natural selection doesn't explain things terribly well. i mean, if you just take death and success in breeding as the only factors in changing genetic makeup. then add a few mutations. burroughs was always going on about viruses becoming symbiotes. thats fairly accepted now right?
in that if you have a kid your genes get passed on and if you don't they dont.
when i say i don't beleive in evolution, and this is wearisome, having to spell this out, as i would have liked to think, given contxt, that this was fairly clear, that there seems to be more factors at play. now a lot of these things are not heretical, scientifucally, as far as i know. for example, viruses etc. other organisms melding themselves into human dna or whatever (excuse my loose use of terms i don't have any clear knowedge of) or like that docuentary taht claimed things 'learned' in the course of a lifetime could be passed on, eg a taste for lsd. (it didn't give that example, i made it up)
also the idea of a guiding intelligence at some level beyond the indivudual, whether at dna level or whatever is not one iw ould dismiss out of hand.
facts are facts is always a vacous thing to say. regardless of circumstance.
totally, and I've noticed that a lot of people who've come up in religious environments where it was forced strictly on them, like say Catholicism or Mormonism, end up allergic to religion. Understandably.
anyway, i just wanted to laugh at people getting worked up and indignant, as usual.
i need to use my time more profitably.
or like that docuentary taht claimed things 'learned' in the course of a lifetime could be passed on, eg a taste for lsd. (it didn't give that example, i made it up)
also the idea of a guiding intelligence at some level beyond the indivudual, whether at dna level or whatever is not one iw ould dismiss out of hand.
It's the internet. Look at any other message board, this one is like British Tea Time with the Queen or some shit.
incidently though, another thing which makes me think is
given theres such a panopoly of factors in play, it seems slightly blithe to suggest such and such a trait survives becasue it is adaptive.
given that it is always co-existing with a whole host of other factors which may or may not be adaptive. am i making myself clear?
so for instance, i do have a very fast metabolism, i also have asthma, poor eyesight,
long legs, blue eyes, quick reflexes, etc etc etc
granted i am quite new here, so i do not have historical experience to base this on, but i've certainly seen forums get very ugly, making "indignant" seem a mild description.
it is the nature of any situation where one isn't face-to-face with the person/people they are conversing with, thus having a "distance" between what they say and the subsequent reaction.
but everyone here does seem "relatively" well-behaved (suppose that is what you meant by Tea Time, eh?)
doesn't mean you would pass all of those "traits" along to a child, though. they have a chance of carrying on any of those things, or any of it from the other parent, or neither - skipping generations and carrying recessive genes/traits from say grandparents from either side.