Indeed I can!
Would you define it in this thread, right here, again if you have
already defined it before, for focus/emphasis?
Oh, this would refresh the discussion we already had. But okay, the
following quotes refer to the term fitness I subscribe:
In nature (in nature!) fitness or success is measured by reproduction.
Living beings that have the most offspring are the »fittest«,
thus are most successfull (because you can merely be most successful,
if you are the »fittest«). Success is the consequence of
fitness. The success follows the fitness. So when it comes to nature
it is absolutely correct to say that successful living beings live on,
because they have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings,
whereas successful living beings die out, because they have no offspring
or less offspring than the unsuccessful living beings. But when it come
to humans, especially to modern humans culture/s, it is not correct
to say that, because modern humans are fit, thus successful, when they
have no offspring or less offspring than those humans who are not fit,
The said social selection contains the possibility of
selecting against the Darwinistic selection principle. And this
happened and happens. Thus it was and is a fact. **
James S. Saint wrote:
And since I first heard of the phrase "survival of the
fittest", I immediately noted that it is actually the "survival
of the fitted" (those who fit into their environment at the time).
The following post refers to nothing else than to the human beings:
I used the word »success« instead of »fitness«
just in order to rescue the Darwinistic theory, because the concept
of »fItness« is problematic. Those humans who are »fit«
have less offspring than those humans who are »unfit«. You
can easily observe and prove this as a fact. **
Arbiter of Change wrote:
Fitness in evolutionary context literally translates to a set
of traits conducive to production of healthy offspring in a particular
What you're getting at is the fact that humans are capable of creating
artificial environments which invert nature, in which the naturally
unfit will reproduce by acting as parasites on those who would be considered
more fit in nature itself. This is observable in socialism and similar
leftist systems but they eventually collapse, either on their own or
they are conquered by a system better aligned with nature. Socialism/leftism
basically creates an environment which breeds weakness and slowly eats
the system inside out, so such an outcome is inevitable. Evolution is
slow though, so it may take a few generations to do so, depending on
how extreme the socialism is, a minor degree of it might even prove
useful. Remember, a few generations is a lot of time from a human perspective,
but from an evolutionary one it is nothing. **
James S. Saint wrote:
If I do not like you because you are British and thus infect
your children with a slowly fatal disease, does that make them "unfit"?
Indirectly you are not reproducing either. So does that make you unfit?
James S. Saint wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
Does that story (or the prior) tell of one man being more
unfit than the other? **
Yeah, the dead guy wasn't able to make a genetic contribution to
the next generation's gene pool.« **
And see ..., that is just defining your own conclusion into validity
- »unfit means unfit for the situation at that moment in
time such that reproduction did not happen«.
It says nothing at all about the fitness of the individual, but merely
of the situation on that day.
It is just a word game when you do it that way, because "unfit"
doesn't normally mean that at all.
Thus anyone could equally say (actually more properly say and they
have) that God chose who reproduces and who doesn't. Equally, they are
defined to be correct because God is whatever it is that allows or forbids
everything that happens. But in that case, one would say that the individual
was unfit for God. **
According to Darwin the fittest have more offspring and live
on, while the unfittest have less and at last no offspring and die out.
According to the »social selection« - thus to the »social
state« - a decision of just the opposite is possible and happens
in reality every day: the unfittest live on, while the fittest die out. If Darwin's selection principle was not false, the »social selection«
could and would not be possible.
You Darwinists have no single argument but merely excuses and personal
James S. Saint wrote:
1) the condition of being physically fit and healthy.
»disease and lack of fitness are closely related«.
Synonyms: good health, strength, robustness, vigor, athleticism, toughness,
physical fitness, muscularity; More
good condition, good shape, well-being »marathon running requires
2) the quality of being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task.
»he had a year in which to establish his fitness for the office«.
Synonyms: suitability, capability, competence, ability, aptitude;
more readiness, preparedness, eligibility »his fitness for active
On organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment.
