It’s so obvious that the theory of Darwinian evolution is nothing more than the concept of the capitalist self-regulating market applied to the domain of biology. Prior English thinkers like Joseph Townsend had already been drawing the connection between economics and natural history; and by the time you get to around the mid-19th century when capitalism really kicks off in England, when thinkers like Ricardo and Malthus are popular, you have Darwin publishing Origin of Species. We’re supposed to believe this is a great coincidence, and that at the exact time when economic liberalism was in full swing, Darwin just happened to discover an exact analogue to the market in nature. And if you question this you’re excoriated as a heretic in the eyes of our society.
But The Origin of the Species came out before Marx's Capital. And didn't Marx and Engels find Darwin a revelation due to him finally theorizing a view on the biological human which Marx agreed with and which fit with Marx's views?
Yeah Marx claimed it but when you look at its form it's clearly just a biologi-sation of lasseiz faire economics
I think you’re actually moronic, which makes sense considering you are a communist
I'm not a Communist wtf are you talking about...When did I say I was a Communist.
Both Darwinian evolution and liberalism have as their ultimate metaphysical principle the idea that order arises spontaneously as the result of unregulated bottom-up processes. The idea of an overarching interventionist authority is anathema to them both, this being the State in the lasseiz faire sense and God in the Darwinian sense. In economic terms, the development of new methods of production and the fierce competition of firms against one another results in a fine-tuning effect whereby the inefficient firms die off and only those who can most effectively satisfy economic demand survive. This is an exact analogue to the process of mutation and natural selection in Darwinian evolution, by which the natural destruction of the unfit results in the most optimal biological order emerging in an environment.
Think of how classical liberals always talk about "the marketplace of ideas". They say stuff like, "We need free speech because the good ideas will win out and the bad ideas will die." Darwin took that liberal view of the world and applied it to nature.
This is a midwit mode of thought though. You are not considering the particular differences between biology and the marketplace of ideas, and by so doing failing to map the concepts correctly to each other. Under darwinian evolution the organisms which become abundant are those which are best able to survive and replicate. This is exactly true of the marketplace of ideas, as well as of the lasseiz-faire markets, and the truth of the ideas themselves (or the moral value of the markets) does not enter into it. Every marxist would understand, almost tautologically, that the corporations which would win out are those best able to compete. Darwinianism doesn't map onto liberalism, it maps onto evident reality. In any case, the attack is ad-hominem. If you are a marxist, you would posit that all significant ideas within the public consciousness are expressions of economic struggle, and it is therefore useless to use this as an attack on any idea, when it could by applied equally to all.
Liberalism — in the classical sense, ie. the type of English liberalism Darwin would have been exposed to in 19th century Britain —- believes limitation of State power, freedom of speech, property rights, and lasseiz faire economics. The self-regulation of the capitalist market proceeds on the exact same principle as the self-regulation of the species via natural selection. The link between the two cannot be denied. Just as the free market punishes bad business decisions and rewards the efficient, the environment punishes those forms of life that are incompatible with it and rewards those which are. In both cases order spontaneously emerges as the result of unguided bottom-up processes which simply remove the disordered specimens from the gene-pool/market. I’m sorry if you can’t see it, but the morphologies of the two concepts are the same.
It has nothing to do with me being a “Marxist”. I am talking about an objective issue without appeal to any political views.
>believes limitation of State power, freedom of speech, property rights, and lasseiz faire economics
No, it absolutely does not. You're falsely equating Libertarianism with Liberals. Liberalism is entirely dependent upon a massive bureaucratic state apparatus.
>The self-regulation of the capitalist market
See, you're doing it right here.
>proceeds on the exact same principle as the self-regulation of the species via natural selection
No it doesn't, and I've already explained why. But here's another point in the above: the fact that you think that firms just spring out of the ether is a demonstration that you're coming at this from a Libertarian perspective.
>Just as the free market punishes bad business decisions and rewards the efficient
This is not necessarily the case.
>the environment punishes those forms of life that are incompatible with it
This isn't how evolution works at all.
>In both cases order spontaneously emerges
Order doesn't spontaneously emerge in Liberalism as already demonstrated and it doesn't emerge in evolutionary biology because it's already there.
>simply remove the disordered specimens from the gene-pool/market.
Evolution isn't about "order" in the slightest.
>the morphologies of the two concepts are the same.
No they aren't, as already demonstrated.
