Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Why is public schooling in england of such low quality

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
polishyouth



Gender : Male Posts : 148
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Tall grass

PostSubject: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Wed Sep 10, 2014 4:41 pm

word12


Last edited by polishyouth on Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 934
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Wed Sep 10, 2014 6:46 pm

Quote :
Why is European Culture not celebrated in England

I can only speak to public education in the US, but...

The standard response is that we learn enough about European culture in History studies...As if the time spent learning about Europe(from a detached, "objective" perspective,lol) already takes up a large portion of students' time, so that "celebrating" European history is either redundant or racist... Whereas, the "small"(and how "unfortunate" this is, of course...) chunk of time devoted to minority culture is approached with much more zeal and emotional flavor, always the "celebration" of the poor and downtrodden that have "survived" the terrible odds(often imposed by Europeans), and now we are in the "lucky" position to learn and celebrate their cultural contributions,... ,   Like, the education of the heart is only focused toward "uplifting" and integrating minorities into an ever embracing Europe... But what is the heart of Europe then?  If the contributions of Europe have brought civilization to a point where it can be so "embracing" toward foreign cultures, then why is Europe not celebrated with the same emotional zeal?  People are only celebrating when they feel that they are behind a movement that is including/integrating but never when they discriminate... so it's all very moronic considering Europe is a bunch of different cultures all very discriminating in their own way.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:03 am

polishyouth wrote:
1. Why are public schools in england so poorly run in terms of education (both life skills and academic) and discipline?

I honestly think this has to do with the fact that the British public yo-yos on which political party rules pretty much every other or every third election. There is no time for consistency. Conservative education ministers tend to be more radical in their policies for education, whereas labour ministers kind of want a return to a classic idea of Britain with miners and all that stuff.

Combine that with the vacuous nature of popular culture today and you get a breeding ground for maladjusted youths with underdeveloped egos (that is, they are essentially narcissistic).

That is rather simplistic of me, I know, however, I think it is a key component.

Quote :
2. Is race mixing bad? If yes then why?
No, evolutionarily it is good. A population needs variation to be able to adapt. But there also needs to be pressures that remove useless adaptations. That is what is missing in today's accepting society. There has to be a filter.

Quote :

3. Is mass immigration dangerous for Europe and Europeans?

I don't think so. Just dangerous to certain ideological concepts that are resilient to change. That is, with all new populations come new ideas, and new ideas can be perceived as threatening to the established order. Cultures collide because they have crystallised around differing phenomena, they have different world views according to their own unique historical becoming. Individuals who are deeply embedded within the cultural apparatus, or spend their time hearing certain hateful ideological concepts repeated often will find it more difficult to adjust and accept people of different cultures.

Quote :

4. Is Islam a religion of hate? Are the great numbers of Muslims which are treated better than whites by UE governments dangerous?
I don't think it is. I think like most wars, the current war between 'Islamic extremists' and... 'western liberals' (?) is not about the religion at all. The religion is just one artifact that comes to represent one of the hemispheres in the war, and it allows people to assimilate the war into something they can understand. Historically there is precedence for a war between religions, so that narrative is easier for the masses to understand.

Quote :

6. Is it possible to see Hitler and the Nazi party as it and he really was? The same question applies to the periods in history which don't serve the liberal purposes.
Is it possible to have a fully objective understanding of a historical phenomenon? I don't think so. I think you always look at events and such with some experience behind you, that is, you always bring a structure of concepts with you. Whether you are a liberal or not, your perception will be altered according to your ideology.

Quote :

8. Does government control the higher education completely in England? What I mean is: If one wants to see things how they really are and become aware of the issues and dangers facing him and his people as well as his culture can he relay on official, government controlled education?

By Higher Education, do you mean university? I think there are limits to what you could submit as your thesis for your degree. However, Universities provide access to a lot of books that offer a wide range of views on a wide range of subjects. There is no real reason why you could not produce a good argument that might be considered in some way anti-liberal. However, I seriously doubt you would be able to submit a document that incited racism, hatred or terrorism (yes, those are liberal concepts) so, no, the individual could not rely on the government to produce his world view if he wanted an objective understanding of his culture and its place in the world. Even at university.

Quote :

11. Why is European Culture not celebrated in England but blacks keep on being mentioned and have their special week of culture (I'm fine with celebrating and acknowledging other cultures and ways of life but can't understand such situation). It is also very suspicious to me since there is no mention of Asians, Arabs etc. but only blacks, but they really haven't created anything interesting compared to other not mentioned cultures.

A lot of individuals in England don't attempt to go beyond the understanding of their close network of peers etc. They are born into a place with inherent racist views and they never outgrow them. They dislike Europe because they think Britain is somehow a pure place. They often rely on the fable of an Olde England, a world power, a place with only white British people. The truth is that Britain has been invaded countless times, ruled over by people from all across Europe. It is as European as they come, but because it is an island, its culture tends to be slightly more isolated in nature than mainland Europe. I think this detachment becomes emphasised in some cultural circles. It's probably why the culture in the Hebrides is so different to the culture(s) in London.

Quote :

12. Why is Mandela white folks hero If he is black, allowed for massacres of white farmers, was a dictator who created a corrupted government which made the SA situation much worse?
Guilt.

Quote :

14. Is it possible for an individual coming from poor background to have a visible impact on the reality which he lives in or is average folk really powerless?
Ideas can and do change the world.

Quote :

15. Are the conspiracy theorist (the Illuminati etc. I'm sure you know this type of folk) right?

It's probably too simple to say that there is one group overlooking every single aspect of the global scene, that the hierarchy is tied up neatly at the top. However, it goes without saying that somebody (a group) with the right kind of power can alter world events.
Back to top Go down
polishyouth



Gender : Male Posts : 148
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Tall grass

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:39 am

word12


Last edited by polishyouth on Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 934
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:28 am

polishyouth wrote:

I assume then that it isn't Europe that is responsible for being so open to immigration or new cultures then? So its impossible for people to celebrate the European culture (or as you said the mix of different sub-cultures) since they are in essence discriminating and only a country where everybody would be European could have celebrations since other people (who would be absent) wouldn't be discriminated and there would be only the feeling of being 'included' while celebrating European culture by the white folk?

