BP:
at somebody's funeral, does one not reflect on that person's bio ~~~~ and, hopefully, gain an idea about their mission and ambition AGAINST the BACKGROUND of the ZEITGEIST that
GOVERNED their time?

or: has evolution, selective as it undisputedly is, made mankind pay too high a price in terms of mental decline for its technological ascendancy (wrecking the planet by unchecked advancement)?

my thoughts behind the question are complex and need expression in dialogues, not quelling them with ready-made and unstoppable coercive teaching, learning and selection!!

Have you thought about the irony of what you are saying BP?
That another idea is ascending over Darwin's own theory can be explained by Darwin's theory. I am not going to call it 'Darwin's theory' any more...

Evolution theory suggests that given certain conditions, a particular 'mutation' will gain an advantage over other mutations.

Both evolution theory and intelligent design are both mutations of the same 'ideal'. They seek to explain 'how things change', or 'why things are as they are right now'. Evolution is a powerful tool, it can be applied (though, a lot of people reject it) to social affairs as well as natural affairs.

It seems logical to accept that at some point, evolutionary theory will become extinct, replaced by a better suited and adapted 'specie' of thought.

There is no need for logical induction (such as 'God must be the intelligent designer') based on the evidence at hand. We can simply say:
Either things are conditioned by their surroundings, and patterns can be elected in this. Indeed, a river flows according to the 'path-of-least-resistance', creating a pattern across the land. Evolution works like this.
Or
Things are conditioned by some a priori inate drive towards designation. The meaning behind something is not in its surroundings, nor in itself, but in some previous, 'absolute beginning' state. Intelligent design works like this.

Both rely on the past to give form to the future. One believes in an absolute direction, unavoidable, fate, etc.
The other offers mutation and redirection as the absolute.

Given that since the enlightenment atheism has risen through the world, it makes sense that evolutionary theory gained an advantage and was presented as the 'pinnicle' of explanatory models for the universe (at least, biodiversity on Earth...). And that in the absence of a God, (a 'greater meaning' than the one man can give to things) man started to believe in his meanings above anything else. It follows that he would induce the concept of design upon the world again, because man has learned about the world in the absence of God, and man likes design and order.
It makes sense in this day and age, that intelligent design would become a stronger specie of thought, because man sees patterns wherever he looks for them. Learning about his own structures (social and personal) man extends himself to the universe, and calls the 'over arching meaning' God again.
Intelligent design is a product of evolutionay theory, a species hewn from the very environment that it purports to account for.
Or
Evolutionary theory is a product of intelligent design, and was a necessary step towards a greater understanding.
Either way, they both boil down to 'man's limited understanding and continued quest for knowledge'.
there is no reason that we cannot apply intelligence to social evolution, see if we can't reach for the stars:


Intelligent design led to that!?

Also, surely intelligent design lends itself to excuse the current 'capitalist mobsters' - it isn't them that did it, it was 'designed that way'...
Evolution theory would lend itself to the revolutionary - sure, it may be damn hard to get there, but fighting for what you believe in is the surest way to success. Intelligent design curbs such notions, as it justifies history as a 'it was supposed to be this way', and there is not a thing you can do about it. Evolution says: history is not so linear.

I struggle to see how you can justify your idealism, in terms of economic and democratic revolution, by supporting intelligent design. The two are mutually exclusive. There is no reason to revolt or to fight in intelligent systems, they have their own methods. Evolutionary systems can be altered and are expressions of the impressions upon them.

On the one hand you say: fight! revolt!
On the other you say: it was made this way, it is intelligent design that led to this situation. It will resolve itself without our input.

Unless, human's are the intelligent designers, and you like to think the universe is following a form of the anthropic principle: that at the end of history, it is clear that mankind, and not an evolutionary sub-species or post-human species, is responsible for the entire universe being 'created'...

Would you be so good as to elaborate please?

MonoExplosion,

Quote:

‘Have you thought about the irony of what you are saying BP? That another idea is ascending over Darwin's own theory can be explained by Darwin's theory. I am not going to call it "Darwin's theory" any more...’

I blush to quote myself, but “Irony is the only consistent product of history”. Evolution is larger than Darwin’s 19c antique. I accept the former, reject the latter. So your remarks following are less wrong than Off Target.

