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.
It is hard for modern believers when they notice their idols are as dead as their ideologies.
Another Darwinistic fairy tale: When Darwin wrote his books every single word he used had a “specific meaning” and differed “from the colloquial usage”. Today there is nobody - except the Darwinists of course - who is capable of understanding a single word Darwin used in his books.
Oh boy.
A dictionary may help your current conundrum.
Oh, girl.
A dictionary would help you.
Have you never heard of Anti-Darwinism or any Darwinistic criticism?
News (examples):
- Individuals are not “blind” or absolutely dependent when it comes to the framework conditions of nature.
- The so-called “social selection” contradicts the so-called “natural selection” in many aspects.
- The immunity to any criticism indicates that Darwinism is a modern religious system.
- David Stove’'s book “Darwinian Fairytales”.
- Darwinism as an “Universal Darwinism”.
- Darwinism as an “Ultra Darwinism”.
- Darwinism explains NOTHING.
You push me in the role of an Anti-Darwinist, although I am not an Anti-Darwinist - but also not an Darwinist.
Darwinism is a system that makes humans dependent like pets. It is no accident that Darwinism and Marxism, Nietzscheanism, Freudianism have they have roughly the same age and are so much similar when it comes to speak about humans as absolutely dependent pets. Those isms have to do with compulsion systems, with dogmatism, with religion, but not with science.
Humans are not absolutely free, but they are relatively free. They do not depend on their environment like other living beings. Humans have the possibility to trick the nature. They are luxury beings. Their culture is a huge “island” in the “ocean” as nature. If they were not relatively free, then they could and would not be capable of destroying their environment, the whole globe, and meanwhile also the outer space, could and would not be capable of bringing every living being in an absoluetly foreign environment, could and would not be capable of having a technolgy that makes them more than demigods.
Humans do not absolutely depend on economic or fatalistic or unconscious restraints. They are relatively free. Humans are not pets, although they educate themselves as if they were pets.
So assuming all environmental concerns are removed such that only biology is dictating the results of evolution rather than all of the other factors, the word “fitness” is restricted to only the biological reproduction ability.
In other words, the Darwinian principle only applies after the other situational factors are disregarded (I think that I said that in the beginning).
And that is only a partial list.
The easier and more certain statement is:
If anything cannot reproduce due to either psychological, physiological, or physical conditions then it will not reproduce.
I don’t recall Darwin saying anything close to that, yet Christianity and Judaism knew that thousands of years ago.
If anything cannot reproduce, it won’t reproduce. Wow, that’s a mind bender. I’m sure Darwin never considered that.
The elegance of the theory of natural selection lies in it’s simplicity. It’s very easy to understand. You guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
You’re rubber, I’m glue, huh? I see I’m dealing with a very sophisticated conversationalist.
You don’t even know what you’re talking about when you refer to social selection. Look it up. It’s basically sexual selection, but was originally intended to be an alternative to it. What you call “social selection” is basically eugenics, which is not what social selection seeks to explain. I wouldn’t call you an anti-Darwinist because you’d first have to understand his ideas before being opposed to them. You’re more like a pseudo-skeptic and a bit of a blow-hard. Darwinism has faced tons of good criticism, which is why the theory has been improved upon since Darwin.
That would seem to be all that Darwin said: “It ain’t here because it stopped reproducing. And I am going to call that unfit.”
Don’t confuse elegance with simple mindedness. If anything it was fumbling and now words have to be redefined to make it true. It is a typically ill conceived and poorly worded religion.
@ Statiktech.
You need a dictionary!
You have not the tiniest conception of “selection”, let alone “social selection”. “Social selection” is not “sexual selection”. You have no conception of the “selection principle”. So why do you not look for another thread? Currently there are 41032 ILP threads. Good luck!
Yes. Of course. Therefore I always added the words “and so on”:
The classic wave of the white flag without having the balls to admit it.
Yes. It is a poorly worded religion, a very poorly worded religion.
The more the ILP Darwinists post the more I am an Anti-Darwinist. 
Less offspring can be fine, from a Darwinian perspective, as long that the process continues.