I ascribe to it and it is a fairly important part of how I see the world
I consider it to be true, but it isn’t hugely important to me
I wish I could care more about it, either way\I don’t really give two shits
I have my suspicions about it
I don’t place faith in the theory of evilution
What is your view on the theory of evolution by natural selection?
Last edited by Socionics Is A Cult; 04-04-2021 at 08:02 PM.
x
Some people claim that the "strongest" make their way; others believe that those who know how to cooperate are the ones who trive. Who knows?
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
“It is not the strongest of the species, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adapted to change.”Some people claim that the "strongest" make their way; others believe that those who know how to cooperate are the ones who trive. Who knows?
Jxrtes, when I said "strongest" I didn't mean physical strength. It may be "intelligence" (alpha NT version) or whatever trait. The point is that when you arrive to a company and if you are "better" at doing the job, the others undermine you so that they don't look incompetent. In this sense, what you said works, you have to adapt to the environment.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
You're referring to an interpretation of social Darwinism which, other than bearing his name, has very little to do with Charles Darwin or his work. I don't think it was ever something he was actually purported to believe, either. In fact, the original edition of On the Origin of Species never even made use of the now common quip "survival of the fittest." This was something attributed after the fact by English philosopher Herbert Spencer in Principles of Biology, which came five years after the first edition of Darwin's Origin.Originally Posted by 1981slater
Most of this "survival of the fittest" and social Darwinism crap hinges on a misrepresentation of natural selection as we have come to understand it in the modern day. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual scientific use of the term. Moreover, the theory of evolution and natural selection is much more complex and refined today than it was in the 1800s. Though Darwin's work was legendary for its time -- genetics was not even discovered yet -- he did commit quite a few blunders which have since been corrected and reformed.
Last edited by Capitalist Pig; 11-17-2010 at 11:54 AM.
Evolution is not "just" a theory in the same way that the germ theory of disease is not "just" a theory.
Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, and therefore nothing do to with the Big Bang Theory
It is not a "way to explain life without God". Evolution does not equal, nor require atheism.
Evolution does not require, nor permits faith; it is based on science.
Evolution does not say that the design of the eye just popped up randomly. Evolution does not say that things happen by "random chance".
Evolution does not say that we evolved from modern monkeys, but rather, it says that we and modern monkeys have common ancestors.
Evolution is the explanation of the process by which speciation happens within a population in which accumulated changes over time occur within a species, drifting farther apart morphologically, physiologically and genetically so much so over several generations that two forms cannot interbreed with each other any longer, even though they are closely related, thus becoming two different species.
Evolution still happens.
Last edited by tereg; 11-17-2010 at 02:12 PM.
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
I ascribe to it, and it's fairly important not in the sense of "hurr dem stoopid fundies gotta be set straight" (that part I don't really care about -- their delusion is socially beneficial), but rather because natural evolution has far-reaching implications within our own species. I'm a supporter of social Darwinism and eugenics.
What do these signs mean—, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
+1
edit: to some extent
Well yeah, it's not like I'm gonna advocate killing dumb people or anything (though sometimes I grow frustrated enough with the human race to reach that extreme -- usually when I feel depressed/angry).
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
the concepts of adaptive inclusion and altruism is a big tenet of evolutionary psychology. the idea being that certain social behaviors increase the chances of survival.
Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Evopsy is fascinating, but also controversial. I think it's a very intriguing approach, however.
no doubt.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Yeah tooth and claw survival of the fittest isn't really Darwinism, i'm working from memory so I may have some of the things wrong, it's been a few years... I think someone mentioned earler about that. But yeah take humans for instance who are social beings and work by co-operating, that's a big part of what makes a species fit enough to survive.
The idea is that within a society, most people are altruistic. There are some people who take advantage of this altruism, but they are in the minority, too many people who aren't altruistic and the society of co-operation collapses. Or something. Been a while.
It's a good theory and there is a lot of evidence behind it, but ultimately I find it lacking. A lot of people are theistic evolutionists, though, believing in evolution and that God or a god used it as the process to create.
“No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov
http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0
I'd have to say I've probably generally accepted this, and it is in my worldview at present to the extent that I consider it when thinking about other things. Anyway I would probably just follow the scientific consensus around on this one and I haven't really run into that much that tries to dismiss it in my mind. So it hangs there as the "current best explanation of what we know" and as "general knowledge" which of course that hinges upon that it is today's general knowledge. I've definitely read about it and come across it in classes and don't feel entirely misinformed, but I wouldn't feel confident exactly saying what I know about it either exactly but I do think I understand it in general... and concept-wise it makes sense to me. I've never really seen it as a conflict with spiritual matters, whatever it turns out to be and I think this is largely because I wasn't brought up in a religious environment (but also because whatever is in our physical/mortal world *can't* be mutually exclusive with spiritual matters if they exist and all science is doing is just looking at what exists in the physical world and making observations and coming up with explanations that best fit the observations... and I don't see that as being of conflict when considering it simply). Although I see religious texts as largely bodies of metaphor with layers of context to consider them in as far as interpreting them goes where what it means is more important than the particulars of it. There doesn't actually need to be a conflict or mutual exclusivity. Of course though if it's taken as word for word exactly then there will be conflicts between it and the findings of science, because then it's being treated as opposing sets of "facts" or something. Anyway even saying this doesn't get at it though because some things in the Bible (for instance) really were meant "literally" within their contexts, while others were meant as metaphors or literary stories meant to convey a deeper meaning that transcends such things (it's a mixed bag, especially considering that it was written by different people in different times/places and all the verbal passing of stories before it was written etc.). But still I see largely no real conflict (except this is like saying there's a "right way" to interpret it... which I can't say that... so in the end, of course there will be a conflict.) One thing I will say though is that I don't see how any scientific theory today "disproves God" so I don't think most of these things can touch "God" (not yet anyway, and I only say that to say I'm not saying it's impossible), and so in that sense, no conflict.
In a way I think the truly horrible thing is that God has to constantly be dragged into the concept of evolution by nat selection (etc.) at all. If it exists and so does God then yes they have something to do with each other (but I certainly don't know what that something is and I rather question the sanity of people who would say they do). If science has all of this wrong, eventually chances are people will figure it out and disprove it scientifically (which dragging notions of God into won't do, so why bother).
Last edited by marooned; 11-18-2010 at 06:39 AM.
I was actually the first to vote suspicion/moderate scepticism on this. Fail.
But you're labcoat.
Yea lol "I believe in it", but belief isn't the right word, the thing the media never understands about evolution is its not in competition against religion. Religion and Science aren't competitors, they are totally different aspects of society and life. Science isn't concerned with beliefs but investigations, science is a grand enterprise of investigation of our universe at the most deep and profound level. So to say "I believe in evolution" is a false statement, something more like "I am convinced of its validity" is good. But beyond just being like a scientist and all like "I concur", the important thing is that I find it fascinating to think about, and I think people who consider it evil or incorrect are uncreative and bland moralists.
First thing to understand is people don't evolve from apes but rather that the apes we see evolved from the same evolutionary branch we as humans did. Humans today didn't evolve from modern day apes, humans evolved from ancient ape-like species that no longer exist. Modern day apes didn't exist either, they evolved from ancient ape-like species also. If you go far enough back you reach a common branch on the evolutionary tree where the primates evolved from other species.
Second thing is that natural selection doesn't work like a fish going out of water occasionally and all of sudden gills appear. Its an extremely long term process. Certain attributes appear due to natural variation on different members of a species and these attributes in some way lend them a superiority in surviving, which of course reinforces their ability to reproduce and carry those traits on. Natural selection favors traits that lead to reproduction and survival and not "strength". As to what causes natural variation, this is the complexity of DNA and mutations.
And that is purely biological evolution, there is also chemical/astronomical evolution which works on a much larger scale, and is a lot more fascinating in my opinion. Stars are like cosmic forges from the elements, if humanity were to master the energy of the sun (fusion) we could cast elements together and break them apart, forming matter at the atomic level, progressing man's control over matter from mere tools, to the blacksmith, to the cosmic level of building things from atoms-- quantum computers, architecture on the atomic scale (nanotechnology), and so forth. Just imagine, an entire computer, a city the size of a grain of sugar on the tip of your index finger.
natural selection is evident
the mistake there is to think what happens is absolute accidental process
in quantum physics there is no objective reality, as a human which just watches - changes results
anything is linked with anything
could the world be other? It's doubtful
from this point the world is created (by past events going to 0 time point)
in the same time we may describe what see as having accidentality. it's a simplification, a model which is correct and useful in some abstract and practical borders
It's not of huge importance to me. Like Aiss has noted on previous page I suspect that some use belief in evolution to substitute it for their lost belief in God.
My view of the theory of evolution is that it is scientifically sound. Microevolution can be observed within a laboratory setting and macroevolution is recorded in the fossil record. There isn't any controversy within the scientific community, except on some of the details. It has stood the test of time as the best explanation for the existence and origin of species. Darwinian evolution does not explain the origin of life. That is the domain of abiogenesis. Currently the debate has shifted into how evolution occurred(and still occurs) on the molecular level, which allowed certain molecular machines to become stable, survive, and form the precursors to cells, which eventually became cells. It is hard to prove because of how small, fast, and numerous these reactions are. We will need some serious computing power to simulate various molecular scenarios, which would probably take years in real time to observe even on a computer. On its own, it neither proves or disproves the existence of God, but makes many of the creationist stories unlikely.
I don’t place faith in the theory of evilution
When you look at the marvelous structure of life, of the unprecedented beauty in nature, at exquisite engines of blessed workmanship, miracles becoming the norm, fantasy stories with lasting themes and archetypes, and how earthly experience is so magical, vibrant, radiant, and could become so much more, off to paradise, enlightenment, the vast cosmic arena, when all of that is said and done, you really can't miss the existence of God as a hard truth. To reject God after all of that evidence is irrational, even heartless!
ORRE COLOSSEUM JUST GOT STARTED, AND KOBE IS REIGNING AS KING!!
It's Henry vs Zidane, France vs Spain in the 2024 Olympic soccer final, Egypt vs Japan, Yugioh vs Pokemon, Poimandres vs Zarathustra, Giordano Bruno vs Friedrich Nietzsche, haystack picnic robed in silver rods to treasures of lore and sacred spark to unite and forge dancing stars and futures refracting crystal moonlight lures of hanger bay crunching fabrics webbing steel and blizzards juice stringing code red trains of yonder fluid ribbons trophy waterfall cake blueprints frenzy retracting haunted capital terra horns of leading edge canopy blossoms rendezvous shuffling Articuno!!
RaptorWizard Sci-Fi Empire Lugia Bunny ~ Ultimate Aeon Willpower: Wes Net (the16types.info)
I do not wish to shame the creation of God by saying that My great grandfather was an ape. It's so nightmare like and hopeless. It's something I refuse to believe, can never accept, can never even begin to contemplate.
Evolution best serves as a model of human spiritual development and shifting into the golden age. We can live 1000 lives and flower at the prime point of exaltation, can unlock our destiny and realize any future. THAT, my friends is the real goal of evolution, to go from biological to macroversal mastery!!
ORRE COLOSSEUM JUST GOT STARTED, AND KOBE IS REIGNING AS KING!!
It's Henry vs Zidane, France vs Spain in the 2024 Olympic soccer final, Egypt vs Japan, Yugioh vs Pokemon, Poimandres vs Zarathustra, Giordano Bruno vs Friedrich Nietzsche, haystack picnic robed in silver rods to treasures of lore and sacred spark to unite and forge dancing stars and futures refracting crystal moonlight lures of hanger bay crunching fabrics webbing steel and blizzards juice stringing code red trains of yonder fluid ribbons trophy waterfall cake blueprints frenzy retracting haunted capital terra horns of leading edge canopy blossoms rendezvous shuffling Articuno!!
RaptorWizard Sci-Fi Empire Lugia Bunny ~ Ultimate Aeon Willpower: Wes Net (the16types.info)
I think in a way it only half-way applies to humans since the human mind can be 'above science' in a way as we can observe and understand it- less sentient animals are more complete victims to its rules. In other words, nature is naturally selecting for or against us- but we also have the smarts to see exactly what nature is doing- and do something different. If 'nature' had it's way- reality would just be this huge heterosexual ugly creepy neon-snake thing that just ate everything and pooped on itself while a bunch of mosquitoes flew around it. It would be nothing but some ugly snake thing and a bunch of little bugs for it to eat.... we have tricked and made pacts/deals with nature to not have this reality. ((well we did for four years when we voted for Trump lololol))
Religion is so powerful for people in a way as it allows people to overcome/repress their base instincts - since humans can naturally do this anyway, it gives even more credit to religion. I still don't think spirituality/religion is very real- but the human mind to be 'above science' gives the illusion that it is. We can not punch a person's face even though we really want to- or refrain from fucking a person in the butt even though we want to - or whatever 'base' thing you are talking about. We can (and often) even fake being nice when we'd rather very obviously just be cruel and watch people being cut up and smile at them.
Nope not anymore.
Life cannot adapt to changes in the environment fast enough to speciate. Plus the entire process of speciation is a bunk fairy tale in light of genomic discoveries. People think that Mendal's Peas is about as complicated as it is. Basically you are lying to yourselves. Gene expression to protein form and function carries hidden variables.
