Evolution

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Lesbians survived evolution
because men found them attractive



“It was found that heterosexual women did not desire partners who experienced same-sex attractions, but a considerable proportion of heterosexual men desired partners who experienced same-sex attractions. In addition, it was found that men were more sexually excited than women by the same-sex infidelity of their partners, and they desired more than women, their opposite-sex partners to have sex with same-sex individuals,” . .

..

. . 34.3 percent of males – and only 7.8 percent of women – would prefer a partner who is attracted “predominantly to members of the opposite-sex but occasionally of the same-sex.”

One explanation is that in evolutionary terms, women were not reproductive rivals to straight men.

“A woman, driven by her sexual desires, may seek sexual contact outside of her long-term intimate relationship. When this woman has sex with another woman she does not have sex with another man which translates into same-sex contact reducing the risk of cuckoldry,” said the study.

Another explanation, put forward by previous studies on the subject, is that a man would welcome the addition of a new woman into his partner’s social circle as a chance to spread his seed further without repercussion – a polyamorous relationship in which everyone benefits.

.


Men do not consider Lesbian as "Gay" .. man like FMF :D


.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: How about this? They can do their own thing, and if it works they'll be award winning scientists and if it doesn't, it doesn't.
They will fail in totality.
And you can keep being the guy telling the Wright brothers that their plane is just too heavy to fly through the air.
I'm the guy telling them phrenology is a waste of time. And a laugh.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Let's put it his way bro. Any college biology department is equipped to be able to demonstrate the natural generation of DNA. At any time.

And none do.

Why is that.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: How about this? They can do their own thing, and if it works they'll be award winning scientists and if it doesn't, it doesn't.
They will fail in totality.
And you can keep being the guy telling the Wright brothers that their plane is just too heavy to fly through the air.
I'm the guy telling them phrenology is a waste of time. And a laugh.
Fine, you can be the guy to warn the Wright Brothers about phrenology when they're figuring out aeronautics.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Lol bro how much do want to bet that your bros will recreate natural generation of DNA. We can set up a PayPal.
Censorship isn't necessary
Brecher
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Brecher »

Some level of same sex attraction will soothe frustrations in a harem.

Perhaps lesbianism is like sickle cell anemia: having a few genes for it helps genes spread, too many stops genes from spreading.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Evolution

Post by Typhoon »

May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

:D

GIGO
Since then, England, a 35-year-old associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been testing aspects of his idea in computer simulations.
Almost any state college in the US has the equipment to do real testing of abiotic origins of life. So far all efforts have been total failures.

Hilarious that a 100+ year old theory regarded as sacred and holy doctrine now has it's "first" scientific support.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Lol bro how much do want to bet that your bros will recreate natural generation of DNA. We can set up a PayPal.
I guess he didn't even bet $1.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

:? Can you put more caveats in one sentence?
Many biophysicists think something like what England is suggesting may well be at least part of life’s story.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Let's put it his way bro. Any college biology department is equipped to be able to demonstrate the natural generation of DNA. At any time.
Not if the precise mechanism isn't known. Derr. There is nothing to suggest that biological arose through anything other than physical processes because there is zero evidence whatsoever that non-physical processes even exist.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Coming up next, Mr. Perfect takes on the leftist falsehood of atheoluminescence -- the pernicious belief that the sun's light is generated by physical processes and not the divine power of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Let's put it his way bro. Any national research lab is equipped to be able to demonstrate the natural generation of sunlight. At any time. And none do. Why is that?"
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote:Coming up next, Mr. Perfect takes on the leftist falsehood of atheoluminescence -- the pernicious belief that the sun's light is generated by physical processes and not the divine power of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Let's put it his way bro. Any national research lab is equipped to be able to demonstrate the natural generation of sunlight. At any time. And none do. Why is that?"
It's already observed bro. Poor strawman/false equivalence fallacy.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: Not if the precise mechanism isn't known. Derr.
Lol the imprecise mechanism isn't known either, derr. After all this time why is that. You are only playing with a handful of chemicals.
There is nothing to suggest that biological arose through anything other than physical processes because there is zero evidence whatsoever that non-physical processes even exist.
Lol there is zero evidence life arose abiotically. You already lost on this point, physical processes have real limits, and you are relying on tautological fallacy. For example if goats and turkeys have sex they will not be able to reproduce even given 4 billion years. So to is the abiotic generation of DNA/cells/life. impossible.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Coming up next, Mr. Perfect takes on the leftist falsehood of atheoluminescence -- the pernicious belief that the sun's light is generated by physical processes and not the divine power of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Let's put it his way bro. Any national research lab is equipped to be able to demonstrate the natural generation of sunlight. At any time. And none do. Why is that?"
It's already observed bro. Poor strawman/false equivalence fallacy.
No one has been able to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Yeah. But we can observe them in nature. What other totally basic things can I help you with.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: Not if the precise mechanism isn't known. Derr.
Lol the imprecise mechanism isn't known either, derr. After all this time why is that. You are only playing with a handful of chemicals.
And an enormous number of other state variables and time. These are not memory-less processes. Unlikely random outcomes in a non-Markov process can require a huge amount of time (and there was plenty of that billions of years ago). Organic molecules of varying degrees of complexity are synthesized in nature, but only under specific circumstances. You can sit around for thousands of years in the desert or Antarctica and you'll probably never see even the simplest of hydrocarbons generated. But at the right places beneath the ocean floor, you can spot e.g. methane being synthesized abiotically.
Lol there is zero evidence life arose abiotically.
Sure there is: every natural process we examine has physical, abiotic origins, including the formation of stars and planets themselves. Why would life be any different? Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, there is no physical law that precludes the natural synthesis of organic molecules and their evolution into life forms. Just because it's unlikely to occur at the random sliver of time we happen to inhabit today does not constitute stronger evidence for your silly hypothesis that life did not arise abiotically (and therefore either has always existed or sprung into existence through some sort of divine intervention). There is no non-abiotic hypothesis at all!

Unlikeliness is a poor counter-argument. Everything beyond helium is extremely unlikely and yet all the evidence suggests that given sufficient concentrations of hydrogen and time, entire galaxies will spontaneously form themselves.
You already lost on this point, physical processes have real limits, and you are relying on tautological fallacy.
Where's your proof that abiogenesis lies beyond the limits of physical processes found throughout the universe's 13 billion year existence?
For example if goats and turkeys have sex they will not be able to reproduce even given 4 billion years. So to is the abiotic generation of DNA/cells/life. impossible.
Incoherent strawman.
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote::? Can you put more caveats in one sentence?
Many biophysicists think something like what England is suggesting may well be at least part of life’s story.

versus
Mr. Perfect wrote:
noddy wrote:evolution makes no claims on the origin of dna, NONE, its a lie to say it does, all evolution has is areas of research.
Every single science book in US public schools claims it. Every single one. I would bet in AUS as well. What would you call it. Someone is lying, no question about it. But your pointing the wrong way.
the only answer that is scientifically accurate right now is "dont know".
Why don't atheists/evolutionists give this answer, ever.
round and round in circles we go.
Some of us.

i think you arguing with yourself on some detail that appears to be a quantum goalpost.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Yeah. But we can observe them in nature. What other totally basic things can I help you with.
Can we? Does anyone have a provably correct model of the internal processes of the sun? Has anyone observed a star being formed from start to finish, as opposed to an ensemble of stars at different (hypothesized) points in their life cycle? How come I've never seen a star suddenly appear in the sky?

Sounds suspiciously like organic molecules. Oh, sure, we see hydrocarbons and other basic organic molecules being produced abiotically throughout the solar system every second of every Earth day, and there's an entire soup of molecules and life forms that span the continuum of complexity here at home, but there's no way any intermediaries could ever have existed in the planet's tumultuous 4+ billion year history, based on your 40-odd year window of experience. :roll:
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: Can we? Does anyone have a provably correct model of the internal processes of the sun? Has anyone observed a star being formed from start to finish, as opposed to an ensemble of stars at different (hypothesized) points in their life cycle? How come I've never seen a star suddenly appear in the sky?
Interesting. So you are saying no one has seen stars form. With so many stars, no one has seen it happen from start to finish. That raises some real questions. Why wouldn't we be able to see the formation of a star. That is a great question.
Sounds suspiciously like organic molecules. Oh, sure, we see hydrocarbons and other basic organic molecules being produced abiotically throughout the solar system every second of every Earth day, and there's an entire soup of molecules and life forms that span the continuum of complexity here at home, but there's no way any intermediaries could ever have existed in the planet's tumultuous 4+ billion year history, based on your 40-odd year window of experience. :roll:
[/quote]
We can replicate countless maybe infinite chemical processes. But we can't replicate impossible ones. We don't even know where to start with the abiotic genesis of life. In fact, studying the topic for a few minutes demonstrates it is impossible.

Why are we still talking about this?
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: And an enormous number of other state variables and time. These are not memory-less processes. Unlikely random outcomes in a non-Markov process can require a huge amount of time (and there was plenty of that billions of years ago). Organic molecules of varying degrees of complexity are synthesized in nature, but only under specific circumstances. You can sit around for thousands of years in the desert or Antarctica and you'll probably never see even the simplest of hydrocarbons generated. But at the right places beneath the ocean floor, you can spot e.g. methane being synthesized abiotically.
Cool story. Show me life coming from non life.
Sure there is: every natural process we examine has physical, abiotic origins, including the formation of stars and planets themselves. Why would life be any different? Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, there is no physical law that precludes the natural synthesis of organic molecules and their evolution into life forms. Just because it's unlikely to occur at the random sliver of time we happen to inhabit today does not constitute stronger evidence for your silly hypothesis that life did not arise abiotically (and therefore either has always existed or sprung into existence through some sort of divine intervention). There is no non-abiotic hypothesis at all!
You've got some great stories. However this one is a tautology again. Interesting how you can only offer fallacies to support your faith.
Unlikeliness is a poor counter-argument.
It's impossibility. No one has done anything in science to suggest it is even possible. Especially you.
Everything beyond helium is extremely unlikely and yet all the evidence suggests that given sufficient concentrations of hydrogen and time, entire galaxies will spontaneously form themselves.
You've have truly great stories, but no science. At all. I get it that you have religious faith, but if you get to have religious faith you have to let other people have it too.
Where's your proof that abiogenesis lies beyond the limits of physical processes found throughout the universe's 13 billion year existence?
It was offered at the beginning of this thread.
Incoherent strawman.
Deadly accurate analogy. It blows your religion out of the water. There are real impossibilities in this universe, abiotic genesis of life is just one of them.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote::? Can you put more caveats in one sentence?
Many biophysicists think something like what England is suggesting may well be at least part of life’s story.
versus

i think you arguing with yourself on some detail that appears to be a quantum goalpost.
I'm not sure what this means, but what I am sure is that abiotic genesis of life is impossible, and everyone commenting on this thread so far has reinforced that position.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: Not if the precise mechanism isn't known. Derr. There is nothing to suggest that biological arose through anything other than physical processes because there is zero evidence whatsoever that non-physical processes even exist.
:D :D :D :D :D :D

Look at the device you are typing on. It didn't come about from a natural process.
Censorship isn't necessary
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by noddy »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
noddy wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote::? Can you put more caveats in one sentence?
Many biophysicists think something like what England is suggesting may well be at least part of life’s story.
versus

i think you arguing with yourself on some detail that appears to be a quantum goalpost.
I'm not sure what this means, but what I am sure is that abiotic genesis of life is impossible, and everyone commenting on this thread so far has reinforced that position.
one mr p quote argues that evolutionists believe in something, the other is laughing at how they dont believe in it.

ive lost track over exactly what it is you think they think.

its an area of research, no big thing, i havent lost sleep over the fact its happening, nor if it proves correct, or if it proves incorrect.

science is great like that.
ultracrepidarian
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

noddy wrote: one mr p quote argues that evolutionists believe in something, the other is laughing at how they dont believe in it.

ive lost track over exactly what it is you think they think.

its an area of research, no big thing, i havent lost sleep over the fact its happening, nor if it proves correct, or if it proves incorrect.

science is great like that.
I think I've been pretty clear, atheists believe in the abiotic genesis of life, which is impossible.

homeopathy is also an area of study.

Abiotic genesis of life is not science in any way at all.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply