Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Man Vs. Monkey!!

KarmaSutra

Banned
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
4,827
Reaction score
143
Age
50
Location
Padron Reserve maduro in hand while finishing my b
Victory Unlimited said:
<<<<<< This just in >>>>>>>


Inspired by the upcoming movie Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Archaeology Today held an amatuer "dig" contest. And the results are, that an anonymous group off the coast of California has excavated the partially, sand-covered, fossil records of some monkeys that we can ALL believe in:


...First EVER, PHOTOS!!!!! :whistle:
Damnit. Now there's fvcking coffee blown out of my nose onto my brand new laptop!

Damn you to H-E-double hockey sticks Victory!

( I always knew somethign was a bit off with Peter Tork. )
 

KarmaSutra

Banned
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
4,827
Reaction score
143
Age
50
Location
Padron Reserve maduro in hand while finishing my b
Rollo Tomassi said:
I don't think that evolution is necessarily a debatable phenomenon. Evolution happens, deal with it. Environmental selection happens, deal with it. What is at issue is the origin of life - this is what pisses off both sides. My concern with the Intelligent Design crowd is that they bastardized what William Paley was suggesting (a watch implies a watchmaker) to be what they wanted it to be; a logical argument for a divine creator. The problem with their argument is that they slough off ID for what it was meant to be and co-opted it as a religious conviction. Creationism and Intelligent Design in it's purest form are mutually exclusive. The real question is "what intelligence was doing the designing?" It could be God, it could be an advanced race that seeded our planet millions of years ago, it could've been another race of humans who colonized this planet and simply lost track of themselves, we don't know, but the creationist force fits this ideal to his liking and calls it evidence.

And of course I can also argue the counter to this; maybe we did come from a common ancestor to monkeys, but who's to say we weren't genetically altered (either divinely or by extra-terrestrial design) at some step to actualize our full potential as humans? It's just as valid a hypothesis as creationism. Perhaps the better reasoning is, we were designed TO evolve.
You, Bonhomme and Victory have summed up everything I care to know about this topic.
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
149
Obsidian:

Last night I opened a book on physical anthropology and within the second or third page was the term microevolution, and so I guess I stand corrected from a previous statement that it wasn't a term used by scientists.
Wikipedia:

Critics have pointed out that the "peppered moth story" showed only microevolution, rather than the important macroevolutionary trend of speciation (e.g. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985). Biologists agree with this point, and accept that correlation between soot on tree trunks and observed melanism in the moths is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. However, though creationists accept "microevolution" of varieties within a "kind", they claim that "macroevolution" does not happen. To biologists there is no dividing line between the two, and in the modern evolutionary synthesis the same mechanisms are seen operating at various scales to cause both microevolution and macroevolution, the only difference being of time and scale.
Bold was my emphasis. Since you said it's neither your responsibility to disprove evolution nor provide a viable alternative, but merely to point out holes in evolution, then I ask: where is your scientific basis to substantiate the assertion there is an upper limit to "micro" evolution? In other words, it's your responsibility to prove your hole is actually a hole. You are making the claim and so the burden of proof is on you.

(One favorite argument from evolution deniers is to assert there "hasn't been enough time" for mutations to explain the diversity of life. But rather than disprove evolution, that simply would point towards Gould's punctuated equilibrium. In fact, although I support Dawkins, I did recently read a wonderful article in Scientific American of how culture has grossly sped up human evolution in the past 6-10,000 years than the past one million years, due to agriculture. I would link to it now but I'm at work.)
 
Last edited:

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
149
Scientific American article "Culture Speeds Up Human Evolution":
Homo sapiens sapiens has spread across the globe and increased vastly in numbers over the past 50,000 years or so—from an estimated five million in 9000 B.C. to roughly 6.5 billion today. More people means more opportunity for mutations to creep into the basic human genome and new research confirms that in the past 10,000 years a host of changes to everything from digestion to bones has been taking place.

"We found very many human genes undergoing selection," says anthropologist Gregory Cochran of the University of Utah, a member of the team that analyzed the 3.9 million DNA sequences* showing the most variation. "Most are very recent, so much so that the rate of human evolution over the past few thousand years is far greater than it has been over the past few million years."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution&page=2

Perhaps Gould was correct in his theory of punctuated equilibrium.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
3,960
Reaction score
36
The Unnatural Order Of Things!!

belividere said:
I...as a scientist I am curious as to how human evolution would have anything to do at all with the hor matrix. Riddle me that one LMS since you started this thread. Wouldn't the hor-homo agenda have less to do with evolution as a theory then sociology, psychology, or marketing? Evolution is a theory that is fundamentally based on the changes that occur over thousands to millions of generations (i.e. extremely long periods of time) while sociological changes like womens lib are recent and more prominent in debates over the hor-homo - LMS agenda.
You are correct in that it is a sociological, psychological, marketing ploy which I call mind control - and it is to make the man weak in his masculinity (genetic trait) and make the woman less weak in her femininity (genetic trait) - in other words, our human natures, which are genetically determined as aggressive and passive to make a union work, has been artificially manipulated (environment) through individuals who have an agenda!!

As Obsidian has already expounded upon, this darwinist ideology of equating humans with the likes of animals means that the laws that govern us men and women, are basically the same laws that govern animals. And within this thinking we are mere animals who adapt to our environment. So if we are as animals then there is no standard for right or wrong because animals don't concerns themselves with morality, but rather nature dictates the behavior and actions of animals - so we are basically following our natural inclinations when we partake in sexual relations!

Those who are pushing the homo/hor matrix have control of our public schools/universities, all media, and our social, psychological, and marketing institutions! The overwhelming of the people who are in charge of these institutions are followers of the darwin evolutionary belief, if not in mind, then in spirit. This is agenda driven, as is darwin's belief, to bastardize our natural human genetic character as created. Behavioral "scientists" have studied human behavior and they have devised methods to make us accept behavior that is not good for our existence or survival.

I'll give you some examples whereby, instead of allowing our human nature, as genetically ordained, to dictate our existence and behavior, we are purposely told and influence and encouraged to do otherwise, by sophisticated mind control methods from those who have an agenda. IF we were animals they wouldn't need to use these methods since our animal existence would naturally do so - correct? But since we are not animals, then these methods must be employed to artificially alter our natural path and to make us as beast!

By natural human law, children do not think about sexual relations with a woman. Boys look at their penis as a vehicle for urination and not as a vehicle to ejaculate sperm into a vagina! UNLESS, their natural thinking/behavior is manipulated and influenced to do otherwise! Thus comes in the lies and deceit.

The three areas of mind control are:

Psychological via images and programming on tv

Marketing - advertising of products

Sociological via instruction in school

The Matrix bastards are pushing the "talk to your children about sex" dogma so that they would be more responsible. Wrong!!!! This is not what you should do and it has never been done in the past until the time was needed when they became young men. To talk more about something that is not there only draws more attention to it and encourages the conduct instead of discouraging it.

There is very little I need to convince you of regarding the sexual images and discussions on TV, it's everywhere at all times of the day and they know that children watch 5 hours of TV a day - so of course, the programming is geared towards children, even though the shows have an adult theme. Shows with adult themes used to be on after midnight, then it was reduced to after 10pm, now adult themes are 24 hours a day - and the children see and hear the messages!

These messages and visuals are telling the child that it is ok to go outside of your nature - because the more it's talked about and the more it's seen the more it becomes generally accepted behavior because the mass media makes it seem as if the masses approve of it and there would be no backlash if you do it!

But our natures have something called "Shame" - like dancing this is another human trait that animals don't have! Shame is just another way of expressing wrongdoing - you get a sense of regret and embarrassment when a behavior or action is not right. If you take this away in the human mind then you can change that person's behavior! And soon enough the unacceptable will be acceptable.

They are marketing products via radio, TV, and print and using messages that goes exactly against, and exactly the opposite of what the masculine and feminine nature dictates. So in every commercial you see the man as weak and idiotic which is his genetic opposite of strong and rational, and the woman as the aggressor and the leader - opposite of her passive and submissive nature. The purpose of this is to demolish our naturally dictated genetic roles as male and female! This mind control via social programming has been reflected in society - the media does NOT reflect reality (as you have been told) it is reality that is being distorted by the media!! When reality starts mimicking what it sees, because of peer pressure or social contrivances, then the social interactions between the sexes become strained, because our genetic natures tells us one thing but social manipulation via media and mis education, tells us to relinquish the natural and embrace the artificial! This natural and artificial construct will not stand for long periods of time because they are at struggle with each other and a clash is inevitable. To make things work and join in harmony, either they, the male and female, both accept the artificial social construct or they must both embrace their natural genetic masculine and feminine selves!! If one party in the relationship differs and embraces the real for the unreal or the unreal for the real, then there will be a clash and an inevitable split.

Sex "education" is being taught to our children. But there is no such thing as sex education - this is a ploy to alter our existence to go against what is natural! Yep, this is The Matrix - lies and deceit. They make you think that it is good for you when in reality it is for your demise.

In schools, the parents have abdicated the responsibility of nurturer the minds of their children to strangers, and now these strangers are encouraging your child to have sex - it's an individual right, they say.. So they are giving birth control to eleven year olds in school without the knowledge or permission of the parents. They are teaching our children to put condoms on bananas. Teaching them about sexual diseases and encouraging them to have "responsible" sex - there is no such thing as "responsible" sex!! And now children have the right to abortion without the parents knowledge or permission and to make it easy for her we will give her an abortion pill!
Not only that, homosexuals are now going to third graders in schools preaching diversity and how two daddys and two mommys are ok and normal!! DO YOU SEE THE MANIPULATION of our human nature??? Do you see it? We, or generations before me, never thought about all this sexual shyt when I was child - I saw some of it and I gravitated towards girls naturally, but we had mental limits! But now those mental limits have artificially been taken away and the monkeys in us have been loosened.

This is why they - the evolutionary crowd, want to destroy the idea of a God - because we are taught that this God makes moral value judgments based on our genetic standard and our free will! But if you advance the idea that we are animals and there is no God, then we can do as the animal nature dictates and have no standards and no moral constraints!! Do as thou wilt is the motto!!!

Well, this motto has wrought hell and havoc on our society!

This motto encourages sexual deviancy because there aren't any repercussions for your wrongdoing and thus no reason not to have sex with whomever. This dogma encourages irresponsible sexual practices that go outside of our human nature. There is nothing wrong with teenage pregnancy - teenagers have been having sex since time began but they had sex with a man who was committed to raising his seed and publicly announced his vow of provider and securer in marriage. Today they are seeking to have children without the male in the household and this is not natural!! This single parent nonsense goes outside our genetic nature! If it takes two to make then it takes two raise!!

If you look at the results of all this contrived manipulation/mind control you can see our natures and society is corrupt and broken - the families and the relationships between the sexes are fractured and the children are being raised with little guidance and discipline, and no love, because the sex act that created them was not made out of love but out of animal lust! So the children are growing up with a hardened shell and no longer have innocence - as children should have, as nature intended. But that is not al - now they are on drugs - both street drugs and pharmaceuticals -- further controlling your mind at the neurological level, even going beyond the psychological manipulation, via the tv, schools, and advertising!! Your mind is being controlled to go outside of your natural genetic nature by those who have rejected the idea of a an intelligent creator - this is their agenda!

Wake up - The Matrix has you!
 
Last edited:

Rollo Tomassi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
5,321
Reaction score
337
Age
56
Location
Nevada
Well, if that doesn't make your head explode this will. I dug this up from a college psych essay I wrote about 4 years ago.

Evolutionary Psychology and the Contemporary Issue of "Sexual Promiscuity"


Some basic tenets of evolution – natural selection and "survival of the fittest" – have spread throughout popular culture. Applying common sense to a shallow understanding of evolution, one might expect that evolutionary psychology would explain sexual promiscuity as certain individuals attempting to spread their genes widely. However, Cosmides and Tooby (1997), leaders in the evolutionary psychology movement, contend that they are not interested in the differences between individuals, but rather they are seeking adaptations that are universal and species-typical. Moreover, evolutionary psychologists are "relentlessly past-oriented" (Back to basics section, ¶ 49). They explain behavior by the way it would have conferred a reproductive or survival advantage in the original environment of the human species. Therefore, they would look for some aspect of the contemporary issue of promiscuity that is universal among humans.


As with any psychological perspective, you first need to clarify your terms when analyzing sexual promiscuity. Everyone implicitly knows what it is, but do we all have the same thing in mind? Merriam-Webster defines "promiscuous" as: "not restricted to one sexual partner" (Merriam-Webster, 2007), but the standards for excessive sexual activity vary drastically by culture. In some cultures a 50-year-old widow who has sex with one new partner would be condemned as promiscuous. The word as commonly used in American culture has disapproving connotations, perhaps derived from a synonym for promiscuous, "indiscriminate." Does that mean only sex with unattractive partners is promiscuous? Another aspect to consider is how often the standards in any culture are applied to men rather than women. For cultures that acknowledge same-sex activity, a further set of standards may apply. Again, you need a definition that captures a behavior that is typical of humans, either males, females, or both.


Thus, it is vital to begin by defining exactly what behaviors and activities, by whom and with whom, that you want to explain using the evolutionary psychology perspective. Clarify what constitutes sexual activity (e.g., kissing, physical contact with genitalia?), under what conditions is it promiscuous (e.g., serial monogamy vs. extrapair sex, single but with simultaneous vs. concurrent partners?), and what would be the threshold for promiscuous rather than non-promiscuous behavior (e.g., frequency of partners within a given time period, lifetime number of partners?).


As you formulate a research definition for sexual promiscuity, also consider what makes sexual promiscuity a contemporary issue – the consequences? If so, what are they? Sexually transmitted disease? Jealousy? Low self-esteem? Depression? If the alleged consequences are what make promiscuity a problem, you need to look into possible alternative explanations for those conditions. Even if there is a correlation with sexual promiscuity (however defined), sexual promiscuity could be either the cause or the result of those conditions, or there could be a third causal factor.


Once you determine the specific behavior that constitutes sexual promiscuity (as you decide to define it), the steps in applying an evolutionary psychology perspective to the issue are:
Does the behavior represent a trait that would have been adaptive – provided a reproductive or survival advantantage – within the original human historical context? (Weiten, 2007)
Is the behavior just a by-product of some other adaptive behavior? (Cosmides & Tooby, 1997, Back to basics section ¶ 20)
Can you generate "hypotheses about the structure of the information-processing procedures that this activity requires" (Cosmides & Tooby, 1997, Reasoning instincts section, ¶ 2)
Can you identify "design evidence" (Cosmides & Tooby, 1997, Adaptationist Logic section, ¶ 11), that the trait is made up of a specialized set of processes that serve a particular purpose (Durrant & Ellis, 2003, p. 5)
How could you test your hypothesis in research? (Durrant & Ellis, 2003)
As you can see, the evolutionary psychology perspective goes beyond the cartoon caveman dragging his woman around by the hair. Consider two theories with implications for the issue of sexual promiscuity: good genes sexual selection theory and parental investment theory. Both interact to explain some species-typical findings about human sexual behavior relevant to the issue of promiscuity. Durrant and Ellis (2003) report that evolutionary psychologists developed a hypothesis that female orgasm is an adaptive trait that functions to influence the potential paternity of their offspring by retaining sperm. They assert that research supports this hypothesis, showing that women have more sperm-retaining orgasms with more genetically desirable men, and that women will have sex outside their primary relationship to obtain this better sperm. Therefore, concurrent monogamy (parental investment theory) and promiscuity via infidelity (good genes sexual selection theory) may be adaptive for women's reproductive success.


Other research supports the idea that both men and women differentiate between short-term and long-term partners (Durrant & Ellis, 2003, pp. 12-13). Men had lower standards than women for choosing short-term sexual partners, but men's standards were equally as high as women's when choosing long-term partners. These findings were predicted by parental investment theory, with humans seen as a species with relatively high male parental investment. Even if human males successfully impregnate multiple females, their offspring may not survive without sufficient male parental investment. So a man's best chance would be to impregnate women who already have partners who would raise the offspring as their own. Durrant and Ellis note that "the prevalence of extrapair mating in humans suggests that both strategies may be pursued simultaneously" (p. 16). Apparently we have a lot in common with barn swallows, who also form long-term relationships and cheat on each other (p. 19). Evolutionary psychology offers a substantial framework for examining contemporary issues, as long as you are clear on what behavior you want to explain.
 

ketostix

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,873
Reaction score
55
Well I think it's useless to discuss something as complicated as the origin of life and the ramifications therein. People already have their mind made up and defend their position vigorously to say the least.

The only thing I will say is that it's totally wrong to claim the theory of (macro)evolution is proven and a fact. That's just not true. Abiogenesis and genetic mutations creating more advanced species, two key requirements of evolution, has not been proven or demonstrated. There's a lot of unanswered question and problems with the theory. To claim otherwise is being just as closed-minded as a bible-thumper.
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
149
ketostix said:
That's just not true. Abiogenesis and genetic mutations creating more advanced species, two key requirements of evolution, has not been proven or demonstrated.
Abiogensis is still being worked on, but as for genetic mutations not having been demonstrated to create more advanced species, the answer is transitional fossils. There are a very many number of examples. However, evolution deniers employ a certain and certainly deceptive tactic to discount this demonstration of truth. They cite the fossil gap and claim there are no transitional fossils, but when presented with a transitional fossil, they now claim there are two fossil gaps. Fill in those two fossil gaps and now there are three fossil gaps. And so forth. Hence, the fallacious claim that the fossil record, for all its sheer magnitude, does not demonstrate mutations can lead to evolution on the "macro" scale.
 

Victory Unlimited

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
324
Location
On the Frontlines
<<< This just in >>>>



On a recent trip to the heart of New York City, a group of “Text-Book-Headed” Scientists found yet MORE evidence that seems to add weight to the argument for evolution. In direct response to many of those in the scientific community with an opposing opinion who always have stated “There can be no real proof for this theory until “The Missing Link” has been found,” a startling discovery has been made------but quite by accident.

Thanks to the parched throats and insistent thirst of one of the members of that scientific, exploratory group sent to New York City------ irrefutable evidence has NOW been found! At a local watering hole where everybody knows your name, not just one, but an entire GROUP of “Missing Links” have been discovered.

And even MORE surprisingly, this group has appeared to have evolved to such an extent where they now seem to have learned a sort of prehistoric form of PUA Techniques….


Here’s an exclusive photo of some of them-----CAUGHT IN THE ACT!!!! ;) ...cheers.
 
Last edited:

Luthor Rex

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
1,054
Reaction score
53
Age
47
Location
the great beyond
joekerr31 said:
so where the transformers and Optimus Prime the result of evolution?
I thought those guys with five heads and tentacles built the transformers...

The Quintessons?

:rock:
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
3,960
Reaction score
36
belividere said:
And if you want to argue the scientific basis of evolution I would ask that you provide a response to mendellian genetics, viral/bacterial polymorphisms, genetic homology, symbiotic relationships of bacteria and eukaryotes, fossil records, carbon (and several other radioisotope) dating.
Today's "science" is not necessarily science - it's dogma, theory, personal interpretation, and agenda driven -The Matrix!! To find proof you must get into DNA study!! Here is proof that darwin is a hoax advanced by the programmers of the matrix - WAKE UP!! The only way to prove darwin's belief is through DNA analysis!! Why base your belief on a false premise made 150 years ago - look at the science of today! DNA analysis!!


Neo-Darwinists were quick to claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory. They said, for example, that if you analyze the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.

This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.

In 1981, molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Ann Arbor University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo- Darwinism. [5]

Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look o.u.t.w.a.r.d.l.y very similar and exhibit similar behavior, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA. In some cases, this is true. The simple nematode worm is a favorite subject of laboratory study because its DNA contains a mere 1,000 nucleotide bases. At the other end of the complexity scale, humans have 23 chromosomes which in total contain 3,000 million nucleotide bases.

Unfortunately, this promisingly Darwinian progression is contradicted by many counter examples. While human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the humble goldfish has more than twice as many, at 47. The even humbler garden snail -- not much more than a glob of slime in a shell -- has 27 chromosomes. Some species of rose bush have 56 chromosomes. So the simple fact is that DNA analysis does _not_ confirm neo- Darwinist theory. In the laboratory, DNA analysis falsifies neo- Darwinist theory.


READ the Full article here....

http://www.lauralee.com/milton2.htm
 
Last edited:

belividere

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
956
Reaction score
5
Age
44
Last Man Standing said:
Today's "science" is not necessarily science - it's dogma, theory, personal interpretation, and agenda driven -The Matrix!! To find proof you must get into DNA study!! Here is proof that darwin is a hoax advanced by the programmers of the matrix - WAKE UP!! The only way to prove darwin's belief is through DNA analysis!! Why base your belief on a false premise made 150 years ago - look at the science of today! DNA analysis!!

Exactly look at the science of today!!!

LMS quite pretending that you have any backing in modern science as anyone with a primitive comprehension of science can disprove everything that you pretend to know. You are confusing science with behavior and no real scientist would do such. You are neglecting the science of today, or better yet the science of tomorrow.

Rollo, who I do respect, is doing the same. You are both neglecting the real basis of what science means to correlate it with some verbose acknowledgment of pop - psychology (psychobabble) that isn't the reality of what people think.

If anything man is able to separate himself from monkey because he does not draw on the falsehood that man is supposed to be.
 

ElChoclo

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
593
Reaction score
11
Location
Sydney
Sorry LMS, but why did the intelligent designer make homos? So that there could be a chapter for Leviticus?

It was a bit mean to be making us so close in genetics to those apes also, that was bound to lead to confusion. Also dumping those dinosaur bones everywhere, just plain made no sense.

Oh, and it was all made what 5,000 years ago in a 7 day period, OK, I got it.
 
Top