Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

I did my BA in 1992-95, and my MA 2010.
If you had taken the trouble read you might has figured that out.

Yes, because “intellectual historians” are teached, all others are taught. :laughing:

You seem to be very frustrated. Otherwise you would not use such silly and antisocial words. Studied and academic persons do not use those words you always use. You have never studied.

I do not beleive it, as I already said (see above).

Am I bothered?
The discriminating ability of a person who cannot spell “taught” is not worthy of me.

And for someone who, unlike Arminius, was raised speaking English, one would think on a collegiate essay he might learn better than to say, “All that lower classes and races lacked were the appropriate opportunities.” :eusa-snooty:

:icon-rolleyes:

“Why can’t the English teach the English how to speak!?”

James wrote:

And generally with a kind of moral or aesthetic - this is better than what did not thrive.

If you thrive, say, in a corporate environment - pretend that things are good wiht you and your are thriving, compete always at root with others, kowtow to power figures, overwork and so on - than you are a better organism. If you thrive in modern society - which it seems to me includes high tolerance for shallow, meaningless stress - commuting, flood of information, distraction, lack of creativity, boredom, rigidity…- than you are more fit. The presumption is this society is the environment (and implicitly normal and given) and so we can judge the merit of organisms (individual citizens) by how well they thrive.

But if you actually look at the individuals, you will find that yes, sure, many who do not do well are fairly uninteresting or damaged organisms, but also that some of the most interesting, complicated, deep, creative individuals do not thrive in THAT PARTICULAR agar agar.

The society itself is not evaluated in terms of its overall health. It is taken as something like the amount of sunlight that strikes the earth in the various seasons, when in fact it is a highly cultured, particular, odd and potentially anti-life milieu. Long term effects - like dumbing down, extinction, elimination of culture with depth, punishment of creativity and the results of doing that long term, the creation of a simpler, more controllable species in general, the cattlelization of humans - are ignored.

The way the psychiatrists and pharma interact with citizens is one example, but there are many others. Sure, some people who are damaged may do better - in compromised form - through their model. But anyone with an ounce of real life in their bodies is suddenly diagnosible. IE viewed as damaged.

Because they are teached and not taught. :laughing:

Because they are teached and not taught. What I meant was this: They are influenced by the propaganda without even realizing it. So they also do not realize that the Darwinistic selection principle is partly false. They are just teached, not taught.

That is the difference between “intellectuat historians” and real historians. “Intellectuat historians” will never realize how religious Darwinists are, because they are just teached, not taught. So it is also no surprise to me when “intellectuat historians” do not know the difference between “fit” and “unfit”, or the difference between “spelling”" and “conjugating”, or many other differences, because they are teached, not taught. :laughing:

Arminius, can you define “fit”?

Yes. I can. And what about you, Phoneutria? Can you define “fit”?

Indeed I can!

high five

Would you define it in this thread, right here, again if you have already defined it before, for focus/emphasis?

Oh, this would refresh the discussion we already had. But okay, the following quotes refer to the term “fitness” I subscribe:

The following post refers to nothing else than to the human beings:

Are you satisfied, Phoneutria?

I can guarantee, that will never happen.

Thank you arminius, for bringing me up to speed on the discussion.
I will reply in a bit. Hold on. Toys in the making.
lol lie… I actually hald one too many biers tonight.

James, why? Cuz woman?

Arminius, why do you say that unfit humans have more offspring?
If you define fitness as the one with most offspring, whoever has the most offspring is the most fit.

Social selection dictates that the most blindly devoted and faithful will live on, the religious.
Sexual selection dictates that the most willing to sexually unite with the most harmonious will live on.
Natural selection dictates that the most biologically suited to the environment will live on.
Kin selection dictates that the most family devoted will live on.

All in all, it is the most fitted who live on, those with the most Anentropic Harmony, as dictated by the pure logic of the situation (also known as “God”).

And one becomes the most fitted and anentropically harmonious by the continuous process of:

  1. Clarifying, Verifying, (clearing the confusion)
  2. Instilling, and Reinforcing (ensuring the duration)
  3. the Perception of Hopes and Threats (that which guides conscious beings)
    • unto Anentropic Harmony (toward that which by definition, is the most fitted to any given situation).

In other words, that which is most fitted continues to be most fitted by ensuring that it is guided toward being the most fitted.

It is not a competition with each other. It is a competition with disharmonious, entropic situations (aka “evil”).

Darwinism and Nietzscheanism imply direct competition between individuals, races, and species which creates a more hostile, entropic environment. Their strategy is to weaken others so as to become the last man standing, game theory. And that strategy then becomes a disharmonious environment for the truly most fit to dispel.

How does the most fit dispel Nietzcheanism and Darwinism?
By “clarifying and verifying” (letting the Threat be clearly perceived, witnessed) and “instilling and reinforcing” (establishing the alternative, the Hope) toward the most enduring survival, Anentropic Harmony.

I am saying that the “social selection” (you may also call it the “human/cultural selection” or the “social state selection”), can and does often contradict the “natural selection”, so that the “fittest” humans have less and at last no offspring and die out, whereas the “unfittest” have more offspring and at last the only offspring and survive (this you may call “survning of the unfittest”). Therefore Darwin’s “selection principle” must be false, at least partly false.

Drones and androids are being programmed to:
“Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony”
and thus will be more fitted than You.

[size=150]Humans, You are NOT the fittest![/size]

I find it that peoples who die out are not the fittest.

And I find that people who live on were not the fittest, merely the fitted.

The Neanderthals were just standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It’s a poin it time thing. There can never be “the fittest”, only “the fittest right now”.