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.
13
37%
Probably.
4
11%
Perhaps.
0
No votes
No.
16
46%
I do not know.
2
6%
 
Total votes : 35

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:18 pm

promethean75 wrote:"Mostly an excuse for global manipulation of populations"
For the latter, Darwin was the license for, and translates to, nationalism, fascism, imperialism, and all political forms that take these hierarchies for granted. There is no god, and man must take his place.


But you are not talking about Darwin or referencing anything he said. You are off topic at best. Dozens of 20thC ideologies any well haeve employed some of the ideas, from Hitler to Stalin and Milton Friedman, none of that can you lay on the door of Darwin.
You might as well blame the inventor of gunpowder rockets in Medival China, for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.

Darwin, strictly scientifically pointed out a relationship between heredity and change. If you don't like it blame god FFS.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Great Again » Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:28 pm

    @ Obsvr
    @ Magnus Anderson.

    Magnus Anderson wrote:
    obsrvr524 wrote:Answering the title question logically requires knowing the very precise definition of "Darwinistic Principle".

    So what exactly is "Darwinistic selection principle"?

    Principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to what was in the beginning. Thus, selection principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to the beginning of evolution.

    So we have for instance:
            (1) The (decisions, interrests of [God or randomness or]) "nature" as a selector for the "natural selection".
            (2) The decisions, interrests of the sexual partner as a selector for the "sexual selection".
            (3) The decisions, interrests of the kinship as a selector for the "kin selection".
            (4) The decisions, interrests of the society, their politics, their rulers/deciders over the society as the selector for the "social selection".
    Life is about self-preservation (cell division, cell renewal) and reproduction, which can happen in two ways: (1) parthenogenesis (one reproduces oneself again and again) and (2) sexual reproduction. This happens in space and time. For humans, this space is not only the environment, but also and even the whole world. Darwin included however only the environment into the development of an individual and a species. And apart from the modern human being, individuals and groups of individuals are exposed to an environment as an immediate space.
    Image
    User avatar
    Great Again
     
    Posts: 247
    Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:33 pm

    Sculptor wrote:
    Pedro I Rengel wrote:Well actually it's Francis Ford Coppola's little fantasy. George C. Scott just directed it.

    I see we have a Silhouette on our hands. What is the first and last name of your lady friend who died from the covid herr young man?


    The fantasy of Patton was generally the creation of Scott's anbsurd invention. Writers are wirth shit in the film business.
    It was Franklin J. Schaffner hw directed it.
    Directors and stars (when has all powerful as Scott anyway) are the guys with the creative power.
    Coppola is only 1 of 4 writing credits.

    As for naming names. This is about Darwin and not about COVID.

    But I suppose for you, its one way to avoid addressing any issues of substance.


    Well if you know anything about Francis Ford Coppola, you know this Patton was his creation, and he wrote all the best lines.

    By the way all this bitching about how writers are treated, this job gave Coppola the pathway to eventually directing The Godfather.

    The real Patton:



    "Whose names I can't pronounce, but whose places I have removed."
    User avatar
    Pedro I Rengel
    ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
     
    Posts: 9251
    Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:44 pm

    Sculptor wrote:But I suppose for you, its one way to avoid addressing any issues of substance.


    Well I could call what you write insane ramblings, but I try to employ a little bit more style.
    User avatar
    Pedro I Rengel
    ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
     
    Posts: 9251
    Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby promethean75 » Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:56 pm

    Sculpatory, that's what I'm sayin. I'm sayin obsrvr is sayin that. I'm agreeing witchu.
    promethean75
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 4700
    Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:56 pm

    Great Again wrote:Principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to what was in the beginning. Thus, selection principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to the beginning of evolution.

    So we have for instance:
            (1) The (decisions, interrests of [God or randomness or]) "nature" as a selector for the "natural selection".
            (2) The decisions, interrests of the sexual partner as a selector for the "sexual selection".
            (3) The decisions, interrests of the kinship as a selector for the "kin selection".
            (4) The decisions, interrests of the society, their politics, their rulers/deciders over the society as the selector for the "social selection".

    I agree with all of that.

    Great Again wrote:Life is about self-preservation (cell division, cell renewal) and reproduction, which can happen in two ways: (1) parthenogenesis (one reproduces oneself again and again) and (2) sexual reproduction. This happens in space and time. For humans, this space is not only the environment, but also and even the whole world. Darwin included however only the environment into the development of an individual and a species. And apart from the modern human being, individuals and groups of individuals are exposed to an environment as an immediate space.

    Having said that, I think you might be interested in James S Saint's theories concerning the survival priority vs reproduction. He was, in my opinion, a superb rational theorist when it came to defining your words properly, understanding metaphors, and the questions of "why it is" - including -
    • Why the universe exists at all
    • Why light travels that particular speed
    • Why gravity does what it does
    • Why positive and negative particles "attract"
      .
      .
      .
    • Why species-preservation (reproduction) is only an aberrant consequence self-preservation
    • MIJOT - the highest priority and purpose within all living beings (my favorite :D )
    You might be interested in a book that Mithus on this board wrote/edited concerning James' theories and thoughts. He was a big proponent of Nullius in Verbe.

    He pointed out that cell reproduction was one strategy of survival by surrounding the cell with a harmonious environment constructed of replications of itself (creating the environment rather than being the subject of it - perhaps the opposite proposed by Darwin). He extended that strategy to include human reproduction and societal reproduction (such as a democratic country wanting to spread democracy for the survival its own democracy). When it comes to choosing between Darwin or Hegel - I'll choose James every time. :D
    Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

                You have been observed.
      Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
      It's just same Satanism as always -
      • separate the bottom from the top,
      • the left from the right,
      • the light from the dark, and
      • blame each for the sins of the other
      • - until they beg you to take charge.
      • -- but "you" have been observed --
    obsrvr524
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 2817
    Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Sculptor » Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:38 pm

    Pedro I Rengel wrote:
    Sculptor wrote:
    Pedro I Rengel wrote:Well actually it's Francis Ford Coppola's little fantasy. George C. Scott just directed it.

    I see we have a Silhouette on our hands. What is the first and last name of your lady friend who died from the covid herr young man?


    The fantasy of Patton was generally the creation of Scott's anbsurd invention. Writers are wirth shit in the film business.
    It was Franklin J. Schaffner hw directed it.
    Directors and stars (when has all powerful as Scott anyway) are the guys with the creative power.
    Coppola is only 1 of 4 writing credits.

    As for naming names. This is about Darwin and not about COVID.

    But I suppose for you, its one way to avoid addressing any issues of substance.


    Well if you know anything about Francis Ford Coppola, you know this Patton was his creation, and he wrote all the best lines.

    By the way all this bitching about how writers are treated, this job gave Coppola the pathway to eventually directing The Godfather.



    You are a rambling idiot.
    Mario Puzo wrote the Godfather.
    It was a monumental invention. FFC is great but give credit where it is due.

    ANd once again.


    As for naming names. This is about Darwin and not about COVID OR Patton.

    But I suppose for you, its one way to avoid addressing any issues of substance
    Sculptor
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 729
    Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Sculptor » Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:39 pm

    promethean75 wrote:Sculpatory, that's what I'm sayin. I'm sayin obsrvr is sayin that. I'm agreeing witchu.



    okily dokily
    Sculptor
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 729
    Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:48 pm

    Sculptor wrote:You are a rambling idiot.
    Mario Puzo wrote the Godfather.
    It was a monumental invention. FFC is great but give credit where it is due.



    Mario Puzo wrote the novel, not the screenplay. And anyway, I was talking about directing. That stuff allowed Francis Ford Coppola to eventually direct The Godfather. Make up your mind, does it matter who wrote it or does it not?
    User avatar
    Pedro I Rengel
    ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
     
    Posts: 9251
    Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Sculptor » Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:03 am

    Pedro I Rengel wrote:
    Sculptor wrote:You are a rambling idiot.
    Mario Puzo wrote the Godfather.
    It was a monumental invention. FFC is great but give credit where it is due.



