Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,354 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 829,628
Pageviews Today: 1,192,195Threads Today: 309Posts Today: 6,531
12:59 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659414
Australia
04/18/2009 01:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Now, let's put Darwin's teachings to a real test here:


When a man "picks up" a drunken "chick" at a bar, does she have any knowledge if his "DNA" is likely to benefit her offspring? Is she a geneticist by definition??? What can she possibly know, even instinctively or subconsciously, about the DNA potential of a person she is going to "fuck" with tonight?

Is Darwinism really right? Do they have a point? Is it anywhere near being valid????
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 656647
United States
04/18/2009 01:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Supposedly, as the story goes, a "superior" woman will only choose a male that is able to woo her. Confidence is a must. Confidence proves the male is aware or at least dillusionarily aware that he is great.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 637419
Portugal
04/18/2009 01:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
putin
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 609027
Finland
04/18/2009 01:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
they should call it random mutation.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 659414
Australia
04/18/2009 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
putin
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 637419



And what else have you got to say?


False confidence shows well, but is easily picked on by the weakest of people. It's a difficult question, really.
Cloven Roof
User ID: 643266
United States
04/18/2009 01:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Darwin meme to animalize the Slaves, make a competion for fitness causes a division of the unfit to call to God.

Creationism is a meme to numb the will of the salves, cause those who seek to find Darwins monkeys uncles

Together they work quite well to divide and conquer the concrete zoo

Its bungle in the jungle
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 659414
Australia
04/18/2009 01:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
they should call it random mutation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 609027



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 659414
Australia
04/18/2009 01:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Darwin meme to animalize the Slaves, make a competion for fitness causes a division of the unfit to call to God.

Creationism is a meme to numb the will of the salves, cause those who seek to find Darwins monkeys uncles

Together they work quite well to divide and conquer the concrete zoo

Its bungle in the jungle
 Quoting: Cloven Roof 643266



Cool shit, man, what drugs are you on? Where can I get that weed?
CowboysFromHell
User ID: 643266
United States
04/18/2009 01:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
its called the earth hatching out new species from its hollow shell of an egg. Aint to creation or Darwin jissem, its Egg hollow earth. New species adapt not evolve.

Those wooly mammoth are new species frozen before they make it south. They come from hollow earth/hell...

Carbon dating is another BS lop of Turds baskett.

Long story
JimTheOwl
Nope.

User ID: 587926
United States
04/18/2009 01:27 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Darwin meme to animalize the Slaves, make a competion for fitness causes a division of the unfit to call to God.

Creationism is a meme to numb the will of the salves, cause those who seek to find Darwins monkeys uncles

Together they work quite well to divide and conquer the concrete zoo

Its bungle in the jungle



Cool shit, man, what drugs are you on? Where can I get that weed?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659414



Really dude.... pass some this way!!


HempWalkin
I have so much debt, I can start a government.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 659414
Australia
04/18/2009 01:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659414



Yeah, a very serious discussion has been started here now, hopefully some educated people will reply with some qualifiied opinions on the subject matter.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 659414
Australia
04/18/2009 01:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.



Yeah, a very serious discussion has been started here now, hopefully some educated people will reply with some qualifiied opinions on the subject matter.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659414



And finally, before I am off to sleep, a simple argument used by "idealists" against the "materialists" in Phylosophy:


Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...

In a million or more years breeding them you will come up with SOME KIND OF A DOG finally, depending on your selection criteria.

It is out of question that you could end up with a generation of tiger/cat pups, isn't it.


You just don't get a cat out of breeding dogs, do you?


That is because there are IDEAS of cats and IDEAS of dogs, which are different, according to the CREATORS' LAW.


Separate IDEAS just don't mix in reality, try disproving that, you Darwinist "materialists".

The origin of the species is very different to the description of Charles Darwin.

Even though he was partially correct about some birds having some feather colours different depending on a location geographically.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659448
Australia
04/18/2009 02:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.



Yeah, a very serious discussion has been started here now, hopefully some educated people will reply with some qualifiied opinions on the subject matter.



And finally, before I am off to sleep, a simple argument used by "idealists" against the "materialists" in Phylosophy:


Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...

In a million or more years breeding them you will come up with SOME KIND OF A DOG finally, depending on your selection criteria.

It is out of question that you could end up with a generation of tiger/cat pups, isn't it.


You just don't get a cat out of breeding dogs, do you?


That is because there are IDEAS of cats and IDEAS of dogs, which are different, according to the CREATORS' LAW.


Separate IDEAS just don't mix in reality, try disproving that, you Darwinist "materialists".

The origin of the species is very different to the description of Charles Darwin.

Even though he was partially correct about some birds having some feather colours different depending on a location geographically.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659414



just evolve back to the front page, now.

We need some qualified opinions on the subject matter here, really.

Good luck to all (evolutionally speaking).

Pass on your genes without any restraint whenever you wish!!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659458
Australia
04/18/2009 02:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
It would be great if some qualified people could share their view on the subject matter, especially considering the questions raised. These are very tough questions culturally and philosophycally.


Let's just hope we get some input or feedback soon.


Good examples are shown in the thread!

