The point is that you don’t have a point. You’ve copy/Paste dumped your crap onto the thread without relevance or understanding.
Try to read this thread, and then you will see that you are absolutely wrong.
And if you are not interested in this thread, then search for another thread.
I’ve read it through. I am correct in what I have said. You are not thinking through. the “Darwinistic Selection” is assumed by all the posts to be true. The problem is that you do not properly understand the principle, how it works ,and cannot make the simple distinction between it and the one human example that you think refutes it.
It’s like you are not very bright. But I think if you read my posts properly, then you will understand where you have gone wrong.
Natural Selection works whether or not you like it.
Try to learn to read, boy! You have not read the whole thread correctly. I never said the natural slection did not work. Try to read my posts, boy!
Natural selection stops working when it stops being natural.
Exactly.
=D>
[size=200]
No. Natural Selection is NOT Natural Selection when it is not Natural.[/size]
Darwin makes this crystal clear in Origin of Species where he lays out very carefully the DIFFERENT types of selection that exist.
For example he devotes a special chapter to Domestic Selection, where conscious human choices are made in the selection of traits and behaviours in domesticated animals and plants.
He also points out the excessive evolution is sexual traits due to what he calls sexual selection.
Natural Selection, a process not teleological in any sense has no aim, so to say “it” stops working for x,y,or z, is false. The “principle” though remains intact, regardless of the results. Individuals unfit to reproduce fail to pass in their genes.
I’ve read Origin of Species and the Descent of Man from cover to cover, and have studies much of his other works. You are only speaking from ignorance. Darwin, though writing 150 years ago was well ahead you you nay sayers. Every thing you’ve brought to the table he’d already thought through.
You are obviously not capable of understanding more than two words in one sentence!
2 years old children are capable of understanding whole sentences although they can merely produce 2 or 3 words in one sentence by themselves.
Some adults are not capable of understanding whole sentences although they can produce them by themselves.
That is only true if you define “unfit” as “did not reproduce”, which makes the whole thing tautological and pointless.
Bull
Shit
A tautology is a perfect argument because it describes something two ways.
Darwin described Natural Selection as a “principle” of nature. This is not pointless because it accurately describes exactly how the next generation is “selected” in nature.
So if you will kindly refer to the THREAD TITLE. You will understand why the question can only be answered “no”.
As for your uninformed “no”. Please indicate any point made in this thread that Darwin did not cover in hsi vast series of writings that related the the thread, and I will try to quote him for you.
If you have time to educated yourself, please consult Darwin Online. Which is a complete collection of all publications, notes and correspondence.
At which time it is NOT natural selection. You prick!
When it stops being natural.
And stop trolling. You obviously do not remember what Only Humean said to you:
I just gave you one. Wake-up:
“That is only true if you define “unfit” as “did not reproduce”, which makes the whole thing tautological and pointless.”
the word “unfit” is used. But does that word really mean what is presumed?
If I do not like you because you are British and thus infect your children with a slowly fatal disease, does that make them “unfit”? Indirectly you are not reproducing either. So does that make you unfit?
Two men were fighting over a woman at the base of a mountain. It was clear that one was stronger and faster, clearly to be the victor. Unexpectedly, a large rock fell upon the stronger one and killed him. The other man had 7 children, two of which came to be known as Romulus and Remus.
Does that story (or the prior) tell of one man being more unfit than the other? How does that kind of scenario, very common even today in sports contests and real-world domination games, play into “Darwin’s Principle”?
On any one day, any species might survive the day. The very next day, that same species might not survive that day. Even if they were exactly equally talented, every species is NOT given equal chances in life because the situation each day is unique to that day. Survival depends largely upon which day the species or individual happened to be on that particular island.
Darwin left out the most significant “force” of all - the immediate situation (also known as “God”).
The Darwin principle plays into what is happening. It does NOT dictate nor perfectly describe what is happening.
So go educate yourself.
Yeah, the dead guy wasn’t able to make a genetic contribution to the next generation’s gene pool.
Again:
Darwin’s selection principle is partly false. Therefore the “natural selection” was “extended” by the “sexual selection”, because the “natural selection” had partly failed; then the “sexual selection” was “extended” by the “kin selection”, because the “seuxal selection” had partly failed; then the “kin selection” was “extended” by the “social selection”, because the “kin selection” had partly failed; … and so on, one day the “social selection” will be “extended” by the “godly selection” (again), because the “social selection” will have partly failed.
Who selects according to the Darwinistic selection principle?
Who is the breeder according to the Darwinistic selection principle?
- According to the “natural selection” the breeder is the nature.
- According to the “sexual selection” the breeder are the females.
- According to the “kin selection” the breeder are the relatives.
- According to the “social selection” the breeder is the social state.
These just keep getting funnier.
None of them failed. They are just different types of selection. You’ve yet to say how any of them have failed. You just site another type of selection as proof that another failed, which is false. They are just different mechanisms of selection.
And see … that is just defining your own conclusion into validity - “unfit means ‘unfit for the situation at that moment in time’ such that reproduction did not happen”.
It says nothing at all about the fitness of the individual, but merely of the situation on that day.
It is just a word game when you do it that way, because “unfit” doesn’t normally mean that at all.
Thus anyone could equally say (actually more properly say and they have) that God chose who reproduces and who doesn’t. Equally, they are defined to be correct because God is whatever it is that allows or forbids everything that happens. But in that case, one would say that the individual was unfit for God.
That’s absolutely right.
And even if the “different types of selection” are “different mechanisms of selection”: they contradict each other, especially the “natural selection” and the “social selection”. A social states can and does decide against the nature, the so-called “natural selection”, and also against the “sexual selection” and “kin selection”, … and so on.
In almost all cases the “social selection” and the “natural selection” are diametrically opposed.
The “social selction” just allows the “social state” as the breeder to select whomever it wants to be selected - so: these people will die, those people will live just because of the decision of the “social state”.
Darwinian “fitness” has a specific meaning that differs from the colloquial usage. A modicum of research on your part could have given you that information.
I said originally that Arminius is equivocating when he talks about fitness. You’re either doing the same or you’re just plain confused.
Typical Darwinistic excuse!
I know very well what “fitness” means. Stop equivocating!
But Darwin knew nothing about genetics.
Do you not know that there are the “sexual selection”, the “kin selection”, and especially the “social selection” as well? At the latest when we are talking about “social selection”: the term “fitness” has already changed - often in its opposed meaning. So I did not change the term, but the Darwinists themselves did it. So the Darwinists themselves equivocate.
You are equivocating.
According to Darwin the fittest have more offspring and live on, while the unfittest have less and at last no offspring and die out. According to the “social selection” - thus to the “social state” - a decision of just the opposite is possible and happens in reality every day: the unfittest live on, while the fittest die out. If Darwin’s selection principle were not false, the “social selection” could and would not be possible.
You Darwinists have no single argument but merely excuses and personal attacks.