Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Unaltered Mediterranid Individuals (Spanish Military Figures)

  1. #1
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 5th, 2009 @ 09:20 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Gender
    Posts
    1,448
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Unaltered Mediterranid Individuals (Spanish Military Figures)

    Note: These pictures are of militants who were involved in the Spanish Civil War.

    Unaltered Mediterranid individuals

    Felipe Díaz Sandino.


    Enrique Lister Forján.


    Francisco Hernández Chacón.


    Ángel Pastor Velasco.


    Etelvino Vega Martínez.


    Leocadio Mendiola Núñez


    Pedro Marqués Barber


    Amado Granell.


    Federico Angulo Vázquez.


    Vicente Uribe.


    Baltasar Lucas Martín.


    Manuel Cardenal Dominicis.


    Gustavo Durán.


    José Miguel Pérez


    Fernando Condés Romero.


    Nordid influenced

    Ricardo Sanz García


    Luis del Río Díaz.


    Manuel Estrada Manchón.


    Manuel Cascón Briega.
    Last edited by Pro-Alpine; Tuesday, September 5th, 2006 at 09:23 AM.

  2. #2
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Spanish military figures

    A collection of very progressive European Europid individuals, very high level. Practically all range from Atlantomediterranid to Nordid and a lot have "peak type qualities".
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 03:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Re: AW: Spanish military figures

    Most of them surely look fairer than most Spaniards I have seen in my life. Other than that, I don't see what is so special about them.

    Could you please write what these "peak type qualities" are and from where you get such an idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa View Post
    A collection of very progressive European Europid individuals, very high level. Practically all range from Atlantomediterranid to Nordid and a lot have "peak type qualities".

  4. #4
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 5th, 2009 @ 09:20 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Gender
    Posts
    1,448
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: AW: Spanish military figures

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenlivet View Post
    Most of them surely look fairer than most Spaniards I have seen in my life. Other than that, I don't see what is so special about them.

    Could you please write what these "peak type qualities" are and from where you get such an idea?
    Anyone looks more light on black&white pictures.

    And for those who are wondering, The sources/websites of these pictures are several.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 03:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Re: AW: Spanish military figures

    Perhaps you are right, but I'm not so sure about that. Hair usually look darker except for the very ash blond. Reddish shades look darker than they should, I have compared with one uncle of mine who is more strawberry/ginger blond and the other who is flaxen haired. The latter look lighter in most black & white pictures but it is just another spectrum. Agrippa is probably wrong on their Nordidness if none of them are depigmented to a significant degree. It is difficult to find out without colour photos though.

    Do you have pictures of modern Spanish military figures?

    Quote Originally Posted by pro-Alpine View Post
    Anyone looks more light on black&white pictures.

  6. #6
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Re: AW: Spanish military figures

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenlivet View Post
    Most of them surely look fairer than most Spaniards I have seen in my life. Other than that, I don't see what is so special about them.

    Could you please write what these "peak type qualities" are and from where you get such an idea?
    First its about racially progressive traits:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43471

    They are typical representatives for the classic Europid higher specialisation (Mongolids have a somewhat different). They have no significant (imbalanced) infantile nor primitive traits.
    Some of the more important traits which can be easily recognised are, that they all seem to have:
    A larger and more robust cranium, marked supraorbital region without being extreme, strong facial relief and overall differentiation, deeper and closer set eyes, narrow-prominent nose, orthognathy, absense of the "broad mouth-thin lips" combination, positive chin, no coarse or disharmonious features, predominance of mature-leptomorphic growth tendencies.

    A certain mimic predominates which gives, together with the overall physical type, the impression of dealing with intelligent, high level schizothymic personalities, which is, if looking at successful and effective professional officers in most armies no surprise.

    In this way they represent the best what mankind has so far produced, even though they are far from being perfect - other racial types can present similar peak types, same or slightly higher level even, but they represent an average for the current upper limit of Homo sapiens.

    One could compare their morphology with some of the Finnish and German peak types from this thread - the topic is important for their evaluation as well:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=38300

    A German example for a peak type would be this Bavarian general, which brother was a general as well, Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb:




    "Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb (September 5, 1876 - April 29, 1956) was a German field marshal during World War II. Born in Landsberg am Lech, he joined the Bavarian Army in 1895 as an officer cadet. After being commissioned in the artillery, he served in China during the Boxer Rebellion. He later attended the Bavarian War Academy in Munich (1907-1909) and served on the General Staff in Berlin (1909-1911). Promoted to captain, he performed a tour of duty as a battery commander in the Bavarian 10th Field Artillery Regiment at Erlangen (1912-1913)".
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Waarnemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 11th, 2009 @ 08:42 PM
    Subrace
    keltic nordid - trønder
    Gender
    Politics
    fascism
    Posts
    571
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Spanish military figures

    Quote Originally Posted by agrippa
    In this way they represent the best what mankind has so far produced, even though they are far from being perfect - other racial types can present similar peak types, same or slightly higher level even, but they represent an average for the current upper limit of Homo sapiens.
    evolution isn't moving towards anything, so it can't be a progressing event. Adaptation and specialization to specific environmental conditions is not better than adaptation to previous environments, so current types are no better than the forms that they took in the past

    secondly, the supposition that progressiveness equals an increase of intelligence and capacities is still not supported by any data, and is dismissed by the means of common sense and daily reality

  8. #8
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Re: Spanish military figures

    Quote Originally Posted by Waarnemer View Post
    evolution isn't moving towards anything,
    Evolution is constantly moving and race is an evolutionary process.

    so it can't be a progressing event.
    Sure it can, because the evolutionary path can change. F.e. an animal species begins to reduce the motility of the toes and forming hoofs. Even at the beginning of this development the animal lost the former advantages but still has not all advantages of the new form. This means the further this evolution goes, the more potential the animal has for the specialisation it approaches. Its a self-strengthening process which might lead at the end to a better ability to adapt to different situations, to a higher potential and more effective lifeform or not.

    In that sense a whale is for its own specialisation more progressive than a his ancestors, same goes for a horse etc. They took a certain path, and for the path they were going, they progressed, natural selection made them more perfect than they were when they started.

    This is no implicit teleological approach, its a simple truth. To give you a very simple example for this simple truth, a cabinet maker and a cook which want to do this job their whole life will be just be a cabinet maker and a cook at the beginning of their career, at their peak and at the end of their life, still they progress to their peak and go down at the end of their life.

    In the same way evolutionary paths, specialisations begin, at the start they are far from perfect, but just try to approach a certain effectiveness, further evolution, selective pressures from the environment and intraspecifically make them more effective. So they might reach a peak - f.e. being in their environment the best, most intelligent hunters acting in a group, best utilisers of grass and fastest fugitives etc.
    But they can get one sided, losing potential, adapting to a very small niche, overspecialise until they being so dependent on a very specific environment that even very small changes can extinct the species - thats degeneration.

    Adaptation and specialization to specific environmental conditions is not better than adaptation to previous environments, so current types are no better than the forms that they took in the past
    They are better if they represent the same basic specialisation but are simply more effective than those which existed before. Furthermore its true that evolution has no goal, so no evaluation, for sure no moral one, but we are finally humans, we dont look at ourselves like on an insect - and if only for the purpose of analysing us and our environment. But as humans its in our interests to see us progressing in the way described and to see the future of our offspring, of our species being secured, their survival on a high level.

    Hominisation is a very specific process which favours certain qualities. Progress in humans means that this qualities become more pronounced, improved. In that sense an Australid which is closer to our ancestral forms, has less pronounced typical sapiens traits which would give him a "higher human", a higher general-versatile potential is more primitive and at the same time a Nordid or Nordsinid for the same reasons more progressive.