And some counter-examples, too! Tell us THE TRUTH, now!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659460
United States
04/18/2009 02:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.



Yeah, a very serious discussion has been started here now, hopefully some educated people will reply with some qualifiied opinions on the subject matter.



And finally, before I am off to sleep, a simple argument used by "idealists" against the "materialists" in Phylosophy:


Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...

In a million or more years breeding them you will come up with SOME KIND OF A DOG finally, depending on your selection criteria.

It is out of question that you could end up with a generation of tiger/cat pups, isn't it.


You just don't get a cat out of breeding dogs, do you?


That is because there are IDEAS of cats and IDEAS of dogs, which are different, according to the CREATORS' LAW.


Separate IDEAS just don't mix in reality, try disproving that, you Darwinist "materialists".

The origin of the species is very different to the description of Charles Darwin.

Even though he was partially correct about some birds having some feather colours different depending on a location geographically.



just evolve back to the front page, now.

We need some qualified opinions on the subject matter here, really.

Good luck to all (evolutionally speaking).

Pass on your genes without any restraint whenever you wish!!!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659448




I never believed any of that shit for the fact that if we as people evolved from monkeys then why haven't any more monkeys evolved? explain that one. Goes to show its all bullshit. Plus none of the modern day monkeys can speak either.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659458
Australia
04/18/2009 02:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
they should call it random mutation.



Random mutation will always happpen, no matter who "fucks" whom. It's the reality, like the incidence of cancer.

Sexual selection is geared towards "healthier-looking" males/females, especially males.


But the generalisation as to the "origin of species" is definitely wrong.

And the ability of females to tell who is "looking healthier" is very questionable, especially in terms of the male's DNA potential for the offsprings.



Yeah, a very serious discussion has been started here now, hopefully some educated people will reply with some qualifiied opinions on the subject matter.



And finally, before I am off to sleep, a simple argument used by "idealists" against the "materialists" in Phylosophy:


Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...

In a million or more years breeding them you will come up with SOME KIND OF A DOG finally, depending on your selection criteria.

It is out of question that you could end up with a generation of tiger/cat pups, isn't it.


You just don't get a cat out of breeding dogs, do you?


That is because there are IDEAS of cats and IDEAS of dogs, which are different, according to the CREATORS' LAW.


Separate IDEAS just don't mix in reality, try disproving that, you Darwinist "materialists".

The origin of the species is very different to the description of Charles Darwin.

Even though he was partially correct about some birds having some feather colours different depending on a location geographically.



just evolve back to the front page, now.

We need some qualified opinions on the subject matter here, really.

Good luck to all (evolutionally speaking).

Pass on your genes without any restraint whenever you wish!!!!




I never believed any of that shit for the fact that if we as people evolved from monkeys then why haven't any more monkeys evolved? explain that one. Goes to show its all bullshit. Plus none of the modern day monkeys can speak either.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659460




how correct, man!

No, monkeys don't have a chance in the next 100 million years, because they DON'T NEED to speak, they're OK as they are now.


Let's just hope the HUMANKIND don't turn into monkeys soon, because the trends are alarming now!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659296
Belgium
04/18/2009 02:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
the instinct will make them choose an alpha male to reproduce with, to have a strong offspring, survivors.and the long term hubbys are nice guys, bearable personalities
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 532752
United States
04/18/2009 02:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Well, there is a body of evidence that suggests women in general respong to cues in the faces of men that are deemed desirable such as the shape of his chin. Women may also respond to pheromones. Combined visual and nonvisual cues may indicate higher levels of testosterone whch may indicate that the male has viable sperm and a strong genetic makeup.
However, a drunk woman may be incapable of making rational choices, and may simply want attention, to get laid, or have a prior history of sexual abuse which would impede her thought processes in general.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659474
Australia
04/18/2009 02:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
the instinct will make them choose an alpha male to reproduce with, to have a strong offspring, survivors.and the long term hubbys are nice guys, bearable personalities
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659296



Cool, cool...

That must be the reason why a "nice guy" will never pick up a "fuck" at the pub or a bar as opposed to a "bad boy" who can provide DRUGS to the "girls"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659474
Australia
04/18/2009 02:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Well, there is a body of evidence that suggests women in general respong to cues in the faces of men that are deemed desirable such as the shape of his chin. Women may also respond to pheromones. Combined visual and nonvisual cues may indicate higher levels of testosterone whch may indicate that the male has viable sperm and a strong genetic makeup.
However, a drunk woman may be incapable of making rational choices, and may simply want attention, to get laid, or have a prior history of sexual abuse which would impede her thought processes in general.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 532752



"maybe', "may indicate" - the cautious language of science, of course, especially when we do know that WE DON'T KNOw
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 464699
Netherlands
04/18/2009 03:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Now, let's put Darwin's teachings to a real test here:


When a man "picks up" a drunken "chick" at a bar, does she have any knowledge if his "DNA" is likely to benefit her offspring? Is she a geneticist by definition??? What can she possibly know, even instinctively or subconsciously, about the DNA potential of a person she is going to "fuck" with tonight?

Is Darwinism really right? Do they have a point? Is it anywhere near being valid????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659414





keypoint: 'smell' is key!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 659474
Australia
04/18/2009 03:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
You know, if it were THAT SIMPLE the makers of perfumes of certain types would be legendary and very rich. They are now, it is just that no-one knows what type of smells is "good".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 532752
United States
04/18/2009 03:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Well, there is a body of evidence that suggests women in general respong to cues in the faces of men that are deemed desirable such as the shape of his chin. Women may also respond to pheromones. Combined visual and nonvisual cues may indicate higher levels of testosterone whch may indicate that the male has viable sperm and a strong genetic makeup.
However, a drunk woman may be incapable of making rational choices, and may simply want attention, to get laid, or have a prior history of sexual abuse which would impede her thought processes in general.



"maybe', "may indicate" - the cautious language of science, of course, especially when we do know that WE DON'T KNOw
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659474


We can't know with complete certainty why people behave as they do every time. There is too much variance across individuals. Science isn't designed for absolutes. For absolutes look to religion and zealotry.
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 641106
United States
04/18/2009 10:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 659414



Show me the dog breeder who has been breeding for 40 million years.

The domestication of dogs goes back perhaps as much as 40,000 years. Breeding of dogs rather less than that! There simple has not been enough time for a dog to be bred into a cat-like creature. Not by a factor of at least a thousand. Nor has the direction of dog evolution been towards a solitary, anti-social, nocturnal hunter; we humans prefer our "best friend" to be a social diurnal pack animal that will form close bonds and respect pack status and will hunt in consort with the human alphas.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 593154
United States
04/18/2009 10:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Supposedly, as the story goes, a "superior" woman will only choose a male that is able to woo her. Confidence is a must. Confidence proves the male is aware or at least dillusionarily aware that he is great.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 656647




He who pursues and woos.....wins.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 660579
Australia
04/20/2009 08:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...




Show me the dog breeder who has been breeding for 40 million years.

The domestication of dogs goes back perhaps as much as 40,000 years. Breeding of dogs rather less than that! There simple has not been enough time for a dog to be bred into a cat-like creature. Not by a factor of at least a thousand. Nor has the direction of dog evolution been towards a solitary, anti-social, nocturnal hunter; we humans prefer our "best friend" to be a social diurnal pack animal that will form close bonds and respect pack status and will hunt in consort with the human alphas.
 Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 641106



These time-frame-based arguments are quasi-sciientific, at the very least. Aalways appealing to the time-frames on the scale of millions of yrs still trying to prove their point. A counter-argument is this: over these long times, the environmental conditions have changed SO significantly and sometimes abruptly, that a former 100000 yrs' of "genetic preparation" just goes OUT OF THE WINDOW.

No cat would ever be able to procreate a dog.

No sluts will ever evolve into caring WOMEN.

Genetic "exchanges' are quite random, yet adaptability to the environment plays a role, also as random as the weather.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 168711
Germany
04/20/2009 08:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
*headdesk*
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 660579
Australia
04/20/2009 08:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
*headdesk*
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 168711



Banging your head now? Is your PhD project debunked and going nowhere?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 634663
Australia
04/20/2009 08:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
putin
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 637419

second that
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 660579
Australia
04/20/2009 09:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Suppose you are breeding dogs, many breeds, many years of experience...




Show me the dog breeder who has been breeding for 40 million years.

The domestication of dogs goes back perhaps as much as 40,000 years. Breeding of dogs rather less than that! There simple has not been enough time for a dog to be bred into a cat-like creature. Not by a factor of at least a thousand. Nor has the direction of dog evolution been towards a solitary, anti-social, nocturnal hunter; we humans prefer our "best friend" to be a social diurnal pack animal that will form close bonds and respect pack status and will hunt in consort with the human alphas.



These time-frame-based arguments are quasi-sciientific, at the very least. Aalways appealing to the time-frames on the scale of millions of yrs still trying to prove their point. A counter-argument is this: over these long times, the environmental conditions have changed SO significantly and sometimes abruptly, that a former 100000 yrs' of "genetic preparation" just goes OUT OF THE WINDOW.

No cat would ever be able to procreate a dog.

No sluts will ever evolve into caring WOMEN.

Genetic "exchanges' are quite random, yet adaptability to the environment plays a role, also as random as the weather.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 660579



Not only that, but it is also well-known that ALL genetic mutations (the alleged driving force of the evolutionary process) generally LEAD TO negative-only consequences for any species' individual. In at least 99.999% of cases of the inciidence of any significant mutations. What can be improved that way?


And finally, ALL OF our cultural heritage (from the cave paintings) , human (humanism) traits and tolerance have not been passed on by any "alpha-males" from the caves, every good feature is a heritage of the "freaky beings" who chose to communicate and reassure each other instead of cracking an opponent's skull immediately after any minor argument or brawl inside a cave.

Should things have been otherwise, there would have been no civilisation developed until present.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 656199
United States
04/20/2009 09:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Darwin is wrong, evolution is (almost) BS
Darn Darwin right again
Darwin missing link are APE girl from Indonesia

Thread: APE FACED GIRL FROM INDONESIA (PIC) (Page 4)

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob