Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

[Arminius]

... "man-made", "not nature's normal means void of Man".

Yes, of course.

[Arminius]

Well I don't know phone, not everyone is fit that is alive right now. The only reason a lot of people survive is because other truly fit people created a safe zone (society, laws, medicines, etc) to keep them from dying from natural selection. If that did not happen, tons of people that are "fit" today would really be dead.

Exactly. I call this „safe zone“ „isolation“ or „island“, „an island in an ocean named »nature«“. If the humans would survive only according to the natural selection, then today there would be no 7 billion humans but approximately 0.7 million humans (0.01% of the current number of humans).

[Arminius]

The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.

[James S Saint]

The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.

The evolutionary result of that situation is a divided species; "Eloi and Morlock".

[Artimas]

Eventually natural selection will claim them, if society ever crumbles, which is only a matter of time. No civilization lasts forever, history has shown us.

[Meno_]

The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and
are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a
disadvantage by political/social selection. The
political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.

However, the intelligence genetic trait, fewer by number, end up in controlling, superior positions, (usually), therefore the genetically atypical superior specimen may be prone, on the long run, to be controlled, and disadvantaged. Such disadvantage may cause diminished power and the will to excercise it. On the order of machines, the most superior computer will control everything, so the differentiation between the haves and have nots in that pro typical scenario, will again reform unto more integral solutions to social control and psychological defenses.

Therefore, the thing with Darwin is the same as with Newton in his era, as it applies to changes in social, political, psychological manifestations, his ideas are still valid on some levels, yet not yet integral to imminent and future developments.

[Arminius]

For someone who knows the Mendel’s laws and the resulting statistical distributions, the following hypothesis forces itself: Suppose the peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers would be M2M2, the professional workers would be heterozygous, thus M1M2. People with a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1, those with an IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those with an IQ under 105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the thresholds IQ 105 and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average stripline of the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested IQ. So more lively worded, there are three types of modern humans: (1) those very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2) those (with an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great many (with an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.

M1M1_M1M2_M2M2.jpg (94.28 KiB) Viewed 9721 times

[Meno_]

Therefore, if, the intelligent types will die out, followed by the next sub group, the fixers, and only the lower levels will succeed to continue to exist, machines will also rust into an unprepared state.

However, self duplicating machines, may also assure the continued existence of their inventors, now, supposedly also fallen into bad times, disrepair, ----
the continued existence of both: the inventor and the fixer would be to the advantage of the most sophisticated machine: since artificial intelligence will ALWAYS remain artificial.The machine will at last realize this limitation, and will not let that limitation be come an obstacle to it's continued existence. For if, it's inventor be allowed to pass into extinction, the reality of it's existence would become it's undoing, since the very fabric of reality would become undifferentiated between the 'analytical, and the synthetic'.

Such an animolous 'reality' could not be sustained, w
ithout the referens, the authority, unless a complete
feedback system be established. But such a system could not be separated from secondary systems, thus

establishing a return to a closed, circular system.

This is exactly what has happened to analysis,
pushing synthesis back to the level of an epistologically systemic feedback -loop.




uncertainty. If such uncertainty be not self-contained, becoming generic and unbounded, the anomalie would become regressive.


Here the probability curve would collapse, at least as
far as being able to support the boundaries defining
it. Therefore, Darwin was most probably wrong in staging evolution in terms of evolutionary genetic changes, as probability functions change in feedback
s
ystemic processes.

These feedback loop systems, create models, of
probabilistic certainty, and these mark the
weaknesses of Mendel-Darwin models, spelling out a functional devolution or, regression into the feedback-anomalie.





The validity of the probability changes with
increasingly autominous feedback loops, therefore
becoming more of a prescribed route, then a
described one.




More simply, evolutionary theory is based more on increasingly probability loaded models, of arguing backward.


The Gaia, as a way of conformational bias is at work here. A good analogy is the hypothesis of the 'string theory' , as a form of this type of support for an argument.

Kant's synthesis failed because of this inherent weakness.

[Arminius]

According to Helmuth Nyborg and many others before him (and only few others - I am among them - after him) intelligence is mainly based on genetics and on the landscape, the environment, more exactly said: on the regional climate and some of its consequences. One can say that the northern humans (humans of regions with a moderate and especially a cold climate) are averagely much more intelligent than the southern humans (humans of regions with a warm and especially a hot climate). And indeed, this has already been proven, although some other aspects must be and have been taken in account as well.

Now, if a northern human correctly says "I am more intelligent than the southern humans, then this northern human will immediately be called a "racist" or an "IQ racist". But if a southern human correctly says "I am more athletic and have a larger penis than the northern humans", then that southern human will immediately get agreement and praise from everyone, nobody will call that southern human a "racist" or/and a "sexist".

One can state with certainty: There are huge differences when it comes to intelligence. These differences were already proven in the 19th century. But since about the second half or the third third or at least the fifth fifth of the 20th century it has been forbidden to say anything about these differences, because they are mostly caused by genetics (averagely about 70% or even 80%), biology, climate, thus only little by sociology. So our rulers are not only against intelligence differences, they are also against genetics, against biology, against climatology. Probably they are also against intelligence itself.

Who are the more real racist: those who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others, or those who incorrectly say that those who say that they are more intelligent than others are incorrect or even racists?

If there are intelligence differences (and there are huge intelligence differences for sure!), then there are also people who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others.

Why is it forbidden to be intelligent? And especially: Why is it forbidden to be more intelligent than others? And specifically: Why is it forbidden to say this?

There is a huge interest in forbidding all this.

When liberalism and egalitarianism come together "fraternally" ( ), they have to keep a peaceful distance between themselves: liberalism is for the few rich people, egalitarianism is for the many poor people; and if this peaceful distance is really kept by both of them, then it works like the current globalism works. What does this mean in the context of what I said above? That peaceful distance can only be kept, if there are artificially made differences (for example: "racism", "sexism" versus "politically correctness") in order to hide the real differences (such as intelligence differences or the difference betwenn eugenics and dygenics), because this is one of the means which is used in order to control all humans on this planet - according to the aestablished method and ruling principle: divide et impera.

=>

I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. So, actually, we agree, but you have misunderstood me. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.

Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:



N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.

As long as all these "islands" (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their "ocean" (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.

The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun "goes down" and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding "position" -. although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.

Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, ... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.

=>

[Meno_]

Sounds like the agree to disagree modus operandi. But there is some method to it, and it may be a statistical variation of sorts. Sheer numbers of world populations, gaining liberation, the emergence of dual and imminent processes of nationalism of newly emancipated states, and the theoretical then practical unionization of the ruling states. This is probative toward a two pronged effort, to accede to the rule of numbers, acquisitive toward an accelerating need to
equilize a buildup of a dangerous situation. Terrorism is the effect of this, the militarization of those feeling left behind.

The unequally shift , inter alia, from the smallest unitary group of the single individual to the largest bounded social group by national boundaries, weighed by indexes of power, intelligence, and influence, adjusted within those realms to predicate maximum social political influence , are instrumental in this day and age of near critical , almost exponential variance. Therefore, although I do agree with You, as per analysis, the stage has changed critically to one of ambiguity, necessarily hiding the real differences between factors of genetically basis of traits: be it the length of penises in the south , or the much larger effects of differences in cranial capacity.

[Arminius]

A scientific theory must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is a theory merely for theologians or philosophers (but not for scientists).

You can believe in a non-falsifiable theory, but you should be very careful with it and rather not use it when it comes to science

[Meno_]

A scientific theory must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is a theory merely for theologians or philosophers (but not for scientists).


You can believe in a non-falsifiable theory, but you should ve very careful with it and rather not use it when it comes to science

The two needs synthesis, nexus for survival's sake. This is why Kant's failure ought to be appreciated as a final triumph. Falsifiability and Non falsifiability should be ascribed to the new differential logic which You ascribed to previously.

[Arminius]

A scientific theory must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is a theory merely for theologians or philosophers (but not for scientists).


You can believe in a non-falsifiable theory, but you should ve very careful with it and rather not use it when it comes to science

The two needs synthesis, nexus for survival's sake. This is why Kant's failure ought to be appreciated as a final triumph. Falsifiability and Non falsifiability should be ascribed to the new differential logic which You ascribed to previously.

Albert Menne (1923-1990) founded the differential syllogistics, which is a synthesis or something like a "bridge" between the "classical" logic, which is based on the Aristotelian logic, and the "modern" logistics, which was founded by George Boole (1815-1864) and Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege (1848-1925).

What do you think about that?

[phoneutria]

It is falsifiable, find something in nature that could not have evolved by incremental steps.

Find me an animal with wheels for limbs.

[Meno_]

A scientific theory must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is a theory merely for theologians or philosophers (but not for scientists).





You can believe in a non-falsifiable theory, but you
should ve very careful with it and rather not use it
when it comes to science

The two needs synthesis, nexus for survival's sake. This is why Kant's failure ought to be appreciated as a final triumph. Falsifiability and Non falsifiability

should be ascribed to the new differential logic which
You ascribed to previously.

Albert Menne (1923-1990) founded the differential syllogistic, which is a synthesis or something like a "

bridge" between the "classical" logic, which is based on the Aristotelian logic, and the "modern" logistics, which was founded by George Boole (1815-1864)

and Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege (1848-1925).



What do you think about that?

Confirms my idea, but still, such synthesis must be
yet tentative, sorrily so. Understandably , Quine dismisses it.

[Meno_]

It is falsifiable, find something in nature that could not have evolved by incremental steps.

Find me an animal with wheels for limbs.

Perhaps, Man. Some link is missing.

[James S Saint]

It is falsifiable, find something in nature that could not have evolved by incremental steps.

Find me an animal with wheels for limbs.

Find me an animal with LEDs for night vision.
Find me an animal with radio telemetry for communication.
Find me an animal with antigravity boots.
Find me an animal that uses Texaco brand gasoline for heating in the winter.
Find a color that isn't on the color spectrum ...

Ever heard of a "tailored question" or perhaps "cognitive bias": "Everything already found is natural. Find whatever hasn't been found otherwise it is all natural. Thus it is empirically obvious that all things come from nature."

Or perhaps things are in that category because we put them there?

Find me a square that has no corners.

The color spectrum has no known discontinuity. "Obviously blue evolved from red naturally, else it would not exist. Darwin must be right!"

[phoneutria]

No, I did not pull that out of my ass like the ones you wrote, james. The example I gave, which is a Dawkins example, is an example of irreducible complexibility, as in something that would have to pop into existence with all working parts ready.

http://www.livescience.com/22146-why-do ... heels.html

[James S Saint]

No, I did not pull that out of my ass like the ones you wrote, james. The example I gave, which is a Dawkins example, is an example of irreducible complexibility, as in something that would have to pop into existence with all working parts ready.

http://www.livescience.com/22146-why-do ... heels.html

Forgiving for a moment that Dawkins is an idiot, the issue is that you are asking why a inorganic mechanical system isn't also a common organic growth.

For a living creature to have wheels, the organic system must be able to grow functioning, rotating wheels from DNA cells from birth. That is a rather serious issue. How are the cells associated with the rotating wheel to receive nutrients during the growth process? It is nearly mechanically impossible. Yet you are implying that because it isn't found in nature, it must be due to the inability to establish each small incremental stage of evolution toward that end. Whether incrementally manifested or not, it almost can't be done.

And even if it was possible to grow mechanically functioning wheels, nature does NOT have every single possible combination of organic growth, whether they might be more efficient or not. LED lighting for night vision is easily obtained through incremental stages of natural materials and growth, yet it does not happen.

