Search the Community

Preeclampsia and other pregnancy complications as an adaptive response to unfamiliar semen - JENNIFER A. DAVIS AND GORDON G. GALLUP JR. State University of New York at Albany How's this for an argument on committed relationships lead to healthier children? This information is new and may, or may not, hold up over time. Although, I didn't see a public argument against it--which would mostly be people with pitchforks and torches because this could bring a lot of parties to a crashing halt. (Insert scratched record sound here!)

The Selfish Gene - By Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary----Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453844947&sr=8-1&keywords=selfish+gene The central idea is around evolutionary stable strategy, which lends alot of insight in to r/K selection theory Thought never stated explicitly, what I gathered from it is a genetic based behavior/ethics that is, things wants to perpetuate their existence, there are no evil or righteous in the emotional sense. There are certain gene set that will take advantage of the characteristics of another gene set and increase it's own "existences" at the expense of the existence of that other gene set. However if "righteous" genes begins to dwindle then then entire gene pool suffers and evil genes begins to dwindle. Then "righteous" genes begins to flourish which causes "evil" genes to flourish as well. However this is not a spring back and forth action, but it reaches a equilibrium, with "evil" genes take the smaller percentage and "righteous gene being the majority, until the next evolutionary event occurs which breaks up the entire dynamic. To me this just opened up a whole new way of looking at "evil" of society. Taking emotion out, people are not evil, they are only acting out their genetic instinct to perpetuate their existence. Just like how things falls toward gravity, if there is a way for an individual to live without expending his/her own effort, he/she will walk that way.

On the podcasts when a caller will not reproduce I have heard Stef say several times something along the lines of "6 millions years of evolution of your genes and it will stop with you" Is this a valid statement? As I understand it, we only pass along half of our genes to our kids, and the combinations are rearranged. Also there is nothing unique about our individual genetic material since those genes are carried by many other people. even if we carry a unique mutation that gets passed along to our kids, the fact that it occurred means that it is likely to happen on the same gene others carry. Its like we each are a unique book. but since when we reproduce we can only create a different unique book....we are not passing anything unique to us that a close relative can't pass along. say a sentence or two. The words get passed but their arrangement is likely to change and even re-occur on someone else. I see no net loss for the genes if an individual does not reproduce. thinking along the lines of Dawkins "the Selfish Gene" Thoughts? Thanks in advance.

I was wondering what sort of evidence existed or purported to show that evolution was invalid. I have heard that there are some sort of compelling arguments against it and was just curious if anyone had studied the creationists side ver much. I'd be really interested in hearing what they / you got. holla back

Is this a serious post? Speaking as a double major in biology, and chemistry, and as a person who has more then 18 months experience working in a biochem lab. I can reasonably say you have some fundamental misunderstandings of what evolution is (assuming that this is a serious post). The theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of the universe, so I'm not sure why you mentioned the big bang. The theory of evolution makes no claims on abiogenesis because evolution is the change from one population of organisms to another. It is an undeniable fact of nature that organisms change, and I might add that I witness the change of bacteria on a weekly basis. This occurs after thousands of generations. It seems that you are implying that a dog gives birth to a cat or something. Do you mean to deny that organisms change from one population to another?

There was some bandying about on yesterday's call-in show that the hominid fossils known as Lucy are a hoax. The caller claimed that fossils were found miles apart and in different strata to compose an individual. This is false. In 1973, a knee joint was found for an individual that walked upright. The following year, at a site 1.6 miles from the knee joint find, hundreds of unduplicated bone fragments comprising 40% of a skeleton were found on a single slope in a single strata. These were called "Lucy". The original knee joint was a separate find from a separate specimen. There was never a claim that it was Lucy's knee. Lucy Not Lucy http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

How did the first thing that evolved, evolve the ability to evolve?

I listen to The Art of Manliness Podcast every now and then and I came across this interesting conversation about biological origins of male aggression. I immediately thought of the FDR shows I've heard on the topic and wanted to share. What do you guys think? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/173724074-artofmanliness-86-demonic-males-with-dr-richard-wrangham.mp3

I want to explore the issue of MGTOW as a social phenomenon. The proponents/advocates of MGTOW present it as a rational path in the current society/culture/legal framework/economy etc. I have watched a number of the videos such as from Sandman, BarBar, Clarey etc. As an individual actor I can appreciate the rationality of their analysis. Some men get screwed badly and most men get screwed a little. So, there is the relationship dynamic with women and then the wider sociological conditions of state etc. I want to explore the sociological drivers for MGTOW here. Is MGTOW just another expression of something that has always been? Is it possibly a population-level stress response to conditions? If so, is it perhaps even a biological response as much as a rational response ie. population levels and differing stressors to the past. E.g. post WW2 period in the US vs now. As it could very possibly lead to alot of single men for life, the strategy for a search for meaning in life in MGTOW discards tradcon and questions the nature of the civilisation that has been cultivated. Hence the "red-pill" metaphor. It has occurred to me that it could very well be a sociological "branching-off" of perhaps some of the best minds and talents on the planet (possibly). What does all this mean?

Just thought I'd throw a bomb in the room. Stefan said at the beginning of his Karl Marx vid: "Darwin had an explanation for where we came from that was quite credible and remains quite credible to this day..." I couldn't disagree more. Darwin's myth was never credible and I venture to say a large % of scientists realize this but are not willing to say so. However, many famous scientists have said so, including Stephan Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge and David Raup. Yet the charade goes on, fueled by politics--what else is new? There is a very interesting pamphlet called "Darwin's Creation Myth" by Alexander Mebane that can be bought here. Lest you rabid atheists start going on about Bible-thumpers, here is the prefatory note to this pamphlet: "A recent catalogue of 'anti-evolution' writings reveals the rather dismaying fact that, historically, almost 90% of such publications have based their arguments on the axiom that reliable information is to be found in the creation-myths of the ancient Hebrews. Let me make clear at once that this essay is not in that category! Today, no mind that has not been warped by childhood 'imprinting' could find anything to take seriously in those naive and self-contradictory old fables, whose absurdity became evident to unbiased minds some two centuries earlier than that of the later, more plausible creation-myth of Darwin. The ingenuous hopes of countless imprintees cannot wish away the fact that the multiply-punctured credibility of those old fables is simply not capable of ever being re-inflated. Although we stand (and have stood for more than a century) in dire need of a creation-myth more rationally defensible than that of Darwin, it is fatuous to hope to find one in the legends of primitive peoples." Anyway, Stefan, if you read this, it would be great for you to find and interview an expert in this field who can enlighten you and your listeners. Darwin was wrong, was always considered wrong by credible scientists including at the time of the publication of Origin, admitted fatal flaws in his "theory," yet the charade has been continued all these years. It's part of the propaganda efforts of the farmers to maintain their position over us livestock. Seems a topic right up your alley.

http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/science-guy-ready-to-debate-founder-of-creation-museum/ That last link will take you here: http://debatelive.org/ Which will allow you to watch the debate for free, live (February 4 at 7 PM EST) Might be interesting to see.