Quote:

‘Both evolution theory and intelligent design are both mutations of the same 'ideal'. They seek to explain “how things change”, or “why things are as they are right now”. ‘

Not; Neo-darwinism is heavy on randomness, intelligent design tends to determinism, via invocations of the hand of a Creator – why I warned in my original post that I desperately did not wish to get involved in this God versus Darwin crapola. Here’s a ref to prof Shapiro, who says what I keep saying (to deaf ears).

Quote:

http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

The relevance of the cites is in support of my post - not to praise or insult Darwin, but to bury him, then get on with science & a healthier intellectual & socio-political life.

Quote:

‘It seems logical to accept that at some point, evolutionary theory will become extinct, replaced by a better suited and adapted 'specie' of thought.’

Empty speculation, unless you can provide some schema that dispenses with time? Spare us - some day the earth will die, some day my prince will come? Now I desperately need a beer.

Quote:

‘Indeed, a river flows according to the “path-of-least-resistance”, creating a pattern across the land. Evolution works like this.’

No it doesn’t: there go the toys out of my pram. Cheezus, precisely what Marshall carefully explained in the vid you failed to watch. Patterns do not entail intelligence: information exchanges do. This is the revolutionary insight from IT that the Darwinian SS is fighting a last ditch battle against.

Quote:

‘Either way, they both boil down to “man's limited understanding and continued quest for knowledge”. there is no reason that we cannot apply intelligence to social evolution, see if we can't reach for the stars:’

WTF would ‘complete understanding’ look like? I see a pimply druggo smiling & dribbling in omniscience. I’ve been scratching my fur out here trying to spark some interest in the understanding of social/cultural evolution. So far, our view of the stars has been hampered by a deal of tripping thru grit. Per ordure ad astra?

To try to refocus & whip up some interest in the topic – snatches of the ‘course material’ –

Quote:

‘Because the greatest failure of materialism is that it simply cannot explain the existence of information! Decades ago this would have seemed like an odd & abstract argument, but living in the digital information age as we do now, with computers & credit cards & cell phones, even a child can easily grasp it.’ Perry Marshall ‘Information is Information, neither matter nor energy. No materialism that fails to take account of this can survive the present day.’ - Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician & Father of Cybernetics http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

And as I carefully warned in post one, idealism is dragged in as a philos tool to accommodate the above, not becos a bald old bear is ‘idealistic’ or religious.

I would save e/one the trouble of pushing a few buttons to read the above cites (by multiples of 5-sec attention spans?), but pasting large chunks of other sites is an abuse of hospitality. BP

MonoExplosion,

Quote:

‘Also, surely intelligent design lends itself to excuse the current 'capitalist mobsters' - it isn't them that did it, it was “designed that way”...

Into my third bottle, which your inattention drove me to in despair (you will pay, before some tribunal or other, unless you save yourself by sending me beer money); capitalist mobsters & psychopathic leaders (9/11, etc.) believe they are ‘Masters of the Universe’, active, self-determining agents of enormous puissance, etc. Actually, they are high priests & servants of the system – variously characterized as Moloch, or The Beast.

The system is our death-wish culture. It is out of human, democratic control. It has taken on its own dynamic & direction – towards self-destruction – evolution to extinction. It is a social machine, but with certain biological characteristics – sui generis (one-off). Revolutionary imposition of a neo-democracy is humanity’s only salvation. That would replace the dumb machine’s self-consuming appetites with human-centered values (pause for another swig).

Quote:

‘Evolution theory would lend itself to the revolutionary - sure, it may be damn hard to get there, but fighting for what you believe in is the surest way to success.’

Evolution is the other side of the revolutionary coin, like seduction is to the sexual act. The SS usually believed what it bravely fought for, but no success, mostly death in an evil cause. Evolutionary success consists in constantly devising intelligent tactics/strategies for survival. Democracy of a heightened kind is the only apparent escape route.

Quote:

‘Intelligent design - - - - - ‘

Uh, uh; we are not debating ID, are we? We are looking at the role of intelligence/comms in evolution.

Quote:

‘Evolution says: history is not so linear.’

Astoundingly, so does Bamberpanda. He says it is not deterministic, since human beings have a key role, & they have free will, even when they resemble not so much sheep, as the pathetic bleats.

Quote:

‘On the one hand you say: fight! revolt! On the other you say: it was made this way, it is intelligent design that led to this situation. It will resolve itself without our input.’

