Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Actually what Id be getting at is that science has not yet learned to think. I trust you’ve read my post on refuting the law of identity, in the thread you recently visited.

Leave astrology out of it, it is just an art of power, it has little to offer scientific thought. Governments and banks use it, not scientists. Leave religion out of it too.
But what is this idea that the masses should be wooed? That has never been the case - science has always operated best far away from the masses. Im sure you’re not ignorant of the lives of Archimedes, Newton or Galileo. Nor of the fact that Einstein, after he became famous, did not produce much of consequence. Science is a matter of unearthing subtleties through extreme patience and persistence, something for which the masses are entirely unfit.

Your statement that the world will forever, at least until its destruction, be under the dominion of science, and that this science is of western origin, is true. There are elements of nonwestern thought that can be applied to science in order to enable it to deal with certain contradictions that have come to light early in the 20th century, but these elements can also be derived simply from clear thought.

The scientific matter before us now is that of 4 dimensional engineering, as premonitioned by the phenomena of superposition and entanglement. Supposedly various companies and governments are in possession of a quantum computer - but I expect there to be very interesting “bugs” coming into play, which will point to our inefficiency at 4d architecture, because we do not yet understand precisely how the future influences the present as much as the past does; we do not know how to approach systems in their own terms.

Perhaps this science is actually quite well established in secret. Much new science is established in secret. And much of it is kept, partly for very good reasons, away from the masses.

It’s plain fact.
You are a dupe.

Animals have an environment, humans have a world.
Animals adapt to the environment, humans do the opposite.

Humans have bare skin, walk upright on two legs, have graceful hands with a thumb that they can put in an opposition position to the other fingers (humans can i.e. throw, they are throwers; they can use their hands like tools and use them to make other tools, first of all throwing tools, later vaccines and nanobots), they have brains so complex that they could conquer and have conquered the whole world with their technology, they made themselves gods.

In nature, a naked skin, the bipedalism, the upright walk, the graceful hands and, above all, the very complex brain are of no use to humans at all - on the contrary: all these cultural advantages are only disadvantages in nature. Humans are not capable of surviving in a purely natural way; they can survive only thanks to their culture, which is based on their non-natural resp. anti-natural features.

Human culture is a culture opposed to nature. It is based on distanciation, not on adaptation.

In rudiments, a little human resemblance can be detectable in some apes (i.e. chimpanzees, bonobos). But you only have to look at these apes and observe them for a longer time to realize that they are very far away from humans.

How is any of this attending to the thread question?

If the relevance between the correspondence between the environmental evolution of the environment to the world can be reduced AND the sensory evolution of the entire gap between the corresponding species can be induced , then the patterns of similarity may suggest such conclusion.

But then, what is missing is the pivotally missing inflective - reflective symbolic equivolance as in a micro elemental sequence e of symbols, connecting pictures as ideograms.

Without it it is still a hypothesis.

Although on a probable scale, the preponderence to almost absolute certainty appears overwhelmingly convincing to assert absolute truth of the selection principle.

Note: for those who can not recall the substantially formed content of arguing, the re-view becomes an useless test of credibility.

Further associations missed cannot be induced except literally reassign a partially abandoned criteria for maintaining it’s hypothetical.

So an infinitely reduced constant such ‘proof’ appears as an invincible logical certainty.

Except on the level as the minimal approach to certainty becomes appearently incalculable.

Without admitting that Kammefer was right, or wrong, one can discern the sad outcome he was compelled to, just by following the retro-logic of political expedience that prefigured the outcome.

Lamarkism may be totally off kilter here, nevertheless, the vein of disagreement may still subsist.

How does an ape go from a zoo to The TETRAMEGATRON-TETRAGRAMMATON

It won’t look back.

youtu.be/JCo7Qyez3Ac

Apes Might Know That You Don’t Know What They Know

“The latest volley in a decades-long debate about apes’ theory of mind involved one scientist dressing up as King Kong and stealing from his colleague.”

Undetermined source

Mega-tetra-tron - - - to -

Mega-ton- don’t look back

PENTAGRAM

Gibberish

Nah. Your word salad does not change anything.
The principle remains regardless. Shit that survives propogates that which does not fails. Progress therefore inevitably means more fitness.
This princple can be shown to work from bacteria in petri dishes, to the evolution of all species on the plant and in artificial systems and even in the architechture of the brain.

Yes. He has no idea about genetics, biology and evolution, and now it turns out consequently that he has no idea about economics and orporate interests either, but only interests in conspiracy theories.

Absolutely right.

And that means: Darwins selection principle is false.

Nature does not select! Humans select!

The Question would best be " Is the Darwinian Principle Misunderstood"?

And for every poster here the answer would be YES.

I have never seen such a bunch of clueless nerds in my life.

Nooooo…

Natural Selection: traits, mutations, that offer an advantage help an individual survive, and those who survive increase their odds of reproducing.
This is natural selection.

Living organisms, then, become agencies of selection, through their competitions, and judgements and the choices that result from them.

So, women become natural selection agencies, selecting which male will pass on their genes and which ones will be filtered out.
The time consuming, brutal methods of natural selection are streamlined.

Humans can intervene and corrupt this process with their ideologies…entering the age of memetic selection, which may contradict natural selection through the types that are deemed to be fit, or desirable, or ideal.
Traits that offer an advantage in natural environments become disadvantageous in manmade environments.
Such human interventions come at a cost…wherever man intervenes and tries to adjust nature to his preferences he produces collateral effects - pollutants.

From genes to memes…from DNA to Linguistic codes.

Under a traditional Darwinian perspective male virility is obviously the deciding factor in determining evolutionary success.

Darwin said that precisely no where.

What Darwin said is that selection is passive, in the sense of not conscious. As time passes, some die and some go on to produce viable progeny. The selection is “NATURAL”.
That is why it is called “natural selection”.
Or are you too stupid to understand that?

Natural selection is always unconscious.

Animals don’t know and don’t need to know what they are reacting to when certain signals of fertility are sensed.

Most humans don’t know why they find a certain form attractive, the 7/10 ratio, or why they find something beautiful.
Their brains have evolved to recognize appreciate/evaluate and react automatically, without having to engage reasoning or the conscious mind, ego.

In humans the sexual power of females reaches its apex, because homo sapient females conceal their fertility cycles, so they intuitively know when the probability of being fertilized it highest.

Also, Evolutionary Psychologist have included the utility of female orgasm into female sexual power.
Female orgasm, the physical spasms, increase the probability of a sperm load reaching its coveted destination, the ovum, in a world where she has intercourse with multiple males as part of her social strategy of maintaining in-group alliances with beta-males.

In modern times contraceptives multiply female sexual power.

Marriage/Monogamy was a technology invented by males to harness feminine sexual power to male objective, making civilization possible.
This is why female despise paternalism.

Russell put it nicely…

In none arranged mating females always make the first move…they signal to the male to approach because she is receptive.
This happens on a subconscious level.
Body language have been studied…signalling erotic interest.

In male controlled arranged mating the process is more rational. Establishing family alliances, propagating specific desirable combinations…etc.

Yet…every human intervention upon nature has consequences:

Please explain how an unvirile male is going to produce offspring?

Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist about your obsession with female sexuality threatening mankind?

What is the difference between

1. “male virility is obviously the deciding factor”
   and
2. “how an un-virile male is going to produce offspring”.

Or are you THAT fucking stupid?

Here are some points to consider.

a) You made a claim about something Darwin said. I called Bullshit. He did not say that, because he was not a moron. Now run along and support your claim by quoting Darwin or fuck off.

b) Consider this. Males can be very “virile” and produce no off spring at all. I’d be willing to bet that the fruits of your own virility are regularly soaked up by toilet paper and flushed down the toilet - probably more than most.

c) Consider the phrase “it take two to tango”. You can have a bathfull of spunk - but without an egg and a womb to gestate a foetus its just useless protein.

d) there are several factors, the least of which is male virility. Female choice; female health; the security of the gestational period and security of the child’s life until it reaches adulthood and can reproduce itself.

e) oh yeah - and one sperm has to work.

What does virility mean you dome-headed freak?

Man is the active partner, he must be aroused to achieve impregnation. It’s all down to sexual mechanics, as it is with every other species. The more virile male will sire more offspring again as it is with every other species and he will be able to protect his brood. The more virile male will also attract more females (those females will likely be healthier too).

Basic fact about sex:

Male: driven to spread his seed.
Female: sperm sampler…diversifying to preserve at least one due to changing environmental circumstances.

Female promiscuity is longer in cycles-
6-8 years in humans…or the length of time a child needs to reach the age of self-sufficiency.

This is why moist divorces usually occur 4-8 years after marriage.

In chimpanzees the beta male is allowed to copulate with the female in secret, away from the view of the dominant male.

In human females inconspicuous ovulation cycles allows the female to pick and choose who has the better chance of fertilizing her…and why rape is so devastating to a female.
As noted elsewhere, Evolutionary Psychologists also explain the necessity of female orgasm…and conclude that it is to increase the probability of being fertilized by a desirable male.
The entrance to her fallopian tubes gesticulating, during orgasm, dips them into the freshly inserted sperm, giving them a boost - increasing the probability of them fertilizing her.

Controlling a female’s standards for evaluating fitness determines what type of male she will find socially attractive, even if her body has evolved to automatically respond to a male’s natural fitness markers.
This creates in her the mind/body dissonance many females consider their “complexity”…their “feminine mystique”.

In other species male compete and females submit to the victor.

Diversification is an innate motive of primate females…explaining why they always support diversity and non-paternalistic social systems. that take away this power.

He who controls a female’s standards controls the destiny of a culture/civilization.
Inferior males always readily adapt to their judgements…as is evident by the reaction of ILP males, as this increases the possibility of being selected - virtue signaling.
Beta-males, as in chimpanzee troops, always become aids, or allies to females, often babysitting the offspring she’s had with the alpha,…always around waiting for her to give them an opportunity to copulate. She often acquiesces to keep him around, usually in her conflicts with other in-group females.
We see how females use sex to control males, especially low status males.

In Modern human societies the alpha-male role is taken by the institution, making all biological males beta-males.

Try and go through each point I made before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

So where does Darwin say what you said he did?
I’ll not hold my breath