An Understanding Of Kinesiology Versus Physical Health

[Super Polymath]

I have noticed that even Olympic wrestling depends upon impersonal momentum &  inertia. I.E. Muhammad Ali was able to permanently revolutionize the sport of boxing by imploring footwork to give himself an intellectual advantage over anatomically superior opponents which, in turn, demonstrably increased his probabilities of scientifically disproving natural selection &, therefore, social Darwinism.

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[JMJones0424]

I am not discounting your notice, per se, however I am unable to notice a single sliver of support for your claim.  I too appreciate Tool.  However, if you wish to promote your opening post as a useful discussion, then you need to define impersonal momentum &  inertia.  It seems to me that the claim that Muhammad Ali was able to permanently revolutionize the sport of boxing by imploring footwork is not entirely true.  I am not at all a boxing expert, and there is likely quite a bit that you could teach me.  However, your claim as I understand it, is not demonstrable.

Edited May 21, 2017 by JMJones0424

[Super Polymath]

 is not demonstrable.

Muhammad Ali won more (versus loss) than physical specimens that lacked a propensity towards Parkinson's disease, did he not?

Edited May 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[JMJones0424]

And two plus two is reasonably equal to four.  You've addressed precisely none of my concerns while claiming historical data supports your claim.  I am too ignorant to know that your claim is accurate, but I am not stupid enough to accept your claim based on one boxer's record.

[Super Polymath]

And two plus two is reasonably equal to four.  You've addressed precisely none of my concerns while claiming historical data supports your claim.  I am too ignorant to know that your claim is accurate, but I am not stupid enough to accept your claim based on one boxer's record.

He would have been falsely considered, by the opposite gender, as a superior physical specimen, due to his exploits, right? Would his genes not have prevailed over a genetic propensity towards Parkinson's disease?

 

lol! 

 

I'm simply attempting to propose that

beats

.

 

Explain why you disagree!

 

The truth that one would be "deceived by proof", disproves social Darwinism, right? Scary thought for the status quo! A threat!!!??? Heresy, right!?

Edited May 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[JMJones0424]

Holy shitballs you're making so many fundamentally unsupported claims that I'm not sure where to begin.

 

You said, regarding Ali, "He would have been falsely considered, by the opposite gender, as a superior physical specimen, due to his exploits, right? Would his genes not have prevailed over a genetic propensity towards Parkinson's disease?"  The opposing gender, even if such a thing could be defined as a binary condition, has not at all been shown by you to have regarded Ali as a superior physical specimen.  You made a claim, specifically that "He would have been falsely considered, by the opposite gender, as a superior physical specimen, due to his exploits, right?"  I do not agree with this claim, and I can't even begin to understand how you have come to understand that this claim is supported.  I invite you to support your position.

 

" Would his genes not have prevailed over a genetic propensity towards Parkinson's disease?"

Who knows?  I don't know, and you've provided no evidence that you do know.

 

I'm simply proclaiming that the movie Matrix is not at a very good representation of causality. It may be the case that we exist in a simulation.  You have utterly failed to convince me that the simulation we might inhabit is described by your idiotic world view.  The Matrix was a bad movie.

 

What the hell are you referring to when you talk about "social Darwinism"?  This is not an idea that has any scientific support.  If you claim otherwise, then you should be able to support your claim.

 

As an aside... Buffy, are you seeing this nonsense?  When a moron claims that red is blue, if we are concerned with accuracy, then we should be able to proclaim that red is not blue.  Likewise, if we are trying to be a science forum for everyone, we should require significant evidence that any claim is accurate.  Super Polymath has failed to support their assertions.

Edited May 21, 2017 by JMJones0424

[Super Polymath]

You made a claim, specifically that "He would have been falsely considered, by the opposite gender, as a superior physical specimen, due to his exploits, right?"  I do not agree with this claim, and I can't even begin to understand how you have come to understand that this claim is supported.  I invite you to support your position.

Okay, so, if a male or female (because I don't discriminate) may judge the opposite gender by his or her professional success, than Muhammad would be judged as most successful, right? If so, by the notion of Darwnism, success in any form determines selection of traits in procreation, which requires opposite genders by definition. 

 

 

 

" Would his genes not have prevailed over a genetic propensity towards Parkinson's disease?"

Who knows?  I don't know, and you've provided no evidence that you do know.

 

He had Parkinson's disease, which is a genetic disorder, so I do know. Meaning the selection of his genes would be mathematically risky for his offspring, in terms of Darwinism in any form, social or purely biological, he wasn't anatomically superior as the opponents he conquered. His training (the result of his upbringing not his genetics [nature vs nurture]) overcame his underlying genetic condition, disrupting Darwin's natural selection.

 

What the hell are you referring to when you talk about "social Darwinism"?

 

That success is not defined by genetics, as social Darwinism, by definition, would have us believe.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

define impersonal momentum &  inertia. 

Intellectual orchestration, inertial control of one's opponent vs physical power, forceful control of one's opponent.

 

In the science of boxing or any martial art, victory is more a matter of expertise than physicality. As products of our environment martial arts overcoming physicality is a demonstration of how causality controls choice, not the other way around.  

Edited May 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[JMJones0424]

NO!  I don't know how I can make this more clear to you. The existence of one Homo sapien that was particularly good at boxing is not in any way an argument for or against evolution.  

 

"Okay, so, if a male or female (because I don't discriminate) may judge the opposite gender by his or her professional success, than Muhammad would be judged as most successful, right?"  No, through what means did you come to this conclusion?  You're making **** up now, aren't you?  Support your claim.  Ride the spiral for a bit and realize that you're full of ****.

[Super Polymath]

"Okay, so, if a male or female (because I don't discriminate) may judge the opposite gender by his or her professional success, than Muhammad would be judged as most successful, right?"  No, through what means did you come to this conclusion?  

 

 As I said, by definition of social Darwinism. 

 

 

I'm not making things up as I go along, I've been pretty clear & consistent from the start of this topic.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[JMJones0424]

I asked you to define " impersonal momentum &  inertia."

Your response was-

Intellectual orchestration, inertial control of one's opponent vs physical power, forceful control of one's opponent.

 

In the science of boxing or any martial art, victory is more a matter of expertise than physicality. As products of our environment martial arts overcoming physicality is a demonstration of how causality controls choice, not the other way around.  

I am going to be charitable and assume you aren't fluffing yourself.  WTF do you mean when you say "Intellectual orchestration" and "inertial control of one's opponent vs physical power, forceful control of one's opponent."  Are you sure you haven't  gotten lost on the interwebs and ended up in some Deepak Chopra alternate reality?

 

Define your terms, please.  If you'd really like to be a badass, you could provide evidence for your claims, but at this point, I think this is a stupid request.  You are spouting nonsense that you can not support without further nonsense.
 

[Super Polymath]

WTF do you mean when you say "Intellectual orchestration" and "inertial control of one's opponent vs physical power, forceful control of one's opponent."  

 

That expertise is learned through experience, which in MA's case doesn't bode well for natural selection (Parkinson's), that learned behaviors seem to defy our genetic programming. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[JMJones0424]

That expertise is learned through experience, which in MA's case doesn't bode well for natural selection (Parkinson's), that learned behaviors seem to defy our genetic programming. 

I don't think you have a ****ing clue what you are talking about.  I do think that you have come to a conclusion that sounds reasonably scientific to the average moron to justify your prior point of view.  You have yet to provide any support whatsoever for your claim.  MA is not the first, nor is he likely to be the last boxer to suffer from Parkinson's disease.  Alternatively, one needn't have had your brain caved in on multiple occasions to suffer from Parkinson's, as many non-boxers also suffer from the disease.  Therefore, in the absence of anything other than your moronic claims, I must conclude that you are full of ****.  You provided no evidence of evolutionary benefits, you've provided no evidence of medical diagnosese, you've provided nothing other than your worthless opinion.  I find your worthless opinion to be worthless.  Go find another forum to troll, tool.

Edited May 21, 2017 by JMJones0424

[exchemist]

 

 

 

 

I'm not making things up as I go along, I've been pretty clear & consistent from the start of this topic.

That is a claim you will struggle to justify. 

[Super Polymath]

MA is not the first, nor is he likely to be the last boxer to suffer from Parkinson's disease.

 

Say a female picks MA because she is awed by his exploits in the ring & fame (because he was creative, & resourceful - learned behaviors due to the environment that raised him, & not due to any genetic proponent that his opponents did not share) so now their children will have wealth & not only will that increase their odds of procreating, but it will also increase the pribability passing on this genetic propensity for a disease!

 

So our (United States) entire capitalist/materialist economic structure that had originally been based upon social Darwinism, is based on a lie. When it comes to socioeconomics or natural selection, like cyber security, it only takes one example (MA), just like a hacker only needs to be right once.

 

Alternatively, one needn't have had your brain caved in on multiple occasions to suffer from Parkinson's, as many non-boxers also suffer from the disease.

But only the boxers with a genetic propensity towards Parkinson's can develop it as opposed to all the boxers who don't. Edited May 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

Say a female picks MA because she is awed by his exploits in the ring & fame (because he was creative, & resourceful - learned behaviors due to the environment that raised him, & not due to any genetic proponent that his opponents did not share) so now their children will have wealth & not only will that increase their odds of procreating, but it will also increase the pribability passing on this genetic propensity for a disease!

 

So our (United States) entire capitalist/materialist economic structure that had originally been based upon social Darwinism, is based on a lie. When it comes to socioeconomics or natural selection, like cyber security, it only takes one example (MA), just like a hacker only needs to be right once.

 

But only the boxers with a genetic propensity towards Parkinson's can develop it as opposed to all the boxers who don't.

This is an unbelievably ridiculous argument. 

 

For a start you have no evidence that boxers have more kids than anyone else, which is what you seem to be implying should be the case, nor that boxers are specially attractive to the opposite sex. 

 

Secondly, wealth does not increase the number of children people have but the reverse: birth rates in affluent countries are on the whole lower than in impoverished ones.

 

Thirdly, so-called "social Darwinism" does not rely for its validity or otherwise on biological Darwinism (by which I presume you mean the amplification of inherited traits possessed by organisms with greater reproductive success). Its logic does not depend on anything in biology, least of all on reproductive success.

 

Fourthly, social Darwinism has little to do with "capitalist/materialist economic structure". If you read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism, you may get a better idea of what social Darwinism is. However it is evidently a rather  imprecise term, which seems to be bandied about lazily by people who want to indicate disapproval of something or other in society that they consider due to a right-wing ideology.  

Edited May 21, 2017 by exchemist

[Maine farmer]

Muhammad Ali won more (versus loss) than physical specimens that lacked a propensity towards Parkinson's disease, did he not?

The thing is, no one could even tell he was likely to develop Parkinson's when he was in his prime, so that couldn't have been a factor in reproductive choices.  Also, physical prowess is not essential to reproductive success.  Observing barn cats, I have seen two dominant males fighting over a female while the more passive tom cat was getting busy with the female unnoticed.

 

Simply being nice can contribute to reproductive success.