scientific discipline of a violation of scientific methods, then it is quite simple, but then one should also be so honest and say that one accuses all scientific disciplines. Because all scientific disciplines have been corrupt for a long time. If one wants to see it neutrally, then one must say that each science discipline is not allowed to violate the scientific methods.
it does
because it is dependent on belief, or faith
which is by definition the certainty of things that cannot be proven
the scientific method is based on observation
and it requires proof
besides, there are thousands of different gods and religions
and they are often mutually exclusive
again
this is not how language works
both words have a root in “logos”
which is also the same word used for thought, or study
it is just a label for a field of study about faith/gods
as biology is a label for the study of life
it does not make life logical to have logos in the label
[/quote]
[/quote]
as i stated above
i don’t consider theology to be a scientific discipline
and that there is corruption in the scientific community
is as far as I understand a plausible claim
however that does not invalidate any of the accomplishments of science
the fact that I am talking to you now through a computer
is evidence to the resounding success of this method
again
make your criticism
but be honest about it
No.
You refer to your own (subjective) opinion. That is your right. But you have criticized me for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with any personal opinion, because all I have said is that theology - understood as theology (not as the corrupt system it has become) - does not violate scientific methods.
That can’t be so difficult to understand.
Language? Oh yes, science and philosophy as well as art are nothing without language! Just because it seems today that everything has nothing to do with language does not mean that it really has nothing to do with language.
[tab]Are you Sculptor?
I’m just asking.[/tab]
no right back at ya gurl
this is not subjective
it does violate scientific methods
for the reasons i stated in my previous post
you can make a case for that not being true
but you cannot claim that that’s just my opinion
it ain’t
my point exactly
is that language is a tool and a weapon
and it has to be used with precision
i cannot call a dog a duck
and make it so
“logos” is not the same thing as logic
and labeling something as logos
does not make it logical
no
and that is strike one bitch
address my argument
only my argument
or you can go fuck yourself
You can’t threaten me!
You have not spoken on the subject even once, you’ve always just said your very subjective opinion. Then I asked you something and you immediately became abusive.
Go read my posts again
ROTFLMFHO 
Gracility (e.g. of human hands, their fine motor skills) has no use at all for an individual / species without a large brain / high intelligence.
Give a monkey gracile hands, and the monkey will die out with its low intelligence. Give a monkey high intelligence, and the monkey will survive with its ungracile hands because it can use intelligence in many other ways.
Intelligence can be an advantage also without gracile hands, but gracile hands can always be an advantage only together with high intelligence. Gracile hands without intelligence are like beautiful shoes without a single foot in this world.
So (as I have said several times): Not the gracility, but the intelligence is decisive in humans. The gracile hands of the humans are only a concomitant phenomenon of their intelligence, even if a beautiful one, just like the naked skin also, which is only luxury and has only disadvantages in the nature.
of course fine motor skills are nothing
and not even possible
without a very large and very dense brain
raccoons are very good with their hands
but again as i pointed out before
some cetaceans have larger and denser brains
than any primate
and more cortical surface area
however their bullet like bodies
and absence of any fingers or prehensibility to their limbs
make it impossible for them to manipulate the world
in any significant way
and if you have ever seen the diagram sensory/cortical humunculus
it becomes clear that most of the human brain’s
processing power
is dedicated to the use of the hands
as well as the production of linguistic signal
and sensory processing
of course intelligence is a distinguishable factor of our species
but it is not the only one
it is a combination of things
in which the capacity for fine motor skill and for language
play major roles
Yes. As you know, many developments came together in one development, so to say.
When it comes to nailing down Darwin’s Principle - I have a question -
It is clear that Darwin referred to environmental adaptations being essential survival skills that led to biological long term developments - those who did not adapt well to the environment failed to reproduce sufficiently and got replaced by those who did.
Normally dealing with a harsh environment is focused on as the propellant toward biological development. But the environment doesn’t only provide negative effects on survival. There is another category concerning environment that I am not certain that Darwin included - maybe didn’t even consider.
What if a species encounters something that alters it’s intelligence, for example, that it merely had never encountered before. Ignoring the aliens from space type of intervention theories for as long as possible, I have to think that there have been new biological ingredients forming and passing away throughout Earth’s history. These would include chemicals and drugs as well as viruses or germs of a variety of flavors. Isn’t it reasonable to think that perhaps an ape, for example, just accidentally while roaming into new territories bit into a fruit that contained something biologically active that enhanced his intelligence enough to do two things -
- encouraged more of such experience
- enhanced his ability to mate
It has been proposed that mitochondria is just such agent of change - strongly and permanently affecting an ape’s energy level and alertness (intelligence). The mitochondria gets passed on to offspring. And there could be others that perhaps no longer exist after causing a developmental change stage.
Does Darwin’s Principle account for such positive additives?
I do not think that Darwin’s omission is a valid problem.
Evolution is not a cause of change. Shit happens and and things evolve or die. Nothing is the environment is capable of improving intelligence.
Natural Selection works negatively. What is left behind can be faster, stronger, bigger, smaller, depending on what is advantagous the the survival of the organism.
It is likely that things that are smarter may well be more capable of success.
Darwin deals with this in Descent of Man.
If that is true then it seems that Darwin’s principle is insufficient.
It accounts for all life on earth.
I think it is over applied, since mutation leads to a multiide of variation which needs not have any significance to survival. But Darwin encompasses that in hsi recognition of “infinite variety”.
Pundits, however, in the world of evolutionary theory with jobs to keep and reputations to maintain like to try to impose a principle of usefulness, via and assumption of parsimony. I think unnecessarily.
It’s my view that most traits including high intelligence are not absolutely beneficial to survival in a Darwinian sense, since many smart people prefer to life their lives childless.
One can also point to many things such as body air, appendixes, male nipples, toenails, and many other things which, whilst having some use are not significant enough to demand survival.
SO in what way do you think it insufficient?
It appears to leave out the likelihood of positive contributors from the environment that enhanced survival traits. It is hard to believe that there were never any such contributions considering that even basic nutrients come from the environment and those nutrients and other chemical anomalies are occurring all the time - certain probiotics would be a possible example that simply were nonexistent at one time but then became a main component in digestion. Mitochondria has been theorized to have been introduced into apes (by whatever means) causing them to become substantially more human.
And whether the long term survival works out, the Darwin Principle involves the short term survivability - which has already been proven. The new situation of over population presents a new challenge.
Like what, and in what way.
What are your examples?
So called probiotics has existed in a symbiotic relationship in the digestive tracts of all animals for billions of years. It is to their own advantage.
You are wrong here. All living things have mitochondria in their cells, and this as been the case also be billions of years. They were not “introducred into apes”. All foetuses recieve their mitochondria from their mothers. Evolutionary theory has much to say about symbiotic relationships like this.
Not really, overpopulation is, and always has been a massive driving force in evolution. It was Thomas Malthus’s work that brought the significance of this to Darwin.
Darwin’s principle does account sufficiently for that
an interesting example which you might consider is the panda
in the region of the world where they exist there were vast forests of bamboo
that can be considered to be a positive environmental variable
in the presence of that abundant source of food
their organism evolved to become experts at digesting bamboo
the specialization was such that now their organisms are able only to consume bamboo
of course, that is a clear evolutionary advantage
but only in the presence of abundant sources of bamboo
another example is the sloth bear
bears as you know are onmivores and will eat anything
which is a drastically different survival strategy than that of the panda
the sloth bear however, has gone the way of specialization
given the abundance of termite hills in its habitat
you can see how their nozzles have become elongated
a little bit like an anteater
they still eat fruit and even carrion when there is scarcity of other foods
but I suppose that the “evolutionary temptation” to specialize is very great
if you can derive more energy from a food source than any other animal in that habitat
it’s a gamble
albeit one devoid of any conscious will or motivation
animals just do what they do
and their bodies over the course of millennia adapt
the mitochondria is another example
evidently it is in no parasite’s best interest to kill their host
for their colony dies with it
it is proposed that all organelles of our complex cells
were once parasites in a very distant past
but that over the course of an evolutionary process
have “learned” to either not cause harm to the host
or in fact become beneficial to it
the parasite’s ultimate goal is simbiosis
one can also think about the use of drugs that are beneficial to survival
and how they’ve managed to extend our life spans
allowed for a woman’s fertile life to be extended
significantly lowered the rates of child mortality and birth deaths
and how this was one of the elements driving our demographic explosion
though I don’t believe that we have been in contact with these drugs
for long enough for any significant genetic alterations
we do know that if we don’t expose our bodies to antigens
that we don’t develop a proper immune system
over the course of thousands of years
I can see that becoming an issue
though I can only speculate 
PS: i take your ignoring of my previous post
to mean that you have desisted from that approach
either due to finding merit in my criticism
or concluding that was not a worthwhile line of discussion
in any case
noted
On that issue of dexterity before the intelligence to use it - I think that they must always play together.
