[Killfrenzy]

MAYDAY MAYDAY

THIS IS H.M.S. HARD LIGHT THREAD UNDER ATTACK FROM UNIDENTIFIED ****STIRRER

REQUESTING IMMEDIATE FIGHTER COVER AND RESCUE

Adjusted for correctness.

I hate it when people use 'the' in front of H.M.S. as it's not actually used in Royal Navy circles. The only time 'the' is used to regard a British warship is when 'H.M.S.' is dropped from the name. Sometimes not even then!

Examples:

"This is H.M.S. Warspite, we have engaged enemy vessel."

"Send the Repulse to escort that convoy. Send Arethusa as well for good measure."

Okay, nitpick over. Sorry for the hijack.....

[karajorma]

bleh, punctuated equilibria day is much cooler.

Punctuated equilibria is nothing more than stating very loudly a fact that was so obvious that no one thought it worth mentioning.

Darwin wins on the coolness.

Darwin can suck it...

Only cause he had lips thanks to evolution

[Charismatic]

Darwin can suck it...
that evolutionist bastard

Calm down, just because great conservative heroes such as Mark Foley and Ollie North 'suck it' and come from questionable parentage doesn't mean you have to project that onto a 19th century naturalist.

I know you're trying to put him on the same pedestal as your own heroes for the sake of breaching the gap between two different socio-political ideologies but please... don't...

 

Yeah um.. anyone care to transilate?

And lol, one brief comment when im dead tired at 1 AM with no sleep the previous night.. and that caused a rupture in time, which caused this whole thread to become completely hijacked.

Sorry, my bad.

[MarkN]

I might as well point out that Darwin is greatly overrated, due to the fact that much of his theories were in fact Lamarkian, as he theorised that change in species came from individuals developing adaptations from their behaviour. this theory was, of course, disproved by Genetics, and it wasn't until the 1920's that the modern theory of evolution (due to micromutations) was developed, after a few years of non-evolutionary theory concentrating on macro-mutations (think X-Men).

[Turey]

Calm down, just because great conservative heroes such as Mark Foley and Ollie North 'suck it' and come from questionable parentage doesn't mean you have to project that onto a 19th century naturalist.

I know you're trying to put him on the same pedestal as your own heroes for the sake of breaching the gap between two different socio-political ideologies but please... don't...

 

Yeah um.. anyone care to transilate?

He's assuming that, because you made an anti-Darwin comment, you must be a Republican (Which is just plain Bull ****.*) and that therefore you admire people like Mark Foley (Sent lewd emails to pages) and Oliver North (Iran-Contra scandal). As such, he insults these people as a way of trying to hurt you, in the hopes that you'll go cry in a corner for a week and then come back as a extreme Democrat.

* I HATE when people do this, for two reasons:
1. Just because you don't like Darwin, doesn't mean you're a Conservative Christian. I know plenty of liberals (probably because I live in California) who completely hate the idea of evolution, because it goes against the idea that everyone is equal, and that you can be anything you want to be. Evolution REQUIRES that some of the species is "better" than the rest of the species. Not all of us can be successful, no matter how much you wish.
2. Just because someone is Republican (or conservative, if you don't live in the US) doesn't mean that you don't believe in evolution. I'm a Republican (or a Libertarian, I haven't decided yet), and I'm not this way because I don't believe in Evolution, or the Big Bang, or Global Warming, or whatever you want to blame on me this week. I'm this way because I don't like a large Federal Government. I'd much rather have the laws that apply to me made by people who know what I want, instead of by people who have to balance what I want with what people in New Hampshire want. Better the foe you know than the one you don't.

Sorry to shake your world view, but some of us Republicans AREN'T the ignorant bible-belt hicks you like to portray us as. (No offense to anyone from said area.)

[redsniper]

I can't help but notice to old evolution thread has not risen and become one with the living. I can only conclude that someone is.. chicken.

I'd bump it just to get the ball rolling, except that I'm with the majority (of HLP) on this issue. The only one I know around here who might argue against evolution would be Chara and I think he's learned it's futile to argue that on HLP.

[aldo_14]

I can't help but notice to old evolution thread has not risen and become one with the living. I can only conclude that someone is.. chicken.

I'd bump it just to get the ball rolling, except that I'm with the majority (of HLP) on this issue. The only one I know around here who might argue against evolution would be Chara and I think he's learned it's futile to argue that on HLP.

