132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 03:37 am
@JimmyJ,
They may well have their advantages.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 05:30 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
When you say that you "suspect" the veracity of some conclusion based upon sveral layers of evidence you need to realize that this vidence is a huge web of meta data.


Which serves four purposes--

1--To prove that it is respectable to wank, to shag unmarried women, to shag the wives of other men, to shag blokes, to kill unborn babies, to make marriage a business deal, to facilitate the spaying of women with mechanical devices, chemicals and surgical operations and, somewhat illogically, to allow ladies to perform sacredotal functions as was the case with priestesses of the more notorious Pagan mystery religions. The wide dissemination of pornographic images, and the use of them as a spur to the buying impulse, will of necessity flood the ocean of images and lead to the re-establishment of matriarchy.

2--To further expand the web of meta data with banal and repetitive observations so that the averagely intelligent sons and daughters of the kept classes can be found something to do which keeps them off the streets and permits them to imagine that they are not averagely intelligent.

3--To boss the population with aggressive and unusual verbalisations.

4--To shipwreck our society and cast it up on a shore in a totalitarian wilderness.

I can't see any other uses the huge web of meta data might have. That a blowhole is a migrated nostril is about as much use as a fart on the dark side of the moon.

farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 05:46 am
@spendius,
data only speaks for itself, it has no moral imperative attached to it. You , I think, are the only one whose beliefs lean this way.
But, you have a Merry Christmas too spendi, and Think about how I even am allowed to celebrate this holiday.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 05:52 am
@JimmyJ,
Quote:
I already mentioned nipples on men in another thread as an evolutionary "flaw". Nobody responded.


Which is to be expected because it is impossible for them to be a flaw. Perhaps it is your limited sexual experience which leads you to such an idiotic conclusion.

What do you think is the function of the excitable nature of the female nipples in a milk delivery teat? Is that a flaw. Or any other erogenous zone for that matter. On the stripped down mechanical operation of the reproductive act neither serve any purpose. Cash inducements serve just as well assuming force is ruled out.

What is the function of jumped up nobodies grossly oversimplifying physiological characteristics to the point of absurdity? Are they flaws?
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 06:15 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
data only speaks for itself, it has no moral imperative attached to it.


Hey fm--you're not addressing a class of eager geological wannabees on here. There is no other purpose of this vast field of flim-flam that to get the Catholic Church off your backs. Getting excited about things occurring in the foggy ruins of time is a very odd way of behaving if it is merely for its own sake and with no agenda in back of it.

But I am glad you are celebrating the anniversary of the birth of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind and using His blessed memory to inflict your person on sundry relatives and friends to make sure you are not forgotten and to over-indulge your other appetites.

I imagine that the number of people who will have a miserable Christmas will far outweigh the number having a merry one.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 06:22 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Getting excited about things occurring in the foggy ruins of time is a very odd way of behaving if it is merely for its own sake and with no agenda in back of it.
There are a vast number of things that get me "excited". Im not a one dimensional being even though I may sometimes sound like it. Maybe someone will start a thread about that subject.

Be good to yourself, thats all I can wish. Try not to blow a gasket scolding everyone. Thatll make your Holiday more peaceful than will your militant (and faux) belief in Christianity

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 07:21 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Anyone want to tackle nipples on men?


that would be illegal holding , automatic 15 yrds


No, no, no...not 15 yards. But we were so close to the goal line.

Merry Christmas, FM. Hope the trip is lots of fun. Didn't realize you lived near Amish country.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 07:25 am
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
Yeah...it really does.


No, it does not.


Yeah, Jimmy, it really does. If you make an assertion in a debate...the burden of proof does fall on you.

Quote:


Quote:

I do not have to know anything about science to tell you that in debate, the burden of proof for any assertion falls on the person making the assertion.

Ask someone grown-up, Jimmy. They'll tell you.


There is no debate here. These are facts we're talking about.


