Even if you think you believe in Evolution, you probably don't...

[MJinZ]

Unless you're OK with letting the strong live, the crippled and defective die, and are against medical treatment to maintain life in any manner.

:hmm:

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Nonsensical post makes no sense.

 

[EarthwormJim]

A person doesn't (or shouldn't) believe in a Scientific Theory, they should accept them based on reasoning, logic and deduction. There's a difference between believing in something, and accepting something.

 

[Jeff7]

Nonsensical post makes no sense.

But it's still somewhat coherent.

Maybe Spaceman is evolving.

 

[Cuda1447]

And just because you don't allow evolution to occur like nature intended, doesn't mean you don't believe it has occurred.


I believe you are the product of devolution.

 

[pontifex]

just because you believe that it happens, doesn't mean you actively perpetuate it.

 

[MJinZ]

In case anyone got the reference...

It is like the difference between believing God exists and believing IN God.

So, even if you trust the Science, you don't believe it to be... the way it should be.

What kind of ramifications does this have? Hmmmmmmmm?

 

[lxskllr]

I agree. We're breeding inferior people by overcoming their natural shortcomings through science. I should have been eaten by a predator 30 years ago because I wouldn't have seen it sneaking up on me. As it is, I have glasses which overcome that flaw. My daughter has glasses now also. Bad genes perpetuating themselves....

 

[HOWITIS]

that you would say "believe in evolution" shows that you are a complete idiot, and anyone with half a brain really has no basis to argue with you. You wouldn't be able to comprehend.

 

[MJinZ]

that you would say "believe in evolution" shows that you are a complete idiot, and anyone with half a brain really has no basis to argue with you. You wouldn't be able to comprehend.

Lulz. That you wouldn't understand the difference between believing in something (agreeing with and connecting with) versus accepting something as true shows that you really do have half of a brain, because you really don't have any basis to argue with me.

Oh Snap! :awe:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I disagree. For humans, intelligence is one of our primary evolutionary advantages and by maintaining that pool of intelligence we help to maintain that evolutionary advantage. Would evolution in humans really be helped by letting Steven Hawking die?

 

[sandorski]

Logic Fail. Evolution is a Natural Process, not a Life/Political Philosophy.

 

[MJinZ]

I disagree. For humans, intelligence is one of our primary evolutionary advantages and by maintaining that pool of intelligence we help to maintain that evolutionary advantage. Would evolution in humans really be helped by letting Steven Hawking die?

Good point!

But what about the retards?

 

[MJinZ]

Logic Fail. Evolution is a Natural Process, not a Life/Political Philosophy.

Wat.

We do not believe in Death. In fact, life is something we hold as a fundamental solidarity in all societies.

And death is perfectly natural.

Yet, we fight it tooth and nail.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Good point!

But what about the retards?

We need them too. Without them ATOT would be a wasteland.

 

[zinfamous]

I disagree. For humans, intelligence is one of our primary evolutionary advantages and by maintaining that pool of intelligence we help to maintain that evolutionary advantage. Would evolution in humans really be helped by letting Steven Hawking die?

This is how I've always rationalized this pseudo dilemma.

We are tool users, that has been our primary evolutionary advantage. Ceasing to use those tools (the wonderful things that our brain allows of us), would be rejecting our evolutionary advantage.

 

[zinfamous]

We need them too. Without them ATOT would be a wasteland.

life outside of ATOT would also be less interesting.

 

[MJinZ]

We need them too. Without them ATOT would be a wasteland.

Haha!

 

[Cogman]

You can't just "stop" evolution. Does using medication stop evolution? Nope. Does wearing glasses stop evolution? Nope.

Evolution has no goal, no philosophy, no purpose. It is all about the most common gene/gene mutations get passed down. Do we affect what those genes are? Sure, we always have, every time a girl turns down a guy it affects what genes get passed down.

There is no "natural" we humans came from nature, everything we interact with is from nature, we can change mutilate, mutate but in the end, we cannot "break" nature and make the unnatural. To do that, we would have to violate natures laws, however, they wouldn't be laws if they could be violated (thus we would stop calling it a law..)

What does this all mean? OP is full of crap.

 

[Kadarin]

Unless you're OK with letting the strong live, the crippled and defective die, and are against medical treatment to maintain life in any manner.

:hmm:

Your post is completely fucking idiotic, moronic, and any other adjective I can think of that ends in -ic. In fact, it shows such a total lack of thought that it makes me wonder how you could even be a functioning adult in society.

First of all, your main assumption is that natural selection has as its main goal the improvement of the species (i.e. we evolve to become smarter, stronger, etc.) It's a piss poor assumption. Natural selection results in species that evolves to fit its environment; as humans change the environment (for example, better health care leads to being able to survive and reproduce under conditions that previously made survival more difficult), people who otherwise wouldn't have reproduced now can, and do.

Secondly, the theory of Evolution is not something you believe in, like some fucking nonsensical religion, but rather it's a scientific model on which useful predictions can be made. (see sig)

So please stop posting utter shit.

 

[MJinZ]

This is how I've always rationalized this pseudo dilemma.

We are tool users, that has been our primary evolutionary advantage. Ceasing to use those tools (the wonderful things that our brain allows of us), would be rejecting our evolutionary advantage.

True, but why keep evolutionary disadvantageous people around right?

Why keep Parkinsons carriers? Huntington carriers? Diabetics? Congenital heart disorders?

They only serve to be medically costly and heart breaking.

 

[sandorski]

Wat.

We do not believe in Death. In fact, life is something we hold as a fundamental solidarity in all societies.

And death is perfectly natural.

Yet, we fight it tooth and nail.

LogicFail++

 

[MJinZ]

You can't just "stop" evolution. Does using medication stop evolution? Nope. Does wearing glasses stop evolution? Nope.

Evolution has no goal, no philosophy, no purpose. It is all about the most common gene/gene mutations get passed down. Do we affect what those genes are? Sure, we always have, every time a girl turns down a guy it affects what genes get passed down.

There is no "natural" we humans came from nature, everything we interact with is from nature, we can change mutilate, mutate but in the end, we cannot "break" nature and make the unnatural. To do that, we would have to violate natures laws, however, they wouldn't be laws if they could be violated (thus we would stop calling it a law..)

What does this all mean? OP is full of crap.

It means that we can genetically engineer, clone, and manipulate evolution in a test tube.

Welcome to 2010.

 

[Cogman]

It means that we can genetically engineer, clone, and manipulate evolution in a test tube.

Welcome to 2010.

Which doesn't, in any way, invalidate/stop evolution or the belief of it.

Welcome to 2010, where things are finally starting to get awesome (scientifically).

 

[nakedfrog]

Good point!

But what about the retards?

What, like this guy?