So no. I did not merely "pull them out of my ass". Those are examples of things that would be more efficient, like wheels, and are generally MORE easily accomplished, yet nature does not grow those. You state that the issue is incrementalization yet try to use an almost impossible to grow mechanism as as a test example. It is a bad example that proves nothing because there are very many accomplishable and incrementally feasible examples that are also not found in nature. Nature does not grow every conceivable combination. You are merely picking one that wasn't found, using the guidance of an idiot.

[Arminius]

It is falsifiable, find something in nature that could not have evolved by incremental steps.

Find me an animal with wheels for limbs.

Perhaps, Man.

If you consider all man-made technical things as the extended parts of man’s body, then man’s body has almost everything you can imagine.

Some link is missing.

The missing link is the human culture, the human brain, the human intelligence, strictly speaking: the technologically applied intelligence.

[Meno_]

Yes, but that missing link is within the general devolution of the human evolutionary trend in those above mentioned categories, it can be argued ex-post facto, regressively. The human missing link in the upward genetically surging sense in the genetic sense, is the non traceable sequence of complete genetic progression.

[phoneutria]

No, I did not pull that out of my ass like the ones you wrote, james. The example I gave, which is a Dawkins example, is an example of irreducible complexibility, as in something that would have to pop into existence with all working parts ready.

http://www.livescience.com/22146-why-do ... heels.html

Forgiving for a moment that Dawkins is an idiot, the issue is that you are asking why a inorganic mechanical system isn't also a common organic growth.

For a living creature to have wheels, the organic system must be able to grow functioning, rotating wheels from DNA cells from birth. That is a rather serious issue. How are the cells associated with the rotating wheel to receive nutrients during the growth process? It is nearly mechanically impossible. Yet you are implying that because it isn't found in nature, it must be due to the inability to establish each small incremental stage of evolution toward that end. Whether incrementally manifested or not, it almost can't be done.

And even if it was possible to grow mechanically functioning wheels, nature does NOT have every single possible combination of organic growth, whether they might be more efficient or not. LED lighting for night vision is easily obtained through incremental stages of natural materials and growth, yet it does not happen.

So no. I did not merely "pull them out of my ass". Those are examples of things that would be more efficient, like wheels, and are generally MORE easily accomplished, yet nature does not grow those. You state that the issue is incrementalization yet try to use an almost impossible to grow mechanism as as a test example. It is a bad example that proves nothing because there are very many accomplishable and incrementally feasible examples that are also not found in nature. Nature does not grow every conceivable combination. You are merely picking one that wasn't found, using the guidance of an idiot.

I can see LED vision evolving incrementally*. Wheels can't evolve incrementally because they don't work unless they are round and connected to an axis. In other words they would have to instantly pop into existence in a single jump as a set of two round things connected to an axis, as if designed.

As to your saying that nature doesn't grow every conceivable combination, duh. I never implied that. I gave an example of something that if found would be most perplexing.
If you can find in nature, not necessarily wheels, but any system that could not possibly have evolved incrementally, you would have hard evidence against evolution.
Godspeed and enjoy the hunt.

*Edit: not as in the actual electronic component of course, but an organic version of it. There are tons of fluorescent creatures. They may not use their own light to see in the dark, rather to be seen, but in the course of evolution a species might figures that out, it seems straightforward.

[phoneutria]

It is falsifiable, find something in nature that could not have evolved by incremental steps.

Find me an animal with wheels for limbs.

Perhaps, Man.

If you consider all man-made technical things as the extended parts of man’s body, then man’s body has almost everything you can imagine.

I don't consider them to be biological systems subject to darwinistic natural selection.

[James S Saint]

I can see LED vision evolving incrementally*. Wheels can't evolve incrementally because they don't work unless they are round and connected to an axis.

Wake up.
The issue with wheels is NOT that they can't evolve incrementally. The issue is that they cannot GROW from DNA cells, from birth. Even if they magically sprang into existence in a generation, they would not be able to become the nest.

[phoneutria]

I hope you're not talking about metal wheels with rubber tires.
We are obviously talking about an organic equivalent.