    Mario Puzo wrote the novel, not the screenplay. And anyway, I was talking about directing. That stuff allowed Francis Ford Coppola to eventually direct The Godfather. Make up your mind, does it matter who wrote it or does it not?

    OFF TOPIC
    Sculptor
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 729
    Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:06 am

    Well if you want to address my post on the topic, I'd be happy. Don't get all worked up.
    User avatar
    Pedro I Rengel
    ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
     
    Posts: 9251
    Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Sculptor » Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:29 am

    Pedro I Rengel wrote:Well if you want to address my post on the topic, I'd be happy. Don't get all worked up.



    THIS IS THE POST YOU IGNORED.

    Postby Sculptor » Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:40 pm

    Pedro I Rengel wrote:
    Alls I'm saying is, how committed to science can you be if you take any attack on Darwin as an attack on science?

    Dumb question.
    Darwin's principle is unavoidably scientific. It's as sure and apples fall from trees.

    You have to be pretty stupid to pretent the earth is flat, or that apples fall upwards.

    So, to any with any interest in actual knowledge, actual wisdom, read my post from the last page again and confront these charges against Darwin.


    You have not laid any charges against Darwin, since you simply enough do not understand the principle of natural selection.

    You can make up your little straw men as much as you like and have fun setting light to them. But that is not the same as laying charges.
    Sculptor
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 729
    Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Great Again » Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:59 pm

    obsrvr524 wrote:
    Great Again wrote:Principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to what was in the beginning. Thus, selection principles are those regulative propositions which go back or should go back to the beginning of evolution.

    So we have for instance:
            (1) The (decisions, interrests of [God or randomness or]) "nature" as a selector for the "natural selection".
            (2) The decisions, interrests of the sexual partner as a selector for the "sexual selection".
            (3) The decisions, interrests of the kinship as a selector for the "kin selection".
            (4) The decisions, interrests of the society, their politics, their rulers/deciders over the society as the selector for the "social selection".

    I agree with all of that.

    Great Again wrote:Life is about self-preservation (cell division, cell renewal) and reproduction, which can happen in two ways: (1) parthenogenesis (one reproduces oneself again and again) and (2) sexual reproduction. This happens in space and time. For humans, this space is not only the environment, but also and even the whole world. Darwin included however only the environment into the development of an individual and a species. And apart from the modern human being, individuals and groups of individuals are exposed to an environment as an immediate space.

    Having said that, I think you might be interested in James S Saint's theories concerning the survival priority vs reproduction. He was, in my opinion, a superb rational theorist when it came to defining your words properly, understanding metaphors, and the questions of "why it is" - including -
    • Why the universe exists at all
    • Why light travels that particular speed
    • Why gravity does what it does
    • Why positive and negative particles "attract"
      .
      .
      .
    • Why species-preservation (reproduction) is only an aberrant consequence self-preservation
    • MIJOT - the highest priority and purpose within all living beings (my favorite :D )
    You might be interested in a book that Mithus on this board wrote/edited concerning James' theories and thoughts. He was a big proponent of Nullius in Verbe.

    He pointed out that cell reproduction was one strategy of survival by surrounding the cell with a harmonious environment constructed of replications of itself (creating the environment rather than being the subject of it - perhaps the opposite proposed by Darwin). He extended that strategy to include human reproduction and societal reproduction (such as a democratic country wanting to spread democracy for the survival its own democracy). When it comes to choosing between Darwin or Hegel - I'll choose James every time. :D

    I have just contacted Mithus.
    Image
    User avatar
    Great Again
     
    Posts: 247
    Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:41 pm

    _

    A type of intentional strategic herd defense -
    James S Saint » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:05 am wrote:Actually, nature is not comprised of that which is attempting to expand. At any one moment, being is comprised of that which has thus far defeated entropy, it's own destruction (hence FC's "self-valuing" - maintaining itself). That which is, is that which has survived.

