Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Laid Back Lounge / Re: The Gift Thread 2017, Don't be stingy
« Last post by Magdalena on Today at 07:53:09 PM »
I've been trying to save up some outrage, but the last few years have used up almost all of my reserves. So you all can have some of what's left.

I...could...regift this, yes?  :notsure:
3
Laid Back Lounge / Re: The Gift Thread 2017, Don't be stingy
« Last post by Magdalena on Today at 07:34:17 PM »
A gaudy parcel of humbug, everyone.

Humbug: A hard candy, especially one flavored with peppermint.  :notsure:

Humbug: deceptive or false talk or behaviour.

Humbug: Gibberish? :notsure:

Not really I think. There is normally insincerity in humbug, wishing greetings just because it is "'the done thing" when you don't really give a rat's fart.

I'll just take my peppermint flavored candies...Thank you.  :shifty:
5
Laid Back Lounge / Re: The Gift Thread 2017, Don't be stingy
« Last post by Dave on Today at 07:12:34 PM »
A gaudy parcel of humbug, everyone.

Humbug: A hard candy, especially one flavored with peppermint.  :notsure:

Humbug: deceptive or false talk or behaviour.

Humbug: Gibberish? :notsure:

Not really I think. There is normally insincerity in humbug, wishing greetings just because it is "'the done thing" when you don't really give a rat's fart.
6
Religion / Re: reasons I likely won't make a good Xtian
« Last post by Ecurb Noselrub on Today at 06:42:50 PM »
A more Machiavellian observation would be that IF people are getting dumber then it will be easier for the intelligent to rise to the top, to acquire political power, and to accumulate wealth.  The dumb will be their servants.  I’m inclined to think that people are not getting dumber IQ-wise, but if they are, that benefits me.  The actual problem, I think, is that people are not being taught to think critically, so they are more likely to be manipulated by new forms of propaganda and subliminal persuasion. 
7
Laid Back Lounge / Re: The Gift Thread 2017, Don't be stingy
« Last post by xSilverPhinx on Today at 06:37:15 PM »
A gaudy parcel of humbug, everyone.

Humbug: A hard candy, especially one flavored with peppermint.  :notsure:

Humbug: deceptive or false talk or behaviour.

Humbug: Gibberish? :notsure:
8
All that evolution requires is a population of organisms that are fit enough to reproduce. In the case of the human species, perfect recovery from injury by individual organisms is superfluous to requirements.

Quote
In evolutionary terms, fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation.

[source]

Hmm, that begs the question why some creatures can regrow parts of their body. Yes, it is part of an escape mechanism, but it still seems counter to the "superfluity" idea. But, yes, if you do not get eaten because your tail falls off that is a definite survival trait. It's the regrowth bit...

Maybe in some cases it is not superfluous. Some lizards do a lot of things with their tails from balancing to communication with other lizards, and have the genes to regenerate it, so maybe its worth investing all that energy to regrow one.

Plus, it can lose it yet again to a predator to live another day.

As for why humans don't regenerate important limbs as well, I don't know. Probably we didn't go down that evolutionary path.
9
Religion / Re: reasons I likely won't make a good Xtian
« Last post by xSilverPhinx on Today at 06:16:24 PM »
Ok, let's do this. *cracks knuckles*

You consider yourself to be knowledgeable yet you do not seem to know what fitness is. Either you haven't been doing your homework or haven't been paying attention.

Recusant posted the following on your evolution thread:

All that evolution requires is a population of organisms that are fit enough to reproduce. In the case of the human species, perfect recovery from injury by individual organisms is superfluous to requirements.

Quote
In evolutionary terms, fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation.

[source]

If you click on that little source at the bottom, you will be taken to the following:

Quote
MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.

CORRECTION: In evolutionary terms, fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation. The more fertile offspring an organism leaves in the next generation, the fitter it is. This doesn't always correlate with strength, speed, or size. For example, a puny male bird with bright tail feathers might leave behind more offspring than a stronger, duller male, and a spindly plant with big seed pods may leave behind more offspring than a larger specimen — meaning that the puny bird and the spindly plant have higher evolutionary fitness than their stronger, larger counterparts.

which is followed by

Quote
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.

CORRECTION: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two "best" individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the "fittest" in the population, but they are "fit enough" to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation.



In my post in this thread, I mentioned sickle cell anemia (with a picture and everything  ::)). PEOPLE WITH THIS PHENOTYPE ARE NOT HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS! But...BUT! They are fitter than people without this condition in areas with high rates of malaria infection because they have higher survival rates and make more babies and the frequency of sickle cell anemia in that population grows.

Sexual selection too. Do you think for instance, that a peacock's massive colourful tail helps him survive? Of course not. It helps him get laid and pass on his genes. The bigger and brighter a peacock's tail, the fitter he is, even if such a thing makes it more difficult to escape from predators.

Now that you hopefully have a somewhat clearer idea of what fitness is in the evolutionary sense is, you could comment on why you think selective pressures are not acting on modern human beings, a bit more knowledgeably.

You keep mentioning how you think the population (in general) is becoming a lower IQ society, but have you ever heard of the Flynn Effect? Intelligence is a complex, multifactorial inheritance process that is not yet completely understood, but IQ tests have to be adjusted by around 15 points every generation or so, so that the average remains 100 points. So no, the population in general is not getting dumber, it is getting smarter...or at least people are better able to take IQ tests.

I suggest you educate yourself on multifactorial inheritance.
10
Laid Back Lounge / Re: Joe's Dump (my new blog ;-)
« Last post by Davin on Today at 05:59:59 PM »
That is how I tried to explain how I saw that commercial to my GF, now I'll just show her this.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10