No, Europe is responsible.

Part of diversity education is celebrating "differences" but only so far as to recognize the differences that bring us closer. Everyone is "unique" but at the same time, part of an all-inclusive whole. All celebrations of Europe must necessarily include various other races as far as marketing, as far as images are concerned... Even a non-prejudiced all-white marketing campaign that goes out of its way to show how it doesn't discriminate, is still considered racist... as the thinking is that they are only doing it as a cover.... The popular narrative really plays to and feeds off of frustration or projecting frustration onto any other narrative... i.e. someone who might favor strict immigration or support European ideals, is "frustrated" because they "can't" "break free from the past" or their views of the past are misguided, yet somehow, the popular narrative(with it's unconcern with the past) is the proper guide to understand the past and feeling "free" to "move forward" without being frustrated(and trapped)... so you can finally kick back and enjoy with everyone else....But even everything said here is easily absorbed by the system...


Quote :

Is it because there is no longer European culture in USA and thus this detached point of view or rather becuase the people who control education don't want to awaken the feeling of belonging in young whites which could lead to them uniting and becoming harder targets to manipulate and destroy?

The detachment is probably in part due to the nature of public education itself... It has to serve everyone and is more concerned with appealing to the lowest common denominator... it's easier to move everyone into their "role" when everything is so detached.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
polishyouth



Gender : Male Posts : 148
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Tall grass

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:17 pm

word12


Last edited by polishyouth on Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1521
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 30
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:03 pm

You have to understand that Europe is an occupied, defeated territory. What was defeated was the European sense of self and race as typified by the Germans. In order to prevent a race-based nationalism arising again it thus becomes necessary to deconstruct the concept of identity for Europeans - and only Europeans, as we are the most threatening in this context it would appear.
This is achieved by filling the European homelands with foreigners and by cultivating a masochistic self-hatred and self-loathing in the average European for his self and for his history; which he must atone for. It then becomes impossible for a European to articulate his identity without shame or even to be able to properly discern who is of his kind, as the term "his kind" has become so muddied.

Diversity means homogeneity is implicitly wrong. Tolerance means that eugenics are implicitly wrong. Multi-culturalism means that the indigenous culture should be displaced. And so forth.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:31 pm

MonoExplosion wrote:
polishyouth wrote:
1. Why are public schools in england so poorly run in terms of education (both life skills and academic) and discipline?

I honestly think this has to do with the fact that the British public yo-yos on which political party rules pretty much every other or every third election. There is no time for consistency. Conservative education ministers tend to be more radical in their policies for education, whereas labour ministers kind of want a return to a classic idea of Britain with miners and all that stuff.

Combine that with the vacuous nature of popular culture today and you get a breeding ground for maladjusted youths with underdeveloped egos (that is, they are essentially narcissistic).

That is rather simplistic of me, I know, however, I think it is a key component.

Quote :
2. Is race mixing bad? If yes then why?

No, evolutionarily it is good. A population needs variation to be able to adapt. But there also needs to be pressures that remove useless adaptations. That is what is missing in today's accepting society. There has to be a filter.


Quote :

3. Is mass immigration dangerous for Europe and Europeans?

I don't think so. Just dangerous to certain ideological concepts that are resilient to change. That is, with all new populations come new ideas, and new ideas can be perceived as threatening to the established order. Cultures collide because they have crystallised around differing phenomena, they have different world views according to their own unique historical becoming. Individuals who are deeply embedded within the cultural apparatus, or spend their time hearing certain hateful ideological concepts repeated often will find it more difficult to adjust and accept people of different cultures.

Quote :

4. Is Islam a religion of hate? Are the great numbers of Muslims which are treated better than whites by UE governments dangerous?
I don't think it is. I think like most wars, the current war between 'Islamic extremists' and... 'western liberals' (?) is not about the religion at all. The religion is just one artifact that comes to represent one of the hemispheres in the war, and it allows people to assimilate the war into something they can understand. Historically there is precedence for a war between religions, so that narrative is easier for the masses to understand.

Quote :

6. Is it possible to see Hitler and the Nazi party as it and he really was? The same question applies to the periods in history which don't serve the liberal purposes.
Is it possible to have a fully objective understanding of a historical phenomenon? I don't think so. I think you always look at events and such with some experience behind you, that is, you always bring a structure of concepts with you. Whether you are a liberal or not, your perception will be altered according to your ideology.

Quote :

8. Does government control the higher education completely in England? What I mean is: If one wants to see things how they really are and become aware of the issues and dangers facing him and his people as well as his culture can he relay on official, government controlled education?

By Higher Education, do you mean university? I think there are limits to what you could submit as your thesis for your degree. However, Universities provide access to a lot of books that offer a wide range of views on a wide range of subjects. There is no real reason why you could not produce a good argument that might be considered in some way anti-liberal. However, I seriously doubt you would be able to submit a document that incited racism, hatred or terrorism (yes, those are liberal concepts) so, no, the individual could not rely on the government to produce his world view if he wanted an objective understanding of his culture and its place in the world. Even at university.

Quote :

11. Why is European Culture not celebrated in England but blacks keep on being mentioned and have their special week of culture (I'm fine with celebrating and acknowledging other cultures and ways of life but can't understand such situation). It is also very suspicious to me since there is no mention of Asians, Arabs etc. but only blacks, but they really haven't created anything interesting compared to other not mentioned cultures.

A lot of individuals in England don't attempt to go beyond the understanding of their close network of peers etc. They are born into a place with inherent racist views and they never outgrow them. They dislike Europe because they think Britain is somehow a pure place. They often rely on the fable of an Olde England, a world power, a place with only white British people. The truth is that Britain has been invaded countless times, ruled over by people from all across Europe. It is as European as they come, but because it is an island, its culture tends to be slightly more isolated in nature than mainland Europe. I think this detachment becomes emphasised in some cultural circles. It's probably why the culture in the Hebrides is so different to the culture(s) in London.

Quote :

12. Why is Mandela white folks hero If he is black, allowed for massacres of white farmers, was a dictator who created a corrupted government which made the SA situation much worse?
Guilt.

Quote :

14. Is it possible for an individual coming from poor background to have a visible impact on the reality which he lives in or is average folk really powerless?
Ideas can and do change the world.

Quote :

15. Are the conspiracy theorist (the Illuminati etc. I'm sure you know this type of folk) right?

It's probably too simple to say that there is one group overlooking every single aspect of the global scene, that the hierarchy is tied up neatly at the top. However, it goes without saying that somebody (a group) with the right kind of power can alter world events.

There's already enough variation amongst the various races, hence further splitting into and amongst sub-races and how evolution has been observed to actually speed up as races diverged and populations increased (pressure).
Besides, race mixing is a gain for one an inferior race and a loss for the superior, in effect decreasing variation in both.
How do you not see this?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:38 pm

Hrodebert wrote:

There's already enough variation amongst the various races, hence further splitting into and amongst sub-races and how evolution has been observed to actually speed up as races diverged and populations increased (pressure).



Quote :

Besides, race mixing is a gain for one an inferior race and a loss for the superior, in effect decreasing variation in both.
How do you not see this?

It would produce new individuals with new genetic codes previously non-existent. It would not be a 'loss' for any race, nor a gain. I don't really understand what you mean by this. It's not like everybody would mix the exact same way. It would in theory produce new races (whilst not replacing the old, those can still exist at the same time, unless they prove to be inferior to the new breeds) made of certain aspects of others (some of which would be superior and some inferior, the inferior ones would die out in theory, but of course, as I said, there is not a filter in place really to prevent inferior genes from breeding within society).
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:36 pm

MonoExplosion wrote:
Hrodebert wrote:

There's already enough variation amongst the various races, hence further splitting into and amongst sub-races and how evolution has been observed to actually speed up as races diverged and populations increased (pressure).



Quote :

Besides, race mixing is a gain for one an inferior race and a loss for the superior, in effect decreasing variation in both.
How do you not see this?

It would produce new individuals with new genetic codes previously non-existent. It would not be a 'loss' for any race, nor a gain. I don't really understand what you mean by this. It's not like everybody would mix the exact same way. It would in theory produce new races (whilst not replacing the old, those can still exist at the same time, unless they prove to be inferior to the new breeds) made of certain aspects of others (some of which would be superior and some inferior, the inferior ones would die out in theory, but of course, as I said, there is not a filter in place really to prevent inferior genes from breeding within society).

So does intra-racial mixing, but the risk, given the duration and perpetuation of divergence, is less of a chance for devolution or disadvantageous traits.
Races and sub-races developed under pressure over an accumulated time where evolution takes place when superior genes are passed along, but not without memetic influence.
Just mixing doesn't produce a new race: an emerging race must obtain the disposition to survive and evolve.
Races, such as Negroid, are an archetype of this phenomenon of this: they cannot adapt without dependence on another race. Their entire existence is artificial: it has been one of being exploited and of unearned accolades, achievements, entitlements.
The ones that do progress above the average are typically admixed with a superior race or they have been memetically acted upon, but not enough to develop into a new sub-race, average.

It's is lawful that in Nature that for every loss there is a reciprocal gain, and vice versa.
Patterns such as regression toward the mean (e.g., two extremely intelligent parents won't necessarily produce an extremely intelligent offspring) suggests this, with a critical memetic (epigenetic) influence holding sway, as a result of institutional catering, aim, toward the disadvantaged.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:31 pm

Hrodebert wrote:

So does intra-racial mixing, but the risk, given the duration and perpetuation of divergence, is less of a chance for devolution or disadvantageous traits.

Devolution? That is not even a real thing. Things evolve, or they don't. They don't devolve.

Quote :

Races and sub-races developed under pressure over an accumulated time where evolution takes place when superior genes are passed along, but not without memetic influence.
Genes that are not superior but not so inferior as to cause an individual to die before being able to reproduce can also be passed along.

Quote :

Just mixing doesn't produce a new race: an emerging race must obtain the disposition to survive and evolve.
Mixing provides fertile ground for new variations. I think it's quite clear that the survival instinct is alive and well in most individual humans. I don't see many lemmings-like people. Well, maybe those suicide-bombers...


Quote :

Races, such as Negroid, are an archetype of this phenomenon of this: they cannot adapt without dependence on another race.

No race adapts without dependence on another race, hell, dependence upon another species even. I can't imagine how you envision the world. Is it just boxes of stuff stacked up where nothing ever moves between boxes?

Quote :

It's is lawful that in Nature that for every loss there is a reciprocal gain, and vice versa.
You know you have to explain things like that, right? you can't just say something is lawful and then not give examples or explain what you mean.

When a child dies, what is gained exactly?

Quote :

Patterns such as regression toward the mean (e.g., two extremely intelligent parents won't necessarily produce an extremely intelligent offspring) suggests this, with a critical memetic (epigenetic) influence holding sway, as a result of institutional catering, aim, toward the disadvantaged.
I kind of think you're saying that the education system is geared towards the lowest common denominator, which I would agree with to an extent. However, there are other patterns besides 'regression to the mean'. That's just selective thinking on your part.
Back to top Go down
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1521
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 30
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:28 pm

MonoExplosion wrote:
Devolution? That is not even a real thing. Things evolve, or they don't. They don't devolve.

So what word would be applicable to an instance where a genetic line, with an inherent predisposition for intelligence, combines with another genetic line without this predisposition?

Presumably this predisposition for excellence in a particular trait was selected for over many generations and through the elimination of inferior traits; in this context, the elimination of individuals or groups with a lower predisposition towards high intelligence. This trait evolved, through natural selection.

One can then say that to devolve in this context would mean the loss of that potential for high intelligence.

From a position of high potential to that of low potential, as determined by the individuals genetic distinctiveness: devolve.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:23 pm

MonoExplosion wrote:



Devolution? That is not even a real thing. Things evolve, or they don't. They don't devolve.

Right, there's no destruction, only construction...
C'mon, man.
Traits which are selected for that are disadvantageous; i.e., interracial mixing.

MonoExplosion wrote:

Mixing provides fertile ground for new variations. I think it's quite clear that the survival instinct is alive and well in most individual humans. I don't see many lemmings-like people. Well, maybe those suicide-bombers...

Only if said mixing is for superior elements.
You have this absolutist belief that variation is inherently superfluous; that any admixture is going to provide successful variation.

