Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   changes in modern man
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 69 (418994)
08-31-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 11:32 AM


Re: Response to off-topic comment
So you're saying that couples who opt not to have children are less fit than those who do nothing but have sex all day and breed children?
Yes, by definition.
You couldn't be further from the truth.
Why? What is the truth? You haven't explained why its wrong, only asserted that it is.
Again, not only is that judgmental but your criteria for judging fitness is LUST AND LAZINESS.
No, the criteria is number of offspring.
One cannot carry on a rational conversation with people who make such false, judgmental, and ludicrous claims such as these.
Again, instead of just saying something is false, EXPLAIN WHY IT IS FALSE!!!
I therefore will not stoop to this level of conversation with anyone because they're not capable of thinking rationally.
Well, you seem to not be capable of evidincing your assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 11:32 AM Refpunk has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 69 (418997)
08-31-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 11:32 AM


on fit and non-fit
So you're saying that couples who opt not to have children are less fit than those who do nothing but have sex all day and breed children?
No, that is not what I said at all. You are still stuck at the individual level instead of the population level.
From an Evolutionary perspective, fit and non-fit only relate to whether or not the population reproduces and those critters live long enough to reproduce.
In your example, the couple that decides not to have children simply do not pass on their genetic material. Whatever unique genetic makeup they might posses is thus lost from the population.
You still seem to be looking on fit and non-fit as related to good or bad. They are not. It is only a matter of whether or not the critter lives long enough to reproduce and whether or not the population makes it through the filter of Natural Selection.
Edited by jar, : change a fitt to fit

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 11:32 AM Refpunk has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 48 of 69 (419007)
08-31-2007 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 10:59 AM


Who's really Nazi-like?
My analogy of the nazi's was showing precisely what happens when people try to play God and judge who's fit and who isn't. You are trying to do the same thing and are failing abysmally.
What kept Jews and Christians apart in Europe for centuries was the fact that both groups followed bigoted and mutually exclusive Abrahamic religions which prevented them from mixing and forming a common identity. The Nazis were very much a product of this history, as this speech from Adolf Hitler shows clearly. He's one of yours, Refpunk, a bigoted Christian fundamentalist.
Adolf Hitler:
quote:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice . And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
(Apologies for being off topic, but when hints that evolutionists have something to do with the Nazis come into play, our devious Christian fantasist brethren need a dose of reality).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:59 AM Refpunk has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 69 (419012)
08-31-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 10:59 AM


Still off-topic comment, but it's fun. Sorry brenn.
My analogy of the nazi's was showing precisely what happens when people try to play God and judge who's fit and who isn't.
No one is playing God. All anyone is doing is describing what happens in the real world. Some individuals have more offspring than others. That is a fact. In many cases in the wild, the reasons that some individuals have more offspring than others is due to inheritable physical characteristics. That, too, is a fact. We use the word "fitness" to describe this phenomenon.
-
By your definition of fit, you are claiming that only those who have many children are fit. That means that the Bedouins in the Middle east and the people in areas of the world who do nothing but stay at home and have sex with each other are more fit than anyone else in the world.
Yes, by simple definition, that would be "fitness". If the reasons that these individuals have more children are due to inheritable characteristics, then this would be relevant to evolution.
-
That argument is not only LUDICROUS AND JUDGMENTAL....
It's not ludicrous -- this is what we see in the real world. Some individuals have more offspring than other individuals. In most instances in nature, this is due to inheritable physical characteristics.
It is not judgemental. It is simply a statement of fact. Some individuals have more offspring than others. In most cases in nature, this is due to inheritable physical characteristics.
This phenomenon is observed and it is real. We use the word "fitness" as a label for this phenomenon.
-
So until anyone here is interested in being objective and rational, then further conversation about this won't be productive.
Oh, I don't know. People reading this exchange might learn something. Certainly, I think that exposing the ignorance and irrationality of creationists is a productive activity.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:59 AM Refpunk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-31-2007 1:23 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 50 of 69 (419027)
08-31-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Chiroptera
08-31-2007 12:21 PM


Re: Still off-topic comment, but it's fun. Sorry brenn.
i started this thread almost 2 years ago. i really don't care about it. no one was interested in participating in the real discussion and now there's a free for all with someone who needlessly slings all-caps.
as long as i stop reading it now and don't get myself suspended for suggesting exactly what he can do with his ludicrous, i'm good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 08-31-2007 12:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AdminNosy, posted 08-31-2007 5:32 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 51 of 69 (419072)
08-31-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by macaroniandcheese
08-31-2007 1:23 PM


Not to worry, thread doomed
I think this thread will be closed in the near future.
To hasten it's demise let's have everyone continue off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-31-2007 1:23 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
amex
Junior Member (Idle past 6026 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-28-2007


Message 52 of 69 (424817)
09-28-2007 7:41 PM


Those of you who think Darwin is the one who first took evlution into account, U people have not even heard about ISLAM!! the fastest religion growing in the world for a reason, media has made u guyz think its an extreem religion but in fact it is the true religon, and a proof for those so called darwainists is that Allah (SAW)(god) discussed Evolution in his book to Muhammad around 1400 years ago, darwin existed less than two centries ago. proof Go to link below
http://www.parvez-video.com/...lam/evolution_quran/index.asp

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 09-28-2007 7:43 PM amex has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 69 (424819)
09-28-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by amex
09-28-2007 7:41 PM


Spam is spam
Whether you are spamming Christian sites or Islamic sites, spam is still spam.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by amex, posted 09-28-2007 7:41 PM amex has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 54 of 69 (434199)
11-14-2007 9:34 PM


Actually there have been no changes.Scientific data has shown that some modern homo sapiens in isolated geographic areas still have the same brain capacity and facial features as homo erectus,neandratal and cro-magnon.They are examples of micro-evolution or more correctly gentic variation coupled with dietary differences.Homo habilis has recently been realized to be astralopithicus habilis.Its much smaller brain capacity and bone structure combined with the fact that the males are 50% larger than the females(Which is only known to exist in great apes)has been key to many scientist to see it as a genetic variation of astralopithicines.So that puts everything in the family homo within modern homo sapiens.And everything else as an ape with no transitional form of any kind.

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 11-14-2007 9:40 PM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 56 by molbiogirl, posted 11-15-2007 6:26 PM Jason777 has replied
 Message 57 by AdminNosy, posted 11-15-2007 8:10 PM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 62 by IamJoseph, posted 05-05-2008 5:05 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 69 (434200)
11-14-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jason777
11-14-2007 9:34 PM


Sources please.
Scientific data has shown that some modern homo sapiens in isolated geographic areas still have the same brain capacity and facial features as homo erectus,neandratal and cro-magnon.
Sources and relevance please.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jason777, posted 11-14-2007 9:34 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 56 of 69 (434400)
11-15-2007 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jason777
11-14-2007 9:34 PM


Again with the bare assertions.
Actually there have been no changes.Scientific data has shown that some modern homo sapiens in isolated geographic areas still have the same brain capacity and facial features as homo erectus,neandratal and cro-magnon.They are examples of micro-evolution or more correctly gentic variation coupled with dietary differences.Homo habilis has recently been realized to be astralopithicus habilis.Its much smaller brain capacity and bone structure combined with the fact that the males are 50% larger than the females(Which is only known to exist in great apes)has been key to many scientist to see it as a genetic variation of astralopithicines.So that puts everything in the family homo within modern homo sapiens.And everything else as an ape with no transitional form of any kind.
This is a science thread. You need to provide evidence of your assertions.
And no more of this "I was just looking at it yesterday and I can't find it now but that's what it said!"
You either provide the cites or you shut up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jason777, posted 11-14-2007 9:34 PM Jason777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Jason777, posted 03-31-2008 3:37 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 57 of 69 (434450)
11-15-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jason777
11-14-2007 9:34 PM


References Jason777
Unfortunately Jason you seem to be making a habit of making up your "facts". As others have noted that is not acceptable in the science threads.
From now on either be more careful or correct your mistakes much more quickly. My impression is that you simply can't cut it in the science threads. If you reinforce that impression you will start to get suspensions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jason777, posted 11-14-2007 9:34 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 58 of 69 (462140)
03-31-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by molbiogirl
11-15-2007 6:26 PM


Re: Again with the bare assertions.
If you really dont know of fred spoors 1994 paper.And the more recent knm-er 1470 falling to the status of asralopithice or paranthropus.Then it makes me wonder who needs to shut up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by molbiogirl, posted 11-15-2007 6:26 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 03-31-2008 4:02 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 69 (462142)
03-31-2008 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Jason777
03-31-2008 3:37 PM


Re: Again with the bare assertions.
Wow! Talk about quick come backs!
I guess we shouldn't tell you jokes at Christmas, you'll crack up during Easter mass.
From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
  2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
In other words, what you want to do is make your points in your own words, then when you're done add any links or references that support your point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Jason777, posted 03-31-2008 3:37 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 60 of 69 (462145)
03-31-2008 4:56 PM


Kind of funny huh.I never noticed her reply back then and i always ignore her anyway.She is too predictible.

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by molbiogirl, posted 03-31-2008 6:15 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024