/lit/ - Literature

>>11193663
“I’m a brainlet with very strong opinions about science despite not being a scientist”

Darwinism is not so much a scientific theory as it is an assumption of a reductionist materialist worldview. It simply has to be true in some form and so even though countless ad hoc hypotheses need to be invented in order to save it no one dares question the dogma.

>>11193683
>le hurr dur, he doesnt even have pictores wearing a lab coat like REAL SCIENTIST like Bill Nye and such

science today is a total joke. also, Popper a brainlet?

>>11193696
>reductionist materialist worldview

good call, its a very simple theory, you just claim "it evolutionary adaptation", no different than God made it that way level of hypothesis. Offers literally 0 predictability.

Feyerabend called the nuscience bs decades ago, how big of a brain was he?

>>11193698
>Popper a brainlet?
absolutely, falsificationism is a meme
>dur hurr science is a joke because muh billl nye
guess you’re one too

>>11193696
>darwinism isn’t a scientific theory
>no I haven’t taken a biology class since high school lol why bother?

>>11193751
>>11193746
>absolutely, falsificationism is a meme

You only say that because you have an evolutionary demon inside you.

>>11193746
>science is a joke because muh billl nye

nope, science today IS a joke.

>>11193760
>dude look at my twitter screenshots
/pol/-tier

>>11193663
its impossible to falsify darwinism

>>11193764
you dont think that there are certain "problems" with todays attituted towards science and science attituted towards itself?

>>11193746
>falsificationism is a meme

>>11193768
even popper stopped believing this once he asked someone who actually knew what they were talking about

>>11193773
>today’s attitude toward science
I don’t care about redditors
>science attitude toward itself
name one

>Gödel’s theorem refutes Hilbert and by extension Popper

>Gödel's theorem cant be refuted or falsified

who wins?

>>11193779
>even popper stopped believing this once he asked someone who actually knew what they were talking about

and dare I ask you, based on what revolutionary argument did he changed his views?

an observer might think he just conformed to the current scientific dogma. intellectually cucked out basically.

>>11193783
>name one

dogmatism.

>>11193794
>an observer might think he just conformed to the current scientific dogma. intellectually cucked out basically.
a poorly-read observer prone to conspiratorial thinking might
>Dogamtism
Elaborate.

>>11193793
not sure, but in the end evolution is a circular and shitty paradigm with zero value in predictability.

>>11193805
>a poorly-read observer prone to conspiratorial thinking might

then elighten me, what has changed Poppers mind? Ive also heard he changed his mind, but never heard on what basis.

>Elaborate.

Exibit 1. :your own responses in this thread

Feyerabend was right.

>>11193818
I don’t know which of the many ways of falsifying evolution convinced popper, you should read him and find out
>Exibit 1. :your own responses in this thread
so dogmatism = scientific literacy

>>11193794
oh no, dogmatism towards the actual tangible material truth! the horror!

so still nobody brought up an argument to falsify darwinism

>>11193843
>I don’t know which of the many ways of falsifying evolution convinced popper

there are none. he cucked out. gotta keep the proffesorship.

>>11193844
>the actual tangible material truth

I FCK LOOOOOVE SCIENCE

>>11193849
suprise, suprise...

every scientific theory functions in a way it can be disproven if certain facts or theory come out.
Meanwhile, evolution, while being the current paradigm, seems entirely unfalsifiable (Poppers prerequisite for scientific theory). like the test for real witch - If she dies she is probably a witch, if she survives she isnt.

Example 1: if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior). That kind of logic should also apply to human races so if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.

Example 2: "useless human body parts". Appendix and wisdom teeth are considered an evolutionary relic...until few years ago when appendix was discovered to be very usefull for keeping gut bacteria. Wisdom teeth? Idk I still have them.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm

In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards.
discuss.

example of pseudoscientific thinking inspired by evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QDoMaPOqi4

>>11193859
>there are none
oof

>>11193873
another person who hasn’t taken a biology class since high school

>>11193889
You only defend such a Catch 22 theory because you have an evolutionary demon inside you.

>>11193793
You have no idea what Gödel proved but you pretend you do.

>>11193711
Are you the dude shilling Popper? Feyerabend wasn't such a fan of falsificationism.

>>11193751
I'm not sure why you think my post has anything to do with biology.

>>11193663
popper claim that quite many times, although he changed his proposition in later days. But IF some fundamentalist fan of popper exists in somewhere in earth, they would think Darwinism is not a science, as if it were psychoanalysis or marxism.

>>11193873
>>11193696
>>11193711
>>11193894
Why do religionposters always sound schizophrenic?

Why are so many brainlets itt trying to assert that Popper didn't believe in evolution? He absolutely did, and even created his own evolutionary model. Are creationists so pathetic they have to deliberately misrepresent peoples' positions to have any credibility whatsoever?

>>11193908
>Feyerabend wasn't such a fan of falsificationism.

correct. He still called bs on evolution cultists.
Where is his quote from the pic from?

>>11193920
>popper claim that quite many times, although he changed his proposition in later days

and presented 0 arguments for that dramatic change (=he cucked intellectually).

> Darwinism is not a science, as if it were psychoanalysis or marxism.

interestingly, all 3 of them are garbage catch 22 reasoning. Very popular also, how weird, how queer!

>>11193927
>Why do religionposters always sound schizophrenic?

that is EXACTLY what a persons obessesed with evolutionary demon would say.

>>11193663
I get the same impression (I think). Virtually no predictions of evolution are testable.

We can observe genetic mutation, but can't realistically observe it leading to adaptations.

People shit on evolutionary psychology for being 'just so' stories, but so is literally everything in evolutionary theory.

This is coming from someone still thinks it's true.

>>11193711
He is Diogenes of PhilosophyofScience. Don't fetishizing him. He didn't do anything except doing masterbate on his incommensurability theory that he stole from Kuhn

>>11193935
>that Popper didn't believe in evolution?

pls present ANY evidence that he did otherwise I might think that you only defend such a Catch 22 theory because you have an evolutionary demon inside you...

>>11193941
>evolutionary psychology

that is such a notorious bag of rubbish, dont get me started.

>>11193937
>changing your opinion is getting cucked
this is why it's safe to disregard any and all conservative """thought"""

>>11193904
or you could just read Jean-Yves Girard like me

>>11193908
>I'm not sure why you think my post has anything to do with biology.
it doesn’t, that’s the problem

If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:

1) "evolutionary adaptation" or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"

2) or if you dont have a certain body part "it died because of evolution", or find a certain fossil "I told you so I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE"

same with homosexuality and evolutonary psychology >>11193941
:
1) disgenics since it doesnt procreate and it diminished the chances of survival
2) EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION towards overpopulation of Earth

Im not even memeing, this shit is discussed
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-is-homosexuality-natures-population-control-4/

its almost a panteistic view of the world where nature has a spirit and controls iteself

>>11193963
>changing your opinion is getting cucked

if you dont have arguments to back up the solution to cogntive dissonance, yes.

>>11193955
>And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work

>When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory—that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

>My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.

>>11193937
>>11193859
>>11193794
This shit is not science in any reasonable sense of the word. It has no relations to the scientific ideal, that is, the pursuit of truth. In a similar way you can post some deranged midwestern American cult calling themselves 'Christians'

>>11193980
t. never taken a biology class

>>11193980
> the scientific ideal, that is, the pursuit of truth

>>11193969
>Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection

>natural selection

Natural selection was a thing for milleania, its observable, demonstrable and FALSIFIABLE...unlike 4.5 billion years of evolution.

and natural selection phenomenon proves creationism as much as evolution.
also
>and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

Not once demonstrated, Popper sounds like someone is holding a gun to his head here.

>>11193980
those are not outliers my friend.

>>11193983
I'm talking about the pictures posted.
Speaking of the biology class, I have no idea why everyone is so obsessed with Darwin, while evolutionary theory changed very considerably since his times.
>>11193990
Everything else is not science. That would lead to much of modern """science""" not actually being science, but don't we already know this.

>>11193980
>scientific ideal, that is, the pursuit of truth.

*government grants and Ted talk

>>11193995
lol

>>11193966
Whether darwinism is true or not wasn't my point but that its utility as a paradigm is treated as something more than just that. It's elevation to unassailable dogma is the cancer of scientific development.

>>11194001
sorry, dealing with the retards must’ve damaged my reading comprehension. you’re right on all counts.

>>11194015
>It's elevation to unassailable dogma
Fortunately that only exists in the minds of creationists and other ideologues

>>11193995
>those are not outliers my friend
In the same way there are few true Christians among those who call themselves so, there are few true scientists. You may say it's a matter of definitions, and what I describe is not science but something else. The point still holds, though, in that science as a phenomenon has a set of positive ideals (combined with a positive metaphysical program), and a lot of shit that grew around that. You may look at the shit, and it will be numerous and smelly. But let's not forget the existence of the ideals and people who follow them.

>>11194019
>creationists and other ideologues

man these creationist, really are all over the place in universities and stuff

>>11193698
Karl Popper is a brainlet.
"Darwinism" is not the science of today. It is and especially its implications and applications for progressing the human race are rejected for fear of political correctness.
Popular science from your "i fucking love science" website and your pic related isn't science, you moron. It's a rigid dogmatic belief system that merely serves to reinforce neoliberal humanist notions.

Karl Popper is one of the most overrated pseuds. The only reason why he is even relevant is because he pushes the open society and the "inherent good" of democracy type nonsense that universities love.

You can gauge someone's intelligence by morphological features. Look at his face, look how close together his eyes are.
His skull is smaller than the average person. Brain size is correlated to intelligence, especially the prefrontal region.

Piss-popper was raised in a rich household, with urbanite liberal parents who gave him constant pats on his back his entire life. His dad actually was a major pseud himself and really pushed it on his son to read and be scholarly despite not being cut out for it.
>oh boy honey you should go to university, dad really wants you to go!
>uhhh i want to study the mind!
>here let me tie your shoes!
>yeah son, you're very smart go get a doctorate! I'll donate to the university to make sure you're slated to get in and get

I hate this charlatan and all his works. He's not a philosopher, much less a psychologist. He's a total fraud, and anyone who takes the prolific refuse of this man seriously, needs to jump off a cliff.

>>11194019
lol, what world do you live in? Try to question it and you'll get the modern equivalent of a burning at the stake.

>>11194049
>believes in phrenology
>calls others brainlets

>>11194057
hahahahahahaha you fucking pseud, you realize that no one even believes in Darwinism anymore? You know why? Because it was put under scientific inquiry and modified where found lacking. Darwin isn't viewed as an unquestionable prophet you dumb christposter.

>>11194049
>You can gauge someone's intelligence by morphological features. Look at his face, look how close together his eyes are.
His skull is smaller than the average person. Brain size is correlated to intelligence, especially the prefrontal region.
>Phrenology

Good one anon

>>11194035
>and other ideologues
no one cares about le reddit science man
>>11194057
you will not be burned, though you will probably be bullied by people who know what they’re talking about

>>11194031
that shit doesnt indeed belong in science, but that means 80%

>>11194049
>Popular science from your "i fucking love science" website and your pic related isn't science, you moron. It's a rigid dogmatic belief system that merely serves to reinforce neoliberal humanist notions.

no true scotsman.

NEWSFLASH=evolution is a Catch 22 garbage, like marxism/hegelianism, psychoanalisis and other post-christian bad intellectualism

>>11194049
said by some 4chan christian shitposter who unironically used phrenology as an argument against popper

>applying views of a philosopher that has been dead for 24 years to contemporary science
jesus fucking christ /lit/

>>11194076
>only people that agree with ME are intellectuals!
>he says, after spending an hour arguing on a chinese videosharing site.

>>11194067
>Because it was put under scientific inquiry and modified where found lacking.
No shit, I thought it was obvious that I'm using darwinism in a very general sense.

>>11194076
just because you don't like pop science, it doesn't mean that evolution is untrue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yybsSqcB7mE

please explain how natural selection is an incorrect explanation for the phenomena as observed in the video.

examples of unfalsifiable claims:

>Jesus will come back soon
>"Im not a racist. Racist confrmed, only a racist would deny that he is racist"
>"I dont hate women." "Mysoginists confirmed, only a hater indoctrinated by institutional mysog would so passionatly deny his hate for wammen."
>Catch 22 - too crazy to fly therefore ideal for a pilot


>>11194067
>You know why? Because it was put under scientific inquiry and modified where found lacking.

its suprisingly modifiable, almost too modifiable and too convinient, almost to good to be falsifiable. great science isnt it?

>>11194109
>please explain how natural selection is an incorrect explanation for the phenomena as observed in the video.

who said it wasnt? problem is that natural selection=/=evolution

>>11194110
>if you modify a theory it isn’t science anymore
this is the effect reading popper has on people. tragic.

>>11194117
do you belive that Jesus is coming back soon?

>>11194110
Not an argument. And no one has been arguing that "4.5 billion years of evolution" or whatever you're taking issue with is falsifiable. Not falsifiable /= not true.

>>11194115
natural selection is evolution though...

>>11193859
>Good science requires falsifiable predictions
>Also positivism is a stupid meme dogma
This board is for 18+ buddy. You aren't nearly as clever as you think you are

>>11194127
do you belive that Jesus is coming back soon?

this theory already predicted
>globalization of culture
>advent of wordlwide political organizationS
>spread of christianity to the biggest religion in the world

but is it a scientific theory?

JESUS
E
S
U
S

>>11194130
>natural selection is evolution though...

natural selection is necessery but not sufficient proof for evolution, you should know that.

>>11194115
>natural selection=/=evolution
Try attending a high school, it's likely expected in your country

>>11194142
it's remarkable how you fail to grasp the inductive nature of natural selection evidence provides for the evolutionary theory.

>>11194130
He's a creationist, from what I can gather he's mad that scientists believe that life evolved from simple organisms that existed billions of years ago because that's not falsifiable. A real brainlet position to have, because NO statement concerning the past is falsifiable. For example, I'm going to assert that OP never made this post and that it was God that willed it to exist on the 4chan servers. You literally can't disprove this.

The Darwinists in the thread are struggling

>>11194142
No? Again no one claimed it was scientific, assuming your definition of scientific requires falsifiability. Though I suspect that you're deliberately forcing the word "scientific" because you know "unscientific" has negative connotations.

>>11194161
It is difficult to explain concepts to morons who refuse to change their mind in any circumstance, yes.
hint: I'm not talking about the "darwinists"

>>11194141
>This board is for 18+ buddy. You aren't nearly as clever as you think you are

you are full of hate towards me only because you have an evolutionary demon, so I cant take your ramblings seriously.

>>11194147
>>11194149
>I observe that human height rises until late puberty which means it will rise to the end of ones life.

brilliant methodology.

>>11194162
>Though I suspect that you're deliberately forcing the word "scientific" because you know "unscientific" has negative connotations.

Idk about that, but Im telling you that Jesus is coming back soon for which I presented EMPIRICAL proof, do you belive that Jesus is coming back soon and that we should make TV ed shows about that?

>evolution and the divine are mutually exclusive

brainlet dichotomy for brainlets

>>11194155
It's little more scientific than the Orphic myth. Evolutionism is just secular man's creation narrative.

>>11194169
brilliant terrible analogy.

>>11194184
>Evolutionism is just secular man's creation narrative.

and not a new one, Ancient Greeks belive that life came out of water.

>>11194175
>for which I presented EMPIRICAL proof
You didn't though.

>>11193849
Original darwinism is incoherent because it doesn't mutation tbqh.

No shit that a scientific dogmatism is a form of creative narrative. However, the major difference is that scientists are actually trying to find the truth rather than just making it up.

>>11194198
funny how "all life originates in the quantum void" is just a scientific way of speaking about the Tao, or Chaos, or ginnungagap

people intuitively and symbolically understood these truths thousands of years ago

>>11194193
Zeus casting his lighting into the Titans and man arising out of the inanimate mud as an accident is abiogenesis in different language.

>based on EVOLUTION MAFS AND SCIENCE we realized that intelligence is important in survival and it should rise in the future

oh, looks like Evolution went the other way and we became dumber to adapt, isnt Evolution brilliant, it controls our Mother Earth.

PRAISE EVOLUTION
REJOICE IN THE INFINITE WISDOM OF EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTIBILITY

>>11194215
You've lost it friendo, you're other posts at least contained some shred of logic, however flawed. This one is just nonsensical.

>>11194226
*your, fuck.

>>11194215
>assigning telos to evolution
ok. you can go watch lectures on evolution on youtube for free. there is no shame in admitting that you just don't get it.

>>11194226
>This one is just nonsensical.

maybe you are not smart enought to understand that evolution has no predictable value and that its actually retroactive mythology...unlike genuine theories.

>>11194237
>ok. you can go watch lectures on evolution on youtube for free

>next step in evolution
>mankind is evolving towards..
>homosexualtiy is adaptation towards overpopulation

>>11194248
lmao BTFO

>>11194184
here is another person who has never studied biology, probably even at the high scho level

evolution theory correctly predicts that natural selection determines the outcome of any given generation for the subsequent population genetics. in this case, if being dumber is the fittest trait, then so it is.

>>11194238
>evolution says that populations change over time
>a population changes over time
>"hahahaha evolutionists BTFO"
What did he mean by this?

>>11194067
>>11194068
>muh phrenology
Appearance and morphological features are strong predictors of intelligence:

>Perceived Intelligence Is Associated with Measured Intelligence in Men but Not Women
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081237

>Neuroanatomical correlates of intelligence
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000688?via%3Dihub

Although, I'm dealing with Popper faggots, so, no science on the matter really proves anything to them.
They are total denialists that think "dude democracy!" "dude, let's take a step back and think about that, I mean, let me take you out to deep water with my pages of senseless drivel while taking the high ground of an erudite academic despite not even understanding blah blah blah!"

By the way, phrenology was never disproved either.
It was always controversial because people hate the idea that intelligence and things like it are biologically predetermined. It later fell totally out of fashion as humanism become the norm.
This left a dead-zone in science for a number of years and it remains to this day because people don't want to be called racists.
>>11194091
>Despite the old adage not to 'judge a book by its cover', facial cues often guide first impressions and these first impressions guide our decisions. Literature suggests there are valid facial cues that assist us in assessing someone's health or intelligence, but such cues are overshadowed by an 'attractiveness halo' whereby desirable attributions are preferentially ascribed to attractive people.
Hmmm.
It's almost like facial cues indicate something, as if you can tell someone isn't intelligent if they look like a fucking retard.

What a fool you are. Nothing in my post is "Christian". You're obviously upset that someone demolished your idol, Karl Popper. I stripped him of all his pretentiousness and exposed him for the worthless pathetic pseud he is.

>>11194255
>here is another person who has never studied biology, probably even at the high scho level

here is another person who hasnt even read the Bible nor does he belive in Jesus Christ

>>11194260
>in this case, if being dumber is the fittest trait, then so it is.

funny how it can go both ways and its always correct, such a great theory isnt it?

>>11194237
>>11194248
Ah, the good old motte and bailey of the evolutionists.

>>11194265
how about you actually try to argue about popper's points, rather than about his genetics?

>>11194265
>2018
>denying spiritual physiognomy

this is why the scientism establishment is helmed by bugmen

>>11194268
It's not "going both ways", YOU are the one that's made a value judgement on intellect always being a positive trait, insofar as reproduction is concerned.

>>11194268
please tell me why being dumb cannot be an adaptive trait for natural selection EVER. it is context dependent based on the temporal immediate ecology.

>>11194265
you are correct about phrenology, modern neuroscience just backs it up...Poppers politics were shit tier also, unlike insightfull idea of falsifiability.

>>11194279
>YOU are the one that's made a value judgement on intellect always being a positive trait

what judgements if any does evolution make? >>11194248

>>11194280
>please tell me why being dumb cannot be an adaptive trait for natural selection EVER

is being unhealthy adaptive? sure you can claim at least that?


TACTICAL NIHILISTIC FAGGOTS IS WHAT YOU ARE

>>11194297
dumb != unhealthy.

what the fuck is going in your head.

>>11194297
>what judgements if any does evolution make?
Evolution is an abstract process, so it doesn't make any judgements. I have no fucking idea what you're criticizing in that other post, if it's a retarded youtube video I have no interest in debating it as it probably is retarded.

>>11194297
>insightfull idea of falsifiability.
it’s an elementary school conception of science

2:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPC47qMJVg

WE ARE EVOLVING IN A MULTICULTURAL TOLERANT SOCIETY

WE ARE NOT JUST RANDOMLY CHANGING WE ARE EVOLVING EVOLUTION GUIDES US

PRAISE HEGEL
PRAISE THE INFINITE EVOLUTIONARY WISDOM

>>11194319
take you lithium, you forgot your dose this morning.

>>11194319
don't lump based hegel with this garbage

>>11194305
>dumb != unhealthy.

intelligence is nothing more than optimal brain function, dont drink milk as an infant and tell me how smart youll be.

>>11194310
>Evolution is an abstract process, so it doesn't make any judgements.

so its like a religion?

>>11194335
>based hegel

that video together with Darwin, Marx and Fukuyama is nothing more than postmodern anti-intelelctual insanity.

>>11194329
>take you lithium, you forgot your dose this morning.

you have an evolutionary demon, I wont take it personally.

>>11194335
infact, Darwinism is historiosophy.

>>11194357
hegel isn't a teleological historicist, please stop

>>11194319
There seems to be something like an exoteric/esoteric distinction in the darwinist worldview. On the one hand they'll assert that there is no simple or complex, lower or higher, only the change and flux of what is an essentially random process, but on the other hand the narrative they present is exactly that: first you have the prebiological state where the absolutely simple organism arises out of inanimate matter and from there transforms into ever increasing multiplicity and complexity.

>>11194351
no. intelligence is far more complicated than "optimal brain function". a flatworm is definitely dumber than a human. yet, a flatworm definitely can be healthier than a human. health and intelligence are simply different and not comparable.

>>11194413
>On the one hand they'll assert that there is no simple or complex
nope

>>11194416
>intelligence is far more complicated than "optimal brain function"

you can predict the IQ based on ones DNA, its prime component is neural speed - better neural isolation ->faster brain signal -> higher IQ.

other than that, malnourishment in childhood kills IQ

intelligence=health=virtue

>>11194413
>There seems to be something like an exoteric/esoteric distinction in the darwinist worldview.

its postmodern chaos

What evolutionary benefit is there for becoming a more complex organism?

>>11194442
so, why are 99% of biomass are plants? last time I checked, plants don't have neurons. There is absolutely no basis in your claim of intelligence = health and that intelligence is a requirement for adaptive advantage in evolution.

>>11194442
>intelligence=health
no it does not otherwise athletes who lived to 100 and were illiterate would be intelligent. Hot models and beautiful milfs would be intelligent; all of these groups are overwhelming average (to below average) intelligence

>>11194447
Surviving/reproducing.

"intelligence" is a meme, g is a pseudoconcept that does not measure anything.
http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html

>>11194513
What specifically about being a more complex organism would make me more likely to survive and propagate my genes than a single celled organism?

>>11194413
>no simple or complex, lower or higher
nice equivocation fag

>>11194517
If you are complex it means you carry more genetic material e.g genes. And genes are the propagating agent of all living organisms.

Read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

>>11194521
That doesn't answer why I'd be more likely to survive and propagate

>>11194520
Replace or with and. People make mistakes.

>>11194523
it doesn't matter whether you're "more likely" to propagate than a 1-cell organism, the only thing that matters is that you're likely enough to propagate that you don't go extinct. Humans aren't more likely to propagate than cockroaches and will probably go extinct before them, that doesn't say anything about whether humans are likely to propagate or not.

>>11194526
no dipshit. simple != lower, complex != higher

>>11194523
Yes it does, because genes are literally why you have brown hair, or blue eyes, or are naturally muscular, or intelligent.

All of these things make you more likely to at least reproduce, if not survive, at least among humans.

>>11194534
that was not what he asked. you should stop pretending to know what you're talking about just because you read some meme book by some meme scientismfag

>>11194532
>simple != lower, complex != higher
I agree...

>>11194540
then it is pretty simple. evolution states that there are simple and complex organisms, but not that there are higher and lower organisms. that is a value judgement made on the outskirts of the actual theory.

>>11194542
From a darwinian perspective those are still human constructs imposed on what is ultimately a random chaotic process. It might be useful to make those distinctions in certain fields such as biology but they're purely conceptual.

>>11194538
>that was not what he asked.

Yes it was you faggot. Stop butting into a discussion you brainlet.

>>11194589
"simple" and "complex" are technical terms used to describe the organisms in terms of function, cell count, etc.

>>11194602
he asked
>What specifically about being a more complex organism would make me more likely to survive and propagate my genes than a single celled organism?
you answered
>brown hair, blue eyes, or [being] naturally muscular or intelligent [...] make you more likely to at least reproduce, if not survive, at least among humans
you overshotted his question by a landslide and your answer isn't even right for what you thought you were doing

>>11194657
>you overshotted his question by a landslide

No I didn't because all the things I answered are genetic expressions in human beings.

>>11194671
and none of that makes the human species more likely to survive than cockroaches.

>>11194671
Humans are not the most evolutionary successful organisms. Plants are.

>>11194697
>and none of that makes the human species more likely to survive

Yes it does. Do you really think genetic markers for heart disease makes a human being more likely to survive?

Also, I mentioned physical characteristics because a large part of human evolution is driven by female sexual selection, e.g what kind of cum they want in their pussy.

Literally read a book faggot.

>>11194725
>Yes it does
nope

>>11194725
>Do you really think genetic markers for heart disease makes a human being more likely to survive?
why would i think that? that's not even close to related to the discussion. are you okay?

>>11194754
>why would i think that?

We are talking about genetics and their influence on survival and reproduction.

Please pay attention retard.

>>11194749
Do you even have any arguments or are you just going to continue saying no u?

>>11194781
no, the original anon asked about the evolutionary advantages of becoming more complex than unicellular. you started rambling about muh wymyn or some garbage, probably because you're some /pol/ retard too far gone for rational thinking.

the real answer is there is no evolutionary "advantage" for being more complex. unicellular organisms are everywhere and are more numerous than most multicellular organisms, with no prospects of ever fading. the fact that complex organisms exist merely reflects that they can. it says nothing about how much "better" it is to be multicellular.

>>11194822
I didn't say it was "better" to be complex. I said it furthered survival and reproduction.

If it didn't further survival and reproduction, complex systems wouldn't exist. It's really that simple.

>>11194542
>>11194589
>>11194532
>>11194657
>>11194822
>>11194781
>>11194841
endless evolutionary semantic games, its such a great theory that you cant even define what is better or worse, a simple variable...

>>11194789
my argument is that the thing you said is factually inaccurate

>>11194858
And my argument is that you're a faggot that should stop talking.

>>11194853
>if it's not normative it's not science
embarrassing, even popper wasn't this dumb

>>11194863
nope

>>11194864
>normative

I knew you would go there, at least simple SCIENCE like IQ testing can clearly say that higher IQ is better, medicine can say that good health in humans consists of having 4 limbs, with evolution you cant even say how much limbs a human should have.

>>11194878
>at least simple SCIENCE like IQ testing can clearly say that higher IQ is better
fucking lol

>>11194878
>haha i knew you'd say something in response to my obvious retardation
wow you sure showed me
>higher IQ is better
not science

>>11194886
>>11194890
>look how good my theory is it cant predict anything so it cant be wrong

this is how *eddit came into being.

PRAISE TEE ETERNAL EVOLUTIOANARY WISDOM

>>11194909
>it cant predict anything
wrong

>>11194921
what organs on human body will die out?
what are vestigial organs on human body right now?

Ill help you with a pic.

>>11194909
Evolution predicts that information based matter systems changes over the time.

>>11194215
I like your other posts but this is a bit offpoint, scientists take care to note that natural selection doesn’t imply a purpose behind it or evolution is always towards something “better”, it’s just adaptation to the environment.

>>11193663
Okay you brainlets, here the deal

Everything goes through natural selection. Why does the christian bible ask you to have faith before love or other shit? Because other religions that didnt ask you to be a braindead sheep were all eliminated and never heard from again.1 Not because it had to be intentionally designed that way

It all works the same with all other things. Survival of the fittest.

>>11194093
its b8 only redditors and larpers will fall for

Darwinism is a post hoc fallacy

God is real. Reddit out.

>>11193941
>We can observe genetic mutation, but can't realistically observe it leading to adaptations.
that's because adaptations don't actually happen, they're reproductive sortings

>>11195211
>scientists take care to note that natural selection doesn’t imply a purpose behind it or evolution is always towards something “better”

I understand, technically evolution doesnt have a "telos" but they never go by that, you always retroactively (!) claim smth as more primitive or about to go to the dustbin of history (wisdom teeth, human appendix, dinosaurs etc.). Like less complex organism turns into more complex in ALL evolutionary claims.

If they really stick to their rationale, they should allow for the possibility that human kind could revolve back into less complex primates, but they never do that since its always about progress (sure, they never explicitly claim it so my reqest of higher IQ is technically off point).

Effectively what adapts is "better" and you should be able to predict right now (proactivly!) what will be able to adapt (we should expect to move to more complex organism based on current claim of how things went in the past), but since evolution is based on constant semantic games and retroactive thinking I didnt actually refute anything.

Jokes on them in the end.

>>11195338
>that's because adaptations don't actually happen, they're reproductive sortings

you mean environmental selection?
like high lactose tolerance in Scandinavians (since all humans have certain lactose tolerance)?

>>11193806
once we invented agriculture and therefore the ability to change our environment, our genetic traits quit being selected for better adaptation to our environment. We now change our world, not the other way around.
which is a long way of saying your pic is retarded.

>>11195358
"Survival of those that survive" to quote what Darwin actually said back in the day, there's a great deal of stochasticity involved in this kind of stuff.

>>11195349
But you present no actual arguments instead you intentionally make confusing statements and claim that it's just semantics to have a clearly defined and exact language, when it is infact crucial.

No one has claimed that we can't evolve back into primapes. Infact the opposite has been said.

>>11193955
Since you evidently don't believe in evolution, may I ask you in what do you believe, exactly? Or do you just shit on evolution for the lulz but don't actually believe in an alternative explanation of life?

>>11193806
What does this pic mean.....

>>11193967
>its almost a panteistic view of the world where nature has a spirit and controls iteself
You are right on that homosexuality as population control nonsense. Besides, aren’t female relations of homosexuals meant to be more fertile or some shit

>>11193663
bump

>>11195251
..w-whoa.

>>11194265
>muh correlations
yeah and that's why you are fucking retarded

>>11197305
awful

>>11197305
Eat shit you Karl Pooper lover. Your idol was irrefutably BTFOd, and you just keep dodging every shred of evidence against this hack.

>>11195499
>We now change our world, not the other way around.

what makes you think we cant evolve back into more primitive forms of agricultural societies?

>>11195623
>Since you evidently don't believe in evolution, may I ask you in what do you believe, exactly?

I seek for the truth and expose what turns out to be false.

>>11195529
>Survival of those that survive

semantic exercise, its historiosophy/mythology/ reverse thinking.

>>11197939
>Eat shit you Karl Pooper lover.

you hate Popper because of his politics or philosophy of science?

>>11193663
This man, in my country he is everything.

Based thread! Darwinism, global warming, and gravitationism are liberal brain washing tactics.

>>11199543
>This man, in my country he is everything.

care to expand?

>>11199620
>Darwinism, global warming, and gravitationism are liberal brain washing tactics.

THIS, you obviously dont have an evolutionary demon so you have a sane mind!

>>11200328
No, but just because of the image you posted.

>>11194265
>It's almost like facial cues indicate something, as if you can tell someone isn't intelligent if they look like a fucking retard

I can think of one counter-example. Paintings of David Hume suggest he looked like the product of two retards.

>>11193935
I won't even bother reading the rest of the thread, but the same people shilling Feyerabend itt are people who belive in IQ tests. We have "traditional christians" and whatever is trendy on /pol/ right now shilling for Feyerabend, think about this.

>>11193859
Haha you are so mad the people who produce useful knowledge also inconveniently disagree with you politically. Poor little boy.

>>11202385
>but the same people shilling Feyerabend itt are people who belive in IQ tests

and what seems to be the inconsistency there?

>>11203139
>the people who produce useful knowledge also inconveniently disagree with you politically

you live in a fantasy world. science stopped being about the pursuit of truth, now its goal is good PR for the customer paying for research.

some of you folks really are fucking morons. having """philosophers""" mangle scientific concepts with the inexatitude of human language is one reason Popper was a complete fraud.

>>11202385
>Feyerabend

that guy wasnt some intellectually dishonest college activist that SELECTIVLY called sci bs when it fits his agenda, like IQ group differences (that is why lefties apparently love Fey).
He guinly criticized bad phenoms in science and I havent heard one critique of IQ group difference testing from him.

Evolution predicts that population will change in allelic frequency.
>Population alleles change over time
Wow! Evolution doesn't predict anything! Untestable!

>>11203709
>scientists disagree with me because they’re all paid shills
how very convenient

>>11204199
>Evolution predicts that population will change in allelic frequency.

as does creationism.

>>11204211
>we should be uncritical towards science because the term scinetific consensus sounds more scientific that it is and they wear white lab coats and therefore cant be biased

Why is it so difficult for atheist to admit they have constructed their own religion based on the non-existence of a creator? They also have their own divine leader although I'm not sure if it's Musk now or still Dawkins.

>>11204220
who are you quoting?

>>11193967
You learned the evolutionarilly procest good

it was intended as a cryptic message to his publisher. he was trying to tell them not to print any of his attempts at creative writing.


>>11193663

>>11193760

science doesn’t work like that. It can’t become a joke, or become serious. you wouldn’t say >calculus is absurd right now. scientists are a different thing all together

>>11193663
He had a stroke after "scientific theory".

>>11194534
bacteria has it easier, why would they evolve?

lol the mods are such incompetent awful greedy faggots this belongs on /sci/ where it would be over in the first 10-30 replies of bio nerds ripping this person’s throat out. why are we subjected race and science autism?

He said that before the advent of neodarwinism, genetics and all of the good stuff.