Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are completely incorrect. I love it when people unfamiliar with science "debate" science and expose thier ignorance. The "effect I described" was in place until the social welfare state developed. In earlier human societies, the "most fit" were those with higher intelligence who were able to produce more food, better shelter, or better weapons and thus able to procreate more and pass on thier genetic material. Those who could not produce food, shelter, or weapons died off, thus creating genetic "dead ends".
Evolution is the process by which natural selection promotes the "survival of the most fit". This relates completely to the ability to procreate and pass on one's genetic material. In a society in which intelligence, the ability to produce more and better food, better shelter, or better weapons is eliminated, the "stress of the environment" is eliminated in "selecting" more fit individuals. With socialism and the welfare state, we now diametically oppose the forces of natural selection and select those with the poorest attributes as being "most fit". Who has the most children in today's society? The poor and uneducated have the largest families, thus producing a larger and larger cohort of uneducated, less intelligent beings with poorer social skills. It is de-evolution.
You have completely confused the evolutionary with social Darwinism, which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory. I think, perhaps, you need a little bit more "learnin'" about genetics, evolution, and natural selection.
Just to follow up, here's my original post:
Originally Posted by Strel
Evolution is a condition of life. It never stops as long as there is life reproducing itself. That you think otherwise only underscores that you really don't understand the basics of it.
This AFFECTS evolution, but it does not stop it.
As for your politicization of science in your last sentence, it's beyond ridiculous. The effect you describe began as soon as we settled down and started using agriculture instead of wandering around hunting mammoths.
Now please do explain where I wandered into Social Darwinism, except in the sense that I accused YOU of doing it by politicizing it.
If just one transition fossil could be showed to us I would have a stronger belief in evolution as a truth and not just a theory. Coulter was so right on about nobody finding one of those things.
LOLOLOLOL..The only thing that you've proven is that you're completely deluded. An old book not supported by any evidence proves absolutely nothing. Lets play with your "theory". Lets just for sake of argument say that the earth was created/caused, what evidence (not an old book) but verifiable evidence that your invisible good was responsible for it? I'll answer for you, NONE. You can't possibly know because science has not yet figured out definitively what happened prior to the big bang. You have no evidence, you have faith which is belief without evidence or the willful acceptance of ignorance. Just sit back and do what most religious apologist do and wait for science to find the real answer, then craft your religious apology to "fit" the evidence. The Pope has said the big bang occured (which is a basic admission that the bible is a fairytale) but that he KNOWS "god" was behind it!! Really, this guy in a funny hat with no science background knows who did what almost 14 billion years ago..Religion, it's just too ignorant to be funny.
It's a rare species of logic that they teach in seminaries, evidently.
You've read my posts, and you've given no answer for them except to pretend you're somehow smarter than me.
If you'd like to use actual logic (the laws of logic), I can prove that there is a creator. But I don't think you really want to. You're too emotionally attached to your disbelief.
You've read my posts, and you've given no answer for them except to pretend you're somehow smarter than me.
There's no need to pretend.
Actually, this has little to do with intelligence. I can tell from your writing that you are intelligent.
Objecivity, however, is an intellectual virtue that escapes you.
Quote:
If you'd like to use actual logic (the laws of logic), I can prove that there is a creator. But I don't think you really want to. You're too emotionally attached to your disbelief.
I've seen you try and fail, many times.
And oh, how you forget how many times I have had to remind you that I am not an atheist.
Actually, this has little to do with intelligence. I can tell from your writing that you are intelligent.
Objecivity, however, is an intellectual virtue that escapes you.
I've seen you try and fail, many times.
And oh, how you forget how many times I have had to remind you that I am not an atheist.
Thank you for the backhanded compliment.
I can, and have succeeded many times on here using the cosmological argument, with necessary and sufficient cause. The fact that you and the others here are not willing to concede defeat is your failure.
I find it interesting, the irony of people ripping into those that question the status quo and calling them dumb for daring to look at things a new way.
What I find interesting is the number of people who use the word "irony" in the wrong context. Far from being a valiant seeker of truth "daring to look at things in a new way" in the face of oppressive authority Coulter longs for a time when her Bronze Age superstitions were the science of the day and her willfully ignorant ideological ancestors imposed their dogmatic tyranny on a powerless public. In other words she's defending the old way not the new. Its not ironic to call a spade a spade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
pot...kettle
There is all sorts of evidence to support creationism. And all sorts of holes in the theory of evolution. I believe in time evolution will be seen as a great hoax. It'll go the way of the flat-earthers.
Now this is irony: invoking the medieval church's flat earth lunacy that along with their embrace of geocentric cosmology effectively straight-jacketed honest scientific cosmological debate for centuries as a comparison to evolutionary theory in support of a rebranded ancient Christian creation myth posing as science. It doesn't get any thicker than that.
Like it or not the superstitious world view is slowly, but surely giving way to its rational superior. What we're witnessing in the Ann Coulter's of the world are the deathroes of a dying ethos lashing out at those whose reason is rendering their quasi-magical world view obsolete.
The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.
Breaking News: Ann Coulter thinks of self as desirable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try this and do some research