Then, you must be naive, giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you don't see the hierarchical differences in mental capacity/evolution.

MonoExplosion wrote:

No race adapts without dependence on another race, hell, dependence upon another species even. I can't imagine how you envision the world. Is it just boxes of stuff stacked up where nothing ever moves between boxes?

I cannot help that you are incapable of discerning interdependence from codependency, or independence from dependence.

MonoExplosion wrote:

you can't just say something is lawful and then not give examples or explain what you mean.
When a child dies, what is gained exactly?

When it comes to lawfulness, I expect not to have to state the obvious, although I know I should given the inability of people to think.
This pattern is followed down to every last cell and process; anabolic-catabolic interplay.
I have yet to see you reason one idea you have parroted on here.

I don't know, man, you tell me. What if the death of the child was a gain and something else was lost.


MonoExplosion wrote:

I kind of think you're saying that the education system is geared towards the lowest common denominator, which I would agree with to an extent. However, there are other patterns besides 'regression to the mean'. That's just selective thinking on your part.

Right, because I do not offer a comprehensive list of patterns, I selected one. Acute observation, dude.









Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:54 pm

Hrodebert wrote:
MonoExplosion wrote:



Devolution? That is not even a real thing. Things evolve, or they don't. They don't devolve.

Right, there's no destruction, only construction...
C'mon, man.
Traits which are selected for that are disadvantageous; i.e., interracial mixing.

You have a basic misunderstanding of evolution if you think that things devolve, that extinction is a form of devolution or that the loss of certain traits is somehow devolution. Those traits that are lost became superfluous to the survival of the species, and were bred out, either through their association with negative traits, or just sheer bad luck. That is not devolving but evolving according to different pressures.

It's really not hard. Evolution doesn't go backwards, but it doesn't go forwards either. That's why it's not a case of being a binary pair of terms. Evolution happens regardless of whether traits are gained or lost. Things that don't evolve either don't have to because the pressures on the individuals haven't changed, or aren't changed enough to cause the extinction of the individuals, or they don't evolve because they're dead.

[variation] + [population] + [filter] = evolution

Quote :

MonoExplosion wrote:

Mixing provides fertile ground for new variations. I think it's quite clear that the survival instinct is alive and well in most individual humans. I don't see many lemmings-like people. Well, maybe those suicide-bombers...

Only if said mixing is for superior elements.

No, it doesn't have to be for superior elements. Variation doesn't lead to success, necessarily. Variation is a prerequisite of evolution though. It can lead to positive change, or it can lead to a negative effect (or it can just sort of not have any real effect overall).

Quote :

You have this absolutist belief that variation is inherently superfluous; that any admixture is going to provide successful variation.

Then, you must be naive, giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you don't see the hierarchical differences in mental capacity/evolution.

I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion I have an absolutist belief that variation is inherently superfluous and that mixing will provide successful results. That is a very poor reading of my words. Almost like you're just trying to construct a straw man. But yeah, you can argue against that conception of evolution, hell, I'll join you in showing it to be erroneous.

Quote :

MonoExplosion wrote:

No race adapts without dependence on another race, hell, dependence upon another species even. I can't imagine how you envision the world. Is it just boxes of stuff stacked up where nothing ever moves between boxes?

I cannot help that you are incapable of discerning interdependence from codependency, or independence from dependence.

That isn't even a response.

Hrodebert wrote:

Races, such as Negroid, are an archetype of this phenomenon of this: they cannot adapt without dependence on another race. Their entire existence is artificial: it has been one of being exploited and of unearned accolades, achievements, entitlements.

I agree, negroids do not adapt without dependence. Just as any other race does not adapt in isolation. That doesn't say anything about my ability to discern between different forces of dependence but that your singling negroids out as an example is pointless.
Did you know that there is plenty of white-trash that has an artificial existence just as you describe?

Quote :

MonoExplosion wrote:

you can't just say something is lawful and then not give examples or explain what you mean.
When a child dies, what is gained exactly?

When it comes to lawfulness, I expect not to have to state the obvious, although I know I should given the inability of people to think.
This pattern is followed down to every last cell and process; anabolic-catabolic interplay.

I am probably going to enjoy your reasoning for this kind of thinking.
Personally, I have not yet reached a conclusion on whether the universe is a zero-sum game or not. You can put that down to an inability to think, or even just put it down to a person still willing to learn. It doesn't matter.

You are positing a Natural Law that everything balances out. That is a mighty big claim. I am very curious about what sort of examples you can give to support this claim. Consider me somebody who is unable to think, explain it to me.

does it only apply to physical things? only biological? Are ideas subject to the same law? what about values?

Quote :

I have yet to see you reason one idea you have parroted on here.
I guess that makes two of us then.
The ideas I have parroted:
1. Evolution occurs, devolution is not a real thing.
reason: Evolution is the name given to the changing state of individuals of a population over time. Whether they gain or lose traits.
2. Blacks and whites both depend on other races and species to survive, to adapt. We can discuss the more intricate details of these dependencies if you like.

Am I correct in understanding your position to be:
Blacks are only capable of being codependent (that is, exploited)
Whites (should I say 'superior races'?) are capable of being interdependent, codependent and independent?

Quote :

I don't know, man, you tell me. What if the death of the child was a gain and something else was lost.

I'm not constructing your argument for you. It's a simple question and one you should be able to answer. You should be able to deconstruct the death of a child so that each and everything (I still don't know if you include ideas in this conceptual law of yours) involved is shown to either grow or shrink exactly in proportion to one another because it's a natural law.

Does reciprocal in your initial statement mean the exact same value is returned when something is lost? What kind of value is 'reciprocated' in the gain when something is lost?

I can understand what you are saying in terms of equilibrium as applied to certain dynamic systems, but I just wonder about applying it as a universal law.

Quote :

MonoExplosion wrote:

I kind of think you're saying that the education system is geared towards the lowest common denominator, which I would agree with to an extent. However, there are other patterns besides 'regression to the mean'. That's just selective thinking on your part.

Right, because I do not offer a comprehensive list of patterns, I selected one. Acute observation, dude.

