But you see, that's the point. "They" (by whom I mean the Liberal freethinkers, many of whom troll these forums) don't want YOU to decide what you want YOUR child to see. Because, you must understand, that you are simply validating an archiac, patriarchal homophobic system.
Ok, first off, I agree that there are people like that...Left-wing trolls, parroting notions they barely understand because they've been told they are right. Just so you know, I don't agree with people like that...
But...the opposite is also true.
Kids should be exposed to sex as early as possible (I mean, they are going to do it anyway, right?)
Kids shouldn't be forbidden from learning about sex. If they are curious about it, they will learn, from well meaning people if they are allowed to, or from "other sources" if they aren't.
be allowed to make up their own minds freely when it comes to drugs
Or be lied to by sheer force of habit. Be told that heroin and pot are exactly as bad, and then later on see that pot heads can be productive members of society and infer from that that heroin then is also not so bad. All the while no one is telling them that they can become addicted to over-the-counter cold medicine...
drugs (we all use them here in Hollywood, and we're just fine! (aside from the serial divorce, suicide, crime, and depression rates))
Marriage is a promotional tool. People are treated as commodities, and in the 50's the studios had a nasty habit of hooking their stars on (legal) prescription drugs to better control them. Drawing conclusions from coincidental events is a bad habit.
I never told them they can't. Why the fuck do you assume I want to tell them they can't?
If you are not buying this DVD player (and it sounds like you're not), then why do you care?
I care because manipulating masses in order to gain political leverage is a dangerous game, and this device can (and therefore will) be used to do that.
Deleting "objectionable" scenes from a movie only becomes a propaganda tool if the movie in question was a propaganda tool to begin with.
Not really. That depends of what you classify under "objectionable". To the right-wing fundamentalists, most of modern science (all of biology, really) is objectionable.
Also, what if a movie has a friendly Jewish character. Is that propaganda, to a have a nice character that happens to be jewish? What if you remove him, or edit the movie in a way to make him appear not quite as friendly?
Your example of "Fight Club" demonstrates that point perfectly. If you think the anti-conumerism message was the most important thing about that movie, you've already reduced it from being art to being mere propaganda.
Only to people of diminished intelligence. A person with normal mental capacities would understand that speaking about one aspect of a piece of art does not automatically negate the rest (unlike censoring that art by removing or masking the bits you intentionally want to hide from view). Just because I wasn't going on and on about about the lighting of that movie doesn't mean I do not think it was not good lighting. And just now, when I was talking about lighting, that desn't mean I think the compositing is crap, nor the SFX, etc.
I'd like to know why folks like you get so scared of an object that solves a problem in a way that doesn't reduce anyone's freedom, but is geared towards people with a self-imposed religious or moral code.
People are made nervous by this thing because of its potential as a propaganda tool.
Because not many people realise the power of editing. You know how quoting somebody out of context can completly change the meaning of what they said, well editing bits and pieces out of a movie can have the same effect.
They can use their editing power to make the movie say things it was never meant to say, or to make it not say the things it was really meant to say.
And you are letting people you've never met make these decisions for you... Sure, there is a market for this device, and grandma will be happy to be able to watch movies without being offended by cussing. But its still big-brotherish. Don't think for yourselves, let the censor think for you...I find it disturbing, even if others find it reassuring.
I have lots of control. I can choose to buy it, or not. Since I don't have kids and don't mind adult content in my movies, I choose not to buy it. If somebody else want auto-censored DVDs, RCA is answering their demand. Good for them. Everybody wins. Why are so many people getting their panties in a twist over this?
Because someone else decides what is "objectionable" material and you submit blindly to their decisions.
So they take out the boobies (wich according to U.S. decency standards are evil) and some gore. What else do they take out? Do they take out the word evolution? How about political ideas? Do they censor only the left-wing ideas or do they censor across the board? Do they alter the movie enough to change the meaning of the message?
If you watch fight club with it, aside from the fact that the movie will be 40 minutes long, does it retain its anti-consumerism message or does it become a "booh terrorists!" movie?
People are made nervous by this thing because of its potential as a propaganda tool.
So, if I cue up just the car chase in "Streets of San Fancisco," or maybe just the rescue of Morpheus in "The Matrix" without actually watching the movies in their entirety, am I violating the rights of the artistic creators?
If not, how is it any different if I'm a puritanical old biddy who wants to watch "Eyes Wide Shut" with a DVD player that automatically skips over the orgy scene?
Well, its different in the sense that you want to only watch the good bits and she's missing out on the only good bit...;-)
censorship Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship Function: noun 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
These features will only encourage people to be more wreckless.
The absence of these features does not encourage people to be less wreckless.
Might as well get rid of safety belts, airbags, rails on bridges and winter tires. by your logic they only make people more recjless by making them feel safe.
Since people are being wreckless anyway, I'd rather have some protection from them for the rest of us.
So, anyone can help me understand we we should opt to keep stupid people ON the road?
We should keep the stupid people ON the road so they don't kill the non-stupid people who would happen to be mowed down and killed as the stupid car goes off the road.
How do they expect evolution to produce a better human species?
If this system will prevent stupid people from accidentally killing off the non-stupid portions of the gene pool, that is how it will better serve evolution.
you said nothing [...] that has to do with riding. you like the bike because it's loud and makes you feel like you got a big dick. Makes you feel like you can shake the earth and makes motorists "respect" you.
They make motorists not blindly ram me with their cars. That has a LOT to do with riding.
The CEO of harley davidson once said "we are not a motorcycle company, we are a fashion company". People don't buy harleys because they want a good bike they get one because they think it makes them cool and rebellious.
Speaking as a biker, riding a Harley is a unique experience. Its powerfull, its loud, it shakes the earth.
And people get out of your damn way. Now, if you don't ride, you can't understand the value of that, but normal bikes are ignored by cars, they change lanes to a lane where you are, they don't give you the right of way, etc. On a Harley, the rumbling makes them react as though you were an 18 wheeler or something.
And as for the iPod, everything about coolness is true, BUT its also the best mp3 player there is. The interface is excellent, it holds a shitload of music, and the synching with iTunes makes it a breeze to manage.
So sometimes something is cool because it deserves to be cool. Other times its simply marketing hype. But the iPod and Harley deserve their status.
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I'm curious to know what you mean by bad faith.
that:
I'm interested by your use of the word "virtue" without qualifying it, since virtue only has meaning in a world with a God.
Tired of your god nonsense, buh-bye now.
Fish, breathing fish, hoping fish, not fish.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
arwinism as being based on the concept of evolution (which AFAIK is not proven) is something you have to BELIEVE in because the only thing you have is a theory (supported by IMHO vague evidence) raised to a dogma. I know there is a thing called 'micro-evolution' which is something we can observe. But it is _extremely_ unlikely that even many, many steps of micro-evolution do (although it seems to be very convincing for most people) result in something called 'macro-evolution'.
"There is no proof of evolution!"
"Look, microbes that evolve..."
"Er...that's just microbes, now there is no proof of er...what will I call this...ah! There is no proof of MACROevolution (hmmm...I'm clever)!"
But, even though you won't listen:
Fish have swim blatters: simple organs that hold in air to controll buyoncy.
Some fish in the amazon that live where the water level drops dramatically in the dry season can breathe using this swim blatter. They take in gulps of air from their mouths and "swallow" them. The tissues of their swim blatter passes the oxygen to the bloodstream through capillaries.
Frogs have gills when infants, and then grow lungs that they fill with positive pressure created by their tongues pushing air inwards. They can hop out of the water and onto dry land, but they need to come back to the water to reproduce.
We have lungs, filled by negative pressure created by a big muscle situated below the lungs. Placed at the same place as swim blatters, connected to the mouth in much the same way, but they are much more complex, divided in countless small chambers to maximise the exposure of capillaries to the air we take in. We walk around on dry land all the time, and don't need to come back to water to reproduce.
There you go. An organ that starts simple with a definate advantage (better swimming) and later evolves to be used as something else (from buyancy to oxygen gathering) and evolves further still to become more and more sofisticated. All the while giving new advantages (in the form of niches that the creatures without these advantages can't inhabit). And you have a bunch of intermediary steps to boot. Fish, fish that can survive in low-water condition, something that starts out as a fish-like creature and then grows legs and lungs and can go over dry land from one low-water hole to the next, and then not-fish-at-all creatures that still need to take in water but that can live out of it all their lives.
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Jaques. Cousteau.
I don't understand this response/reference.
Men are superior to fish because our giant brains let us find ways to go beyond the limits of our bodies. So if you switch a fish in the ocean with a man in the desert, the fish can do nothing but the man can put on a scuba, thanks to a certain frenchman.
The natural history as told by darwinists is curiously devoid of things we consider virtues, yet is replete with betrayel, murder, rape, greed, etc. At what point did that rule of success change? After all, there is still much to be gained through betrayel, yet people shun it.
These things, betrayal and everything, still occur. Natural selection can hardly remove traits that give its bearer advantages, but virtues also give advantages.
And you have awnserd your own question, using the exact word I was going to use too: Virtues help the community, betrayal helps the individual. The communities defend themselves by shunning the individuals that put themselves above the community through betrayal and the like.
We are social creatures, our society are a genetic advantage, since we have the instinct to band together that that there is strenght in numbers (bringing down a mamoth is not a one-man job). Natural selection applies to societies too. The ones that have all the tools to be strong and prosperous survive, the others die out.
But here there is no proof.
No one is as blind as the person who refuses to look.
When people like you are shown proof they either refuse to look in the telescope and threaten excommunion or they make up words like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" to obfuscate the situation.
I've read a few of your posts and I see you have read up on the subject, but you show such bad faith...
Yes, but that opens up a fundamental flaw - how is natural selection intelligent enough to select for long term advantage?
Its not intelligent.
The short term advantage is the one that will express itself first, and by the time the long term advantage comes into play, the creature that possessed that 'advantage' has already been eliminated by the one that went for the quick gain.
How do you know that? What makes you so sure that the short-term advantage will eliminate all other competitors in such a short term? The world is a big place, populations can be isolated on islands, behind mountains, etc. The short-term-only creatures will extinguish in the long-term, the isolated population that wasn't subject to that change will survive.
"Go forth and multiply" isn't just a commandment, its a pretty strong instinc too. The more there are of you over the more terrain, the more likely you'll survive in the long run.
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Or that if we switch places of a fish swimming deep underwater with a human walking in a dry desert, that since they would both die that they are 'equal'?
Jaques. Cousteau.
logic, etc. People do have morals and a concept of right and wrong. Without going into more detail at the moment, this is a proof of God.
Human society has evolved behaviours that tend to eliminate people without morals. We lock them up, execute them, and in lots of ways pretty much take 'em out of the gene pool.
And we recently have found an new way to breed out rapists, by aborting their unborn spawns, but apparently god is pro rape or someting, all the preachers are against that.
It is also true that so long as there are no selective pressures (such as when there are enough resources), there is no darwinist evolution.
That's a phase of evolution. Darwin figured that evolution occured slowly over very long periods of time, but since he was a scientists, not a prophet, his theory has evolved too. There is evidence that points to punctual evolution, where major changes occur rather quickly (geologically speaking, not X-Men fast) when some radical change in the environment makes selection much harsher. In the interim only the occasional minor change occurs, since the pressure to change is less. That would be the part where subtle changes and minor diversity is introduced in the gene pool.
if one creature had a feeling of greed to take more than it wanted, and killed for it, then that creature would be selected for. Thus darwinist evolution favours in this case something we consider immoral.
Yes, evolution occurs without a sense of morality. But taking more than you want is not a balanced trait, and chances are that the short-term advantage this (apparently genetic) trait would be outweighed by the long-term negative effect of such behaviour. Remember the story of the grasshoper and the ant? Selfish and short sighted behaviour works great when the conditions are easy (summer), but when things get though (winter), you die man.
Re:Eugenics? Pull the other one...
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Tell me why it is that your post is modded informative, yet mine are modded off topic
Because he's informative and you're a troll.
Now, I don't know why you get modded offtopic instead of troll, but I know why your denial of evolution in a thread about a find that supports evolution is modded down while a post that clarifies evolution in a thread about a find that supports evolution is modded up.
Re:A simple syllogism, indeed
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I think that if natural selection is right, then we owe it to ourselves to make the best guesses we can about what traits are desireable, and reinforcing them. Also according to natural selection, it is of course the duty of "inferior" beings to attept to promulgate their genes despite our attempts.
Man, you're chuck full of hubris aren't you?
Natural selection occurs naturally, it doesn't need our guesses to make it happen.
The problem is that the human psyche has a hard time reconciling this thought because the very intelligence that we've possibly evolved also gives us compassion, a trait that could very well be our downfall should Darwinian evolution turn out to be correct.
Not at all. We also evolved compassion. By helping each other out in the short term we help the entire species in the long run. You want your genes to win out on the long run, but you and your entire family could die in a catastrophic event, so the stranger you helped out could be the closest thing to your genes that get passed on in the end.
Its the same thing as with the mountain goat's horns. They evolved so that they don't usually seriously hurt themselves during the mating season's fights. If one mutant evolved the short-term advantage of horns that kill the oponents, he would have a great reproductive advantage, but his descendants would kill each other and he would prove to be an evolutionary dead end.
Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
First of all, you do not understand the theory of evolution AND you use "darwinist" in a way that does not reflect its true meaning.
Darwinist is in opposotion to Lamarckist, who was an evolutionary theory from before Darwin that postulated that the evolution of species was the result of adaptation made by members of the species in their life times (to Lamarck, if giraffes had long necks it was because proto-giraffes had had to stretch their necks to get to high branches and so their descendants had longer necks). Darwin's theory was that natural selection of mutants was what shaped evolution.
If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another.
Well, that might be what the grand wizard at your "racial pride" rally told you, but that is completly wrong.
If I take an Inuit and a Massai and switch them, they'll both be fucked. Because one is from a race that has adapted to the artic climate and the other to the savannah. Wich is the inferior one? The one that can survive in a cold hostile land or the one that can survive in a hot hostile land?
Races are not inferior or superior in an absolute sense, they are better adapted to specific situations.
If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil.
Ah, yes, you're the type of person for whom the only reason not to hurt other people is the fear of hell.
So clearly, you do not reject darwinist evolution based on rational arguments, but based on irrational fears. Fear of what people would do if they didn't have the fear of hell in them...
To suppose that Darwinism doesn't lead to racism is the ultimate in willful blindness.
You retard. There was racism before Darwin, there was racism before the theory of evolution. The bible promotes racism. There are the superior tribes, descendants of angels, and the others are inferior. God commanded the israelites to genocide at jehricho.
Stop trying to discredit things you don't like by linking them to things others don't like.
You absolutely, necessarily, have to be racist to be a Darwinist.
You absolutly, necesserily have to be a racist to believe in god, because god is racist.
You cannot have every group survive, because some must fail.
Again, wrong because you do not understand the theory of evolution and the darwinist theory of survival of the fittest.
As long as there are enough ressources, all groups can survive. There is no magic need for one group to diappear.
The point is that there is no good or evil, and that we can't trust the convictions of our mind if we assume Darwinism.
That's nihilism, not darwinism. And you should never trust the convictions of your mind.
Slashdot Mirror
But you see, that's the point. "They" (by whom I mean the Liberal freethinkers, many of whom troll these forums) don't want YOU to decide what you want YOUR child to see. Because, you must understand, that you are simply validating an archiac, patriarchal homophobic system.
Ok, first off, I agree that there are people like that...Left-wing trolls, parroting notions they barely understand because they've been told they are right.
Just so you know, I don't agree with people like that...
But...the opposite is also true.
Kids should be exposed to sex as early as possible (I mean, they are going to do it anyway, right?)
Kids shouldn't be forbidden from learning about sex. If they are curious about it, they will learn, from well meaning people if they are allowed to, or from "other sources" if they aren't.
be allowed to make up their own minds freely when it comes to drugs
Or be lied to by sheer force of habit. Be told that heroin and pot are exactly as bad, and then later on see that pot heads can be productive members of society and infer from that that heroin then is also not so bad.
All the while no one is telling them that they can become addicted to over-the-counter cold medicine...
drugs (we all use them here in Hollywood, and we're just fine! (aside from the serial divorce, suicide, crime, and depression rates))
Marriage is a promotional tool. People are treated as commodities, and in the 50's the studios had a nasty habit of hooking their stars on (legal) prescription drugs to better control them.
Drawing conclusions from coincidental events is a bad habit.
I am made nervous by /. moderation because of it's potential as a propaganda tool.
Have you Meta Moderated recently?
who the fuck are you to tell them they can't?
I never told them they can't.
Why the fuck do you assume I want to tell them they can't?
If you are not buying this DVD player (and it sounds like you're not), then why do you care?
I care because manipulating masses in order to gain political leverage is a dangerous game, and this device can (and therefore will) be used to do that.
Deleting "objectionable" scenes from a movie only becomes a propaganda tool if the movie in question was a propaganda tool to begin with.
Not really. That depends of what you classify under "objectionable". To the right-wing fundamentalists, most of modern science (all of biology, really) is objectionable.
Also, what if a movie has a friendly Jewish character. Is that propaganda, to a have a nice character that happens to be jewish? What if you remove him, or edit the movie in a way to make him appear not quite as friendly?
Your example of "Fight Club" demonstrates that point perfectly. If you think the anti-conumerism message was the most important thing about that movie, you've already reduced it from being art to being mere propaganda.
Only to people of diminished intelligence. A person with normal mental capacities would understand that speaking about one aspect of a piece of art does not automatically negate the rest (unlike censoring that art by removing or masking the bits you intentionally want to hide from view).
Just because I wasn't going on and on about about the lighting of that movie doesn't mean I do not think it was not good lighting. And just now, when I was talking about lighting, that desn't mean I think the compositing is crap, nor the SFX, etc.
I'd like to know why folks like you get so scared of an object that solves a problem in a way that doesn't reduce anyone's freedom, but is geared towards people with a self-imposed religious or moral code.
Like I just said...
People are made nervous by this thing because of its potential as a propaganda tool.
Because not many people realise the power of editing. You know how quoting somebody out of context can completly change the meaning of what they said, well editing bits and pieces out of a movie can have the same effect.
They can use their editing power to make the movie say things it was never meant to say, or to make it not say the things it was really meant to say.
And you are letting people you've never met make these decisions for you...
Sure, there is a market for this device, and grandma will be happy to be able to watch movies without being offended by cussing. But its still big-brotherish.
Don't think for yourselves, let the censor think for you...I find it disturbing, even if others find it reassuring.
I have lots of control. I can choose to buy it, or not. Since I don't have kids and don't mind adult content in my movies, I choose not to buy it. If somebody else want auto-censored DVDs, RCA is answering their demand. Good for them. Everybody wins. Why are so many people getting their panties in a twist over this?
Because someone else decides what is "objectionable" material and you submit blindly to their decisions.
So they take out the boobies (wich according to U.S. decency standards are evil) and some gore. What else do they take out? Do they take out the word evolution? How about political ideas? Do they censor only the left-wing ideas or do they censor across the board?
Do they alter the movie enough to change the meaning of the message?
If you watch fight club with it, aside from the fact that the movie will be 40 minutes long, does it retain its anti-consumerism message or does it become a "booh terrorists!" movie?
People are made nervous by this thing because of its potential as a propaganda tool.
So, if I cue up just the car chase in "Streets of San Fancisco," or maybe just the rescue of Morpheus in "The Matrix" without actually watching the movies in their entirety, am I violating the rights of the artistic creators?
;-)
If not, how is it any different if I'm a puritanical old biddy who wants to watch "Eyes Wide Shut" with a DVD player that automatically skips over the orgy scene?
Well, its different in the sense that you want to only watch the good bits and she's missing out on the only good bit...
People who buy this are idiots
So? No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american public.
Money is money, wether it comes from an idiot's pocket or not.
censorship
/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Birds still fly, fish still swim, and Record Executives^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h wolves still hunt and kill prey.
You misspelled "instestinal parasites"...
These features will only encourage people to be more wreckless.
The absence of these features does not encourage people to be less wreckless.
Might as well get rid of safety belts, airbags, rails on bridges and winter tires. by your logic they only make people more recjless by making them feel safe.
Since people are being wreckless anyway, I'd rather have some protection from them for the rest of us.
So, anyone can help me understand we we should opt to keep stupid people ON the road?
We should keep the stupid people ON the road so they don't kill the non-stupid people who would happen to be mowed down and killed as the stupid car goes off the road.
Let Darwinism take hold. Make cars that turn off the brakes when the driver falls asleep, THEN we'll see who's actually dumb enough to try it.
Driver: Protected by crash zones, air bags, and safety belts.
Innoncent bystander plowed by that car: Protected by nothing.
P.S. What difference would it make if the brakes work or not when the person is asleep? They're not braking, they're sleeping.
How do they expect evolution to produce a better human species?
If this system will prevent stupid people from accidentally killing off the non-stupid portions of the gene pool, that is how it will better serve evolution.
Cars don't kill people, stupid drivers kill people...
Also having an autopilot would be nice for those among us who like to nap on the roads.
;-)
A rapidly diminishing group
Then in a short time we would have people (small people, but still people) who do understand communication of these other species
There's this chap in australia who talks gator...
Apparently they are always saying things like "Oh, I'm grumpy now!", or "Cricky!" (whatever that means).
you said nothing [...] that has to do with riding.
you like the bike because it's loud and makes you feel like you got a big dick. Makes you feel like you can shake the earth and makes motorists "respect" you.
They make motorists not blindly ram me with their cars.
That has a LOT to do with riding.
Powerful? You and I must have ridden a different harley.
;-)
1100cc as opposed to my usual 200cc yamaha.
Noticeable difference
The CEO of harley davidson once said "we are not a motorcycle company, we are a fashion company". People don't buy harleys because they want a good bike they get one because they think it makes them cool and rebellious.
Speaking as a biker, riding a Harley is a unique experience.
Its powerfull, its loud, it shakes the earth.
And people get out of your damn way.
Now, if you don't ride, you can't understand the value of that, but normal bikes are ignored by cars, they change lanes to a lane where you are, they don't give you the right of way, etc.
On a Harley, the rumbling makes them react as though you were an 18 wheeler or something.
And as for the iPod, everything about coolness is true, BUT its also the best mp3 player there is. The interface is excellent, it holds a shitload of music, and the synching with iTunes makes it a breeze to manage.
So sometimes something is cool because it deserves to be cool. Other times its simply marketing hype. But the iPod and Harley deserve their status.
I'm curious to know what you mean by bad faith.
that:
I'm interested by your use of the word "virtue" without qualifying it, since virtue only has meaning in a world with a God.
Tired of your god nonsense, buh-bye now.
But, even though you won't listen:
Fish have swim blatters: simple organs that hold in air to controll buyoncy.
Some fish in the amazon that live where the water level drops dramatically in the dry season can breathe using this swim blatter. They take in gulps of air from their mouths and "swallow" them. The tissues of their swim blatter passes the oxygen to the bloodstream through capillaries.
Frogs have gills when infants, and then grow lungs that they fill with positive pressure created by their tongues pushing air inwards. They can hop out of the water and onto dry land, but they need to come back to the water to reproduce.
We have lungs, filled by negative pressure created by a big muscle situated below the lungs. Placed at the same place as swim blatters, connected to the mouth in much the same way, but they are much more complex, divided in countless small chambers to maximise the exposure of capillaries to the air we take in.
We walk around on dry land all the time, and don't need to come back to water to reproduce.
There you go. An organ that starts simple with a definate advantage (better swimming) and later evolves to be used as something else (from buyancy to oxygen gathering) and evolves further still to become more and more sofisticated. All the while giving new advantages (in the form of niches that the creatures without these advantages can't inhabit).
And you have a bunch of intermediary steps to boot. Fish, fish that can survive in low-water condition, something that starts out as a fish-like creature and then grows legs and lungs and can go over dry land from one low-water hole to the next, and then not-fish-at-all creatures that still need to take in water but that can live out of it all their lives.
Jaques.
Cousteau.
I don't understand this response/reference.
Men are superior to fish because our giant brains let us find ways to go beyond the limits of our bodies.
So if you switch a fish in the ocean with a man in the desert, the fish can do nothing but the man can put on a scuba, thanks to a certain frenchman.
The natural history as told by darwinists is curiously devoid of things we consider virtues, yet is replete with betrayel, murder, rape, greed, etc. At what point did that rule of success change? After all, there is still much to be gained through betrayel, yet people shun it.
These things, betrayal and everything, still occur. Natural selection can hardly remove traits that give its bearer advantages, but virtues also give advantages.
And you have awnserd your own question, using the exact word I was going to use too: Virtues help the community, betrayal helps the individual. The communities defend themselves by shunning the individuals that put themselves above the community through betrayal and the like.
We are social creatures, our society are a genetic advantage, since we have the instinct to band together that that there is strenght in numbers (bringing down a mamoth is not a one-man job). Natural selection applies to societies too. The ones that have all the tools to be strong and prosperous survive, the others die out.
But here there is no proof.
No one is as blind as the person who refuses to look.
When people like you are shown proof they either refuse to look in the telescope and threaten excommunion or they make up words like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" to obfuscate the situation.
I've read a few of your posts and I see you have read up on the subject, but you show such bad faith...
Yes, but that opens up a fundamental flaw - how is natural selection intelligent enough to select for long term advantage?
Its not intelligent.
The short term advantage is the one that will express itself first, and by the time the long term advantage comes into play, the creature that possessed that 'advantage' has already been eliminated by the one that went for the quick gain.
How do you know that?
What makes you so sure that the short-term advantage will eliminate all other competitors in such a short term?
The world is a big place, populations can be isolated on islands, behind mountains, etc. The short-term-only creatures will extinguish in the long-term, the isolated population that wasn't subject to that change will survive.
"Go forth and multiply" isn't just a commandment, its a pretty strong instinc too. The more there are of you over the more terrain, the more likely you'll survive in the long run.
Or that if we switch places of a fish swimming deep underwater with a human walking in a dry desert, that since they would both die that they are 'equal'?
Jaques.
Cousteau.
logic, etc. People do have morals and a concept of right and wrong. Without going into more detail at the moment, this is a proof of God.
Human society has evolved behaviours that tend to eliminate people without morals. We lock them up, execute them, and in lots of ways pretty much take 'em out of the gene pool.
And we recently have found an new way to breed out rapists, by aborting their unborn spawns, but apparently god is pro rape or someting, all the preachers are against that.
It is also true that so long as there are no selective pressures (such as when there are enough resources), there is no darwinist evolution.
That's a phase of evolution. Darwin figured that evolution occured slowly over very long periods of time, but since he was a scientists, not a prophet, his theory has evolved too. There is evidence that points to punctual evolution, where major changes occur rather quickly (geologically speaking, not X-Men fast) when some radical change in the environment makes selection much harsher. In the interim only the occasional minor change occurs, since the pressure to change is less. That would be the part where subtle changes and minor diversity is introduced in the gene pool.
if one creature had a feeling of greed to take more than it wanted, and killed for it, then that creature would be selected for. Thus darwinist evolution favours in this case something we consider immoral.
Yes, evolution occurs without a sense of morality.
But taking more than you want is not a balanced trait, and chances are that the short-term advantage this (apparently genetic) trait would be outweighed by the long-term negative effect of such behaviour.
Remember the story of the grasshoper and the ant? Selfish and short sighted behaviour works great when the conditions are easy (summer), but when things get though (winter), you die man.
Tell me why it is that your post is modded informative, yet mine are modded off topic
Because he's informative and you're a troll.
Now, I don't know why you get modded offtopic instead of troll, but I know why your denial of evolution in a thread about a find that supports evolution is modded down while a post that clarifies evolution in a thread about a find that supports evolution is modded up.
I think that if natural selection is right, then we owe it to ourselves to make the best guesses we can about what traits are desireable, and reinforcing them. Also according to natural selection, it is of course the duty of "inferior" beings to attept to promulgate their genes despite our attempts.
Man, you're chuck full of hubris aren't you?
Natural selection occurs naturally, it doesn't need our guesses to make it happen.
The problem is that the human psyche has a hard time reconciling this thought because the very intelligence that we've possibly evolved also gives us compassion, a trait that could very well be our downfall should Darwinian evolution turn out to be correct.
Not at all.
We also evolved compassion. By helping each other out in the short term we help the entire species in the long run.
You want your genes to win out on the long run, but you and your entire family could die in a catastrophic event, so the stranger you helped out could be the closest thing to your genes that get passed on in the end.
Its the same thing as with the mountain goat's horns. They evolved so that they don't usually seriously hurt themselves during the mating season's fights. If one mutant evolved the short-term advantage of horns that kill the oponents, he would have a great reproductive advantage, but his descendants would kill each other and he would prove to be an evolutionary dead end.
First of all, you do not understand the theory of evolution AND you use "darwinist" in a way that does not reflect its true meaning.
Darwinist is in opposotion to Lamarckist, who was an evolutionary theory from before Darwin that postulated that the evolution of species was the result of adaptation made by members of the species in their life times (to Lamarck, if giraffes had long necks it was because proto-giraffes had had to stretch their necks to get to high branches and so their descendants had longer necks).
Darwin's theory was that natural selection of mutants was what shaped evolution.
If you assume darwinism, then it would be irrational to suppose that one human race is not inferior or superior to another.
Well, that might be what the grand wizard at your "racial pride" rally told you, but that is completly wrong.
If I take an Inuit and a Massai and switch them, they'll both be fucked. Because one is from a race that has adapted to the artic climate and the other to the savannah. Wich is the inferior one? The one that can survive in a cold hostile land or the one that can survive in a hot hostile land?
Races are not inferior or superior in an absolute sense, they are better adapted to specific situations.
If we are all the product of chance, then there is no good or evil.
Ah, yes, you're the type of person for whom the only reason not to hurt other people is the fear of hell.
So clearly, you do not reject darwinist evolution based on rational arguments, but based on irrational fears. Fear of what people would do if they didn't have the fear of hell in them...
To suppose that Darwinism doesn't lead to racism is the ultimate in willful blindness.
You retard. There was racism before Darwin, there was racism before the theory of evolution.
The bible promotes racism. There are the superior tribes, descendants of angels, and the others are inferior. God commanded the israelites to genocide at jehricho.
Stop trying to discredit things you don't like by linking them to things others don't like.
You absolutely, necessarily, have to be racist to be a Darwinist.
You absolutly, necesserily have to be a racist to believe in god, because god is racist.
You cannot have every group survive, because some must fail.
Again, wrong because you do not understand the theory of evolution and the darwinist theory of survival of the fittest.
As long as there are enough ressources, all groups can survive. There is no magic need for one group to diappear.
The point is that there is no good or evil, and that we can't trust the convictions of our mind if we assume Darwinism.
That's nihilism, not darwinism.
And you should never trust the convictions of your mind.