"Survival of the fittest" favored crocodiles over early hominids. Does Alan?
Alan the anonymous writes:
According to evolution "survival of the fittest" the item that fits well with its environment (blends in) survives? So weakly defined item survives?
... (Snip)...Dr. Richard Stafford's idea of "assignment of definitions"; Chris Langan's idea of "conspansive duality": John Cramer's idea of "a universe made of handshakes" (offer wave, confirmation wave); and reminds of Christianity: as you measure, so you are measured; as you bind on Earth consider it bound in Heaven, as you loose on Earth, consider it loosed in Heaven; its all up to agreeing on space-time; everything made out of Love.
Besides the fact that all those are credited by Alan because they are famous on this forum rather
than being criticized by Alan because they make bold assertions of their own importance...
(which is a point that nobody should fail to register)
The passage that begins with a discussion of
"survival of the fittest" always turns me off.
We have come a long way since 1860 in bringing the phenomenon of evolution into better focus.
Alan, it's time to stop distorting what evolution really says as a theory.
"Fitness" in human or natural evolution is only relevant as a statistical term, in hindsight, and is by no means a value judgment by nature, God, or anyone else.
Natural evolution is not a precise few mechanisms but a pretty good explanation, still being investigated, of statistical genetic flows through 100s of millions of years.
Human evolution is "illogical artificial selection" based upon disinformation,
a mix of delusive cultural myths and
time and chance.
Again: "Fitness" in human or natural evolution is only relevant as a statistical term, in hindsight, and is by no means a value judgment by nature, God, or anyone else.
On another note:
If Alan prefers to address Aurino cordially after Aurino Souza fumes against the Bill of Rights of the United States of America, and make no attempt to defend the Rights of Man, then Alan shows his own Catholicism may be an endorsement of the Pope as a crime boss of a movement that, by this way of thinking, might try to further threaten the Bill of Rights of the United States.
If Aurino wants to incarcerate well-informed
white folks from North America like me because they call Aurino's criminal ranting for what it is, that is Aurino's problem, but it is also the problem of good rational persons. Good folks of color, all colors, know that kind of ranting has the potential to be corrosive to good order.