1 posted on
01/06/2025 11:28:11 AM PST by
BenLurkin
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 )
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")
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! )
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.)
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....................)
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.
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
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)
To: BenLurkin
Yeah... Sure...
Also, the 2020 election was squeaky clean and honest...
To: BenLurkin
Mankind doesn’t have any “primate ancestors” since the lie of evolution is just that, a lie...
To: BenLurkin
22 posted on
01/06/2025 12:58:33 PM PST by
Fungi
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.
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)
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)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson