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.
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.
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.
like… say… artificial selection?
…or “man-made”, “not nature’s normal means void of Man”.
True. Which is why there is a ‘fit mind’ and then also unfit which I guess would technically be mental illnesses.
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.
Consume like bacteria, die like bacteria.
Yes. And that is almost exactly what I have been saying for so long.
Yup.
Yes, of course.
Exactly. I call this „safe zone“ „isolation“ or „island“, „an island in an ocean named »nature«“. If the humans would survive only according to the natural selection, then today there would be no 7 billion humans but approximately 0.7 million humans (0.01% of the current number of humans).
The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.
The evolutionary result of that situation is a divided species; “Eloi and Morlock”.
Eventually natural selection will claim them, if society ever crumbles, which is only a matter of time. No civilization lasts forever, history has shown us.
However, the intelligence genetic trait, fewer by number, end up in controlling, superior positions, (usually), therefore the genetically atypical superior specimen may be prone, on the long run, to be controlled, and disadvantaged. Such disadvantage may cause diminished power and the will to excercise it. On the order of machines, the most superior computer will control everything, so the differentiation between the haves and have nots in that pro typical scenario, will again reform unto more integral solutions to social control and psychological defenses.
Therefore, the thing with Darwin is the same as with Newton in his era, as it applies to changes in social, political, psychological manifestations, his ideas are still valid on some levels, yet not yet integral to imminent and future developments.