If he was reading said huge-o-mognous thread, he should be aware it's wrong, let alone futile. I mean, he did say he was reading the responses, and every attempt to 'fail' evolutionary theory was pretty comprehensively replied to and disproven, usually by several people.

[MP-Ryan]

I might as well point out that Darwin is greatly overrated, due to the fact that much of his theories were in fact Lamarkian, as he theorised that change in species came from individuals developing adaptations from their behaviour. this theory was, of course, disproved by Genetics, and it wasn't until the 1920's that the modern theory of evolution (due to micromutations) was developed, after a few years of non-evolutionary theory concentrating on macro-mutations (think X-Men).

Did you READ "On The Origin of Species"?

Darwin proposed natural selection.  That is, that individuals in a species die off or reproduce according to the physical traits they possess and are capable of passing on to their offspring.  Lamarck proposed that physical changes were heritable.  Darwin's theory operates on a species level - traits are selected for and passed along in the species.  And behavioural adaptation is, in part, genetic.  Certain behaviours are selected for (via death vs reproduction), and even if behaviour itself isn't coded genetically (and its surprising how much of it can be, actually) the trait basis of behaviour is - things like temperament.  The only problem Darwin had was he didn't know the mechanism of heritability, which is ironic because he had in his possession Mendel's work on peas.

In summary... Darwin was by no means the first to propose evolution, BUT he was the first to propose the mechanism by which it occurs - natural selection.  He also provided evidence for it.

As for modern genetics, it has done nothing but complement Darwin's work, providing the basis of trait formation.  As it was, genetics didn't even manage to identify the heritable material until 1953.  Since then, we've learned that a variety of mutations, both micro and macro (but all on a genetic level) contribute to both phenotype and behaviour, all of which influence selection processes.

Darwin never proposed that he knew how heritable traits were coded (which again, he might have figured out if he read Mendel), and his work has been the grounding point for modern biology and psychology since.  It is difficult to overstate the impact Darwin's work has had on modern biology, including genetics (which, incidentally, I have a B.Sc Specialization in).

[fsi.scsi]

Darwin never proposed that he knew how heritable traits were coded (which again, he might have figured out if he read Mendel)

I remember my biology teacher telling me this.  Mendel's book was found, uncut, in Darwin's library.  He had ordered it a little while before his (Darwin's) death (if I remember correctly), so he never got the chance to see his work supported.

I also remember the Lamarckian hypothesis - it made me laugh.  (It was based, literally, around giraffes.  A giraffe stretches its neck out to get leaves, ergo its offspring have long necks.)

[Ace]

I know plenty of liberals (probably because I live in California) who completely hate the idea of evolution, because it goes against the idea that everyone is equal, and that you can be anything you want to be. Evolution REQUIRES that some of the species is "better" than the rest of the species. Not all of us can be successful, no matter how much you wish.

No, all it means is that people with more surviving kids are the ones passing on their genes. They aren't intrinsically better, they're just the survivors.

Just because reality doesn't conform to what either the far right (religious nutzos) or far left (postmodernist nutzos) want it to be doesn't mean you should be angsty. It means you should get with the program!

[fsi.scsi]

Evolution REQUIRES that some of the species is "better" than the rest of the species. Not all of us can be successful, no matter how much you wish.

I think you're misinterpreting Darwin's ideas just a little.  Evolution only requires that there be variation within a population.  "Better" is a subjective term, and is dependent on those practically random (in the original Darwinian view) phenomena that determine the "survival of the fittest."  Sidetrack example: White moths might be "better" at flying than black moths, but when the forest gets covered in soot, the black moths will survive.

More pertinently (and not to defend the "liberal" point of view), human success is not predicated on the relative merit of one's genes.  (Yes, humans have some qualities that other animals don't.  Get over it, anthropocentrism freaks.)  The fact that you and I can engage in intellectual discussion, while we come from very different segments of the population, helps to show that environment (as Darwin would have said) plays a major role in shaping how your phenotypes express themselves.

If you take a look at "successful" people - those you define as successful included - you will note that they come from a wide variety of backgrounds.  The conclusion that genetics plays a major factor, when drawn from empirical data, is shoddy at best and erroneous at worst. 
Moreover, I think modern educational systems as a whole have tended to explode the idea that the academic (or otherwise) merit of students is rooted in who their parents were, or a point mutation on chromosome 17. 

Is everyone equal?  Let's rephrase that.  Everyone, excepting persons who have their learning/physical capacities severely limited, has the potential to attain "success."  However, it is their environment (including economic conditions, life at home, school, etc.) coupled with, but not limited to, the exertions of the individuals themselves, that brings "success" to fruition. 

You'd be surprised at the numbers of "liberals" that are adopting this basically Social-Darwinist point of view.  No offense to you, but it seems like a cop-out for researching and understanding that the majority of folks living in Watts* aren't there because they are retarded, unfit, or like it there. 

*replace with your ghetto of choice

[Ace]

More pertinently (and not to defend the "liberal" point of view), human success is not predicated on the relative merit of one's genes.  (Yes, humans have some qualities that other animals don't.  Get over it, anthropocentrism freaks.)

By 'qualities other animals lack' you're referring to language and tool-making (which in the end combine to form culture). Which is shared by other primates. Obviously humans have a greater degree of this than Gorillas or Chimpanzees but it is shared by "animals." Orangutans rape, Gorillas pass on sign language to children and obviously have the capacity for symbolic systems, Chimps make tools to eat termites (which are yes... taught) almost as complex as the tools we used for a great deal of human existence.  The Berlin wall we've constructed separating ourselves from other species is one made out of paper.

[Ford Prefect]

No other animal has language. Don't even get me started on that 'cause I just woke up from a nap and I'm grumpy.

[Ace]

Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6356773.stm

Bam! Chimp ancestors using stone tools. Let's face it if you've done even a basic study of lithics most human and human ancestor tools were just like that. Grab a rock, smack something off of the core to use to smash a nut, and toss it aside.

Humans aren't that special, they're just super atomic mutants that take traits seen in our relatives and blow them into utterly absurd levels, with of course a delusional personalistic worldview that developed which goes along with it.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm talking about language, not tools. The two are a chasm apart.

EDIT: Sorry if that wasn't a response to my last post. Again, nap... confused.

[Charismatic]

I can't help but notice to old evolution thread has not risen and become one with the living. I can only conclude that someone is.. chicken.

I'd bump it just to get the ball rolling, except that I'm with the majority (of HLP) on this issue. The only one I know around here who might argue against evolution would be Chara and I think he's learned it's futile to argue that on HLP.

If he was reading said huge-o-mognous thread, he should be aware it's wrong, let alone futile. I mean, he did say he was reading the responses, and every attempt to 'fail' evolutionary theory was pretty comprehensively replied to and disproven, usually by several people.

Glad to know I earned a Rep. That perticular one, at that.
I do not believe it's futile, just, that im not the one to be doing it (the pro side). I RESPECT that you guys had a clan and ('proof') a answer for each thing i brought up (nor near, every point that i brought up). Its been a while so dont bash me for being incorrect here.

Just you guys seemed to love to bash books and quots and links and vids over my head, drowndin me in a sea of 'sence ur last reply, you have 20 pages, 100 links and 5 ten minute videos to read and memorize before you can even begin to think of how to reply, and you have 5 minutes to reply unless you want to have another 15 pages added on...etc' and seemed to feel big by doing it. I got the jist that you guys (yeah i spelt gist wrong) did not realize that you were socalled 'disprooving' a meer normal person who did NOT do research to reply (in most cases. I was very buzy at the time with schoolwork and reports..much less, work) and as said did not have the time to in detail. You guys shoulda cut me some slack, and at least, respected the fact that i was teh ONLY (except Zman, and 1-2 others who wishted to 'stay out of it') who realy stood up for my side, as best i could at the time.
But my point: I am not a priest (lol..catholics), minister, or profit or whoever.. some learneded 'i know every page in the bible by heart' person who is a professional and knows the ins and outs of my faith and my beleif. I am not that person. I am a ordinary person with my own beleifs. i am not a professor or priest and of corse i do not know all the defences or proofs that people in those positions know. So i do beleive the Christian side has proof and evidecne, and things to back up what i said , or most of it, (or things to back up with i Tried to say, but was incorrect in some form) but i honestly dont know them right now.

Heh. And my name (SN anyways) is (should be) Ephili.
(i have been tryign to change my nick to Ephili for some time now, by only sighning my paragraphs with Ephili instead of Chara.)

[Goober5000]

Heh. And my name (SN anyways) is (should be) Ephili.
(i have been tryign to change my nick to Ephili for some time now, by only sighning my paragraphs with Ephili instead of Chara.)

You know, back when you migrated from the VWBB to here, I told you that in order to seem less like a noob, you really shouldn't keep being schizophrenic and call yourself both Charismatic and Ephili -- you'd have to pick one and stick with it.  You told me you'd pick Charismatic.

I guess you haven't changed.

[fsi.scsi]

More pertinently (and not to defend the "liberal" point of view), human success is not predicated on the relative merit of one's genes.  (Yes, humans have some qualities that other animals don't.  Get over it, anthropocentrism freaks.)

By 'qualities other animals lack' you're referring to language and tool-making (which in the end combine to form culture). Which is shared by other primates. Obviously humans have a greater degree of this than Gorillas or Chimpanzees but it is shared by "animals." Orangutans rape, Gorillas pass on sign language to children and obviously have the capacity for symbolic systems, Chimps make tools to eat termites (which are yes... taught) almost as complex as the tools we used for a great deal of human existence.  The Berlin wall we've constructed separating ourselves from other species is one made out of paper.

Whoa there, Ace.  I didn't delineate any specific differences like language and tool-making in my original post, so you're jumping the gun a bit there. Understandable, though.  Evolution is a subject on which many passions get inflamed very quickly. 

On the subject of languages, however: Lower primate language is just that - less complex than our own.  If you're going to bring up the similarities between humans and lower primates, you should also mention the differences.  We have a greatly enlarged brain extended by 2 modes: 1) possibly a mutation and 2) definitely better eating habits, such as denaturing protein by means of fire, etc.  Thus, we gained the ability to have more complex social and linguistic behavior, which spurred what we call "progress" in human history.  All that good stuff like writing.

Again, I am not arguing that we are wholly dissimilar to other species.  But, as my biology teacher put it, we are the only species to recognize ourselves as such via the all-important process of increased (not new) intuition and reasoning. 

To put it another way - I don't see any chimps posting on this message board, excepting He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named (derek smart.. duh).  Paper wall or not, I still clutch on to the distinction.  Let's agree to peacably disagree on this one.

[MP-Ryan]

fsi.scsi:

The difference between humans and our lower primate cousins is due to increases in cognition.  Basically, humans have a more advanced capability for self-awareness (which is not to say other species don't).

As for where our large brains came from, brain size doesn't matter so much as brain structure size (and when it comes to relative size of structures, humans reign supreme with a very large telencephalon: cortex and the like).  And its development is one of the great wonders of evolution - whereas most other species have concordant rates of phenotypic and behavioural evolution, human behavioural evolution has for outstripped our biological evolution (in  many cases, this causes severe problems for us too).  That's the different between Homo sapiens and everything else - our behaviour no longer matches our biological constraints.  We're niche-building, not niche-occupying.  The fundamental principles remain the same.

And whil those larger brains make us think we're smart, I tend to think the porpoises have the right idea - live in a warm ocean where you don't need technology, eat, play, and mate all day.  We're the dumb ones.  Hell, as if life wasn't hard enough, we went and constructed modern society with its technology, economic systems, and stresses that shorten our lives.

I want to come back as a dolphin.  Seriously.  I should become a Buddhist.

[karajorma]

He's assuming that, because you made an anti-Darwin comment, you must be a Republican (Which is just plain Bull ****.*)

To be fair you're assuming that he hasn't talked to Charismatic before and isn't completely sure that he's a Republican.

But my point: I am not a priest (lol..catholics), minister, or profit or whoever.. some learneded 'i know every page in the bible by heart' person who is a professional and knows the ins and outs of my faith and my beleif. I am not that person. I am a ordinary person with my own beleifs. i am not a professor or priest and of corse i do not know all the defences or proofs that people in those positions know. So i do beleive the Christian side has proof and evidecne, and things to back up what i said , or most of it, (or things to back up with i Tried to say, but was incorrect in some form) but i honestly dont know them right now.

And that's the problem Charismatic.

If you don't know enough to understand that stuff how can you possibly know it's correct? How can you know that they aren't lying to you and saying that they are correct when they are in fact lying through their teeth? Yet again you're back to taking things on faith. You believe that the Christian side has proof because you want to believe that.

You've come on here and said that people are wrong. When they ask you "Why am I wrong?" your only response is to point elsewhere and say "I don't understand why but he told me so." But the problem with that is that when we check why this person actually say we're wrong we find poor logic, errors and outright lies.

Charismatic, you are being lied to. The Christian church does not have proof that evolution is wrong. That's why the Catholic church with 1 billion members finally admitted defeat over 10 years ago and said that Darwin was right. If there was real proof why do you think they would have done that?