The Great Evolutionary Race!!

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

Again, you and your "definitions" are flawed. The process of Evolution, as in the theory of evolution is not the same as advancment. The advancement of a culture or society is not the same, and can not be compared to, the evolution of a species.

You're going to have to take that one up with your buddy Darwin Cap, he doesn't seem to agree with you..😉

Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species Chapter Instinct

Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves, the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings--namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.

source: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm

Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter Five

Description: The Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties during Primeval and Civilized Times: Natural Selection as affecting Civilized Nations.

The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means.

There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.

source: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm

Originally posted by whobdamandog
But a society still needs women to have children, in order for it to continue to have highly-educated women within it. 😉

Clearly, not the point:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well from a Darwinian perspective, the most "intelligent" and advanced society, would frequently engage in sexual activity that encourages procreation...😉

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A study by psychologists at the Psychology Institute report that "highly-educated women are having fewer children, while less educated women are having many more."

Your argument is that from an evolutionary perspective, those who are more intelligent would procrete more, when the opposite is true.

This is demonstrative of your lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You're going to have to take that one up with your buddy Darwin Cap, he doesn't seem to agree with you..😉

Modern evolutionary theory is not the same as Darwinism. Another example of your lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

Let me see if I can bring myself down to your level Whob and explain this to you in a manner that you can understand. Although, I don't think understanding what people say to you is the real issue, you just want to pretend that what people say to you doesn't make any sense.

This is a good response to your use of Darwin.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Modern evolutionary theory is not the same as Darwinism. Another example of your lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

However, I'm going to go beyond it to explain the difference in the two concepts you don't seem to understand. The two terms are "Evolution" and "Advancment". More importantly, I'm going to place them in the context of the conversation, THIS conversation. The word 'Evolution" is not always used in regards to the theory that originated with the research of Charles Darwin. Like many terms that are commonly used in modern languages, 'evolution' has taken on a variety of meanings when used in different contexts and conversations, as I illustrated for you in an earlier post.

Evolution is the term applied to the theory that life forms will adapt to their environment and become (gradually or rapidly) more complex. It is applicable to the biological advancment of a species.

Advancment of society is not the same as evolution. Advancment, in this context, is the progress of the human species in regards to intellectual concepts and physical materials, like harnessing fire, shaping stone tools, combining metals into alloys, building temples, harnessing steam and electricity, building mechanisms like the computer and the combustion engine. It also includes the development and refining of morals, science and religion.

Now if you would like to use quotes out of context and confuse terminology so that people who aren't paying as much attention to the conversation will be fooled into thinking some one on the opposite side of the debate is not making sense, you feel free to continue doing so.

Originally posted by Adam Poe

Your argument is that from an evolutionary perspective, those who are more intelligent would procrete more, when the opposite is true.

This is demonstrative of your lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

Modern evolutionary theory is not the same as Darwinism. Another example of your lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Modern Evolutionary theory and "Sexual Selection"

Natural selection can be broken down into many components, of which survival is only one. Sexual attractiveness is a very important component of selection, so much so that biologists use the term sexual selection when they talk about this subset of natural selection.

Sexual selection is natural selection operating on factors that contribute to an organism's mating success. Traits that are a liability to survival can evolve when the sexual attractiveness of a trait outweighs the liability incurred for survival.

A male who lives a short time, but produces many offspring is much more successful than a long lived one that produces few. The former's genes will eventually dominate the gene pool of his species

So I guess from a Darwinian and Modern Evolutionary perspective, an uneducated female that has recognized the necessity of producing offspring, would likely be more successful than an educated female of the same species who produced fewer offspring, since the former will have more progeny in the gene pool to advance her lineage.

I would assume from this that the more "intelligent" of the two females would be the one who recognized that more offspring would give her descendants a better chance of survival, however, that's just my opinion. It's not supported by any facts or anything. 😉

What's your point? Actually, what's your response?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Advancment of society is not the same as evolution.

😕

Did you miss this quote?

Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter Five

Description: The Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties during Primeval and Civilized Times: Natural Selection as affecting Civilized Nations.

The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means.

There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.

source: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/olds...apers12HTML.htm

def society: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.

PS. "Nation" is synonymous with "society."

PSS. Darwin believes that human societies are no different than those of animals. Like most Evolutionists, he characteristically believes that a society's advancement, is dependant upon the evolution of its members, which is only made possible through procreation.

Back on topic..

How is intellect the driving force behind the evolution of a society?

How will an intelligent species that can not procreate, become more evolved than a dull witted species that can?

Come on my friends, certainly you can give better answers than those that you have given thus far.

whob, you make no valid point, you have no point...you just suck.

all you do is present some convoluted argument meant to bash people based on attacking a point they never made.

gay people never claimed to be better than everyone else and meant to carry the torch that is the human race. all they ask is to not be routinely harassed by idiots like you, and pray that you never come out of the closet and bring your own special brand of idiocy to their side. 😬

endyourselfkthxbye

Originally posted by PVS
whob, you make no valid point, you have no point...you just suck.

😆 Ijole guey!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So I guess from a Darwinian and Modern Evolutionary perspective, an uneducated female that has recognized the necessity of producing offspring, would likely be more successful than an educated female of the same species who produced fewer offspring, since the former will have more progeny in the gene pool to advance her lineage.

I would assume from this that the more "intelligent" of the two females would be the one who recognized that more offspring would give her descendants a better chance of survival, however, that's just my opinion. It's not supported by any facts or anything. 😉

Your assumption falsely presumes that the woman who is producing more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
😕

Did you miss this quote?

def society: a community, [b]nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.

PS. "Nation" is synonymous with "society."

PSS. Darwin believes that human societies are no different than those of animals. Like most Evolutionists, he characteristically believes that a society's advancement, is dependant upon the evolution of its members, which is only made possible through procreation.

Back on topic..

How is intellect the driving force behind the evolution of a society?

How will an intelligent species that can not procreate, become more evolved than a dull witted species that can?

Come on my friends, certainly you can give better answers than those that you have given thus far. [/B]

Did you miss the quote that you have beem continuously posting throughout this thread?

Originally posted by Adam Poe

All along I thought that intellect was the driving force behind the advancement of society. I did not realize that the real driving force behind the advancement of society is men and women ****ing.

No one is arguing that intellect is the driving force behind evolution, but that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement of society.

Nice attempt at trying to switch terms in the middle of an argument.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Your assumption falsely presumes that the woman who is producing more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective.

How can one make a false presumption, against an assumption that they've made? It would kind of be like if I stated to you..

"Your scenario falsely presumes that your assumption of men and women f*cking is not the driving force behind a society's advancement."

Sounds a bit illogical, does it not my friend?

Moving on with the initial argument, from a modern evolutionary perspective, an organism that realizes more offspring will bring about better chances of its' progeny's survival, would be more evolved than an organism that did not realize this. It is my understanding that generally the more evolved organism is considered to be the more intelligent one. Correct me if I'm wrong however. 😉

Originally posted by Adam Poe
Did you miss the quote that you have beem continuously posting throughout this thread?
No one is arguing that intellect is the driving force behind evolution, but that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement of society.

Semantic nonsense..

The term "evolution" is synonymous with the term "advancement." As are these additional words listed below:

development = evolution
Part of Speech: noun 1

Definition: growth

synonyms: adding to, addition, adulthood, advance, advancement, advancing, augmentation, augmenting, boost, buildup, developing, elaborating, enlargement, evolution, evolvement, evolving, expansion, flowering, growing, hike, improvement, increase, increasing, maturation, maturing, maturity, ongoing, perfecting, progress, progression, reinforcement, reinforcing, ripening, spread, spreading, unfolding, unraveling, up, upgrowth, upping

Even Darwin uses the terms synonymously in his works.

Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter Five

Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle.

Let's continue on past this silly word game which you have been proved wrong about multiple times. Just to clarify things, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, is it still your belief that "intellect" and not "procreation" is the driving force behind a society's advancement?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
How can one make a false presumption, against an assumption that they've made? It would kind of be like if I stated to you..

"Your scenario falsely presumes that your assumption of men and women f*cking is not the driving force behind a society's advancement."

Sounds a bit illogical, does it not my friend?

Moving on with the initial argument, from a modern evolutionary perspective, an organism that realizes more offspring will bring about better chances of its' progeny's survival, would be more evolved than an organism that did not realize this. It is my understanding that generally the more evolved organism is considered to be the more intelligent one. Correct me if I'm wrong however. 😉

Your assumption is that a female who produces more children is more intelligent than a female who produces fewer children.

This assumpiton presumes that the female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Semantic nonsense..

The term "evolution" is synonymous with the term "advancement." As are these additional words listed below:

Even Darwin uses the terms synonymously in his works.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
However, I'm going to go beyond it to explain the difference in the two concepts you don't seem to understand. The two terms are "Evolution" and "Advancment". More importantly, I'm going to place them in the context of the conversation, THIS conversation. The word 'Evolution" is not always used in regards to the theory that originated with the research of Charles Darwin. Like many terms that are commonly used in modern languages, 'evolution' has taken on a variety of meanings when used in different contexts and conversations, as I illustrated for you in an earlier post.

Evolution is the term applied to the theory that life forms will adapt to their environment and become (gradually or rapidly) more complex. It is applicable to the biological advancment of a species.

Advancment of society is not the same as evolution. Advancment, in this context, is the progress of the human species in regards to intellectual concepts and physical materials, like harnessing fire, shaping stone tools, combining metals into alloys, building temples, harnessing steam and electricity, building mechanisms like the computer and the combustion engine. It also includes the development and refining of morals, science and religion.

