James S Saint wrote:... "man-made", "not nature's normal means void of Man".
Yes, of course.
Moderator: Flannel Jesus
James S Saint wrote:... "man-made", "not nature's normal means void of Man".
Artimas wrote: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.
Arminius wrote: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.
Arminius wrote: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.
=>Arminius wrote: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.
=>Arminius wrote: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.
Arminius wrote: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
jerkey wrote:Arminius wrote: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 wrote:jerkey wrote:Arminius wrote: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?
phoneutria wrote:It is falsifiable, find something in nature that could not have evolved by incremental steps.
Find me an animal with wheels for limbs.
phoneutria wrote:It is falsifiable, find something in nature that could not have evolved by incremental steps.
Find me an animal with wheels for limbs.
phoneutria wrote: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
jerkey wrote:phoneutria wrote: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.
jerkey wrote:Some link is missing.
James S Saint wrote:phoneutria wrote: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 wrote:jerkey wrote:phoneutria wrote: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.
phoneutria wrote: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.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users