Plural noun: fitnesses.
»If sharp teeth increase fitness, then genes causing teeth to
be sharp will increase in frequency.«
So assuming all environmental concerns are removed such that only biology
is dictating the results of evolution rather than all of the other factors,
the word »fitness« is restricted to only the biological
In other words, the Darwinian principle only applies after the other
situational factors are disregarded (I think that I said that in the
1) According to the natural selection the breeder is the
2) According to the sexual selection the breeder are the
3) According to the kin selection the breeder are the
4) According to the social selection the breeder is the
social state.« **
And that is only a partial list. **
Which process do you exactly mean? **
The process of having offspring.« **
Yes. But if we assume that Darwin's theory of evolution is not false
and that »less offspring can be fine« (**),
then having less offspring can merely be fine in a cultural sense and
perhaps for a very short time (!) also in a natural sense but
not in the sense of Darwin's theory of evolution, especially his »selection
principle«. So according to Darwin's theory of evolution having
less offspring is always a disadvantage, because it leads to extinction.
According to Darwin's »selection principle« the living beings
with less offspring die out because of their unfitness and the fitness
of the living beings with more offspring. That is the main point of
Darwin's »selection principle«. Darwin's theory of evolution
refers to developments in the long run - otherwise it would not be accepted
as a theory of evolution but merely as a theory of breeding
- and by the way: the theory of breeding is very much older than Darwin's
theory of evolution.
Darwin's selection principle is partly false. Therefore
the 'natural selection' was 'extended' by the 'sexual selection',
because the 'natural selection' had partly failed; then the 'sexual
selection' was 'extended' by the 'kin selection', because the 'sexual
selection' had partly failed; then the 'kin selection' was 'extended'
by the 'socual selection', because the 'kin selection' had partly
failed; ... and so on, one day the
'social selection' will be 'extended' by the 'godly selection' (again),
because the 'social selection' will have partly failed. **
And even if the 'different types of selection' are 'different
mechanisms of selection': they contradict each other, especially
the 'natural selection' and the 'social selection'. A social state
can and does decide against the nature, the so-called 'natural selection',
and also against the 'sexual selection' and 'kin selection', ...
and so on. **
I am interested in getting exactly what your sense of the falsity
is. If there is a post that sums it up, let me know. I will hop in
here and probe a little.
It seems to me that the moment you have a social mammal, sexual
selection and even what might be called natural selection is no longer
natural. It is chosen by the society and even by individuals in that
society, e ven if it is a society of wolves or ground hogs.«
Yes. Cultures or societies often contradict nature. The so-called
»social selection« is the selection of some rulers who decide
against nature just because of their own interests - e.g. money, thus
power - just in order to remain powerful. The »social selection«
can lead to the extinction of all who are involved in the »social
selection«, and in a global society of humans all humans are involved
in that »social selection«. Look what the rulers do: they
destroy the human's environment, the whole globe, they sterilise the
other humans (by poison and other means) and at last probably themselves
too, they murder other living beings, ... and so on, ... and so on ...,
just for money, thus power. If this human beings were nothing else than
natural, thus living beings that completely depend on nature, then they
could not do such nonsense. Humans are relativeley free (not absoluetly
free - because they are not gods), so they can decide and act against
nature, and they do decide and act against nature.
This »social selection« is mostly directed against the
»natural selection«, against nature at all, because those
who select, want to exploit and to control anything and everything,
thus also nature, want to wield power over anything and everything,
thus also over nature.
Humans are capable to destroy all living beings on our planet. According
to Darwin's »selection principle« this means that the species
homo sapiens is the fittest species of all times while most of
all other species are the unfittest species of all times, just because
of the fact that homo sapiens is capable of replacing most of
all other species. But in addition the species homo sapiens is
capable of deciding and acting against nature and the so-called »natural
selection«. Instead of »fit« one can also say »capable«,
»competent«, or »successful«.
»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.« **
James S. Saint wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:
»Fitness is the ability to survive to have viable progeny.«
Only in biology. But biology doesn't dictate evolution.
Darwinism is NOT the »god of« evolution, merely one of
the angels. **
If you really wanted (you do not want) to discuss Darwin's »selection
principle«, then you would have to admit (a)
that the »natural selection« is at least partly false, (b)
that the »sexual selection« is at least partly false and
was invented because of the partly false »natural selection«,
although they already contradict each other, (c)
that the »kin selection« is at least partly false and was
invented because of the partly false »natural selection«
and the partly false »sexual selection«, although they already
contradict each other, and (d) that the
»social selection« is at least partly false and was invented
because of the partly false »natural selection«, the partly
false »sexual selection«, and the partly false »kin
selection«, although they all contradict each other and are absolutely
contradicted by the »social selection«. We are talking about
fitness. And when the fittest die out, and the unfittest live on, then
you have no right to speak of a »survival of the fittest«.
The whole theory is false then.
»Evolutionary fitness is an independent category of fitness.«
No. Absoluetly no. Evolutionary fitness is not an independent category
Just because you and the other current Darwinists want the »fitness«
to be more than the fitness does not change anything of the facts.
Are you satisfied, Phoneutria?
Oh sorry! So, first you point out their differences and then
do a 180 degree turn around and say they are all similar? You must be
a very confused person. **
You are the one who did the 180° degree. You always contradict yourself,
as I already said several times. And you do not notice your contradictions
- as usual. So you are also the one who is a very confused person.
Women are only interested in men when -
(a) They have lots of money.
(b) They have lots of power.
(c) They have lots of talent.
(d) They have good genes.
A women will never marry a man solely because she loves him, unless
he has at least one or more of the above. **
Women always trade up and never, ever trade down. Thus, they
are all calculating bitches. **
99% of people only marry someone of equal personal attractive
Then, for what you are complaining?
By the way: Do you know what love is?
You do not know what you are talking about, my puppy. You confuse viruses
with bacteria, you confuse your text with any other text, you confuse
destinations with disappointments, you confuse facts with values (like
all ILP-Nietzscheanists), you confuse demographically armed societies
with demographically unarmed societies, you confuse your own ideological
belief with knowledge, you confuse biology with sociology and economy,
you confuse all women with feminism, you confuse differences with equality,
..., and so on. .... You confuse almost everything.
If they are similar, then what is that similarity that you are
talking about? **
Be honest. You do not want to know it. You are just waiting for the
next chance of personal attacks.
Note - Marx, Nietzsche and Freud were all German, that's where
the similarity ends. **
You are clueless.
Darwin and Malthus are the only two that have anything in common.
Again: You are clueless.
I am just discusing the sociological and economical aspects
of Darwinism. **
When Darwinists talk about Darwinism, then they always talk about sociological
and economical aspects. That is - again - something you do not understand.
I know. You do not know what you are talking about.
So, you have no sense of humour. **
More than you. Your eternal lol-smilies and your clown mask do not autoamtically
make you humorous - the revers is true: you are an extremely humorless
person and need to hide your humorlessness behind an exaggerated number
of lol-smilies and behind a clown mask.
Puppies are not old. But may I - nevertheless - ask you how old you
What else could one expect from a person of German heritage.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Now that's funny! Laugh German laugh! :lol: :lol:
So you are a woman-hater, a misogynist, a sexist, and - of course -
a racist. Typical. Your last silly argument is always an ugly
personal attack. We also know it from other threads, just as we already
know from this thread that according to you all women are calculating
bitches. What will be your next argument? Negroes
are like apes? Or: Jews are like rats?
I am not interested in your misogynistic sexism and your racism.
James S. Saint wrote:
»According to the current mainstream physics everything becomes
faster near massive objects (because of the gravitation) ....«
?? Did you mean »smaller«? Objects become smaller
but not faster, according to both contemporary physics and RM:AO. In
relativity perspective, the objects do not change at all, but rather
everything else changes in reverse (relativists are extremely self centered).
I meant the fact that if two objects come closer
then the orbital speed of the less massive increases. For example: The
orbital speed of the Moon was higher when the Moon was closer to the Earth.
Today the orbital speed of the Moon is lower than it was at the time when
the Moon and the Earth were much closer than today.
What about the rotation?
The physicist call that effect synchronisation or synchronous
rotation. Today the Moon shows us always the same side, becasue
the Moon is synchronisated by the Earth.
Zoot Allures wrote:
»Is, for example, the title of Zappa's first LP - Freak
Out - already a philosophical statement or just similar to some
statements here on ILP?
Contains, for example, the title of Zappa's second LP - "Absolutely
Free" - an ontology of the will, thus a metaphysical and thus
a philosophical statement?« **
Freak Out and Absolutely Free were parodies of the sixties psychedelic
hippy rock scene, but also a shot at the record industries and the values
that were prevalent over the music of that period. Frank was against
censorship of any kind.. though not for the reasons we might suppose.
His attitude during the early Mother's Of Invention period was two sided;
he didn't want to enter the rock scene (because it was silly and below
him), but he had to, to make some money. Nobody was paying composers
back then. Pop music and rock was where it was at. So what does he do?
He enters the mainstream scene with a card up his sleeve. He will write
music of the appropriate genre better than the rest, but at the same
time make a mockery of it. A statement is made to the music consumers,
music genre, music industry and the dominant values of the time with
this one gesture: this is what you are, hippies.. this is how simple
your music is.. this is how cheap your industry is.. and this is how
lame your values are. He didn't want to censor these trends.. he wanted
to indulge them, set them loose, let them play out naturally. He used
all this as material to work with in order to show people what they
were. He was the master parodist.
»Is, for example, the title of Zappa's third LP - We're
Only in It for the Money - a philosophical statement or just
similar to some statements here on ILP?« **
This one was a shot at the bands of that era. You see the parody of
The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album cover there. It was also a kind of tongue
and cheek admittance to his being in the rock music industry for all
the wrong reasons. Because this industry was a joke, he felt, he was
only in it for the money.
»Zappa also said for example: You are what you is.
That is lingustically false but peotically allowed. My question: Is
it also philosophically false?« **
You Are What You Is can be understood independently, but also understood
within the context of Thing Fish, the concept rock-opera album of which
it was a part. Independently is can be seen as a social critique of
consumerism and consumer identities. As part of Thing Fish it is specifically
for the purposes of criticizing American negro culture. Note the incorrect
grammar; you are what you is. **
Yes. Great. Much of the modern philosophy is social criticism, and based
on that fact one can say Frank Zappa was at least a little bit a modern
philosopher. I know Zappa's biography and his attitude towards social
conventions; so I can say that your interpretations of the said music
albums (see above) and Zappa's person are right.
Musically I do not like the time since about 1980 very much; so it is
not really a surprise that I know Zappa's early music better than his
later music. However. I want to show you a video from the 1980s with Frank
Zappa. The official title of that video is Frank Zappa on Crossfire
We are talking about words. .... The whole thing is words. ....
(Frank Zappa, 1986):
Frank Zappa on Crossfire, 1986.
My short comment: Words on crossfire.
What do you think about that video?
The world's most plentiful ingredient is stupidity. - Frank
Zoot Allures wrote:
You've seen the hearings with Tipper Gore, yes? **
I have seen it, if you mean the following video: **
Arminius, why do you say that unfit humans have more offspring?
If you define fitness as the one with most offspring, whoever has the
most offspring is the most fit. **
I am saying that the social selection (you may also call
it the human/cultural selection or the social state
selection), can and does often contradict the natural selection,
so that the fittest humans have less and at last no offspring
and die out, whereas the unfittest have more offspring and
at last the only offspring and survive (this you may call survning
of the unfittest). Therefore Darwin's selection principle
must be false, at least partly false.