SlapShot's Waterfall
What would I ask?
Hmm....first of all, I would bitch slap him (or her) and ask....
"Where the fuck you been, you pansy ass coward? You have continually let millions of your so-called "children" suffer and die. Especially the ones who were stupid enough to worship you and pray top you. Satan has jobbed you on a daily basis. You suck. Nothing more than an absentee landlord.
Now go ahead and send me to hell, or strike me down with brimstone or whatever. That is, if you have the sack!
What do ya think? Too much?
LOL
SS
Sure....
here's one. Let me know if you need more!
Religious delusions
How common are religious delusions found among persons with psychotic disorders? Prevalence rates depend on the particular psychotic disorder and the location in the world where the person lives. In less religious areas of the world, for example, one study showed that only 7% of 324 Japanese inpatients had delusions of persecution and religious guilt (Tateyama et al., 1998). This rate is similar to those from a nation-wide study of hospitalized patients with schizophrenia in Japan involving 429 patients, where the prevalence of religious delusions was 11% (Kitamur et al., 1998).
In the United States, a number of studies have examined religious delusions in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The first of these reported results of a small study of 41 psychotic patients in New York City, finding that 39% of those with schizophrenia and 22% of those with mania had religious delusions (Cothran & Harvey, 1986). In a much larger study of 1,136 psychiatric inpatients in the mid-western and eastern United States, 25% of patients with schizophrenia and 15% of those with bipolar disorder had religious delusions (Appelbaum et al., 1999). Compared to other delusions, religious delusions appeared to be held with greater conviction than other delusions. Finally, Getz and colleagues (2001) compared the frequency of religious delusions across religious denomination in 133 inpatients (74% schizophrenia) at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Religious delusions were documented in 24% of 33 non-religious patients, 43% of 71 Protestant patients, and 21% of 29 Catholic patients.
In Europe and Great Britain, one study of 251 inpatients with schizophrenia in Austria and Germany reported a prevalence rate of 21% for religious delusions (Tateyama et al., 1998). One of the most detailed studies to date from Great Britain found that 24% of 193 patients with schizophrenia had religious delusions (Siddle et al., 2002a). Patients with religious delusions had more severe hallucinations and bizarre delusions, had poorer functioning, a longer duration of illness, and were taking more anti-psychotic medication than other patients. Thus, in studies of patients with schizophrenia, religious delusions are present in 7-11% of Japanese patients, 21-24% of Western European patients, and 21-43% of patients in the United States.
A few studies have also examined religious delusions among psychiatric patients in Brazil. Nucci and Dalgalarrondo report a series of eye enucleation in six cases of psychiatric patients, five unilateral and one bilateral enucleation (Mucci & Dalgalarrondo, 2000). Religious delusions were a significant factor in many of these cases, with patients following Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." These patients often had an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia, and the self-inflicted enucleation occurred many years after the beginning of illness. Six cases were seen within a 10-year period at a Brazilian university hospital.
In the only systematic study of psychiatric patients conducted thus far in Brazil, researchers examined 200 consecutive admissions to a general psychiatric hospital (Dantas et al., 1999). To identify religious content, an item was added to the BPRS-extended form. Patients with all psychiatric diagnoses were included, not just those with psychotic disorders. Investigators report that 15.7% of all patients had moderate to intense symptoms of religious content. A strong correlation was found between manic symptoms and religious experiences.
What is the origin of religious delusions? Religious delusions exist on a continuum between the normal beliefs of healthy individuals and the fantastic beliefs of the psychotic patients. In psychotic patients, religious delusions are usually accompanied by other symptoms and/or behaviors of mental illness, and do not appear to serve any positive function (Siddle et al., 2002a). Persons with psychotic symptoms are known to have increased activation of the right brain hemisphere, which is also found in healthy persons having mystical experiences or paranormal beliefs (Lohr & Caligiuri, 1997; Pizzagalli et al., 2000; Makarec & Persinger, 1985). However, attempts to locate the origin of religious delusions in the brain have not revealed findings that are consistent with neuroimaging research described above. The only study to date, to my knowledge, suggested that religious delusions result from a combination of over-activity of the left temporal lobe and under-activity of the left occipital lobe (Puri et al., 2001). Thus, until more research is done, the neuroanatomical origin of religious delusions remains uncertain.
(re-printed from an article on religious delusions from the American Journal of Psychiatry)......
Oooh...you brought up old Sarah Silverman.