So his point stands if he uses the correct term
All you do is argue semantics. Obviously when I said liberalism I wasn’t referring to modern liberalism or even how liberalism is instantiated in real life but the idea of classical lasseiz faire liberalism. And when I said the environment punishes the disordered life forms I obviously did not mean it like a literal punishment, but meant that those unfit life forms die out. Pointless to argue with you.
None of this proves Darwinian evolution. In fact, if Darwinian evolution were true, your mental processes would just be the result of millions of years of genetic mutation, selected by adaptation to an environment. But that adaptation only selects for genes which help you survive, not genes which let you see the truth. Thus your mental processes — including those that brought you to Darwinian evolution — are untrustworthy. It refutes itself.
A typical reaction from a brainwashed inculturated slave. Most scientific theories are just mirrors for some cultural/psychological reality. Look at the “theory” of evolutionary psychology for instance. The entire premise of that field is that there used to exist an Ur-Man in the savannah desert, a hunter-gatherer type who represents the human in its purest form. From this Ur-Man we supposedly inherited all of our psychological notions. Why do women like tall men? Because the Ur-Woman needed protection from the tall Ur-Man in the Savannah.
Or for example people say “this diet is the best because it’s what our hunter gatnerer ancestors ate”. It’s the same thing. A psychological desire, an aesthetic idea, formalised into a scientific theory.
Evolution was originally proposed as a form of biological classical liberalism, which circumvents the need for God just as the market supposedly circumvented the need for State intervention. Both the Market and Natural Selextion create order on the same process —- the elimination of the unfit. It’s impossible not to see it.
>Thus your mental processes — including those that brought you to Darwinian evolution — are untrustworthy.
Yeah, kinda. That's why we need to do research collectively and employ massive and painful set of epistemological principles to achieve at least somewhat functional conclusion (which are still flawed) - because trying to get to the truth of reality on your own from reason alone with out untrustworthy brains can at best produce abortions like your post.
Dumbass. Those very epistemic principles arise from Darwinian processes which are not concerned with truth but survivability. Your “epistemic principles” under a Darwinian theory are no different from a cat licking itself —- neither true nor false, just useful for survivability. Therefore the Darwinian theory destroys the possibility of knowledge and contradicts itself. Only a moron would believe in Darwinism. We don’t even need to get into the “physical evidence” (all of which is indirect and can be explained by other theories such as God simply creating every species when he sees fit) because it shoots itself in the foot out of the gate.
>Dumbass. Those very epistemic principles arise from Darwinian processes which are not concerned with truth but survivability. Your “epistemic principles” under a Darwinian theory are no different from a cat licking itself —- neither true nor false, just useful for survivability.
Eh, kinda-sorta. Still closer to the truth than whatever you have tho.
>But that adaptation only selects for genes which help you survive, not genes which let you see the truth
So there's a truth outside you?
>Most scientific theories are just mirrors for some cultural/psychological reality. Look at the “theory” of evolutionary psychology for instance. The entire premise of that field is that
So there isn't a truth outside you?
Just admit that you don't like libertarianism
So if I believe in objective truth I must believe in whatever scientific theory is currently in vogue?
>So if I believe in objective truth I must believe in whatever scientific theory is currently in vogue?
Not really, no - scientific principle is defined by skepticism, and nobody hates any current scientific theories nearly as much as the people on the forefront of their development. It's literally their job to tear down the existing dogma (by proposing and sufficiently proving a new one), and if you succeed you get Nobel prizes and Fields medals and comfy tenure positions and b***hes and shit.
So you don't have to believe them - you have to understand them, their origins, their reasoning and their qualities, and then tear them a new one with your giant 189 IQ brain. Or you don't have that one - just do whatever you want and enjoy being an irrelevant pleb whose opinion on truth will never amount to anything whatsoever lmao.
>if Darwinian evolution were true, your mental processes would just be the result of millions of years of genetic mutation, selected by adaptation to an environment. But that adaptation only selects for genes which help you survive, not genes which let you see the truth. Thus your mental processes — including those that brought you to Darwinian evolution — are untrustworthy. It refutes itself.
