Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cashinmattress

American Idiots

Recommended Posts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7faQDV9asPE



All idiots.

Beauty is inversely proportional to intelligence. How does elevating these people aid America?

How is America, filled with zealous Christian sectarians, any better than the middle east, filled with zealous Islamic sectarians?

It isn't.

Sweden is chockers with really stupid but gorgeous beautiful blondes...men and women. At least they aren't lumping in Darwin's research with UFO's etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7faQDV9asPE

All idiots.

Beauty is inversely proportional to intelligence. How does elevating these people aid America?

How is America, filled with zealous Christian sectarians, any better than the middle east, filled with zealous Islamic sectarians?

It isn't.

Sweden is chockers with really stupid but gorgeous beautiful blondes...men and women. At least they aren't lumping in Darwin's research with UFO's etc...

Who really cares. Dumb people are still dumb. Yes, some of it is nuture, but a lot is still nature. Take religion out of the equation and they'll still be dumb people. For the average person who isnt going to be a physicist or something, ive yet to find out any actual relevance for evolutionary theory on everyday life.

Schools should teach the "three Rs", and a few useful things like laws, consumer and financial rights, nutrition and health and fire every RE teacher, history teacher and most geography teachers. None of that rubbish is actually of any use for 9/10ths of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the dummies conflate evolution with religion.

still, the question, where are the new species? ever had one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe wholeheartedly with evolution via natural selection either.

Why is the appendix gradually withering to become what is now a 'vestigial organ' , so much so that it goes bad in many people and can cause their death - hardly a positive.

Many more people these days do not have wisdom teeth its seems, and some front incisors too.

The process seems to be quicker than would be explained solely by the standard natural selection process. I personally also believe there is a process of 'use it or lose it' going on where if i a particular feature is not used, the genetic material responsible for its manufacture is switched off over time. We have far more genetic material sitting around in our cells than is required to make us as we know us.

i believe current thinking is that the appendix is not a vestigal organ.

http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2008/a-bacterial-safe-house-a-new-role-for-the-appendix#.UcB0Wb1K1lc

re. evolution, i also have reservations not related to religion and I am open to the idea that this planet may have been "seeded" whether by comets, ETs or whatever.

I find it hard to credit the complexity we see around us in the time-scales available to natural selection alone.

nobody has explained satisfactorily to me how we got from inorganic chemistry to eukaryotic cells (never mind humans) so quickly (if at all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe current thinking is that the appendix is not a vestigal organ.

http://dujs.dartmout...ix#.UcB0Wb1K1lc

re. evolution, i also have reservations not related to religion and I am open to the idea that this planet may have been "seeded" whether by comets, ETs or whatever.

I find it hard to credit the complexity we see around us in the time-scales available to natural selection alone.

nobody has explained satisfactorily to me how we got from inorganic chemistry to eukaryotic cells (never mind humans) so quickly (if at all).

short time...no really, it was much more than 5000 biblical years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't remember the programme I watched recently - it may have been called 'Life' or something on't BBC and in there it stated that all life is related, i.e. only started once.

Previously, I'm pretty sure I was tought that you put the right soup together and it will spontaneously occur. Well, that might be true of the basic building blocks of amino acids, but it is not true for the first ignition, the first replication. However, I don't know how that fits with claims of building basic viruses from scratch.

And re seeding, I'm guessing that when we get out to other planets and we find advanced life froms we may not initially realise that it was 'seeded' from the junk we put up there in the first place. In fact a bit like the south American Indians, it is probably wiping out all other life forms before we can meet them.

nonsense, we all relate to one woman in Africa.

course, we would all be related to her mum to...and her mum, and her mum....

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden is chockers with really stupid but gorgeous beautiful blondes...men and women.

Have to take issue with this. Sweden is not less intelligent than other places. I have met Swedes who have a better command of the English language than many English people.

Natural blonde hair has no correlation with being less intelligent..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

short time...no really, it was much more than 5000 biblical years.

i'm thinking about < billion years (maybe half that) as being a short time to get from inorganics to cells.

i also have problems with the discontinuity of evolution. relatively few species, each seemingly perfected. where are the intermediate forms? have we ever witnessed the evolution of a new species? i'm not suggesting a God solution, but all of this doesn't add up for me somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe wholeheartedly with evolution via natural selection either.

I have plenty of, not religious related, issues as well.

I've got no problem with natural selection. I can observe what can be described as natural selection in action all over the place. The random beneficial mutation which supposedly, and regularly, throws up viable, novel competitors for the selection process, not so common place.

Which is a shame really as, if the process worked as billed, it could be mimicked, making it a doddle to design airliners, complicated software, all sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to take issue with this. Sweden is not less intelligent than other places. I have met Swedes who have a better command of the English language than many English people.

Natural blonde hair has no correlation with being less intelligent..

dolph-lundgren1.jpeg

Dolph Lundgren:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_Lundgren#Education

In 1982, Lundgren graduated with a master's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney, finishing with the highest results in his class.

He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what this clip was supposed to prove. Most people will give similar answers to what was shown. You could pick 10 UK beauty contestants and I would be surprised if the answers would differ. At least most had an opinion....

Maybe in the uk we would have heard a few more yeh but no but yeh....Not an easy subject to converse about and my biggest complaint is that the standard of totty across America is piss poor going by this video...

innit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to take issue with this. Sweden is not less intelligent than other places. I have met Swedes who have a better command of the English language than many English people.

Natural blonde hair has no correlation with being less intelligent..

Point was about 'looks' more than hair colour.

Yes there are some smart ones. I know a fair few lecturers and prof's there....that being said, most of them are Ukrainian, Polish, or Iranian!

But a night out talking with Swedes in the big cities and you start to think, what the hell are you on about. Disneyland and actors in clown suits comes to mind.

Completely oblivious to the rest of the world and out of touch in terms of personal finances. The Swedish state ain't all that rosy on a long time scale. No energy. They just had a big fire at their Gothenburg nuke plant FFS. That really requires some stupidity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that natural selection occurs but I don't believe it explains all modifications.

By natural selection I mean those modifications that occur as a result of a mutation from some external agent such as UV raditaion, which then over a period of time out competes others to become more widespread in a population.

As I said, I think there is an awful lot of 'redundant' genetic material in our cells which may be used for something at some point.

Why do we have the developmental memory of passing thru' the various stages of our evolution during the development of the embryo - from simple single cell to multi cell and even onto 'fish' with gills before ending up as 'superior' mammals. What is the purpose of retaining that genetic memory. I recall the phrase 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'.

Discredited in its strongest form it appears:

https://en.wikipedia...i/Ernst_Haeckel

Does an Embryo have a "tree" stage, a "grass" stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have plenty of, not religious related, issues as well.

I've got no problem with natural selection. I can observe what can be described as natural selection in action all over the place. The random beneficial mutation which supposedly, and regularly, throws up viable, novel competitors for the selection process, not so common place.

Which is a shame really as, if the process worked as billed, it could be mimicked, making it a doddle to design airliners, complicated software, all sorts.

The concept has been tried with some degree of success - look up "genetic algorithm".

How "regularly" are these mutations thrown up? There's been a hell of a long time for it to all work. How good a comparison is it when some of the selection parts can be artificially chosen and the speed therefore enhanced (e.g. we've ended up breeding some very different breeds of dog - how far down the line are they to becoming different species?) There are also examples of various degrees of separation to becoming different species, from dogs as mentioned, to creatures like horses and donkeys that can breed but not produce (or only very, very rarely) offspring that can breed, to completely different ones.

The only real issue I have with the entire explanation of life is a single origin an awfully long time ago. Those conditions could not have been repeated anywhere else? There are two explanations - either that the odds of it getting started are massively tiny (but the universe is big enough so it's not too odd for it to happen at least once), or once life is established it dominates the environment too well for any newstarter to have a chance at becoming established. Both of those seem a bit unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How "regularly" are these mutations thrown up? There's been a hell of a long time for it to all work. How good a comparison is it when some of the selection parts can be artificially chosen and the speed therefore enhanced (e.g. we've ended up breeding some very different breeds of dog - how far down the line are they to becoming different species?) There are also examples of various degrees of separation to becoming different species, from dogs as mentioned, to creatures like horses and donkeys that can breed but not produce (or only very, very rarely) offspring that can breed, to completely different ones.

Different breeds of dogs but not different species. There are limits to what can be done. Cross two pedigree dogs, or cats, and their offspring start reverting to type. Come to think of it, the very concept of discrete species isn't very Darwinian.

edit: Agree with you on the abiogenesis enigma but, as you imply, I park that separately from Evolution. And as soon as someone replicates it, or something like it, there'll actually be something to buy into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discredited in its strongest form it appears:

Hugely, and ages ago

but curiously most people I chat with about this subject have vague recollections of being shown Haeckel's, ahem, 'enhanced' sketches when they were kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that natural selection occurs but I don't believe it explains all modifications.

By natural selection I mean those modifications that occur as a result of a mutation from some external agent such as UV raditaion, which then over a period of time out competes others to become more widespread in a population.

As I said, I think there is an awful lot of 'redundant' genetic material in our cells which may be used for something at some point.

Why do we have the developmental memory of passing thru' the various stages of our evolution during the development of the embryo - from simple single cell to multi cell and even onto 'fish' with gills before ending up as 'superior' mammals. What is the purpose of retaining that genetic memory. I recall the phrase 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'.

Discredited in its strongest form it appears:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm thinking about < billion years (maybe half that) as being a short time to get from inorganics to cells.

i also have problems with the discontinuity of evolution. relatively few species, each seemingly perfected. where are the intermediate forms? have we ever witnessed the evolution of a new species? i'm not suggesting a God solution, but all of this doesn't add up for me somehow.

ALL species are intermediate forms. It is one continuous spectrum, over time, millions of tiny changes. The notion of 'species' is entirely artificial, a man-made definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when people described evolution as "just a theory".

A bit like gravity is "just a theory". I only wish the nincompoops would float away......

By natural selection I mean those modifications that occur as a result of a mutation from some external agent such as UV raditaion, which then over a period of time out competes others to become more widespread in a population.

Actually the main driver of evolution is not point mutation caused by UV or random copying errors but recombination of existing functional chunks of DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon_shuffling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a silly question. Embryo's (and their parent animals) are not descended from trees, nor grass.

Well, grass or tree embryos are......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm thinking about < billion years (maybe half that) as being a short time to get from inorganics to cells.

i also have problems with the discontinuity of evolution. relatively few species, each seemingly perfected. where are the intermediate forms? have we ever witnessed the evolution of a new species? i'm not suggesting a God solution, but all of this doesn't add up for me somehow.

Relatively few species? There are so many species we havent even identified all the extant ones yet!

What makes you think they are perfect? I what way is any given species an example of perfection?

And yes, we have examples of observed speciation. Its been observed to have occurred with the goatsbeard wildflowers and cichlid fish, to name but two examples off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit like gravity is "just a theory". I only wish the nincompoops would float away......

That would be breaking The Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a nasty question to ask. Not only do many people (including some of those on this thread) fail to understand evolution - but in this context you can see the poor girls are struggling to work out what the model answer is, never mind how to justify it.

Sure, we haven't replicated the initial spark of life (a self replicating chemical). That's hardly surprising since it likely took a quite a few millennia to spontaneously happen in the vastness of the Earth's primordial soup. It's a difficult experiment to carry out. Once it did happen though, it kept going and grew ever more complex. Maybe it was seeded/encouraged by ET, God or whoever. In which case, you only move the problem of how life started into the unknowable - rather than have a reasonable chance of solving it.

Organisms aren't perfect. Many of us have faults which make it more difficult than average for us to replicate. But various combinations of the faults can also occasionally confer advantages in some niches and ensure we have better than average chances of replicating. Apparently redundant stuff is only got rid of if there's a reproductive advantage to the mutant without it. And increasingly, stuff we thought was excess baggage like junk DNA and the appendix might turn out to be useful after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 239 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.