Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Hadn't Figured In Your Recent Conversations With Luis

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael W. Pearson on May 31, 2002 16:08:14 UTC

That p.o.v. hadn't figured prominently in your recent conversations with Luis, so you had forgotten reading Dawkins et al.?
..or you haven't read it yet but you have an
off-camer advisor like they do on "Car Talk" to research the make and model of car, diagnose the problem, and tell them when to laugh in the famous Car Talk style?
That's okay, they're both highly developed human beings. And they too would immediately cover over their forgetfulness.


Or are you missing my point, that ANY talk of individuals in a discussion of natural selection
will wander off the point except to sympathize with how the individual labors for the DNA and is 'misunderstood' and turned into food or an accident victim. It's time to stop saying the folks who let the Nazis over run then had traits which gave them an advantage over those Americans who, before they could reproduce were killed in battle with the Nazis. I mean, a good Nordic and European government is likely to have a high tax rate and large public works programs, and there's nothing wrong with that within reason !
There may be a little accuracy in saying
"individuals with traits better fitted to the environment in their generations," but it's not established as science...it's just twaddle.
DNA is the ONLY game involved in natural selection...but it's not the only game in life.
That's another subject and it can suffer from
the delusions of nasty biologists (age 26 or other wise) who simply don't understand the other side of the question.

All this other talk....of "individuals with traits better fitted to the environment" IS HOGWASH.... it contains accuracy mixed with inaccuracy. Regarding "better", all we have is a statistical profile which emerges over many generations. With humans, there are short-term survival advantages to being a nasty beast if enough of your peers agree. And you can proceed to slaughter a good part of the world's population based upon a self-delusion. This does not mean you are "better fitted to the environment" or "advantaged" in any way.
The difference between artificial selection and natural selection can be framed in time...
natural selection will be the wider view...or
now that we are capable and forced to choose, natural selection will be what occurs if we do not use our better judgment.
I'm more concerned what we will do to the biosphere than trying to alter the human gene pool through evaluating individual fitness to reproduce, and the science is firmly with me.
Too many delusions are already in the
brunette camp about the numbers of their hair color being
a sign they have been very clever...very clever indeed. It's a drunken crazy delusion some of them have.

Mike





Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins