Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Women being smaller needed to know the feelings of others to survive. Men didnt. They needed facts on hunting.

You speak as this being a fact could you prove it? Thanks

Women need to be smaller to give us a bit of a chance.

I have to agree with with you on this one Spendius even though I do not know it to be a fact! If you seen my wife you may think that I am crazy as she is 6 feet 5 inches! No I am just joking!

You are accurate as usual, Spendi....I know of several husbands who were bashed. One within inches of me. I told her that if she hit him again I would hit her. He said if I hit her he would hit me. So I said, "over to you...you start by hitting him again and we will see what happens". She didnt. She seemed confused. What was wrong with a smaller person hitting a bigger person ? Surely size is so organised as to be a detriment to the bigger....that if you are going to have a bully it must be the smaller.....

Many instances of wife bashing have been attributed to the wife's guilty conscience. She feels inadequate or guilty, knows exactly what to say and says it to get bashed. Very cathargic....she felt bad and was punished and then she felt good. Doesnt quite justify her behaviour but it did alleviate her conscience.

I know only of one instance of a wife basher and he was a slapper. Whenever the argument degenerated into name calling, he wasnt good enough to win with words so he used his strength. She wanted to only use words so she could win. He wanted to move the arena to an area he was more capable. It never stopped them from fighting like cats and dogs till they got a divorce.

I have seen arguments saying we cant prove men were the hunters. Does anyone really think women were the hunters, assuming we were hunters. If men looked after the children, then the men would be gatherers. Does that seem likely ?

There are many facts that support the idea that women needed to constantly stay on top of the dynamics of herd life. Any study of chimpanzees shows the constantly shifting of allegiances, with preference being given to forming an alliance with chimps who have a stronger position in the troupe. This is emphasised when resources are short. The bigger and their allies use the resources, the smaller do without. There is a good argument that the brutallity of our ancestors was a major key for the development of tools, with females leading the way. The first use of a weapon stands more chance of being used by a female with child attacked by a male, where there is no retreat than a troupe attacked by, say, a leopard where it is everyone for themselves and they can run away.

None of this is proof. I would rather call it a suggestion than facts.

What about this from mysteryman on another thread--it's about using library computers to access internet porn.



Any comment from our resident constitutional experts. Agree or disagree or run away again?

There was a race of them somewhere around where Ukraine is now. So Herodotus reported. I've read a book of his that mentions them. It seems they came south once a year to be fertilised. I suppose they killed the boy babies like SCUM recommends.

Other than that I've seen nothing about women hunting in any other place. The cave paintings show men. You can tell they are men because they all have erections what with hunting being the initiation of foreplay.

I saw a lady today who could easily have been any one of those ladies in Wikipedia's long list of Female wrestlers. What a walk she had. "Phew!!" I thought on the instant.

The count of species other than humans that use (and sometimes make) tools is, I think, edging up towards twenty. Pretty much all of them are used to get food (chimps sometimes use tree limbs threshed about to appear more fearsome to adversaries--I'm not sure if they ever whack them with them), which suggests that that was probably what hominims used the earliest tools for, rather than weapons (tho some could have been multipurpose).

Tools like digging sticks or ant sticks (like chimp use to extract ants from anthills) or clubs from branches, pretty much decay and leave no trace in the archaeological record a million years later, unfortunately. Only stuff like chipped stones survives, which kind of gives us a skewed picture of what proto-humans actually used as tools. (And the earliest flaked stone tools would have functioned better as things like scrapers or blades to process animal corpses, which could have been from kills made by other animals, not humans, rather than weaponhs).

Also in modern hunter-gatherer societies, something like 75-80% of the food consumed comes from gathering, not hunting. It was probably always that way. The hunters weren't the ones that really kept the people going.

The circuitous route of the laryngeal nerve in mammals has been used as an example to refute intelligent design arguments:



A geneticist in Germany who is a proponent of intelligent design has published a scientific paper that takes issue with the interpretation of evolutionary biologists regarding the laryngeal nerve:

http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf

You would hit a woman? Who's not even bothering you? Spendius would.

Y'all married?

There's no need to view the video in order to discover that the circuitous route of the laryngeal nerve in mammals has no bearing on the subject of intelligent design and only a completely unscientific person would think it might have.

How did you manage to arrive at such a fatuity em? Do you think that your ignorant assertion proves that my posts are invalid?

Are you scared of answering the question about library porn access in case it shows what a good little Christian moralist you actually are underneath that supposed empirically severe critical analysis you lot boast about so much.

Anyway--you said it. I would never do. Let people judge on those two facts.

The library doesn't have to buy porn books either. Internet access is no different.

Thanks for sharing! I found this one to be interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5S900T_uOc&feature=related

That doesn't answer mysterman's point at all. It's just a verbal dodge. Such things are very common on the anti-ID side. The NCSE deals in little else. As do the articles wande brings to our attention.

American porn movies have Library of Congress numbers.

Show us some anti-ID side dodges that are so common?

I'm not sure exactly what point you think you're making, Spendius, with your library dodge. In my local library, when they had just one bank of half a dozen computers, very public, there used to be a late teen kid you'd see in there most afternoons, with his jacket over his head, covering himself and the monitor. My assumption, and probably everyone else's, is that he was watching porn. And that was in summer too, 90 degrees around here. After a couple hours of that, he'd emerge looking a lot like a steamed dim sum dumpling. And we're a very liberal, pro-evolution town, so no, I don't think your argument that evolutionists somehow try to hide that sex is at the root of things is valid.

youve got to understand, while most intelligent people here dont subscribe to any of spendis dislocated arguments, that wont ever stop him. You can , if youre interested, play back every ten pges or more and youll find that he incessently repeats his arguments. He doesnt understand several things about this thread, among which includes its title and main thrust. (Its an argument in which he has no dog ) SO hes just doing this for self gratification and attention,(probably attention should be listed first)

Spendi is our own Bullwar Lytton on a bender.

Every single one that assumes that science is limited to what they think is science which they have defined for their own use as the whole of science and excluded, have on Ignore, anything they assert is not science.

And that's every one of wande's quotes and every one of anti-IDer's posts.

And you blew the whole position away talking about happy/unhappy on an economics thread. Not me. You.