The Great Evolutionary Race!!

i may have glazed over, but the big reason why whob's argument is bullshit is this:

if the goal was procreation then yes homosexuals can reproduce. they would just have to have hetero-sex that they may or may not enjoy. maybe in whob's eight grade locker room mentallity, he believes that being gay makes one sterile or perhaps that gay men fear that a vagina might make their dick melt, but i assure you that if the fate of a dwindling population was at stake, gay people would most likely throw preference and enjoyment to the wind for the sake of procreation, especially since it only takes a couple of minutes to make a baby, and then its goodbye vagina... not that difficult to imagine, is it?

I have a novel idea. Lets not respond to this thread as its pertains to anything Whob says. Let's ignore everything he says but pretend like he actually is vaguely part of our argument. He could be like an invisible man who is incapable of speech. This way he might better understand what it is like to talk to a brick wall aka himself..

That's probably a good idea for his opponents. Usually people who make a living off of arguing (lawyers excluded, ahem) don't react too well when they fail to get attention, so good point, meep-meep.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
😕

Did you miss this quote?

Nope, I read it. It simply doesn't make a difference in this conversation.

Darwin: February 12 1809 – April 19 1882

Current year: 2006

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.

You have made an assumption.

Your assumption presumes certain things to be true that are not true.

What do you not understand?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.😉

First, I never stated that intellect is the driving force behing human evolution. I stated that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement of society. Stop trying to switch terms in the middle of an argument.

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

The following will illustrate why this is not a sound argument. "Procreation produces people, and people produce weapons of mass destruction, therefore procreation produces weapons of mass destruction." The truth of universal premises does not prove the truth of a particular conclusion.

Originally posted by PVS
i may have glazed over, but the big reason why whob's argument is bullshit is this:

if the goal was procreation then yes homosexuals can reproduce. they would just have to have hetero-sex that they may or may not enjoy.

Take out the "V" in your screen name and use a "B" instead. Add the word "Kids" to the end of it, and we'll have a name which accurately portrays your intellectual level.😉

Newsflash Bud. If homosexuals engage in "hetero-sex" to procreate, than as it has been stated countless times, this proves that "hetero-sex" is the driving force behind a society's advancement.

its not thought... Hetero sex sustains society.. But intelligence advances us, Otherwise by your logic all the other animals on this planet are advancing...

Last time I looked No other animal had the power or intelligence we have...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
If homosexuals engage in "hetero-sex" to procreate, than as it has been stated countless times, this proves that "hetero-sex" is the driving force behind a society's advancement.

Take out the words "society's advancment" and replace them with "species continuation" and you'll be right on the money. OH, WHOB! you're so close....keep going little red engine!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You have made an assumption.

Your assumption presumes certain things to be true that are not true.

What do you not understand?

I guess I gave you too much credit then, it was just poor grammar. An assumption is a presumption. To state that an assumption is presumptuous is redundant. Anyway, this still doesn't take away from the fact that your argument has no substance to it, as you will see in the next rebuttal.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
First, I never stated that intellect is the driving force behing human evolution. I stated that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement of society. Stop trying to switch terms in the middle of an argument.

This is obviously silly wordplay. Regardless, even with this statement being made, you still have backed yourself into a corner. Case in point, you're essentially stating that human evolution is not necessary for the advancement of a human society. Take note, that the only thing a society represents is a group of people cohabiting together and living under common guidelines. If the individuals that make up a society don't evolve(syn. advance), then how is it possible for a society to evolve(syn. advance)?

Answer: It isn't possible and you have once again, proved yourself to be the fool.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Second, the argument "Procreation produces people, and people produce advancements for society, therefore procreation produces advancements for society," is not sound, because it draws a particular conclusion from universal premises.

The following will illustrate why this is not a sound argument. "Procreation produces people, and people produce weapons of mass destruction, therefore procreation produces weapons of mass destruction." The truth of universal premises does not prove the truth of a particular conclusion.

More gibberish, and over-complicating simple concepts.

Oddly enough in a round about way, your statement above does represent a partial truth. Obviously we both know that weapons of mass destruction are not created from a man and woman having sexual intercourse, but humans are. So the natural act of hetero-sex between a man and woman creates human beings, who are then capable of building weapons of mass destruction. Simple enough for you?😉

You are clearly wrong about "intellect" being the driving force of a society's evolution(syn advancement). But at this point, you're too proud to admit it, as well as grasping at a reason to justify why your "homosexual" behavior can be deemed beneficial to the evolutionary process.

I definitely understand your dilemma, particularly since the modern homosexual doctrine which you proudly adhere to conflicts with the modern gospel of evolution which you also proudly adhere to. This Darwinian gospel clearly defines such sexual behavior as being "primitive" and incapable of advancing a species. Based on this rationale, homosexuals would be deemed the least "fit" genetically to survive in a primitive or a modern society.

With that being stated, I hope that you will understand the "foolishness" behind following both faiths, and hope that you are able to resign yourself to the fate that awaits all those who choose to believe in them.

Fin

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
its not thought... Hetero sex [b]sustains society.. But intelligence advances us, Otherwise by your logic all the other animals on this planet are advancing...

Last time I looked No other animal had the power or intelligence we have... [/B]

The most intelligent animal in existence, will not advance it's species..if it does not possess the ability to procreate.

The most dullest animal in existence, can advance it's species, if it does possess the ability to procreate.

You've missed the ball on this Hit, as have many others..which is surprising seeing as how this basic principle is commonly used to support Modern Evolutionary theory.

Looking for the open corner pocket isn't Adams style.

You still haven't addressed the corner into which you've backed youself Whob.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The most intelligent animal in existence, will not advance it's species..if it does not possess the ability to procreate.

Well the premise that the animal was born in the first place would lead me to believe that it can reproduce... The fact is that Animals are "Dumb" they don't have our creativity..(yes there are a few that can do great things.. Dolphins and such... Yet they aren't as advanced as us...) Yet your line of thinking should mean that dolphins should be at our level... After all They reproduce... Dur its not that simple... Just cause something reproduces doesn't dictate it will advance... its a part of advancing but its not the only factor...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You've missed the ball on this Hit, as have many others..which is surprising seeing as how this basic principle is commonly used to support Modern Evolutionary theory.

No what people here are trying to do is go against your attempt to justify your evil thinking... "That cause Gays can't reproduce, Basic biology dictates that its wrong." Now humans aren't meant of dive to deaths of 100 meters... yet some do... we weren't designed for space.. yet we have been there... We had done alot of things that our bodies weren't designed for, So with your base biology thinking... we we not meant to do it, it must be evil...
Human adaption is one of our strongest survival traits, Now with all these activities we have done where we have no biological adaptations for, I ask you why Men have the ability to have an orgasm from prostate stimulation... Biology shows that this ability must be for something??? I wonder why we have it??? Care to attempt to answer this question?

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Well the premise that the animal was born in the first place would lead me to believe that it can reproduce... The fact is that Animals are "Dumb" they don't have our creativity..(yes there are a few that can do great things.. Dolphins and such... Yet they aren't as advanced as us...) Yet your line of thinking should mean that dolphins should be at our level... After all They reproduce... Dur its not that simple... Just cause something reproduces doesn't dictate it will advance... its a part of advancing but its not the only factor...

"Intellect" can not produce more members of a society. Your assumption of it being the "driving force" is a fallacious one.

A sterile yet intelligent male, can not pass on his genes to create a more advanced species, while an unintelligent yet fertile male can. This basic principle is reiterated throughout modern evolutionary doctrine.

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.

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.

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

Modern Evolutionary Doctrine - Sexual Selection

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

Common sense obviously dictates that intelligence does act as an important factor in the evolution of a society, however, it is not the primary factor or driving factor.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
No what people here are trying to do is go against your attempt to justify your evil thinking... "That cause Gays can't reproduce, Basic biology dictates that its wrong." Now humans aren't meant of dive to deaths of 100 meters... yet some do... we weren't designed for space.. yet we have been there... We had done alot of things that our bodies weren't designed for, So with your base biology thinking... we we not meant to do it, it must be evil...

You are correct, human beings do a lot of things that our bodies are not designed for, however, to assume an organism's ability to "jump 100 meters", "go into space", or that similar actions are the "driving force" behind a species evolution is illogical, and contradicts the fundamental evolutionary principle of "procreation" being the essential ingredient in the advancement of a species.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Human adaption is one of our strongest survival traits, Now with all these activities we have done where we have no biological adaptations for, ?

According to Modern Evolutionary theory, human adaptation, is a strong survival trait, however, it is not a species primary survival trait. You are definitely "Missing" the mark on this one "Hit."

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I ask you why Men have the ability to have an orgasm from prostate stimulation... Biology shows that this ability must be for something??? I wonder why we have it??? Care to attempt to answer this question

I can also stick a salami sandwich in my ass. Does that mean that the natural function of the ass is for people to eat stuff off of it?😉

I believe you need to go to a Medical Physician and ask them to clarify with you what the function of the rectum is, and why it is necessary to perform a colonoscopy. I'm sure they'll agree with your position that one of the primary functions of a colonoscopy is to check the rectum, and to ensure that large cylindrical objects can be inserted into it, to stimulate the prostate gland. 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I guess I gave you too much credit then, it was just poor grammar. An assumption is a presumption. To state that an assumption is presumptuous is redundant. Anyway, this still doesn't take away from the fact that your argument has no substance to it, as you will see in the next rebuttal.

An assumption is a premise. A presumption is the act of accepting something as true.

Your assumption is "a female who produces more children is more intelligent than a female who produces fewer children." This is your premise.

Your presumption is "a 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." This is what you accept to be true.

Your presumption is the basis for your assumption. If your presumption is false, your assumption is false.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This is obviously silly wordplay. Regardless, even with this statement being made, you still have backed yourself into a corner. Case in point, you're essentially stating that human evolution is not necessary for the advancement of a human society. Take note, that the only thing a society represents is a group of people cohabiting together and living under common guidelines. If the individuals that make up a society don't evolve(syn. advance), then how is it possible for a society to evolve(syn. advance)?

Answer: It isn't possible and you have once again, proved yourself to be the fool.

Someone is playing semantics games, and it is not me. I and everyone else in this thread are using the term "evolution" exclusively to mean "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations." You are using the term "evolution" to also mean "development or progress."

The population of a society does not need to "change in genetic composition during successive generations" to "develop or progress."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
More gibberish, and over-complicating simple concepts.

Oddly enough in a round about way, your statement above does represent a partial truth. Obviously we both know that weapons of mass destruction are not created from a man and woman having sexual intercourse, but humans are. So the natural act of hetero-sex between a man and woman creates human beings, who are then capable of building weapons of mass destruction. Simple enough for you?

Thank you for proving my point. Procreation does not directly produce weapons of mass destruction, nor does procreation directly produce advancements for society. The only thing procreation directly produces is people. Is that simple enough for you?

If not, continue to commit the Existential fallacy by asserting that one can draw a particular conclusion from universal premises.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are clearly wrong about "intellect" being the driving force of a society's evolution(syn advancement). But at this point, you're too proud to admit it, as well as grasping at a reason to justify why your "homosexual" behavior can be deemed beneficial to the evolutionary process.

I definitely understand your dilemma, particularly since the modern homosexual doctrine which you proudly adhere to conflicts with the modern gospel of evolution which you also proudly adhere to. This Darwinian gospel clearly defines such sexual behavior as being "primitive" and incapable of advancing a species. Based on this rationale, homosexuals would be deemed the least "fit" genetically to survive in a primitive or a modern society.

With that being stated, I hope that you will understand the "foolishness" behind following both faiths, and hope that you are able to resign yourself to the fate that awaits all those who choose to believe in them.

Again, I never stated that intellect is the driving force behind the evolution or "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations," of society. I stated that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement or "development or progress" of society.

Moreover, how many times must it be explained to you that Modern Evolutionary Theory and Darwinism are not the same thing?

Yes, I am foolish for believing in Modern Evolutionary Theory, and you are wise for believing in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Since I am so foolish, I am confused about the creation account. And since you are so wise, perhaps you could answer some of my questions:

In Genesis 1:1-31, the creation takes six days, but in Genesis 2:4, the creation takes one day.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:11-27, God creates the plants before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:5-25, God creates man first, the plants next, and then woman.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:14-19, God creates the stars before He creates the earth, but in Job 38:4-7, God creates the stars after He creates the earth.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:20-22, God creates birds from the water, but in Genesis 2:19, God creates birds from the ground.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:25-27, God creates the animals before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, the animals next, and then woman.

Which is correct?

In Genesis 1:27, God creates man and woman at the same time, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, then woman.

Which is correct?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I can also stick a salami sandwich in my ass. Does that mean that the natural function of the ass is for people to eat stuff off of it?😉

I believe you need to go to a Medical Physician and ask them to clarify with you what the function of the rectum is, and why it is necessary to perform a colonoscopy. I'm sure they'll agree with your position that one of the primary functions of a colonoscopy is to check the rectum, and to ensure that large cylindrical objects can be inserted into it, to stimulate the prostate gland. 🙄

There is no organ in the ass to deal with a sandwich, What you are doing there serves no purpose, However we have a prostate, Which has a function which only gays seem to use, Unless you can provide us some reason as to why we have a prostate with this ability, I don't see your point as having much credit...

Again, Your example has no reasoning, However anal sex in men obviously has some merit as they are using a function of an organ... Now the function might just be for fun, But then again so is stimulation of the nipples in straight sex...

Nice try at avoiding the question whobethefool (WOW! I can make crappy name jokes aswell!)... But try again... 😆

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You have made an assumption.

Your assumption presumes certain things to be true that are not true.

What do you not understand?

First, I never stated that intellect is the driving force behing human evolution. I stated that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement of society. Stop trying to switch terms in the middle of an argument.

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

sup dude?

The following will illustrate why this is not a sound argument. "Procreation produces people, and people produce weapons of mass destruction, therefore procreation produces weapons of mass destruction." The truth of universal premises does not prove the truth of a particular conclusion.

Originally posted by omaga

Also, don't post in quotes of others.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, don't post in quotes of others.
Don't be like that bastard Botankus guy and screw up everyone's postings.

Que? You got a problem with me, Bardock? I'll be waiting outside for you when you're ready to box!boxing

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
An assumption is a premise. A presumption is the act of accepting something as true.

Your assumption is "a female who produces more children is more intelligent than a female who produces fewer children." This is your premise.

Your presumption is "a 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." This is what you accept to be true.

Your presumption is the basis for your assumption. If your presumption is false, your assumption is false.

The statement is redundant, and you know it. It isn't necessary to state that one is "presuming" something when they make an assumption. It is already understood that they are presuming something when making an assumption. Seeing as how an assumption is generally defined as: "The act of presuming."

I guess I'll have to go back to my original opinion of you using such tricky terminology to deceive people, seeing as how the statement above predefines my argument as false, without using any substantive evidence to prove it as being false.

This is a classic example of how you debate, never really presenting any real arguments. You just use excessively complicated terminology that one has to research before they find out there is no true meaning to the argument being presented.

Or "gibberish." As our dear friend Ush would put it. Anyway, moving on my argument of..

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

...simply asserts the obvious, that from a "Darwinian and Modern Evolutionary Perspective" those who procreate the most, are the most likely to have their lineage survive. If one recognized this "common sense" argument as being true, I would think that would make them a bit more intelligent than one who didn't, despite how high the latter individual scored on an SAT test.

As we often see in life..book smarts do not = common sense smarts, and there are many examples of individuals on the forum who support this argument.😉

Originally posted by Adam Poe
Someone is playing semantics games, and it is not me. I and everyone else in this thread are using the term "evolution" exclusively to mean "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations." You are using the term "evolution" to also mean "development or progress."

The population of a society does not need to "change in genetic composition during successive generations" to "develop or progress."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. .

Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

Yeah, we can clearly see from above that Futuyma obviously agrees with your assumption of "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations", has nothing to do with the "evolution" of a society. I can also tell from above that he agrees with you about one intelligent sterile organism, would make more of an "evolutionary" change to a society, than one unintelligent fertile organism.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
Thank you for proving my point. Procreation does not directly produce weapons of mass destruction, nor does procreation directly produce advancements for society. The only thing procreation directly produces is people.

And the people produce the weapons of mass destruction, and people can't be produced without an organism's ability to procreate.

Am I missing something here? Why is this so hard to understand?

Originally posted by Adam Poe
If not, continue to commit the Existential fallacy by asserting that one can draw a particular conclusion from universal premises.

Universal premises? That's a pretty weak argument even for you my friend. You must be watching too much He-man. He is one of the Master's of the Universe you know.😉

Originally posted by Adam Poe
Again, I never stated that intellect is the driving force behind the evolution or "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations," of society. I stated that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement or "development or progress" of society.

Whatever the case, we both know that you would be wrong on both counts anyway. If people in a society can't f*ck and produce babies, it doesn't matter how intelligent the members of that society are, they will not advance over a group full of one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retards who can f*ck and produce babies. Simple as that.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
Moreover, how many times must it be explained to you that Modern Evolutionary Theory and Darwinism are not the same thing?

Probably the same amount of times it must be explained to you that both theories recognize "procreation" as being the driving force behind a species advancement.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
Yes, I am foolish for believing in Modern Evolutionary Theory..

And for believing that homosexual behavior can offer any true advancements to a society, and for believing that intellect is the "driving" force behind the evolution of a society.

Regardless of how intelligent the homosexual's are in this little scenario I've created, or any scenario for that matter, their sexual behavior has no ability to "advance" a culture, and they would inevitably die out, if they did not choose to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Heterosexuality is essential to evolving a culture. Homosexual behavior from a biological or developmental perspective offers no true "advancements" to a society, unless of course, one considers the advanced abilities that many homosexuals possess when it comes to inserting large objects into their rectums.😉

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The statement is redundant, and you know it. It isn't necessary to state that one is "presuming" something when they make an assumption. It is already understood that they are presuming something when making an assumption. Seeing as how an assumption is generally defined as: "The act of presuming."

I guess I'll have to go back to my original opinion of you using such tricky terminology to deceive people, seeing as how the statement above predefines my argument as false, without using any substantive evidence to prove it as being false.

This is a classic example of how you debate, never really presenting any real arguments. You just use excessively complicated terminology that one has to research before they find out there is no true meaning to the argument being presented.

Or "gibberish." As our dear friend Ush would put it. Anyway, moving on my argument of..

...simply asserts the obvious, that from a "Darwinian and Modern Evolutionary Perspective" those who procreate the most, are the most likely to have their lineage survive. If one recognized this "common sense" argument as being true, I would think that would make them a bit more intelligent than one who didn't, despite how high the latter individual scored on an SAT test.

As we often see in life..book smarts do not = common sense smarts, and there are many examples of individuals on the forum who support this argument.😉

Yeah, we can clearly see from above that Futuyma obviously agrees with your assumption of "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations", has nothing to do with the "evolution" of a society. I can also tell from above that he agrees with you about [b]one intelligent sterile organism, would make more of an "evolutionary" change to a society, than one unintelligent fertile organism.

And the people produce the weapons of mass destruction, and people can't be produced without an organism's ability to procreate.

Am I missing something here? Why is this so hard to understand?

Universal premises? That's a pretty weak argument even for you my friend. You must be watching too much He-man. He is one of the Master's of the Universe you know.😉

Whatever the case, we both know that you would be wrong on both counts anyway. If people in a society can't f*ck and produce babies, it doesn't matter how intelligent the members of that society are, they will not advance over a group full of one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retards who can f*ck and produce babies. Simple as that.

Probably the same amount of times it must be explained to you that both theories recognize "procreation" as being the driving force behind a species advancement.

And for believing that homosexual behavior can offer any true advancements to a society, and for believing that intellect is the "driving" force behind the evolution of a society.

Regardless of how intelligent the homosexual's are in this little scenario I've created, or any scenario for that matter, their sexual behavior has no ability to "advance" a culture, and they would inevitably die out, if they did not choose to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Heterosexuality is essential to evolving a culture. Homosexual behavior from a biological or developmental perspective offers no true "advancements" to a society, unless of course, one considers the advanced abilities that many homosexuals possess when it comes to inserting large objects into their rectums.😉

Fin [/B]