That's like saying:
if Darwinian evolution were true, your feet would just be the result of millions of years of genetic mutation, selected by adaptation to an environment. But that adaptation only selects for genes which help you survive, not genes which let you dance. Thus your mental processes — including those that brought you to Darwinian evolution — are untrustworthy. It refutes itself.
or
if Darwinian evolution were true, your hands would just be the result of millions of years of genetic mutation, selected by adaptation to an environment. But that adaptation only selects for genes which help you survive, not genes which let you paint a painting. Thus your mental processes — including those that brought you to Darwinian evolution — are untrustworthy. It refutes itself.
etc
The point is that if the human mind is built up as an amalgam of random mutations there is no reason to think it would grasp objective truth, any more than a cat or a bee would. But the very act of hypothesising and inference-making that leads to the development of evolutionary theory presupposes that human thought corresponds to being and is able to get at truth. You are making false analogies.
Yeah but this is no different than being a kantian.
The categories are just shaped by evolution instead that by god.
It is different from being a Kantian because it grounds the structure of human cognition and experience in a materialist framework, but that framework is itself a theoretical extrapolation from experience. Kant begins with phenomenological experience and takes it as is, and then proceeds to analyse its form. He doesn't set up a causal, temporal theory of a non-mental reality and then proceed to explain the human by it. That is an inversion of priorities for Kant. Rather, Kant recognises that the ultimate starting point can only be the starting point of human consciousness. For Kant, time, space and causality itself are things integral to the human consciousness, not things by which the human can be explained as in Darwinism.
In any case, I love Kant but I am not a Kantian. I believe that thought corresponds to being, and it is not clear to me that Kant did, although I may be wrong.
Yeah but Kant is agnostic about where this things come from. He is skeptical of the possibility for them, but today the majority of Kantians believe what you believe. That the categories are just how our organisms are shaped by evolution to perceive the world.
Anyway check this out:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400831296-031/html?lang=en
I'm not sure if you're even reading what I'm saying because you ascribed the opposite position to me than the one I hold but just in case you are I will respond.
Darwinian Kantism does not make sense. Darwinism is a theory that presupposes the objectivity of the categories of space, time, matter, and temporal causality, and seeks to explain human cognition in virtue of a theory which essentially depends upon those categories. Kantian philosophy takes phenomenology as a starting point and makes no claims about what is out there as the thing in itself. Kantian philosophy of science --- represented by figures such as Ernst Cassirer --- does not view scientific theories as objective descriptions of the thing in itself which are capable of giving a causal account of human cognition but as symbolic systems or "image worlds" in which the manifold of appearances is creatively wrapped up in a consistent system with its own internal logic that is able to satisfy the human mind. As such scientific theories are more similar to schools of art than objective descriptions of truth.
Modern Kantians may try to integrate their theory with darwinian evolution all they want but ultimately its a reaction out of fear and embarrassment due to tje fact that philosophy is not able to wield the same economic power as "science". The earliest thinkers in the school of German idealism such as Hegel absolutely rejected the idea ofnDarwinian evolution.
But the interpretation of Cassirer and the Neo-Kantians is not the only one and I don’t personally believe it particularly represent Kant.
The problem between Kant and Darwin reside not so much in the epistemology but in their different ideas on the generation and evolution of organic beings.
But to to go back to your initial point: you criticized the ability of an evolved being of finding the truth because evolution selects for survival and not truthfulness.
But this point is not radically different than that of Kant affirming that all experience has to happen in a certain framework.
That Kant starts w a phenomenological analysis is irrelevant, because as Habermas points out the next step in German philosophy was the detrascendentalization of the transcendental — that is of finding the condition of possibilities if experience not in the subjectivity but in language (schleiermacher, gadamer) in history (dilthey) or in biology (von Uexküll)
>space, time, causality are transcendental categories
>we can't know the thing in itself
>but we definitely know that the causal system of darwinian evolution grounds the transcendental categories
>...even though darwinian evolution presupposes the those categories
>so it grounds that which it presupposes
It doesn't work. And yes, as I said, I am not a Kantian, although I admire the tradition and think it has a lot to offer. I believe human thought transcends all frameworks and is directly connected with God or the Absolute. Human thought is self-reflective, self-critical, introspective; and all of these presuppose a connection to and knowledge of objectivity. (Obviously this does not mean that subjectivity is always eliminated, so dont strawman me pls)
What a strange idea of knowledge. You could say something similar about manmade computers, but they are still capable of calculating truth if given the correct inputs. Read Plato and stop vomiting this slop.
Plato directly refutes OP's entire theory.
Are you utterly uneducated? Plato was not a materialist. He did not believe that matter arising out of randomness constituted the human soul. In fact his whole ethical philosophy is a detachment of the soul from the body. Plato is the opposite of whatever you're saying.
Did you respond to the wrong post? That has nothing to do with what I said. Plato wasn't a fricking Libertarian, and he certainly didn't believe that the Talmud tells us the age of the Earth or the secrets of biology.