    The appearance of growth, expansion, and aggression are only the common anti-entropy effort that is temporarily utilized so as to offset the entropy and thus yield survival. Cells divide and multiply so as to surround themselves with a compatible substance, a shelter. Note that every creature stops growing at some point. The only thing in nature that seems to never stop growing is a black-hole, which is assumed to be eventually destroyed via collision with other black holes or perhaps merely instability.

    Anentropy is actually the goal of all beings (forgiving the extension of the idea of having a goal to inanimate matter). Anentropy is the exact balance between entropy and anti-entropy. All subatomic particles stop growing or shrinking once they achieve anentropy - eternal survival. If due to some event they swell up too large, they shrink back down. If they lose too much, they grow back to their standard. The same is true with the undisturbed human body (or any creature). To the degree possible at the time, the same is true of atoms. Structures more complex than atoms become difficult to offset entropy until life is formed.

    Mankind keeps expanding because Man won't leave Man alone. Disturbance instigates defense and instigated defense resorts to growth. Cultures existed for thousands of years without over populating. Life seeks natural balance, anentropy, not eternal expansion. Like a wound, Man keeps trying to expand because he keeps scratching himself. Thus Man believing in God has never been the actually issue, but rather Man lusting to be God, eternally all powerful .. and finally satisfied and left alone.

    James S Saint » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:57 am wrote:Harmony with ones surroundings is critical to survival. Cells reproduce so as to surround themselves with a compatible, harmonic, ambient shelter (more of themselves). When that amicable shelter is lost, caustic chemicals find their way to the cell much more readily, like wolves finding your home after the town has moved away. Further protection is found by the surrounding shelter of similar cells being organized so as to supply nutrients and dispense with toxins (an orderly, cooperative town).

    James S Saint » Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:13 pm wrote:What I meant was that what you now call a "nation" ends up being more like an organ of a larger body of Mankind. But it isn't assigned to be any particular organ. Instead it merely ends up being one because every SAM coop within that region is focused on doing what they can do in the wisest way they can determine without regard to any higher scheme of Mankind's global design. Thus they are not dissonant nor distracted by imagined fantasy grand ideological designs.

    It is exactly analogous to the cells of your body that never think in terms of what they should do for sake of the U.N.'s directives and mandates. Your cells merely do what they have to in order to keep alive. By them continuing to ignore the U.N., they keep the your body alive. SAM coops are far more intelligent than those cells, but they still attend to their own business above all else, lest the body of Mankind become dissonant, distracted by delusional fantasies, and fall into eternal contentious misery for all people concerned.

    James S Saint » Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:46 pm wrote:As I have said several times, the constitution of SAM is like a basic genome. The amendments of each SAM constitution create variations in a social form of a DNA strain. When overpopulated, SAM "cells" divide in a typical DNA/RNA fashion to form two SAM cells with similar but not necessarily identical amendments. Variety forms as cells divide and choose alternate amendments (DNA sequencing).

    Larger groups of SAM cells form cell communities with very similar amendments such that most cells can preform the exact same function. Other groups form from a different variation of amendments so as to be able to perform perhaps a substantially different function. In modern terms, those two groups might be a manufacturing group of similar cells and a marketing group of similar cells. Such groupings are found in industrial complexes.

    Just as there is no governing cells over the body, there is no governing cells over the SAM aggregate conglomerate. Just as the cells of a body are governed by how they handle their environment, so are SAM cells, groups, and the entire conglomerate.

    Reality is the only governor.

    James S Saint » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:09 pm wrote:The supposed strategy to propagate the species actually has nothing at all to do with any survival of the species. It is merely a misinterpretation of what is actually a greater strategy.

    "Surround yourself with that which is harmonious with yourself."

    That is why cells replicate, not to ensure the survival of the body.
    That is why families form, not to endure the survival of offspring.
    That is why nations form, not to ensure the survival of presidents/pharaohs/aristocrats.
    And that is why the body has sex, to help surround itself WITH itself, not to "propagate the abstract species".

    James S Saint » Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:42 pm wrote:I think we could define "advancement" concerning evolution in terms of an increase in survivability or stability.

    Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: umm, closer, but not quite because of the word "advancement". A much better word is efficient. through inherited traits,
    in the mating process, we can become more efficient which does increase our survivability in a given environment, but the
    process is still random, the uniting of the the male DNA and the female DNA.

    By using the term "efficient", you are presuming that the only purpose of an entity is propagation.
    Isn't that a bit narrow?

    Who's "purpose" would that serve? The species itself? A species has no consciousness with which to form a purpose (discounting the government).

    When we decide that propagation of a species is "good for it", it is WE who are projecting purpose upon it as though it was a willful entity.

    With an individual, we need not project such purpose because that individual would already have inbuilt pursuits.

    Peter Kropotkin wrote:JS: Propagation is merely one of the means to enhance survivability via the conversion of the environment.

    K: one of the means? name another?

    Emm.. very many.. hardening or adapting of the skin, gaining mobility, communication, intelligence,...

    Peter Kropotkin wrote:J: Propagation also creates a species, but that is a secondary aberrant effect and defensive mechanism, not the originating pursuit or goal.

    K: I have no idea what this means.

    It means that cells reproduce by a mechanism that is an inherent defense of the cells longevity - surrounding itself with more of itself. From that process, a body is created that discovers an inherent limit. Due to that limit, still pursuing the same defense, the body spawns so as to continue surrounding itself with itself as a natural defense mechanism. The end result is a species.

    The species wasn't "in the beginning". Nor was it ever an intent or purpose. It merely became a means for the individual to protect itself. The inherent evolutionary goal has always been self-protection, not species protection.

    Peter Kropotkin wrote:J: once a species has been formed, the species itself "advances" in evolution by becoming more talented toward its own survivability. The purpose/aim within the individual is not the same as the purpose/aim within the species, but merely related.:

    K: Now if you are trying to say more efficient? I might be able to go with you on this, but "advances", no. I am also not so sure about the
    word "talented". It implies something that isn't there.

    Kropotkin

    "talent" means capability to do something to its own benefit.

    I find your preference for the word "efficient" to be even more of what you seem to abhor.
    The word "efficient" has no meaning at all until AFTER a goal of some kind is presumed.
    How is that different than "advanced"?

    If we "declare" that the goal is survival when referring to evolutionary directions, then either word would work. But we have to declare a forward from a backward, "evolve" vs "de-evolve".

    And absolutely nothing is ever random. True randomness doesn't exist - anywhere.
    Last edited by obsrvr524 on Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

                You have been observed.
      Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
      It's just same Satanism as always -
      • separate the bottom from the top,
      • the left from the right,
      • the light from the dark, and
      • blame each for the sins of the other
      • - until they beg you to take charge.
      • -- but "you" have been observed --
    obsrvr524
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 2817
    Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:59 pm

    Sculptor wrote:
    Pedro I Rengel wrote:Well if you want to address my post on the topic, I'd be happy. Don't get all worked up.



    THIS IS THE POST YOU IGNORED.

    Postby Sculptor » Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:40 pm

    Pedro I Rengel wrote:
    Alls I'm saying is, how committed to science can you be if you take any attack on Darwin as an attack on science?

    Dumb question.
    Darwin's principle is unavoidably scientific. It's as sure and apples fall from trees.

    You have to be pretty stupid to pretent the earth is flat, or that apples fall upwards.

    So, to any with any interest in actual knowledge, actual wisdom, read my post from the last page again and confront these charges against Darwin.


    You have not laid any charges against Darwin, since you simply enough do not understand the principle of natural selection.

    You can make up your little straw men as much as you like and have fun setting light to them. But that is not the same as laying charges.


    Yeah, you didn't address anything, what do you want me to do? Take it easy bub.
    User avatar
    Pedro I Rengel
    ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
     
    Posts: 9251
    Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Sculptor » Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:01 pm

    Pedro I Rengel wrote:Yeah, you didn't address anything, what do you want me to do? Take it easy bub.