She reminds me a lot of my wife, who is also a Jewish American Princess. LOL
I soooo want to bang Sarah right in her skinny little tight ass.
I bet she's a screamer. Big time.
I hear she also digs ffm threesomes.
Schwiing!
SS
eah....it's beginning to look as if Trump will probably have to withdraw as the GOP candidate. He is self-destructing worse and worse every day. Last night's debate proved there is no way in Hell this idiot can ever by President.
Mark my words...he will go down in history as a joke. They'll probably even invent a term after him, like "Trumpian" for when some future candidate says something totally outlandish that proves him to be unworthy of office.
This is how insanely bad Trumpy is. Among his gaffs Sunday night....
suggesting that as president he would jail his opponent; defend Vladimir Putin and Russia over the hacking of the U.S. election;
praise brutal Syrian tyrant Bashar Assad;
admit to not paying federal income tax; and rebuke his own running mate for daring to criticize Russia over the indiscriminate bombing of Syrian civilians.
That's a very partial list.
Trump also lied with enthusiastic regularity, again saying he opposed the second Iraq war before it started (he didn't), claimed his opponent would jack up the tax rate on the middle class (she says she won't) and protested that he did not Tweet at 3 a.m. that people should check out a sex tape featuring a former Miss Universe (he did).
And never mind that Trump spent the first portion of the debate apologizing for a video leaked over the weekend in which he grotesquely bragged about his ability to commit sexual assault because he's a "star." Diving deeply into the gutter, Trump tried to turn the video into a bizarre bank shot attack on Clinton by bringing to the debate women who claim former President Bill Clinton sexually abused them.
Wow...what a douche bag. I will be happy when he resigns soon. I am guessing in about two weeks or so.
Remember where you heard it.
eah....it's beginning to look as if Trump will probably have to withdraw as the GOP candidate. He is self-destructing worse and worse every day. Last night's debate proved there is no way in Hell this idiot can ever by President.
Mark my words...he will go down in history as a joke. They'll probably even invent a term after him, like "Trumpian" for when some future candidate says something totally outlandish that proves him to be unworthy of office.
This is how insanely bad Trumpy is. Among his gaffs Sunday night....
suggesting that as president he would jail his opponent; defend Vladimir Putin and Russia over the hacking of the U.S. election;
praise brutal Syrian tyrant Bashar Assad;
admit to not paying federal income tax; and rebuke his own running mate for daring to criticize Russia over the indiscriminate bombing of Syrian civilians.
That's a very partial list.
Trump also lied with enthusiastic regularity, again saying he opposed the second Iraq war before it started (he didn't), claimed his opponent would jack up the tax rate on the middle class (she says she won't) and protested that he did not Tweet at 3 a.m. that people should check out a sex tape featuring a former Miss Universe (he did).
And never mind that Trump spent the first portion of the debate apologizing for a video leaked over the weekend in which he grotesquely bragged about his ability to commit sexual assault because he's a "star." Diving deeply into the gutter, Trump tried to turn the video into a bizarre bank shot attack on Clinton by bringing to the debate women who claim former President Bill Clinton sexually abused them.
Wow...what a douche bag. I will be happy when he resigns soon. I am guessing in about two weeks or so.
Remember where you heard it.
Thanks.
This video only confirms what I have suspected for a long time now.
That the majority of religious zealots are in fact, suffering from borderline--if not full-on--psychotic delusions.
They need medication.
NOT more wallowing in superstitious delusion.
May they some day get the help they need.
I bet if you looked at their past childhood histories, you would find that the majority of them have suffered from some sort of psychological and/or emotional trauma. Like abusive parents; daddies who paid them those late-night bedroom visits...whatever.
So sad.
SS
Well, that video is obviously doctored so I don't know what the fuck that shadow thing was, or was supposed to be. And of course it offers to me not a whit of evidence about an afterlife. (of which there is none, btw).
But, as a motorcycle rider what I find interesting is the actions of the rider in the video. Seems like he had plenty of time to swerve to his right, thus going behind the truck that turned left in front of him. I think he fucked up. Probably going too fast. An unsafe rider.
FWIW....almost half of all motorcycle accidents are caused by that same scenario, that is, a vehicle turning left in front of the bike, so the bike t-bones the vehicle and the rider either flies over it or smashed into the side.
This is why when I am approaching an intersection with vehicles waiting to turn left in front of me, I do not take it for granted they will wait for me, or that they even see me. Rather, I have my right hand on the front brakes (which provide about 70% of a bike's stopping power) and I am ready to stop if need be. And I check my rearview to see if I have a clear evasion lane to either side, if need be.
