Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 22, 2024, 4:52 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Conservatives have more self-control
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
(January 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm)alpha male Wrote:
(January 30, 2018 at 5:30 pm)Shell B Wrote: Evolution is evolution. It has the same function in every species.

What's that function?

Survival?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
Reply
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
(January 30, 2018 at 6:55 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Women, as in homo sapien females, did not “evolve” to become weaker.   This is total bullshit.

To see what the encolutionary trend is, one should start with where females were when the genus homo first arose and began its march towards both science and superstition.   The genus homo arose from austolopithicines 2 million years ago.   Our ancesters the Australopithecines bequeathed to the fist homo a sexual dimorphism vastly greater than in our modern Homo sapiens.   The typical male austrolopithicus is 50% taller and weigh 3-4 times as much as the female.   To put that in perspective, if that kind of sexual dimorphism is evolutionarily beneficial to our way of life and therefore preserved to our present day, then our alpha male friend would daily face male competitors typically 8 feet tall and weigh 500 lbs, and who would rip alpha male limb from limb as easily as alpha male might pulls the wings off of a butterfly, in order to lay their foot long hands on what our alpha male friend presume to be his female.  He would be quite the omega, rather than alpha, male.

Yet in our genus’ 2 million years, sexual dimorphism has progressively become less.  Homo sapiens have amongst the smallest sexual dimorphism amongst primates.  The typical make is only 15% taller and maybe 30% heavier than the typical female.  The trend towards diminution in sexual dimorphism was almost continuous from the austrolopithicine to Homo sapiens.

It seems to me human females are evolving not to be weaker, but stronger, compared to human males.  Our female ancesters started from a position of vast disadvantage in size and body mass 2-3 million years ago.  They’ve almost fully made up the gap.  From a position of being 50% smaller, and 25% the body mass, they are now almost equal, being only 15% smaller, and perhaps 70% the body mass.   So what does that say?

It seem to say that with our life style and our social and ecological environment, there is persistent evolutionary advantage to the next generation for the women to be stronger.

Alpha male ought to take a breath of relief because other men in the society are not 3 times his body mass and bent on turning him into jelly in order to impreganate his presumably evolutionary trend buckingly submissive female.
All true  Smile
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
(January 30, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Shell B Wrote:
(January 30, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It's not a function. It's a process.

Evolution is a process that has a function. I was referring to the function, not the process of evolution in my interaction with beta, which is what he was referring to. I'd really rather if you didn't get involved in my part of the discussion if it means this thread will devolve as others have. It forces me to respond when I have to correct a statement, which I don't mind if things won't get stupid.

Evolution is a function of natural selection, not species, was my point. It is not a function of species, at all. It results in species.

As far as what I get involved in, so far as I can see the rules do not permit one member limiting another member's participation in a thread. You are of course free to respond or not as you see fit.

(January 30, 2018 at 7:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(January 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm)alpha male Wrote: What's that function?

Survival?

Evolution has zero concern about survival -- or any other aim. 99% of all species are extinct. 99% of all evolution has resulted in dead ends -- literally.
Reply
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
Biological Evolution has a role, in the sense that so long as biosphere exists for evolution to occur the process of evolution unavoidably interacts with, affects and is affected by other parts of the natural world.    It has no function in the sense that it fulfilled some intended role.

Biological evolution on earth could just as easily have led the biosphere of the earth down the path of total collapse right near the beginning, leaving it with no role to play during the subsequent evolution of earth the planet.
Reply
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
(January 30, 2018 at 7:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Evolution has a role, in the sense it is a process that unavoidably interacts with, affects and is affected by other parts of the natural world.    It has no function in the sense that it filled some intended role.

Exactly. "Function" implies teleology.

In evolution, there is none. Don't believe me, ask the trilobites. Or the T. Rex. Or the ...
Reply
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
(January 30, 2018 at 7:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(January 30, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Shell B Wrote: Evolution is a process that has a function. I was referring to the function, not the process of evolution in my interaction with beta, which is what he was referring to. I'd really rather if you didn't get involved in my part of the discussion if it means this thread will devolve as others have. It forces me to respond when I have to correct a statement, which I don't mind if things won't get stupid.

Evolution is a function of natural selection, not species, was my point. It is not a function of species, at all. It results in species.

No one said it was "a function of species." I said, if I recall correctly, "evolution has a function." Not "evolution is a function." He said, "What function is that?" You said, "it's not a function." I think we're using the word function differently and that you understood the statement as "evolution is a function," which wasn't the statement.

Quote:As far as what I get involved in, so far as I can see the rules do not permit one member limiting another member's participation in a thread. You are of course free to respond or not as you see fit.

I never tried to limit your participation in the thread. I voiced my preference as it pertains to me. Again, I don't mind, as long as it doesn't turn into the typical circus, which always results in closed threads, which I'm quite sick of, to be honest.

Anyway, beta, you gonna respond to anything you don't have an insincere question about or what?

(January 30, 2018 at 7:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Biological Evolution has a role, in the sense that so long as biosphere exists for evolution to occur the process of evolution unavoidably interacts with, affects and is affected by other parts of the natural world.    It has no function in the sense that it fulfilled some intended role.

Biological evolution on earth could just as easily have led the biosphere of the earth down the path of total collapse right near the beginning, leaving it with no role to play during the subsequent evolution of earth the planet.

A function doesn't have to be an intended role or purpose. This is semantics and not even correct semantics.

It's unlikely that evolution would have led the Earth down a path of total collapse right near the beginning. Moreover, we're not talking about some hypothetical planet Earth where evolution has no function. We're talking about this Earth, where it does.

I do agree that evolution has no intended role. I just don't see where anyone said it did.

(January 30, 2018 at 7:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(January 30, 2018 at 7:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Evolution has a role, in the sense it is a process that unavoidably interacts with, affects and is affected by other parts of the natural world.    It has no function in the sense that it filled some intended role.

Exactly. "Function" implies teleology.

In evolution, there is none. Don't believe me, ask the trilobites. Or the T. Rex. Or the ...

Again semantics. Also, still not relevant to the fact that you were arguing that I said "evolution is a function." Your argument wasn't that evolution has no function, which is Anomalocaris' argument, so your "exactly" doesn't make any sense.

(January 30, 2018 at 6:55 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: bequeathed to the fist homo

Dude, that is easily the best typo I've ever seen. Bravo.
Reply
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
(January 30, 2018 at 8:55 pm)Shell B Wrote: No one said it was "a function of species." I said, if I recall correctly, "evolution has a function." Not "evolution is a function."

(January 30, 2018 at 5:30 pm)Shell B Wrote: Evolution is evolution. It has the same function in every species.

I've added the emphasis.

(January 30, 2018 at 8:55 pm)Shell B Wrote: I never tried to limit your participation in the thread. I voiced my preference as it pertains to me. Again, I don't mind, as long as it doesn't turn into the typical circus, which always results in closed threads, which I'm quite sick of, to be honest.

All I did was draw a point about what evolution is, and is not -- for the wider audience. You expressed a preference for me not to reply to you, right? Well, I wasn't replying to you. I was contributing to the discussion. I wasn't even replying to you. I was replying to Alpha Male.


(January 30, 2018 at 7:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Exactly. "Function" implies teleology.

In evolution, there is none. Don't believe me, ask the trilobites. Or the T. Rex. Or the ...

(January 30, 2018 at 8:55 pm)Shell B Wrote: Again semantics. Also, still not relevant to the fact that you were arguing that I said "evolution is a function." Your argument wasn't that evolution has no function, which is Anomalocaris' argument, so your "exactly" doesn't make any sense.

Oh, another reply.

You did indeed say that evolution is a function of species -- see my above direct quote of you.

My argument, as I've said before, is that evolution is not a function of species. I was addressing something a little different in my reply to Chuck -- to wit, that folks who don't understand EbNS often apply teleology to the process when there is none. I thought that point needed to be limned.
Reply
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
Saying it serves the same function in every species is not the same thing as saying it’s a function of a species, and I suspect you know that. Perhaps saying function for every species would have been clearer, but you know what I was saying.

You were responding to him, correcting something I said that you didn’t read the way I intended to write it. Clearly, I’m an atheist and wouldn’t think any biological process is intended.

Yes, I’m replying to your input into a conversation I was having. I’m also being as civil as possible so yet another thread doesn’t get closed, so return the courtesy?
Reply
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
Smaller "egos" too, it seems.

Dammit, did I type "egos"? I meant dicks.

Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:

"You did WHAT?  With WHO?  WHERE???"
Reply
RE: Conservatives have more self-control
(January 30, 2018 at 6:41 pm)Shell B Wrote:
(January 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm)alpha male Wrote: What's that function?

I'd tell you, but it's not an honest question. If you were interested in actually knowing how evolution works and why, you'd read a book. Also, could you respond to the rest of my response to you or are you ignoring it because you don't have a rebuttal?

I asked the question to either:

- Go down a path showing that my reasoning is sound; or
- Show that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Subsequent discussion has proven the second point.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Are conservatives in this country trying to turn 'Murica into Nazi Germany? Silver 11 1765 May 6, 2022 at 8:22 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  What do you think about gun control? FlatAssembler 93 6553 February 21, 2022 at 10:06 pm
Last Post: The Architect Of Fate
  Do conservatives believe the shit on Fox News? Spongebob 119 11850 August 31, 2021 at 1:41 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Asshole conservatives. Jehanne 3 516 July 11, 2021 at 10:15 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Conservatives, COVID, Agency and Autism, some insights into political worldviews Rev. Rye 5 787 January 10, 2021 at 1:31 am
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Population control onlinebiker 43 3976 April 11, 2020 at 12:15 pm
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Proof gun control works GrandizerII 115 9214 August 23, 2019 at 4:28 pm
Last Post: onlinebiker
  Is Trump Hate Legit or Mob Control? jessieban 37 6890 June 21, 2019 at 3:38 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Why People Ignore Facts (Gun Control) Jade-Green Stone 22 2227 December 5, 2018 at 9:03 am
Last Post: Angrboda
  Why Do Republicans/Conservatives Bend Over Backwards for Companies? Jade-Green Stone 14 1909 November 28, 2018 at 2:48 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)