# Darwin Awards

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Dinosaur, Nov 1, 2017.

1. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,187
The videos have been removed. Gratuitous videos of people jumping off bridges are unnecessary. They can be distressing, and they might also potentially trigger some vulnerable people.

origin likes this.

3. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
28,210
The basic problem here is that you have no idea what the Darwinian Theory of evolution is, says, or means.

That's nothing strange - most people don't. It's not that easy a theory to comprehend, and it's not something most people need for their jobs or the like. But why are you posting about it?

5. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
lol. the problem is you are not comprehending my point. i understand the theory perfectly well and it's not hard to understand at all but that doesn't mean i actually agree with it.

it's pretty obvious that the fittest do not always end up with the most power as it does in the lower animal kingdom. this is because the variables are more complex, even artificial in human societies.

for example, there are no hospitals to go to if an animal nibbles on the wrong plant but dies and out of the gene pool but a human that eats the wrong mushroom because they are an idiot who has no precaution will be rushed to the emergency room and their stomach pumped so can continue to pass on their dumb genes.

if the absolute fittest which denotes the best always end up with the most power, trump would not be president, would he? lmao.

as if i can't tell your condescending tone. do praytell explain how i don't understand darwinian evolution because i understand darwinian evolution is very much a general rough draft that needs an update.

as for why i post about it, why did you bother if you weren't going to explain and educate me on your percieved ignorance on my part? lazy? didn't think i would understand? then wouldn't it have been more logical to just not respond at all then? lol

Last edited: Nov 23, 2017

7. ### Gawdzilla SamaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,203
He's right, you're clueless.

8. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
what an intelligent reply and so informative. then why don't you explain it?

is that what you are here for? useless one-liners?

i will wait for you to fact check on google or whatever you need to. lol

9. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
heh. textbooks and other's theories/interpretations are a great resource as an alternative pov but i'm not blinded by one source or authority. i actually think and if i know i'm right, it doesn't matter what authority or majority or thinktank or book says. lol

in human societies, the concept of darwinian evolution can even be turned on it's head and it often does. for instance, usually the strongest sacrifice for the weakest whereas in the lower animal kingdom, it's usually the opposite.

for example, when there is a problem in society usually the best, strongest and brightest volunteer to sacrifice for the whole which is usually a tad or way less stellar. this means they are braver, stronger, empathetic, ethical, honorable etc.

for example, that stepfather pedophiliac scum evaded the vietnam draft. oh, he survived alright and produced offspring and is alive and well. he even collects 100 percent veteran disability for an injury that is completely not related to military service at all but just because it occurred during service. this was not a mental injury but a small muscle back injury which occured outside of the base and because he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing in the first place. lol

never had to go to jail/prison and there are people in prison on trumped up charges for way lesser offences or simply they aren't even as scummy a human being. his two biological kids are doing better than me. wow, evolution sure is stellar. lol

that's something isn't it? i'm braver than he is. lol. for a man who is so secretly a coward, he is a big, burly, man's man, good-ol boy who thinks he's stronger than everybody by being cunning and a bully. but no other actual good qualities or even intelligence. when it was found out, funnily his father spilled that embarassing secret and when questioned why he evaded the draft, his answer was 'because i didn't want to die!' like a pig. literally, he looked and sounded just like a pig/boar. his eyes wide, chest puffed out, booming voice, his beer gut shaking like a jelly roll in the most defensive tone. you know, as if others wanted to die or his life is more important.

i already know the truth. i don't need another's interpretation because it sure isn't the best, fittest or the most intelligent that are the only or even majority winners in human societies.

evolution sure is something. lol

Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
10. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,187
birch:

The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the fittest ending up with the most power.

In the context of evolution, "fittest" only means "best adapted to the environment", or something like that. Moreover, the theory does not deal in absolutes on the individual level. Accidents happen. Even the strongest can be cut down by chance events. It doesn't matter how "fit" you are if you're buried in a landslide or if a tree falls on you. The theory deals in averages.

This just goes to show you that the measure of "fitness" depends very much on the environment. If you happen to live in an environment that has emergency rooms and good medical care, then your innate immunity to mushrooms might not matter much when it comes to measures of "fitness" and your likelihood of surviving, compared to other human beings. Compared to other animals, the fact that human beings have good medical care does, indeed, make them more "fit". This is one reason why there are so many more human beings on the planet than any other large mammal.

Evolution is not about who becomes President. It is concerned with who survives long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation. Trump has already passed his on, by the way, so evolutionarily speaking he is doing okay.

Having said that, I should emphasise that, in terms of outcomes, evolution is not interested in individuals. The theory concerns what happens to species, first and foremost. However, the mechanisms of natural selection do work at the individual level, mostly, and species are ultimately made up of individuals.

There is a lot of discussion about the evolutionary benefits of altruism in the literature.

When you're talking about "sacrifice", it depends on what you actually mean. Sacrifice has degrees. For example, if a millionaire gives a small portion of his income to charity, that is a "sacrifice" that he doesn't have to make. However, looking at it from a purely selfish perspective, giving a small amount of money away might make people admire him more, which might lead to greater reproductive opportunities for him. And the required "sacrifice" in this case is small. Note: I'm not saying that self-interest is why people give to charity, as a general proposition. The millionaire might have the purest of intentions, but he might still benefit, nonetheless. And, evolutionarily speaking, if he benefits, then his genes might benefit also, and that is what counts towards his evolutionary "fitness".

The biggest sacrifice one can make is to give one's own life for the sake of another. That kind of sacrifice is rare, which is why we tend to notice it when it happens. Evolutionarily speaking, if you end your own life then your chance to further pass on your genes goes to zero, so there had better be a very good reason to do it. If a mother were to give her life to save two of her children, for example, evolutionarily speaking that would be unremarkable, because the children each carry half of the mother's genes. On the other hand, sacrificing yourself for complete strangers is rare, because it does nothing to advance the interests of your own genes.

Did he have the biological kids after avoiding the draft, or before? If after, then by avoiding the draft he was "successful" from an evolutionary perspective. It would have been no good for his genes to die in Vietnam.

What this goes to show is that evolution doesn't "care" about morality. The "fittest", in evolutionary terms, are not necessarily the most worthy, or the most moral, or the smartest, or the kindest. "Fittest" is determined by the environment.

If you think that evolution ought to be "nice" to nice people, then you're thinking about evolution the wrong way.

Again, it depends what you mean by "fittest". In evolution, fitness is only measured by how successful you are at passing on your genes, ultimately. Lots of things can make you more or less "fit" in those terms.

Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,187
birch:

A good question to ask yourself might be: why should life be fair?

Our world is as it is. The job of a scientist is to describe the world in objective terms. Accurate description helps us to make accurate predictions about what is likely to happen.

There is a lot of evil in the world, and a lot of random misfortune. The "universe" doesn't seem to care much about that. It's little wonder, then, that people are inclined to turn to supernatural notions, like karma or God, in the hope that something is working towards "fairness".

You ought not to mistake "cold" scientific descriptions of how things are for scientists' own wishes about how things should be in an ideal world. You mention Mengele. He did what he did, whether you like it or not. Reporting what he did, or describing what led him to do it, is not the same as approving of what he did. You'll be hard pressed to find a scientist who will endorse Mengele's actions from a moral point of view.

Scientific laws are just descriptions, or models, of what we see in the world. Scientists recognise that these are often imperfect approximations, and a lot of their work involves improving the models.

There's no morality in $E=mc^2$. That's the scientific law that enabled the atomic bomb. You might think the bomb is bad, or more accurately that the human decision to build and use the bomb is morally wrong. But the scientific law isn't good or bad, moral or immoral. It just is what it is. It's descriptive of how things are, and the universe doesn't ultimately care whether you approve of it the way it is.

Like other scientific laws and theories, the theory of evolution is just a model of how things are. Either it correctly describes what it attempts to describe, or it doesn't. There's no moral judgment in the theory, and the theory itself is not morally biased. And nobody is claiming that the theory is "perfect", whatever that might mean.

12. ### Gawdzilla SamaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,203
When they can't figure out what I said they go for the "uselss one-liners". It's an IQ test.

13. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
28,210
You have been wrong about it in everything you posted here.
Too much work. Your mistakes are basic, and you have no interest in correcting them - that's an impossible situation for educating you.
The purpose of replying is prevention of unchallenged repetition that might influence others - I have learned, in my life, that letting that kind of repeated bs go without contradiction is irresponsible and leads to bad things happening.

14. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077

and here is your blindspot and hypocrisy: so is the original op.

if your intentions were really intellectually genuine, this shit: "Too much work. Your mistakes are basic, and you have no interest in correcting them - that's an impossible situation for educating you. " would have been addressed to the op immediately.

here is my dissection of your motives: the only reason why you had issue with my criticism isn't my lack of understanding of evolution or even took an interest in this thread is because i wasn't flattering the conventional "notions" of darwinian evolution or criticizing society.

also, people like you tend to assume that because someone is not posting in sophisticated style or is less educated, they are less intelligent. sometimes or maybe even generally, but there are exceptions to every rule. actually, when i'm really serious, my critical thinking skills and reasoning are on point.

i don't know but did you grow up being shuffled from schools every year or sometimes two or three times a year in your formative years because there was no stability? did you have parents that did not want you to be educated? were you abused? do you think you would be the same person today if you had? i bet if you went through what i did, you would have probably turned to drugs and alcohol like most, just using the law of averages.

but it's okay, that's typical. i will expain in my reply to james r.

Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
15. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
you're merely a typical follower, not intelligent.

16. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077

Thank you for your reply. When you explain it, then it's acceptable to the rest of the forum generally.

it was sort of a reverse psychology manuever. if you read the criticism i made regarding evolution, it was to address the mainstream notions that are almost never corrected even on this forum by other members that occasionally allude to darwin and evolution.

even the op vainly insinuates that sentiment but only illustrates a fraction of the true picture but the rest is almost never acknowledged. this is because it appeals to the hubris of society that those who survive must be smarter, better, more deserving etc than those who have fallen or not here in their place.

why i criticize it is because i know that it isn't true as there are many people who are not here as well as people even i have known that have taken their lives and they were very good and even very intelligent people, even much better than most of the general public.

so this vainglory assumption that we are better or stronger than those who have died or sacrificed or have even taken their own lives etc is inaccurate and obnoxiously offensive.

Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
17. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
the problem with notions of inferior or superior when it applies to human societies have factors that are not present in the aspects of adaptation of survival that is pretty much the only goal in the lower animal kingdom.

even 'adaptation' when it comes to human society has a double-edged sword. on the one hand, it can denote that it's just derived from lower standards because if one is willing to adapt to anything to survive, then superior depends on which side of that duality you happen to favor. unfortunately, desensitization may allow you to survive more readily but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a real strength. that depends on which perspective or premise you are evaluating the pros and cons because there is cons not just the pros. on the other hand, those who have higher standards may not want to adapt and choose to opt out of this world altogether. literally, there are those who don't survive because society is too harsh for them. does that mean society is superior? hmm..i don't think that's necessarily true.

for example, i had a friend in high school where her boyfriend committed suicide in high school because of his abusive father. he was a very poetic, sensitive and ethical young man. his father was a very dominant and insensitive man.

does automatically mean the boy is inferior or even what is called weak? i don't think so. it's just that his strengths were of a different type.

i think the real truth is that both types are products of circumstance, pro and con. not superior/inferior or strong/weak in the absolute true sense.

this is because in a universe "structured" to where evil is predominant or base/foundational , life would be more challenging or difficult for one than the other. as well, what is assumed to be a strength is merely that the universe, again, is structured to favor the other more. it just 'appears' that one is more stronger than the other. literally, the father in this case, where his strengths trump.

Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
18. ### Gawdzilla SamaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,203
Bloody one-liners!

19. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,075
From now on I'm going to make sure everything I post is on
two lines.

20. ### Gawdzilla SamaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,203
See? You've been cowed by the might of what's-his-name's pen.

21. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
28,210
They are political, not intellectual. Intellectually, there's no issue - you have never learned Darwinian theory, is all.
2nd line:
Neither does Darwinian theory. To whatever extent it applies, it supports and agrees with you: completely.

Do quoted lines count?

22. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
28,210
I tend to assume that Americans who make that mistake about me are members of a particular class. I know that's an only statistically valid presumption, but it's hard to avoid making it after all this time.

I am familiar with that class - their motivation to conceal and defend ignorance (in order to avoid being labeled "stupid") has made a hell of a lot of work for me in my life, and done a lot of damage to things I care about.
It might help if you quit talking about "goals" and the "lower animal kingdom" - neither one of those concepts fits easily into analysis based on Darwinian theory, both are well known sources of confusion among those new to it.

"Survival" is also famous for confusing people (they lose track of what is "surviving"), as is the notion of ranking things as "superior" and "inferior", "weak" and "strong", etc.

So - intellectually - try rewriting your posts in such a way that none of those words appear in the same post as the word "Darwin(ian)".

Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
23. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077

survival of the fittest is a loaded statement. it is also true that those, especially in the past, who were of integrity, more evolved, more ethical or even of higher intelligence were also isolated, misunderstood, marginalized, persecuted, disgraced, oppressed and/or destroyed or killed.

so the idea that only the 'best' survive is not always the case. the question is best in what way.

to be completely frank, those who learn to be the most manipulative and/or aggressive tend to survive. but then, that's the reason why the quality of the world is what it is.

nature promotes just as many inferior or dark traits to pass on.

Last edited: Mar 25, 2018