The creationists are BACK

[Uncle Kenny]

I sort of have to wonder... do creationists believe in DNA?

I suppose they do. Do evolutionists really believe that speed, agility, extraordinary strength and advanced joint structure would all be natuarally selected out of a primate under any circumstances?

You don't seem to grasp mutation and genetic drift. It's not a matter of any trait 'being selected out'. If any trait does not give a significant evolutionary advantage to those carrying it, it becomes a matter of genetic drift and gene dominance with selection playing little role. Hence, weaker members of the species can spread their numbers just like stronger ones if the added strength does not give those other members a significant advantage. Same with the different hair colours we see within the White race- red or blond hair does not impair the ability to reproduce and survive, so natural selection plays little role in whether or nor brunettes alone survive.

I understand completely, please don't assume that I don't. I simply don't believe that any of those traits, let alone all of them under any conditions would be either not dominant, nor undesirable as there is no pre-man condition that could dictate such a shift. It would require basic primate traits to become recessive and bred out during a period where there was no accumulated knowledge and we speculate limited language. Also as with primates, mating is not a passive attitude, and as intellect and these are other traits have no direct correlation, literally, the strongest, fastest and most agile would have to represent almost a segregated sub-set for the traits to become non-existent in the "evolved" species with the other sub-set somehow mating at a progressively higher rate through time.

To address your example analogously, if red hair made you a less desirable mate, it would become less common and eventually disappear as red-heads mated less and less and eventually not at all this thinning and eventually eliminating the genetic trait that causes red hair. With all that we know of primate mating practices, including those of man, how would strength, speed, agility and I'll add aggressiveness ever be the undesirable traits, let alone all of them in a period of time that would diminish and eliminate them in what would be a relatively brief succession? Those traits are dominant in all other primates for good reason, they are the actual premise on which mates are chosen.

 

[JBeukema]

You forget that mutations are pseudorandom

 

[Uncle Kenny]

I suppose they do. Do evolutionists really believe that speed, agility, extraordinary strength and advanced joint structure would all be natuarally selected out of a primate under any circumstances?

You don't seem to grasp mutation and genetic drift. It's not a matter of any trait 'being selected out'. If any trait does not give a significant evolutionary advantage to those carrying it, it becomes a matter of genetic drift and gene dominance with selection playing little role. Hence, weaker members of the species can spread their numbers just like stronger ones if the added strength does not give those other members a significant advantage. Same with the different hair colours we see within the White race- red or blond hair does not impair the ability to reproduce and survive, so natural selection plays little role in whether or nor brunettes alone survive.

right. other traits simply became more important. intelligence and impulse control became the most important attributes for survival, and that other human trait of altruism resulted just as it did for every other intelligent species

That makes no sense. Intelligence, impulse control and any other number of traits aren't mutually excluded by the presence of the afore mentioned traits. On the contrary, those would be more likely to develop as lesser traits as mating was not based on the impulse control or altruism of the male, but on the aggressiveness and physical prowess of the males. Those traits could develop, but in no way would they necessitate the elimination or diminishing value of strength and speed and agility which would be both imperative for mating and provision and survival. Even now, size is no indication of intelligence, the traits that were most likely to be reproduced would carry

 

[JBeukema]

To address your example analogously, if red hair made you a less desirable mate, it would become less common and eventually disappear as red-heads mated less and less and eventually not at all this thinning and eventually eliminating the genetic trait that causes red hair. With all that we know of primate mating practices, including those of man, how would strength, speed, agility and I'll add aggressiveness ever be the undesirable traits

You forget that
1) individuals tend to mate with others of similar fitness

2) intelligence is only partially heritable

3) mutations are pseudorandom

Those traits are dominant in all other primates for good reason, they are the actual premise on which mates are chosen.

People choose their partners for many reasons. In humans, you must also keep in mind that they are not rational agents. Instincts and emotions both must be kept in mind when considering the actions of sentient agents.

 

[JBeukema]

Ken seems to think there's some sort of intelligence behind evolution

there's not, ken- unless we get into eugenics

 

[Uncle Kenny]

You forget that mutations are pseudorandom

No, but collectively, most mutations are not reproduced and of those that are, the majority don't generally diminish the species in their ability to either survive or find a mate. Knowing that primates in general will not mate with a weaker or less aggressive male if a stronger more aggressive male is available, this would require what? Mass simultaneous mutation and immediate segregation? Multiple times? Seems farfetched to me.

I say that out of pure analysis and not because of ignorance or faith based bias. I question that hypothesis based solely on its absolute miniscule probability and I am only stating my objections because it is a glaring example of an area defended more out of belief than by empirical evidence that supports the assertion.

People tend to defend this particular hypothesis as if it is the total proof or disproof of evolution of any kind and that isn't good method or philosophy for that matter.

 

[JBeukema]

primates in general will not mate with a weaker or less aggressive male if a stronger more aggressive male is available

Other gorillas do as much fucking as they can when the silverback's not looking, dude

 

[Uncle Kenny]

To address your example analogously, if red hair made you a less desirable mate, it would become less common and eventually disappear as red-heads mated less and less and eventually not at all this thinning and eventually eliminating the genetic trait that causes red hair. With all that we know of primate mating practices, including those of man, how would strength, speed, agility and I'll add aggressiveness ever be the undesirable traits

You forget that
1) individuals tend to mate with others of similar fitness

2) intelligence is only partially heritable

3) mutations are pseudorandom

Those traits are dominant in all other primates for good reason, they are the actual premise on which mates are chosen.

People choose their partners for many reasons. In humans, you must also keep in mind that they are not rational agents. Instincts and emotions both must be kept in mind when considering the actions of sentient agents.

People do, other primates don't. We aren't talking of humans breeding these traits out, these traits had to be lost prior to becoming humans or else we would be a different primate.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

primates in general will not mate with a weaker or less aggressive male if a stronger more aggressive male is available

Other gorillas do as much fucking as they can when the silverback's not looking, dude

Too bad the male silverback is notorious for killing his own offspring if they are weak or slow or mutated obviously in such a fashion as that.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Ken seems to think there's some sort of intelligence behind evolution

there's not, ken- unless we get into eugenics

Why would you even begin to say that. I can argue either side, but don't assume you know what I believe, and certainly don't assume what you believe is true simply because you believe it.

Roll eyes all you want, you are at the same disadvantage as everyone else, none of it has been proven. The fact that you would assume to be right based on you faith in what you think you know shows you may be overly self important. In the absence of proof there is only conjecture, the only credit I can give you is that at least you didn't lie and say you knew for sure that there is no intelligence behind life, evolution or any number of other still as yet hypothetical circumstances.

 

[JBeukema]

And yet, weakness still exists among gorillas- the males can't all be silverbacks

 

[JBeukema]

Evolution is an observed fact, dude

As for 'faith', you can't even prove you exist; I'm a logical positivist and, by extension, an epistemological solipsist

 

[Uncle Kenny]

And yet, weakness still exists among gorillas- the males can't all be silverbacks

That is relative weakness, not on par in any way with inferior physical strength. Of course a silverback with mere human strength wouldn't be able to run, climb, or even fuck, so I suppose that clarifies the differences...hopefully.

 

[Agit8r]

Intelligence, impulse control and any other number of traits aren't mutually excluded by the presence of the afore mentioned traits. On the contrary, those would be more likely to develop as lesser traits as mating was not based on the impulse control or altruism of the male

really. not based on impulse control at all? Have you ever courted a woman?

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Evolution is an observed fact, dude

As for 'faith', you can't even prove you exist; I'm a logical positivist and, by extension, an epistemological solipsist

Whatever you say. The fact that you would defend the primate evolution hypothesis despite the fact that it is infinitesimal in likelihood tells me you are probably a "true-believer" and not an independent thinker. Truth isn't multiple choice or true false. If something is wrong, it is wrong, accepting it because you don't like the alternative is just foolishness. There is not a single tie, nor one hypothetical scenario I have ever read or heard that makes that hypothesis any more likely than God. If you have anything that would make it more possible, I would love to see it. As that is unlikely, I’ll just have to say that if it makes no sense and requires large leaps of faith to believe it is more religion than science and that theory is in my opinion more religion than science.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Intelligence, impulse control and any other number of traits aren't mutually excluded by the presence of the afore mentioned traits. On the contrary, those would be more likely to develop as lesser traits as mating was not based on the impulse control or altruism of the male

really. not based on impulse control at all? Have you ever courted a woman?

Not a female Ape or other primate than human, no. As these traits had to be lost by our predecessors, they would be whom I was describing, not modern man, though aggression, physical strength and agility are still desirable traits amung human females when chosing to mate.

 

[JBeukema]

Whatever you say. The fact that you would defend the primate evolution hypothesis despite the fact that it is infinitesimal in likelihood tells me you are probably a "true-believer" and not an independent thinker.

Do you defend the premise that you exist? Do you know how improbably it is that you would come into existence? Do you realize how many sperm and eggs had to meet at the right times, all your ancestors who had to survive, the exact genotype that had to be passed on to you...?

There is not a single tie, nor one hypothetical scenario I have ever read or heard that makes that hypothesis any more likely than God.

It doesn't mater how probable something is. Only whether the evidence tells us it happened. You exist, so clearly all those improbably events happened in that most unlikely combination to bring you about. Or do you deny your own existence?

 

[Londoner]

The real danger is the coalition built by Movement Conservatism between business and evangelism - they have a common enemy: independent science, e.g., business doesn't want scientist sniffing around their smokestacks any more than evangelicals want scientists sniffing around their Biblical timeline. Once you add Movement Conservatism to these anti-science energies, you have a machine capable of moving money into media, elections, universities, think tanks, lobbying networks, and publishing groups for the purpose of altering the factual world on behalf of short term profit, i.e., they would defeat the theory of gravity for shareholders. They have the power, as was exercised in the early 80s, to cover up the fact that world oil supplies would radically fall short of demand - which means the entire globe will be deeply tied to the most unstable region on the planet, and the USA, who consumes the highest quantities of oil, will fall the hardest. Therefore, if you can suppress science, you can prevent the nation from moving away from your golden goose. The rise of capital over science, media, and government was personified in Ronald Reagan, who convinced America that Carter's worries over world oil reserves were a Lefty ruse designed to grow the federal government. Reagan, partly through his deployment if the anti-science coalition, sold future generations down river for the bottom line of his backers.

It's not that all the leaders of Movement Conservatism are particularly religious or don't understand the concept of natural selection. They are simply pro profit, and they will destroy anything that poses a threat to their margin. Their job is to hollow out the state until it becomes a reflexive instrument of their special interests. Their job is not to save the world from nuclear waste and toxins, their job is to wage war against any science which exposes these things. That is what profit does. [People think the profit motive only leads to innovation, but that is merely a half-truth. Yes, the profit motive not only leads to life saving medicine, but it also leads to the bribing of politicians and the suppression of information, like the amount of cancer causing agents in a high-margin pesticide. We need to tell both sides of the story, but that's impossible because the media is now fully owned by a handful of large corporations]

When GE is inclined to dump PCBs in the Hudson River, we want some layer of government regulation to stop them. We want Ph.d scientists protecting our drinking water. Unfortunately, under Movement Conservatism, science is discredited, and regulation is seen as evil, which leads to defunding the EPA, and the replacement Ph.d scientists with industry cronies -- so profit can be protected.

The sad part is that Movement Conservatism has created a coalition of useful idiots who don't see the real reasons for the multi-decade war on science and government. These people dug are grave, because they allowed special interests to rape the country.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Whatever you say. The fact that you would defend the primate evolution hypothesis despite the fact that it is infinitesimal in likelihood tells me you are probably a "true-believer" and not an independent thinker.

Do you defend the premise that you exist? Do you know how improbably it is that you would come into existence? Do you realize how many sperm and eggs had to meet at the right times, all your ancestors who had to survive, the exact genotype that had to be passed on to you...?

There is not a single tie, nor one hypothetical scenario I have ever read or heard that makes that hypothesis any more likely than God.

It doesn't mater how probable something is. Only whether the evidence tells us it happened. You exist, so clearly all those improbably events happened in that most unlikely combination to bring you about. Or do you deny your own existence?

Of course I perceive myself as existing, but that in and of itself says nothing for the process of my coming into being, it simply exhibits that I happened, at least in regard to my own perception. The fact that the odds of my “random occurrence” as part of an existing species are probably somewhere on the order of winning the lottery 3 times in a year means it was unlikely. The odds of the evolutionary hypothesis of man evolving from apes would then be somewhere on the order of winning the lottery 7 times…in a week…with the same numbers.

“Obviously it happened because it exists” by no means justifies a hypothesis on how it happened in either event. It is simply incoherent drivel that might make someone feel better about true-believer tendencies, but in no way excuses the absence of reason or logic it supposes one must have to buy into it.

 

[JBeukema]

So you deny that your parents spawned you?