wirelessguru1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Yes, I am suggesting that parents involved do
> not know what they are doing. If they
> > have an active choice about whether to
> procreate or not, then you would find women
> > getting pregnant when they wanted to and no
> unwanted pregnancies.
>
> The "force" there is stronger than the mind,
> obviously you cannot see it! That is very sad
> indeed...

If you're talking about real love, I definitely believe in that. But, the whole process of procreation is, in fact, a biological function that is repeated all day long amongst billions of different lifeforms. Do you make a distinction between animals, human, bacteria, and plants as well?

>
> Look, it is a strong force of attraction and it
> is stronger than the mind...

There is no doubt in my mind that there is such a thing as strong forces of attraction. However, that has very little to do with the biological function of reproduction.

>
> Of course, but they are still bacteria. The
> bacteria didn't "evolve" to become an insect or
> something else...

Yes, there are still bacteria but do you realize that you have what was once an independent lifeform living in every cell of your body? That you are, in fact, composed of a great deal of bacteria that live in symbiosis with you?

>
> > Yes, what this planet is today is the product
> of billions of years of evolution.
>
> That says nothing at all. It is a very silly
> sentence and statement.

Why is it silly? The fact that this planet has been around for billions of years?

> "Accumulated", that makes no sense either!

Yes, accumulated change. Why does that make no sense to you?

> All that I know is that reality is cyclical and
> programmed via action-reaction, but I do not
> make up stories and tales over long periods of
> time since that is pretty much irrelevant because
> cycles repeat themselves...

If that is all you know, then how can you be certain, without researching the subject at least adequately, if evolution and science in general are made up stories and tales?

>
> > > So, your position is nothing more than a
> desperate
> > > believe that this is how it may work!
> >
> > No, not at all. It's based on scientific
> studies that have examined the process of
> > evolution as well as the fossil record.
>
> It is speculation and tales at best, nothing
> more...You certainly don't know and/or understand
> the processes involved...

No, it's not speculation when scientists can watch things evolve today. Evolution isn't something that necessarily stops. It is a constant process that I have already pointed as being well documented in lifeforms with shorter lifespans, ie bacteria and insects.

>
> > Do you know what a gene pool is?
>
> A pool of genes...

No, it is the sum of all genetic information carried by members of a population.
[www.emc.maricopa.edu]

Basically, what this means is that all the genetic information in a given population composes the potential variations for that population. The greater the gene pool, the more genetic diversity. The smaller the gene pool, the more likely that mutations will occur. This is a problem that many animal conservationists are worried about in regards to endangered species.

>
> There you go with your silly extrapolations! Most
> of that gene pool will be wiped out again like it
> always is during every age/era macro cycle...

This is not a silly extrapolation and the gene pool has never been entirely wiped out. There have been periods where mass die offs have occurred but not all life died. A great deal survived.

>
> Extinctions will continue. What makes you think
> that they will stop!?

Where did I say that extinctions will stop? I didn't. In fact, alot of the present day concern is that encroachment on wildlife areas is resulting in the extinction of many animals, plants and insects.


> Whatever! 100K years ago was in a different macro
> cycle...

How can you say whatever?

>
> My arguments are good, so obviously my science
> must be better...

Unfortunately, Wireless, there is very little science to your ideas. You are basing your ideas on gut feelings, philosophies and beliefs. That isn't science, Wireless, and until you actually do some studying on biology, ecology, climatology and genetics, it will never be a science. You call doing so as potentially "polluting" your mind. All you are doing, Wireless, is closing it.
>
> My knowledge base is obviously better and
> definitely much less polluted. For example, I
> fully expected the Earth changes that are
> happening today. Most are either still surprised
> or blaming global warming. In essence we are back
> to the survival of the fittest and the processes
> that have been happening for billions and billions
> of years. So I am right and all the evidence fully
> supports my arguments...

And education is not polluting one's mind. The real problem is that you refuse to see evidence that perhaps may be contrary to your personal beliefs and, therefore, you think that you are a proponent of a "better science". There are centuries worth of evidence that support evolution...

>
> > > Glad that you can easily see that the
> dominant and
> > > the stronger (higher force) will win.
> Therefore,
> > > it should also be easy for you to see
> that the
> > > more intelligent will also win...
> >
> > Not necessarily and I am a perfect example of
> this. I was a talented and gifted student
> > with an iq over 150. By your reasoning, I
> should be a "winner" in nature because of
> > intelligence.
>
> No, please do not twist my words! I said strong
> and intelligent...

Read your words again. You talked solely about intelligence being the dominant several times over.

>
> > However, if I was living 100 years ago, any
> potential offspring of mine and I would've
> > died-- meaning that my genetics would not
> have been continued to be passed on into
> > the gene pool.
>
> Well, the fact that humans are using technology
> today to prolong life has nothing to do with
> reproduction! Most people back then were
> "reproducing" at very young ages since they were
> also dying young. Are you suggesting that you
> would have died at very young age before
> reproducing? I don't know your condition, so I
> couldn't comment!!!

Actually, it has everything to do with reproduction. Ever heard of caesarean sections? See, previously if a baby was in breach or unable to pass through the birth canal, the mother and child died. I have had two c-sections to deliver both my son and daughter. Without this bit of medical technology, my son and I would have both died in labor and my daughter would never be born.

> >
> > Interesting but a little off. Actually, it
> was the healthier stronger stock that
> > survived and intelligence was secondary.
>
> I disagree. But, of course, darwinian
> evolutionists will always try to minimize the
> value of intelligence...Maybe it is your fear of
> it!!!

Intelligence is not a minimal thing to evolution at all. Who is going to survive better...a man who can build a shelter to protect himself from a snowstorm or one who is too dumb to even take cover?

>
> > The "weaker" having to be devious to survive
> is complete rubbish though.
>
> Not at all! I see that I hit a nerve...

No, unless you count humour a nerve. I actually find this whole deviousness thing to be rather funny. Rubbish but funny.
>
> Well, I think that you are confusing things.
> Survival of the species has everything to do with
> reproduction and not with the extension of a
> single life!

Every single life that continues on and carries on adds to the population of any given species. Look at endangered species. The greatest risk to these species is the diminished population and genetic diversity. A single life does have impact on the greater whole.

> If modern science helped you save your life, then
> that is a great thing and a contribution to the
> intelligence factor. Once again, intelligence is
> a very important factor a par with strength in the
> survival of the species...

I won't argue this however one does have to wonder whether or not my being able to reproduce is necessarily a good thing for the human race. It becomes unnatural.

>
> Well, you are twisting what I am saying!
> Sneakiness IS a form of intelligence and so is
> medical technology...

Okay, now you are twisting your own words...the weaker, less intelligent are forced to be sneaky and devious to survive yet sneakiness is a form of intelligence? Which is it? Medical technology is sneaky?

> Before medical technology, the weaker would need
> to be either sneak (like parasites) or highly
> protected (like of a priest class or something
> like that) in order to survive...

lol, evidence?
>
> Well, I think that I am. But, I will add the
> element of "protection" to that also...

What "protection"?

>
> But the combination of strength and intelligence
> does...One needs both. However, strength or
> force is always more important...

There we can somewhat agree though it is not necessarily strength but good health.

Stephanie




In every man there is something wherein I may learn of him, and in that I am his pupil.--Ralph Waldo Emerson