Endzone2 Wrote:I'd like somebody to explain to me why (during the evolutionary process) some women came out really really hot, some smoking hot, and some just kind of nice but not so hot. And during the evolutionary process what kind of blobs came together that make us want to suck the brains out of really really hot ones and not the not so hot? How did all this happen in the evolutionary process?

Define hot.

Brookes Owl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:I'd like somebody to explain to me why (during the evolutionary process) some women came out really really hot, some smoking hot, and some just kind of nice but not so hot. And during the evolutionary process what kind of blobs came together that make us want to suck the brains out of really really hot ones and not the not so hot? How did all this happen in the evolutionary process?

Define hot.

blah Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:I'd like somebody to explain to me why (during the evolutionary process) some women came out really really hot, some smoking hot, and some just kind of nice but not so hot. And during the evolutionary process what kind of blobs came together that make us want to suck the brains out of really really hot ones and not the not so hot? How did all this happen in the evolutionary process?

Define hot.

Well, sure, for you maybe. But to Endzone she might be coyote ugly. :velma:

Tulsaman Wrote:again its preprogramed through evolution through the selection of the best mates the females could find. i would assume again.

But again how do you preprogram a genetic blob. And how does a blob know who is hot and who is not?

Brookes Owl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:I'd like somebody to explain to me why (during the evolutionary process) some women came out really really hot, some smoking hot, and some just kind of nice but not so hot. And during the evolutionary process what kind of blobs came together that make us want to suck the brains out of really really hot ones and not the not so hot? How did all this happen in the evolutionary process?

Define hot.

over 90 degrees Fahrenheit?

Endzone2 Wrote:

Tulsaman Wrote:again its preprogramed through evolution through the selection of the best mates the females could find. i would assume again.

But again how do you preprogram a genetic blob. And how does a blob know who is hot and who is not?

Oy; I was hoping Endzone was being clever and funny with his "hot genetic blobs," but alas...

Evolution is sex and math. The person/bug/genetic blob who has the most reproductive sex wins. And by "win" I mean he/she/it passes on the most genes to future generations. So traits that allow him/her/it to have more reproductive sex will be "selected" because they are being passed on genetically. You don't have to be conscious of this and likely no one/thing is (except maybe Mormons - I KID!!!). So you're backwards. "Hotness" (and attraction to hotness) isn't "preprogrammed" - it's what you end up with as the result of weeding out the genetic "unhot" misfits. So hot, to return to the theme, is whatever allows its possessor to have lots of reproductive sex.

EDIT: pronoun issues

Brookes Owl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:

Tulsaman Wrote:again its preprogramed through evolution through the selection of the best mates the females could find. i would assume again.

But again how do you preprogram a genetic blob. And how does a blob know who is hot and who is not?

Oy; I was hoping Endzone was being clever and funny with his "hot genetic blobs," but alas...

Evolution is sex and math. The person/bug/genetic blob who has the most reproductive sex wins. And by "win" I mean he/she/it passes on the most genes to future generations. So traits that allow he/she/it to have more reproductive sex will be "selected" because they are being passed on genetically. You don't have to be conscious of this and likely no one/thing is (except maybe Mormons - I KID!!!). So you're backwards. "Hotness" (and attraction to hotness) isn't "preprogrammed" - it's what you end up with as the result of weeding out the genetic "unhot" misfits. So hot, to return to the theme, is whatever allows its possessor to have lots of reproductive sex.

So let me get this straight, you are saying it's this....

"hotness" is all subjective as well, one man's demon may be another man's angel

and why do the first few chapters of Genesis have to be taken so literal? Even JC spoke metaphorically.

blah Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:

Tulsaman Wrote:again its preprogramed through evolution through the selection of the best mates the females could find. i would assume again.

But again how do you preprogram a genetic blob. And how does a blob know who is hot and who is not?

Oy; I was hoping Endzone was being clever and funny with his "hot genetic blobs," but alas...

Evolution is sex and math. The person/bug/genetic blob who has the most reproductive sex wins. And by "win" I mean he/she/it passes on the most genes to future generations. So traits that allow he/she/it to have more reproductive sex will be "selected" because they are being passed on genetically. You don't have to be conscious of this and likely no one/thing is (except maybe Mormons - I KID!!!). So you're backwards. "Hotness" (and attraction to hotness) isn't "preprogrammed" - it's what you end up with as the result of weeding out the genetic "unhot" misfits. So hot, to return to the theme, is whatever allows its possessor to have lots of reproductive sex.

So let me get this straight, you are saying it's this....

lmfao lmfao lmfao lmfao
Pretty much. Federleezy's passing along a lot of genes...

Santa Claus is something you believe in - because he isn't real.

Evolution isn't something you believe in - it is. You can choose to try to understand it, or try not to and simply deny its existence.

OwlJacket Wrote:Santa Claus is something you believe in - because he isn't real.

Evolution isn't something you believe in - it is. You can choose to try to understand it, or try not to and simply deny its existence.

Wow, now that's a great proof.

I couldn't sum up the position of evolutionists any better: believe us because we say so.

Are you still in favor of Intelligent Design, DrTorch? Just curious.

DrTorch Wrote:Wow, now that's a great proof.

I couldn't sum up the position of evolutionists any better: believe us because we say so.

And herein demonstrates the problem - creationists don't understand scientific reasoning at all. No attempt was made at a proof here, just a comment. You wouldn't ask someone if they believe in Calculus, or believe in quantum mechanics, or believe in relativity. As such, the title of this thread is without merit.

And on the contrary, the "believe us because we so" is precisely the Creationist=Intelligent Design perspective. I elected not to quote the volumes of evolution-related research out there because, frankly, you just wouldn't understand.

OwlJacket Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:Wow, now that's a great proof.

I couldn't sum up the position of evolutionists any better: believe us because we say so.

And herein demonstrates the problem - creationists don't understand scientific reasoning at all.

I elected not to quote the volumes of evolution-related research out there because, frankly, you just wouldn't understand.

Yeah, the ad homenim approach is stage two.

I guess I'm just too dumn.

Like these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

DrTorch Wrote:Like these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

You have 600 scientists signing this, out of a pool of millions - most of who have absolutely no experience in the field. All this in agreement to the statement:

Quote:Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged

Absolutely. That's what science is about - learning more about what we don't completely understand. Darwin's theory is 100+ years old, and he never explained anything completely. Claims that he did are just as bogus as claims that everthing he said is false.

None of this means that dinosaurs didn't exist and the whole finch episode was a hoax.

OwlJacket Wrote:I elected not to quote the volumes of evolution-related research out there

I linked to some of it above, but it was ignored.

So I guess from your responses to OJ, you're still an ID advocate? Not just anti-evolution?

DrTorch Wrote:Like these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Project Steve. But so what...

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:Like these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Project Steve. But so what...

Project Steve is a great testimony that a bunch of ill-trained, HS biology teachers can get together and make a statement, and they believe it MEANS something.

Talk about not understanding science.

Dr. Torch Wrote:Like these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Quote:If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged,"

By their very nature scientists should be very skeptical of anything and everything. I could sign that statement and it would be true (except for the PhD).

Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition

Project Steve (on the other hand):

Quote:To see if you qualify, just answer the following simple questions:

* Are you named Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie?
* Do you have a Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a related scientific field?
* Do you want the kind of success in life you always thought was reserved for the "other Steves"?

Quote:Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

DrTorch Wrote:Project Steve is a great testimony that a bunch of ill-trained, HS biology teachers can get together and make a statement, and they believe it MEANS something.

HS Biology teachers that have PhDs, eh? Please. In a quick search through the list, I found one (1) high school teacher. The fact that you have to misrepresent this list shows me that you have absolutely no argument against it.

And just because everybody knows his name, Stephen Hawking is on the Project Steve list. Last I checked, he wasn't teaching in high school.

There's really no reason to debate these lists anyway, because they are both an appeal to authority, which is why the Project Steve list is done in jest anyway.

I purposely have avoided this topic. But I think all would be interested in this article. If I find one that shows the actual percentage of populations I'll post that also.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...192101.htm