Topic: Wow. People still believe in the lie of evolution?
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #30,391
It makes no sense. If we evolved from monkeys, how come there isn't a hybrid between monkeys and us walking around? If evolution is true, then why hasn't a more evolved form of human emerged? Face it atheist fags. We were created by God in his image.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #437,593
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #437,594
> no hybridOrly
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,635
> If we evolved from monkeys, how come there isn't a hybrid between monkeys and us walking around?
Niggers.
Niggers.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,638
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,690
> > If we evolved from monkeys, how come there isn't a hybrid between monkeys and us walking around?
> Niggers.
> Niggers.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,693
Since we are talking about evolution and its making us racist (thanks science.) Have you guys noticed how almost everyone thinks all of our behaviors can be explained by some dark evolutionary past where it was beneficial in the jungle? Well i mean isn't that kind of unscientific when you think about it?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,696
Grumpy Cat aka. Tard joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,697
@previous
And not the Bible, please.
And not the Bible, please.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 52 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,698
@previous (Grumpy Cat aka. Tard)
@437,696 (H)
What about In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation?
@437,696 (H)
What about In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation?
Grumpy Cat aka. Tard replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,699
@ Anon J
Just don't read that one either...
Just don't read that one either...
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 20 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,701
@437,693 (G)
> almost everyone thinks all of our behaviors can be explained by some dark evolutionary past where it was beneficial in the jungle
I haven't noticed that.
The idea that our behaviors all have an explanation in what our ancestors on the savanna found useful has enjoyed some popularity as pop-psychology over the years, but fields like evolutionary psychology still tend to be regarded as mostly pseudoscience and just-so stories within the scientific community. Certainly some basic behaviors (e.g. a tendency to notice faces) probably have some evolutionary component that is heavily tied to biology, but I don't know anyone who thinks that all our behaviors can be explained by a purely evolutionary view.
> almost everyone thinks all of our behaviors can be explained by some dark evolutionary past where it was beneficial in the jungle
I haven't noticed that.
The idea that our behaviors all have an explanation in what our ancestors on the savanna found useful has enjoyed some popularity as pop-psychology over the years, but fields like evolutionary psychology still tend to be regarded as mostly pseudoscience and just-so stories within the scientific community. Certainly some basic behaviors (e.g. a tendency to notice faces) probably have some evolutionary component that is heavily tied to biology, but I don't know anyone who thinks that all our behaviors can be explained by a purely evolutionary view.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,703
@437,696 (H)
no you guys think about it. If one gene happens to be a massive success in the sense that its very helpful in reproduction, all of the genes in the animal carrying this successful gene benefit. So we might all have genes
that have no value when it comes to reproducing
no you guys think about it. If one gene happens to be a massive success in the sense that its very helpful in reproduction, all of the genes in the animal carrying this successful gene benefit. So we might all have genes
that have no value when it comes to reproducing
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,704
@437,698 (J)
Now read an opposing viewpoint and widen your horizons. Nothing wrong with being informed.
Now read an opposing viewpoint and widen your horizons. Nothing wrong with being informed.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,705
@437,701 (B)
Well there was a time when our bodies were thought of as nothing more then a machine designed by our genes to pass on the genes.
Well there was a time when our bodies were thought of as nothing more then a machine designed by our genes to pass on the genes.
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,706
@437,703 (G)
This might help. I am not a scientist.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
This might help. I am not a scientist.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,707
@437,703 (G)
I don't think anybody seriously proposes every single human behaviour or trait survives only because it is advantageous.
I don't think anybody seriously proposes every single human behaviour or trait survives only because it is advantageous.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,709
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
I have learned that this guy called William Donald Hamilton, widely recognised as one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century. Actually believed that everything could be explained through the desperate struggle of all living things to survive and pass on their genes
I have learned that this guy called William Donald Hamilton, widely recognised as one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century. Actually believed that everything could be explained through the desperate struggle of all living things to survive and pass on their genes
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 44 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,710
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,712
@437,709 (G)
I read a theory that men who encourage cuckolding do so to put their seed "over" the man she had just been with, some kind of primal dominance.
I read a theory that men who encourage cuckolding do so to put their seed "over" the man she had just been with, some kind of primal dominance.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,713
@437,705 (G)
This is certainly one way to look at it, and it's not an entirely incorrect view from the perspective of a gene or group of genes. You have to go a lot further to get to an explanation of the complex behavior of humans in a society of other humans. I don't see that anyone has really bridged that gap though.
This is certainly one way to look at it, and it's not an entirely incorrect view from the perspective of a gene or group of genes. You have to go a lot further to get to an explanation of the complex behavior of humans in a society of other humans. I don't see that anyone has really bridged that gap though.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,714
@previous (B) Hamilton certainly thought he has. I have replace every word 'gene' with 'bean' to make this more easier to understand.
Then at the end of 1963 hamilton actually realized what he was looking at. He looked through the skin and the bone
and saw something inside that was much more powerful and important then our individual identities, our coded beans.
And when he looked at the world from the beans point of view he saw that human beings were just temporary carriers
that allowed the beans to pass on copies of themselves and live forever.
Hamilton was no longer thinking like a human being. He was thinking like a bean... And BEANS were not like people, they were like
machines, tiny calculating engines that could work out the mathematically best outcome. And that explained altruism. A bean would destroy
it self if by doing that, it would let more related copies of it self survive.
Then at the end of 1963 hamilton actually realized what he was looking at. He looked through the skin and the bone
and saw something inside that was much more powerful and important then our individual identities, our coded beans.
And when he looked at the world from the beans point of view he saw that human beings were just temporary carriers
that allowed the beans to pass on copies of themselves and live forever.
Hamilton was no longer thinking like a human being. He was thinking like a bean... And BEANS were not like people, they were like
machines, tiny calculating engines that could work out the mathematically best outcome. And that explained altruism. A bean would destroy
it self if by doing that, it would let more related copies of it self survive.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,716
@previous (G)
> And BEANS were not like people, they were like machines, tiny calculating engines that could work out the mathematically best outcome
Genes don't do any calculating. They just get passed on or they don't. They are not intelligent.
Even assuming that a molecule that coded for a protein could be intelligent, calculating, and interested in its own survival, there would be a vast gulf between this idea and human behavior.
> And BEANS were not like people, they were like machines, tiny calculating engines that could work out the mathematically best outcome
Genes don't do any calculating. They just get passed on or they don't. They are not intelligent.
Even assuming that a molecule that coded for a protein could be intelligent, calculating, and interested in its own survival, there would be a vast gulf between this idea and human behavior.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,718
@previous (B)
The way i see is he thought that when it came to human behavior, our individual part is actually just the genes making us into the type of human they see fit. That based on our perception of the environment the genes sense
them and mold us into the individual that it sees as beneficial for this type of environment. Of course when i say say that the gene sees the best outcome i mean that it has evolved to respond in a way that has previously
and maybe currently been the best outcome
The way i see is he thought that when it came to human behavior, our individual part is actually just the genes making us into the type of human they see fit. That based on our perception of the environment the genes sense
them and mold us into the individual that it sees as beneficial for this type of environment. Of course when i say say that the gene sees the best outcome i mean that it has evolved to respond in a way that has previously
and maybe currently been the best outcome
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,719
@437,710 (K)
Well, it's very wrong. Many traits survive merely because they confer no disadvantage: they are neutral mutations that aren't selected for.
If someone were to argue traits will survive only if they are beneficial, they'd need to disprove the entire concept of genetic drift. And vestigiality.
Well, it's very wrong. Many traits survive merely because they confer no disadvantage: they are neutral mutations that aren't selected for.
If someone were to argue traits will survive only if they are beneficial, they'd need to disprove the entire concept of genetic drift. And vestigiality.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,721
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
I agree, not so sure what you mean with the whole fancy words in the end though. But anyway when i think about it, is it not possible that if a gene has no disadvantages or advantages, it doesn't change much if it simply
stops from being used? Like some kind of random mutation? so the question is if all of our genes with no cons or pros have stooped being used or not
I agree, not so sure what you mean with the whole fancy words in the end though. But anyway when i think about it, is it not possible that if a gene has no disadvantages or advantages, it doesn't change much if it simply
stops from being used? Like some kind of random mutation? so the question is if all of our genes with no cons or pros have stooped being used or not
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,728
@previous (G)
> I agree, not so sure what you mean with the whole fancy words in the end though.
If you mean 'vestigiality', a vestigial trait is one that doesn't fulfil its original function. It might not fulfil any function anymore, but sticks around because it's not harmful so natural selection doesn't select against it.
> But anyway when i think about it, is it not possible that if a gene has no disadvantages or advantages, it doesn't change much if it simply stops from being used?
Yes, that is very possible as it would be selectively neutral.
> I agree, not so sure what you mean with the whole fancy words in the end though.
If you mean 'vestigiality', a vestigial trait is one that doesn't fulfil its original function. It might not fulfil any function anymore, but sticks around because it's not harmful so natural selection doesn't select against it.
> But anyway when i think about it, is it not possible that if a gene has no disadvantages or advantages, it doesn't change much if it simply stops from being used?
Yes, that is very possible as it would be selectively neutral.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,733
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
So then it is possible that the genes with no cons or pros have long been deactivated with in us? That just slowly with time all of us passed on or were subjected to this mutation that led to the deactivation?
So then it is possible that the genes with no cons or pros have long been deactivated with in us? That just slowly with time all of us passed on or were subjected to this mutation that led to the deactivation?
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 39 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,734
@437,718 (G)
> the genes making us into the type of human they see fit.
A gene can't really make us into any type of human except a human that carries that gene. Genes either get passed on or they don't. They aren't trying to succeed any more than hot air is trying to rise above cold air. It is one thing to say that some behaviors that might have a genetic factor are more successful than others and may tend to be passed on, but anthropomorphizing or assigning conscious intent to genes doesn't make any sense. Even behaviors that may have some genetic component (let's say, a tendency toward risk-taking) are heavily influenced by learning, environment, and a million factors that are outside of the control of a single genetic factor.
> the genes making us into the type of human they see fit.
A gene can't really make us into any type of human except a human that carries that gene. Genes either get passed on or they don't. They aren't trying to succeed any more than hot air is trying to rise above cold air. It is one thing to say that some behaviors that might have a genetic factor are more successful than others and may tend to be passed on, but anthropomorphizing or assigning conscious intent to genes doesn't make any sense. Even behaviors that may have some genetic component (let's say, a tendency toward risk-taking) are heavily influenced by learning, environment, and a million factors that are outside of the control of a single genetic factor.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,736
@previous (B)
I think that all behavior is explained by our genes interacting with the environment. The twist is that all human behavior is a product that has slowly evolved to be successful in someway or another for the genes.
> A gene can't really make us into any type of human except a human that carries that gene
Yes but the human carrying these genes is carrying the genes that can change the way he behaves after having felt something. The question is that if all feelings are really just ways for the genes simply to react to the situation
with perhaps thoughts and other feelings, and that all the genes responsible for our behavior is there simply because they had a evolutionary value
I think that all behavior is explained by our genes interacting with the environment. The twist is that all human behavior is a product that has slowly evolved to be successful in someway or another for the genes.
> A gene can't really make us into any type of human except a human that carries that gene
Yes but the human carrying these genes is carrying the genes that can change the way he behaves after having felt something. The question is that if all feelings are really just ways for the genes simply to react to the situation
with perhaps thoughts and other feelings, and that all the genes responsible for our behavior is there simply because they had a evolutionary value
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,742
ITT: trolololololololololololololo
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,745
@437,736 (G)
> the genes that can change the way he behaves after having felt something.
This change is usually attributed to individual experience, learning and memory.
When you talk about the aggregate response of all genes that contribute to behavior, you have moved outside of territory that be explained simply by individual genes perpetuating themselves. At this point a gene is merely surviving in an individual whose survival is outside the control of any one genetic factor. You may as well be talking about distinct individuals reacting to their environment rather than genes.
@previous (L)
Yeah, but it's keeping me amused.
> the genes that can change the way he behaves after having felt something.
This change is usually attributed to individual experience, learning and memory.
When you talk about the aggregate response of all genes that contribute to behavior, you have moved outside of territory that be explained simply by individual genes perpetuating themselves. At this point a gene is merely surviving in an individual whose survival is outside the control of any one genetic factor. You may as well be talking about distinct individuals reacting to their environment rather than genes.
@previous (L)
Yeah, but it's keeping me amused.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,746
@previous (B)
> This change is usually attributed to individual experience, learning and memory.
Yeah, but i am saying or well, Hamilton might say that actually these come from our genes, all of those things.
> When you talk about the aggregate response of all genes that contribute to behavior, you have moved outside of territory that be explained simply by individual genes perpetuating themselves. At this point a gene is merely surviving in an individual whose survival is outside the control of any one genetic factor. You may as well be talking about distinct individuals reacting to their environment rather than genes
I fail to see what your point here is. Yes some genes can only be evolutionary successful with other genes?
> This change is usually attributed to individual experience, learning and memory.
Yeah, but i am saying or well, Hamilton might say that actually these come from our genes, all of those things.
> When you talk about the aggregate response of all genes that contribute to behavior, you have moved outside of territory that be explained simply by individual genes perpetuating themselves. At this point a gene is merely surviving in an individual whose survival is outside the control of any one genetic factor. You may as well be talking about distinct individuals reacting to their environment rather than genes
I fail to see what your point here is. Yes some genes can only be evolutionary successful with other genes?
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 29 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,751
@previous (G)
Individual experience and learning are something an organism does within an environment. It would be difficult to say that these things come from our genes.
> I fail to see what your point here is. Yes some genes can only be evolutionary successful with other genes?
The point is that you have moved from considering genes looking to perpetuate themselves to them needing a whole host of other genes and factors in order to do so. It's difficult to say that genes control our behavior at that scale.
Individual experience and learning are something an organism does within an environment. It would be difficult to say that these things come from our genes.
> I fail to see what your point here is. Yes some genes can only be evolutionary successful with other genes?
The point is that you have moved from considering genes looking to perpetuate themselves to them needing a whole host of other genes and factors in order to do so. It's difficult to say that genes control our behavior at that scale.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #437,775
Is there such a thing as a sports gene?