    So, what is the point of you?
    Sculptor
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 729
    Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:03 pm

    Arminius wrote: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.

    What is "successful" then?

    It seems you have replaced the gene with the meme, if success is not genetic. Memetic success, i.e. fame, would then follow similar criteria - namely that the meme, the invention, creation of the successful one, propagates and proliferates itself.

    Darwin didn't measure success in terms of fame though, but in terms of genetic reproduction.
    Image
    For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
    User avatar
    Jakob
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 7497
    Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
    Location: look at my suit

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:04 pm

    Sculptor wrote:
    Pedro I Rengel wrote:Yeah, you didn't address anything, what do you want me to do? Take it easy bub.



    So, what is the point of you?


    I don't know Silhouette, to actually think about shit. What's yours?
    User avatar
    Pedro I Rengel
    ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
     
    Posts: 9251
    Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:07 pm

    Pedro I Rengel wrote:Well obviously if humans are modifying genomes, that falls under the category of natural evolution of which the human genome anyway already was.

    That is the failing of Darwin. To somehow place humans outside the continuum of evolution.

    If you want, call it the gene for genetic manipulation.

    A gene is not an actual thing anyway like an allele or a chromosome. It is a convenient abstraction for "whatever fucking combination of alleles makes this happen."

    So in the end it cannot even be said that DNA is the unit of evolution.

    Evolution is simply a description of what happens.

    At what point does "discreet packet of DNA" require so much bending over backwards,

    That it enters the realm of Ptolemy's perfect circular orbits?

    Darwin failed because he said "it happens because it succeeds,"

    And whereas it must succeed in order to happen,

    The 'because' escapes the scope of Occam's razor.

    Also it's kind of a cheap way out:

    Before and during Darwin,

    Others and not only Lamarck,

    Were busy trying to describe the mechanisms, patterns of change,

    Whereas Darwin just said:

    Nieh it happens because it can,

    Well no shit Sherlock,

    No shit.

    And people treat him like some kind of trail blazer,

    When already in the 1700's,

    Leibniz was struggling to reconcile the obvious fact of the independence of evolution,

    With the doctrine that God created everything directly.

    Darwin became super big,

    Because he took the easy way out,

    "It happens because it can,"

    And so bypassed the whole immense trail of mistakes,

    That it was necessary to make in the development of theories of the mechanisms of evolutionary action.

    English motherfuckers.

    Better than Germans I guess.

    But here we are left,

    With a grand total of "0,"

    By way of theories explaining the mechanisms of evolutionary change.

    "Mutations,"

    Oooooooooooh,

    Thank you there,

    Fucking Batman.
    User avatar
    Pedro I Rengel
    ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
     
    Posts: 9251
    Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:31 pm

    obsrvr524 wrote:_

    A type of intentional strategic herd defense -
    James S Saint » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:05 am wrote:Actually, nature is not comprised of that which is attempting to expand. At any one moment, being is comprised of that which has thus far defeated entropy, it's own destruction (hence FC's "self-valuing" - maintaining itself). That which is, is that which has survived.

    As well as that which has the ability to be an influence. Even a photon has its self-valuing, even though it is merely space which it values in its own terms. It gets abstract in the well, abstract realms.

    The appearance of growth, expansion, and aggression are only the common anti-entropy effort that is temporarily utilized so as to offset the entropy and thus yield survival. Cells divide and multiply so as to surround themselves with a compatible substance, a shelter. Note that every creature stops growing at some point. The only thing in nature that seems to never stop growing is a black-hole, which is assumed to be eventually destroyed via collision with other black holes or perhaps merely instability.

    Thats because the black hole can absorb anything, nothing contradicts it. It values everything in terms of its own self-valuing.
    It has no particular nature.

    Anentropy is actually the goal of all beings (forgiving the extension of the idea of having a goal to inanimate matter). Anentropy is the exact balance between entropy and anti-entropy. All subatomic particles stop growing or shrinking once they achieve anentropy - eternal survival. If due to some event they swell up too large, they shrink back down. If they lose too much, they grow back to their standard. The same is true with the undisturbed human body (or any creature). To the degree possible at the time, the same is true of atoms. Structures more complex than atoms become difficult to offset entropy until life is formed.