This is called being an expert rider.
SS
Your DNA contains a record of your ancestors, but you aren’t a carbon copy of any one of them. The particular mix of DNA you inherit is unique to you. You receive 50% of your DNA from each of your parents, who received 50% of theirs from each of their parents, and so on.
If you go back far enough, there is a chance that you inherited no DNA from a particular ancestor.
Acquired genetic mutations do NOT contravene the fact we inherit exact DNA from our parents.
SS
Man's scientific truths are always incorrect (not God's).
Really?
OK...here is one scientific proof for you to disprove:
There is a force that is exerted by all objects which posses mass. This force is called gravity.
The Earth posseses gravity. Therefore, if you jump off of a 40-story building, this force will kill you.
Prove it wrong.
Until such time as you do that, and while you're at it, also prove that the Earth does not orbit the Sun every 365 days (yet another scientific proof)...we will all assume you really have no fucking clue as to what you are talking about.
I'll be waiting for your dis-proof of both of those truths. I also can furnish you with hundreds of others if you wish.
SS
Indeed, Mr. Trag. The primary and most infuriating problem in dealing with the zealots is that the vast majority of them do not adequately comprehend the workings of the very scientific theories they so smugly refute.
Hell, we have folks here on CD who boisterously decry Evolution, and tell me that we are NOT descended from monkeys! LOL. I cannot count the times I have corrected them on that misconception, but apparently my patient teachings are falling on deaf ears. (Or, more accuratly, falling on hopelessly deluded minds).
So, taking into account all of this, can you really expect any of them to understand the nuances of DNA? Or know that, as you correctly claimed, Evolution is NOT based on an organism "tweaking" its DNA in order to better thrive in its given environment?
SS
Exactly! The fact that there are dozens of religions and thousands of invented gods out there, and that the advocates of all those religions and gods ALL feel theirs is the only true way, is just ONE of the problems with organized religion.
The fact that many of these believers are willing to--and indeed HAVE--murdered and shed blood in the name of their invented gods (imaginary friends) is ANOTHER problem with religion.
The fact that religion often stunts progress and growth and education and knowledge is yet ANOTHER problem.
The fact that religion teaches people that it's OK not to fully understand how science and nature and the real world works is ANOTHER problem.
The fact that the symptoms of alleged religious experiences among its members, like speaking in tongues r having god talk to them is almost the same as clinical psychosis is yet ANOTHER problem. Indeed, religious fervor is the most common symptom of many of the so-called "dis-associative orders" in psychology. Schizophrenia being one of them.
The fact that religious folks smugly reject science proofs offered to them that show the absurdity of some of the claims of their holy books is yet ANOTHER problem.
I could go on, of course. As the problems of religion in this world are manifold. I could make a list five times this long and supply proofs and links to support every claim. But I don't have the time nor the patience any more. Most of the zealots here have proven themselves to be too far gone to take any heed.
But still....as always, I. Hope. This. Helps.
SS
OK Betty, so you're probably gonna get pissed at me for busting-up your debate claim here, as I have done in the past a few times. But as the resident science geek, I am compelled to point-out a couple major errors in your header, after reading your link.
First, off, here is an exerpt from the link............
In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, published a paper, “Why most published research findings are false,” mathematically showing that a huge number of published papers must be incorrect. He also looked at a number of well-regarded medical research findings, and found that, of 34 that had been retested, 41% had been contradicted or found to be significantly exaggerated.
Since then, researchers in several scientific areas have consistently struggled to reproduce major results of prominent studies. By some estimates, at least 51%—and as much as 89%—of published papers are based on studies and experiments showing results that cannot be reproduced.
OK....the bolding is mine, so as to better illustrate the points I will now make.
1--In your header you said many "scientific truths" are false. This is NOT what the article claimed. It said, rather, "research findings." There IS a difference! A scientific FACT is just that: a fact. Ergo a fact cannot be false.
2--The subject of the flawed (not necessarily proven-to-be-false) findings were of the medical field. NOT ALL OF SCIENCE. Medical is simply one of dozens of fields or sub-categories of the umbrella of science.
3--The article also just claimed that a good portion of those findings "could not be reproduced." This, again, does not necessarily deem those finding to be false. It simply means they were not replicated and thus confirmed as being true.
In closing, I am going to have to relegate your debate header here to the category of "very misleading and inaccurate." Sorry, but that's how we roll in science when we examine data and evidence (as provided in your link) and then weigh those against a specific claim.