Now if you would like to use quotes out of context and confuse terminology so that people who aren't paying as much attention to the conversation will be fooled into thinking some one on the opposite side of the debate is not making sense, you feel free to continue doing so.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let's continue on past this silly word game which you have been proved wrong about multiple times. Just to clarify things, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, is it still your belief that "intellect" and not "procreation" is the driving force behind a society's advancement?

When was the last time a man and woman ****ed and a computer popped out? Procreation does not produce societal advancements. Procreation only produces more people.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This assumpiton presumes that the female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective

Of course it does, that was the initial point of presenting the scenario. To presume otherwise would mean that I'd be invalidating my own argument. But it's good to see that at least your understanding of the argument has "evolved", or I could just say that it's "advanced." After all, the words are synonyms you know..😉

Now I have a few follow up questions for you.

Is it logical to assume that an individual who understands that procreation is the key to advancing a species, is more intelligent than one who doesn't?

Wouldn't possessing the ability to understand this simple concept kind of represent..well..ahem.."common sense?"

If one is not able to understand such a simple concept, would that mean that they lack "common sense?"

Originally posted by Adam Poe
When was the last time a man and woman ****ed and a computer popped out? Procreation does not produce societal advancements. Procreation only produces more people.

Well I believe she f*cked first, had the baby second, the baby grew up third, and lastly he created the computer. All of this wouldn't have happened of course, if the woman hadn't f*cked in the first place..right?

Or do computers just mystically create themselves and put themselves together? Oh wait a second, I'm debating with an evolutionist..so yeah, I guess they do.😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Of course it does, that was the initial point of presenting the scenario. To presume otherwise would mean that I'd be invalidating my own argument. But it's good to see that at least your understanding of the argument has "evolved", or I could just say that it's "advanced." After all, the words are synonyms you know..😉

Clearly, not the point. Your assumption falsely presumes that the female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Now I have a few follow up questions for you.

Is it logical to assume that an individual who understands that procreation is the key to advancing a species, is more intelligent than one who doesn't?

Wouldn't possessing the ability to understand this simple concept kind of represent..well..ahem.."common sense?"

If one is not able to understand such a simple concept, would that mean that they lack "common sense?"

One who recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage is not necessarily more intelligent.

Common sense is not producing children that one does not have the means to raise to adulthood.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well I believe she f*cked first, had the baby second, the baby grew up third, and lastly he created the computer. All of this wouldn't have happened of course, if the woman hadn't f*cked in the first place..right?

Or do computers just mystically create themselves and put themselves together? Oh wait a second, I'm debating with an evolutionist..so yeah, I guess they do.😆

The argument "Procreation produces people, and people produce advancements for society, therefore procreation produces advancements for society," is valid but not sound, because it draws a particular conclusion from universal premises.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Clearly, not the point. Your assumption falsely presumes that the female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage.

One who recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage is not necessarily more intelligent.

Common sense is not producing children that one does not have the means to raise to adulthood.

Again, I can't make false presumptions against my own assumptions. That would be illogical. I don't know if this is simply a grammatical error, or if you're just trying to twist wording around in order to confuse people into thinking you have a valid argument.

You made this same statement several posts ago as well, but unfortunately I overlooked it in the last post. Anyway, by making such a statement.. you would essentially be trying to get me to validate that my initial assumption is "false."

Be it a tricky word game or an inadvertent word mix up, your argument has no substance to it. The bottom line is that one who recognizes the need for procreation and has the means to provide for the offspring it produces, would be the more evolved species. This is a fundamental principle of evolutionary theory my friend.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
The argument "Procreation produces people, and people produce advancements for society, therefore procreation produces advancements for society," is valid but not sound, because it draws a particular conclusion from universal premises.

Intellect can not produce offspring Adam. The ability to procreate, however, can produce beings intelligent enough to "advance" a society. The basic premise behind Modern Evolutionary theory is that "procreation" is necessary to advance a species. This is also basic common sense. If you have a problem with this rationale, perhaps you should present your new theory of "intellect" being the driving force behind "evolution" to the scientific community for review. Who knows, it may get you a Nobel Prize.😉

I say we just make Adam Poe and whobdamandog's avatars fight it out. I'll pick He-Man over Gary Coleman in best two-out-of-three.

Hang on whob... So you think that sex is the driving force over intelligence, Yet you think we are better then animals due to our emotions and intelligence...

Anyone else seeing a contradiction here???

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Hang on whob... So you think that sex is the driving force over intelligence

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Not just men ****ing..men ****ing women and producing "smart" babies...Homosexuals can't **** each other and produce babies..or can they? You tell me bud..

I think a smart homosexual male can **** a smart homosexual female and the offspring will probably much more valueable than those of two average heteros.

😆

"men ****ing women and producing "smart" babies..."

So now your preaching evolution?? 😆 just how much can you contradict yourself???