Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 19 2018,18:40)|
|Quote (N.Wells @ June 19 2018,12:10)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 19 2018,05:14)|
|Quote (Texas Teach @ June 17 2018,21:12)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 17 2018,19:08)|
|Quote (stevestory @ June 17 2018,11:11)|
|Quote (k.e.. @ June 13 2018,03:14)|
|The only reason Gary is here is for attention. |
He mistakes criticism for stroking.
I view Gary's activities here as stream-of-consciousness talk therapy. Playing scientist seems to give him some relief from his mental issues. Which is fine by me, he's not hurting anyone.
Inquiring minds might rather want to know what drives a person such as yourself to struggle this hard to become an alpha male of a forum like this one.
Natural selection must somehow be working against you.
Yet more evidence that Gary doesn't know what natural selection is.
I don't plan on creating any more children, but at least I'm still fertile. And none of us ever know when the next religious war that kills off almost the entire male population will again happen. Therefore at least for myself I must keep my options open, in case I'm ever needed to help repopulate the planet.
Natural selection is still working in my favor.
Even more evidence that Gary doesn't know what natural selection is.
That would be genetic drift due to a bottleneck event, not natural selection, but in any case that possibility is too discouraging to contemplate with respect to survival of the human species.
Are you certain that there are absolutely no selective pressures working against guys like these who are in a hurry to die in a holy war?
|Quote (N.Wells @ June 19 2018,12:10)|
|However, if you were the only surviving human on Earth, your not-a-theory would at least then pass the general-acceptance test and would only fail at being a theory on the grounds of not having any confirmatory evidence, not being well enough defined, and not making any predictions / not being potentially falsifiable.|
Well then I require "confirmatory evidence" that there are absolutely no selection pressures for or against genetic variations that are easily drawn to deserts to shake their guns and knives in the air while daring a coalition of armies to blast them to bits with their guided missiles.
I will also need to know how to "falsify" your confirmatory evidence, to my satisfaction. It better be good, very very good.
Christ on a stick, Gary, how many times do you want to demonstrate that you are clueless about evolutionary biology?
Note first that there is very little similarity between 45 terrorists being assassinated and a "religious war that kills of nearly all the male population", so you are switching problems and moving goalposts.
Natural selection, by definition, encompasses only change in genetic frequencies that can be attributed to benefits or dasadvantages due to inheritable variations. When survival and reproduction are random luck of the draw, by definition that's not natural selection at work. Everything else is, very broadly, genetic drift. Someone happening to avoid being killed in a war of mass destruction likely survived due to luck, such as avoiding being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Now, if there's a genetic component to why that person survived (e.g. natural immunity to a released artificial pathogen), then we can start talking natural selection, but you initially posited a war that killed off nearly every male, which suggests luck, and id you can't show a genetic component to survival rates then you've disproven natural selection as an agent in that instance.
Now, if we switch to assassination of religious extremists, then that could be natural selection, if you can demonstrate a genetic component to becoming a militant religious extremist. Maybe there is, or it could all be cultural. To the extent that people become terrorists due to culture and their upbringing and the circumstances of their life, that's not natural selection, even if they are being culled from the population.
Moslems not raised in Islamic countries are almost never terrorists (neither are people raised in Islamic countries for that matter). There are 3.3 million Muslims in the US, and we've had 17 notable Islamic terrorist attacks, with the majority of assailants being foreign-born. How many of them had terrorist parents? The few that do become terrorists are sufficiently notorious anomalies that their motivations get analyzed very thoroughly, and in all cases investigators end up pointing to specific events or circumstances or associates that radicalized them. I am well aware that Trump is trying to paint every Muslim as a potential terrorist, but since when have the FBI and the CIA come forward and said "the reason he became a terrorist is because he inherited terrorist genes"? Not even Trump would be satisfied with such an obviously fallacious explanation. How many American terrorists have had terrorist parents. Education as a terrorist might or might not come from the parents, but terrorist genes would have to come from the parents.