"Genetic accident" is the only possibility under a Darwinian explanation. Conscientious evolution, although possible, has been ruled out by Malthusian principals.
"Genetic accident" is the only possibility under a Darwinian explanation. Conscientious evolution, although possible, has been ruled out by Malthusian principals.
[quote user=deokanon]^I prefer 21st century evolution biology myself.[/quote]
It's actually 19th century biology. The reason I said that it's interesting that we've conformed to one popular belief is because it's exactly as Thomas Huxley intended, when he promoted Darwinism in public schools (which he founded) and in the public's eye (thanks to his wealth and influence)
deokanon wrote:
^I prefer 21st century evolution biology myself.
It's actually 19th century biology. The reason I said that it's interesting that we've conformed to one popular belief is because it's exactly as Thomas Huxley intended, when he promoted Darwinism in public schools (which he founded) and in the public's eye (thanks to his wealth and influence)
[quote user=EricManning] I don't know what Maple is saying, but it sounds depressing.[/quote]
Look up Ettiene Geoffroy Saint Hillaire and Jean Baptiste Lamarck
Both these biologists had unique perspectives on evolution developed over decades of research. One principle that they share unique from Darwin is that life adapts to its environment as a result of interaction with it. Something like conscientious adaptation. Darwin/Malthus operate under the assumption that mutations occur at random, and at times where a population shrinks, evolution favors the mutations that are more suited for the new environment.
EricManning wrote:
I don't know what Maple is saying, but it sounds depressing.
Look up Ettiene Geoffroy Saint Hillaire and Jean Baptiste Lamarck
Both these biologists had unique perspectives on evolution developed over decades of research. One principle that they share unique from Darwin is that life adapts to its environment as a result of interaction with it. Something like conscientious adaptation. Darwin/Malthus operate under the assumption that mutations occur at random, and at times where a population shrinks, evolution favors the mutations that are more suited for the new environment.
It's interesting that despite many diverse opinions on evolution we've nearly entirely conformed to Malthusian/Darwinian principles for the last century.
It's interesting that despite many diverse opinions on evolution we've nearly entirely conformed to Malthusian/Darwinian principles for the last century.
You're equating GDP to net profit when in reality it's a lot more like gross revenue. There's also other forms of debt that ultimately affect the individual although not directly imposed upon them, resulting in either reduced personal income or increased cost of living.
You're equating GDP to net profit when in reality it's a lot more like gross revenue. There's also other forms of debt that ultimately affect the individual although not directly imposed upon them, resulting in either reduced personal income or increased cost of living.
From what I remember most of the senate rarely appears to parliament for anything. There's a joke that the only time you'll find them all there together is when deciding on pay increases.
From what I remember most of the senate rarely appears to parliament for anything. There's a joke that the only time you'll find them all there together is when deciding on pay increases.
[quote user=tuoni] [quote user=EdRoberts]And yet God is absolutely, positively impossible... Hahahahaha TAN'd on hypocrisy grounds.[/quote]
I see the well of stupidity never runs dry. [/quote]
I don't see why the notion of a "god" is stupid. Depends on your definition of god. Or maybe we all exist within your head and anything you don't agree with IS stupid. In that case there's really no point in forming our own opinions at all, we're just behaving contradictory to your universe. We should probably start agreeing with everything you say and believe as it is all fact.
But I guess that wouldn`t work because tuoni can't be god of a godless universe. That means you're just a massive faggot.
tuoni wrote:
EdRoberts wrote:
And yet God is absolutely, positively impossible... Hahahahaha TAN'd on hypocrisy grounds.
I see the well of stupidity never runs dry.
I don't see why the notion of a "god" is stupid. Depends on your definition of god. Or maybe we all exist within your head and anything you don't agree with IS stupid. In that case there's really no point in forming our own opinions at all, we're just behaving contradictory to your universe. We should probably start agreeing with everything you say and believe as it is all fact.
But I guess that wouldn`t work because tuoni can't be god of a godless universe. That means you're just a massive faggot.
Funny how Tuoni easily bashes those that opposes his views citing that professionals are smarter than TAN members. I wonder why he doesn't feel the same way about statistics.
Funny how Tuoni easily bashes those that opposes his views citing that professionals are smarter than TAN members. I wonder why he doesn't feel the same way about statistics.
[/quote]
