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 Great Again » Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:40 pm

This is what Kathrina said and what I supported:

Great Again wrote:
Kathrina wrote:
WIKIPEDIA wrote:Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication published in 1868, "This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term "natural selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity". He defended his analogy as similar to language used in chemistry, and to astronomers depicting the "attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets", or the way in which "agriculturists speak of man making domestic races by his power of selection". He had "often personified the word Nature; for I have found it difficult to avoid this ambiguity; but I mean by nature only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,—and by laws only the ascertained sequence of Events."[3]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_ ... the_phrase .

Darwin was a theologian and demonstrably influenced by the economist Malthus. Every child knows that. But you do not know it, you "Sculptor".

WIKIPEDIA wrote:In the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin had used the phrase "natural selection".[10] In Chapter 4 of the 5th edition of The Origin published in 1869,[4] Darwin implies again the synonym: "Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest".[5] By "fittest" Darwin meant "better adapted for the immediate, local environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape" (think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete).[6] In the introduction he gave full credit to Spencer, writing "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."[11]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_ ... the_phrase .

"By "fittest" Darwin meant "better adapted for the immediate, local environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape" ...." JUST WHAT I SAID IN MY LAST POST (and you illiterate communist could not read it):

Kathrina wrote:In the Darwinistic sense, „fit“ or „fitness“ describes the degree of adaptation to the environment (i.e. adaptive specialization), or the ability to reproduce despite low specialization. This means that not that species survives which defies everything and displaces other species, but the one which either adapts to the environment or manages to reproduce continuously despite adverse environmental conditions.
Source: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 9#p2804346 .

So again, Scalped Sculptor, go away, you illiterate and unfriendly communist. And don't start with your insults again, because that's the only thing you can.

You are right in what you say, Kathrina.

Wikipedia, which you quoted, has also put here even something correct on the Internet.

The troll has no evidence, because he has no knowledge about Darwin and Darwinism.

Now can we get back to the real question of this thread instead of always dealing with trolls?
Image
User avatar
Great Again
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Great Again » Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:53 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Kathrina wrote:Yes, and finally there is not much left of Darwinism than a theology.


it is absurd to say this
the work that Darwin published was in accordance with the scientific method

I don't think being of scientific mind or method alters whether a theory is theology (virtually the same word - for a reason).

phoneutria wrote: in nature there isn't a driving consciousness, or a will, or a mind, whatever have you
that is clearly present in most creation myths
particularly true of the christian belief

I don't think consciousness is required in theology - it is just most common - for commoners.


It's appearing that Great Again is the most educated concerning the history of all of this.

Answering the title question logically requires knowing the very precise definition of "Darwinistic Principle".

Thank you.

You got it. Also, you understood to point out what Arminius was about with his question as the title of this thread.
Image
User avatar
Great Again
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:19 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
phoneutria wrote:given that theology and science
are distinct realms of study
in which different rules apply

But they are not so distinct. And though science method involved independent observation when it comes to theories, it is all abstract - of the "devine" - of "theos" - "theo-ry". The "gods" were merely the theoretical rules/laws that govern different aspects of nature and the universe.


not just independent observation
also reproducibility
control
use of an adequate sample
accounting for a margin of error
discussing alternative hypotheses
and peer review

none of which are possible in the study of religion

where in theology you use the word "abstract"
as in something that cannot be rooted in a physical event
in science the process of abstraction
is to develop a model or idea that must not be dependent on any particular event
because it will always occur

i see you muddying the waters there kiddo
with etymology and word games
words are only useful to us
when they are used responsibly

the simple fact that a similar vocabulary
or words of similar origin
are used in both field
does not equate them

"Theology" being the study of those rules - long before the discipline of independent observation became the method of study for knowing - "science".


yes we know that historically
the scholars were the clergy
our academical culture was born from them
but we have come a long way since

phoneutria wrote:a theological theory
is not comparable to a scientific theory
and would not be accepted in a scientific publication

Truth and what is publishable are two different religions.