The discussion we are having is a debate of sorts.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 07:32 am
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

I already mentioned nipples on men in another thread as an evolutionary "flaw". Nobody responded.


Bummer!

Actually, I've mentioned the issue many times over the years...mostly in the "having a bit of fun" way I did here.

Stephen Jay Gould did a great essay on the question, Jimmy. I'm sure you researched that paper.

Well...maybe you didn't...because he certainly does not consider them an evolutionary "flaw."

But I wonder...do you think your guesses are more likely to be the actual reason than the guesses of Gould?
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 07:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
edit
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 07:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Anybody reduced to guessing about such matters has not been paying attention due to living in reduced circumstances.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 01:31 pm
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:
We're talking millions of years here.

And you are incorrect. Blow holes ARE a migrated nostril. In fact, they technically ARE nostrils. If you aren't satisfied with the first source I'll have to send you to Berkeley's explanation (which says essentially the same thing in more detail). Keep in mind Berkeley has one of the great Biology schools in the West.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

I've already provided multiple lines of evidence regarding the evolution of the eye. I don't think I need to go through that again...
You can be the expert here, Jimmy. Contrary to your condescending assertion, I know the blow hole is a nostril. What you have failed to address is how this nostril, in it's journey, manged to separate from the throat. When did it happen? Was it a simultaneous double whammy? Or, if not, how did intervening mutations survive? 'Cause, you know, that would be important. And while you are at it, explain when the intervening mutations suddenly developed breach birth, also necessary to keep newborns from drowning.

I've looked through your 'evidence' and can't see much in the way of explanation.

Here's the whale's great great grandaddy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Indohyus_BW.jpg
He's got a long way to go.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 02:12 pm
@neologist,
That's not so far compared to Congressmen coming from crustaceans.
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 07:09 pm
@spendius,
I guess you enjoy when women suck on your nipples, and therefore they must be evolutionarily advantageous.
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 07:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Yeah, Jimmy, it really does. If you make an assertion in a debate...the burden of proof does fall on you.


Incorrect

Quote:
The discussion we are having is a debate of sorts.


You'd like to think so.
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 07:12 pm
@neologist,
I'm not an expert on the study of "whale evolution", Neologist. Perhaps you should look into the field yourself. Of course, it does seem as though you're questioning the validity of the folks down at UC Berk., in which case I must assume that you are some type of Biology genius.
anonymously99
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 09:54 pm
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ's words: 
I guess you enjoy when women suck on your nipples, and therefore they must be evolutionarily advantageous.

anonymously99's words:
I would suck on a man's nipples for him, without him asking.  Wink
raprap
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 10:12 pm
Do I believe in evolution--actually science is based in nihilism and skepticism. So the answer is no--but for now it is a elegant solution to a complex problem.

The big Kahuna, blessed be his name, shows its presence in the clues not the actions, and as the universe operates under a recursive order of chaos, I consider Darwin's theory on the order of species to be an elegant solution of a complex problem. A solution so elegant it could only be the result of a Kahuna clue.

IMHO I've always had the problem with an active skygod. Activity to me means that the universe gets out of kilter every once in a while and this skygod uses Adam Smith's Invisible Hand to nudge it back to stability. If that's the case this skygod needs to mature.

Rap
anonymously99
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 10:18 pm
@anonymously99,
Quote:
JimmyJ's words: 
I guess you enjoy when women suck on your nipples, and therefore they must be evolutionarily advantageous.
anonymously99's words: 
I would suck on a man's nipples for him, without him asking.  


The right man.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 10:23 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
do you think your guesses are more likely to be the actual reason than the guesses of Gould?

Gould is a co-father suspect of a startlingly obtuse " primary law of evolution" that of "Punctuated Equilibrium ".Most evolutionary biologists don't accept it anymore, and most paleontologists doubted Gould and Eldredge when they first came up with it. Why must we compare one anothers "guesses" with those we pose as authorities, as if quoted authorities are always right and those herein are always wrong .

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 06:30:12