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 ==
the most destructive force
whatever women choose
I wonder what happens if a woman inadvertently doesn’t choose the most destructive force? Universe collapses in on itself?
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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”;
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.
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.
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.
They will just keep insisting on the tautological and meaningless definition of “fittest” so as to promote their preferred theory. It is just typical rhetoric.
Evil=low quality of life or pain. Usually implies conscious deliberation to lower the quality of life.
Life=consciousness
The opposite of life is unconsciousness…Mother Nature is an unconscious entity, she is a raw process, suboptimal, she does not have any conscious method of minimizing evil, and her processes depend on evil to power her cycles, so it could be argued that she is more or less evil, but also good. The intellect is optimal, it has the power to dispell evil or engage in evil, mother nature however is unconscious and unconsciously uses evil as a fuel. The intellect, being optimal, can create an optimal world without evil, Mother Nature, being suboptimal, cannot, at most she can produce, through random chance, organisms that are more optimal than she. Those organisms, maintain consciousness by mechanism of the fact that nonconsciousness does not exist, and that unholy organisms do not have consciousness[a]. Therefore, the only frame of time that exists, is when optimal organisms exist[b].
[a] Citations needed.
[b] Because organisms which are suboptimal have faster perceptions of time and low memory.