Philosophy Now Forum

Atthet wrote:Speciation is already happening. The problem is, that the PC liberal moral establishment prevents people from seeing it. Species are fracturing right now, but this is censored by schools, television, and historical books.

I agree with this. If left alone long enough, homo sapiens themselves would have formed into new species as they adapted to climatic and agricultural realities in their geographical locales. Northern europeans recently gained the ability to digest milk fat, I assume via natural selection. We know that the haploid group in north america (Native Americans) could not digest alcohol. Also, they apparently had lost fear of heights.

Take the Negro race. Negro men want to have sex and breed with the Aryan, pale white skin, blonde haired, blue eyed European woman. But the Aryan male, pale white skin, blonde haired, blue eyed European, does not have sex with dark skin, dark eyed, dark haired Negresses. Why not? Why is this a one way sexual demand for beauty? Why is white beauty a one way road? Why aren't coal skinned Negresses in demand, despite billions and trillions of dollars being poured into Mass Media, that proclaim that beauty is skin deep, and black people are the new archetype of beauty?

This is not biology anymore. This paragraph is some sort of juvenile, WWE, teenage boy version of reality where men are violent and girls are pretty.

A relationship and child between white male and black female is very rare. And when it occurs, a mulatto, half-breed, mixed-race is born. These our the postmodern 'mules', like breeding a thorough bred horse with an ass.

"Breeding" is not natural selection. Breeding is artificial selection. Artificial selection has a goal to make the kernels of wheat stalks larger, or make dogs swim better. So tell, us Atthet, do you think NATURAL selection has a goal? How about a direction? Does evolution have a direction?

The problem is, censorship will not allow people to see what is truly going on. There is political risk to pointing out Truth. This is why philosophy is utterly opposed to politics, in the end. Truth is opposed by pieces of shit, genetic feces, who owe their entire intellectual history and sense of self worth, value, to the system that created them.

Spare us this tripe. The truth is that homo sapiens left Africa very recently. Although probably at very different times. I know the politically-correct university wants to pretend that there was one big, multi-cultural exodus out of Africa. The haploid groups show otherwise.

ForgedinHell wrote: Damn, it's as if you have never even studied evolution. You have gotten so many things scientifically wrong, it's safest just to toss your entire comment in the trash and recommend anyone who wants an answer to this question to pick up a book on evolutionary biology, cell biology, molecular biology, or genetics, and start studying.

When they say facts of biology, these two guys are mostly correct.
Let me repeat that for emphasis. They are mostly correct WHEN THEY SAY FACTS from biology.

It is when they take these sharp left turns out of the biology book is where they go wrong. Look for these things when these clowns post on this forum.

• When they start talking about "inferior vs superior", that is no longer factual, scientific nor honest. It is opinion and nothing more.
• Watch for when they say something about a duty to "exterminate the lower forms" -- that is no longer factual, scientific, nor honest.
• Watch for implied, but not explicit, language which assumes a battle between races, as if it were a pre-agreed upon fact of the human condition. That is no longer factual, scientific, nor honest. Also that kind of arguing is a form of sophistry.
• Watch for implied, but not explicit, language that depicts human warfare as a fair fight between groups , where the outcome of the war is therefore, a demonstration of which group has superior genes. That is not factual, not scientific, not historically accurate, nor honest. It is also a form of sophistry.

Sophistry often includes the tactic of hiding your premises from your audience, while leveraging arguments on them in a deceptive manner.

Satyr wrote:....

-4-
Specialization factors in as a way of increasing survivability by benefiting from a niche.
This entails risks, as environmental changes can make specialized methods of survival more vulnerable to environmental alterations. Specialization is, essentially, an increase of dependence on one particular method of surviving.

The mostly glaring form of specialization is the evolution of the male/female types.
Each type becomes more dependent on the others(s) but gains in efficiency and effectiveness by streamlining its physical and mental traits to meet the requirements of its specialized role.
This alteration or selection of attributes to fulfill the specialized roles, no matter how much some would like to think otherwise, is not only superficial or physical or apparent.

This is completely factually wrong.
Utterly wrong.
I have no idea where you got this.

Kuznetzova wrote:

Satyr wrote:....

-4-
Specialization factors in as a way of increasing survivability by benefiting from a niche.
This entails risks, as environmental changes can make specialized methods of survival more vulnerable to environmental alterations. Specialization is, essentially, an increase of dependence on one particular method of surviving.

The mostly glaring form of specialization is the evolution of the male/female types.
Each type becomes more dependent on the others(s) but gains in efficiency and effectiveness by streamlining its physical and mental traits to meet the requirements of its specialized role.
This alteration or selection of attributes to fulfill the specialized roles, no matter how much some would like to think otherwise, is not only superficial or physical or apparent.

This is completely factually wrong.
Utterly wrong.
I have no idea where you got this.

I know Satyr is a completely odious
What part has he got wrong?
Specialisation always involves an increase in reliance upon certain environmental factors. Specialising is always more risky. eg. The anteater is wholly dependant on the survival of ants, climbing plants depend on trees, parasites depend on the survival of their hosts.
Sexual dimorphism (SD) is a form of specialisation.
Galapagos tortoises have specialised their shells so that they may only breed with their own kind. The shapes of the indentations fit together during mating. This is the only reason for their speciation and has happened due to their island isolation. Male spiders' role has reduced to carrying the seed and the female produces sufficient eggs so that the male can be eaten.

I assume you are directing your ire against the implication that he was referring to humans. There are a range of evolutions in this respect with humans, but it seems that the modern human, although not the prime example of a lack of sexual dimorphism, certainly has a good deal of it.
Gorillas have the most sexual dimorphism far more than humans, but there is no doubt that on the whole females are better equipped to nurture, males to protect.
Where is is wrong, is that in other species specialisation is risky, as the environment can change and invalidate your specialisation, with SD male and female roles have to be complimentary.
As far as survival is concerned, SD as a form of specialisation does not pose as much risk, as it is the net specialism that whose interaction with the environment is important.
Humans have ad hoc adaptability, and as a species is less vulnerable to environmental change.

Kuznetzova wrote:"Breeding" is not natural selection. Breeding is artificial selection. Artificial selection has a goal to make the kernels of wheat stalks larger, or make dogs swim better. So tell, us Atthet, do you think NATURAL selection has a goal? How about a direction? Does evolution have a direction?

If you put it like this, then no, "natural" selection has no direction. Nature is pure instinct and perfectly irrational. Nature is chaotic, and humanity is order. Humanism is dogma, and artificiality.
This contradicts your anti-racist tripe. Because if humanism, and anti-racism, are truly artificial, then you are taking a more radical claim than I am, where I admit difference in humanity, and racial differences.

Kuznetzova wrote: Spare us this tripe. The truth is that homo sapiens left Africa very recently. Although probably at very different times. I know the politically-correct university wants to pretend that there was one big, multi-cultural exodus out of Africa. The haploid groups show otherwise.

I don't believe in the OOA theory, or necessarily any monist approach to the origin of human life on earth. Why is there only one beginning point? I don't accept this premise. And I don't accept there are necessary genetic connections between human races. That is your multicultural programming and edumucation in effect.
Different races arose in different environments, at different times, and choosing an "origin" of specie may be logically flawed. If it's valid, then it still doesn't address a "one absolute" starting point. Again, that reflects an obvious Judeo-Christian dogma.

chaz wyman wrote: I know Satyr is a completely odious
What part has he got wrong?
Specialisation always involves an increase in reliance upon certain environmental factors. Specialising is always more risky. eg. The anteater is wholly dependant on the survival of ants, climbing plants depend on trees, parasites depend on the survival of their hosts.
Sexual dimorphism (SD) is a form of specialisation.
Galapagos tortoises have specialised their shells so that they may only breed with their own kind. The shapes of the indentations fit together during mating. This is the only reason for their speciation and has happened due to their island isolation. Male spiders' role has reduced to carrying the seed and the female produces sufficient eggs so that the male can be eaten.

I assume you are directing your ire against the implication that he was referring to humans. There are a range of evolutions in this respect with humans, but it seems that the modern human, although not the prime example of a lack of sexual dimorphism, certainly has a good deal of it.
Gorillas have the most sexual dimorphism far more than humans, but there is no doubt that on the whole females are better equipped to nurture, males to protect.
Where is is wrong, is that in other species specialisation is risky, as the environment can change and invalidate your specialisation, with SD male and female roles have to be complimentary.
As far as survival is concerned, SD as a form of specialisation does not pose as much risk, as it is the net specialism that whose interaction with the environment is important.
Humans have ad hoc adaptability, and as a species is less vulnerable to environmental change.

I am nearly as disappointed in your response, Chaz, as I am in Satyr's bizarre claims.
I can point you towards the literature, but it will be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muller%27s_ratchet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis# ... is_and_sex
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3057385

I am not here at this forum to be your biology tutor. Having said that, there are basic generalities I can mention here without delving too deeply. First of all, sexual reproduction has been around since fungus, which is so long ago in geological time that we are talking prior to the existence of plants on land. A population that reproduces sexually can engage in genetic recombination. Sex is a wasteful activity, but it allows a population to adapt faster than one that doesn't perform recombination on its genotype.

Atthet wrote: If you put it like this, then no, "natural" selection has no direction. Nature is pure instinct and perfectly irrational. Nature is chaotic, and humanity is order. Humanism is dogma, and artificiality.
This contradicts your anti-racist tripe. Because if humanism, and anti-racism, are truly artificial, then you are taking a more radical claim than I am, where I admit difference in humanity, and racial differences.

I read this and got "Natural Selection has no direction and is chaotic that's why humans must interfere in it with selective breeding."
If that is your position, you have totally contradicted months-worth of posts where you very explicitly say that the biology of evolution is in VAST SUPPORT of your Pagan Racist Misogyny. In fact, I can quote saying that your Pagan ideal,

Atthet wrote: "It requires no myth, no dogma, no further explanation really."

Well no clearly it does require myth and dogma and explanation. And that's not me interpreting you, that's you in your own words!

Atthet wrote: I don't believe in the OOA theory, or necessarily any monist approach to the origin of human life on earth. Why is there only one beginning point? I don't accept this premise. And I don't accept there are necessary genetic connections between human races. That is your multicultural programming and edumucation in effect.
Different races arose in different environments, at different times, and choosing an "origin" of specie may be logically flawed. If it's valid, then it still doesn't address a "one absolute" starting point. Again, that reflects an obvious Judeo-Christian dogma.

I have extended my hand to you with my respect for the races of humanity departing Africa at different times. (Understand that claim alone would get me fired from a university position by the Politically-Correct Police.) I will also mention that talking about haploid groups is already considered wildly racist in many Californian Universities.

Having said that, a multiple-origin for clades of homo sapiens is contrary to all known genetic evidence, it is contrary to history, it is contrary to all known evidence in anthropology, it is contrary to evidence collected on haploid groups. Compared to dogs, for instance, homo sapiens genotypes are extremely homogenous. Evolutionary biologists consider this evidence that our species is very young in terms of geological time spans. I agree with them.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/W ... psMaps.pdf

Kuznetzova wrote:Well no clearly it does require myth and dogma and explanation. And that's not me interpreting you, that's you in your own words!

I'm not the one arguing for natural selection, you are. So artificial breeding goes against your premise, not mine.

If anyone proposes breeding humans, artificially, against nature, then this represents something anti-natural. What is this, and why is it necessary? Why is breeding humans necessary, when natural selection already results in distinct races, people, societies, and cultures?
Natural selection is about competition, violence, war.

My position does not attempt to refute natural selection, but accepts it.

Kuznetzova wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: I know Satyr is a completely odious
What part has he got wrong?
Specialisation always involves an increase in reliance upon certain environmental factors. Specialising is always more risky. eg. The anteater is wholly dependant on the survival of ants, climbing plants depend on trees, parasites depend on the survival of their hosts.
Sexual dimorphism (SD) is a form of specialisation.
Galapagos tortoises have specialised their shells so that they may only breed with their own kind. The shapes of the indentations fit together during mating. This is the only reason for their speciation and has happened due to their island isolation. Male spiders' role has reduced to carrying the seed and the female produces sufficient eggs so that the male can be eaten.

I assume you are directing your ire against the implication that he was referring to humans. There are a range of evolutions in this respect with humans, but it seems that the modern human, although not the prime example of a lack of sexual dimorphism, certainly has a good deal of it.
Gorillas have the most sexual dimorphism far more than humans, but there is no doubt that on the whole females are better equipped to nurture, males to protect.
Where is is wrong, is that in other species specialisation is risky, as the environment can change and invalidate your specialisation, with SD male and female roles have to be complimentary.
As far as survival is concerned, SD as a form of specialisation does not pose as much risk, as it is the net specialism that whose interaction with the environment is important.
Humans have ad hoc adaptability, and as a species is less vulnerable to environmental change.

I am nearly as disappointed in your response, Chaz, as I am in Satyr's bizarre claims.
I can point you towards the literature, but it will be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muller%27s_ratchet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis# ... is_and_sex
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3057385

I am not here at this forum to be your biology tutor. Having said that, there are basic generalities I can mention here without delving too deeply. First of all, sexual reproduction has been around since fungus, which is so long ago in geological time that we are talking prior to the existence of plants on land. A population that reproduces sexually can engage in genetic recombination. Sex is a wasteful activity, but it allows a population to adapt faster than one that doesn't perform recombination on its genotype.

I don't need a biology tutor thank you. I was reading Darwin before you were born sweetie. You are beginning to sound like an arrogant bitch.
And pasting links that you do not fully understand is not much help.
I'm sorry to say that I had hopes for you, that you might be the one to engage in conversation. However, you have not taken any of my points but responded with with the same tired old adversarial way as every one else on this failing forum.

I was making a point about sexual dimorphism. Maybe you should ACTUALLY read what I typed and then respond to it.
If you want to be taken seriously then respond with understanding.

chaz wyman wrote: I don't need a biology tutor thank you. I was reading Darwin before you were born sweetie. You are beginning to sound like an arrogant bitch.

Darwin published his book 120 years prior to the proof of the schema Theorem (by a computer scientist of all people, if you can believe that).

chaz wyman wrote: And pasting links that you do not fully understand is not much help.
I'm sorry to say that I had hopes for you, that you might be the one to engage in conversation. However, you have not taken any of my points but responded with with the same tired old adversarial way as every one else on this failing forum.

Play this game all you want, Chaz. The fact of the matter is that you had never heard of Epistasis, Muller's Ratchet, nor the Schema theorem until I showed them to you on this forum today.

Additionally, my short synopsis of those topics is spot-on, meaning I understood them in detail prior to sharing them with you. The existence of genders ( the word "sex" is too clumsy in english.. i mean to say the existence of TWO SEXES) is meant to enforce sexual reproduction in a population. And sex exists in organisms on this earth for a purely information-theoretic reason. Any population of strings that reproduce with variations -- that population of abstract strings will adapt faster if RECOMBINATION is used (sometimes called "crossover"). Do we assume this? No, chaz, we know it to be true, because we proved it mathematically.

The tutoring session is now complete. If you want to know more about these topics, read them on your own time. I am not on this forum to be your private teacher.

chaz wyman wrote: I was making a point about sexual dimorphism. Maybe you should ACTUALLY read what I typed and then respond to it.
If you want to be taken seriously then respond with understanding.

The existence of sex (and the genders that impose it) in the world is not due to some necessity of Division-of-Labor in populations. You can dance around this all you want, but that was precisely what Satyr was arguing. Sexual dimorphism is seen in some species and not others -- so it is in no way a reflection of some deeper insight into natural selection. While sexual dimorphism may reveal peculiarities in particular species, it has nothing to say about the process taken as an ecological whole.

Kuznetzova wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: I don't need a biology tutor thank you. I was reading Darwin before you were born sweetie. You are beginning to sound like an arrogant bitch.

Darwin published his book 120 years prior to the proof of the schema Theorem (by a computer scientist of all people, if you can believe that).

chaz wyman wrote: And pasting links that you do not fully understand is not much help.
I'm sorry to say that I had hopes for you, that you might be the one to engage in conversation. However, you have not taken any of my points but responded with with the same tired old adversarial way as every one else on this failing forum.

Play this game all you want, Chaz. The fact of the matter is that you had never heard of Epistasis, Muller's Ratchet, nor the Schema theorem until I showed them to you on this forum today.

Additionally, my short synopsis of those topics is spot-on, meaning I understood them in detail prior to sharing them with you. The existence of genders ( the word "sex" is too clumsy in english.. i mean to say the existence of TWO SEXES) is meant to enforce sexual reproduction in a population. And sex exists in organisms on this earth for a purely information-theoretic reason. Any population of strings that reproduce with variations -- that population of abstract strings will adapt faster if RECOMBINATION is used (sometimes called "crossover"). Do we assume this? No, chaz, we know it to be true, because we proved it mathematically.

The tutoring session is now complete. If you want to know more about these topics, read them on your own time. I am not on this forum to be your private teacher.

chaz wyman wrote: I was making a point about sexual dimorphism. Maybe you should ACTUALLY read what I typed and then respond to it.
If you want to be taken seriously then respond with understanding.

The existence of sex (and the genders that impose it) in the world is not due to some necessity of Division-of-Labor in populations.

Not a point I was making. All you saw was someone apparently defending an idiot (Satyr) and you did not bother to stop to READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.

You can dance around this all you want, but that was precisely what Satyr was arguing. Sexual dimorphism is seen in some species and not others

Dah! Sexual dimorphism, is seen in ALL species that reproduce Sexually. As that includes humans, and our forebears since the first example of that in the Pre-Cambrian, it is of some interest to biologists and evolutionists.

-- so it is in no way a reflection of some deeper insight into natural selection.

Except that 99% of study in Evolutionary Biology since Aristotle, has concentrated mainly on species with sexual dimorphism.


While sexual dimorphism may reveal peculiarities in particular species, it has nothing to say about the process taken as an ecological whole.

None of your cited examples bears any relationship to Sexual Dimorphism in the context I was talking about, as you ought to know; if you knew half of what you are pretending to know.
You can't bullshit a bullshitter, any one can paste a link.

chaz wyman wrote: You can't bullshit a bullshitter, any one can paste a link.

Additionally, my short synopsis of those topics is spot-on, meaning I understood them in detail prior to sharing them with you. The existence of genders ( the word "sex" is too clumsy in english.. i mean to say the existence of TWO SEXES) is meant to enforce sexual reproduction in a population. And sex exists in organisms on this earth for a purely information-theoretic reason. Any population of strings that reproduce with variations -- that population of abstract strings will adapt faster if RECOMBINATION is used (sometimes called "crossover"). Do we assume this? No, chaz, we know it to be true, because we proved it mathematically.

Having said that, there are basic generalities I can mention here without delving too deeply. First of all, sexual reproduction has been around since fungus, which is so long ago in geological time that we are talking prior to the existence of plants on land. A population that reproduces sexually can engage in genetic recombination. Sex is a wasteful activity, but it allows a population to adapt faster than one that doesn't perform recombination on its genotype.



I have provided you with relevant links to the material as well as a synopsis and an overview of that material -- and I did this all for you at no charge.

Again. I am not here to be your personal biology tutor. If you have something to say about the above facts I have posted, do so.

chaz wyman wrote:Not a point I was making. All you saw was someone apparently defending an idiot (Satyr) and you did not bother to stop to READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.[/color]

Alright chaz, lets look at what you actually said :

I know Satyr is a completely odious
What part has he got wrong?

You specifically asked me, "What part has he got wrong?" And I then proceeded to specifically answer that question. Try to keep up.

Kuznetzova wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Not a point I was making. All you saw was someone apparently defending an idiot (Satyr) and you did not bother to stop to READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.[/color]

Alright chaz, lets look at what you actually said :

I know Satyr is a completely odious
What part has he got wrong?

You specifically asked me, "What part has he got wrong?" And I then proceeded to specifically answer that question. Try to keep up.

I really don't want to put you on the moron list.
The above is only the first 2 lines of what I said.
Can't you understand more than 2 lines - or is it simply that you failed to read more than 2 lines, as I thought?

Maybe you need to heed your own advice to 'keep up'.