    In fact they often do grow beyond what sustains them and then split up. This is I suspect the real cause of species diversity.

    Mankind keeps expanding because Man won't leave Man alone. Disturbance instigates defense and instigated defense resorts to growth. Cultures existed for thousands of years without over populating. Life seeks natural balance, anentropy, not eternal expansion. Like a wound, Man keeps trying to expand because he keeps scratching himself. Thus Man believing in God has never been the actually issue, but rather Man lusting to be God, eternally all powerful .. and finally satisfied and left alone.

    Many species grow beyond what their environment can sustain and then nearly die out.
    So I think there is something missing in your argument here.

    James S Saint » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:57 am wrote:Harmony with ones surroundings is critical to survival. Cells reproduce so as to surround themselves with a compatible, harmonic, ambient shelter (more of themselves). When that amicable shelter is lost, caustic chemicals find their way to the cell much more readily, like wolves finding your home after the town has moved away. Further protection is found by the surrounding shelter of similar cells being organized so as to supply nutrients and dispense with toxins (an orderly, cooperative town).

    But this is not the conscious intent of the cell - rather, it produces more of itself out of an excessive vitality.
    The balance required for such excess to become a proper sustaining life form is whether it has subtlety of discernment.
    (the current "mandate of nature" is attempting with great success to rid the already not so discerning humans of their most important sense of discernment - smell. To help along that which wants to die)

    James S Saint » Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:13 pm wrote:What I meant was that what you now call a "nation" ends up being more like an organ of a larger body of Mankind. But it isn't assigned to be any particular organ. Instead it merely ends up being one because every SAM coop within that region is focused on doing what they can do in the wisest way they can determine without regard to any higher scheme of Mankind's global design. Thus they are not dissonant nor distracted by imagined fantasy grand ideological designs.

    Do you not think that a nation with an abstractly thought out constitution, like the Roman Republic which was designed to prevent monopoly on power, or the former USA, have a slightly alternate mechanism, despite strains of such localist logic as you describe forming the base fabric?

    It is exactly analogous to the cells of your body that never think in terms of what they should do for sake of the U.N.'s directives and mandates. Your cells merely do what they have to in order to keep alive. By them continuing to ignore the U.N., they keep the your body alive. SAM coops are far more intelligent than those cells, but they still attend to their own business above all else, lest the body of Mankind become dissonant, distracted by delusional fantasies, and fall into eternal contentious misery for all people concerned.

    James S Saint » Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:46 pm wrote:As I have said several times, the constitution of SAM is like a basic genome. The amendments of each SAM constitution create variations in a social form of a DNA strain. When overpopulated, SAM "cells" divide in a typical DNA/RNA fashion to form two SAM cells with similar but not necessarily identical amendments. Variety forms as cells divide and choose alternate amendments (DNA sequencing).

    Larger groups of SAM cells form cell communities with very similar amendments such that most cells can preform the exact same function. Other groups form from a different variation of amendments so as to be able to perform perhaps a substantially different function. In modern terms, those two groups might be a manufacturing group of similar cells and a marketing group of similar cells. Such groupings are found in industrial complexes.

    Just as there is no governing cells over the body, there is no governing cells over the SAM aggregate conglomerate. Just as the cells of a body are governed by how they handle their environment, so are SAM cells, groups, and the entire conglomerate.

    This is enabled since there is an overarching logic to which all successful cells subscribe.
    Their cohering together in a greater body is due to this (selfvaluing) logic, to which both the parts and the whole subscribe.
    This logic has been called "God" in the derivatives of Kabbalistic logic, i.e. Abrahamic religions.
    In what we call pagan religions, "God" means a wholly different thing.

    Reality is the only governor.

    James S Saint » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:09 pm wrote:The supposed strategy to propagate the species actually has nothing at all to do with any survival of the species. It is merely a misinterpretation of what is actually a greater strategy.

    "Surround yourself with that which is harmonious with yourself."

    But harmony isnt as easy a concept as you make it seem here.
    In many cases, in order to be healthy, an animal needs to fight.
    The same goes for nations. Wars have often been waged simply to keep the population fit and alert.
    Not that this wont often go terribly wrong, but the alternative is sickness unto death.

    That is why cells replicate, not to ensure the survival of the body.
    That is why families form, not to endure the survival of offspring.
    That is why nations form, not to ensure the survival of presidents/pharaohs/aristocrats.
    And that is why the body has sex, to help surround itself WITH itself, not to "propagate the abstract species".

    More coldly apprehended, these bodies replicate simply because they are made of growth (organic logic) and yet cant keep on growing indefinitely - the excess they produce by existing as organic matter is naturally of their own substance. The cases where this substance was a beneficial factor have been successful. To die and to reproduce are part of the same function. (why holy men dont tend to reproduce - they dont fear death in the same way, they are not defined by their organic, but by their atomic being)
    Image
    For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
    User avatar
    Jakob
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 7497
    Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
    Location: look at my suit

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:58 pm

    I don't think he was proposing that reproduction is the only means of survival nor that it is necessarily conducted perfectly -
    Propagation is merely one of the means to enhance survivability via the conversion of the environment.
    ~~~
    Emm.. very many.. hardening or adapting of the skin, gaining mobility, communication, intelligence,...

    All of those play into that "self-valuing" you mention (also obviously not conducted perfectly).
    Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

                You have been observed.
      Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
      It's just same Satanism as always -
      • separate the bottom from the top,
      • the left from the right,
      • the light from the dark, and
      • blame each for the sins of the other
      • - until they beg you to take charge.
      • -- but "you" have been observed --
    obsrvr524
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 2817
    Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:58 pm

    Jakob wrote: ... or the former USA ...


    Don't be so fatalistic. That is not to say you are wrong, but the collapse of an imperial order is elastic.

    I also owe you a formal apology, for calling you a communist earlier. War is hell, or whatever the fuck these commies like to say.
    User avatar
    Pedro I Rengel
    ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
     
    Posts: 9251
    Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:54 pm

    Jakob wrote:What is "successful" then?


    Good question. He never explained what he means by that word. But not only that . . .

    He presented an argument of the following form:

    1) Darwin said X

    2) From X follows that "Successul beings reproduce more than the unsuccessful beings"

    3) We can observe that "Successful beings often reproduce less than the unsuccessful beings"

    4) Therefore, X is wrong

    Here, "X" stands for what he calls "Darwinistic selection principle". He also never explained what he thinks this principle amounts to.
    Magnus Anderson
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 5124
    Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:03 pm

    It's a technical matter. The state as it hitherto existed has perished. Whoever can't see this is probably wearing a diaper on his face.
    I'm not saying the People or the implicit power of the Constitution are dead. Not at all. Though the people who came to Trump rallys with diapers with Trump written on them are symptoms of death just like Boideen is. They just didnt get it, what T was telling them without being able to say it directly.

    Masons make a harsh school bro. Harsh and subtle. Like nature.

    All is quite simply unfolding as I have said it would since 2011.
    Something new is taking shape.
    Image
    For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
    User avatar
    Jakob
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 7497
    Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
    Location: look at my suit

    Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

    Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:05 pm

    obsrvr524 wrote:I don't think he was proposing that reproduction is the only means of survival nor that it is necessarily conducted perfectly -
    Propagation is merely one of the means to enhance survivability via the conversion of the environment.
    ~~~
    Emm.. very many.. hardening or adapting of the skin, gaining mobility, communication, intelligence,...

    All of those play into that "self-valuing" you mention (also obviously not conducted perfectly).


    Sure enough, I just felt I had some depth to add to the conversation.
    Image
    For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
    User avatar
    Jakob
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 7497
    Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
    Location: look at my suit

    PreviousNext

    Return to Science, Technology, and Math



    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users