You lack willpower according to one idiot.excuse me while i ponder how come we cant fly, or breath under water yet without assistance...
Andy
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
You lack willpower according to one idiot.excuse me while i ponder how come we cant fly, or breath under water yet without assistance...
I will agree my willpower is lacking, but surely someone in the last few thousand years has had enough to at least accomplish one or the other?andyb wrote:
You lack willpower
You'd have to give up a lot of the human abilities that you value if your body were to adapt to be able to fly or breathe under water.xan_user wrote:wow. just wow.
to say im befuddled would be an understatement.
excuse me while i ponder how come we cant fly, or breath under water yet without assistance...
I think you've ascribed more homogeneity to the Republican party than actually exists. My impression is that there are different factions with fairly different goals, but happen to align in certain ways. There are libertarians who vote Republican because the Republican party "supposedly" (I say supposedly, because they support programs like the military and Homeland Security, which is far more expensive than most of the social programs they want to cut.) is for smaller government, and who have no major conflict with the religious agenda of the fundamentalist Christians.andyb wrote:One of my main concerns with any member of the American right wing of politics is that they are Fundamentalist Christians and they seek (as their bullshit scriptures and the idiots at the pulpit tell them) to force their ancient and stupid beliefs onto everyone else, "God via Democracy" is a very bad thing indeed - and I don't even care what God it is, that is why I don't want another "Moron in the Whitehouse".
I fail to see what an uncited anecdote with a sample size of 1 demonstrates anything.Reachable wrote:You'd have to give up a lot of the human abilities that you value if your body were to adapt to be able to fly or breathe under water.xan_user wrote:wow. just wow.
to say im befuddled would be an understatement.
excuse me while i ponder how come we cant fly, or breath under water yet without assistance...
A few years ago there was a girl in the U.S., about 16, who was the best rock climber without equipment in the world, better even than any man. Her family had been missionaries in Africa, and when she was about three years old her parents gave her a pet monkey. She wanted to be just like the monkey and followed it as it climbed trees. If you looked at her you at first wouldn't think she was any different than any other cute teenage girl, but her arms were actually extraordinarily long for her height, her body fat content was unusually low, and she had amazingly long fingers. She could do chin-ups with one finger of each hand. This is adaptation by a living creature.
ExactlyWhat you suggest would take a lot more time than 1000 years.
Please Mr Stupid may i have a link to some of this wonderful information that you are telling us is "real", I am sorry for being so distrusting of someone who "claims" to believe that Evolution is real and yet does not understand it one little bit.You'd have to give up a lot of the human abilities that you value if your body were to adapt to be able to fly or breathe under water.
A few years ago there was a girl in the U.S., about 16, who was the best rock climber without equipment in the world, better even than any man. Her family had been missionaries in Africa, and when she was about three years old her parents gave her a pet monkey. She wanted to be just like the monkey and followed it as it climbed trees. If you looked at her you at first wouldn't think she was any different than any other cute teenage girl, but her arms were actually extraordinarily long for her height, her body fat content was unusually low, and she had amazingly long fingers. She could do chin-ups with one finger of each hand. This is adaptation by a living creature.
I think that you have just defined "any" political party on the planet, in just the same way that you have defined any single human on the planet, we are all unique in every possible way, we just "align" ourselves to different movement or perspectives by how we feel, what we believe etc etc - not that there is anything wrong with that in anty way - it is a totally natural thing to happen that has been witnessed within many different groups of animals beyond humans before.I think you've ascribed more homogeneity to the Republican party than actually exists. My impression is that there are different factions with fairly different goals, but happen to align in certain ways.
Maybe this one has more to do with the average persons fear of the unknown and the fear of attack - I have the same issue with our government reducing the size of our military as well, this issue does not just affect the "right-leaning" people (like me, which is a long way left of the American right), but affects everyone as everyone needs to feel that their country is going to protect them.There are libertarians who vote Republican because the Republican party "supposedly" (I say supposedly, because they support programs like the military and Homeland Security, which is far more expensive than most of the social programs they want to cut.) is for smaller government, and who have no major conflict with the religious agenda of the fundamentalist Christians.
Hence my point with people voting God into power, these idiots might listen to scientists and let them run the show.......... unless it conflicts with an ancient collection of fairy-tales, then they become hardened "Christians" and suddenly ignore scientists, doctors and nurses - idiots.There are also fundamentalist Christians who are fairly socially liberal, but for whom moral issues like abortion and the death penalty trump any other aspects of the party line that they may disagree with.
I have no doubt there are, I am generally a "Tory" voter because they offer me what I want, they protect the things that I believe are worth protecting and they fight the things that I dislike...... generally..... no one is without fault and they will (if they have not already done so) commit good money to bad decisions, or given up on a fight that they should still be fighting, or even fighting a fight they should never have taken up.I'm sure there are also pro-corporation folks who vote Republican, because the Republican party tends to decrease progressive taxes (like income tax) in favor of regressive taxes, and who could care less about social programs, because they're shelling out money for the best private healthcare and private schools for their kids anyway.
Thanks for me having to not bother typing that all over again.I fail to see what an uncited anecdote with a sample size of 1 demonstrates anything.
Maybe you don't ascribe to the principles of the scientific method, but you should be aware that many of the people here do, and they will dismiss your theories as b.s. if you don't provide at least some credible evidence of your theory.
It is funny only if someone is saying it for amusement, however I believe that in this scenario it is actually "sad" because the individual appears to actually believe the crap that they are peddling.the "reachable theory of evolutionary change" has got to be some of the funniest crap ive read on the net in years....
surely horses must long to become Pegasus' or unicorns, and penguins and ostriches must long to fly with the other birds for millions of years, how come we don't see any yet?