You can’t revolt unless you understand what you are revolting against. That takes careful analysis, a high level of communications technology, a cast of thousands, & a will to live, rather than follow the other sheep into the abattoir. Revolutionary analysis seeks to divine the essential nature of the enemy, its patterns of behavior, so the best time to cut its bloody throat. The alternative is to keep looking for grazing/jobs/money, & believing in the fundamental good natures of our farmer-rulers.

Quote:

‘Unless, human's are the intelligent designers, and you like to think the universe is following a form of the anthropic principle: that at the end of history, it is clear that mankind, and not an evolutionary sub-species or post-human species, is responsible for the entire universe being “created”...’

I try to go with the evidence & steer clear of personal beliefs, & also metaphysics. Metaphysicians never buy a bloody round; your shout. BP

lavender orchid,

Quote:

‘at somebody's funeral, does one not reflect on that person's bio ~~~~ and, hopefully, gain an idea about their mission and ambition AGAINST the BACKGROUND of the ZEITGEIST that GOVERNED their time? or: has evolution, selective as it undisputedly is, made mankind pay too high a price in terms of mental decline for its technological ascendancy (wrecking the planet by unchecked advancement)? my thoughts behind the question are complex and need expression in dialogues, not quelling them with ready-made and unstoppable coercive teaching, learning and selection!!’

Funerals! Bamberpanda was shovelling dirt in Darwin’s face, since it’s a price we pay to the dead for the privilege of continuing what they did in life. Historians labor in the dark, only their few flickering candles in remembrance of the long gone. They sing monkish masses, weep ink on books, keep the long watches when the oblivious sleep. Their devotion to truth hymns their compagnons the night thru. The old awake know they are dying, & their only friends are dead. BP

Natural selection is just realizing how gods system works - we are assuming he is capable of doing everything right in the first try or that he was trying to do right ??

i think we are in a factory of sorts and natural selection the only process forward -- and it is ID as well- so gods ID choice could be natural selection -?

Neti,

insofar as Big G confides in me via Howard Bloom, Perry Marshall, & prof Shapiro, he seems to be saying that Darwin's theory of natural selection is not, repeat NOT, viable.

Sorry about that. It 's so simple, it ought to be true. But if you think about it more than 5 secs, survival of the fittest is a truism for idiots - probably why it is so widely acknowledged. What is fitness? It is whatever survives. Fitness = survival = what exists.

Darwinism is the perennial conservative cant: what is, is right. Or, all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Pace the Oblomovs, walking dead & brain-dead, nah! BP

Mutations were not in Darwins original theory, that is Neo-Darwinism which came into the model of evolution decades later.

Eek!!,

Quote:

‘Mutations were not in Darwins original theory, that is Neo-Darwinism which came into the model of evolution decades later.’

Can’t remember. The theory itself went thru several modifications. That began with Darwin himself. If you are as silly as I am, you can waste an awful lot of time trying to disentangle the final mess of Neo-darwinism. IMHO, better to go for the modern replacement theory, rather than restore a worn-out Victorian antique. It is no longer decorative or useful.

The applied insights of information theory (Perry Marshall et al) are valuable becos they rejoin evolution theory to broader modern science. IMHO, Poincaré had the best definition of a scientific law – the highest law covers/explains the most phenomena/cases. It is at the apex of a hierarchy of lesser laws. BP

neti

Quote:

‘yes you are sorry -- - i didnt read the link - there are thousands of theories not one reconciles everything logically - and if theres no logic - you cant know --- natural selection is the same as passing powders through a mesh - what fits passes rest is held back - if this is sound so is natural selection - anyways i dont want to chase this -arguments in favor of Natural selction are stacked very high -- i dont need to advocate it but if you would enlighten us as to the "why" ? r e p e a t WHY? - put down what "you" believe - dont quote perry marshall -- i can quote dozens i beleive but its a waste - just debunk natural selection –‘

I think you are asking for a quick run-thru of the reasons why I think Darwin’s theory is wrong. Sorry, I can’t do that. I am too long-winded & the reasons too many. All I can do is advise you to read Marshall’s site. If his theological bias offends, try the sites of Howard Bloom & prof Shapiro. The scientific & logical arguments & evidence against Neo-darwinism are now formidable.

Philos can simplify. At the heart of Darwin’s theory is a tautology, a circular argument or ‘analytic’ proposition. It says natural selection shaped the many different life-forms in the world. NS ‘weeds out’ the unfit. So, Darwin claimed, fish evolved fins so they could survive in water.

Do not be deceived by the trick here! NS is not ‘proved’ by such features as fins on fish. W/out fins, fish as we know them could not exist. Darwin has merely indicated that fins are necessary for fish to exist. But we knew that already. The challenge was to explain why the many different life-forms exist, not affirm that a wide variety does exist. The ‘evolution by natural selection’ part remains a theory, assumed, slipped in as it were irrefutably obvious. It aint.

Darwinism: fitness for survival is proved by existence (a claim); fitness is produced by natural selection (another claim). Circular argument: fitness = existence = natural selection.

Do not be impressed by the Darwinians’ intricate egs., becos a tautology is logically sound, but has no content; it is empty of meaning, eg., a fish is not a horse. That is why Darwinians can make almost anything in the living world consistent with Darwinism. Becos it is unfalsifiable under any circumstance. They make a proud principle of this. Richard Dawkins et al pontificate that the course & direction of evolution cannot be predicted. Certainly it cannot by Darwin’s inadequate theory.

I am as reluctant as you to get entangled any further in anti-Darwinism, at least unless you or anyone else shows sufficient interest to read the reffed material & comment on that. Otherwise, we just keep beating our gums on nothing but the same opinion. The following is a few hours’ reading. There is no short-cut to knowledge, & you can get lost even the long way round.

Marshall http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
Bloom http://www.scientificblogging.com/howard_bloom
Shapiro http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

BP

Well, it seems the 2009 duplo-centenary funeral is over. We have celebrated & praised the stiff, now we move on. Oh, the advantages of freeing ourselves from Darwin’s 19c, drooling, cretinous materialism!

The modern findings & thoughts of Bloom, Marshall, Shapiro, et al above open up a vista of the future of science. What Marshall found is an eg of a basic, underlying law – information flows rule. And info is not material. It is immaterial, yet it has the power to kick around matter, ‘stuff’. Eg., genes & DNA are primarily info. Their informational message merely uses matter as the medium, to further shape matter into life-forms.

This is actually a far from radical insight in physics, yet the prevailing prejudices of science demand public obedience to the creed of materialism. No: idealism rules.

Unfortunately, Marshall is unlikely to develop his ideas, since having found ‘proof of God’s existence’, he will likely stop short, satisfied. As I have said elsewhere, religion is usually the comfort of the conservative mind, not spur to the enquiring & radical one.

Bloom et al show the role of information in forming the universe. We can go further (dissident, radical rascals that we are). Information flows made homo sapiens. They revolutionized animals limited to crude signalling. Signalling became language, & verbal exchanges of an increasingly complex kind shaped the ape head into the human one, with a voice-box & big info-processing brain.

Language development = rise of human intelligence. Info is not intelligence, but by the increasing quantities of verbal exchanges allowed a parallel rise in the quality of linguistic info exchanges. They pushed development of enriched social relations, planning, & coordinated group organization. Info flows increased, both as cause & effect. This always put further pressure on the storage & retrieval of info, so the fast-evolving brain. Notice how your PC hard disk is always full after 2 years? Same principle.

Sapiens' evolution is incomprehensible except as group evolution. Precisely becos of this, human self-consciousness, the separation of me & thee, became inescapably necessary. Each mind must have a separate identity, just as every computer in the global network must have a unique, identifying number. Individuality is not the polarized enemy of the collective; the two are crucially interdependent.

Which was not entirely good news for sapiens. Paradoxically, from group solidarity & interdependence grew the psychically alienated individual. Unique animals; we are dead w/out communications with others, yet still alone! Human self-consciousness brings with it realization of our mortality, as Gilgamesh discovered. Herd animals do not worry about death. Hence religion? Terminal dissolution of little selves into Big Self? Who knows, except division of social roles within groups likely became more matters of conscious identity.

Meantime, info flows pushed-dragged humanity. New info techniques accelerated the process. Clay tablets made city states. Gutenberg made pretty much e/thing since, till computers & IT.

Now the dizzy info flows are faster & wider, undermining our cultural world & demanding the birth of a new one. We remake it as s/thing better, or we go under. That’s another tragic message for humanity, brought by Mercury, the fleet-foot god of communications. You can ride the tiger of progress, but not get off. The one-way info river is time.

Most human characteristics, possibly all, exist in primitive forms in the animal world. We are such creatures as never completely leave anything behind. It’s all stored s/where in our mental junkheap. We retain our affinities to the animal world. However limited, when we communicate with pets or animals, we grasp the unity of all life in primal intelligence. OK, but watch out for tigers!

Infor flows rule the universe, so idealism is the philosophy of science & the future, if we have one. BP

read the history of bulldogs - selective breeding - same as "selection" by "nature" - its not rocket science -- on the origins of life i dont think any one has the answer - if you do know what causes consciousness and for such supreme order to come out of inherent chaos - let me know --

many people view natural selection with prejudice as anti-religion -- it isnt --our souls or consiousness could be from god - and the vehicles we drive could be "designed" to suit the purpose and environment ? i see a reconciliation - but cant prove it even to myself.

Neti,

Quote:

‘read the history of bulldogs - selective breeding - same as "selection" by "nature" - its not rocket science‘

No, but there is an awful lot more to it than you seem to think. You’ll have to read more to learn about it. Darwin himself bred pigeons so knew all about selective breeding. There, it is human intelligence that does the selecting. In natural selection, the environment, niche, or any other form of matter cannot ‘select’, since they have no intelligence.

If you are thinking about the sick & otherwise faulty creatures dying off, that is becos they do not meet the requirements of existence, as specified originally by the genotype. That is not an explanation of natural selection, it just refers to the necessaries & exigencies of existence (tautology again).

Quote:

‘- on the origins of life i dont think any one has the answer - if you do know what causes consciousness and for such supreme order to come out of inherent chaos - let me know –‘

If you are really interested in getting the answers to your questions, read the reffed material. That’s why I reffed it. What we know now is that random processes certainly did not produce either the universe or life, as required by Neo-darwinism.

Quote:

‘many people view natural selection with prejudice as anti-religion -- it isnt --our souls or consiousness could be from god - and the vehicles we drive could be "designed" to suit the purpose and environment ? i see a reconciliation - but cant prove it even to myself.’

Possibly, which is why I tried hard to steer this discussion away from the sterile Darwin versus religion saloon wrangle. BP

contrary to usual habit, i have not yet checked out the funeral procession yet...

i am i'm running out of time thinking of all the natural selection targets already envisioned and in full swing today.

engineering as far as one can see. ai itself appears a product of nature's free choice.

too sarcastic?

\!!

the following link seems interesting, although i have yet to read more on the subject in detail as yet.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36a.htm

LO,

as long as capitalist ideology, bio-warfare, research grants, & jobs depend on it, Darwinism's corpse will continue to fester. BP

BP:

and as long as it does, a dissident must have the right to say so, even if the responsible persons are unrecognizable.

LO,
I think we covered IT evolution in another thread? The explosive growth in global computing power is arguably a threat to humankind only if you accept that human cultures can evolve in ways analogous to life-forms. Since Darwinism insists that evolution only works thru the individual, it is a threat discounted by majority opinion. I & a few dissidents argue against this. Therefore, Darwinism is yet again a block. It prevents rational discussion of this threat. That's why we must dump Darwinism (says I).

IMHO, every advance in communications technology is both a potential boon & a potential weapon of social destruction. The ever-more powerful global IT network can be the means to a higher, universal democracy, or a trap to enmesh all humankind in a new slavery to silicon-based, machine intelligence. BP

LO,

to keep your fingers on the throbbing pulse of real life, you only need to read Bamberpanda's posts. Even when I get it wrong, what I should have said was 100% correct. Excuse me, I think there are some Vandals at the door. BP

^

Neti,

Quote:

‘well - in keeping with my personal philosophy i dont tell someone they are wrong until i have proof - but that doesnt take away from the validity of my opinions to me at least - do appreciate you have no proof -- you are quoting secondary information -- if you had the answer you would present it with clarity - and it would be appreciated –‘

Science & learning in general always deal in ‘secondary’ proof. We use the work of predecessors & others, since that way knowledge is cumulative & we don’t have to keep proving the same things. My sources seem to prove that Darwinism does not work, is dead.

Quote:

‘can you deny natural selection fits what is manifest --- if we can do it to dogs by our will -- is it beyond possible that god can do it to us ? - the why is not answerable as we dont know god nor his limits if any -- maybe it was random stuff that made us --- but our environment shapes us -- africans are black for a reason -- they need to battle the sun --likewise even traits of people and races can be best explained by environments -- some communities in india from rajasthan have extremely honed business acumen -- the marwaris, its because they HAD to survive in a place where only trade was possible --little or no actual production – ‘

As said, natural selection as used by Darwin is deeply flawed. Skin color may well be adaptation to environment, but all that proves is that some characteristics are necessary for existence. They do not ‘prove’ natural selection, as Darwin himself accepted. Marshall’s demolition of Darwinism as an explanation via genetic coding is conclusive, IMHO. Genetic coding necessarily implies an encoding & decoding intelligence, which is purposive. For this, materialism has no account whatsoever. Marshall invokes God, I do not, but randomness falls as an explanation.

For your eg. of evolution at work in devloping business acumen, Darwinism denies this possibility absolutely. Learned behaviors are not transmitted to subsequent generations – that is Lamarckism.

Quote:

‘problem at some level may be in accepting the self - assigned heirarchy or betterness - which may or may not be valid –‘

Another tangle altogether, & rather OT! Robert Ardrey had a theory about the evolution of self-consciousness, I have another. Hierarchies are common in the animal world, but not ethics. Only humans do ‘goodness’. Values are difficult to quantify, so mostly alien to materialists. BP

most interesting post, BP.

last para should perhaps spawn some community interests beyond struggles and denials to questions of mutual ancestry and inheritances.

BP: the funeral is the most exciting thing after a so many lives wasted on debating some crude ideas rather than extending these life experiences into something mutually beneficial.

this could be another red herring thread, or would you have such a thought perish...?

Eek!,

I've engaged with Darwinism & its deficiencies for too long. For me, it is dead as the dodo, for reasons outlined above. It's as moribund & pernicious as the Old Testament.

Biology clings to a crude 19c materialism. Physics has moved forward to an understanding that the universe is immaterial, full of 'dark' matter we cannot perceive or fully comprehend. If it's simple answers you want, stick to Darwin, & my good wishes go with you. BP

LO,

thanks; we can leave the Flat Earthers & Darwinians to their dogmas.

Meantime, back at the ranch, Mr Bojangles is flashing his lovely teeth as more US troops are rushed in to shoot starving Haitians & Moslems. I've seen this movie before - except then they called Helmand Province the Mekong Delta - do you remember it?

How to make a better life in the belly of the Beast, or just slightly less hard & boring?

Maybe, have the courage to name the bastards in charge the pathocrat filth they are? We can but try. BP

Eek!,

Quote:

'Simplest answers are often the correct ones: Occams Razor.'

So try 'God did it all', if you ever do a physics final, & don't blame me if you don't get a flat hat & scroll. BP

taking the phenomena apart was certainly the most intelligent departure from from knowlege by science.

far from science, it's not even working well enough for approaching it with the right questions.

Neti,

if you would only read the material I reffed you would see that DNA is not changed by small, incremental steps, as required by Neo-darwinism. Especially Marshall proves that mistakes in replication cannot add up to adaptational enhancements. Rather, the genotype seems to redesign itself intelligently as a whole. Ergo, Darwin's theory of natural selection is dead, RIP.

I have tried to condense that material down to its essential principles in response to your questions, for your convenience. I will do no more thinking for you. Read the stuff, or not, the choice is yours.

Quote:

'winning losing is secondary -- your dick wont shrink if you concede somehting.'

But your mind will not grow if you cling to popular ignorance, too lazy to investigate evidence of the demonstrably false.

Quote:

"goodness" - define , and how is it not selfish - active passive is not a argument.

Goodness is ultimately a transcendental value, entirely a preoccupation of human beings (as distinct from examples of goodness, divine or else, we might think we perceive); the philos area of ethics where materialists flounder.

Selfish? I think you are confusing yourself with an entirely different issue - 'Selfish Gene'?

'Active passive is not an argument' - I agree, but your sentence otherwise is opaque. What's your point? BP

just making an associative analogy here, not meaning to interrupt, but give credit...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/articles/tages/experchemie.html&ei=g-97S9_nBZKf_AaHiKyfBg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dapplaus%2Bim%2Bh%25C3%25B6rsaal%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26hs%3DQsP

Darwin is certainly dead and buried.

He'd be rolling in his grave at this one.

Should be pasted under religion this thread.

Here's another thing that is buried:
Reality.

Thankfully for retards, natural selection is curbed by human interventions, because stupidity is far more malleable than intelligence.

Please bury some more...then bury your heads up your own arses some more.

Natural selection is taken advantage of by human populations....

Stick that reality up someone's ass whilst your at it.

Taking advantage is about natural selection, dear.

I hear gravity is next to die.

Who am I to argue?

not quite. rent-a-body is big business, albeit very very discreet, seemingly.

found under fun?