| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2006 08:33:00 PM |
| Object: |
Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
.
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
13 Jun 2006 01:55:43 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> quoted somebody else
in news:1150075980.700447.266010@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
<...>
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives
off or kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with
the females.
...>
Except the "lone male lion" is usually accompanied by one or more of
his brothers or cousins, or even some totally unrelated companion(s).
Even male lions have discovered that cooperation usually pays off.
Don't you ever watch nature programs on TV? Or, horrible thought, read
a book?
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
12 Jun 2006 10:21:38 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1150075980.700447.266010@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
He was murdered, wasn't he?
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
We live in a manmade world now.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
But scientific and medical discoveries improve your chances to have progeny.
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Not in our manmade world.
Money has replaced progeny.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
Do you see a lion in your back yard? No? Are there 6 billion lions out
there? No?
Seems cooperation is a better strategy.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Because cooperation is more important to the survival of mankind, as a group
and as individuals, than any other strategy.
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
We do practice eugenics on our own species. Everyone that had more than one
choice of mate has practiced eugenics.
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
Yes. You seem to have the impression that nature and evolution are our
friends or our role models. They're not. Just ask the dinosaurs.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
13 Jun 2006 07:31:08 AM |
|
|
Is "trumpet" a mass (= uncountable) noun?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
11 Jun 2006 11:10:26 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2006 18:33:00 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
What's up with all the theists who backhandedly admit that only their
belief in a deity keeps them from acting like sociopaths?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
12 Jun 2006 12:12:18 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
What's up with all the theists who backhandedly admit
that only their belief in a deity keeps them from acting
like sociopaths?
I've had a few come out and state it, no beating around
the Bush.
One even told me that if I could prove to his satisfaction
that ANY part of the bible is wrong, he'd throw the
whole thing away and do whatever he pleased without
regard for anyone.
Relax. Given the level of "Proof" fundies demand, you
couldn't prove that the sun existed on a clear day. So
there was no danger I was going to unleash a psycho
on the world by confronting him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AAA" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
12 Jun 2006 03:42:31 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2006 18:33:00 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@fastmail.fm> wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
Why did you crosspost this material to each of News Groups you chose?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
13 Jun 2006 07:27:17 AM |
|
|
"AAA" <aaa@aaa.aaa> wrote in message
news:78kr82db6u0s7vt2rutnp6bp79751bhksv@4ax.com...
Why did you crosspost this material to each of News Groups you chose?
Why did you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
12 Jun 2006 12:31:12 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1150075980.700447.266010@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
You're a fucking loon and a thieving troll to boot...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
12 Jun 2006 12:07:30 AM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that
our role model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to
successfully pass on his DNA (and his ancestors) to more
people than any one else in history.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the
natural world.
Not even as a joke.
The logical conclusion to such a model would be extinction.
This would become clear if only you could understand that
roughly half the human population is female.
This wouldn't be as difficult as grasping that nature, evolution
concerns itself with a population -- even a species -- but not
individuals.
And I won't even get into the advantages of genetic diveristy
to a population, as surely your head would explode.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if
you have no progeny, then you are by definition a biological
failure.
Again, nature has no such rules (or ratings) for individuals,
only populations (or even entire species).
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on
the planet, by any means necessary.
"Species," or (more accurately) "Populations," but not
individuals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
13 Jun 2006 07:26:49 AM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150088850.785356.38110@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that
our role model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to
successfully pass on his DNA (and his ancestors) to more
people than any one else in history.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the
natural world.
Not even as a joke.
The logical conclusion to such a model would be extinction.
Perhaps you have another definition of fitness then? Certainly the one I
learned is not compatible with your statement - unless I misjudged the
context of "natural" in the original post.
This wouldn't be as difficult as grasping that nature, evolution
concerns itself with a population -- even a species -- but not
individuals.
Trouble is, individuals reproduce, not populations. Kin selection is real,
but only insomuch as it increases fitness at the level of an individual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
13 Jun 2006 03:17:09 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
Not even as a joke.
The logical conclusion to such a model would be extinction.
Perhaps you have another definition of fitness then?
Already said it:
This wouldn't be as difficult as grasping that nature, evolution
concerns itself with a population -- even a species -- but not
individuals.
Trouble is, individuals reproduce, not populations.
Reality is, genetic diversity -- not dominance -- is the best
strategy for any population/species. Given your model, not
only would the human race not have survived threats like
the Black Death, but we wouldn't have survived long enough
to face it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
13 Jun 2006 03:25:20 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150229829.300652.199990@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
Not even as a joke.
The logical conclusion to such a model would be extinction.
Perhaps you have another definition of fitness then?
Already said it:
This wouldn't be as difficult as grasping that nature, evolution
concerns itself with a population -- even a species -- but not
individuals.
Trouble is, individuals reproduce, not populations.
Reality is, genetic diversity -- not dominance -- is the best
strategy for any population/species.
Genetic diversity is best suited to changing habitats. When conditions are
stable there is a large cost to maintaining this diversity. We call it
genetic load.
Given your model, not
only would the human race not have survived threats like
the Black Death, but we wouldn't have survived long enough
to face it.
Not my model, it's Haldane's.
And we survived the black death with far less genetic load than most large
mammals carry. Humans have remarkably little genetic diversity, which
suggests a bottleneck, perhaps near extinction, in the not-too-distant past.
However, none of this has much to do with my assertion that fitness refers
to the ability of an *individual* to pass on genes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
13 Jun 2006 07:43:21 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
Reality is, genetic diversity -- not dominance -- is the best
strategy for any population/species.
Genetic diversity is best suited to changing habitats.
"Change" could be in terms of climate, but could also represent
the introduction of an new virus.
When conditions are stable there is a large cost to
maintaining this diversity. We call it genetic load.
"Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
Given your model, not
only would the human race not have survived threats like
the Black Death, but we wouldn't have survived long enough
to face it.
Not my model, it's Haldane's.
And we survived the black death with far less genetic load than
most large mammals carry.
We survived the black death WITHOUT your model where
the most important goal is reproducing as much as you can.
Humans have remarkably little genetic diversity, which
suggests a bottleneck, perhaps near extinction, in the
not-too-distant past.
I'm aware of the theory, though couldn't subscribe to it in
it's purest form.
Also, you're somewhat misrepresenting it. We've only
just mapped the DNA from a human, not a representative
sampling of all populations everywhere. "Genetic diversity"
in this context is for the most part limited to specific
genetic markers, and not the entire sequence.
However, none of this has much to do with my assertion
that fitness refers to the ability of an *individual* to pass
on genes.
It doesn't, as cleary no natural model observed or
theorized gives a damn about individuals.
As far as nature goes, an individual that contributes to
the preservation of the population/species is all that
counts. Whether it is your children or children belonging
to someone you never met, it doesn't matter.
People who developed vaccines, for example, have
contributed far more to the success of our species
than the vast majority of breeders ever could dream
of accomplishing. Even if not a single one of them
ever reproduced, their contribution would still
dwarf your biggest wet dream/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
14 Jun 2006 03:45:43 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150245801.342234.77440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
Reality is, genetic diversity -- not dominance -- is the best
strategy for any population/species.
Genetic diversity is best suited to changing habitats.
"Change" could be in terms of climate, but could also represent
the introduction of an new virus.
Which is a change in habitat, as I mentioned.
When conditions are stable there is a large cost to
maintaining this diversity. We call it genetic load.
"Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
Nonsense. Utter fucking nonsense.
Given your model, not
only would the human race not have survived threats like
the Black Death, but we wouldn't have survived long enough
to face it.
Not my model, it's Haldane's.
And we survived the black death with far less genetic load than
most large mammals carry.
We survived the black death WITHOUT your model where
the most important goal is reproducing as much as you can.
Um, you don't really know what you're talking about do you? There is
nothing but fitness. Fitness relates to individuals.
Humans have remarkably little genetic diversity, which
suggests a bottleneck, perhaps near extinction, in the
not-too-distant past.
I'm aware of the theory, though couldn't subscribe to it in
it's purest form.
It's not a theory, the lack of genetic diversity is a fact, whatever you
think about it notwithstanding.
Also, you're somewhat misrepresenting it. We've only
just mapped the DNA from a human, not a representative
sampling of all populations everywhere. "Genetic diversity"
in this context is for the most part limited to specific
genetic markers, and not the entire sequence.
However, none of this has much to do with my assertion
that fitness refers to the ability of an *individual* to pass
on genes.
It doesn't, as cleary no natural model observed or
theorized gives a damn about individuals.
Sorry but you're just wrong. Individuals reproduce. That's how it works.
You might want to bone up on some ecology/biology 101.
As far as nature goes, an individual that contributes to
the preservation of the population/species is all that
counts. Whether it is your children or children belonging
to someone you never met, it doesn't matter.
An individual that is able to reproduce its genes is what counts. The
concept of "species" is entirely artificial. Its very definition is
dependant on context. And in undergrad biology we are taught that the
definition of a species is basically whatever a good taxonomist says it is.
Sorry to burst your bubble but there isn't any such thing as a species that
is out there reproducing itself.
People who developed vaccines, for example, have
contributed far more to the success of our species
than the vast majority of breeders ever could dream
of accomplishing. Even if not a single one of them
ever reproduced, their contribution would still
dwarf your biggest wet dream/
What has any of that to do with my statements?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
14 Jun 2006 05:59:22 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
Nonsense. Utter fucking nonsense.
You haven't a clue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
15 Jun 2006 06:06:11 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150325962.929969.129750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
"Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
Nonsense. Utter fucking nonsense.
You haven't a clue.
And you snip where I explain my statement and make no reply. hmmm...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
16 Jun 2006 09:36:19 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
You haven't a clue.
And you snip where I explain my statement and make
no reply. hmmm...
#1. Ask someone what 'plonk' means on usenet. You
seem to have some difficulty with that one.
#2. You explained nothing, except your continued
misapplication of the word "stable."
Although an environment can easily be stable for the
life of an individual, it can only be stable during the
life of a species in the sense that a change to that
environment very often spells doom. Extinction.
#3. Producing the next generation involves -- requires --
a great deal more than spitting out pups. Individuals
can be instumental in ensuring the next generation
survives to maturity without themselves reproducing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
14 Jun 2006 06:19:47 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150325962.929969.129750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
"Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
Nonsense. Utter fucking nonsense.
You haven't a clue.
Half an hour with any survey-level textbook will bear me out. I dare you to
read one. Any library will have at least one.
Learn a little and you won't look so foolish talking ***** about how
evolution works.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
14 Jun 2006 07:55:52 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
You haven't a clue.
Half an hour with any survey-level textbook will bear me out.
A book? You're being modest. Without something at least as
dense as a 2x4, we'd have to beat your skull for a longer before
anything got through.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
15 Jun 2006 05:17:53 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150332952.502887.56090@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
You haven't a clue.
Half an hour with any survey-level textbook will bear me out.
A book? You're being modest. Without something at least as
dense as a 2x4, we'd have to beat your skull for a longer before
anything got through.
I'll take that as you can't be bothered to read the truth and educate
yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
14 Jun 2006 06:36:55 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150325962.929969.129750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
"Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
Nonsense. Utter fucking nonsense.
You haven't a clue.
http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/isb200/select.htm
"The result is that the population tends to maintain the status quo with
respect to prevailing adaptations. "
How does a population "tend to maintain the status quo" in a single
lifetime?
Don't tell me I haven't got a clue. I know the difference between how
evolution works and what drives it. Clearly you do not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
15 Jun 2006 01:10:46 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/isb200/select.htm
"The result is that the population tends to maintain the status quo with
respect to prevailing adaptations. "
How does a population "tend to maintain the status quo" in a single
lifetime?
Did you even read the page? Do you have some better understanding
of what it said than you do of what I said?
| "Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
| In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
Two points here, neither of which you'll get.
#1. An organism only experiences a single lifetime.
#2. There are two types of species on this planet: Those
which are extinct and those that will one day go extinct.
I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks, as unsuccessful
as you'll be...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
15 Jun 2006 05:19:09 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150351845.958334.208200@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/isb200/select.htm
"The result is that the population tends to maintain the status quo with
respect to prevailing adaptations. "
How does a population "tend to maintain the status quo" in a single
lifetime?
Did you even read the page? Do you have some better understanding
of what it said than you do of what I said?
| "Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
| In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
Two points here, neither of which you'll get.
#1. An organism only experiences a single lifetime.
Then how the ***** does an organism *evolve*?
moron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
15 Jun 2006 09:17:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:19:09 GMT, "Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150351845.958334.208200@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/isb200/select.htm
"The result is that the population tends to maintain the status quo with
respect to prevailing adaptations. "
How does a population "tend to maintain the status quo" in a single
lifetime?
Did you even read the page? Do you have some better understanding
of what it said than you do of what I said?
| "Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
| In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
Two points here, neither of which you'll get.
#1. An organism only experiences a single lifetime.
Then how the ***** does an organism *evolve*?
moron
Hey Tim, here's another one to ask them: Say "If evolution is true,
then why are there still monkeys?" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That'll stop 'em
in their tracks! They won't be able to answer that one either!
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that
whosever would believe in him would believe just about anything.
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
15 Jun 2006 09:03:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:19:09 +0000, Tim K. wrote:
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150351845.958334.208200@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
#1. An organism only experiences a single lifetime.
Then how the ***** does an organism *evolve*?
Er, Tim, it _doesn't_. Organisms don't evolve. Species evolve. _Groups_
of organisms evolve. A single organism lives and dies, hopefully
reproducing along the way.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
16 Jun 2006 12:24:47 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
Then how the ***** does an organism *evolve*?
moron
They don't. Population do. It's a given that no
lizard is ever going to hatch out of an egg, and
then at some point in its life "evolve" into a
bird.
I'll tell one great way to go extinct:
Specialization.
That's the marriage of species to environment. The better
suited a species is to an environment, the less that
environment has to change in order to threaten survival.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
15 Jun 2006 06:40:18 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150351845.958334.208200@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
#1. An organism only experiences a single lifetime.
The only point that matters is that your misguided notions of how evolution
works are not even internally consistent.
First you write:
"This wouldn't be as difficult as grasping that nature, evolution
concerns itself with a population -- even a species -- but not
individuals."
This is just plain wrong. Individuals reproduce, not populations.
Individuals adapt through behavior, not populations. I do accept kin
selection but the fundamental unit of reproduction is the individual. Your
confusion lies in the old saying that individuals don't evolve, populations
do. That is not the same statement as you make above.
If a group of animals is trapped on an island and they have a ratio of
alleles very different than that of the parent population (I have no doubt
you recognize this as genetic drift) what exactly has happened? You don't
have a fucking clue what's happened.
Then this gem:
"Reality is, genetic diversity -- not dominance -- is the best
strategy for any population/species."
I'm not sure what the hell you mean by "dominance", presumably the opposite
of diversity. We have a much better term for that, you know.
In a stable habitat diversity is costly and selected against. I told you
that once and mentioned any biology text would serve as a ref. I see you
prefer ignorance.
We call that diversity genetic load. And don't use your limited
understanding of ecology to equate stable with lack of disturbance. Stable
in this context also means more or less constant niche space.
So you have made two mutually exclusive claims - that evolution has nothing
to do with individuals, and that environmental factors (which undeniably
affect evolution) affect only individuals, not populations. So which is it?
You can't have your genes and eat them too.
#2. There are two types of species on this planet: Those
which are extinct and those that will one day go extinct.
And yet somehow life on earth survives...
You really need to do some reading. A species is a human construct. It's
no more real than pine flatwoods is a "thing". You've obviously never
stared at Plethodontid salamanders laid out in a row and tried to figure
where one species ends and another begins.
I've wasted more than enough time pointing out your errors to you - you snip
and fail to refute except in weird non-sequiturs like the one above about
extinction. You don't even understand the implications of what you claim
and you don't know what you don't know.
So shut your fucking mouth and read a book and learn how wrong you are.
idiot
ps - plonk
annoying laypeople...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
16 Jun 2006 09:25:56 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
#1. An organism only experiences a single lifetime.
The only point that matters is that your misguided
notions of how evolution works are not even internally
consistent.
Cool. Now show us how you're misunderstanding this.
First you write:
"This wouldn't be as difficult as grasping that nature,
evolution concerns itself with a population -- even a
species -- but not individuals."
Okay.
This is just plain wrong.
Except that it isn't.
Individuals reproduce, not populations.
Great. And you mistakenly believe this means... what?
Individuals adapt through behavior, not populations.
Wow. And you think you're talking about evolution?
I do accept kin selection but the fundamental unit of
reproduction is the individual.
And if evolution depended entirely on reproduction you'd
have a point.
Your confusion lies in the old saying that individuals
don't evolve, populations do.
You're confusion lies in believing that individuals changing
their behavior is an example of evolution.
That is not the same statement as you make above.
I guess that's why it took two statements to say them
both: Because they are two different statements.
You don't have a fucking clue what's happened.
Interesting.
Then this gem:
"Reality is, genetic diversity -- not dominance -- is the best
strategy for any population/species."
I'm not sure what the hell you mean by "dominance",
presumably the opposite of diversity.
Well you'd have to kind of know what you said earlier
to figure it out.
We have a much better term for that, you know.
In a stable habitat diversity is costly and selected
against.
Maybe if you gave us an example of one of these
stable enviroments...
I told you that once and mentioned any biology text
would serve as a ref.
Looking at evolution entirely in terms of a biology texts
is seeing half the picture... and the smaller half at
that.
I see you prefer ignorance.
Evolution isn't logic. It's one potential result of a great
many factors coming together.
Stable in this context also means more or less
constant niche space.
Such as?
So you have made two mutually exclusive claims
Interesting...
- that evolution has nothing to do with individuals, and
that environmental factors (which undeniably affect
evolution) affect only individuals, not populations.
You're making this up.
So which is it?
And individual can't send out for new genes because
the environment changed.
You can't have your genes and eat them too.
Exactly.
#2. There are two types of species on this planet: Those
which are extinct and those that will one day go extinct.
And yet somehow life on earth survives...
But species don't.
You really need to do some reading.
While you need to get some comprehension.
A species is a human construct.
Take that attitute with the food you eat, see
how far it gets you...
annoying laypeople..
Another ordained minister in the church of DNA.
Funny, going by your model, nothing has ever
gone extinct. That's the difference between evolution
and Creationism/Intelligent Design/DNA-is-everything
schools. Evolution explains extinction.
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
15 Jun 2006 06:05:27 PM |
|
|
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150245801.342234.77440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
"Stable" only makes sense in terms of a single lifetime.
In terms of a species lifetime, there is no such thing.
How old is tropical rainforest and why are they so diverse?
What kind of selection is acting there?
Simple questions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
16 Jun 2006 10:03:07 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
How old is tropical rainforest
Is tropical rainforest?
As far as environment is concerned, it really
depends on which one you're talking about.
That, and are you really claiming that because
you can label two geographic location "rain
forest" you can claim that the environments
are identical?
You're really reaching here.
Simple questions.
Simple obfuscation.
You're claiming environmental stablity,
remember? Nothing you stated here
supports your claims, while it does go a
long way in contradicting it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
11 Jun 2006 10:18:34 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
In the long run, everyone alive at one point in history will either be
the ancestor of everyone alive at a later point in history, or the
ancestor of no one alive at that later point in history. Obviously,
Ghengis Khan's grandparents must have at least as many descendants
today as he did, perhaps even more. Hitler, on the other hand, has no
known descendants, and Mussolini has done about average in that regard.
So there's something wrong with your argument even before you get to
the serious logical fallacies.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Your position seems to be that if there is no Deity to reward us for
deeds pleasing to Him (whether in this life or another), and no
afterlife where we can be rewarded or punished for what we do in this
world, we ought to seek ... what? Rewards in this world? "Success" in
this world, whether we find it satisfying or not? That which seems
good, whether it rests on the mandates of a Deity or not, whether we
enjoy doing it or not? These are not at all the same things as one
another.
Organisms which are not reproductively successful will not pass on
their genes to future generations. This does not make them, or even
their genes, "bad." It does not make organisms that do pass on their
genes "good" (or, perhaps more to the point, happy or personally
successful). Your entire argument here depends on, among other
fallacies, what is known as the "naturalistic fallacy:" the assumption
that if something happens in nature, it *ought* to happen, is somehow
"right." Of course, all sorts of things happen in nature; why we ought
to take examples from some of them and not others is another matter
that cannot be settled merely by adducing observations that certain
things happen.
Biology, and evolutionary theory in particular, deals with reasons why
some genes and combinations of genes leave more copies to future
generations than others, not justifications for this fact. Without the
assumption that some Deity desires particular outcomes, the fact that
biology has such outcomes no more justifies them than gravity justifies
rocks falling, or, to take an example of an agent making a choice,
justifies jumping off tall buildings or pushing other people off them.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
And if you have progeny, but no grandprogeny, are you a success or
failure? What if you have grandprogeny, but no great-grandprogeny?
Sooner or later, almost every lineage goes extinct. And, again, you
have that problem of reasoning from what does happen to what ought to
happen: why should anyone care whether he is a "biological failure?"
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Evolutionary theory (or, indeed, other fields of science) do not deal
in judgments of what is "highest" or "best." For that matter, until
very recently for human beings, and even today for most humans and all
nonhumans, no one "pursued" DNA replication; it happened without our
knowledge or interest. Most organisms (plants, fungi, protists,
sponges, even insects and the like) don't "pursue" reproduction at all;
they act, as mindlessly as any machine, in such a way that reproduction
is more likely than if they acted otherwise -- because they are
descended from other organisms that acted that way, and passed on their
genes. This is not their "pursuit," and there is no reason to declare
it their "highest" whatever-it-is-instead-of-a-pursuit.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
That is how lions act. That is not, generally, how humans act. Why
should we act like something we are not, rather than something we are?
Whales spend up to two hours under water without rising for a breath;
perhaps you should try to emulate them. It would be no less silly than
your suggestion above.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Uh, because we like them? Because they're family and friends? Because
we'd like other people to do the same for us if we needed it?
Strictly speaking, the lion isn't trying to weed out defective lions;
he's trying (well, not *trying* to do this, of course, but this is the
presumed selective rational for why such behavior survives) to ensure
that the lionesses' care and resources are available to care for copies
of his genes, not copies of some other lion's genes. He doesn't have
the slightest concern for the good of liondom as a whole, or of
"defective genes." For that matter, biology, again, has no concept of
"defective genes," as such; it has a concept ("fitness") of genes that,
in a given environment, aren't likely to be passed on to future
generations, but then, if genes tend to be passed on, they presumably
are "fit" in the particular environment in which they occur. Natural
selection gives us no reason to prefer one selective regime to any
other.
If you will not accept the argument of David Hume (that one cannot
reason from an "is" to an "ought"), will you accept one from C.S.
Lewis? He pointed out that one cannot designate something as our
"highest" instinct or "pursuit" without making a surreptitious moral
judgment that cannot be derived from the mere facts that we have those
instincts or tendencies. Your judgment that something in nature is
"perfect" cannot be derived merely from the fact that it happens, but
depends on some independent standard of what is good or bad.
Even if that standard was constructed by mutation and natural
selection, it does not follow that natural selection ought to be the
model for how we make moral choices (or that it even could be). Your
shovel does not serve as a well (nor vice-versa), and natural selection
does not serve as a moral code. As evolutionary psychologist Steven
Pinker notes, his genes are not him, and as far as he cares they can go
jump in a lake (at least at the time he said that, he had no children
and no desire for any). Indeed, your entire post, to the extent that
it is not an attempt to construct an argument from bad consequences
(another fallacy) against evolutionary theory or atheism (they are not
the same thing, by the way), is an attempt to argue that if we can't
live our lives for God, we ought to live them for little strands of
chemicals in our cells. And, again, this really does not seem to
follow.
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
We don't regard other animals (or at least most other animals) as moral
agents.
Because humans in general (aside from a minority of humans who,
admittedly, have a distressing tendency to end up with political power
-- but that does not justify their aberrations: see above) feel that
you should not do to others things that you find hateful when done to
you. You wouldn't like it if I decided to have you sterilized because
I didn't want your genes in future generations; why should you feel
justified in doing it to "genetic defectives?"
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
Well, sure, but you go wrong before you get that far.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
12 Jun 2006 11:32:26 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
Actually he's a better role model for Christians - he rose from nothing
to kill thousands upon thousands of people who disagreed with him.
Christianity has a long history of killing or exiling anyone who
disagreed with the local theology, in fact mounting huge Crusades to
kill, plunder and rape unbelievers. Unlike Genghis Khan, who confined
his activities to two continents, Christians worked their evil on five.'
Don't blame atheists when you have a lot of history to live down.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
11 Jun 2006 09:59:34 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
By all means, take this route if you wish. Oh you don't? Gee, why do
you expect atheists to then?
Is it that fucking difficult to understand that apart from the
superstitions there is often little to distinguish a theist from an
atheist?
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
A lion is essentially at the top of the foodchain, and does not need a
large community to ensure its survival. It needs enough strength and
speed to bring down prey. Consequently, the strongest lion eliminating
intra-species competition is highly advantageous not only to the
individual lion but the species as a whole.
Contrast this with humans. A lone human can be fairly easily killed by
most predators. Our advantages lie in intelligence and numbers. It is
reasonable, then, that we evolved cooperative natures and mechanisms
(violent retribution) for eliminating those that exhibit anti-social
behaviors like rape and murder.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Because we've also developed, as a species, a sense of pity, compassion
and empathy. Perhaps those tribes that took care of their sick and
deformed when circumstances allowed it became more successful than
those that killed or abandoned them to the mercies of nature. Perhaps
it's just a quirk that came with our learning to live in groups.
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
I oppose human eugenics for a couple reasons. First, there's no
guarantee that whoever administrates the program wouldn't choose to
cull people like me out of the gene pool. Selfish of course, but I
rather like living. Second, culling out aggressive or scrawny livestock
is a little simpler than human eugenics would be. We'd want to select
for a lot of attributes, and an improper understanding of the
relatedness of attributes could lead to mistakes that would be
devastating for the species. I don't have a problem with allowing
natural selection to run its course (which it will anyway), but
artificially selecting humans is too prone to error, in my estimation.
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
I think you're wrong in thinking that evolution provides a foundation
for morality. It is not a replacement for religion, no matter what the
creationists claim. It is an explanation for the diversity of life and
the mechanism through which it changes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
13 Jun 2006 07:33:37 AM |
|
|
Whoops, I forgot to quote. Second attempt (removing ridiculous
cross-posting):
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
*static*
Is "trumpet" a mass (= uncountable) noun?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
