U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

Been doing some more reading of epigenetic effects being heritable. Sounds very Lamarkian to me.

LW- Im hoping that, with the current season of the SCience stations pursuing evolution entertainment shows, we will have more people being exposed to what the underlying principles of natural selection and its components are.

The inheritance of acquired characteristics is not accepted by anybody serious as far as I know but it is obviously possible that the capacity to acquire the characteristics is heritable.

When these "more people", as you call them, no doubt waving your twisting fingers in the air to conjure the abstraction into reality, have been exposed to the underlying principles of natural selection and its components do you think the females, who I presume you include, will demand to be impregnated by the "fittest" males in our society and, if so, which is obviously logical from their point of view and, many would say, from society's point of view, would you be in favour of them being enabled, encouraged even, to be so impregnated or do you think moral and religious ideas should over-ride the science to which you approve of them being exposed to and, presumably, accepting?

You will provide us all with an answer won't you effemm as it is difficult for us to get a handle on where you are coming from unless you do.

You surely do not wish these ladies to be exposed to scientific theories which you are against them accepting in their entirety? It is often difficult to define a word like "ridiculous" objectively but I think the notion of approving of these ladies being exposed to a scientific truth and disapproving of them accepting it comes very close to that ideal.

After all effemm, it is well known that the "fittest" males do have something of a plentiful supply of impregnating material. A surplus indeed. Mr Burroughs has it streaming down the walls in one of his books.

To what extent do you think the males of the A2K Darwinian Claque could be considered to be qualified for the role with all moral and religious considerations set aside which is what they seem to favour.

Something wrong spendi? Are we depressed? Relax , Its Friday, you have all weekend to decompress.

No, no,no effemm. Answer the question willya?

Have you not the bottle? Don't go laying stuff on me in order to excuse yourself. Everybody on here knows what that means.

It was a simple enough question. I can get a lot more compressed that that. It was first gear stuff.

Becksie is watching. You don't want a pretty little lady like her to think you objectively ridiculous do you?

Stick to arm wrestling is my advice.

HMMM obviously your diet is low in natural mellowing agents. Might I suggest Ketchup.

This from the Ketchup Advisory Board

Ketchup and vodka? Yuk.

As the Sex Pistols famously said effemm--NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS!!

Here's the questions again-





Perhaps one of your cohorts will answer them or maybe one of those writers of the books or articles who you admire so much, Dawkins say, if they are up for avoiding muttering nonsense into their shirt fronts.

I think I'll have them printed out. On reflection they are rather tastily worded even if I do say so myself. I've inserted a comma after "components", as you might have noticed, to enable the reader to take a quick breath.

"Wor a wimp!!" , as Dierdrie Featherstoneaugh is wont to say, smirking.

What's Jack high against a prial of threes?

in case you haven't noticed, spendi, women already go for the fittest to survive, which is why they go home with the jocks, the rock stars, and the guys with the big bank balances, rather than you.

Relevance Please?

Yeah--I know Jack. Terrible innit?

You have to feel sorry for the jocks, the rock stars and the big bank balances. The Legover tax. It's murderous.

You didn't fancy the questions either eh? It isn't as if there's anything novel about them. There's sperm banks and harems. And I saw an article last week which said that one in three married blokes are paying for the upkeep of another bloke's kids without knowing.

Come on effemm. You are embarrassing your legion of devoted followers.

And here's me thinking for twenty years that Veblen had been exaggerating in his The Higher Learning in America and all the while he had been being discreet.

You're the one who welcomed "more people" being introduced to the joys of natural selection and you daren't answer the first obvious questions about it.

Yes, spendius, expose them to all the science. They can handle it. Society can handle it. Has in fact handled it for a century and a half. If religion can't handle it, reform the religion.

No Jack-- that's not an answer. Exposing them to it is one thing. Acting on the science is quite another. And what's the point of exposing them to it if they don't act upon it?

um, spendius, humans have been acting as the science tells us they will for several million years, just as every other animal does. That's why we're still here. Religion's strictures aren't needed, either to keep reproduction going or to keep society going, nor in today's society are religious strictures particularly relevant, despite what you keep posting. It worries you. It doesn't worry anyone else, which is why, for the most part, we ignore your posts.

Yeah-- but for the several million years it was nasty short and brutish. Now it's just a bowl of cherries.

BTW--I don't give a flying **** if this "we" of your's ignore my posts even for all parts.

Man I love the Ignore feature. One click and all these hate-mongering creationist morons disappear!

I want to know why Scandanavian countries are so good? Just from past knowledge I also know that they have the least corruption, have very good prison systems etc.

It's probably because they are frightened. Frightened people are always very good. They do have long, dark nights to mope about things.