Hey, I just go on what you give me. If you want to act like a dick, then go ahead, this is the internet. I have no vested interest in you or your ideas.
I just like to point out that evolution theory doesn't mean that everything in a black person is inferior to a white person, and that actually, there is the possibility that mixing of individuals from different populations will provide variation in the gene pool which may or may not lead to evolution of different traits.

I mean, if you go right back, you'll even notice that I say that society hasn't got the filter it requires to produce real change in its population. But then, why would it? The structure as it is doesn't need too many intelligent people.

Also, with the current globalised state of the world, mixing is almost inevitable, that is, races are intermixing all the time. It's really just a matter of time until the population is homogenized. We should colonize Mars to kick start the evolution of mankind again.

Having said all that, I am more interested in your natural law of balance you posited now. I want to know more about how you came to that conclusion.


Last edited by MonoExplosion on Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:59 pm

apaosha wrote:
MonoExplosion wrote:
Devolution? That is not even a real thing. Things evolve, or they don't. They don't devolve.

So what word would be applicable to an instance where a genetic line, with an inherent predisposition for intelligence, combines with another genetic line without this predisposition?

Presumably this predisposition for excellence in a particular trait was selected for over many generations and through the elimination of inferior traits; in this context, the elimination of individuals or groups with a lower predisposition towards high intelligence. This trait evolved, through natural selection.

One can then say that to devolve in this context would mean the loss of that potential for high intelligence.

From a position of high potential to that of low potential, as determined by the individuals genetic distinctiveness: devolve.

I would just say that is still evolution. Evolution doesn't move towards one teleological goal, it moves towards many, and in different directions (metaphorically) according to pressures felt by individuals at different times.

I can see how if you value it according to the higher potential for intelligence being a requisite for the survival of the species, then sure, losing that may be seen as a negative (should be seen as a negative). However, objectively, it's not negative, it's just change.

Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't have filters that improve the general intelligence of a population, or that everybody should fuck everybody. But it is not nearly as negative to have members of different populations breeding to produce different genetic lines as it seems to be implied by some members here.
If it was really necessary for intelligence t be at a minimum for the species to survive (and supposing this is what you decided your goal was), then sure, just breed the intelligent people (regardless of race) and neuter the rest.

Otherwise, you should fuck who you find attractive and not be too concerned with what everybody else is doing.
Back to top Go down
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1521
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 30
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:59 am

Interesting. Therefore a movement towards excellence and a movement towards deficiency can be considered the same thing. Mutation, in whatever direction and with whatever effect, is considered evolution, with its positive connotations of progress and improvement over time. Whether eugenic or dysgenic.

Distinction, in the mind of the modern, becomes opaque through equivalencies. Therefore it becomes pointless to assign a value to natural processes, as objectively the universe has no inherent value and any effort of man to assign value is hubris.
Nihilism.

One can say whether they value particular traits and even whether they value a particular direction that random mutation and natural selection may take. This valuation arises through self-awareness, the organism considering itself, it's own peculiarities and projecting those into potential futures. An individual can also consider itself a member of a genetic grouping and extend that consideration into the potential future of that grouping.
One's values arise from one's own distinctiveness, one's own distinct becoming as an effect of the past; as a continuing and ongoing manifestation of past processes.
One can say that one's values arise from one's genetic distinctiveness. One can even say that one values one's genetic distinctiveness itself: that the urge to self-preservation, the urge to reproduce, to reproduce self, and what is alike to self, a Will to Power against death, is a triumphant self-valuing in the face of an uncaring universe.

One can go further and say that the eugenic desire to raise self, to elevate one's type is of value as it increases an individual's or groups potential in their given traits, these traits being what distinguishes the individual/group from others and expresses that individual/groups history, as a record of it's overcomings.

In any other age, these statements would be considered obvious and right. But nowadays stating the obvious becomes a revolutionary act precisely because acting in one's self interest is not obviously right, to the average. Much internalized shame must be overcome.

Evolution through natural selection selects for traits advantageous to the environment and circumstance.
Therefore, in this modern environment, intelligence, beauty, athleticism, ingenuity, creativity, self-sufficiency, heterosexuality, are all superfluous traits - as none of them are necessary for survival in an environment which has more in common with an ant hive than human.
So we can consequently conclude that "evolution" in this instance is moving away from the human (never devolving of course) and the developing organisms under consideration should not be considered "human" as such a distinction is being left behind; as indeed these organisms are leaving behind any trait that could identify them as human.

But is this modern environment entirely natural? Or is it the consequence of extended and profound human intervention on natural processes? The point where it can be considered an unnatural environment with unnatural selection?
At what point does humanity become circular, self-referential? At what point do natural processes and natural selection disappear to be replaced by a purely "human" artifice?
In a purely human artifice of unnatural selection, what direction is "evolution" taking, and what are the consequences?
Perhaps a huge population of dependent degenerates is advantageous. Quantity over quality. And no doubt through sheer statistical probability a random mutation may eventuate another Beethoven.... or even a Goethe or a Nietzsche. But at what cost and what likelihood that such potential could find fertile ground amongst such filth?
Infinity, monkeys, typewriters. It all reduces to absurdity.
Perhaps retards, cripples, the mentally deficient, those with inheritable diseases and such being facilitated to breed, thereby perpetuating their dysgenic effect on a grouping, is advantageous to this unnatural environment? Perhaps a particular race, noted for it's superlatve excellence in many traits, diluting it's genetic distinctiveness with other races, noted for their inadequacy in these traits.... perhaps this will eventuate a positive conclusion? Perhaps the loss of excellence has some hidden value to it? Perhaps good is actually bad?
And so the table-turning begins, as devolution continues.

apaosha wrote:
From a position of high potential to that of low potential, as determined by the individuals genetic distinctiveness: devolve.

Variation for the sake of variation: directionless, random. A rejection of what is alike to self, as a more profound rejection of one's own distinctiveness, ones own self. A move from distinctiveness, one identity among others, to a singular great identifier, applicable to all. Which the self can disappear into. The one, the whole, the universal. Human thus becomes meaningless as it encompasses everything, including the "environment".
A man can be molded, not just from clay but from dirt or shit or even toxic waste. Man not as a product of his past but as pure happenstance. A random occurrence, a matter of probability, ex nihilo, blank slate.

You're an average cunt, mono.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:06 am

MonoExplosion wrote:
I would just say that is still evolution. Evolution doesn't move towards one teleological goal, it moves towards many, and in different directions (metaphorically) according to pressures felt by individuals at different times.

I've heard this argument before, I can't speak to the history of the terms evolution and devolution, but just to take a look at both terms from a common modern standpoint, whatever the context, they're entirely valid as opposing states. So to speak of what is generally considered Darwinian evolution from a value-neutral standpoint, where supposedly it's inaccurate to speak of devolution, an opposing force to evolution, it's actually also inaccurate to speak of evolution as well, based on the term's common usage. The term adaptation would be more accurate. Therefore one may say life adapts to its circumstance with no conation of value.

But, once we have posited that life not only adapts, with survival being the sole factor, but life evolves, then the term devolve becomes entirely valid.

Quote :
I can see how if you value it according to the higher potential for intelligence being a requisite for the survival of the species, then sure, losing that may be seen as a negative (should be seen as a negative). However, objectively, it's not negative, it's just change.

Whether any given person posits it as negative or not, the objective fact is that intelligence can devolve just as it can evolve. Intelligence being the accumulation of a life forms receptivity to sensual input, and ability and will to create patterns out of it. This is an objective state that has evolved; in otherwords, has been developed slowly through natural processes, as in Darwinian evolution, and it certainly can devolve.

Basically, through out history, species and sub-species have evolved and devolved, generally evolution making them prosper and devolution leading to extinction, but perhaps surprisingly often the reverse was the case. What we see in present species is of course successful species, tracing their origins back to the early stages of life on earth, but no given species is necessarily at its most evolved state, nor is it necessarily at its most populous state, in fact the state of evolution and population doesn't always have a direct correlation.

Quote :
Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't have filters that improve the general intelligence of a population, or that everybody should fuck everybody. But it is not nearly as negative to have members of different populations breeding to produce different genetic lines as it seems to be implied by some members here.
If it was really necessary for intelligence t be at a minimum for the species to survive (and supposing this is what you decided your goal was), then sure, just breed the intelligent people (regardless of race) and neuter the rest.

Otherwise, you should fuck who you find attractive and not be too concerned with what everybody else is doing.

The fact is that is if suitability for survival was the only criteria for evolution, then one need forget about any potential concern for fate of the current breeding type that is humans (let alone one's own lineage), and instead simply trace human origins back to where they met extremophiles, and then be happy that even after a sever nuclear winter or asteroid collision our extremophile cousins will live on.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:16 am

apaosha wrote:
Interesting. Therefore a movement towards excellence and a movement towards deficiency can be considered the same thing. Mutation, in whatever direction and with whatever effect, is considered evolution, with its positive connotations of progress and improvement over time. Whether eugenic or dysgenic.

Distinction, in the mind of the modern, becomes opaque through equivalencies. Therefore it becomes pointless to assign a value to natural processes, as objectively the universe has no inherent value and any effort of man to assign value is hubris.
Nihilism.

You've misrepresented my words. I haven't said it's pointless to assign value, only that objectively there is no direction to evolution. And you make an interesting case in the next part for why values are not pointless, but a valid emergent phenomenon from the natural process of evolution.

Quote :

One's values arise from one's own distinctiveness, one's own distinct becoming as an effect of the past; as a continuing and ongoing manifestation of past processes.
One can say that one's values arise from one's genetic distinctiveness. One can even say that one values one's genetic distinctiveness itself: that the urge to self-preservation, the urge to reproduce, to reproduce self, and what is alike to self, a Will to Power against death, is a triumphant self-valuing in the face of an uncaring universe.

See this is interesting. The urge to self-preservation doesn't necessarily mean an inherent sense of value over and above other things, I don't think it logically follows that is the case anyway.
But the idea of values arising from genetic distinctiveness has some merit, though to ignore the cultural selective pressures placed on individuals in a population is probably a little reductive. I know you don't do that, but you don't seem to accept that self-preservation can mean coming to terms with and living responsibly with other races.
Even if you have a child with another white woman, your genetic heritage is no longer your own, your child inherits genes from its mother.

Quote :

One can go further and say that the eugenic desire to raise self, to elevate one's type is of value as it increases an individual's or groups potential in their given traits, these traits being what distinguishes the individual/group from others and expresses that individual/groups history, as a record of it's overcomings.  

In any other age, these statements would be considered obvious and right. But nowadays stating the obvious becomes a revolutionary act precisely because acting in one's self interest is not obviously right, to the average. Much internalized shame must be overcome.

See, you always have to identify with a group. You're just more selective about the boundaries you have for your group. I'm not convinced that I need to be concerned for the human species because some white people might have children with some black people. if anything, it might just produce the lower caste of people necessary to do the menial tasks allowing for the superior race to still feel superior (you know that your superiority is relative, right?)

Just imagine if those dumb races were removed and it turned out yours was now the dumbest race. But I guess so long as your self-preservation provides you with reason not to exterminate your own genetic line, it doesn't matter how dumb your ancestry was. You'll always produce what is successful.


Quote :
Evolution through natural selection selects for traits advantageous to the environment and circumstance.
No, it doesn't. It selects for traits that aren't disadvantageous. This is why there is no devolution.

Quote :

Therefore, in this modern environment, intelligence, beauty, athleticism, ingenuity, creativity, self-sufficiency, heterosexuality, are all superfluous traits - as none of them are necessary for survival in an environment which has more in common with an ant hive than human.
So we can consequently conclude that "evolution" in this instance is moving away from the human (never devolving of course) and the developing organisms under consideration should not be considered "human" as such a distinction is being left behind; as indeed these organisms are leaving behind any trait that could identify them as human.

I already said that modern society has lost many of the selective filters that would produce evolution, that is, man doesn't evolve in the modern social environment. And yes, I honestly think that isn't good, in terms of the species' survival.

