Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/06/2025 11:28:11 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: BenLurkin

Moral of the story: Big animals have smaller litters?


2 posted on 01/06/2025 11:32:27 AM PST by JJBookman (Democrats = Party of no kids )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

How nice.
But what about those of us who don’t have “ancient primate ancestors”?


3 posted on 01/06/2025 11:35:36 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (When I say "We" I speak of, -not for-, "We the People")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

What is the primate that is between the silhouettes of the bear and the shrew?


4 posted on 01/06/2025 11:36:40 AM PST by higgmeister (In the Shadow of The Big Chicken! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
Me: Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Darwinist: You've got that backwards.

Democrats: This is how we know eugenics is the way to go.

Me: If natural selection works, then why do you have to play God on who makes babies and who doesn't?

5 posted on 01/06/2025 11:38:07 AM PST by Tell It Right (1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”?...................


6 posted on 01/06/2025 11:38:59 AM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
Making up explanatory stories after the fact is not science, it is "just so" storytelling without testability to confirm/debunk the (historical, not scientific) hypothesis. That said, there's no basis for even imagining that natural selection would allow for the existence of sexual reproduction in the first place. Quite apart from the impossibilities of an evolutionary process going from asexual to sexual reproduction, sexual reproduction eliminates half of all contributing parental genes by chance rather than a selection process. In other words natural selection is diluted by half by shifting to sexual reproduction. It is such a marvelous form of magic in the eyes of religious believers (for almost all world religions rely vitally on evolutionary beliefs - the only exception of note is monotheism) - natural selection is able to work constructive miracles here, there and everywhere, and then gets thrown out the window as an driving mechanism the next moment.
10 posted on 01/06/2025 11:41:29 AM PST by EnderWiggin1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Very interesting.

Women who are in their 30s are more likely to have twins

Women who take fertility drugs are more likely to have twins

Twin rates are about 3%

Many twins are premature and have to spend time in neonatal care.


15 posted on 01/06/2025 11:50:02 AM PST by algore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Bears have bumps in litter count after population declines from weather etc too


18 posted on 01/06/2025 12:51:49 PM PST by wardaddy (Elon ….damn boy….. bly in jou baan verdomp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Yeah... Sure...
Also, the 2020 election was squeaky clean and honest...


19 posted on 01/06/2025 12:56:00 PM PST by SuperLuminal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Mankind doesn’t have any “primate ancestors” since the lie of evolution is just that, a lie...


21 posted on 01/06/2025 12:57:40 PM PST by Democrat = party of treason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Pure unadulterated crap.


22 posted on 01/06/2025 12:58:33 PM PST by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

What astonishes me is that people would invest the time to come to what otherwise would be a civil conversation surrounding the topic offered by the OP just to piss in everybody else’s post toasties. Apparently they think this in some bizarre fashion advances their cause when all they’ve really done is put their arrogance, intolerance and ignorance on public view.


23 posted on 01/06/2025 3:04:49 PM PST by Paal Gulli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

A newscaster recently got in trouble for calling an athlete “Most Valuable Primate”.


24 posted on 01/06/2025 4:35:45 PM PST by rfp1234 (E Porcibus Unum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

In Africa, many of the children we fed up at our nutrition center were twins, because as they grew, there wasn’t enough milk for two babies.

Some cultures will kill the weaker of the twins if both are born alive. (twins tend to be premature, so often one or both don’t survive).

When I worked in Africa, in the past, the tribe I worked with considered twins to be cursed and both were killed by the grand mother (if you get thin and die, it is considered you are cursed, and twins often became malnourished and died because there wasn’t enough milk for two babies). But the missionaries would supply milk or take the growing twins into an orphanage where they could be fed (usually the family got them back at age 3 or 4 when they could eat regular food). so the practice stopped.


28 posted on 01/08/2025 11:57:27 AM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson