Abramul Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 I think fertility rate has nothing to do with it and I think I'm reading the bottom map worng because it seems to me the rich countries have most children.Scale on the top one (birthrate) has blue as low, purple as high. On the bottom one (per-capita income), blue is high, and red is low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninja_lord666 Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Your quite ignorant, think about it. If you are rich, your chances of survival are much better than if you are born in a poor family, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR DNA SAYS. Evolution is all about survival and reproduction. If you die before you are old enough to reproduce, then yes: people without money then don't even have had sexual function.Wow! You used ignorant; you used a big word! Unfortunately, you used it incorrectly. You needed a different word. I can understand you're confusion as they both start with the same letter. I am intelligent.Evolution is changes in DNA; money doesn't affect DNA; money has nothing to do with DNA. People can be born INTO wealth, but not born WITH wealth. If money was affected by Evolution, then, logically, people would be born with money attached to their body. That just isn't the case. I've said it enough times. I'd have thought you'd know it by now.MONEY IS AN OUTSIDE INFLUENCE!andOUTSIDE INFLUENCES HAVE NO AFFECT ON DNA!thusMONEY DOES NOT AFFECT EVOLUTION!Can I possibly make it any clearer!?! Evolution isn't a LAW, although it may seem like one to you. Evolution is a theory, gravity is a law.In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.This is what you think of when you hear 'theory'.Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.This is a scientific theory; this is evolution. and I know cloning isn't natural, but still humans do cloning and it still stops the effects of evolution.No, just no. Evolution is natural. Period. Cloning is what we call an OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. And have you even read the first post? This thread is about arguments AGAINST evolution, I can think about much more argument FOR evolution but that's not what this thread is about, now is it?This is a DEBATE. You can't debate one side. It's impossible. A debate has two sides. Stop trying to pin thread hijacking on me just because you know I'm right and can't bear to admit that you're a moron who can't even defend his own posts no matter how stupid they are. And if evolution favors idiocy for humans, humans would be getting dumber, which the human race is not.In ancient history, there were a few intellects, and the rest of the people were stupid because the intellects didn't have the technology to discover truths about science.Today, there are a few intellects, and the rest of the people are stupid. Period. The intellects tell everyone else that things are true because they have the evidence for it. The people believe the intellects because they don't have the mental capacity to understand the evidence anyways. Despite this, people are still stupid.Sure, as a whole the human race is smarter, but if you take away the few intellects, the rest of the world is a cesspool of idiocy. Just look at pop culture. The most favourite TV shows are 'reality tv' and game shows. There is not depth to those. You can shut your brain off and still understand them. The most popular movies are things like Pirates of the Caribbean. Why? Because of Depp. People don't care about what little story it has. All they care about is 'Jack Sparrow'. Who are the richest people in the world? The people in Silicon Valley and Hollywood, and sports stars. Silicon Valley accounts for the select few intellects who we are forgetting about right now, so the richest people in the world are actors and athletes, neither of which has any sort of brain, especially the former. Why are they rich? Because everyone loves them. Why do people love them? Because they don't have to use their brain to do so.People are stupid. Because people are stupid, they have stupid kids. Stupid people tend to have more kids than smart people, because they're stupid. Because stupid people have more kids than smart people, stupidity is, obviously, favoured by Natural Selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00biepl0x Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 In ancient history, there were a few intellects, and the rest of the people were stupid because the intellects didn't have the technology to discover truths about science.Today, there are a few intellects, and the rest of the people are stupid. Period. The intellects tell everyone else that things are true because they have the evidence for it. The people believe the intellects because they don't have the mental capacity to understand the evidence anyways. Despite this, people are still stupid.Sure, as a whole the human race is smarter, but if you take away the few intellects, the rest of the world is a cesspool of idiocy. Just look at pop culture. The most favourite TV shows are 'reality tv' and game shows. There is not depth to those. You can shut your brain off and still understand them. The most popular movies are things like Pirates of the Caribbean. Why? Because of Depp. People don't care about what little story it has. All they care about is 'Jack Sparrow'. Who are the richest people in the world? The people in Silicon Valley and Hollywood, and sports stars. Silicon Valley accounts for the select few intellects who we are forgetting about right now, so the richest people in the world are actors and athletes, neither of which has any sort of brain, especially the former. Why are they rich? Because everyone loves them. Why do people love them? Because they don't have to use their brain to do so.People are stupid. Because people are stupid, they have stupid kids. Stupid people tend to have more kids than smart people, because they're stupid. Because stupid people have more kids than smart people, stupidity is, obviously, favoured by Natural Selection. Ok you got me there, didn't think about that, but money may not influence DNA, but it DOES influence reproduction and survival. And if you think outside influences have nothing to do with evolution, you are wrong. Evolution is all about adaption to "outside influences". also, I will let the cloning thing drop. It was a wrong example and it isn't done enough to influence anything. and abramul. I think it isn't about birthrate but about survival rate. The ones who survive in a poor country have lots of kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sativarg Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Theory: A sentient race of beings has been using life to "ripen" planets that have certain properties. Basically they have found that, given the right conditions, certain life forms can be quite useful as an aid to getting the best out of a planet. Humans use yeast and bees and even other humans to do the tedious, dirty or minuscule tasks that otherwise would make certain jobs not worth the effort. Like wise, these sentient beings, I call the manipulators, have cultivated this and other planets in order to extract and refine the natural resources and gather them together into land fills and other collecting areas. Religion is a natural outcome of the minimal contacts needed to manipulate the process. Certain activities increase the productivity of a project. War, for instance, greatly enhances complex materials development and rate of production. To facilitate war unification must be prevented.. The planet must be divided geographically and politically. Birth control and homosexuality must be discouraged. Languages must be kept from becoming universal..... You can see were this is headed so I will stop now and let you either laugh, jeer, curse me or, just maybe, think. That that is is. That that is not is not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sativarg Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Epigenetics may well be counter indicative for the argument that wealth bring health? Case in point:Transgenerational epigenetic observations Actually the opposite is true and the WIKI article got it wrong:Overfeeding and overeating in families are traditions that are often transferred from generation to generation. Irrespective of these family traditions, food availability might lead to overfeeding, in its turn leading to metabolic adaptations. Apart from selection, could these adaptations to the social environment have transgenerational effects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Wolfe Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Wow, alot can happen when you're away for a few monthes.What are we arguing about now?hm....ok:Mankind sort of screwed up on this natural selection thing. It's why we still have cancer: If people with cancer just died off, they would never pass on the genes for cancer. Oh and Sativarg:What you are saying does not sound dislogical. But he is my entire religious belief:If there is a god, he doesn't really care about humans, he's concerned with the running the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddah Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Thread Necromancy is not the way around here, this has been quiet for quite some time and does not need to be resurrected just because you have returned. Buddah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Wolfe Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 The temptation to make a witty and insulting comeback is murderous, but I shall be a gentleman, and not verbally abuse you. :wallbash: Anyhow......Reading what Ninjalord was saying. It's right: Evolution does seem to favor the stupid. Humanity is strange: it seems to have rewritten the laws of natural selection for itself. It's also rewritten those rules for domestic animals. Debate that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ResidentWeevil2077 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Well, domesticated animals would not survive without our assistance. They depend upon our intervention if they are to survive. If left to their own mechanics, they would simply die out because they have not learned how to survive for themselves. In essence, we've created a dependency on what I call "laziness". Technology may make things easier, but it tends to make one dependent to a point where they cannot do it for themselves. No wonder there's a drastic increase in the number of reported cases of diabetes, heart disease, and other related diseases... PEOPLE ARE JUST TOO FRICKIN' LAZY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Wolfe Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Actually, I meant that man changed what features made a creature more likely to survive. Obviously, a chihuawa's size could not naturally assist it in survival, unless it invoked intervention from man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.