Man Vs. Monkey!!

[Obsidian]

Moreover, the false theory of evolution promotes detrimental social behavior. Rollo has already mentioned this (although I doubt that he finds it so detrimental). Evolutionists like to assert that humans "are not naturally monogamous," that life is all about reproduction, and basically that humans are animals. This type of thinking props up the Hor Matrix and makes it impossible for a man to become a real man.

How can you have any standards if evolution requires that you spread your seed to as many females as possible? The theory ultimately requires is the worship of females.

How can you ever get involved in a mature LTR if humans are not meant for monogamy? The theory promotes promiscuity, which again, FAVORS FEMALES by taking control away from the men.

Life is not all about sex.

 

[cordoncordon]

Moreover, the false theory of evolution promotes detrimental social behavior. Rollo has already mentioned this (although I doubt that he finds it so detrimental). Evolutionists like to assert that humans "are not naturally monogamous," that life is all about reproduction, and basically that humans are animals. This type of thinking props up the Hor Matrix and makes it impossible for a man to become a real man.

How can you have any standards if evolution requires that you spread your seed to as many females as possible? The theory ultimately requires is the worship of females.

How can you ever get involved in a mature LTR if humans are not meant for monogamy? The theory promotes promiscuity, which again, FAVORS FEMALES by taking control away from the men.

Life is not all about sex.

Actually....it is. The number one goal of 99.9999999999999%, hell make it 100% of all species on this planet, is to procreate. IF we don't, we all cease to exist. Look at salmon. They literally die to spawn. That is their entire meaning of life. Once they exhaust all of their energy by swimming up stream to lay their eggs or to fertilize those eggs, they are done. They just give up and die.

Society, mainly through religion, deems it necesary that humans be monogamous. When in reality that is contrary to our basic DNA-that is to spread our seed to as many different females as possible. But, because we are thinking creatures with social morals, most (myself included) are against taking multiple partners at once. Mainly due to the feelings it would hurt and the chaos it would bring to a persons life to have multiple partners. But don't get me wrong, it is in mine and every other male humans DNA to WANT to have sex with almost every female we are attracted to. You can't fight millions of years of evolution. The ironic thing is, back in the days that the bible was written, BY MAN mind you, society deemed it ok to take as many wives as possible, all the while preaching monogamy!

When it comes down to it, we are no different than ants, or dolpins, or chimps, or tigers. We are ALL made out of the exact same thing. The same chemicals, and elements, and molecules. There is NOTHING that makes us special, except for the fact that we are more intelligent, which may be the end of us all it turns out.

 

[Aboleo]

double post. See below...

 

[Technical1]

One very common mistake the home-schoolers make is that evolution isn't simply reliant upon a genetic cause. DNA does in fact mutate to increase variety in species, but the X factor will always be environmental changes that select in or out a particular variation. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the species best able to adapt to a changed or changing environment.

I beg to differ.

It is survival of the fittest that is the essence of Darwinian evolution, or evolution period. But the definition of "the fittest" depends on a given environmental niche. For example, if all food were to disappear from the earth for 40 days, and nothing edible existed for that time, but then food came back- only the morbidly obese would have been able to live on their fat supply, all healthy people would have died out. (hypothetical example).

In such a strange environment, the morbidly obese would be the fittest. The fittest survive by definition because those most likely to thrive and grow and reproduce in an environment are defined as the most fit (for that environment). Evolution operates by survival of the fittest.

 

[Obsidian]

According to evolution, males are supposed to pursue sex with as many females as possible. Females are supposed to mate only (or primarily) with guys who have "high-quality" genes. That means all the guys will be collectively more desperate for sex than the girls.

Evolution -----> Matriarchy

Only in modern times has a man been defined largely by how much sex he can get.

 

[Aboleo]

How can you ever get involved in a mature LTR if humans are not meant for monogamy? The theory promotes promiscuity, which again, FAVORS FEMALES by taking control away from the men.

This is really only true in modern times. If you go back to a more primitive social setting then there really wouldn't be any problem with a man having several 'wives' due in large part to the dangerous complications that can result during child birth; you wouldn't want your entire family line to die out if your mate suddenly died while producing your offspring (which without the advances in modern medicine was very common). This also ensures that only the strongest, smartest genes are passed on to future generations as only the strongest, smartest males are allowed to reproduce.

I fail to see how this results in female worship, either. Each sex is simply playing out the roles that nature intended. I would argue that our modern outlook on what a relationship is and how gender is definded is more detrimental to society in the long run. I think the world would be a much better place if we simply accepted our true place within nature and reviled in it... but I am getting off topic with that discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[cordoncordon]

According to evolution, males are supposed to pursue sex with as many females as possible. Females are supposed to mate only (or primarily) with guys who have "high-quality" genes. That means all the guys will be collectively more desperate for sex than the girls.

Evolution -----> Matriarchy

Only in modern times has a man been defined largely by how much sex he can get.

Again, you are thinking in modern terms. Back in prehistoric times, or even fairly modern times 100,000's of years ago and today in the animal kingdom, men and male animals fought over who got to mate with the females. It wasn't just some wild sex orgy. It still happens today with almost every animal species. The males fight it out. The female sits back, the strongest males who were victorious then mate with the female.

It wasn't or isn't like the females laid there with their legs spread open and any and all males just had at it. That is the exact opposite of what happens in the animal kingdom. Nature is very smart about how it dictates who survives and who doesn't. If by chance a weak male did mate with a female, more often than not the offspring was also weak, and it failed to survive and procreate, thus ending its line of DNA.

 

[Last Man Standing]

LMS, I don't know where you are getting this man came from monkeys idea. I am an ardent follower of science, debate of evolution vs. creation, etc, and I have never heard that except from people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Modern man, or Homo sapiens, first appeared in our world's history about 150,000 years ago, in Africa. They were most likely black in color. That DOESN"T mean that prehistoric man, which came into existence MILLIONS OF YEARS ago, came from black men or monkeys for that matter. See the difference?

Here is a nice chart of the most likely origins of man.
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8205/evoljw5.png

You are being much to singular in your train of thought. You are basically saying man came from chimps, but chimps are still here and so are humans. That is wrong. You have to go back MILLIONS, not thousands of years. Some sort of primate evolved. Other species evolved from that primate. Some became more ape like, other more human like. And other branches even different that those. Species evolved and branched off from those branches as well, including modern humans, and on a different branch, modern monkeys-or primates.

You are just wayyyyy over simplifying things.

Ok I understand this - I think others on here explained it differently. Why do the prponents of this belief keep talking about the "missing" link and that we are only 3% different than monkeys at the gene level? The "missing link" being the transition from monkey to man metamorphesus. Also, in grade school textbooks they have a picture of a monkey changing into a man in 5 stages! People keep referring to 100's of thousands of years and millions of years - this is pure conjecture and this cannot be proven - this is not a fact! This is what I have a problem with because to prove this theory you have to go a billion years back and this is just a cop out. If something is unprovable then it is not a science, but a belief system!!!

I'm using the same logic as darwinists use!

Now the evolution I do believe in is the one that is natural to the genetic code of that species. This is why I mentioned the human genome research project and their absolute finding that all races came from the black man and women - look it up!! Now this is a recent modern day announcement made a few years ago that has answered the question of ages - and yet it was on the news for 30 seconds and no puplicity, Yet you have darwins writings being promoted and distributed for 150 years in a belief that is not provable and not proven! Therer is an agenda here!!!

There is DNA evidence that debunks Darwin's belief on a few levels - I'll post it later.

If people are so adamantly AGAINST evolution, it is up to them to DISPROVE IT.

And LMS, please go read a science book. Your posts about fluids and alchemy are entertaining at best, but mostly embarassing for you.

It is impossibe to prove a lie to be true. The onus is on the liar to prove that what he says is true!!! You are the liar and a zealot and a darwin freak!

So you liked my rational and logical essay on page 3, hey? I think you are angry because it disproves your illogical stance which has yet to be proven. Where is your logic here guys - I don't see it!

TWell said, rollo... but please keep this thread open just a while longer... it is very interesting. I think that if everyone would just calm down and try to have an intelligent discussion about this we could all come away from it as better men.

No one has flamed except dessert fox. And you don't have to plead to rollo - he is not the grand pubah of sosuave. He only closes a thread when the tide goes against his beliefs!

Darwin's argument is nature dictates and the creationist argument is the genetic DNA dictates - the DNA that was created. Our DNA tells us to pursue women, not nature!! Define nature? Again, who or what programmed all of the DNA in all species? One organism is extremely complicated - but imagine all!

And so is the sun.atmosphere, and earth also created by this single cell organism as well? If so, what/who created it's perfect orbit and seasons that create perfect conditions for us to thrive?

Are you saying that all of the universal laws of the earth and stars and universe, which are not material but law, were also created by this same single cell organism? HUh? That doesn't make sense!! Where does human thought come from, and why do we have spirits? See my logical explanation on page 3.

 

[ketostix]

Moreover, the false theory of evolution promotes detrimental social behavior. Rollo has already mentioned this (although I doubt that he finds it so detrimental). Evolutionists like to assert that humans "are not naturally monogamous," that life is all about reproduction, and basically that humans are animals. This type of thinking props up the Hor Matrix and makes it impossible for a man to become a real man.

How can you have any standards if evolution requires that you spread your seed to as many females as possible? The theory ultimately requires is the worship of females.

How can you ever get involved in a mature LTR if humans are not meant for monogamy? The theory promotes promiscuity, which again, FAVORS FEMALES by taking control away from the men.

Life is not all about sex.

I agree evolutionist tend to be very liberal and essentially anti-male. They don't promote promiscuity per se. Instead they come out and say "females have more "value", natually have choice, and males must compete a fight over whatever sex women are willing to provide.". This isn't really totally true though for humans. Men are dominate and for most of human history women didn't really have much choice. They took what they could get or what they were told to do lol.

I just don't see women being good at selecting high quality men. If anything men are generally much better at quickly spotting a genetically high value woman.

My point is these people who espouse evolution as a proven fact, also justify a lot of other dogmatic beliefs a long with it. There's a little truth in what evolutionist say but they make big leaps in their conclusions. What they don't really consider is man has the ability to a large degree to overcome nature and isn't a slave to it. And it can work to his own detriment too. A lot of the female choice and selectiveness is more man made than nature. For example if you hand everything to women like modern society tend to, of course they're going to be petty and capricious.

 

[Nighthawk]

Hey LMS, who designed this Intelligent Designer of whom you infer? He's so powerful and omnipotent, how could he just magically come into being?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

For example, if all food were to disappear from the earth for 40 days, and nothing edible existed for that time, but then food came back- only the morbidly obese would have been able to live on their fat supply, all healthy people would have died out. (hypothetical example).

In such a strange environment, the morbidly obese would be the fittest. The fittest survive by definition because those most likely to thrive and grow and reproduce in an environment are defined as the most fit (for that environment). Evolution operates by survival of the fittest.

Actually we see pretty much eye to eye, you just phrased it differently. It's environmental changes that decide which species is selected and which is killed off. If you want to say that's the fittest species, fine, but it's the species that has the ability to adapt and thrive in it's new environment the best that gets to pass on it's genetic material. Up to this point it's been human's capacity to alter our own environments and our ability to creatively adapt to changing environs that's made us an incredibly successful species. And even in light of all this achievement, our time on this planet is the blink of an eye in the scope of success that dinosaurs enjoyed, yet in a few short millennia they died off. The mistakes is to think that DNA alters its make up to compensate for environmental changes when in fact it's the environment that decides what DNA stays and goes.

 

[ketostix]

Hey LMS, who designed this Intelligent Designer of whom you infer? He's so powerful and omnipotent, how could he just magically come into being?

Well you can ask the same question of where did matter and the universe come from. Was it always here or did it create itself? The fact that the universe is even here to begin with is just as magical as the concept that an Intelligent Designer came into being or always existed. They both seem equally inexplicable.

 

[Last Man Standing]

Hey LMS, who designed this Intelligent Designer of whom you infer? He's so powerful and omnipotent, how could he just magically come into being?

Ketostix answered it - our knowledge is limited so we don't know the answer to that. That is why the reality to this discussion is that no one knows the absolute quantifiable answer to the origins of man!! It is faith based - each have their dogmas and there are zealots on both sides!

The purpose of this thread was not to get an answer - it was to hear the logic of both sides!

Here is the solution...

What is alot more interesting and infinitely more relevant to today, is the utillity of teaching religion and science in general education, which one would be beneficial to society.
You should be arguing this LMS, atheist will be running for cover.

Hey, I should get an award or something for not saying the word "hor" in this entire thread!! Woooo-hooooo!

...

 

[Technical1]

How can you have any standards if evolution requires that you spread your seed to as many females as possible?

Evolution doesn't require you to do anything. Be careful to distinguish between the process itself and (simplified) recommendations for behavior based on it, which may be dubious.

At the end of your life, you have succeeded in passing on more or less or none of your genetic material, which determines the genetic make-up of the next generation. People opt out all the time.

The theory ultimately requires is the worship of females.

Au contraire, the best way to secure lots of offspring in the past was probably to steal women from neighboring tribes and hold them as sex slaves. We know this was practiced by people just up to the dawn of civilization. Episodes from Roman, Mongol, Gothic history also back this up.
The conqueror mentality is basically as un-AFC as you can get, think about it.

How can you ever get involved in a mature LTR if humans are not meant for monogamy? The theory promotes promiscuity, which again, FAVORS FEMALES by taking control away from the men.

Monogamy and polygamy are words, concepts. They describe two extremes neither of which perfectly fits the mating pattern of most humans during most periods of history (in my observation). Dont let categories confuse you.

Life is not all about sex.

Tell that to the generation currently being born in hospitals everywhere. Evolutionarily speaking, many things matter besides sex, but without sex, nothing matters (evolutionarily).

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I agree evolutionist tend to be very liberal and essentially anti-male. They don't promote promiscuity per se. Instead they come out and say "females have more "value", natually have choice, and males must compete a fight over whatever sex women are willing to provide.".

My point is these people who espouse evolution as a proven fact, also justify a lot of other dogmatic beliefs a long with it.

This is what offends creationists; that evolution should present anything counter to their perceived natural order of things. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's perceptions of what that order should or shouldn't be that's at issue. In fact I will say here now and for the record I firmly believe that the reason society should be pro-male is PRECISELY because of our evolutionary past. Gender roles evolved from our hunter/gatherer past when we lived in cooperative tribes. In fact the basis of our physicality, our hormonal differences, our psychological differences and or sociological constructs are DIRECTLY attributable to our evolving. I actually agree with much of what LMS believes in principle, I just disagree with his rationale for why it ought to be so.

Value is always perceived. Men or women are no more or less valuable than each other - it's just the societal convention that struggles to establish a dominant frame that would have us believe so. To us, a pile of dog sh!t is met with avoidance and revulsion, but to a housefly it's a banquet, breeding ground and paradise on earth. Environment is relative and it extendes not to just what the weather is outside, but also the societal conditions we're required to live in. Don't wipe off your gender perceptions of how sh!tty things are on a subscription to evolution. I could very easily make the argument that the present state of AFC/Matrix thinking is a direct result of having broken with our evolutionary roots in favor of socially contrived (and convenient) morality. This is just as disingenuous as someone blaming their behavioral indiscretions on their genetics.

 

[ketostix]

This is what offends creationists; that evolution should present anything counter to their perceived natural order of things. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's perceptions of what that order should or shouldn't be that's at issue. In fact I will say here now and for the record I firmly believe that the reason society should be pro-male is PRECISELY because of our evolutionary past. Gender roles evolved from our hunter/gatherer past when we lived in cooperative tribes. In fact the basis of our physicality, our hormonal differences, our psychological differences and or sociological constructs are DIRECTLY attributable to our evolving. I actually agree with much of what LMS believes in principle, I just disagree with his rationale for why it ought to be so.

See I agree with you and this is a good point. But how many staunch evolutionist agree with us? I'd say very few. Evolutionist typically first shun the concept of intelligent design because they disagree with with the latters view of the natural order of things. Then they latch on to a theory that is hardly proven and they accept it almost as a religion to support their version of the natural order and to "disprove" the alternative version of design. All the while claiming it's more scientific.

I'm not a staunch creationist myself, and whether design or evolution is true, I agree it wouldn't make any difference in how I see the natural order of things. But I can't say that is the case for most other creationist or evolutionist either one. My view is evolution is hardly a proven fact, and it's all the conclusions and inferences of most evolutionist about the natural order that I disagree with the most.

It's like you said, evolution and an intelligent designer are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But most people first reject the concept of an intelligent designer then grab hold of evolution without the least bit of skepticism or questioning of it.

 

[Deep Dish]

Deep Dish and Desert Fox have both completed ignored my earlier points, and they are using rhetorical debate tactics to manipulate people into believing "science." Evolutionists bring out the example of moths whose populations experience a change in pre-existing genetic distribution, and they correctly label that "evolution." But then they use this same phenomenon to extrapolate "proof" of a completely different theory -- that mutations can lead to profitable change. The moths didn't involve mutations whatsoever.

Let's play a game which for our purposes we'll just call Bullsh*t. It's the game we all play when writing argumentative pursuasive essays. The game is simple: cite academic sources and duke it out with boxing gloves. For instance, factually demonstrate by quoting credible sources where evolutionary biologists have used typica and melanic peppered moth populations as argument for mutations rather than just an example of natural selection. I am more than happy to write one of my trademark essays and debate the whole scientific issue with you in a separate thread, strictly confined to the scientific issue, because I am very selective in picking my battles and you seem a potentially worthy opponent. I'm sure you are already familiar with what you will be up against with my writing style. Just say yes or no. If yes, expect an essay in a few weeks, at the very least.

 

[ketostix]

I haven't read all posts so it might have been covered, but it really annoys me when people try to use science they don't understand to back up bull**** beliefs.

To all the jokers who quoted entropy as a reason why organization couldn't have increased through evolution, read the law carefully.

It states an ISOLATED system, ie with no new energy input. We get vast amounts of new energy every day from that big ball of fire in the sky, hence, it doesn't really apply in the sense you try to use it.

True it requires energy to form more complex bonds, but that energy is more likely to destroy bonds and release the energy than it is to create complex bonds. The point that entropy naturally disfavors complex structures forming is still valid.

 

[Desert Fox]

It is impossibe to prove a lie to be true. The onus is on the liar to prove that what he says is true!!!

This is the first intelligent thing you've contributed to this thread, although I had to dig it out of PAGES of bullsh1t.

You're absolutely right on this point. God isn't real. If he is, prove it. Prove he wrote the Bible and all that jazz. You can't. Prove that my prayers will be answered. You can't. Why? According to you it's because God is a big fat lie.

Now go home and read your book of sh1tty stories.

True it requires energy to form more complex bonds, but that energy is more likely to destroy bonds and release the energy than it is to create complex bonds. The point that entropy naturally disfavors complex structures forming is still valid.

Please go read up on Gibbs free energy before you attempt to make a point because you obviously have no point here. Go read up on Gibbs free energy and realize entropy isn't the end all be all. I know you heard about this in high school and thought it would make you sound cool and blow us scientists away, but nah, it isn't working for you man.

Does ∆G = ∆H - T∆S ring a bell?

 

[Desert Fox]

And Pasteur did indeed disprove spontaneous generation -- and abiogenesis is essentially that.

That is exactly what I said. Can you read? Learn to read before trying to play with the big boys. Thanks.

Galileo --> heliocentric model
Pasteur --> killed spontaneous generation (sorry to break it to the Jesus freaks)

Nice try with the anti-abiogenesis argument though. Creationists think like this:

atoms --> cells HOLY CRAP HOW THAT HAPPPIINNNN??

In reality it's more like :

atoms --> molecules --> polymers --> replicating polymers --> hypercycle --> protobiont --> cell

Now go read this whole website you tool. Then come back and use KNOWLEDGE to debate me:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html