|
|
#51
10-31-2007, 07:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I've seen Christians as far more arrogant than atheists, but some of my normally laid-back atheist friends have become arrogant on encountering a Christian. This leads me to believe it's more a matter of perception than anything. People who agree with us will tend to act less arrogant toward us than people who disagree with us. I think we also tend to perceive those who disagree with us as arrogant in general. This is especially true when we believe our opinions are the "best" ones (most logical, for instance). Because we view our "opponents" as having a flawed perspective, mere confidence can seem like arrogance. That said, Lebowski is a total troll (he even admitted it), and nobody should let him rile them up. He's like the siegfriedandroy of atheists. [/ QUOTE ] I totally agree with this. My problem is the large number of posters here who are completely willing to question the IQ of a theist. Regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, you have a right to disagree with me, and I with you. I've seen several posters asking questions regarding poker players who happens to be a theists, concerning understanding of logic, random events, etc. These posters give me a strong desire to wear a large silver cross during B&M play. I've actually often wondered if this conception was so ingrained into Sklansky's mind that I would gain an advantage by wearing one if I ever had the opportunity to play him face to face. I'm not defending or mocking anyone's religion, however, I will say anytime you use one lone character trait of a person to assume lower intelligence/understanding, you should look at your own failings as a human being, and that is being said for both the atheists and the theists benefit. [/ QUOTE ] As long as that isnt the ONLY characteristic you have access to. Which it very often isnt, but sometimes it is. In that case it would be stupid to withhold your assumptions, but it would be smart to realize their limitations. 
|
|
#52
10-31-2007, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
What does OP's tone have to do with his point? The facts that he states are true. Dumb people are reproducing much faster than smart people. Now let's discuss the implications.
|
|
#53
10-31-2007, 08:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What I meant is that natural selection is unsupervised/undirected evolution that leads to changes (generally improvements) in the gene pool. Genetic engineering is something different. [/ QUOTE ] Sort of. But not really. Cheetahs direct the natural selection of gazelle, and thus themselves. They do it in a much cruder fashion, to be sure, but it isn't exactly unintentional. They are intentionally trying to eat gazelles, with the inevitable result being slower gazelles get eaten and gazelles get faster. Its still natural selection. EDIT: what I mean is, of course it IS different, and practically, its VERY different. There are going to be all sorts of peculiarities and unique situations. But its still essentially natural selection. Its just far more potent, sophisticated, RAPID selection. Ultimately its those that reproduce most that will be most represented. It doesnt matter HOW they reproduce or what traits get them reproduced more often. [/ QUOTE ] But in the case of genetic engineering it's not who reproduces the most that's important, but how the reproduction is done. So how does matter. In what is typically thought of as 'natural selection' it's just the who that matters. [ QUOTE ] I guess you could argue it isn't natural, and you CERTAINLY could argue that calling it natural selection is stupid and misleading and it should have its own term, so that it implies the difference. But its still essentially the same thing. [/ QUOTE ] Depends on how you interpret 'essentially' and 'same thing'. I think being able to differentiate between the two things language wise makes sense and is useful. And I don't know of another term that describes what is commonly thought of as 'natural selection'. But I could be wrong.
|
|
#54
10-31-2007, 08:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What I meant is that natural selection is unsupervised/undirected evolution that leads to changes (generally improvements) in the gene pool. Genetic engineering is something different. [/ QUOTE ] Sort of. But not really. Cheetahs direct the natural selection of gazelle, and thus themselves. They do it in a much cruder fashion, to be sure, but it isn't exactly unintentional. They are intentionally trying to eat gazelles, with the inevitable result being slower gazelles get eaten and gazelles get faster. Its still natural selection. EDIT: what I mean is, of course it IS different, and practically, its VERY different. There are going to be all sorts of peculiarities and unique situations. But its still essentially natural selection. Its just far more potent, sophisticated, RAPID selection. Ultimately its those that reproduce most that will be most represented. It doesnt matter HOW they reproduce or what traits get them reproduced more often. [/ QUOTE ] But in the case of genetic engineering it's not who reproduces the most that's important, but how the reproduction is done. So how does matter. In what is typically thought of as 'natural selection' it's just the who that matters. [ QUOTE ] I guess you could argue it isn't natural, and you CERTAINLY could argue that calling it natural selection is stupid and misleading and it should have its own term, so that it implies the difference. But its still essentially the same thing. [/ QUOTE ] Depends on how you interpret 'essentially' and 'same thing'. I think being able to differentiate between the two things language wise makes sense and is useful. And I don't know of another term that describes what is commonly thought of as 'natural selection'. But I could be wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Thats not true though. I think the problem is you think evolution is about individuals or species, when in reality it is about genes. In genetic engineering, natural selection, whatever, the genes that are most fit become most represented in future generations. So natural selection has led us to prefer certain traits and find them useful, and we are using pipettes and PCR to increase the prevalence of those genes in future generations, rather than "eating the slow" or whatever, but nonetheless, the most fit genes will be selected by organisms and environment.
|
|
#55
10-31-2007, 09:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
I'm certainly not denying there are arrogant christians, but I would disagree as to atheists not being "leaders" in that department. Of course I've done no specific studies, only speaking from my own experiences. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, you're merely choosing to interpret your experiences a specific way. Very few atheists think theists, or gays etc, DESERVE to be tormented for eternity. huh? That doesn't seem to you just a bit worse then being childishly cocky because you are brighter/more informed than most of the theists you run into. luckyme
|
|
#56
10-31-2007, 10:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
So I take it you dislike Ms. Clintons plan to give a $5000 bond to every child born to an impoverished family?
That dumb bitch has no understanding how many kids will be popping out of women (used loosely) if she gets this to happen.
|
|
#57
10-31-2007, 10:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
in the past, poor people needed to have as many kids as possible to survive. they passed these genes onto their poor children. now, in the year 2007, having tons of kids isnt required for survival, but they are doing it anyways. that means for every scientist and doctor couple who have one child, a prison inmate and his baby's mamma have nine kids, some redneck and second cousin have seven kids. That means seven more kids believing in jesus and watching nascar versus one kid studying evolution and watching film noir. this affect will keep multipling until the educated are such a small minority that they are forced with a decision: extinction or mass genocide of the uneducated christian populations. [/ QUOTE ] Ure an ignorant atheist fool who has just watched Idiocracy the film. BTW there is no such thing as devolution just counter intuitive evolution. Idiot. I h8 all this he prays so hes a retard and im fkin smart cos i believe im a fukin monkey descendent BS. Im not christian.
|
|
#59
10-31-2007, 11:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
Hey, DblbarrelJ -
Just to point out some civility... There are a number of theists and atheists who all respect each other and act civilly. For instance, look at the interactions of just about any atheist with Bunny. He is a theist whom I would say most everyone respects and enjoys discussions with. I really don't think this forum is any worse then the forum you do frequent... politics. The liberal/conservative and AC vs statists are all filled will rude arrogant people bickering with each other. Same arrogance... different forum.
|
|
#60
10-31-2007, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
Thats not true though. I think the problem is you think evolution is about individuals or species, when in reality it is about genes. In genetic engineering, natural selection, whatever, the genes that are most fit become most represented in future generations. So natural selection has led us to prefer certain traits and find them useful, and we are using pipettes and PCR to increase the prevalence of those genes in future generations, rather than "eating the slow" or whatever, but nonetheless, the most fit genes will be selected by organisms and environment. [/ QUOTE ] I would call that selection, but not "natural" selection. The word "natural" is open to interpretation? I'm not familiar with genetic/evolutionary nomenclature and so on, so maybe the phrase "natural selection" is used that way. For all I know.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