Quote :

But is this modern environment entirely natural? Or is it the consequence of extended and profound human intervention on natural processes? The point where it can be considered an unnatural environment with unnatural selection?
At what point does humanity become circular, self-referential? At what point do natural processes and natural selection disappear to be replaced by a purely "human" artifice?
In a purely human artifice of unnatural selection, what direction is "evolution" taking, and what are the consequences?
Perhaps a huge population of dependent degenerates is advantageous. Quantity over quality. And no doubt through sheer statistical probability a random mutation may eventuate another Beethoven.... or even a Goethe or a Nietzsche. But at what cost and what likelihood that such potential could find fertile ground amongst such filth?
Infinity, monkeys, typewriters. It all reduces to absurdity.
Perhaps retards, cripples, the mentally deficient, those with inheritable diseases and such being facilitated to breed, thereby perpetuating their dysgenic effect on a grouping, is advantageous to this unnatural environment? Perhaps a particular race, noted for it's superlatve excellence in many traits, diluting it's genetic distinctiveness with other races, noted for their inadequacy in these traits.... perhaps this will eventuate a positive conclusion? Perhaps the loss of excellence has some hidden value to it? Perhaps good is actually bad?
And so the table-turning begins, as devolution continues.

Hahaha, very good. You can certainly argue well against a strawman.

Quote :

Variation for the sake of variation: directionless, random. A rejection of what is alike to self, as a more profound rejection of one's own distinctiveness, ones own self. A move from distinctiveness, one identity among others, to a singular great identifier, applicable to all. Which the self can disappear into. The one, the whole, the universal. Human thus becomes meaningless as it encompasses everything, including the "environment".
A man can be molded, not just from clay but from dirt or shit or even toxic waste. Man not as a product of his past but as pure happenstance. A random occurrence, a matter of probability, ex nihilo, blank slate.

You're an average cunt, mono.

Again, not what I said. Not at all what I said.
Variation for the sake of survival. A recognition that your identity is only one of many, and others may yet have advantages you can't fathom (or they may not).
I'm not saying there is one whole! I'm literally saying the opposite of that! I'm saying you need variation. You need difference. Maybe I need to say it differently: you need the ability adapt.
You're the one who is talking about eugenics!


Last edited by MonoExplosion on Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:28 am

Stuart- wrote:
MonoExplosion wrote:
I would just say that is still evolution. Evolution doesn't move towards one teleological goal, it moves towards many, and in different directions (metaphorically) according to pressures felt by individuals at different times.

I've heard this argument before, I can't speak to the history of the terms evolution and devolution, but just to take a look at both terms from a common modern standpoint, whatever the context, they're entirely valid as opposing states. So to speak of what is generally considered Darwinian evolution from a value-neutral standpoint, where supposedly it's inaccurate to speak of devolution, an opposing force to evolution, it's actually also inaccurate to speak of evolution as well, based on the term's common usage. The term adaptation would be more accurate. Therefore one may say life adapts to its circumstance with no conation of value.

But, once we have posited that life not only adapts, with survival being the sole factor, but life evolves, then the term devolve becomes entirely valid.

Evolution is the name given to the series of adaptations through which species emerge from one another. Whether this is through the loss or gain of a trait.

Here, I'll make it simple for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28biology%29

Devolution is based on a fallacious understanding of evolution.

Quote :

Quote :
I can see how if you value it according to the higher potential for intelligence being a requisite for the survival of the species, then sure, losing that may be seen as a negative (should be seen as a negative). However, objectively, it's not negative, it's just change.

Whether any given person posits it as negative or not, the objective fact is that intelligence can devolve just as it can evolve. Intelligence being the accumulation of a life forms receptivity to sensual input, and ability and will to create patterns out of it. This is an objective state that has evolved; in otherwords, has been developed slowly through natural processes, as in Darwinian evolution, and it certainly can devolve.

It can be bred out. But in doing so would only be bred out as it has become superfluous to the survival and needs of the population which developed a higher intelligence anyway.

It's pretty fucking simple. If you want an intelligent race, then sure, produce a selective breeding program that selects for the high potential for intelligence. Otherwise, intelligence will be selected against as and when it becomes a negative trait to be unintelligent [WHICH WE AGREE THAT IS UNLIKELY IN MODERN SOCIETY BECAUSE MODERN SOCIETY IS RETARDED].

Quote :

Basically, through out history, species and sub-species have evolved and devolved, generally evolution making them prosper and devolution leading to extinction, but perhaps surprisingly often the reverse was the case. What we see in present species is of course successful species, tracing their origins back to the early stages of life on earth, but no given species is necessarily at its most evolved state, nor is it necessarily at its most populous state, in fact the state of evolution and population doesn't always have a direct correlation.

It's simple. Things evolve because pressures kill off the shitty versions of those things leaving behind ones that just happened to be well adjusted. There is no 'most evolved' state, that is another misconception. Things can be more nuanced, that is, they can have evolved to fit a more specialised role within a niche within an environment and therefore be more susceptible to feeling changes within the environment (and not necessarily being able to adapt to the new pressures) but for something to stop evolving means either:
they live in a desert with no changes in the environment or they are dead.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:53 am

You might be absolutely right that mixing races is only a bad thing for white people, but you can't do it based on a basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. That's all.

Your argument is not sound.
Back to top Go down
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:09 pm

From the link you provided:

"Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that species can change into more "primitive" forms over time. In modern biology the term is redundant: evolutionary science deals with selection or adaptation that results in populations of organisms genetically different from their ancestral forms. The discipline makes no general distinction between changes leading to populations of forms less complex or more complex than their ancestors, and in such terms the concept of a primitive species cannot be defined consistently. Consequently, within the discipline such a word is rarely useful." - Wikipedia

Going back to the original question concerning life, it isn't primarily why life is simply one way rather than another, it's how life managed to obtain the complexity it has. If the question was the former, then one would only need to speak of internal adaptation due to external pressures - either a species adapts as is needed to survive or doesn't. But, being that the high level of complexity has always been the dominate question, the theory of evolution doesn't just stop there, but speaks to how this adaptation leads to increased complexity. Complexity of course being something that can be reversed.

The term evolution as I've always known it and applied it in diverse contexts, not just biologically, has always related to the latter issue. If one were to present an argument of the historical contexts of the term evolution (for example how, if at all, was it used before Darwin), then I could possibly be persuaded to concede the term cannot be considered to have an opposing term concerning biology, but the fact that complexity and quality can increase and decrease in species due to external pressure would remain the same.

MonoExplosion wrote:
It can be bred out. But in doing so would only be bred out as it has become superfluous to the survival and needs of the population which developed a higher intelligence anyway.

