Is he still the one to read, or is there a more modern set of books I should read if I want to into evolutionary theory?
Charles Darwin
Is he still the one to read, or is there a more modern set of books I should read if I want to into evolutionary theory?
a long time ago, we saw some weird shit
>more modern
The truth is the opposite way actually - The Holy Bible
I 'm sorry I thought we were on an educated board here. So for those who don't know, Darwin is an atheist duplicitous b***h. Yeah that's right, i said the B word. The only difference between Darwin and Lamarck is that darwin made up a theory about a population and lamarck made up a theory about an individual. But this tiny difference is crucial.
Now here is the thing. in order to work with ''a population'', you need to use statistics. and statistics dont lead to proofs and even less to truths.
Darwin's theory is not falsifiable and atheists are gaga about this, even though in public they say falsifiability is awesome.
In fact, the atheist concept of a ''a population'' is not even well defined. At best you they come up with a fuzzy definition.
So with darwin theory you get no predictive claims and when you try to get numbers out of it, you only get few stats about a population and if the theory fails, the atheists will say the numerical results are just statistical artifacts, no big deal.
I don't know if it's a pasta or not but cuddies don't even know Darwin thought that evolution occurs on the species level. He never used the term population.
Lmao.
lobsters will tastes good until people tell you they are bugs but crabs are fine
the concept of species requires the concept of population
Low IQ post
Ding ding ding. Atheists are chud tier. Survival of the fittest is wrong, ok? And this materialism is a heckin problematic. Literally our whole thought of humanism is based on some ideal where the edgy materialists reject this. They don't care about gay rights. They don't care about the environment. They don't care about anything.
You'll like Relentless Evolution
Darwin is still readable. More modern texts would be any evolutionary biology textbook, you can also look up academic papers in the field as well.
whites are astronauts evolution is a papist hoax and Darwin deserved to be hanged
Genetics and the Origin of Species by Dobzhansky is pretty good
obviously when it comes to science you should read up to date texts, darwin is more for its historical value
If you are into plants then i can recommend How the Earth Turned Green: A Brief 3.8-Billion-Year History of Plants by Joseph E. Armstrong.
He's obviously outdated.
why grammar
Yeah, Origin of Species was written in 1859, we've had 164 years of scientific advancements since then, such as the discovery of DNA. There's no point in reading Darwin except as a curiosity (the vast majority of biologists have never read anything by Darwin and never will). If you want two modern texts, you can check out Evolution by Zimmer & Emlen or Evolution by Futuyma and Kirkpatrick.
There's literally 0 reason to read Darwin for the scientific values it will bring to you, but it's interesting to learn about the history of science i feel like.
The Extended synthesis is the most up to date evolutionary theory I know of. Its extends upon the modern synthesis (Which is just a combination of Darwin, Mendel and DNA made in early 20th-century where genotype->phenotype) by focusing more on the interplay between environment and genotypes to produce convergent phenotypes. Pic is a neat book but very technical
Darwinian evolution is just classical liberalism applied to the domain of biology.
The central idea of the English liberals was the emergence of order bottom-up through the process of competition and natural selection. This is what led them to denounce state intervention in the economy and social life. They argued that the best, most natural economic order would be discovered spontaneously by the free interaction of individual economic agents. Competition would lead to a fine-tuning process whereby the inefficient firms would die off and the ones which can most effectively satisfy economic demand survive.
John Stuart Mill, Darwin's contemporary, even applied this to social life, saying that freedom for experimentation should be allowed so that the best social order would be discovered. This is what classical liberals today call the 'marketplace of ideas', ie. the idea that free speech will naturally lead to the destruction of 'bad ideas' and the thriving of good ones.
What Darwin essentially did is take the philosophy and economics of classical liberalism and transmogrify it into biological terms. It isn't a coincidence that Darwin arose in England, in the 19th century, just after the Industrial Revolution, when the discipline of economics had come into existence and thinkers like Ricardo and Malthus were popular.
As England transformed from an agricultural, post-feudal society into a free market capitalist industrial one, its picture of nature transformed from one guided and nurtured by God to an unguided free-for-all in which order would spontaneously emerge.
It is obviously not "true". It is just a symbol.
>Darwinian evolution is just classical liberalism applied to the domain of biology.
No it isn't. Liberalism presupposes the individual as the basic unit of society, evolutionary theory proposes that the allele, not the organism, is the basic unit of evolutionary processes. Liberalism is about creating increasingly better firms, evolution is just about minimizing the energy of replication of alleles.
The process of mutation and natural selection is identical to the process of entrepreneurship and companies either surviving or going bust.... It literally just is liberalism in biological terms. Darwin didn't even know about genes, it was a later addition to his theory, but I don't think it changes the symbolic content of the theory. It's fundamentally about order arising without top-down intervention.
>The process of mutation and natural selection is identical to the process of entrepreneurship and companies either surviving or going bust
No, it isn't. Evolution works on the level of the allele, market selection works on the level of the firm. You can't break firms up into sequences of information fed into a replicator. There's no equivalent to species or population when it comes to markets, each firm is a unique entity.
>It literally just is liberalism in biological terms.
No, it isn't.
>Darwin didn't even know about genes
Darwin proposed units of heredity, he just wasn't able to demonstrate them empirically. Other thinkers, such as Mendel, had pointed this out before Darwin did.
>It's fundamentally about order arising without top-down intervention.
That's not at all what Liberalism is about. Liberalism is about selecting for the best firm, evolution is about energy minimization.
Yes you can, i'm sure successful companies have gone but yet the reasons they were successful still carried on because other companies copied them.
High IQ post.
This is explained pretty well by Spengler and Francis Parker Yockey.
Thanks for your compliment. I’ve read Spengler but not Yockey, could you point me to a book of his related to this issue that you recommend?
Imperium is his famous book, its pretty incredible. Theres a large part dedicated to the idea that darwin marx and freud were basically a three headed monster of nihilistic thought reconstruction. Darwin as you know turned naturalism to random chance, marx from class hierarchy to money obsession, and freud from character of spirit to, how can I say, almost automatonic sexual reactionism
Frick I forget naturalism means the opposite of what I meant to say, but you get the idea. I daydrank and took mushrooms yesterday so im kinda moronic rn
Liberalism is about minimizing expenses. First rule of business is cutting the expenses to improve the financial statistics.
He still is the one to read. All others are homosexual larpers
For something about new discoveries in evolution and biology read David Reich's book
>David Reich's book
That guy is one of the most israeliteiest israelites I have ever read. Every chapter he somehow ends up talking about the holocaust and nazis. Do NOT read this book, its awful