    To give a simple physical example, I might refer to bipedy and balance. If you compare with mym thread, the balance of the head being mentioned and is for humans definitely a progressive traits - the more balanced the head is on the neck, the more progressive. Thats just a single trait, not the most important for us, but its an example for a functional aspect of progressiveness.

    Its in the interest of us, as a thinking lifeform which is able to use reason to recognise which traits give a general potential and which are just one sided - or still not as evolved.


    secondly, the supposition that progressiveness equals an increase of intelligence and capacities is still not supported by any data, and is dismissed by the means of common sense and daily reality
    Another trait which is definitely progressive is a larger cranial volume. All progressive racial types have an average and above average cranial volume in comparison to those of primitive character.

    Progressive variants being more common in the social elite, in leading elements in almost every society of the world, at least if the elite being selected for effectiveness. Even in some Papua groups one can see that the typical chieftains being on average more progressive, as are officers, managers, scientists, versatile sportspeople, models, idealistic and capable political leaders etc. in the Western world.

    Reduced and infantle variants have usually a lower cranial volume too, but their main disadvantages is the weaker body and general potential. They being constantly outperformed in the most important categories of sport competition by progressive variants and were subdominant in the situation of group selection for the same reasons as well as for another one, namely that progressive types, which peaks are usually lepto-mesomorphic and juvenile-mature build, are more schizothymic in character as well, which made them, together with the more effective and versatile body superior even if the reduced-infantile variants would have had the same intelligence level.

    Compare with this too:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44712

    That reduction and infantilisation being mainly the result of one sided adaptation to unfavourable environments, which goal was simply saving, can be seen if looking at this thread too:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60519

    This is and was advantageous in very specific environments, but its not on line with the typical Hominisation process which meant balanced Neoteny = just certain elements change, mainly craniofacially if speaking about the physique, while the whole body, structure and the whole face-skull trait combination as such being only very limited affected by such an "infantilisation" (= balanced), but rather become even more effective. Such a generalised Hominisation is much more promising than any one sided niche adaptation.
    However, there are traits which are mainly "better or worse" in a very specific context, like very light or dark skin, but thats not meant if comparing progressive-infantile-primitive. Progressive are mainly those traits which are generally Neohuman, neomorphic and advantageous or at least not disadvantageous.

    In that sense progressive is objectively just one tendency out of others - there are just three basic tendencies beside more specific local adaptations in modern humans: Primitive, Infantile and Progressive. The progressive one is the typical human further development, more versatile and generalised, whereas primitive means phylogenetic and infantile ontogenetic retardation in comparison.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  9. #9
    Senior Member Waarnemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 11th, 2009 @ 08:42 PM
    Subrace
    keltic nordid - trønder
    Gender
    Politics
    fascism
    Posts
    571
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Spanish military figures

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    Evolution is constantly moving and race is an evolutionary process.
    didn’t say evolution wasn’t moving, but it doesn’t have a goal in sense of perfectio, the key term of evolution is randomness

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    Sure it can, because the evolutionary path can change. F.e. an animal species begins to reduce the motility of the toes and forming hoofs. Even at the beginning of this development the animal lost the former advantages but still has not all advantages of the new form. This means the further this evolution goes, the more potential the animal has for the specialisation it approaches. Its a self-strengthening process which might lead at the end to a better ability to adapt to different situations, to a higher potential and more effective lifeform or not.

    In that sense a whale is for its own specialisation more progressive than a his ancestors, same goes for a horse etc. They took a certain path, and for the path they were going, they progressed, natural selection made them more perfect than they were when they started.

    This is no implicit teleological approach, its a simple truth. To give you a very simple example for this simple truth, a cabinet maker and a cook which want to do this job their whole life will be just be a cabinet maker and a cook at the beginning of their career, at their peak and at the end of their life, still they progress to their peak and go down at the end of their life.

    In the same way evolutionary paths, specialisations begin, at the start they are far from perfect, but just try to approach a certain effectiveness, further evolution, selective pressures from the environment and intraspecifically make them more effective. So they might reach a peak - f.e. being in their environment the best, most intelligent hunters acting in a group, best utilisers of grass and fastest fugitives etc.
    But they can get one sided, losing potential, adapting to a very small niche, overspecialise until they being so dependent on a very specific environment that even very small changes can extinct the species - thats degeneration.
    natural selection is a process of adaptation to a changed direction, for progress the environment would have to maintain. North pole bears are pigmentation wise selected through a system of natural selection and aren’t more progressive in the sense of perfection than their darker kind in north america. Naturally natural selection isn’t progress either, it’s a change to adaptation

    the principle that evolution isn't a progressing event isn't made up by me, its accepted science, proved and supported in a purely empirical manner – crucial base of science your theory lacks. Paquin and adams placed a colony of yeast into a culture and maintained it for many successive generations. Occasionally, a mutation would pop out of the woodwork that would allow its bearer to reproduce better than its compatriots. These mutant strains would push out the formerly dominant strains and take over. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a various times. In later competition experiments, each strain would out compete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could out compete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones

    They are better if they represent the same basic specialisation but are simply more effective than those which existed before. Furthermore its true that evolution has no goal, so no evaluation, for sure no moral one, but we are finally humans, we dont look at ourselves like on an insect - and if only for the purpose of analysing us and our environment. But as humans its in our interests to see us progressing in the way described and to see the future of our offspring, of our species being secured, their survival on a high level.

    Hominisation is a very specific process which favours certain qualities. Progress in humans means that this qualities become more pronounced, improved. In that sense an Australid which is closer to our ancestral forms, has less pronounced typical sapiens traits which would give him a "higher human", a higher general-versatile potential is more primitive and at the same time a Nordid or Nordsinid for the same reasons more progressive.

    To give a simple physical example, I might refer to bipedy and balance. If you compare with mym thread, the balance of the head being mentioned and is for humans definitely a progressive traits - the more balanced the head is on the neck, the more progressive. Thats just a single trait, not the most important for us, but its an example for a functional aspect of progressiveness.

    Its in the interest of us, as a thinking lifeform which is able to use reason to recognise which traits give a general potential and which are just one sided - or still not as evolved.
    evolution proceeds in spite of natural selection like evolutionist george williams said, and natural selection is nothing more than adaptation to certain environments, so superiorism is out of question by definition

    the decline of ape-like characteristics in favor of human-like morphology in continuation with standing up straight is the result of adaptation and adjustments to new environments and conditions

    Quote Originally Posted by agrippa
    Another trait which is definitely progressive is a larger cranial volume. All progressive racial types have an average and above average cranial volume in comparison to those of primitive character.

    Progressive variants being more common in the social elite, in leading elements in almost every society of the world, at least if the elite being selected for effectiveness. Even in some Papua groups one can see that the typical chieftains being on average more progressive, as are officers, managers, scientists, versatile sportspeople, models, idealistic and capable political leaders etc. in the Western world.

    Reduced and infantle variants have usually a lower cranial volume too, but their main disadvantages is the weaker body and general potential. They being constantly outperformed in the most important categories of sport competition by progressive variants and were subdominant in the situation of group selection for the same reasons as well as for another one, namely that progressive types, which peaks are usually lepto-mesomorphic and juvenile-mature build, are more schizothymic in character as well, which made them, together with the more effective and versatile body superior even if the reduced-infantile variants would have had the same intelligence level.

    Compare with this too:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44712

    That reduction and infantilisation being mainly the result of one sided adaptation to unfavourable environments, which goal was simply saving, can be seen if looking at this thread too:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60519

    This is and was advantageous in very specific environments, but its not on line with the typical Hominisation process which meant balanced Neoteny = just certain elements change, mainly craniofacially if speaking about the physique, while the whole body, structure and the whole face-skull trait combination as such being only very limited affected by such an "infantilisation" (= balanced), but rather become even more effective. Such a generalised Hominisation is much more promising than any one sided niche adaptation.
    However, there are traits which are mainly "better or worse" in a very specific context, like very light or dark skin, but thats not meant if comparing progressive-infantile-primitive. Progressive are mainly those traits which are generally Neohuman, neomorphic and advantageous or at least not disadvantageous.

    In that sense progressive is objectively just one tendency out of others - there are just three basic tendencies beside more specific local adaptations in modern humans: Primitive, Infantile and Progressive. The progressive one is the typical human further development, more versatile and generalised, whereas primitive means phylogenetic and infantile ontogenetic retardation in comparison.
    are we supposed to take it just for granted? You do realize this is totally subjective and you still have failed to support it with the minimal amount of data which i asked for. As long as you don’t deliver evidence that verifies there is no need for discussion

  10. #10
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 10:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    AW: Spanish military figures

    natural selection is a process of adaptation to a changed direction, for progress the environment would have to maintain. North pole bears are pigmentation wise selected through a system of natural selection and aren’t more progressive in the sense of perfection than their darker kind in north america. Naturally natural selection isn’t progress either, it’s a change to adaptation
    You described an irrelevant example because what you said is just what I described as "local adaptation" without significance for progressive developments neither in animals nor in humans. Thats like exact skin color differences in humans - unimportant for the general Hominisation, mainly important for the local adaptation if including more general advantages like in sexual selection, social dominance etc.

    the principle that evolution isn't a progressing event isn't made up by me, its accepted science, proved and supported in a purely empirical manner – crucial base of science your theory lacks.
    Evolution just takes place, something which I said too. But you can see a progress in differentiation, organisation, you can see that there was as development from lower organised organisms to higher organised ones and the latter being just possible through the development of the antecessors. That is a factual progress. Evolution produces progress because of competition - its just a progress inside of certain parameters of course, thats true. But in a species which is distributed worldwide true progress means worldwide advantages. Exact skin color cannot be considered as one, thats obvious, a larger brain and higher intelligence can, because there are just very few situations in which this is not advantageous for a group of people.

    Of course, if you would put intelligent humans on an island on which they will have just access to a very low level of energy and no matter what they do, they will constantly starve, than every higher investment and versatile potential would be again "disadvantageous" for needing more energy. But thats a situation human creativity and intelligence as well as culture should prevent. Its about the human perspective and progress not about discussing from a philosophical point of view whether there is any progress in evolution or not and if every virus has the same level as the highest developed mammal - which it hasnt.
    Speaking about humans and their relatives, the denomination alone says how humans naturally saw their position and did rightfully do so: Primates.

    Paquin and adams placed a colony of yeast into a culture and maintained it for many successive generations. Occasionally, a mutation would pop out of the woodwork that would allow its bearer to reproduce better than its compatriots. These mutant strains would push out the formerly dominant strains and take over. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a various times. In later competition experiments, each strain would out compete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could out compete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones
    What a poor example for talking about humans. What else? Do you really think this experiment proves anything of importance for our discussion? Just because you quoted an experiment you didnt gained an argument for higher mammals and not for relatively consequent evolutions. If you comparing such neutral organisms which have just limited abilities for gaining energy, dealing with competitors, reproducing etc.

    This has no significance for human development nor what I said before. I even said myself that degeneration can take place, but this would mean the extermination of truly human traits whereas progressive developments mean to strengthen them, making them even more effective. The main factor being energy in all this cases - a serious lack of energy and options leads to degeneration humans.

    An excellent example for progressive developments is the comparison of old world and new world plants and animals and the fact that many old world lifeforms, which were selected for a larger area with stronger competition and less isolation, were immediately able to overtake niches of locally adapted forms of America and especially Australia. This was because they were for their niche much better adapted than those lifeforms which lived isolated, in that way protected and had not to deal with such strong competitors as in Eurasia. This fact led to the extinction or at least supersession of them.

    are we supposed to take it just for granted? You do realize this is totally subjective and you still have failed to support it with the minimal amount of data which i asked for. As long as you don’t deliver evidence that verifies there is no need for discussion
    Well, until you prove me wrong and can't explain certain developments, patterns of social sieving and specialisation better than me probably yes.

    Furthermore just compare with this thread in which I brought some examples:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=38300

    By the way, progressive in the sense v. Eickstedt or myself using it doesnt need to refer to "progress in evolution in general", but progress in humans in general. Its not about if there is any progress from one bacteria colony to the next or even from bacteria to humans, but about our current stage of evolution and what gives us a higher chance for future survival and shows a higher degree of Hominisation, of human general potential.
    We know what we will need if wanting to stay on a high level in the future - at least if being honest to ourselves. Low intelligence or lower physical performance, unattractive physical traits being definitely not as promising for a human group if looking at things as they are and will be without huge catastrophies - and even in the case of such catastrophies we can still say that the more versatile-progressive forms will have much higher chances to adapt to a changing environment.

    But if you really want to avoid progress in that context, speak of higher organisational levels, differentiation, which is normal biological language - and consider that the human niche, even the most general one throughout the world, is specific in a way - we have a certain position in the current ecosystem, this is something we should consider and perfection our abilities on that. There are no endless alternatives for humans if wanting to survive on a higher level anyway - and if you dont care for the level, you probably care for nothing and therefore I wonder why being interested in anything as well.

    What progressive in the sense I used it could mean from a general, not human specific, evolutionary outlook I tried to explain here:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44767

    The conditions dont have to be the same for a versatile adaptation, just similar. You are right, there is no "end product" which is absolutely superior in everything nor is there an "end product" which is perfect, with no need for further adaptation, since even minor changes in the environment might change the level of adaptation to the conditions too, but there is definitely a better or worse adapted stage and a forms which are better to live as generalists, so surviving even changing environments, and there are niche specialists, which are probably overspecialised and will die out if their current habitat will change just a little bit.
    A progressive development can only mean to adapt but at the same time keeping options - animals can't plan that, it happens or doesnt, we as humans can observe developments and see the imbalanced and one sidedness of certain developments, the more promising and versatile character of others. Progressive in that context means rather a specific, so far typically human and most promising, strategy out of others - currently there are just three basic tendencies: Primitive, infantile and progressive with progressive, propulsive referring to the degree of differentiation and mature character. Primitive traits are phylogenetic, infantile ontogenetically retarded in comparison to the basic, "progressive" Hominisation tendency.

    If comparing Homo sapiens with Homo erectus directly, we see just progress, more potential, practically no losses - thats the point. You cant compare the relation of Homo sapiens to Homo erectus with two stages of development in colonies of bacteria with their limited variation which will in the end just repeat itself until a major advantage would occur - f.e. a true cell nucleus which is such a great advantage for a lot of monads that in some areas all other forms of life being eradicated. You can see the same patter in some other structures, especially if comparing the variation in the early times of life, with, for us, very strange and in comparison more manifold variation with that of later times - it was partly a drastical reduction to certain basic structural elements which proved to be superior, more adaptive in a changing environment.
    So evolution is not progressive in itself, but progress does take place while time goes by, resulting in higher organisation, more complex, higher differentiated organisms. Of course catastrophies can let a high grade of organisation fall back to a more primitive level again, but with time the process will begin again too. Its not about constructing a teleological moment with a fix goal, this goal can be, in our case, in the case of humans, only be man-made, but about observing the "products" of evolution and the fact that one level of organisation is based on the antecessor. In that way there is progress even though evolution in itself "knows" just the basic rules of herself, like variation, selection etc. and the results are non-purposive in theory.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, May 22nd, 2017, 02:18 PM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: Sunday, August 19th, 2012, 10:27 PM
  3. Underestimated/Misunderstood Historical Figures
    By SaxonPagan in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 09:25 PM
  4. Are Mediterranids related to the unaltered Nordids?
    By Pro-Alpine in forum Mediterranid
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Wednesday, August 16th, 2006, 10:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •