Yes, but unfortunately those deluded humans are not half humans.
Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the selection priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment, of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not like all other living beings. The human ecologlogical or/and social selection is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection, the sexual selection, the kin selection, … and so on and so forth. It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted (maladapted) and unfit living beings well adapted an fit living beings. Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively (dysgenically).
So we can rightly say that homo sapiens is a godwannabe. Human beings are naturally more like animals and culturally more like gods. But unfortunately they are not capable of being both or/and each of both in a complete way. Homo sapiens is naturally not capable of being a 100%-animal and is culturally not capable of being a 100%-god. That is the fateful dilemma of homo sapiens.
What I meant by the term was not half animal, half human. I meant, half the animal humans are. REligions, common ‘sense’, education, parenting, culture, psychology, psychiatry, spirituality all have ideas about what parts of yourself you should suppress throw out, deny, remove, control. What we end up with are humans who have disowned ‘half’ of themselves - might be more. Once these partial humans get control of an organization, a group, a policy, they tailor fit it to their own halfness. They certainly loathe anyone who does not agree to carve themselves up the same way, or more, since the elites will always want those lower to cut out even more than they do.
Really? Do you want to clarify, then, who is trying to hide what from whom? Hold on, lemme get my tinfoil hat brb.
Yes. So?
There is no contradiction.
Cmon robot, don’t be dense. Explains the present within the context of heredity. I mean that evolution theory is not meant to make presictions on the future, just to understand the past and explain the present when it comes to the diversity of species.
lol right back at you lil buddy.
The only way you would be able to determine who is the fattest human would be if the last human being ever was born just now, and then you have a closed group from which to pick. Every birth is a potential for a genetic mutation that will originate the fattest person who is fatter than the previous fattest, therefore there is only a point in time fattest, the evolution of fattest never ends so long as more individuals continue to be born.
When you manage to make your case for why the selection principle is false. You so far haven’t.
Was fit before E changed, is no longer fit.
You can present arguments for one species being fitter than another at any point in time, and you can even present arguments for who is the fittest at any point in time, but as you know as point in time things go, those arguments are only valid for that point in time, which instantly change from present to past.
Evolution of actual phenotypes happens over long periods of time, but environments can change in an instant. You may spend longer making your argument than it’d take for it to become obsolete.
See above
Yes.
You lost me.
We still depend on the environment and are set to suffer the consequences of destroying it.
Phoneutria is too dumb to realize that fitness is an absolute concept in evolutionary theory to this regard… Thus to prove it, survival must be absolute… Your paradox went over her head, and she NEVER tried to explain her position, she just said “how does that disprove me, you’re wrong”. That’s not even attempting to delve into the paradox !!!
Not even ATTEMPTING!!!
I kid you not Arminius, she will never understand this…
I don’t give a shit about a paradox that has nothing to do with the darwinistic selection principle. If you, arminius, and jss want to argue a stawman, be my fucking guest.
It is not my position.It is the darwinistic selection principle as understood and accepted by the scientific comunity. If you don’t know it, google it. If you oppose it, present your argument.
It was an older way of using English.
Humans are a kind of animal. Humans via culture, religions, some civiliities, parenting, schooling, are taught, openly and implicitly, that they should get rid of part of their natures. Thus they are partial creatures. Not full creatures, at least most humans. It would be as if lions tied one paws to another. Or deciding that roaring was bad. Or deer decided that fear was not love and so they did not run from predators. And so on.
The elites are very fractioned humans. They let themselves do shit they would not tolerate in the masses, but they are really limited humans, even if many of them are clever.
We are the only animals that create internal slave systems. That make parts of ourselves prisoners to other parts. Because this supposedly makes us good. Or becuase it makes us not animals. Or because it is a good heuristic.
And this is not restricted to religions. A look through forums like this one and even more so in more rigorous philosophy forums and you will see that was is considered the highest is really tight assed. And for these guys, everything they believe is rational, they think. One need not have intution or emotions, in fact these are either neutral qualia or negative.
Well I don’t know phone, not everyone is fit that is alive right now. The only reason a lot of people survive is because other truly fit people created a safe zone (society, laws, medicines, etc) to keep them from dying from natural selection. If that did not happen, tons of people that are “fit” today would really be dead.
The safe zone is the environment. This is in alignment with the selection principle.
If there is weaker selective pressure, there is greater tolerance to the selection.