SS
I know how you feel. My wife's family also has a beloved Mexican gardener/groundskeeper named Jesus. (pronounced "hay-ZEUS"). He grows the best damned tomatoes I ever tasted. Jalapenos and Habaneros too!
He has done far more for me, and I respect him way more and believe in him much more than I ever did that other Jesus from 1st Century Palestine. He has figured in my life about as much as Big Bird or the Keebler elves.
LOL
SS
For the umpteenth time: we are not descended from the apes! How many times have I told you this?
Rather, we homo sapiens only share a common and distant ancestor with the apes of today. We "broke off" from that lineage a few million years ago.
SS
http://www.livescience.com/
We modern homo sapiens are indeed living proof of Evolution. Especially since we have all those transitional fossils and radiometric dating methods that prove beyond a doubt the age of the planet and the long step-by-step process of Evolution.
All men of science believe this. All rational and sane people. Only the religiously deluded or the mentally imbalanced deny Evolution or a billions-years-old Earth.
So yes...you are quite correct in stating that, when you look in the mirror you are looking at the current product of a Six Million Year Process of the Evolution of the primate hominid we like to call "Man."
Congrats!! You have reached the Pinnacle of the Food Chain!
SS
Now then...for the deluded Creationists (or simply the interested folks!) here is a list of the very mountainous and comprehensive collection of transitional fossils we now have. The real question seems to be, "How did we ever find so many?" instead of "where are they?" like the deluded believe.
and so will you...die physically and every other way, spiritually as well. Probably in about 30 years.
Thus...all of your time..the countless hours you have spent thinking of your sky god; worshiping him; preaching about him and that Jew carpenter dude--who btw never met you or even knew of your existence--has been squandered.
you believers---i.e., the deluded--have gained nothing from your religion. except maybe some emotional comfort in the way of a placebo. like a kid does with his imaginary friend.
while I spent my life living it to the fullest and mired in the wonder of nature and the beauty of the sciences. and knowledge--which is power. I guarantee you nobody on is deathbed ever said "I shoulda spent more time in church." LOL Nope..quite the opposite.
Look...when a Ted Bundy dies, or a Richard Ramirez or a Hitler..they have the same afterlife to look forward to as does a John the Baptist or a Mother Theresa. And that is: none at all. They all experience the same level of eternal nothingness.
and that my indoctrinated friend is the thought--as you know deep down it is true--that keeps your kind up at nights, and forces them to invent false gods.
Prove me wrong on any of this. You cannot.
SS
I love Harambe. And he did us all a favor by snuffing that kid, who probably would have just grown up to be a career criminal, and thus a burden and a threat to society.
And another interesting thing on this topic: I heard on the local FM Classic Rock station this morning on my way to work: the NFL has now made it illegal for all of it's licensed and registered jersey sellers to sell any NFL team jerseys with the name Harambe on the back!
Yeah...seems like that was getting to be a popular practice: getting a jersey of your favorite team and having Harambe on the back. I think that is cool, myself, and am sorry I didn't think of it earlier. I woulda got me a Detroit Lions jersey with Harambe on the back.
SS
I wholly and totally and absolutely reject Jesus as being anything more than a long-dead, Bronze Age Hebrew political insurrectionist/philosopher. (And not even that original of a philosopher, either. He really brought nothing new to the table. Other sages who preceded him said his message before. And some of them, like Siddartha Guatama, did so in a far more compelling fashion.
And yet...I just had my annual physical, and my Doc said I am in perfect health. Thus, far from dying. And I am infected with nothing except a keen intellect, loads of charm, and ravishing good looks.
LOL
SS
OUTLAW: You're retarded and the main reason you don't like the NFL is probably because you never had the sack to play football. Or any other type of contact sport.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh....many many NFL players give money to charities and also work and form programs to help inner city kids. It's a very common thing, and if you don't know this than you are ignorant of it, and thus should not be spouting off on things you now little about.
Ahh..but if you followed that dictum, then you would never be able to post much at all, would ya?
LOL
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/
I mean, I too can come up with some crazy ass shit theory ;)
Of course you can, amigo. But I feel you would be better off forgetting all that and instead just simply studying a bit more on the Theory of Evolution. As it is painfully obvious from your posts here that you are very confused about even its basic, primary tenets. Your "super computer in the sand" metaphor proved that.
Or maybe just a plain ol' Biology 101 class?
Hope this helps. And let me know if I can answer any questions for you.
SS
We are expected to believe that a super computer evolved, with Linux installed and a number of aps? That's Quite a lot to happen all by itself.
No, the Theory of Evolution asks us to believe no such thing. In fact, it requests we believe in nothing remotely close to that absurd analogy.
Your metaphor is as silly as that old one the Creationists used to prattle on about that said Evolution was as likely as a tornado in a junkyard swirling up a bunch of discarded items and then setting down a completely, perfectly-fabricated 747 jumbo jet.
Evolution works nothing like those two scenarios. It does not ask that we believe we, or the Earth began with anything that was already perfected and formed. Rather, Evolution postulates a very long, mostly gradual process of trial and error. Of the painstakingly slow, but also highly efficient process of Selective Inheritance.
That is, of species utilizing desirable or favorable genetic mutations to enable them to thrive and adapt successfully in their given environments. And then to pass these physical advantageous traits onto their offspring. Over and over until an ascension is developed and what was once a desirable aberration finally becomes the new standard.
It's a far different mechanization, or process than what you and your supercomputer in the sand poses. As that is nothing but an unexplained and sudden action. One with no explained previous process of enabling it to attain fruition.
So once again, we here see a detractor of Evolution simply showing is that they do not understand the theory they are wrongfully attempting to denigrate. This gets very tiresome, I must confess. And it is the standard, rather than the rare, for people who disbelieve Evolution.
That is, not to put too fine a point on it: they just don't know what they are talking about.
SS
Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time, Saint. You know this.
Ask your doctor. Or look it up. Why do you think we have these so-called Super Bugs? They evolve and mutate so as to become resistant to anti-biotics, which have been recklessly over-prescribed by the medical community for decades.
Viruses do the same thing.
Given enough time...long after you and I are gone, they could indeed--and will probably---evolve into a higher life form. Just like we did.
We have documented proof of the evolution of every single life form. As I said in my OP. Just because some of you fail to acknowledge that in no way dismisses the fact. Turning a blind eye does not refute. Or even discredit.
Rather, it discredits the credibility of the person who denies proven scientific theories and observations.
In the Intel circles this would be called "mission blow-back" to your people. That is: unintended and undesirable consequences.
Ooops!
LOL
SS
Indeed!
And besides: which god are you referring to?
There are thousands that have been invented by man over the eons. All inventions of the superstitious and scared evolved homo sapien mind. Serving as emotional placebos.
Just take a few minutes to peruse this list. Good God! (see what I did there?) LOL. There must be thousands of them!
And to me...none are any lesser insofar as credibility is concerned than is Yahweh. The Bronze Age Hebrew Sky God. He is just one of thousands.
Nothing more.
Nothing More.
Maybe even, a bit less than some.
And certainly Yahweh is more loathsome and unlikeable than many.
To me he has always come across as a petulant, bullying, capricious, jealous, petty, douche bag.
SS
Aliens by far make more sense than any sort of gods do.
I am amusing you speak of Extraterrestrial Aliens? As in ET Intelligence? If so, I have always been a firm believer that we are not alone in the Universe. That we are just one of millions of Intelligent Civilizations that populate the universe. Even the Galaxy. And there are hundreds of Billions of Galaxies.
And it is very arguable that we have evidence here on Earth of Aliens visiting in the past. Roswell; all those UFO sightings; Cave drawings and paintings; abduction stories; UFO sightings, etc.
But for gods? LOL. Nothing at all on a secular level. Gods are only to be found in the fables of various holy books. And works of mythology and literature.
For example, take away the Bible, or the Torah (please!) and you have zilch as far as proof or even evidence for a god.
Nope...sorry: Aliens win this debate. Hands down!
SS
Indeed. The ongoing and very visible and tangible evolution of life forms like bacteria and viruses are simply two examples of how all living things evolve. Including us. Including all other species of animals. Including flora.
It's pure unadulterated observable science. Period. There IS no alternative theories or even hypotheses in science today.
The only other explanation on how life came to be on this planet comes from the Creationists. In other words, from those who have been indoctrinated and in fact deceived by mythology and superstition. They live in a perpetual and all-encompassing world of denial and fantasy. They have invented gods who actually care about them and help them and offer them a magical afterlife. This is simply the evolved minds's defense mechanism for dealing with the fate of death that awaits us all.
Some people cannot handle that fact. So they invent adult versions of those invisible childhood friends which most of us outgrew.
