Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

The statement he made asserts the truth of Natural selection. And whilst your posts make you think you have refuted it, in fact they assert it.
The principle is a natural occurrence not affected by Arminius’ view about what is or is not “best”.
Nature selects what is ‘best’ not because it is ‘best’. It IS best because it is selected! There is no calculation about value or worth- just simply reproductive success.
I think the confusion lies in his head as he is coming from a teleological theistic perspective that assumes that nature is purposeful.

NS: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as be the main process that brings about evolution.

The adaption is simply measured by reproductive success, and that is what is meant by adaptive.

Nature doe not “know” what is best. Nature does not “know” at all. And the law of Natural Selection is not intensional. What is selected, is simply by definition what remains.

I think, Lev, wer’e begging the question here. wHat is ‘best’ is defined as the best quality in nature, what is selected, right?

And , what is selected is, the best survival value, right? I can not get out of the convertibility of the terms, yet, not the concepts.

If beautiful woman chooses an inferior man , on basis of other than survival value, and the have offspring, does this mean, that. Within the woman’s genetic heritage there is more beneficial survival adaptable value? The male may , indeed be the product of less then optimal genetic value, in this regard, and may be on the verge of a disappearing genetic strain. Perhaps , had he not met this particularly stunning and succeful line in this woman,
The whole family line may have died out as a result. Happens all the time. But this woman chose him above all alpha males, other then on basis of survival value. She may not cared about it consciously, nor had let. Herself be driven by her own inherent natural impulses, fueled by sexual selection.

Here is a not too uncommon example, where the adaptability index may be offset by other than survival value based on genetic traits. I can question , whether survivability, as a conscious force in natural selection can be entertained as general rule.

Here, at least, a suspension of it is called for. Perhaps, this may also occur in lower species. If the above criteria would hold through , coming up from the annals of time, by now, nature would always present the most excellent of species, and inferior types would never present themselves, they would most certainly would have been weeded out by now.

I agree with Lev on this point. Most people have Darwin and natural selection backward. They’re approaching the idea from the wrong side. What is “best” is measured by female’s selection of males, not the inverse. The problem is that people invert this dyanmic, and blame “the evil white man!!!” irrationally.

Imagine for a moment that no males, not a single one on this planet, “Choose” to mate or reproduce, but that it is entirely and completely a female endeavor.

Just imagine, do a thought experiment. What does the world look like, through this lens, through this possibility?

What then can you say about Darwin and natural selection? How about sexual selection?

Redefining the word “best” to suit the preference.

So what you are saying is that whoever survives, by whatever means, is in fact “the most good”. If I kill off the entire world, it can only be because I am best, the most good, the superior. Whoever destroys the most (leaving himself the survivor), is the most good, the “best”.

Again, redefining “best” to suit the preference.

Good ==

1. the most destructive force
2. whatever women choose

I wonder what happens if a woman inadvertently doesn’t choose the most destructive force? Universe collapses in on itself?

Nope.
Nature does not give a rat’s arse about what YOU think it best.
As for Darwin, he never even used the word.

Now run along…

Nothing presented here has shown any Darwinian principle false.
There are more factors to consider than simply Natural selection that were identified by Darwin; Sexual Selection and Domestic Selection also play a part in explaining evolution.
Where these have been touched on, no effort or argument has been brought to bear the show them false either.

Without doubt the entire thread has been a blast of hot air from people who do not have the slightest clue about Darwin, nor the meaning of the words “false” or “principle”.

Quite the opposite.

That’s right. It is YOU who are redefining your words so as to make the theory sound good. Nature doesn’t know anything about “success” or “best”.

So why are YOU calling what nature does “best” and “success”?

I’m not. I’m talking about what Darwin called success. And he says that selection is reproductive success. And that is how evolution occurs

Not all individuals have reproductive success, but those that do pass their inheritance to their progeny.
The reason this is called ‘natural’ selection, is that it happens without interest, purpose or cognisance: automatic.

QED you are still wrong.

…as if you had even the slightest credibility in knowing the difference.

Lev, James isn’t a complete fool in how he’s approaching you here…

It would be more accurate to call evolution productive actualization, and any transference would be replicative actualization.

It would be a whole essay for me to give my actual observation of how these terms people throw around with “evolutionary theory” work with logical consistency.

Then your words are empty.

By my powers of intuitive conceptual cognition, I can perform praxis upon your interlocutory dissimulation to explicate and extricate the magnitude of your bovinal execreance.

Sadly I don’t think you would be capable of understanding these phrases so I can walk off like a smug git.

There are two ways this thread has been approached by the Yeses.
One is by a misquoting and misunderstanding of one of Darwin’s selection principles, not at first named by subsequently claimed to be "natural selection’.
And the second way is to try to say that it is inadequate, ignoring the fact that NS is but one of the mechanisms Darwin identified.

Both ways have failed.

From the man who said: Without evil there could be no life.",

" Hitler didn’t create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did … for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their “Judas Iscariot”;

Even further evidence of your excessive naivety.

I stated my position on the “evolution principle” long ago in this thread. You have failed to address it because you insist, as always, on using your chosen pedantic word usage so as to create a strawman. It has to be assumed that you do this because you lack the integrity and backbone to face the reality of your situation. But that’s another subject, as consistently haunting as it is.

I am going to call James out on this…

If there could be no life without evil, than evil is life affirming and we should all do it!!!

[attachment=0]yinyang.png[/attachment]

You’re kidding me right??

According to James, if everyone who exists is pure evil, it’s life affirming !!

You seriously believe that there can be a concept of white without black? Good without bad? Right without left?
There can be no concept of life without the concept of anti-life, “evil”.

Only a moron would go to the trouble of manufacturing more evil for sake of more life, but then, the world is filled to the brim with very influential and wealthy morons.

Accident??? You’re not even wrong, you are just ridiculous.

Not only is this just plain nonsense, but you are contradicting yourself. DO you need me to point out where?

The Darwinists may repeat their errors about the “selection principle” and the definition of “fitness” as often as they want to: they do not get more true by repeating them. “Survival determines who is fittest” is no definition that explains what “the fittest” means, what “fitness” means. “Survival as in perpetuation” is merely a formula of a prayer and has nothing to do with the question what “fitness” means in reality, because in order to know which living being is “the fittest”, thus “determined by by the survival as in perpetuation” (?), you have to wait until the “end of the perpetuation” which is impossible, an oxymoron.

It is impossible to save the Darinistic selection principle, because the fabricated exceptions of the rule, the “natural selection”, contradict that rule. At last the Darwinists have merely contradictional exceptions of the rule they contradict. And please: What is nature according to the Darwinists? It is another word for God. So the Darwinists are pantheists.

No wonder, because it was the time of naturalism when Darwin published his theory. Naturalism is based on a teleological definition of “nature”. To naturalists like Darwin and his Darwinists (especially: Spencer and Haeckel) nature is God and God is nature. So when the Darwinists say that the “nature selects” they mean “God selects”. The Darwinists are pantheists.

I am sorry, but this likeable theory is false.