Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

[Arminius]

You are still wrong.

No. You are wrong and have nothing to contribute to this thread. So, please, look for another thread.

Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment, which is made by themselves. They can live on their own "absolute islands" - thus: without any natural environment.

The ISS is such an "absolute island". There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.



There are more than this human-made "islands", some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric "islands":

If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).

[Arminius]

- New Robot Reproduces on Its Own.
- Self-replicating nanobots.
- Self-replicating nanobots.

[Lev Muishkin]

I have no need to contribute to this idiotic thread, since you have offered nothing in defence of your ridiculous claim.

[James S Saint]

I have no need to contribute to this idiotic thread, since you have offered nothing in defence of your ridiculous claim.

Actually he has proven his point several times over.

[Arminius]

I have no need to contribute to this idiotic thread, since you have offered nothing in defence of your ridiculous claim.

Oh, I have proven my point here - even several times. But (as I have said also several times here): You are obviously not capable of reading.

Do you know what I do, if I find a thread idiotic and claims ridiculous? I ignore that thread. So you are obviously lying here again, because you are always posting in this thread.

Go and look for another thread (as I have said also several times here to you).

[Arminius]

I have no need to contribute to this idiotic thread, since you have offered nothing in defence of your ridiculous claim.

Actually he has proven his point several times over.

Yes. Exactly.

And many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point.

[Lev Muishkin]

I have no need to contribute to this idiotic thread, since you have offered nothing in defence of your ridiculous claim.

Actually he has proven his point several times over.

No.
What he has done is to find some examples where humans have progressed in ways he does not like. The fact remains that the principle remains that the more babies that survive to establish their traits, mean those traits persist in viable progeny.
Just because he does not like the result, makes no very difference.
The principle is in tact, and what he says not only relies on the principle, but his examples depend on that principle.
The real problem here is that neither you nor he, has the slightest clue about how evolution works.
It's quite amusing!!

[Lev Muishkin]

I have no need to contribute to this idiotic thread, since you have offered nothing in defence of your ridiculous claim.

Actually he has proven his point several times over.

Yes. Exactly.

And many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point.

And only 20% agree with you.
65% do not and the rest are honest enough to not know, or not care what the hell you are on about!!

[Arminius]

You are obsessed.

If I really had disliked the result, then I would not have made the poll. I have expected that result, because I know that most ILP members (including you, of course) believe in nonsense. I do not care much whether I belong to a minority or to a majority.

Your false gods and their religions are dead.

[Lev Muishkin]

You are obsessed.

If I really had disliked the result, then I would not have made the poll. I have expected that result, because I know that most ILP members (including you, of course) believe in nonsense. I do not care much whether I belong to a minority or to a majority.

Your false gods and their religions are dead.

God is still dead.
And so is your brain

[Arminius]

Ad hominems do not help you. You can use as much ad hominems as you want to: it will never change anything. You have never given any argument. So stop trolling and stalking here.

[MagsJ]

God is still dead.
And so is your brain

Consider yourself warned Lev... next one will be a board warning.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Evolution is de-evolution. Modern women damage your mind and causes your stress. Science shows this damages your DNA. Without the DNA machine, degeneration is inevitable.

[Lev Muishkin]

God is still dead.
And so is your brain

Consider yourself warned Lev... next one will be a board warning.

The claim that Arminius' brain is dead, is not different from his claim that I believe in nonsense (in terms of insults); except that my claim is more accurate, since he has failed to show the ability to articulate an argument against my claim that natural selection works. That failure may well be the result of a brain failure.
Arminius still does not understand natural selection which is as capable of simplifying the human mind as it is as complicating it.

[Lev Muishkin]

Thesis:

The Darwinistic selection principle is false, unless human beings were not included.

Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.

Here is where you are going wrong; right from the outset you do not understand 'selection'.

"Natural Selection", "sexual selection" and "domestic selection" the 3 planks of Darwinism; simply means that living beings capable of surviving to provide viable progeny pass their traits, genes and behaviours onto the next generation.
Far from proving it false, current human evolution proves it correct.
There is no escape from the simple fact of selection. There is no circumvention.

You are labouring under the misapprehension that Darwin's principle necessitates what you regard as progress.

[Arminius]

You are wrong, and that is why you are always using ad hominems or statements that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I have proven my point several times over. Many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point. It does not matter whether they are a minority or a majority. The progress has always been brought by a minority. Therefore I said that majorities always tend to believe in nonsense. And because of that you are insulted? That is ridiculous. But you are always using personal pronouns when attacking persons - so your personal attacks are real insults, real ad hominems.

Again: I have proven my point several times over, and many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point.

And by the way: The title of this thread is a question: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False? How can the question be a wrong statement? The opening post contains a thesis. A thesis can but does not have to be wrong. You did not read the thread. If you had read it, then you would have get the information about what I am criticizing. I am saying that if a theory has merely a tiny error, then it is allowed to say that this theory is falsified (cf. Karl Raimund Popper). If I did not know what "natural selection" means, then I would not be capable of critizising it in the way I do, but I do exactly know what "natural selection" means, and I also know that you believe in it as if it were holy.

Also: It is not the selection principle as such that makes the Darwinistic selection principle false. What makes it false is its premise. The premise of the Darwinistic selection principle is that the evolutionary process of all living beings is caused by their environemnt, so that all living beings are forced to adaptation by their environment. The word "all" is false, as the example of homo sapiens has proven, because homo sapiens is capable of having an own environment (you may call it an "artificial environment"), thus of overcoming the natural environment, and so, consequently, homo sapiens is also capable of selecting. So there is an human selection (you may also call it "political selection" or "social selection" or "artificial selection") as well. Humans are capable of killing almost all living beings. If they die out because of the human selection, then (attention: tautology!) it is caused by the human selection, regardless whether there is also a natural selection or not. So in other words: I am not saying that there is no natural selection. I am saying that there are other selections that contradict the natural selection.

Now you are talking about "natural selection", "sexual selection" and "domestic selection" - but not about other kinds of selection. So you are using a rhetorical trick here by leaving out other selections. That is ridiculous too. The (current) human evolution is just the reason why more and more scientists and philosophers have come to the conclusion that the Darwinistic selection principle must be false. And that is what I am saying here. Since you joined this thread I changed from assuming to claiming, because you belong to those who believe in Darwinism and other isms as dogmatic ideologies, thus secular religions. So I would have to thank you for making me an Anti-Darwinist, if I really wanted to be one.

[Lev Muishkin]

You are wrong, and that is why you are always using ad hominems or statements that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I have proven my point several times over. Many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point. It does not matter whether they are a minority or a majority. The progress has always been brought by a minority. Therefore I said that majorities always tend to believe in nonsense. And because of that you are insulted? That is ridiculous. But you are always using personal pronouns when attacking persons - so your personal attacks are real insults, real ad hominems.

Again: I have proven my point several times over, and many others have contributed to this thread by supporting my proven point.

It does not get more true the more you say it. A false statement is always false no matter how many times you say it.

[Arminius]

If you do not have anything to contribute to this thread, then look for another thread. You have never given any argument, only ad hominems and denials. What you are doing here is nothing else than trolling and stalking.

What you have written here has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. There has never come a single argument from you, never come a contribution to this thread from you, but always come "no"s and ad hominems from you.

You want to forbid other people's opinion, just because they disagree with you. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

[Arminius]

Living beings like the human beings who are capable of living in an artificial environment have, if they do it, nothing to do with any natural environment, at least as long as they live in their own artficial environment.

Here are again some examples of artificial environments:



Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans.

[Lev Muishkin]

If you do not have anything to contribute to this thread,.

My contribution is to have informed you several times what exactly is the "Darwinistic Selection Principle" is. The fact that you still have failed to understand it means I have a duty to continue until you do.

[Arminius]

If you do not have anything to contribute to this thread,.

My contribution is to have informed you several times what exactly is the "Darwinistic Selection Principle" is. The fact that you still have failed to understand it means I have a duty to continue until you do.

No. It is just the other way around. I have informed you several times what exactly the "Darwinistic Selection Principle" is and what it not is. The fact that you still have failed to understand what the difference means indicates that you are just not capable of understanding it. So it would be better for you to look for another thread - as I also said several times to you.

Your false statement does not get more true the more you say it. A false statement is always false - no matter how many times you say it.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And: What you call "the duty to continue" is nothing else than your duty to threaten me with continuing of trolling and stalking.

You want a good example of a stalker. Try the one that rides my ass.

Lev Muishkin. He follows most of my posts with ad homs.

[Arminius]

Your threat that you will continue with stalking has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Again: You have never given any argument, only ad hominems and denials. What you are doing here is nothing else than trolling and stalking.

What you have written here has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. There has never come a single argument from you, never come a contribution to this thread from you, but always come "no"s and ad hominems from you.

You want to forbid other people's opinion, just because they disagree with you. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And: What you call "the duty to continue" is nothing else than your duty to threaten me with continuing of trolling and stalking.

You want a good example of a stalker. Try the one that rides my ass.

Lev Muishkin. He follows most of my posts with ad homs.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am late to the party.
I have to say it was a wonderful party.

Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.

Basically, what Arminius is saying is that Darwin is claiming that intelligent people have more offspring than non-intelligent people. By observing that this is not the case, we can conclude that Darwin is wrong. Unfortunately, Darwin never said such a thing.

When Darwin says that an organism is fit, what he means is that the organism has what is necessary -- whatever that is -- in order to reproduce within a given environment.

[Meno_]

I would put. i do not know.
More and more people get cut off from realizing what it is that is known from the sources, and the processes of knowing. The cogito of self knowledge in terms of scientific analysis has become so diverse, that less and less can fathom an overall description of what is going on in what goes on in lthe reality of every day existence. The very few who are in touch with themselves , as a product of natural endowment, can still connect that part of themselves which understands the degenerative phenomena with the benefit that the Word has brought them.
The evolutionary cause of the idea of the idea behind the Superman, is beginning to show a shift of ideals from projecting absolutes from outside anthropomorphic to intrinsic neurological sources. This approach , eventually will be the savior and grace of humanity, because our absolute approach will diminish the projective need to compare and admonish qualitative diffwrences by alwausnlooking for outside extrinsic sources, whereas they are nothing else then an effort to styme qualitative changes from intrinsic quantifiable sources of the most determinative lowest common denomination.

Populism will defy nothing but It's Self and the resulting contradiction will make for a sudden and new understanding of the ineffectiveness of this view. Understanding will tend to be more in line with less perspectivism, as the ideals will shift
from mere appearent justifications to the true nature of what is intended and expected from human beings.
After that, wars and reproaches will become the things of the past

Knowledge will be replaced by faith of doing and in and by doing the right thing. We will be back in the Garden. of True Understanding.

[Jakob]

I am late to the party.
I have to say it was a wonderful party.

Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.

Basically, what Arminius is saying is that Darwin is claiming that intelligent people have more offspring than non-intelligent people. By observing that this is not the case, we can conclude that Darwin is wrong. Unfortunately, Darwin never said such a thing.

When Darwin says that an organism is fit, what he means is that the organism has what is necessary -- whatever that is -- in order to reproduce within a given environment.

Yes. Selection of the fittest for selection. It is if not a circular then at least a spiralling concept.