Re: Life as a law of physics?

Reading from news:talk.origins,
nick_keighley_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx posted:

On 22 Apr, 18:09, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
nick_keighley_nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx posted:
On 22 Apr, 02:29, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> posted:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:16:59 -0500, Damaeus
<no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> posted:
On 21 Apr, 01:00, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

to what we are now shows a trend.

no

Then you are saying you can't see an obvious difference between chimps and
apes without scrutinizing their genetic code.

Since chimps are apes I don't expect to see a difference even in the
DNA.

Lets assume you meant "can you see an obvious difference between
chimps
and humans". Again the answer is "yes". But I still see no trend.

You can't see the trend in the appearance difference between chimps and
humans? Can't you subtract sciences incomplete understanding of genetics
to see the plain differences that are visible from space?

Is a mushroom more or less advanced than a shark?

I'm not comparing mushrooms to sharks. I'm not comparing mushrooms to
anything, nor sharks to anything. If the human is not in the equation, it
does not belong in the realationship comparison.

+-AKA-If that trend continues, and I see no
evidence to say that we are going to suddenly become hairy and stomp
around the jungle again, we will lose more body hair and will become more
aesthetically pleasing in the future,

aesthetically pleasing is partly determined by sexual selection and
cultural mores.

No. +AKA-I don't care what society finds attractive. +AKA-I have my own standards
that I developed through selective reasoning.

How do you know?

Because I know how I pick what I like. I'm too selective to have learned
what I like from others, or I'd be just as ready and willing to play the
field as my roommate used to be. I've never been one to shop for a mate
because I can't find any humans I find good-looking enough to do anything
with, plus I don't feel like doing it myself for the same reasons. I feel
unfit for fucking. That is not normal behavior for a human who is
supposed to learn his likes and dislikes from culture.

That said, there is an idealized body that I have constructed of the likes
that I have never seen walking around on the face of the earth. I built
that image by shopping what I like, discarding what I hate, then spending
time accentuating what I liked about the idealized form I had created. I'd
like to draw it, but I don't have the pencil skill at the moment. And I
don't like the process of learning to draw because it offers such
unrewarding progress. Since I cannot immediately get my fingers to draw a
masterpiece, I'd rather not do it at all.

+AKA-I looked at various bodies,
decided what I liked about them, what I didn't like. +AKA-I decided what
aspects of other peoples bodies would look nice on me, and I developed an
overall profile of what a pleasing body looks like to me. +AKA-Since I find
very few human bodies physically attractive, including mine, I have
decided that I'm not suited for sex, and I refrain from it. +AKA-I am evidence
against your idea that my sexual attractions are determined by sexual
selection and cultural mores.

Since your DNA will shortly be eliminated from the gene pool. I
will soon be correct.

You're right, in that the DNA I had at birth will be eliminated as mine is
changed to reflect a new format.

+AKA-Since I have decided that human bodies are not suitable for sex,
I will not reproduce.

If everyone pursued your strategy we wouldn't need to argue
about the future trends of evolution.

Thankfully I have higher standards and want to change our bodies to do
something about the appearance deficits I see walking around in the world.

[...] all kinds of disasters to fly in the face of evolutionary progression.

there is no evolutionary progression

Then why are we homo sapiens and not homo hablis these days if there is no
evolutionary progression? +AKA-

why are there mosquitoes but no pteradactyls?

Wait. I have always been under the impression that homo sapiens was a
gradual development through many stages, but with your question, it makes
me wonder if evolution says that man, in the form that he appears to be
today, suddenly "appeared" as a result of a certain joining of two types
of pre-homo sapiens man. I see it as a gradual progression all the way up
the timeline. Progression. Small changes, not sudden leaps in the past.
That's what it means to me.

The entire scope of Darwinism flies in the face
of your claim.

You are mistaken about what modern evolutionary biology ("Darwinismn")
says.

And you offer nothing to refute evolutionary progression through the ages?

Damaeus

.

Loading