You proposed that we could give intelligence to a clumsy ape and he could then find ways to use his clumsiness but giving him refined dexterity does not significantly improve his performance.
I see two problems with that thought -
- I’m not sure that it is really true - it might be - but more significantly to my point -
- I don’t think that nature can “give” higher intelligence to a creature incapable of using it
The question that I am meagerly trying to address is whether Darwin’s Selection Principle is all that is involved in the development of higher order species.
The examples that you have just provided all point out that positive developments occur naturally. I never thought of that as being even disputable. My “argument” (really just a question) is that if Darwin’s Principle proposes that it is only the “survival of the fittest” testing that is responsible for higher developments (as has been proposed on this thread) then the principle doesn’t account for those positive contributions that obviously have occurred.
I don’t think it can be disputed that positive influences occur which contribute to survival of a species and to its advancement to being a higher order species (I don’t how the religions stand on that issue - but - not my concern at the moment). I am only questioning whether Darwin’s Selection Principle - a principle focusing on the atrophy of the weak is sufficiently addressing the natural strengthening of the strong.
I agree that the atrophy of the weak contributes to the altering of a species through time toward a species more adapted to a new environment. The part of the principle is clear enough. But where in that principle is the issue of the naturally occurring aberrant strengthening of the strong (or the weak for that matter)?
If the basic assertion proposed by Darwin’s Selection Principle is merely that the environment of a species affects changes in that species (positive or negative) - then that seems a little too tautological to even debate. That is paramount to asking if adding anything to a number changes the number.
It seems to me that through subtle promotions (even propaganda) the Darwin Selection Principle is similar to saying that we obtain the natural number set by all of the numbers originally being infinite but through an infinity of time, the weaker numbers got dwindled down by natural influences and testing that resulted in the now completely ordered set we call the natural numbers. 
agreed
I did not propose that
in fact both must evolve together
there is no fine motor skill
without significant brain processing power
i do believe I said that somewhere here
well, out yourself at ease about these
as I did not propose that
and as indeed nature does not “give” anything"
attributes of a living organism
evolve over a long span of time
and it is by using them to their advantage
that they persist in the population
for long enough to evolve
(i recognize that the wording used here
might lead to misconceptions
counting on your understanding)
not necessarily
but it is all that is required
i mean that there can be interventions
like for example, humans pulling shit with genetic engineering
but that is not a requirement for evolution to occur
whether there are humans tweaking genes or not
evolution will still continue to happen
restating the above
it is not necessarily the only
but it is all that is required
and occam’s razor compels us
to seek the simplest solution
dunno whose example this is
but when you see a coconut on the ground next to a coconut tree
you can propose that an eagle grabbed it
then flew around the world
and then was struck by an arrow
and dropped the coconut there
… or the coconut just fell on its own straight down
the evolution of any particular feature
is not necessarily a strength
it is a gamble
like the panda
something that is a clear advantage at one moment
might at another moment become the reason the species goes extinct
i do think that darwin sufficiently explained the emergence of attributes
that at a given point in time are advantageous to a species
and we have plenty of evidence to corroborate that
bacterial resistance to antibiotics, to cite one example
i believe that is plainly explained
by the fact that when competing for resources
the stronger(fittest) win
then why are we debating it?
except for the infinite part
also don’t understand why you’re using “numbers”
instead of “living organisms”
does that make it easier for you to understand?