|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: changes in modern man | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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: (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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I think this thread will be closed in the near future.
To hasten it's demise let's have everyone continue off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
amex Junior Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Whether you are spamming Christian sites or Islamic sites, spam is still spam.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
Kind of funny huh.I never noticed her reply back then and i always ignore her anyway.She is too predictible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024