i did not say a single word about "Truth", sir
as far as I can tell this short exchange has been about
comparing theology with science
so you're going on a tangent here
if you want to start a new thread i'll follow

phoneutria wrote:But in the particular context of this conversation
which is darwinism vs the prevalent religion of the time
that was the case

One theory challenged the reigning authority - "masks don't help" vs "masks are essential" vs "it's our business not yours" vs "obey or else".


it seems that you may have lost the trailhead of the conversation
you said that consciousness [of a deity] ]is not required in theology
i said that under this context, that is the case
now this thing you just posted
is one of the wildest non sequiturs of my recent ILP history
do you typically get away with discussing like this, here?
not with me, kiddo
i am not going to address this
if you want to talk about masks, go to a covid thread

phoneutria wrote: you
though i can tell you are just disingenuously pushing your agenda
and not necessarily being truthful or fair to the context of this conversation
as you are supposed to be
if that thing in your sig means anything

My "agenda"? - would be?


this science is indistinguishable from religion thing
that you're trying to get off the ground
and dude
there is a case to be made about that
for sure
i may even throw a couple pennies at that
but there is no need to be dishonest about it


And what have I not been truthful about? :-?


you have not flat out told a lie
but you are employing dishonest tactics

- attempting to put theology on a equal footing with the scientific method simply because both use the root word "theos"
- adding a third variable to a two-way comparison
- throwing in a random contentious theme

i hope you realize that i am not picking a fight with you
i'm compelling you to tighten up your case
you must start by not lying to yourself
just to win an argument
don't say things that you know are not true
you're better than that
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:26 pm

Kathrina wrote:I said that Darwin was a theologian. It is true that he was a theologian. Newton was also a theologian. There were and are many theologians. I did not say that Darwin disregarded any method. I did not say that in a word.


but you did say
that there is not much left of darwinism than a theology
that is precisely what I took issue with
there is a staggering amount of evidence
to the fact that darwinism is much more than a theology
such as the entire field of genetics
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:43 pm

But theology does not violate the scientific methods. Not at all. That was the point. Why should theology violate scientific methods? I said that it does not, and it does not.

Besides, the word "logic" is in the compound word "theology. And the word "logic" is also in the compound word "biology.

If one wants to accuse a scientific discipline of a violation of scientific methods, then it is quite simple, but then one should also be so honest and say that one accuses all scientific disciplines. Because all scientific disciplines have been corrupt for a long time. If one wants to see it neutrally, then one must say that each science discipline is not allowed to violate the scientific methods.
Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:33 pm

Kathrina wrote:But theology does not violate the scientific methods. Not at all. That was the point. Why should theology violate scientific methods? I said that it does not, and it does not.


it does
because it is dependent on belief, or faith
which is by definition the certainty of things that cannot be proven
the scientific method is based on observation
and it requires proof

besides, there are thousands of different gods and religions
and they are often mutually exclusive

Besides, the word "logic" is in the compound word "theology. And the word "logic" is also in the compound word "biology.


again
this is not how language works
both words have a root in "logos"
which is also the same word used for thought, or study
it is just a label for a field of study about faith/gods
as biology is a label for the study of life

it does not make life logical to have logos in the label


If one wants to accuse a scientific discipline of a violation of scientific methods, then it is quite simple, but then one should also be so honest and say that one accuses all scientific disciplines. Because all scientific disciplines have been corrupt for a long time. If one wants to see it neutrally, then one must say that each science discipline is not allowed to violate the scientific methods.
[/quote][/quote]

as i stated above
i don't consider theology to be a scientific discipline
and that there is corruption in the scientific community
is as far as I understand a plausible claim
however that does not invalidate any of the accomplishments of science
the fact that I am talking to you now through a computer
is evidence to the resounding success of this method
again
make your criticism
but be honest about it
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:46 pm

No.

You refer to your own (subjective) opinion. That is your right. But you have criticized me for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with any personal opinion, because all I have said is that theology - understood as theology (not as the corrupt system it has become) - does not violate scientific methods.

That can't be so difficult to understand.

Language? Oh yes, science and philosophy as well as art are nothing without language! Just because it seems today that everything has nothing to do with language does not mean that it really has nothing to do with language.

Are you Sculptor?

I'm just asking.
Last edited by Kathrina on Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:56 pm

Kathrina wrote:No.


no right back at ya gurl

You refer to your own (subjective) opinion. That is your right. But you have criticized me for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with any personal opinion, because all I have said is that theology - understood as theology (not as the corrupt system it has become) - does not violate scientific methods.


this is not subjective
it does violate scientific methods
for the reasons i stated in my previous post
you can make a case for that not being true
but you cannot claim that that's just my opinion
it ain't

Language? Oh yes, Philosoph is nithing without language! Just because it seems today that everything has nothing to do with language does not mean that it really has nothing to do with language.


my point exactly
is that language is a tool and a weapon
and it has to be used with precision
i cannot call a dog a duck
and make it so
"logos" is not the same thing as logic
and labeling something as logos
does not make it logical

Are you Sculptor?
I'm just asking


no
and that is strike one bitch
address my argument
only my argument
or you can go fuck yourself
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:06 pm

You can't threaten me!

You have not spoken on the subject even once, you've always just said your very subjective opinion. Then I asked you something and you immediately became abusive.
Last edited by Kathrina on Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:07 pm

Go read my posts again
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:25 pm

Kathrina wrote:You can't threaten me!

You have not spoken on the subject even once, you've always just said your very subjective opinion. Then I asked you something and you immediately became abusive.



ROTFLMFHO :lol: :lol:
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Kathrina » Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:06 am

Gracility (e.g. of human hands, their fine motor skills) has no use at all for an individual / species without a large brain / high intelligence.

Give a monkey gracile hands, and the monkey will die out with its low intelligence. Give a monkey high intelligence, and the monkey will survive with its ungracile hands because it can use intelligence in many other ways.

Intelligence can be an advantage also without gracile hands, but gracile hands can always be an advantage only together with high intelligence. Gracile hands without intelligence are like beautiful shoes without a single foot in this world.

So (as I have said several times): Not the gracility, but the intelligence is decisive in humans. The gracile hands of the humans are only a concomitant phenomenon of their intelligence, even if a beautiful one, just like the naked skin also, which is only luxury and has only disadvantages in the nature.
Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:36 am

of course fine motor skills are nothing
and not even possible
without a very large and very dense brain
raccoons are very good with their hands


but again as i pointed out before
some cetaceans have larger and denser brains
than any primate
and more cortical surface area
however their bullet like bodies
and absence of any fingers or prehensibility to their limbs
make it impossible for them to manipulate the world
in any significant way

and if you have ever seen the diagram sensory/cortical humunculus
it becomes clear that most of the human brain's
processing power
is dedicated to the use of the hands
as well as the production of linguistic signal
and sensory processing

of course intelligence is a distinguishable factor of our species
but it is not the only one
it is a combination of things
in which the capacity for fine motor skill and for language
play major roles
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Great Again » Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:29 am

Kathrina wrote:Gracility (e.g. of human hands, their fine motor skills) has no use at all for an individual / species without a large brain / high intelligence.

Give a monkey gracile hands, and the monkey will die out with its low intelligence. Give a monkey high intelligence, and the monkey will survive with its ungracile hands because it can use intelligence in many other ways.

Intelligence can be an advantage also without gracile hands, but gracile hands can always be an advantage only together with high intelligence. Gracile hands without intelligence are like beautiful shoes without a single foot in this world.

So (as I have said several times): Not the gracility, but the intelligence is decisive in humans. The gracile hands of the humans are only a concomitant phenomenon of their intelligence, even if a beautiful one, just like the naked skin also, which is only luxury and has only disadvantages in the nature.

Yes. As you know, many developments came together in one development, so to say.

Great Again wrote:It started with the upright walk and then with the development of the hands. The hands became more and more graceful. But the real process that made humans successful was the one after that: cerebralization.

There were three conditions for these developments:
    1. Exogenous (environmental changes with corresponding necessities for adaptation).
    2. Endogenous (further development of certain organs, atrophy of others).
    3. Autogenous ( as a distancing mode as production of self-created changes in conditions).
For humans, the importance of these 3 conditions to each other has shifted more and more in favor of the autogenous factors (see: 3.). For this relationship system the meaning of the migration into the savannah (exogenous) or the meaning of the upright walk (endogenous) or the meaning of the hand for the culture construction (autogenous) is emphasized again and again. However, a decisive basis was the cerebralization, i.e. the size development of the brain, which was triggered in a network from all 3 directions. The brain of an early hominid in the animal-human transition had a volume of approx. 500cm^3 (example: Australopithecus) and grew up to approx. 600-800cm^3 (Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis), approx. 750-1250cm^3 (Homo erectus), 1200-1800cm^3 (Neanderthal man), up to approx. 2000cm^3 (Neanderthal man and Now man).

The cerebralization enabled the superstructure of repressed instinctual programming through conditioning (trial and error) and cognition (imagination and thought).

These humans would never have been successful without this brain development, but would have disappeared from evolution after only a short time.

Everything that humans have created, their culture (including technology), goes back to their intelligence. That made them successful. Thus, the characteristic of human fitness is their intelligence.fitness is their intelligence.
Image
User avatar
Great Again
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:32 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:24 pm

When it comes to nailing down Darwin's Principle - I have a question -

It is clear that Darwin referred to environmental adaptations being essential survival skills that led to biological long term developments - those who did not adapt well to the environment failed to reproduce sufficiently and got replaced by those who did.

Normally dealing with a harsh environment is focused on as the propellant toward biological development. But the environment doesn't only provide negative effects on survival. There is another category concerning environment that I am not certain that Darwin included - maybe didn't even consider.

What if a species encounters something that alters it's intelligence, for example, that it merely had never encountered before. Ignoring the aliens from space type of intervention theories for as long as possible, I have to think that there have been new biological ingredients forming and passing away throughout Earth's history. These would include chemicals and drugs as well as viruses or germs of a variety of flavors. Isn't it reasonable to think that perhaps an ape, for example, just accidentally while roaming into new territories bit into a fruit that contained something biologically active that enhanced his intelligence enough to do two things -
  • encouraged more of such experience
  • enhanced his ability to mate
It has been proposed that mitochondria is just such agent of change - strongly and permanently affecting an ape's energy level and alertness (intelligence). The mitochondria gets passed on to offspring. And there could be others that perhaps no longer exist after causing a developmental change stage.

Does Darwin's Principle account for such positive additives?
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
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Sun Feb 14, 2021 9:29 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:When it comes to nailing down Darwin's Principle - I have a question -

It is clear that Darwin referred to environmental adaptations being essential survival skills that led to biological long term developments - those who did not adapt well to the environment failed to reproduce sufficiently and got replaced by those who did.

Normally dealing with a harsh environment is focused on as the propellant toward biological development. But the environment doesn't only provide negative effects on survival. There is another category concerning environment that I am not certain that Darwin included - maybe didn't even consider.

What if a species encounters something that alters it's intelligence, for example, that it merely had never encountered before. Ignoring the aliens from space type of intervention theories for as long as possible, I have to think that there have been new biological ingredients forming and passing away throughout Earth's history. These would include chemicals and drugs as well as viruses or germs of a variety of flavors. Isn't it reasonable to think that perhaps an ape, for example, just accidentally while roaming into new territories bit into a fruit that contained something biologically active that enhanced his intelligence enough to do two things -
  • encouraged more of such experience
  • enhanced his ability to mate
It has been proposed that mitochondria is just such agent of change - strongly and permanently affecting an ape's energy level and alertness (intelligence). The mitochondria gets passed on to offspring. And there could be others that perhaps no longer exist after causing a developmental change stage.

Does Darwin's Principle account for such positive additives?


I do not think that Darwin's omission is a valid problem.
Evolution is not a cause of change. Shit happens and and things evolve or die. Nothing is the environment is capable of improving intelligence.
Natural Selection works negatively. What is left behind can be faster, stronger, bigger, smaller, depending on what is advantagous the the survival of the organism.
It is likely that things that are smarter may well be more capable of success.
Darwin deals with this in Descent of Man.
Last edited by Sculptor on Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:16 pm

Sculptor wrote:Evolution is not a cause of change. Shit happens and and things evolve or die. Nothing is the environment is capable of improving intelligence.
Natural Selection works negatively. What is left behind can be faster, stronger, bigger, smaller, depending on what is advantagous the the survival of the organism.
It is likely that things that are smarter amy well be more capable of success.
Darwin deals with this in Descent of Man.

If that is true then it seems that Darwin's principle is insufficient.
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
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:55 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Sculptor wrote:Evolution is not a cause of change. Shit happens and and things evolve or die. Nothing is the environment is capable of improving intelligence.
Natural Selection works negatively. What is left behind can be faster, stronger, bigger, smaller, depending on what is advantagous the the survival of the organism.
It is likely that things that are smarter amy well be more capable of success.
Darwin deals with this in Descent of Man.

If that is true then it seems that Darwin's principle is insufficient.


It accounts for all life on earth.
I think it is over applied, since mutation leads to a multiide of variation which needs not have any significance to survival. But Darwin encompasses that in hsi recognition of "infinite variety".
Pundits, however, in the world of evolutionary theory with jobs to keep and reputations to maintain like to try to impose a principle of usefulness, via and assumption of parsimony. I think unnecessarily.
It's my view that most traits including high intelligence are not absolutely beneficial to survival in a Darwinian sense, since many smart people prefer to life their lives childless.
One can also point to many things such as body air, appendixes, male nipples, toenails, and many other things which, whilst having some use are not significant enough to demand survival.

SO in what way do you think it insufficient?
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:30 am

Sculptor wrote:SO in what way do you think it insufficient?

It appears to leave out the likelihood of positive contributors from the environment that enhanced survival traits. It is hard to believe that there were never any such contributions considering that even basic nutrients come from the environment and those nutrients and other chemical anomalies are occurring all the time - certain probiotics would be a possible example that simply were nonexistent at one time but then became a main component in digestion. Mitochondria has been theorized to have been introduced into apes (by whatever means) causing them to become substantially more human.

And whether the long term survival works out, the Darwin Principle involves the short term survivability - which has already been proven. The new situation of over population presents a new challenge.
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
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:41 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Sculptor wrote:SO in what way do you think it insufficient?

It appears to leave out the likelihood of positive contributors from the environment that enhanced survival traits.

Like what, and in what way.
What are your examples?
It is hard to believe that there were never any such contributions considering that even basic nutrients come from the environment and those nutrients and other chemical anomalies are occurring all the time - certain probiotics would be a possible example that simply were nonexistent at one time but then became a main component in digestion.

So called probiotics has existed in a symbiotic relationship in the digestive tracts of all animals for billions of years. It is to their own advantage.
Mitochondria has been theorized to have been introduced into apes (by whatever means) causing them to become substantially more human.

You are wrong here. All living things have mitochondria in their cells, and this as been the case also be billions of years. They were not "introducred into apes". All foetuses recieve their mitochondria from their mothers. Evolutionary theory has much to say about symbiotic relationships like this.


And whether the long term survival works out, the Darwin Principle involves the short term survivability - which has already been proven. The new situation of over population presents a new challenge.


Not really, overpopulation is, and always has been a massive driving force in evolution. It was Thomas Malthus's work that brought the significance of this to Darwin.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:56 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:When it comes to nailing down Darwin's Principle - I have a question -

It is clear that Darwin referred to environmental adaptations being essential survival skills that led to biological long term developments - those who did not adapt well to the environment failed to reproduce sufficiently and got replaced by those who did.

Normally dealing with a harsh environment is focused on as the propellant toward biological development. But the environment doesn't only provide negative effects on survival. There is another category concerning environment that I am not certain that Darwin included - maybe didn't even consider.

What if a species encounters something that alters it's intelligence, for example, that it merely had never encountered before. Ignoring the aliens from space type of intervention theories for as long as possible, I have to think that there have been new biological ingredients forming and passing away throughout Earth's history. These would include chemicals and drugs as well as viruses or germs of a variety of flavors. Isn't it reasonable to think that perhaps an ape, for example, just accidentally while roaming into new territories bit into a fruit that contained something biologically active that enhanced his intelligence enough to do two things -
  • encouraged more of such experience
  • enhanced his ability to mate
It has been proposed that mitochondria is just such agent of change - strongly and permanently affecting an ape's energy level and alertness (intelligence). The mitochondria gets passed on to offspring. And there could be others that perhaps no longer exist after causing a developmental change stage.

Does Darwin's Principle account for such positive additives?


Darwin's principle does account sufficiently for that
an interesting example which you might consider is the panda
in the region of the world where they exist there were vast forests of bamboo
that can be considered to be a positive environmental variable
in the presence of that abundant source of food
their organism evolved to become experts at digesting bamboo
the specialization was such that now their organisms are able only to consume bamboo
of course, that is a clear evolutionary advantage
but only in the presence of abundant sources of bamboo

another example is the sloth bear
bears as you know are onmivores and will eat anything
which is a drastically different survival strategy than that of the panda
the sloth bear however, has gone the way of specialization
given the abundance of termite hills in its habitat
you can see how their nozzles have become elongated
a little bit like an anteater
they still eat fruit and even carrion when there is scarcity of other foods
but I suppose that the "evolutionary temptation" to specialize is very great
if you can derive more energy from a food source than any other animal in that habitat
it's a gamble
albeit one devoid of any conscious will or motivation
animals just do what they do
and their bodies over the course of millennia adapt

the mitochondria is another example
evidently it is in no parasite's best interest to kill their host
for their colony dies with it
it is proposed that all organelles of our complex cells
were once parasites in a very distant past
but that over the course of an evolutionary process
have "learned" to either not cause harm to the host
or in fact become beneficial to it
the parasite's ultimate goal is simbiosis

one can also think about the use of drugs that are beneficial to survival
and how they've managed to extend our life spans
allowed for a woman's fertile life to be extended
significantly lowered the rates of child mortality and birth deaths
and how this was one of the elements driving our demographic explosion
though I don't believe that we have been in contact with these drugs
for long enough for any significant genetic alterations
we do know that if we don't expose our bodies to antigens
that we don't develop a proper immune system
over the course of thousands of years
I can see that becoming an issue
though I can only speculate :)


PS: i take your ignoring of my previous post
to mean that you have desisted from that approach
either due to finding merit in my criticism
or concluding that was not a worthwhile line of discussion
in any case
noted
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:13 pm

phoneutria wrote:PS: i take your ignoring of my previous post
to mean that you have desisted from that approach
either due to finding merit in my criticism
or concluding that was not a worthwhile line of discussion
in any case
noted

On that issue of dexterity before the intelligence to use it - I think that they must always play together.

You proposed that we could give intelligence to a clumsy ape and he could then find ways to use his clumsiness but giving him refined dexterity does not significantly improve his performance.

I see two problems with that thought -
  • I'm not sure that it is really true - it might be - but more significantly to my point -
  • I don't think that nature can "give" higher intelligence to a creature incapable of using it

The question that I am meagerly trying to address is whether Darwin's Selection Principle is all that is involved in the development of higher order species.

The examples that you have just provided all point out that positive developments occur naturally. I never thought of that as being even disputable. My "argument" (really just a question) is that if Darwin's Principle proposes that it is only the "survival of the fittest" testing that is responsible for higher developments (as has been proposed on this thread) then the principle doesn't account for those positive contributions that obviously have occurred.

I don't think it can be disputed that positive influences occur which contribute to survival of a species and to its advancement to being a higher order species (I don't how the religions stand on that issue - but - not my concern at the moment). I am only questioning whether Darwin's Selection Principle - a principle focusing on the atrophy of the weak is sufficiently addressing the natural strengthening of the strong.

I agree that the atrophy of the weak contributes to the altering of a species through time toward a species more adapted to a new environment. The part of the principle is clear enough. But where in that principle is the issue of the naturally occurring aberrant strengthening of the strong (or the weak for that matter)?

If the basic assertion proposed by Darwin's Selection Principle is merely that the environment of a species affects changes in that species (positive or negative) - then that seems a little too tautological to even debate. That is paramount to asking if adding anything to a number changes the number.

It seems to me that through subtle promotions (even propaganda) the Darwin Selection Principle is similar to saying that we obtain the natural number set by all of the numbers originally being infinite but through an infinity of time, the weaker numbers got dwindled down by natural influences and testing that resulted in the now completely ordered set we call the natural numbers. :shock:
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
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby phoneutria » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:07 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
phoneutria wrote:PS: i take your ignoring of my previous post
to mean that you have desisted from that approach
either due to finding merit in my criticism
or concluding that was not a worthwhile line of discussion
in any case
noted

On that issue of dexterity before the intelligence to use it - I think that they must always play together.


agreed

You proposed that we could give intelligence to a clumsy ape and he could then find ways to use his clumsiness but giving him refined dexterity does not significantly improve his performance.


I did not propose that
in fact both must evolve together
there is no fine motor skill
without significant brain processing power
i do believe I said that somewhere here

I see two problems with that thought -
  • I'm not sure that it is really true - it might be - but more significantly to my point -
  • I don't think that nature can "give" higher intelligence to a creature incapable of using it


well, out yourself at ease about these
as I did not propose that
and as indeed nature does not "give" anything"
attributes of a living organism
evolve over a long span of time
and it is by using them to their advantage
that they persist in the population
for long enough to evolve

(i recognize that the wording used here
might lead to misconceptions
counting on your understanding)

The question that I am meagerly trying to address is whether Darwin's Selection Principle is all that is involved in the development of higher order species.


not necessarily
but it is all that is required
i mean that there can be interventions
like for example, humans pulling shit with genetic engineering
but that is not a requirement for evolution to occur
whether there are humans tweaking genes or not
evolution will still continue to happen

The examples that you have just provided all point out that positive developments occur naturally. I never thought of that as being even disputable. My "argument" (really just a question) is that if Darwin's Principle proposes that it is only the "survival of the fittest" testing that is responsible for higher developments (as has been proposed on this thread) then the principle doesn't account for those positive contributions that obviously have occurred.


restating the above
it is not necessarily the only
but it is all that is required

and occam's razor compels us
to seek the simplest solution
dunno whose example this is
but when you see a coconut on the ground next to a coconut tree
you can propose that an eagle grabbed it
then flew around the world
and then was struck by an arrow
and dropped the coconut there
... or the coconut just fell on its own straight down

I don't think it can be disputed that positive influences occur which contribute to survival of a species and to its advancement to being a higher order species (I don't how the religions stand on that issue - but - not my concern at the moment). I am only questioning whether Darwin's Selection Principle - a principle focusing on the atrophy of the weak is sufficiently addressing the natural strengthening of the strong.


the evolution of any particular feature
is not necessarily a strength
it is a gamble
like the panda
something that is a clear advantage at one moment
might at another moment become the reason the species goes extinct
i do think that darwin sufficiently explained the emergence of attributes
that at a given point in time are advantageous to a species
and we have plenty of evidence to corroborate that
bacterial resistance to antibiotics, to cite one example

I agree that the atrophy of the weak contributes to the altering of a species through time toward a species more adapted to a new environment. The part of the principle is clear enough. But where in that principle is the issue of the naturally occurring aberrant strengthening of the strong (or the weak for that matter)?


i believe that is plainly explained
by the fact that when competing for resources
the stronger(fittest) win

If the basic assertion proposed by Darwin's Selection Principle is merely that the environment of a species affects changes in that species (positive or negative) - then that seems a little too tautological to even debate. That is paramount to asking if adding anything to a number changes the number.


then why are we debating it? :)

It seems to me that through subtle promotions (even propaganda) the Darwin Selection Principle is similar to saying that we obtain the natural number set by all of the numbers originally being infinite but through an infinity of time, the weaker numbers got dwindled down by natural influences and testing that resulted in the now completely ordered set we call the natural numbers. :shock:


except for the infinite part
also don't understand why you're using "numbers"
instead of "living organisms"
does that make it easier for you to understand?
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4264
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:27 am

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: 9207
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?

Postby Sculptor » Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:54 am

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.

Please read The Descent of Man.

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.



Wow that is some fucked up rambling
Sculptor
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users