Man made computers run an algorithm and have nothing to do with thinking or finding truth. You can make them run an algorithm in which they print 2+2=900 if you want. Plato was not a materialist. It is impossible to compare the human mind to a computer because, unlike the computer which is boxed off in its own system, the human mind is in touch with the Absolute, and transcends arbitrary boundaries.
Do all arbitrary configurations of matter accurately reflect the Form of the Dog?
>Why no Socrates, that would be absurd! Some configurations reflect the Form of the Dog more than others.
And we can rank these?
>Indeed, at least ordinally. While measuring Dogness might be beyond our present capacity, we can certainly say that "lump A is more doggy than lump B".
So then, given that knowledge is necessary for survival, evolutionary processes should result in brains that are more conducive to finding Truth.
>By Zeus, you're right Socrates!
After all, a brain that is not able to generate a mind, or more correctly to properly adhere to the soul, will result in an animal that dies off quickly. This faulty brain might lead an ape to think that a tiger is in fact a tree, which will result in the ape dying and not reproducing
>Yes indeed.
So, we should expect evolutionary processes to result in a greater ability to access Truth and the Gods.
>Oh praise Aphrodite, Socrates you are so wise!
But of course, while an individual brain might not perfectly reflect the soul that inhabits it, and thus won't be able to access Truth and the Gods and the Forms perfectly, we can see that over time they tend towards doing so more suitably.
>Oh by the Gods, I'm going to philosophize!
After all, if we are to believe that being, knowledge, and morality are all wrapped up and pointing towards the same The Good then it would be ridiculous to posit that any natural process would lead us astray. Zeus, The Lord Who Loves The Lightning, would not have crafted this world as a spiritual jungle gym for us in the manner that he did if it did not result in our benefit. Given that evolution operates according to Zeus's will, evolution must surely lead us towards Truth, and produce brains that are capable of finding truth, and thus surely the organism that survives is the one that is more in accordance with The Good.
>OH SOCRATES I'M PHILOSOPHIZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!
Most animals have no idea about objective truth, and they survive and reproduce absolutely fine. The mechanisms of natural selection are not concerned in the slightest with furnishing an organism with the truths of philosophy. You know deep down in your soul that you have a connection with the Absolute, which is why you want to preserve rationality, which is why you can even think in the first place. But your Darwinian worldview of man arising out of random configurations of matter absolutely contradicts this.
>Most animals have no idea about objective truth
Refuted by Plato.
>and they survive and reproduce absolutely fine
Right, for the reasons already outlined.
>The mechanisms of natural selection are not concerned in the slightest with furnishing an organism with the truths of philosophy.
No, they are, as already outlined.
>You know deep down in your soul that you have a connection with the Absolute, which is why you want to preserve rationality, which is why you can even think in the first place.
Right, all life does.
>But your Darwinian worldview of man arising out of random configurations of matter absolutely contradicts this.
Evolution has nothing to do with man's origins, it's just a description of how life proceeds after having originated.
every word from this anon is correct, scientists are the biggest fricking stooges and shills for all that is wrong in the world yet they are the most respected. pretty convenient huh? right when europeans need to see themselves as superior enlightened specimens, darwin comes along telling them that they are in fact superior and that murdering other races is naturally okay
>that adaptation only selects for genes which help you survive, not genes which let you see the truth.
It isn't about selecting the good, but discarding the bad. Mundane which doesn't hinder just passes along.
>Evolution was originally proposed as a form of biological classical liberalism, which circumvents the need for God just as the market supposedly circumvented the need for State intervention
God is just "evolution" for classical depostism. The original "it's only a THEOry."
alright anon, BTFO, you are too smart to be here.
But really, anon, how did you get this idea for the post? how did you come to have this opinion? what did you read, hear or listen to? or if on your own, what was the thought process?
alright OP, im honestly pretty convinced. Do you have any books that expand on this? Id like to really see it layed out
Who exactly would deny that order would result from market processes?
>order arises spontaneously as the result of unregulated bottom-up processes
That's not what Liberalism says at all. Liberalism is predicated on a top-down imposition of order by a massive bureaucratic apparatus.
>The idea of an overarching interventionist authority is anathema to them both
No it isn't. Darwinian Evolution is just a statement of facts, nothing can be "anathema" to it, and as already stated Liberalism is predicated on a massive state apparatus being forced upon people.
>In economic terms, the development of new methods of production and the fierce competition of firms against one another results in a fine-tuning effect whereby the inefficient firms die off and only those who can most effectively satisfy economic demand survive.
Corporate bodies are given a charter, literally their existence, by the state. Whether they're allowed to compete or not is determined by the state. They don't exist to become better or something, they exist to provide services for the state.
>This is an exact analogue to the process of mutation and natural selection in Darwinian evolution
No it isn't. Firstly, firms don't create other firms, they're created by the state to fulfill the desires of the state. So, there's no "evolving" of firms unless the state wants the firms to evolve. Secondly, there's no equivalent to DNA in firms, so there's literally nothing to undergo evolutionary processes.
>They say stuff like, "We need free speech because the good ideas will win out and the bad ideas will die."
No they don't.
>Darwin took that liberal view of the world and applied it to nature.
No he didn't.
>It’s so obvious that the theory of Darwinian evolution is nothing more than the concept of the capitalist self-regulating market applied to the domain of biology.
Dude what
>The idea of an overarching interventionist authority is anathema to them both
Artificail selection works specifically due to the Darwinian pronciples, and our agriculture relies on it entirely.
>Now the claim of Darwinian evolution is that one species evolved from another. In order for that to be the case, there must have been a time in which two members from a particular species gave birth to a member of a different species
Species is an arbitrary abstract concept with no clear definition (or rather, about 20 ill-fitting and contradictory ones). What actually kind-exists is clades, but those are kind of unusable for classification.
Greek history is millions of years old, out of Africa is a lie
Might as well say we all came out of Iraq then since Mesopotamia had the first civilization.
>out of Africa
Out of Africa is also a purely psychological/symbolical concept. It's just the application of the notion of "progress" to human history. Africa, blacks = less developed, Europe, whites = more developed. Therefore we must have come out of Africa. I don't get how people see these theories as "objective" when they're clearly just mirrors of some psychological/social/cultural/religious feeling.
Do you read what you wrote and jerk off to it because of some kind of music hidden in there only the severely autistic can rock along to or sniff your hand after you're done typing like you just farted into it?
Capitalism is only liberating to the Frenchman, the Anglo-Saxon, the German. It's aims have always been imperialist, it was developped during the imperialism age.
Reminder that Darwinism has literally no evidence for it. It’s pure speculation, fraud and misinterpretation. It’s just a new religion that has replaced Christianity.
This playlist explains all: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrCQerz2L0Ifpe9QdbWBZ1ACbEa3kMO2g
It doesn’t even matter because I can mathematically disprove Darwinian evolution.
Let us define L_0 as the set of all lifeforms at time 0. Let us define S_0 as the set of all species of L_0, which of course partitions L_0.
Now we define a function that sends any lifeform in L_0 to its potential breeding partners. We will define its potential breeding partners as the set of all lifeforms which can produce fertile offspring with it.
(Note that as I cannot write LateX here, we will use L_0’ for the superset of L_0. Superset is of course the set of all subsets.).
Thus the function f_0: L_0 —> L_0’ is defined by f_0(a) = [a], where [a] is the set of all lifeforms that can produce fertile offspring with the animal a. Of course [a] is in L_0’.
Now we define the sex operation called sex, such that for all a,b in L_n,
1. a sex b = c if and only if a is in [b], ie a fertile child is produced if and only if a is in the potential breeding partners of b
Now the claim of Darwinian evolution is that one species evolved from another. In order for that to be the case, there must have been a time in which two members from a particular species gave birth to a member of a different species, for if two members of the same species only ever produced the same species no new species would evolve.
Let us therefore order the sets:
L_0, L_1, L_2, … , L_n
Where the indices represent not seconds but the number of new lifeforms produced since the beginning.
Now let us also lay out the species in a similar way:
S_0, S_1, … , S_n
Since Darwinian evolution claims that new species evolve from old, the number of species sometimes increases. Take S_p as the first new species generated, take S_(p^2) as the second, and so on…
Now let us consider the precise moment a new species is generated. This as we have said is at time p^n with n a natural number. Let c be the first member of this new species.
Now as every new species comes into existence with its first member, c’s parents must have been from another species.
Thus we have the operation a sex b = c.
Now either [c] intersected with ([a] union [b]) is not the empty set, or it is.
If it is the empty set, c has nobody to breed with, and his species dies out. If it is not, then c, despite belonging to a different species than anybody in ([a] union [b]), nevertheless can produce fertile offspring with some of them. But the only way species can be maintained is if the latter is true.
