|
|
#71
10-31-2007, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
Dbl deservs a gold star. *
For a minute there it was a simply pure (good) debate, but there was no religious overture. Luckily he stepped up to the plate and saved this thread from being a wholly cunstructive one. Well done sir, I salute you. 
|
|
#75
10-31-2007, 08:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
Dbl deservs a gold star. * For a minute there it was a simply pure (good) debate, but there was no religious overture. Luckily he stepped up to the plate and saved this thread from being a wholly cunstructive one. Well done sir, I salute you. [/ QUOTE ] No religious overture? I am shocked you could read the OP and claim no religious overture. Not only was religion brought up, but the fallacy that atheists are somehow intellectually superior to theists was brought into play as well. How do you read "no religious overture"??
|
|
#76
10-31-2007, 09:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 don't know what you mean by "typically thought of," but in the scientific community "natural selection" isn't just about the who. Natural selection is definitely not a matter of who reproduces most - it's about genetic fitness, which may be increased through greater reproduction, but which also may be decreased through greater reproduction. Incidentally, this is part of the OP's fallacy - in fact, it was the human ancestors who reproduced less, putting more resources into each child, who were fittest. Those who reproduced too much were unable to go the distance and care for their children (who were very vulnerable for many years and who had significant physical and emotional needs), and so they were selected against (and thus, modern humans have evolved to have relatively fewer children than most species). [/ QUOTE ] This is why I like to say its all about the grandkids. It isnt how many kids you have, its how many of your kids survive to have kids.
|
|
#77
10-31-2007, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't know what you mean by "typically thought of," but in the scientific community "natural selection" isn't just about the who. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I meant "typically thought of by myself". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I can be presumptuous sometimes. But at any rate it doesn't matter. Just take what I said as "natural selection or evolution will be driven by biotechnology". Agree/disagree? [/ QUOTE ] I think thats completely legit. And dont get me wrong, I wasnt criticizing you or really even disagreeing with you this whole time. The very first thing I said was "well, just to be nitty..." because thats exactly what I'm doing. Its a small point that is important to me, but its probably not important to anyone else and what you were saying isnt really wrong.
|
|
#78
11-01-2007, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
so you A) havent seen idiocracy B) have seen idiocracy and stole the movies concept as your own [/ QUOTE ] There was a science fiction story by C.M. Kornbluth about 1950 called "The Marching Morons". Some guy ended up several hundred years in the future (whether through time travel, suspended animation, or what, I forget) and everybody was stupid.
|
|
#80
11-01-2007, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] please let it be the second one
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