And to this I say, "fine." So be it.Whatever gets you through the night. It is only when they try to use their superstitions and mythos and disinformation as a replacement for reason and logic and proven science that I take umbrage. And I am not alone. There is a reason that schools do not allow Creationist nonsense in their Biology classes any longer
SS
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/
I'm still waiting for your responses. You haven't given one argument at all undoing the Prophetic and Historical credibilty of "Bronze Age God"
Really? Are you still on that old bit? I dismissed it days ago and truthfully, forgot all about it.
The reason is because there is NO instance of one of your bible prophecies coming true in the real world. Not with any degree of certitude or credibility. All of those so-called prophecies are so vague and nebulous that they could have referred to anything. It's like the old Nostradamus crap about an evil man--or the anti-Christ, I forget--"rising from the East."
And then people try to say he was referring to Stalin. Or Bin Laden. After all, what the hell does "east" mean, anyway. It's all context. Same deal with your Torah fables.
If there is a prophecy in the Torah or your OT that is as specific and provenly accurate as say, "A man named Obama will be the first Nubian American Leader" than I wou;d give it some credence.
But unless I missed something. none of the bible's tripe comes remotely close to being verifiably accurate. Instead, all of your alleged prophecies are open to many many interpretations and definitions.
And anyway, what about all those that did NOT come true. Like the ones JC made? All of his broken promises. Lies. Like how I can move a mountain by praying for it. LOL. See...you are once again engaging in Cherry Picking.
And as far as claiming a 3000 year-old fuzzy and vague prophecy actually came true? That is what we call "Confirmation Bias." You find a small possible even that just MAYBE fits the bill of the old prophecy and say "Aha! that's it. God made it happen!"
I also notice you can't provide any proof of a biblical prophecy coming true from a secular source. So once again, you engage in circular logic. "It's true cuz my bible says so!"
Gee....good job, genius. You managed to break THREE rules of accepted debate and rhetoric rules here: Cherry Picking....Confirmation Bias...and Circular Reasoning. WTG!
Please.....I don't wish to wast any more time on this nonsense. It's crunch time for my Thesis and I don't have the time or patience for your silliness. It's like asking me to disprove the Unicorns that are also in your bible. Or those giants.
I feel my IQ dropping every time I read your stuff. So if you want to take my withdrawal from any further discourse on this topic as a victory, then go ahead. Lord knows you guys need one once in awhile, so badly and thoroughly has science and reason dismantled most of your claims over the past decades.
SS
Exactly right! Peppered moths are an excellent example of how we can sometimes still see Evolution is progress, or the results of a recent evolutionary process.
The so-called "super bugs" are another example. Since the over-prescribing of antibiotics by physicians over the past five decades or so, many bacterium have evolved so as to be immune to traditional antibiotics. MRSA is an example of this.
Same deal with viruses. They have evolved and mutated as well, making them ever more difficult to eradicate.
We can see vestiges of our very own (homo sapiens) Evolution by looking at some present physiological aspects of our own bodies. Like your Coccyx..which is the remnants of your tail. Body hair. Fight or Flight response too! Why do you get goose bumps when you are scared? Because when we had fur it was a tactic to make the fur stand up straighter, thus making us appear larger and more fearsome to our potential enemies.
Here are some other ways we can see Evolution in progress...
Nahh...I agree with Jolie on this one.
Evolution will one day graduate from being a Theory into being a Law. It simply has too much evidence, and there is not even an alternative theory among us Biologists and Anthropologists that comes in at a distant second.
Evo has passed every single test and question ever thrown at it. And with flying colors. The evidence grows every single year. We don't even discuss the possibility of it being wrong, her at the Universities and other Institutions of Higher Learning. No more than we wonder if the Earth is really a spheroid and not flat. Or if it is medically and physically impossible for an ancient mortal carpenter cum philosopher to rise from the dead after three days dead in some shit-hole Middle Eastern cave. LOL
SS
Bronze Age Hebrew Fables and Superstition have no place whatsoever on a debate about the science of Evolution. Or on a debate regarding any sort of science or realism.
On any other debate site I have ever participated in or moderated, you would be banned from this debate and probably even suspended from the site for a few days at least for hijacking it with such nonsensical and laughable tripe.
Your post here is no more than trolling. While I usually admire Andy's hands-off approach and his insistence on hardly ever banning trolls here, sometimes--like now--I DO wish he would at least make some efforts to stop people from hijacking debates with pure unadulterated bullshit like your bible fables.
Oh well......every site has its downside and I guess that here on CD it is this sort of crap. I would love for you to try this shit over at a more structured site like Debate.Org, however. You wouldn't last two days.
SS
Chimps never turned into humans.
Nor did apes.
And we are NOT descended from them.
Rather...we homo sapiens only share a distant common ancestor. Period.
Please, please take three minutes to read this link. It is high time you Creationists at least have some remote idea of the Theory that you seem so fond of mercilessly and cluelessly bashing every fucking day.
SS
http://www.livescience.com/
The problem with your hypothetical question on a "first member of a species" is that, well, technically, or should I say, Biologically, there is no such thing as a "first member."
Doesn't work that way. There was no, for example, first human. Or even, first homo sapien, or first homo habilis, or first homo erectus.
Rather, these sub-species "transitioned" into one another, in a mode of evolutional and biolgogical ascension. It was was a gradual transition. Powered by subtle genetic changes that were inherited by the species. And then passed on little by little to their offspring. Providing, of course, that said genetic mutations, or changes, proved to be advantageous to that species for living and thriving in its specific environment.
This is why we have all those so-called "transitional fossils." And no..there is no missing link. It is a subtle, gradual, very lengthy, transitory biological process.
An example I sometimes like to use for laymen to help illustrate the idea of there being no distinct, concrete, indisputable "first" or "original" of a species (or a sub-species) is my salt water metaphor.
Say you have a big-ass 200-gallon container of fresh water. That container is an original species and its DNA genome.
Now....take a single teaspoon of salt. Dump it into the container.
This step represents the first in a process of inherited genetic mutations that are "selected IN" as we say. Rather than "selected out" in the case of non-desirable mutations.
So...you dump in a single teaspoon of salt into a 200-gallon container of fresh water.
Is it Saltwater now? I mean, REAL, indisputable, legitimate, "salt water?" No....not compared to what will in time become real, full-fledged "species" if salt water.
So you after a few hundred or thousand years, dump in ANOTHER teaspoon of salt water. And three hundred years later, another teaspoon.
When is it "The First Species of Salt Water?"
See? It never really is. It is always evolving into a "higher form" or more concentrated form of salt water. You are slowly transitioning that fresh water into salt water. Step by step. Without a pre-determined definition or parameter of what exactly constitutes Salt Water--say, what percentage of salt need be present in the water--you can never really term it to be "The Very First Moment of Salt Water Species."
This of course is a drastically over-simplified metaphor for the process of genetic evolution, but I hope it at least illustrates my point that there is no "First" of an evolving species.
Thanks.
SS
"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... You...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"
Now.....let us just Imagine that global politics are more nuanced than a three-minute pop song written by a stoned degenerate.
LOL
SS
This is a very old and very popular "thought exercise" called "the trolley man's dilemna." Every undergrad Philosophy 101 student had it in their first semester. As did I.
The logical answer is of course to allow the least amount of people to be killed. Therefore you let the train kill the one guy. But the exercise illustrates how most people find it difficult to be responsible for a murder. Even if it means saving lives. It is an old "gut emotions vs. sheer logic" problem.
But it's good to see you taking an interest in intriguing philosophical conundrums. Beats the shit out of most of the silly stuff you post. But I DO appreciate the fact that you seem to have fun here, Betty. I'd rather read your stuff than those boring religious rants and tract pastes by the resident zealots. Keep it up!
SS
Are you serious? You really want to dispute me on Evolution?
Wow.
Listen up and learn....
When I say "humans" I am using the layman's term for what we call homo sapiens. And those neanderthals you mentioned were of our same species. That is, they too shared the same exact common ancestors we did before breaking off from that lineage about 6 MYA.
Neanderthals ARE (well, were) homo sapiens. Their name ius simply a connotation of their region of origin, and where we first met-up with them: The Neander River Valley Region in Western Europe.
We ran into them there about 50,000 years ago after we both exited Eastern-Central Africa. They got out a bit earlier than did we.
As far as still evolving. We are! Evolution is a primary mechanation of ALL things living. Plants too. You just don't see the process because it moves a glacial speed. For example, you gotta back about 50,000 years before you could find a homo sapien--which we evolved into directly from homo habilis--that was noticeably physiologically different than you.
That's right....the changes between now and then are mostly cosmetic. We are a bit taller; have less body hair; less of a pronounced sub-orbital ridge, and less muscular. But, say, a surgeon operating on a 50,000 y.o. homo sapien and you would find no discernible difference among your organs.
So yeah....and if you go back, say, 10,000 years? Well, the evolution is very slight. But there are some things you can notice. Most are cosmetic . And This is 10,000 years before Jesus! That's 200 generations or more! And not a speck of difference. Hardly.
And you think you're gonna see a change during your short-ass life? LOL. Nope...doesn't work that way.
But we do continue to evolve on a cellular level. And when that first new significant and useful genetic mutation comes along that proves useful to us...say a more padded ass for all the sitting most people do...or more flexible thumbs for their endless texting..then you can bet that through the course of selective inheritance that trait will in time become not only noticed, but the new "norm."
But that will take at least a few dozen generations. You'll be long gone, amigo.
Oh...and your mixed-race couples thins was also inaccurate. Anthropologists and Biologists know that the entire concept of race is a myth. Useful only for labeling and sociological purposes. There is no verifiable science behind it. We are all of the same species. And thus, a man of, say, Scandinavian descent breeding with a woman of African ancestry will effect the process of homo sapien physiological evolution not a whit.
Here is a link to explain to you how we ARE still evolving.....
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/
And here is some stuff to educate you on how race is a myth....
Hope this helps.
SS
I got a question for ya.........
About the logo....is that a native American in the front? And he' is between eagle wings? Could you explain the log to me and the significance or meaning of it?
Thanks.
Oh...also...unless I am just missing it: did you actually NOT pt the site's URL addy on the shirt? Ooops. LOL
SS
What if Thor and Odin are two different people?
Or Dracular and Nosferatu?
Or Mohammed and Allah?
Or Joe Smith and that angel Macoroni?
See where I be goin' with this?
All me questions are as equally as valid and substantive as yours.
LOL
Which is to say....Not very. As they ALL dwell in the realm of mythos and fiction.
Hope this helps.
SS
Once again your headline is contradictory to the true gist of the article you refer to.
Nowhere in the article does it claim--and indeed, nowhere in ANY study of Evolution of Humans has it been found--that we homo sapiens have evolved "not to exercise."
Rather, the main thrust of the article is that back in our hunter-gatherer days, we did not exercise for fun and recreation as we do now. Nor did we do it to stay fit. The reason for this is very simple of course. Our diets back then were so mucgh healthier and we already brined so many calories just surviving that recreational exercise was totally unneeded.
An exerpt from the article............
..."human evolution has been a story of adaptations that enhance running ability: shorter toes and heel bones, and the ability to cool off through sweating, for example. He’s drawn attention to human prowess in persistence hunting, rarely practiced today, in which small bands of hunters chase animals until they collapse of heat exhaustion."
See what I said? We ARE running and athletic animals by nature. We have lost this trait--or at least most of us have--over the past decades due to laziness, modern technology, and a shitty diet filled with HFCS and simple carbohydrates.
Now then....this is where in the article the author explains about how back then when we hunted we did not need recreational exercise. This is NOT the same as saying we evolved not to exercise, as you tried to say in your header.....
"But Lieberman, Lerner professor of biological sciences, says that humans have also been selected to exercise only as much as they must to survive. The ancestors of modern humans lived as hunter-gatherers. In this subsistence lifestyle, food was often scarce, so resting was key to conserving energy for survival and reproduction.
“No hunter-gatherer goes out for a jog, just for the sake of it.....They go out to forage, they go out to work, but anything else would be unwise, not to mention maladaptive” in calorie-restricted environments."
See? All this article claims is that back when we were far more active and ate better we were also healthier and fitter. So no recreational exercise was needed. Today is of course a drastically different scenario, amigo.
Look.....A full forty percent of women in America are OBESE!! And one-third of men are. And...this is the real ass-kicker: Almost one out of FIVE kids is obese. Not just overweight, mind you, but OBESE... Which means they are more than 20 lbs overweight.
Sorry to bust you up like this and you probably think I am a nit-picker, but as a Biologist AND a lifelong athlete, you are treading smack dab in the middle of my fields of passion.
SS
Hmm...only partially correct.
The phenotype really has "no say" (to use a figure of speech) in whether or not the [physiological trait caused by the genetic mutation turns out to be adapted by its host organism. As I explained in my OP above, THAT occurrence, if and when it ever happens, depends on whether said trait is advantageous for the host given its current environment
Also you misused the word dominance. When used in biology it is almost always referring to recessive and/or dominant genes. And what determines THAT is whether or not the are coded on or off. DNA DOES have a binary-type "switching" component to it. Although that is a slight over-generalization.
SS
