Loosening Darwin's Grip

Citizen Magazine ^ | March 2003 | Clem Boyd

[VadeRetro]

I made an exception to my don't-do-links rule and took a look. I read it twice just to be sure of my response. I saw an outline with theoretics but there was no credible or supported explanation for why we get old.

You're not asking for information but for proof. You could give a crap about actually learning anything.

[Dataman]

You could give a crap about actually learning anything.

There is a general rule of learning that goes like this:

Don't change your opinion unless there is good reason to change.

Your link didn't give a good reason. The word for people who believe something just because there is a link to it is "gullible."

This may help your attitute: eliminate

[balrog666]

You could give a crap about actually learning anything.

Don't sugarcoat it, Vade!

[js1138]

there was no credible or supported explanation for why we get old.

Assume for a moment that it is possible to design a living thing that is infinitely self-reparing and does not get old. Can you give me a plausible reason why a designer would deliberately create so much suffering?

[f.Christian]

Ignorant 2 year old question as usual !

Evolution is anti maturity ... narcissists!

Main Entry: ego·cen·tric
Pronunciation: "E-gO-'sen-trik also "e-
Function: adjective
Date: 1894
1 : concerned with the individual rather than society
2 : taking the ego as the starting point in philosophy
3 a : limited in outlook or concern to one's own activities or needs b : SELF-CENTERED, SELFISH
- egocentric noun
- ego·cen·tri·cal·ly /-tri-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- ego·cen·tric·i·ty /-"sen-'tri-s&-tE/ noun
- ego·cen·trism /-'sen-"tri-z&m/ noun

[gomaaa]

AS js1138 pointed out so well, we only need to live long enough to reproduce. REPRODUCTION is all that counts in evolution. There is no other measure of "superiority". Sure it would be dandy if we could live 500 years, but it doesn't take us that long to propogate our genes. Mayflys live only a day, but they reproduce like mad, hence they are an evolution success story.

[VadeRetro]

Don't change your opinion unless there is good reason to change. Your link didn't give a good reason.

I don't know why I expected you to notice that it made sense. Then again, there must be lots of ways to misunderstand it so that it doesn't.

[Dataman]

REPRODUCTION is all that counts in evolution.

Then why don't we reproduce like dogs? Like flies? Why doesn't the female have more eggs? If we didn't get old, we could reproduce more. IOW, the higher animals should be better at reproduction and the lower should be less efficient. If all that is necessary is to pass on the genes, why do we live beyond 20?

Here's another puzzle for youse:

The Egyptians held that the ideal age was 120. That was over 3500 years ago.

[VadeRetro]

Then why don't we reproduce like dogs?

Maybe it's just me but I like to see breasts and stuff.

Like flies?

Not really.

Why doesn't the female have more eggs?

She has all the eggs.

If we didn't get old, we could reproduce more.

We could do everything more.

IOW, the higher animals should be better at reproduction and the lower should be less efficient. If all that is necessary is to pass on the genes, why do we live beyond 20?

If we didn't get old, we could reproduce more.

Here's another puzzle for youse:

Is it "Stump the Dummies" time? What do you prove with this if you ever do stump somebody?

The Egyptians held that the ideal age was 120. That was over 3500 years ago.

The maximum human longevity was has changed very little (until perhaps just recently). The average longevity has changed quite a bit over the same interval.

[js1138]

Then why don't we reproduce like dogs?

You really don't get the concept of selection, do you?

[VadeRetro]

... was has changed ...

Grrrrr!

[PatrickHenry]

Maybe it's just me but I like to see breasts and stuff.

A true evolutionist.

[VadeRetro]

The Moral Majority is coming to seize my computer.

[js1138]

Have you ever noticed that insect is an anagram for incest? This discussion is devolving.

[gore3000]

Schaefer is entitled to his opinion, of course, but since you don't give any hint of his alleged reasons for saying so, nor any examples of the alleged "different standards", you're just insisting that we take his word for it because, by gosh, he's a smart guy and thus he couldn't be wrong.

The evolutionists have been looking for 150 years for evidence proving evolution and when asked for such proof they either:
1. insult.
2. say that science can never prove anything.
3. put up a pile of meaningless bones which mean nothing at all.

When asked for even the definition of evolution (if it is true and it is science then it must follow that the facts must fit the theory) they refuse to do so, give 20 different answers or completely eviscerate the definition so that it is totally meaningless.

When asked to show what scientific advances have happened due to evolutionary theory they can name none.

When asked for how evolution has benefitted mankind they can name nothing.

When asked how evolution achieves the transformation of one species into another, they cannot say how it happens.

When asked about evidence of such transformations, evolutionists cannot give any.

When asked for anything, they just ignore it.

The reason for all the above is that evolution is not science. It is pseudo-science for morons who are easily satisfied like all morons by a few cant phrases to use for things they cannot vaguely understand.

[VadeRetro]

This discussion is devolving.

Now it's really gone to the dogs.

[PatrickHenry]

Keep this blue barf bag handy:

[gomaaa]

We don't reproduce at the same rate as other species because it takes longer to make a human embryo than, say, a mouse. By the same token the gestation period for a horse is 330 days while an elephant takes over a year. Flies reproduce faster because it's faster to make a small creature. So why is the world not populated entirely by mayflys if they're so good at reproducing? Because we are not in direct competition with them. Beetles are not likely to force us into extinction, nor are we likely to do the same thing to them. We don't compete for resources. We are plenty efficient at reproducing in our own way. Bugs are good at reproducing in theirs. If it ever came down to it and we somehow had to compete with insects for food to the point where the survival of our respective speices was at stake, we'd have problems.

The whole concept of "higher" vs. "lower" animals is meaningless. In competition for resources, the only thing that counts is reproduction. If there is some kind of competition between higher and lower, we would probably get our asses kicked.

As to our life span, it wasn't too long ago that we really didn't live much beyond 20, no matter what the ancient Egyptians would have liked.

[Chani]

ping