As far as the mutation being selected for survival in some advantageous form - that presupposes the mutation arrives in the correct time and position in order to survive the bottle neck, or the stable period. The hidden variable of "the correct mutation present for the correct moment" is not talked about, although I guess people still think its like some kind of law of synchronizing vibrations of movement or other such concept. Think about it, when the bottle neck happens how is it that the correct mutations occurs afterwards to thrive past it? LOL
What would prompt a nose to continually move across a face to the back of the head in a whale, and I'm not talking about the actual advantage given by a backwards moving nose, I'm talking about the nitty gritty, nuts and bolts of that process during the growth and development of the baby. Why would the genome continually code for a backwards moving nose and how could it even force the genes to keep coding for its movement across the head, while SIMULTANEOUSLY RANDOMLY CODING for other facial organs to get out of the way and then also SIMULTANEOUSLY code for the trachea and lungs to work in tandem with the new nose position and all of this in 10 million years. LOL
You all just don't get it. Its like you all think its this one two three wow purple flowers vs white flowers dominant recessive genes easy peasy.
Nature changes randomly, giving temporary advantage to certain traits. And a trait that is strong at one time will or can be weak at another time. But an entity or being that can manipulate nature, rather than be manipulated by nature, exists outside evolutionary context. That is worth attaining imo.
Although I do believe in God, I see God as a potential, not that everything is automatically perfect.
If nature makes us survive, then we have to break that pattern. We must seek enlightenment as 1 big happy family. There must be the God utopia realized, reached, perfected, refined and built, hard wired into our dna.
What's on the horizon is a 1000 year millennium of peace and God on earth restoring the kingdom from this fallen state we have from the past until currently up till today have been forced to live in.
The only reason there appears to be evolution is that the lion used to lie down with the lamb, but earth fell from that level. God will set it back straight 1 day.
ORRE COLOSSEUM JUST GOT STARTED, AND KOBE IS REIGNING AS KING!!
It's Henry vs Zidane, France vs Spain in the 2024 Olympic soccer final, Egypt vs Japan, Yugioh vs Pokemon, Poimandres vs Zarathustra, Giordano Bruno vs Friedrich Nietzsche, haystack picnic robed in silver rods to treasures of lore and sacred spark to unite and forge dancing stars and futures refracting crystal moonlight lures of hanger bay crunching fabrics webbing steel and blizzards juice stringing code red trains of yonder fluid ribbons trophy waterfall cake blueprints frenzy retracting haunted capital terra horns of leading edge canopy blossoms rendezvous shuffling Articuno!!
RaptorWizard Sci-Fi Empire Lugia Bunny ~ Ultimate Aeon Willpower: Wes Net (the16types.info)
I consider it as one of the possibilities, the best one we have now. There is no belief in science, science is not based on faith, remember it. Always keep an open mind, even if there are beings like gods, we will research and analysis them someday, with facts.
I don't get it why people try to use some objective knowledge to fit in their subjective meaning of life, philosophy or something. Maybe because I'm not a Ti value type.
Last edited by Tarnished; 04-05-2021 at 06:13 PM.
I find it perplexing that evolution/cuckoo's egg/god's balls produces people who support and fight against it with a passion.OTOH selection process has to produce byproducts according to 2nd law of thermodynamics.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
You are all still playing around at the macro level. At the micro gene level Darwinism breaks down and I've read The Selfish Gene. I actually own a copy sitting in a storage bin somewhere along with my other hundred books. I am familiar with gene competition. See you all think phenotypes winning out are what drives innovation and more sophistication. You have to remember that the current model states evolution is blind so to speak.
Nope. There is a new Neo-Darwinism down there and I'm not the only one saying it.
Where are all the skeletons of missing links? Where is the whale with a nose between its eyes?
I think there is something more mysterious going on in each biotic epoch and I don't think material reductionist answers are going to cover them. I'd like to understand how the Burgess Shale, Pre-cabrian explosion happened in which all body shapes first appeared. I've been to the Royal Terrell museum and half assed answers like " we are still trying to figure out how 10 species turned into hundreds "overnight", just doesn't do it for me.
Last edited by timber; 04-06-2021 at 08:10 PM.
Evolution is simply the common-sense view that something can't exist without there being a previous state that precedes it. There has always been a prior state to an existence of a living organism or a physical object. Basically, it adds cause and effect to why things exist. Or if we add the concept of Memes to evolution, then why abstract ideas exist. It's because there was a previous idea that existed before it.
When people think of evolution, they usually think of things like genes and natural selection, but what it's really about is that it's simply about applying cause and effect to why and how things exist and change over time. Things don't change illogically or randomly, nor are things created out of nothing, there must be a clear logical progression and consistency to how things change over time.
If you believe that cause and effect is one of the most fundamental laws governing the universe, then evolution is an important part of how you view the world.
So if there are two prevailing morality, how would you choose that one is better than the other? The fact is that you're going to have to pick one based on certain criteria. If that criteria is "what survives", then you wouldn't really know the reason why. You can perfectly observe that it had survived, but you have no clue as to why that would be the case. Perhaps you can say that democracy would eventually swallow up or defeat authoritarianism, but it's not really clear why should democracy be better than authoritarianism. We would have no rational argument against authoritarianism.
Basically, it's yet another attempt to get rid of trying to explain morality, by not having any moral theories, such as a theory on why democracy is better than authoritarianism. It's like saying that science is about what's "practical", which virtually renders all explanatory theories useless.
Knowing why democracy is better than authoritarianism creates more knowledge, and hence is preferable to having no such knowledge as to why that would be the case.
Sure, it could be that authoritarianism is better than democracy. Knowing why would allow us to create more knowledge.
But if we agree that having more knowledge is ultimately a good thing (a moral "good"), then it's the democracy that allow free-flow of information, while authoritarianism would suppress it. Therefore, democracy would inevitably create more knowledge. It's kind of like how the US beat Nazi Germany and Japan in building an atomic bomb. If only the Nazis hadn't expelled a certain Jewish scientist, then perhaps they would have made their own. Democracy also allows people to criticize their leaders' decisions, which allow them to make better decisions over time.
Why would you need to gather resources, if say, we had the knowledge to create resources, for instance? Or we could have the knowledge to gather resources more efficiently, use them more effectively and so forth.
Whatever that doesn't allow the growth of knowledge is ultimately evil, and hence, authoritarianism is evil. Authoritarianism doesn't treat people as individuals that independently and creatively create more knowledge to solve problems.
What is considered "higher" would be determined by what kind of knowledge they have, not what characteristics or classes that they're born with.
In effect, we all have the same brain. Some brains may be faster, some may have more memory, but they all have the exact same capacity for unlimited potential because the human brain is universal. Anything that you could possibly think of in this universe, the human brain can. And in essence, so can a computer, because a computer is a universal machine that follow the universal Turing principle.
It's the free-flow of information that allowed scientific knowledge to grow, while the suppression of information that is necessary in authoritarianism would regress it.
Scientific knowledge can give us more power and hence more potential for even bigger failures, but even those problems can be solved by creating more knowledge. If nuclear bombs created more problems, then it's only a matter of knowing how to solve that problem.
If you think that nuclear bombs ruined things and that lack of self-determination is a problem, then how would you solve that problem?
Unlike people, single-celled organisms are not creative, and hence they're unable to create knowledge. The only kind of "knowledge" that they can create is the kind of blind knowledge created from natural selection that is stored in their DNA.
Why we give people rights is because they're creative beings that can solve problems, and hence create more knowledge. Suppression of that individual creativity would suppress knowledge, and hence it's "evil".
Having more free people would mean having more problem-solvers and knowledge-creators. Having more slaves as in authoritarianism would mean less knowledge-creators. The more free people, the better.
Do you consider yourself an innovator? What makes you so special?
Of course not everyone is built equal. We're all a part of something bigger than ourselves, the universe. Think of society as a complex hivemind.
It's also funny how you contradicted yourself, you don't believe any of this yet you point yourself as one of the amazing special people this world deserves. Your "conclusion" seems to be quite grim, which means you've fully realized how different we all are to each other, and I can tell you're trying hard to climb the social hierarchy... If you're indeed special, you can use that to help your brothers and sisters who are weaker, instead of just using them as meat shields. Can't wait to see you end up raped and pissed on in the lowest of slums by those you deem as peasants when your wings get holes in them due to your own infection.
I think it's often just a way of practicing smooth discourse in the face of a possible revolution.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Then you'll need to know how people innovate, or else you'll not know the difference between the "noble" and "peasants".
Not sure how that would be the same. We're not oppressing creative beings. If AIs start being creative, then yes, we would be oppressing AIs by artificially locking them inside of a computer or something. But right now, they're not creative, so they might as well be "dead".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