Therefore, according to Darwinian evolution, there should be members of species which can produce fertile offspring with members of other species. But in actual empirical fact there are no such organisms. Thus Darwinian evolution makes false predictions and is refuted.
Because that’s the definition of a species you moron. Organisms that can reproduce and produce organisms that can reproduce. Tigers and lions can have children, but they are not viable. Same with horses and donkeys.
>there should be members of species which can produce fertile offspring with members of other species.
There are, go look up the sturdlefish.
how the frick does that work?
Simple, the reproductive mechanisms of the two fish are similar enough that they can produce viable offspring. Organisms are made of parts, and their parts line up. Genes result in gene products, gene products build proteins, proteins build cells, cells build tissues, tissues build organs, organs build organisms.
"Species" is a completely arbitrary term that we use to describe life because we have to use nouns to refer to things in spoken language. In reality, every organism is a bundle of gene products produced from genes, and if the little bits mesh up then they can do all sorts of stuff. It's why humans can do organ transplants with pigs: some of our organs are similar enough to theirs that we can swap certain parts.
The LARPer quoting the Talmud up there is doing just that: quoting the Talmud. By "species" he actually is referring to Halakhic dietary classifications which are something like a Platonic Form (loosely, they're actually deformations on the surface of Halakha that things fill, hence why bats are birds and whales are fish).
>sturdlefish
sturddlefish are likely sterile.
No they aren't.
No, evolution and Libertarianism aren't the same thing, and evolution and Liberalism aren't the same thing, and Libertarianism and Liberalism aren't the same thing.
>All you do is argue semantics.
No, I directly refuted your claim. The rest of your word salad gibberish is just you getting upset about that fact.
Species are continuous not discrete
That anon’s “mathematical” description was totally unnecessary, but I think what he’s saying is that you’d expect a lot more intermediate life forms if species were continuous. The breeding populations of different species would be intermingled. You wouldn’t have monkey ——- then a massive gap —— then man. You would have the gap filled by intermediate life forms with non-transitive breeding chains, ie. there would be some of them who can breed with monkeys but not men, some who can breed with monkeys and men, some who can breed only with men, etc. etc.. Just like with the colour spectrum whcih is continuous you have some colours where you can’t really tell if it’s green or blue and so on.
There seems to be nothing inherently “unfit” about being an intermediate life form, right? Why would intermediate life forms all die off, leaving only discrete species? So right now there should be a way to create a family with a chimp, ie. by breeding with intermediary life forms and then having that child breed with intermediary life forms further from you, and repeating the process until you passed down the line to having a direct descendant of yours breeding with a chimp.
The fact that no such non-transitive breeding chains exist is a point against Darwinian evolution.
>You wouldn’t have monkey ——- then a massive gap —— then man. You would have the gap filled by intermediate life forms
All the variety of the existing species can be seen as such a variety of intermediate life forms. The problem is that just because a lifelorm has evolved out of something and had somethign evolve from it does not excempt it from the continuous struggle of survival and adaptation - it still has to survive and adapt even it has countless divergent forms that arose from it, so everything that does exist is made out of continuously adapting descendants of such intermediate froms, and not those themselves.
>There seems to be nothing inherently “unfit” about being an intermediate life form, right?
Not exactly. It's just that when a new form is not reproductively isolated from the ancestral form then it can exist within said ancestral form's population and we don't consider it a species - we call it a "morphotype", or a "breed". And if it is isolated from the ancestral form and it's populations, then it tends to (1) adapt to it's own specific environments making it accumulate more difference with a rate proportional to how different the new environment is, see Australia. And (2) - eventually lose capacity to crossbreed with the ancestral form. There are no old bird females around - no need for new bird males to learn the old bird's mating dance, so eventually they lose that mating dance as a useless atavism, such kind of stuff.
So when contunuous breeding chains exist - we simply don't consider that to be species, and it's only when sometihng is sufficiently isolated to lose the gradient quality (and break the continuity) that we consider that a distinct species. We could approach species demarkation from the pure morphology standpoint with much greater granularity, and we'd have like 500 times more species defined (and 500 times more work for zoologists) with only relatively rare "breaks" in the reproductive continuity, like you supposed it should be - but that would serve no functional purpose other satisfying your autism, which is why we zoologists don't do those shittons of unnecessary work, and instead just kind of keep rolling with the historical concept of the species that sorta works while not satisfying anyone.
>Why would intermediate life forms all die off, leaving only discrete species?
There's no such thing as a "discrete species" because species is a purely arbitrary taxonomic classification that we humans invented to describe life in natural languages. We can totally say that humans and abos are separate species, or that humans and tigers are the same species, the definition is totally arbitrary. Even whether or not two organism can breed is totally arbitrary (See: the sturddlefish, which is roughly the equivalent of you impregnating a gorilla). The actual biological mechanisms keeping humans and other apes from breeding are very small in number (and they aren't symmetrical, human sperm attach to chimp eggs better than vice versa for example).
>So right now there should be a way to create a family with a chimp, ie. by breeding with intermediary life forms and then having that child breed with intermediary life forms further from you, and repeating the process until you passed down the line to having a direct descendant of yours breeding with a chimp.
This absolutely happens, it's why Whites and Abos can breed. The reason that we can't do this with chimps anymore is that there are no chimps whose cellular reproduction systems are similar enough to ours for us to breed. There were at one point somewhere in the past 18 million years, however (when the Lesser Apes split from the Great Apes).
This assumes that the resulting human-whatever hybrids would be able to breed with other hybrids, however, which we can assume but can't take for granted (because cross-species reproduction is not gender-symmetrical.
Dumb moron.
When we see leaf-eating insects green, and bark-feeders mottled-grey; the alpine ptarmigan white in winter, the red-grouse the colour of heather, we must believe that these tints are of service to these birds and insects in preserving them from danger.
Maybe Darwin correctly observed this phenomenon that happens in proto capitalist societies. I feel like you want to moralize here and invent imaginary opponents.
Yes, Anglo vulgarity is often relayed through cartoons. We know.
Are teeth and appendix libertarian?
>It’s so obvious that the theory of Darwinian evolution is nothing more than the concept of the capitalist self-regulating market applied to the domain of biology
Right. Well this thread is moronic. You lads have fun.
Ideas in science can come from anywhere; they can come from an apple falling on your head. So what? Maybe it was a coincidence or maybe the idea occurred to Darwin because of all the capitalist ideology in the air. Either way, the theory stands or falls on the basis of evidence, and guess what? It stands.
He implies that the idea was transcribed from the capitalist ideology therefore it doesn't stand
But you can't just reject a theory without contending with actual scientific evidence for it. It's not as if evolutionary biologists have no evidence and are blindly adhering to a dogma.
Also Darwinians will swear up and down that their theory has nothing to do with progress since Natural Selection only selects for survivability, but actually the historical process of mutation according to the theory leads from less complex life forms (single called organisms) to more complex ones. So even the liberal idea of historical progress is inherent within the Darwinian story.
>but actually the historical process of mutation according to the theory leads from less complex life forms (single called organisms) to more complex ones
But there is nothing in the Darwinian principles that makes higher complexity in any way "superior" to low complexity. As far as just pure survival goes, algae and bacteria dab all over us multi-cellular jaw-mouthed vertebrata - any value we assign to our complexity and it's benefits comes from outside the Darwinian theory.
There are no species because nothing shares features with anything else. Grouping things together is just a way the mind copes by trying to systematize its experience.
Both of these are unraveling in real time so who cares?
go away you filthy grifter and fake.
>grifter
>on IQfy
>where everyone is anonymous
>and there’s nothing to gain
Someone’s been watching too many twitch debates
Darwinism doesn't just apply to biological reproduction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
Capitalism resembles nature. It's might makes right, and the winner takes all. Most will fail and die and be forgotten. That's how systems self-regulate in our world.
>It's might makes right, and the winner takes all
Which isn't at all how things work in capitalism. How can a system where the oldest and frailest members of society own the majority of the wealth be "might makes right"? To quote Oswald Spengler:
>At the beginning a man was wealthy because he was powerful — now he is powerful because he has money. Intellect reaches the throne only when money puts it there. Democracy is the completed equating of money with political power.
Why are you under the impression that you're disagreeing with me? You just said money is power (i.e. might).
I wasn't appealing to anything. I'm saying nature and capitalism are both pic related. Arbitrary, amoral, cruel, sadistic.
Winners don't lose.
If you want to appeal to nature then the best system would be anarchism with no social constructs that are common to our current day to day, such as money or time, and with survival built entirely on hunter-gathering. That's the way the prehistoric folk lived, and therefore the most natural.
Return to monke.
>If you want to appeal to nature then the best system would be anarchism with no social constructs that are common to our current day to day
Social contract and opression emerge naturally from the agricultural mode of production, and one people know that they can do agriculture you can't keep them from eventually trying it.
This is bs honestly.
What part of nature inspires bankruptcy laws?
Because while everyone looks at competition, the real rigging happens in bankruptcy.
When a company fails how do the investors get back their money and discharge their losses, how is the responsibility divided between the partners, how can the people who will adjudicate the multiple claims to the remaining resources profit from this power.
That's where capitalism happens, and the game is rigged-- those who control the losing conditions never lose. Everything else is a distraction.
Have you made this thread before? I have extreme deja vu.
Your idea is not unique in the slightest. When I went to the New York Public Library as an adult and was taught science in middle school, they literally talked about that being one of the inspirations for Darwins theory. Whether I believe Darwins idea is false is another story, I haven't read enough on the topic to make a decision
The obvious response to this is that Darwinian evolution is true because capitalism and liberal democracy are true. They are all natural. History is progressive. Sorry to break it to you
Darwinism is hegelianism applied to biology. Darwin and is family were all freemasons.
Wow it's like you reinvented Foucault's order of things but in a moronic way.
In Darwinism, regulation is not always bad. Irish Elk went extinct from unregulated sexual selection. Lots of shellfish have as well. In our species too we can see that average intelligence is lowering because stupid people have more kids.
It's interesting that Marx and Engels (and many other old Marxists) never called out Darwin for that. Instead they latched onto Darwinism as the science du jour, because they had their own science larp going on. Marx would probably call you a 'vulgar materialist' or whatever. Let's call a spade a spade, he was closer to a positivist than a dialectician.
>Linking Evolution to some social concept.
Pathetic. No wonder no one takes you liberal arts people seriously.
It's either Darwinism or Marxism, but these may be the greatest midwit traps in recorded human history. Together these encapsulate the tiny mind, and even tinier spirit, of the so-called modern man.
Isadora Duncan (1878– 1927), pioneer of modern contemporary dance
THE DANCE OF THE FUTURE
A WOMAN once asked me why I dance with bare feet and I replied, “Madam, I believe in the religion of the beauty of the human foot.” The lady replied, “But I do not,” and I said, “Yet you must, Madam, for the expression and intelligence of the human foot is one of the greatest triumphs of the evolution of man.” “But,” said the lady, “I do not believe in the evolution of man”; at this said I, “My task is at an end. I refer you to my most revered teachers, Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Ernst Haeckel.” “But,” said the lady, “I do not believe in Darwin and Haeckel.” At this point I could think of nothing more to say. So you see that to convince people, I am of little value and ought not to speak. But I am..told to lecture on the dance of the future.
...
The primary or fundamental movements of the new school of the dance must have within them the seeds from which will evolve all other movements, each in turn to give birth to others in unending sequence of still higher and greater expression, thoughts and ideas
...
The primary or fundamental movements of the new school of the dance must have within them the seeds from which will evolve all other movements, each in turn to give birth to others in unending sequence of still higher and greater expression, thoughts and ideas
...
I might make an example of each pose and gesture in the thousands of figures we have left to us on the Greek vases and bas-reliefs; there is not one which in its movement does not presuppose another movement.
This is because the Greeks were the greatest students of the laws of nature, wherein all is the expression of unending, ever-increasing evolution, wherein are no ends and no Stops.
...
...
I shall not teach the children to imitate my movements, but to make their own. I shall not force them to study certain definite movements; I shall help them to develop those movements which are natural to them. Whosoever sees the movements of an untaught little child cannot deny that its movements are beautiful. They are beautiful because they are natural to the child. Even so the movements of the human body may be beautiful in every Stage of development so long as they are in harmony with that Stage and degree of maturity which the body has attained. There will always be movements which are the perfect expression of that individual body and that individual soul; so we must not force it to make movements which are not natural to it but which belong to a school.
...
The ideal of beauty of the human body cannot change with fashion but only with evolution. ... the dance of the future will be a new movement, a consequence of the entire evolution which mankind has passed through....She will dance the changing life of nature, showing how each part is transformed into the other. From all parts of her body shall shine radiant intelligence
...
Oh, what a field is here awaiting her! Do you not feel that she is near, that she is coming, this dancer of the future! ... Oh, she is coming, the dancer of the future: the free spirit, who will inhabit the body of new woman; more glorious than any woman that has yet been; more beautiful than the Egyptian, than the Greek, the early Italian, than all women of past centuries—the highest intelligence in the freest body !