Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

A below-replacement birth-rate eventually leads to an ever-increasing ageing population - ie, not many young people and lots of old people. If left unchecked, this will produce an economic disaster - huge chunks of workers' (young people) income will need to be taxed in order to support all the elderly. It could theoretically get to the stage where this welfare tax is so high that workers (the young) are virually working for no financial gain at all. Imagine the potential situation in which (on average) one worker has to support five or ten of the elderly (ie, non workers).In Japan, such a situation is looming - it is estimated that in about twenty years, ONE THIRD of the population will be aged above 60. Feminism is worse than a fool's paradise - it's a "wolf in sheep's clothing" and a death trap.

You're assuming the birth-rates of the immigrants will be healthy. But what if the immigrant women are brainwashed by feminism as well? They won't reproduce in sufficient numbers either.

Tax schemes need to be changed. Simple.Easier and less disruptive than designating half our population as inferior beings.Why do Christians hate so much?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The "replacement" level birth rate in first-world countries is about 2.1 children/ woman. I can't find any "feminist" countries that have a birth-rate at or above this level.

If you know how macroevolution occurs, how would you bred synapsids to evolve into mammals?

No kidding? You - the expert on "how macroevolution occurs" - wouldn’t even know where to start! Oh well, say no more - that confirms it - you really DO know “how macroevolution occurs” - your knowledge is right up there with your average ten year-old!Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Okay, well if you had access to ancient reptiles (ie, the evolutionary ancestors of birds) please explain how you would breed them to produce birds.

That’s like saying, “This is how you breed sausage dogs from wolves: You just leave wolves alone to for a few thousand years and eventually they will evolve into sausage dogs.” In other words, you’re clueless as to how you would go about breeding synapsids to evolve into mammals - the best you can come with is, “Evolution done it” - which proves you really know nothing about “how macroevolution occurs.” Ya got that right! It’s tells me nothing because you know nothing about how macroevolution would actually work in a practical sense to produce the fossil record - all you’ve got is blind faith in meaningless theories.

I take your point, but the thread ran off-topic about a thousand posts ago.

If I asked you how to breed a sheep dog from wolves and you simply said "Mutations" I would have no idea about how to perform such a feat ... then I would conclude you know next to nothing about the subject. Face it, you have absolutely no idea how you would go about breeding non-winged insects to evolve into winged insects. Your claim to possessing macroevolutionary knowledge appears be delusionary and bogus.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Why is this a concern? The population in the US has doubled since I was in high school, so obviously there can be a reduction in population and still have a viable population. A larger concern is overpopulation and whether or not we develop a sustainable culture.In ecology one talks about the carrying capacity of an environment. Studies/observations show that populations over that capacity results in temporary overuse of needed resources, and that results in less resources available for individuals, and this subsequently causes a reduction of population. The result is swings in population sizes (unless species develop (evolve) ability to use alternate resources or they move to new (for them) environments that can support them).Interesting read on this topic: Hairston, Nelson G., Frederick E. Smith, and Lawrence B. Slobodkin. "Community Structure, Population Control, and Competition." The American Naturalist 94, no. 879 (1960): 421-25. JSTOR: Access Check.... known as the "Why is the world green" paper.Short explanation on youtube Disclaimer: Frederick E. Smith was my father.For confirmation, see Ecologists explain why the world is green

quote:

---

Reporting their results in the March issue of the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Ecology, a team lead by Professor John Terborgh of Duke University says that the role of predators is the key to keeping the world green, because they keep the numbers of plant-eating herbivores under control. Their results support the so-called “green world hypothesis” first proposed in 1960 by Hairston, Smith and Slobodkin and seem to lay to rest the competing theory that plants protect themselves from being eaten through the physical and chemical defences they have developed.

​

As well as proving that the green world hypothesis is correct, Terborgh’s results have important implications for the debate raging in many countries over reintroduction of top predators such as wolves. “The take-home message is clear: the presence of a viable carnivore guild is fundamental to maintaining biodiversity,” he says.

---

These implications holds for humans as well.History also shows that human cultures have consistently grown until the population is so large it overused resources and that resulted in loss of sustainable culture and subsequent collapse. Cultures rose, prospered and then collapsed.Interesting read on this topic: The Day Before America by William H. MacLeish:

quote:

---

A storyteller with a penchant for history, MacLeish weaves a spellbinding tale about human life and environmental change in North America north of Mexico after about 15,000 B.C. Drawing on the work of archaeologists, paleobiologists, and the comments of Native Americans, he synthesizes what is known about the first Americans and their cultural evolution. In this personal odyssey, MacLeish addresses questions of human ecology, population growth, climate change, warfare, cultural morality, domestication origins, and a host of other issues of contemporary social and public policy. This unique and engaging essay will be of interest to the general reader.

---

It's about native cultures before America was "discovered" and named by Columbus et al, their history from first post ice age explorers to the large cultures that covered these lands before the Europeans arrived. We are not immune to the needs of sustainable culture and ecological awareness instead of blind population growth. Forcing women to have more children will not solve that problem. Blaming any group of (biased) choice for general problems they have not caused is counterproductive and doesn't solve the problem. Blaming 'others' (scapegoating) for problems you (your culture) have caused doesn't solve them.Understanding the problem is the first step in solving it. In ecological/evolutionary terms this means developing a sustainable culture rather than one that grows blindly with inevitable consequences.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : added.Edited by RAZD, : .

Breeding is a form of selection and selection is not evolution. Your 'breeding' scenario for accomplishing evolution is nonsense. You need to decide what your point is. Actually, your understanding of evolution is delusional and bogus.

Not an expert, but I know what macroevolution is, and you do not. I know that breeding is not is not a surrogate for evolution and you do not.

Yeah, but you didn't ask me that, did you?You asked Message 1210:

quote:

---

So, what is your grand plan for breeding insects to radically evolve without reducing genetic diversity?

---

Mutations is the obvious answer to reducing genetic diversity, but a grand plan for breeding insects is your delusion. And you would be correct, I know nothing about breeding sheep dogs from wolves and neither do you. You are apparently operating under the delusion that breeding and evolution are the same thing, but you are wrong. And I note, I never claimed to have any ideas about this at all, but I have said that breeding is not a surrogate for evolution. Well, your delusions on the subject are quite obvious, so until you know what you are talking about, no one else will know what you are talking about either.

My assumption is based on facts - i.e. past history. Yours is based on a stupid misconception about feminism.