Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Is the Darwinistic selection principle false?

Yes.
6
26%
Probably.
3
13%
Perhaps.
0
No votes
No.
13
57%
I do not know.
1
4%
 
Total votes : 23

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:09 am

James S Saint wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
James S Saint wrote:You are deciding what is most fit by seeing what survives. But Darwin proposed that what survives will be what was most fit. It is a circular definition.


This is not circular logic. That is just saying the same thing two ways. Circular logic would be to define what is fit by using survival, and then defining survival by using fit. The definition of survival is that which does not become extinct, and it is not dependent on the meaning of fit.

That is exactly what I said. And that is "circular".
Circular means: A = B because B = A
"fit" = "survived" because "survived" = "fit"


No, that is not exactly what you said.
The definition of survival is independent of the definition of fit.
You can define survival without ever bringing up fitness.
Here is a dictionary definition:
Survival: the state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances.
Fit(in darwinism): that which survives.

A = A
B = A

The "Darwin principle" implies that what people think of as being fit is what survives.


No, it does not. What people think doesn't matter at all.

The intent behind its promotion is to define what survives as that which was most fit and thus best. It is an excuse to hide WHY it was that one people survived and another didn't.


You lost me.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Moreno » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:24 am

phoneutria wrote:You make a good case, but ultimately it is a difficult thing to measure. There are more variables in this than we'd ever be able to control.
I think it was Daniel Gilbert that said something like, whenever an expert of psychology says "humans are the only species who ------", some research comes along and proves them wrong, and then they end up looking like fools.
I generally take issue with the uniqueness position, but then this is usually around positive traits. IOW me arguing against pomposity or the dimishment of animals.

This is an indication that in our evolutionary process we have had explosive growth in some areas, while others remained somewhat rudimentary. Where it was obvious that intelligence (in the mathematical/scientific sense) proved to be an advantage, we put all of our chips on it.
Our history reflects that, how we have made incredible technological progress at an incredible speed, while our social and emotional progress is lagging far behind. A lot of it has to do with all of the shortcuts our brains take in order to keep us thinking fast and being functional, but it is also true that it seems that we have determined that spending the time to understand our emotions is not a worthwhile endeavor, and we'll continue to suffer the consequences of that stupidity.
I think emotions and what is coupled to them is key also. I do not think the self-hate, hate and denial of fear is being dealt with. There are trends in the direction of doing that, especially in some subcultures and there are trends in the other direction.

However, how does that falsify the selection principle? :)
I wasn't really focused on the context, just that difference. In general, traits in nature get selected if they fit the ecosystem the animal is in. With humans we transform ecosystems to make it easier for a small number of people's ideas of what is good. And those people are fucked in the head. (an overgeneralization, since some positive things are done also). So right now, for example, people who do well with repetition, are not creative, do not feel much, are going to do well in the lower classes. Lower than the top, that is. Even the middle class is becoming adjunct to machines, streamlines, overworked, and mechanized.

What we are selecting out are people who are more vital, creative and emotional. There has always been a facet of this, but it is getting very harsh, though polite smiley faced business speak harsh. The elites are also, in general, restructing the environment so they are dependent on an incredible amount of support and are simplifying their own brains also.

We are not being selected by ecosystems, we are being selected by deluded half humans. You have people who are not the most vital, using themselves as models to reform the environment, which in turn selects. If the word natural has any meaning - iow if it means something other than 'real' - then this is not natural and does not lead to similar outcomes. Yes, other species may fail to adapt, even die out. But here we have a creature stressing traits that take away from the environment and from itself those factors and things it needs to thrive.

It would be like the buffalo deciding to burn the praries, even before have a good meal. It would also be like the buffalo intentionally cutting one leg off their young. Telling people that four legged buffalo are evil, barbaric.

Of course the buffalo nearly died out and may well yet. But not because they started creating half buffalo or banging their heads on stones because they wanted less brain matter.

Now in my specific beliefs I think their is a kind death introjection and one unique to humans.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Artimas » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:33 am

Someone that knows more will survive longer than one who is "fit". In almost any scenario.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Moreno » Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:11 am

Artimas wrote:Someone that knows more will survive longer than one who is "fit". In almost any scenario.
Knowing more is a form of fitness, and in genetic terms capacity and interest in learning (whatever part of that is nature and not due to circumstance which would also affect it).
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:04 am

peitho wrote:Regression, domestication, is not part of evolution?
Dysgenics is not part of eugenics?

Dysgenics is negative eugenics, and eugenics is positive eugenics.

peitho wrote:Has man stopped evolving because he now determines the standards to measure fitness?

No poster of this thread said that man had stopped evolving. But I say that man can partly dissociate himself from evoluton and from environment - which means: man is capable of avoiding total adaptation.

Just read the thread.

peitho wrote:Have you heard of memetic selection?

Have you ever herd of Dawkin's new after-shave lotion?

peitho wrote:What happens to millions of years of nurturing, we call nature, does it disappear because in manmade environments we set up rules prohibiting their full expression, or their acknowledgment, or even their recognition?
Training/educating generations to be blind to appearances does not make the apparent go away.
Can we train/educate a chimpanzee to be human, by forcing it to imitate certain behaviors?

No.

peitho wrote:Is there no cost to protecting the weak the stupid and the ill from culling?

There is that cost.

peitho wrote:Is man exempt from world because he can fabricate artificial environments and use words to manipulate abstractions, to the degree that his words no longer refer to anything perceptible, anything experienced?

Partly yes.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:42 am

James S Saint wrote:You are deciding what is most fit by seeing what survives. But Darwin proposed that what survives will be what was most fit. It is a circular definition.

Yes, it is a circular definition.

James S Saint wrote:Real people do not define it that way. They propose an idea concerning fitness involving strength, agility, intelligence,... various other applicable talents. The question then becomes one of whether those "already declared to be fit" are really the ones that will survive. That makes it a legitimate question. And the answer to that question is "not always". And that answer reduces the Darwinian principle down to a "tendency", not the prevailing "always true" law.

Yup.

James S Saint wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
James S Saint wrote:You are deciding what is most fit by seeing what survives. But Darwin proposed that what survives will be what was most fit. It is a circular definition.

This is not circular logic. That is just saying the same thing two ways. Circular logic would be to define what is fit by using survival, and then defining survival by using fit. The definition of survival is that which does not become extinct, and it is not dependent on the meaning of fit.

That is exactly what I said. And that is "circular".
Circular means: A = B because B = A
"fit" = "survived" because "survived" = "fit"
James S Saint wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Real people do not define it that way. They propose an idea concerning fitness involving strength, agility, intelligence,... various other applicable talents. The question then becomes one of whether those "already declared to be fit" are really the ones that will survive. That makes it a legitimate question. And the answer to that question is "not always". And that answer reduces the Darwinian principle down to a "tendency", not the prevailing "always true" law.

If you want to make a definition of fitness, as one used by "real people", and then refute it, knock yourself out papito.
But then, that's not the Darwinian principle, is it?

The "Darwin principle" implies that what people think of as being fit is what survives. The intent behind its promotion is to define what survives as that which was most fit and thus best. It is an excuse to hide WHY it was that one people survived and another didn't.

Exactly.

In addition:

Most of all ever living beings died out. According to the Darwinists they must have been both fit and unfit. They nust have been fit, because they have been well adapted over a long time (offspring), and they must have been unfit as well, because they died out.

This contradiction can only be solved, if the Darwinists give up their ideological (thus modern religious) interpretation of the terms "fit" and "unfit" and accept the right meaning of them.

Here is another example:

phoneutria wrote:There is no single fitness in present time that is above all others
Phoneutria wrote:Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation.
phoneutria wrote:In fact it is not meant to do anything other than explain the present (?). .... Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest (?).

That is a contradiction. An evolution theory that explains the present time is no evolution theory, because it has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

According to you the Darwinism explains merely the present. But if it did, then it would be no evolution theory. So, yeah, then we would have to ask again: Is the Darwinism an evolution theory?

phoneutria wrote:Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest (?).
There's fit. Every living species on Earth right (note: right now!) now is fit, thus they are alive. All of them are a success. If they were unfit they would be dead. Among the fit, all are doing everything in their power to perpetuate everything about themselves. The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a "better fit" means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of "the fittest" can only happen after the fact (note: after the fact!).

Sorry, but that is nonsense. It is like saying that there "can be fat humans but never a fatter or even the fattest human before the fact, because the knowledge of »the fattest« can only happen after the fact" (?). If there are fat humans, then there are a fatter and the fattest human too, regardless whether the knowledge of "the fattest" happens or not. Why should there not be a fatter and the fattest one? Because the "knowledge of »the fattest« can only happen after the fact"? :lol:

"Every living species on Earth" can be "fit ... right now", but the "knowledge of »the fittest« can only happen after the fact" (?). This statement can only be interpreted as nonsense, regardless whether it is also an attempt to recsue a dying modern (secular) religion or not. Darwinists, please, when are you going to finally leave the 19th century and arrive in the present century, the 21st century.

"Let’s have a certain species as an evolutionary actor "A", its environment "E", and the Darwinist "D" as the modern religious interpreter. A is fit "right now". Suddenly E changes, and A dies out. D says that "A has not been fit". .... What? ... An undertaker would say now: "D, you are fired!" If it is possible to say that every actor of evolution "is fit right now", then it is also possible to say that a certain actor of evolution "is fitter (than ...) right now" and that a certain actor of evolution "is the fittest right now".

Either one can say something about "fit right now" or not (tertium non datur => exclusi tertii principum); and if one can, then one can also use the comparative and say: "fitter (than ...) right now", "fittest right now".

Living beings are living in an environment, human beings, who are living beings too, are living in the world, which means that they do not merely live in an environment but in the world, and they destroy their environment, if they want to.

If E (environment) of A (actor of evolution) changes, then it is possible but not necessary that A becomes extinct. If A has become extinct, then this fact does not change anything about A"s fitness or unfitness during A’s lifetime, because during A"s lifetime A has survived, because A has been alive, fit (perhaps fitter than many others or even the fittest), thus well adapted (perhaps better adapted than many others or even best adapted), thus successful, just fitted (perhaps more fitted than many others or even the most fitted). If we knew merely after the last fact, then we would be what we use to call Gods.

If A is a human, then we have to judge a bit differently; because humans do not absolutely depend on their environment and can destroy it on purpose, thus willfully, consciously (other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way); so the humans’ environment has become a part of humans’ fitness or unfitness; and that means that the former A and E (see the example above) has become A (including E) and W (world) or H (homo sapiens as A + E) and W.

phoneutria wrote:Arminius is no dummy, he's a very smart robot. He's just really into lil lingustics games such as this thread.

Thanks, my dear poisonous spider, but I hope you have nonetheless noticed that I am not always playing linguistic games. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:44 am

Moreno wrote:
phoneutria wrote:You make a good case, but ultimately it is a difficult thing to measure. There are more variables in this than we'd ever be able to control.
I think it was Daniel Gilbert that said something like, whenever an expert of psychology says "humans are the only species who ------", some research comes along and proves them wrong, and then they end up looking like fools.
I generally take issue with the uniqueness position, but then this is usually around positive traits. IOW me arguing against pomposity or the dimishment of animals.

This is an indication that in our evolutionary process we have had explosive growth in some areas, while others remained somewhat rudimentary. Where it was obvious that intelligence (in the mathematical/scientific sense) proved to be an advantage, we put all of our chips on it.
Our history reflects that, how we have made incredible technological progress at an incredible speed, while our social and emotional progress is lagging far behind. A lot of it has to do with all of the shortcuts our brains take in order to keep us thinking fast and being functional, but it is also true that it seems that we have determined that spending the time to understand our emotions is not a worthwhile endeavor, and we'll continue to suffer the consequences of that stupidity.
I think emotions and what is coupled to them is key also. I do not think the self-hate, hate and denial of fear is being dealt with. There are trends in the direction of doing that, especially in some subcultures and there are trends in the other direction.

However, how does that falsify the selection principle? :)
I wasn't really focused on the context, just that difference. In general, traits in nature get selected if they fit the ecosystem the animal is in. With humans we transform ecosystems to make it easier for a small number of people's ideas of what is good. And those people are fucked in the head. (an overgeneralization, since some positive things are done also). So right now, for example, people who do well with repetition, are not creative, do not feel much, are going to do well in the lower classes. Lower than the top, that is. Even the middle class is becoming adjunct to machines, streamlines, overworked, and mechanized.

What we are selecting out are people who are more vital, creative and emotional. There has always been a facet of this, but it is getting very harsh, though polite smiley faced business speak harsh. The elites are also, in general, restructing the environment so they are dependent on an incredible amount of support and are simplifying their own brains also.

We are not being selected by ecosystems, we are being selected by deluded half humans. You have people who are not the most vital, using themselves as models to reform the environment, which in turn selects. If the word natural has any meaning - iow if it means something other than 'real' - then this is not natural and does not lead to similar outcomes. Yes, other species may fail to adapt, even die out. But here we have a creature stressing traits that take away from the environment and from itself those factors and things it needs to thrive.

It would be like the buffalo deciding to burn the praries, even before have a good meal. It would also be like the buffalo intentionally cutting one leg off their young. Telling people that four legged buffalo are evil, barbaric.

Of course the buffalo nearly died out and may well yet. But not because they started creating half buffalo or banging their heads on stones because they wanted less brain matter.

Now in my specific beliefs I think their is a kind death introjection and one unique to humans.

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.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Moreno » Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:33 am

Arminius wrote:Yes, but unfortunately those deluded humans are not half humans.
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.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:53 pm

Artimas wrote:
phoneutria wrote:In adition, Arminius, you seem to be making the case that the artificial environments we have created are buffering us from natural selective pressure. How does that falsify the selection principle?


It's true. There are so many things today that us humans have created that prevent natural selection, which means the less evolved breed to out number the more evolved of which the human species will suffer HUGE consequences for.

If what I said is what you are arguing Arminius, then we think alike, judging from what I have seen so far.

Yes.

Artimas wrote:Someone that knows more will survive longer than one who is "fit". In almost any scenario.

Darwinist would answer: "Knowledge is only a facet of fitness".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:56 pm

Moreno wrote: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.

Did you mean that half of all animals are humans? :-k

Could you rephrase your post, please?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Arminius wrote:Yes, it is a circular definition.


No. See my reply to JSS.

Yup.


Nuh nuh. That is a strawmen lil buddy.

Exactly.


Really? Do you want to clarify, then, who is trying to hide what from whom? Hold on, lemme get my tinfoil hat brb.

In addition:

Most of all ever living beings died out. According to the Darwinists they must have been both fit and unfit. They nust have been fit, because they have been well adapted over a long time (offspring), and they must have been unfit as well, because they died out.


Yes. So?

This contradiction can only be solved, if the Darwinists give up their ideological (thus modern religious) interpretation of the terms "fit" and "unfit" and accept the right meaning of them.


There is no contradiction.

Here is another example:

phoneutria wrote:There is no single fitness in present time that is above all others
Phoneutria wrote:Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation.
phoneutria wrote:In fact it is not meant to do anything other than explain the present (?). .... Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest (?).

That is a contradiction. An evolution theory that explains the present time is no evolution theory, because it has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

According to you the Darwinism explains merely the present. But if it did, then it would be no evolution theory. So, yeah, then we would have to ask again: Is the Darwinism an evolution theory?


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.

phoneutria wrote:Evolution doesn't stop at the fittest. It proceeds to expect the fittesttesttest (?).
There's fit. Every living species on Earth right (note: right now!) now is fit, thus they are alive. All of them are a success. If they were unfit they would be dead. Among the fit, all are doing everything in their power to perpetuate everything about themselves. The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a "better fit" means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of "the fittest" can only happen after the fact (note: after the fact!).

Sorry, but that is nonsense. It is like saying that there "can be fat humans but never a fatter or even the fattest human before the fact, because the knowledge of »the fattest« can only happen after the fact" (?). If there are fat humans, then there are a fatter and the fattest human too, regardless whether the knowledge of "the fattest" happens or not. Why should there not be a fatter and the fattest one? Because the "knowledge of »the fattest« can only happen after the fact"? :lol:


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.

"Every living species on Earth" can be "fit ... right now", but the "knowledge of »the fittest« can only happen after the fact" (?). This statement can only be interpreted as nonsense, regardless whether it is also an attempt to recsue a dying modern (secular) religion or not. Darwinists, please, when are you going to finally leave the 19th century and arrive in the present century, the 21st century.


When you manage to make your case for why the selection principle is false. You so far haven't.

"Let’s have a certain species as an evolutionary actor "A", its environment "E", and the Darwinist "D" as the modern religious interpreter. A is fit "right now". Suddenly E changes, and A dies out. D says that "A has not been fit". .... What? ... An undertaker would say now: "D, you are fired!" If it is possible to say that every actor of evolution "is fit right now", then it is also possible to say that a certain actor of evolution "is fitter (than ...) right now" and that a certain actor of evolution "is the fittest right now".


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.

Either one can say something about "fit right now" or not (tertium non datur => exclusi tertii principum); and if one can, then one can also use the comparative and say: "fitter (than ...) right now", "fittest right now".


See above

Living beings are living in an environment, human beings, who are living beings too, are living in the world, which means that they do not merely live in an environment but in the world, and they destroy their environment, if they want to.

If E (environment) of A (actor of evolution) changes, then it is possible but not necessary that A becomes extinct. If A has become extinct, then this fact does not change anything about A"s fitness or unfitness during A’s lifetime, because during A"s lifetime A has survived, because A has been alive, fit (perhaps fitter than many others or even the fittest), thus well adapted (perhaps better adapted than many others or even best adapted), thus successful, just fitted (perhaps more fitted than many others or even the most fitted).


Yes.

If we knew merely after the last fact, then we would be what we use to call Gods.


You lost me.

If A is a human, then we have to judge a bit differently; because humans do not absolutely depend on their environment and can destroy it on purpose, thus willfully, consciously (other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way); so the humans’ environment has become a part of humans’ fitness or unfitness; and that means that the former A and E (see the example above) has become A (including E) and W (world) or H (homo sapiens as A + E) and W.


We still depend on the environment and are set to suffer the consequences of destroying it.

phoneutria wrote:Arminius is no dummy, he's a very smart robot. He's just really into lil lingustics games such as this thread.

Thanks, my dear poisonous spider, but I hope you have nonetheless noticed that I am not always playing linguistic games. :wink:


Perhaps, but this thread is.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:57 pm

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...

Post after post after post....
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6823
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Uccisore » Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:57 am

Ecmandu wrote: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...

Post after post after post....


Phoneutria is too dumb to realize a bunch of incomprehensible bullshit you just spouted?

Maybe you learn to communicate effectively if you're constantly running into people who seem not to 'realize' what you are trying to explain to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13235
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:22 am

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.

I haven't seen an argument in this thread.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Moreno » Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:41 am

Arminius wrote:
Moreno wrote: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.

Did you mean that half of all animals are humans? :-k

Could you rephrase your post, please?
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.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:58 pm

If there is a "natural", there must be an Unnatural Selection Principle.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:06 pm

like... say... artificial selection?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:03 pm

phoneutria wrote:like... say... artificial selection?

...or "man-made", "not nature's normal means void of Man".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25768
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Artimas » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:13 pm

Moreno wrote:
Artimas wrote:Someone that knows more will survive longer than one who is "fit". In almost any scenario.
Knowing more is a form of fitness, and in genetic terms capacity and interest in learning (whatever part of that is nature and not due to circumstance which would also affect it).


True. Which is why there is a 'fit mind' and then also unfit which I guess would technically be mental illnesses.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Artimas » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:23 pm

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.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:50 pm

Artimas wrote: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.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Artimas » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:22 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Artimas wrote: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.


I suppose fitness will change with the environment, if this society ever crumbles. Billions will die.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:53 pm

Consume like bacteria, die like bacteria.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:24 am

Artimas wrote:... 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.

Yes. And that is almost exactly what I have been saying for so long.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Arminius » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:27 am

Artimas wrote:I suppose fitness will change with the environment, if this society ever crumbles. Billions will die.

Yup.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users