Most people call this "training" or "conditioning". The younger you start the better you get provided that you have the right body type to begin with; look at the Chinese gymnasts for instance. This would not be hereditary unless you think that training can change ones DNA?Reachable wrote: A few years ago there was a girl in the U.S., about 16, who was the best rock climber without equipment in the world, better even than any man. Her family had been missionaries in Africa, and when she was about three years old her parents gave her a pet monkey. She wanted to be just like the monkey and followed it as it climbed trees. If you looked at her you at first wouldn't think she was any different than any other cute teenage girl, but her arms were actually extraordinarily long for her height, her body fat content was unusually low, and she had amazingly long fingers. She could do chin-ups with one finger of each hand. This is adaptation by a living creature.
way too much credit. pixar is far more realistic.judge56988 wrote:your notions however, are about as close to reality as a Pixar movie.
No it is not, it is merely a part of evolution, and not a large part either, forced conditioning such as mass-farmed chickens are not producing smaller wings and loosing their feathers even though many generations of them have been kept in areas that are so small and cramped that they simply don't have the room to fly (not that chickens are well know for flying), if 50,000 chickens per shed x several sheds per farm x many farms x many countries do not show any signs across dozens of generations that they are changing in any dramatic way then as it were, your evidence has flown away, and you are back to your insane idea that "willpower" and "thinking" can change things in a dramatic way in a small timescale (of a few generations), without evolution being involved.My point is that "training" and "conditioning" is the same process as evolution, except that the meaning of the word "evolution" describes a general species-wide transformation over time.
You really don't understand this subject do you.If Monkey Girl were to have met and married a Monkey Boy with the same adaptations, their kids would have the same adaptations. That's how it works. Offspring look like their parents. If you keep looking for an outside agency outside of anyone's will to determine natural forms then you're no different than a creationist.
I think you are very confused as to what drives evolution. There is no outside agency. It is the survival of those most suited to their environment. If you look here at a modern example of evolution in action (the peppered moth) you will find it explained in a better way than I could do. Or perhaps you think all those pale moths wished to be darker so that they would not get eaten.Reachable= wrote:
My point is that "training" and "conditioning" is the same process as evolution, except that the meaning of the word "evolution" describes a general species-wide transformation over time.
If Monkey Girl were to have met and married a Monkey Boy with the same adaptations, their kids would have the same adaptations. That's how it works. Offspring look like their parents. If you keep looking for an outside agency outside of anyone's will to determine natural forms then you're no different than a creationist.
How do you know that it doesn't change their DNA? It's obvious that human DNA has changed over time as a direct result of changes in human activities.judge56988 wrote: If a person changes their body shape by working out in a gym for example, this will not be passed on because it is not changing their DNA. If you want a personal example, my shoulders have become uneven (one higher than the other) because of the kind of work I've been doing for the last 30 years. When my daughter was born she did not have uneven shoulders. Unsurprisingly.
DNA can be changed or damaged by particles produced by radioactive decay, ionizing electromagnetic radiation, and toxic conditions. That much is known, because it was able to be determined by relatively simple experiments. As is always the case, the ceiling of knowledge in a given area is determined by what avenues are understood to have to be explored, and by the technology available to do so.xan_user wrote:what is obvious, is you need to do a lot of reading up on DNA and how it works.
You total and utter idiot, you really have no idea at all as to how evolution works.No evolution of the moth occurred.
really!? you want me to explain why will/desire has absolutely nothing to do with naturally controlling DNA?Reachable wrote:DNA can be changed or damaged by particles produced by radioactive decay, ionizing electromagnetic radiation, and toxic conditions. That much is known, because it was able to be determined by relatively simple experiments. As is always the case, the ceiling of knowledge in a given area is determined by what avenues are understood to have to be explored, and by the technology available to do so.xan_user wrote:what is obvious, is you need to do a lot of reading up on DNA and how it works.
And by the way, why don't you just give me a little outline of where my knowledge is deficient? Put your money where your mouth is -- I'll bet you can't.
In Nazi Germany it was a racist kind of social Darwinism, and a horrible culling of 'substandard' people. It was spoken and overt. It's not really the same as the economic kind. The latter is present as a current of thought in most places, especially when you have laissez-faire, unregulated economics. Social Darwinism predated Darwin -- he got his inspiration from it, insofar as it reflects the consequences of trade games. No, he didn't say as much (as far as I know), but that's the only source he could have gotten it from. Nature just doesn't work that way.dancingsnails wrote:Some bizarre ideas about evolution in this thread. Reachable, you could really benefit by reading a bit about biology. Also the connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is pretty tenuous - and I don't think there have been any (non fringe) proponents of Social Darwinism since the fall of Nazism.
First time I've heard anyone suggest that Darwin got his inspiration from Social Darwinists...Reachable wrote:In Nazi Germany it was a racist kind of social Darwinism, and a horrible culling of 'substandard' people. It was spoken and overt. It's not really the same as the economic kind. The latter is present as a current of thought in most places, especially when you have laissez-faire, unregulated economics. Social Darwinism predated Darwin -- he got his inspiration from it, insofar as it reflects the consequences of trade games. No, he didn't say as much (as far as I know), but that's the only source he could have gotten it from. Nature just doesn't work that way.
You're propounding bizarre ideas without much in the way of rational backing. It's reasonable to assume that you're doing so out of ignorance.It's interesting how there are those who are trying to rationalize that I don't know even basic biology, simply because I disagree with part of its doctrine.
To be fair I should say "without anything that comes across as rational backing".You're propounding bizarre ideas without much in the way of rational backing. It's reasonable to assume that you're doing so out of ignorance.