Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lots of viagra spam mail lately
subbie
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 16 of 19 (490404)
12-04-2008 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
12-04-2008 6:17 AM


Re: fur?
quote:
i do misunderstand evolution...it confuses the crap out of me!
Admitting that you have a problem is the first step toward solving the problem.
quote:
tell me, if evolution is about adaption... why dont eskimo's in cold climates have fur? why are eruopean men, in hot climates, covered in thick hair??? why dont they have less hair??
Tell me, is this an honest attempt to try to understand something that you don't understand, or is it a veiled attempt to try to find a perceived hole in evolutionary theory and, thus, bring it tumbling to the ground?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 12-04-2008 6:17 AM Peg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2383 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 17 of 19 (490407)
12-04-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
12-04-2008 6:17 AM


Re: fur?
Peg writes:
i do misunderstand evolution...it confuses the crap out of me!
This is a good place to learn.
tell me, if evolution is about adaption... why dont eskimo's in cold climates have fur? why are eruopean men, in hot climates, covered in thick hair??? why dont they have less hair??
This is kinda the same to the replies given to you in the other viagra topic. Humans are not subject to natural selection anymore. We have technology to deal with that. Eskimo's for example have fire, thick clothing and shelter from the cold. People in hotter areas have shelter from the heat. So the selective pressure on humans is absent (or at least very minimal) and thus, we don't see these things evolving. Oh, and this all seems awfully off topic here, perhaps we should start a new topic about some of this stuff?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 12-04-2008 6:17 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 12-06-2008 11:19 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3380 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 19 (490589)
12-06-2008 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
12-04-2008 6:17 AM


Re: fur?
Peg writes:
i do misunderstand evolution...it confuses the crap out of me!
More than an invisible horny but all powerful man watching you when you take a shower or have sex?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 12-04-2008 6:17 AM Peg has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3380 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 19 of 19 (490619)
12-06-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Huntard
12-04-2008 9:15 AM


Re: fur?
Huntard writes:
Humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Before I explain, let me take a step back.
Humans are natural, period.
Ok, now, let's step back. Everything we do, including improving our medical technology and living standards are natural. This includes allowing people who are less than ideal to breed and multiply. This is natural selection.
Natural selection isn't about the physically strongest members to survive or the smartest members to be able to outbreed the others. It simply means whoever survives survives or who breeds breeds. If environmental factors allow "little people" to be able to breed in great numbers with each other, then I guess natural selection isn't disfavoring them. If environmental factors allow people with down syndrome to breed with each other, then natural selection isn't disfavoring them.
The better for the eskimo question is THEY HAVE ADAPTED TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT. They got fire. They got shelter. They got clothes. If they haven't adapted to their environment, they wouldn't be here. If anything, they seem to be doing just fine.
Natural selection isn't about comfort. It's about survival.
What we're talking about is like that time when nemesis_jug tried to disprove evolution by asking why we don't have a couple pair of wings. According to his logic, if evolution was true we'd each have a pair of wings to get around easier. He couldn't graps the concept of survival. He said that a pair of wings would have made his life more comfortable, so therefore if evolution is true it should have given him a pair of wings already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Huntard, posted 12-04-2008 9:15 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024