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..
Let us presume that the term assumption and the term presumption have the same meaning. This does not change the fact that the presumption (or if you prefer, assumption), "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," is false, so why are you arguing an irrelevant point?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
...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.
No, those who procreate the most are more likely to have more of their lineage survive.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.
It is not my argument that "the population of a society does not need to 'change in genetic composition during successive generations' to biologically evolve or 'change in genetic composition during successive generations.'"
My argument is that "the population of a society does not need to 'change in genetic composition during successive generations' to advance or 'develop or progress.'"
You are using the term "evolution" to mean "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations," and interchangeably with "advancement" to mean "development or progress."
Stop switching the meaning of terms in the middle of an argument (the logic fallacy of Equivocation) in an attempt misrepresent my argument (the logic fallacy of Straw Man).
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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?
One cannot draw a particular conclusion from universal premises because:
[list=1][*]Some universal premises need not be instantiated.
[*]No direct relationship exists between the truth of the conclusion and the truth of the premises.[/list]
Why is this so hard to understand?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.
Simply calling my argument weak does not identify how it is weak, nor does it invalidate it.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.
Certainly, the intelligence of the members of a society matters. The intelligent members of society who "can't **** and produce babies," will learn to reproduce artificially, while producing advancements in medicine, science, technology, etc. Meanwhile, the "group full of one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retards" will be producing large numbers of children with high infant mortality rates, and genetic defects that will shorten their life expectancies or render them sterile. Simple as that.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.
No, both theories recognize procreation as the driving force behind "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations."
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.
Homosexuals do not engage in any sexual behaviors that heterosexuals do not also engage in, so how do the sexual behaviors of one group produce advancements for society while the same behaviors performed by another group do not?
Simple. The sexual behaviors of neither group produces advancements for society. Only the intellectual contributions of the members of a society produce advancements for society.
Moreover, I am still waiting for you to answer 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?