How You Know This Shit Was Written By Men!

[Huggy Bear]

... if beating the snot out of each other is your metric.

Me, I think it's a good case for cultural evolution that we don't engage in such stupidity. As for biological evolution, you'd have to make the case that we're actually incapable of such antics due to the mutation of our genotype in order to support your point that we've devolved. And the change in alleles over time is the metric for evolution -- or de-evolution, for that matter.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

The "beating the snot out of each other" metric is common through out nature...


Also I doesn't take a scientist to figure out that gmo's and processed foods likely have a negative impact on our biology, for example young girls are reaching puberty much earlier than they used to.

http://www.sciencealert.com/girls-are-go...rm-effects

For many girls in the developed world, puberty is coming earlier than ever before, with studies showing that, on average, puberty is now starting for girls at around 10 years old - at least five years earlier than a century ago.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/puber...01920.html

This sudden sexual development in a child so young can be unnerving to parents. “My daughter is 7 years and 10 months old. She started having body odor at 5 and breast buds at 6,” one mother wrote recently in a group chat about the condition. She wrote, too, of her daughter’s “roller-coaster emotions,” a common complaint from parents observing massive mood swings, PMS-like symptoms and other “teen emotions” in daughters just beginning the first grade—and in some cases even younger.

The above is an example of what I mean by de-evolution, and by devolving I simply mean the human biology going in a negative direction.

[Minimalist]

Evolution does not share your bias, though.  In fact, this probably has damned little to do with evolution in the Darwinian sense.

http://www.webmd.com/children/guide/causes-symptoms#1

Doctors diagnose early puberty when this normal process starts early and continues to progress through growth spurts and bone maturation, usually for reasons we don't understand. Girls who show significant signs of puberty and its progression before age 7 and boys before age 9 are considered precocious. About 1 out of 5,000 children are affected.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm still waiting for a reply.

The "beating the snot out of each other" metric is common through out nature...

Incorrect. Survival is the metric.

Also I doesn't take a scientist to figure out that gmo's and processed foods likely have a negative impact on our biology, for example young girls are reaching puberty much earlier than they used to.

http://www.sciencealert.com/girls-are-go...rm-effects

For many girls in the developed world, puberty is coming earlier than ever before, with studies showing that, on average, puberty is now starting for girls at around 10 years old - at least five years earlier than a century ago.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/puber...01920.html

The above is an example of what I mean by de-evolution, and by devolving I simply mean the human biology going in a negative direction.

But that is not any expression of evolutionary motion. That is a physiological response to the environment, and its heritability hasn't been demonstrated. For this reason it gives your argument no support.

[Huggy Bear]

The "beating the snot out of each other" metric is common through out nature...

Incorrect. Survival is the metric.

Also I doesn't take a scientist to figure out that gmo's and processed foods likely have a negative impact on our biology, for example young girls are reaching puberty much earlier than they used to.

http://www.sciencealert.com/girls-are-go...rm-effects

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/puber...01920.html

The above is an example of what I mean by de-evolution, and by devolving I simply mean the human biology going in a negative direction.

But that is not any expression of evolutionary motion. That is a physiological response to the environment, and its heritability hasn't been demonstrated. For this reason it gives your argument no support.

Ah, but your definition of evolution and mine are two separate things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor; I believe each species evolved from an ancestor of the same species, and of those two scenarios, only the latter is demonstrable.

If we use dog breeding as an example (since speciation can be achieved through animal husbandry), in order to create a new breed of dog, you would inbreed in order to fix desirable traits, but there is a point where continued inbreeding becomes too risky.

If we follow the narrative of the Bible, God originally created man, and in order for man to reproduce they had to inbreed. This was not a problem for them since they were the beginning of the species. Nowadays inbreeding with your sister is wrong and is highly likely to have negative effects.

So that being the case, we can ONLY go in a negative direction, heck according to scripture didn't man used to live upwards of 900 years?

So when I say we "devolved" know that I'm always referring to evolution from a biblical stand point, whether you agree with it or not...

[Esquilax]

Ah, but your definition of evolution and mine are two separate things.

Yeah, Thump's using the actual, scientific definition, and you're using your own weird subjective one that exists solely to prop up your pre-existing beliefs. I don't know why you think insisting on your definition to support the argument you're making is even close to a rational thing to do. Sorry, but "I've redefined a word such that it supports me now," does not make your underlying point correct. It's just sophistry.

So when I say we "devolved" know that I'm always referring to evolution from a biblical stand point, whether you agree with it or not...

So you're not making any real point, you're just babbling in your own private language, where all the definitions and premises are meticulously constructed so that you're right, and you don't feel any need to demonstrate the baseline claims you're making?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Incorrect. Survival is the metric.


http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/puber...01920.html

But that is not any expression of evolutionary motion. That is a physiological response to the environment, and its heritability hasn't been demonstrated. For this reason it gives your argument no support.

Ah, but your definition of evolution and mine are two separate things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor; I believe each species evolved from an ancestor of the same species, and of those two scenarios, only the latter is demonstrable.

Wrong, again. Look into the genetic coding for the human immunological system, for instance. Yes, this will require you to read a little, and (gasp!) read stuff you may not agree with at first. Also, I notice that this is just a fancy way of avoiding using the terms "mircoevolution" and "macroevolution". I'd be happy to see your hypothesis on what prevents the former from becoming the latter.

If we follow the narrative of the Bible, God originally created man, and in order for man to reproduce they had to inbreed. This was not a problem for them since they were the beginning of the species. Nowadays inbreeding with your sister is wrong and is highly likely to have negative effects.

So that being the case, we can ONLY go in a negative direction, heck according to scripture didn't man used to live upwards of 900 years?

So when I say we "devolved" know that I'm always referring to evolution from a biblical stand point, whether you agree with it or not...

There's your problem, then, I'm talking about facts; you're talking about horseshit. Not only did you get the mathematics of inbreeding wrong, you're basing it on a fanciful tale that has no bearing on the topic of evolution. Get back to me when you're ready and able to talk facts.

Until then, have a nice evening.

[Huggy Bear]

Ah, but your definition of evolution and mine are two separate things.

Yeah, Thump's using the actual, scientific definition, and you're using your own weird subjective one that exists solely to prop up your pre-existing beliefs. I don't know why you think insisting on your definition to support the argument you're making is even close to a rational thing to do. Sorry, but "I've redefined a word such that it supports me now," does not make your underlying point correct. It's just sophistry.

So when I say we "devolved" know that I'm always referring to evolution from a biblical stand point, whether you agree with it or not...

So you're not making any real point, you're just babbling in your own private language, where all the definitions and premises are meticulously constructed so that you're right, and you don't feel any need to demonstrate the baseline claims you're making?

Actually what constitutes a "species" is defined in the Bible as that which is able to produce fertile offspring, the scientific definition is the same: the thing is, the Bible said it first.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

*emphasis mine*

So basically your objection is with creationism vs abiogenesis, not with how a 'species' is defined.

---

Ah, but your definition of evolution and mine are two separate things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor; I believe each species evolved from an ancestor of the same species, and of those two scenarios, only the latter is demonstrable.

Wrong, again. Look into the genetic coding for the human immunological system, for instance. Yes, this will require you to read a little, and (gasp!) read stuff you may not agree with at first. Also, I notice that this is just a fancy way of avoiding using the terms "mircoevolution" and "macroevolution". I'd be happy to see your hypothesis on what prevents the former from becoming the latter.

If we follow the narrative of the Bible, God originally created man, and in order for man to reproduce they had to inbreed. This was not a problem for them since they were the beginning of the species. Nowadays inbreeding with your sister is wrong and is highly likely to have negative effects.

So that being the case, we can ONLY go in a negative direction, heck according to scripture didn't man used to live upwards of 900 years?

So when I say we "devolved" know that I'm always referring to evolution from a biblical stand point, whether you agree with it or not...

There's your problem, then,  I'm talking about facts; you're talking about horseshit. Not only did you get the mathematics of inbreeding wrong, you're basing it on a fanciful tale that has no bearing on the topic of evolution.  Get back to me when you're ready and able to talk facts.

Until then, have a nice evening.

But you haven't presented any "facts" have you? For starters show me one "fact" on how life began...

[Thumpalumpacus]

But you haven't presented any "facts" have you? For starters show me one "fact" on how life began...

Ah, so you'd rather discuss the origins of life rather than evolution? Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Lordy, pick a topic and we'll chew it up, but don't ask to play dominoes and then start with hopscotch for your first play. You've gone from devolution to biblical kinds to abiogenesis in about 3.8 neurons, Hugs.

[Huggy Bear]

But you haven't presented any "facts" have you? For starters show me one "fact" on how life began...

Ah, so you'd rather discuss the origins of life rather than evolution? Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Lordy, pick a topic and we'll chew it up, but don't ask to play dominoes and then start with hopscotch for your first play. You've gone from devolution to biblical kinds to abiogenesis in about 3.8 neurons, Hugs.

It's all related.

Our origins determine whether we evolve or de-evolve...

If abiogenesis is correct, then evolution in the sense that we evolved from a common ancestor is also correct.

If creationism is correct, then it is not possible for humans to become better than how God originally made them, the only way to go is in a negative direction, hence "devolve"...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Negative. We were talking about how the inability to beat the snot out of each other for 124 rounds means we aren't the men we used to be, and now you're trying to shoehorn your god-thingy into this.

Surely such a majestic being as your objet de culte has better examples than this. You're trying to import origin into change, but it's slipshod thinking, and it will be pointed out.

Additionally, you write that it's our origins that determine whether we evolve or devolve, but this point of yours ignores the most basic point, which is relative motion. Our origins don't determine change; change determines change. Revolutionary idea, huh? Change is the distance between two points. If there has been no motion, there is no change, and that renders the origin irrelevant.

I know you can do better than this, bud. C'mon now.