If it's being bred out, meaning with the stated or willful intent of certain people controlling the breeding of others, then those people may do so for whatever reason they choose. What happened in the last several thousand years, and in recent times specifically, is a more unconscious devolving, or decreasing in quality if you will, of certain groupings of people. Hardly was it due to the actual stated intent of "human breeders", but the pressures of civilization.

For groupings of humans' environment to change from a more natural state to that generally constituting a civilization and then to genetically adapt with that environment (generally to devolve/decrease in quality), is in a sense just another internal adaptation to external forces, but there is a key difference in that civilizations generally produce unnatural environments, making the adaption themselves also unnatural.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:42 pm

I am going to assume you didn't read any further.

Quote :

The idea of de-evolution is based at least partly on the presumption that "evolution" requires some sort of purposeful direction towards "increasing complexity". Modern evolutionary theory, beginning with Darwin at least, poses no such presumption and the concept of evolutionary change is independent of either any increase in complexity of organisms sharing a gene pool, or any decrease, such as in vestigiality or in loss of genes.

Quote :
Early scientific theories of transmutation of species such as Lamarckism and orthogenesis perceived species diversity as a result of a purposeful internal drive or tendency to form improved adaptations to the environment. In contrast, Darwinian evolution and its elaboration in the light of subsequent advances in biological research, have shown that adaptation through natural selection comes about when particular heritable attributes in a population happen to give a better chance of successful reproduction in the reigning environment than rival attributes do. By the same process less advantageous attributes are less "successful"; they decrease in frequency or are lost completely. Since Darwin's time it has been shown how these changes in the frequencies of attributes occur according to the mechanisms of genetics and the laws of inheritance originally investigated by Gregor Mendel.

Quote :
People thinking in terms of devolution commonly assume that progress is shown by increasing complexity, but biologists studying the evolution of complexity find evidence of many examples of decreasing complexity in the record of evolution. The lower jaw in fish, reptiles and mammals has seen a decrease in complexity, if measured by the number of bones. Ancestors of modern horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single hooved toe. Modern humans may be evolving towards never having wisdom teeth, and already have lost most of the tail found in many other mammals - not to mention other vestigial structures, such as the vermiform appendix or the nictitating membrane.

A decrease in complexity is not necessarily a devolution.

Quote :
At a trivial level, where just one or a few mutations are involved, selection pressure in one direction can have one effect, which can be reversed by new patterns of selection when conditions change. That could be seen as reversed evolution, though the concept is of not much interest because it does not differ in any functional or effective way from any other adaptation to selection pressures

This is probably the most interesting part of the page though:

Quote :
"Devolution", the verb "devolve" and the past participle "devolved" are all common terms in science fiction for changes over time in populations of living things that make them less complex and remove some of their former adaptations. The terminology used herein is nontechnical, but the phenomenon is a real but counter-intuitive one, more accurately known as streamlining evolution[citation needed]. Since the development and maintenance of a feature such as an organ or a metabolite has an opportunity cost, changes in the environment that reduce the utility of an adaptation may mean that a higher evolutionary fitness is achieved by no longer using the adaptation, thus better using resources. This requires a mutation that inactivates one or more genes, perhaps by a change to DNA methylation or a methionine codon. Streamlining evolution allows evolution to remove features no longer of much/any use, like scaffolding on a completed bridge.

However, "devolution" in practice typically refers to changes that occur from a problem no longer existing rather than superior solutions existing. For instance, of the several hundred known species of animal that live their entire lives in total darkness, most have non-functional eyes rather than no eyes. This is due, for instance, to deterioration of the optic nerve. It occurs because mutations that prevent eye formation have low probability. However, several eyeless animal species, such as the Kauai cave wolf spider, who live in total darkness, and whose ancestry mostly had eyes, do exist. Together with gene duplication, streamlining evolution makes evolution surprisingly able to produce radical changes, despite being limited to successive, slight modifications.

That to me suggests that it is possible for adaptations to be removed from populations as they are no longer needed (intelligence for example). Though I am struggling to find many articles even using the university access I have to journals investigating this concept.

I am honestly not against selective breeding, or even against the idea that mixed races can be bad for society as it is. But, from a purely evolutionary point of view, a wider genetic discourse allows for more chances for adaptations.


But, moving onto your post:

Stuart- wrote:
Going back to the original question concerning life, it isn't primarily why life is simply one way rather than another, it's how life managed to obtain the complexity it has.
No, this wasn't the original question concerning life.

The original question was:

Polishyouth wrote:
2. Is race mixing bad? If yes then why?
To which I replied:

Quote :
No, evolutionarily it is good. A population needs variation to be able to adapt. But there also needs to be pressures that remove useless adaptations. That is what is missing in today's accepting society. There has to be a filter.

I then had many rearrangements of my words to misrepresent what I said as anything more than saying that variation within a population, plus a filter, leads to adaptation (evolution). I forgot to mention the hereditary nature of the variable though. That's important too.

and as for complexity, I think that is beyond the scope of this particular thread. However, it is a very interesting topic and I am curious about it.
Back to top Go down
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 276
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:47 am

MonoExplosion wrote:
Stuart- wrote:
Going back to the original question concerning life, it isn't primarily why life is simply one way rather than another, it's how life managed to obtain the complexity it has.
No, this wasn't the original question concerning life.

The original question was:

Polishyouth wrote:
2. Is race mixing bad? If yes then why?

I meant the original question that Darwin and others asked.

I understand that the aggregate effect of race mixing, as it happens to be being done in modern days, is a decrease in the overall intelligence of people. But, I've only in the last two years become fully aware of this, so I don't have much to say on the subject.

I'll make a new thread to further address the issue of devolution.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Why is public schooling in england of such low quality

Back to top Go down
 
Why is public schooling in england of such low quality
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» MANIFESTATION - Uggh! Embarrassing Public Cleansing (Graphic - Hold Your Nose)!
» NEW: RECENT DAYTIME UFO SIGHTING DOCUMENTED IN LONDON, ENGLAND
» public bidding for staggard purchase of goods.
» SABBATH STATEMENTS ~ CHURCH OF ENGLAND
» public bidding of approved ABC

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: