Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes

The (few) authors I have come across regarding this subject often mention the number of people as a driving factor for faster evolution. This seems plausible to me considering more people equals more variation.

For another example look at astronauts in space. With no gravity to contend with muscle atrophy takes place physiologically changing the person. Does this count as evolution, adapting to a low gravity environment? Of course it does.

Wow, I'm impressed. 17 comments deep on an evolution thread and the creationist crowd hasn't made a peep.

The astronaut over time adapts to a low-gravity environment dtxx

As I recall from a course of evolutionary history in college, Darwin was far from the first to posit evolution.

Boy oh boy, I've hardly ever seen so much ignorance.

But as it stands, there's no known random physical process that can generate that kind of information. There just isn't. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that such a process exists.

Skeptic_Heretic, I'm new here, but I've been debating with creationists for years.

And yes, if someone claims that when someone "explodes" in a vacuum this would represent an example of evolution, or weird examples alike, this is the most ignorant I've ever seen.

There just isn't. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that such a process exists.

I'm doing a paper on fast vs. slow human evolution. The (few) authors I have come across regarding this subject often mention the number of people as a driving factor for faster evolution. This seems plausible to me considering more people equals more variation.

Yet one more thread has devolved due to the unnatural influence of superstition.

But mutations will be more frequent in a larger population.

But mutations will be more frequent in a larger population.

Are you talking about percentages or about absolute numbers?

If someone can perhaps give a plausible explanation that accounts for that information content, ....

If someone can perhaps give a plausible explanation that accounts for that information content, ....

...you'll ignore it, just like you do all other plausible explanations and facts given to you.

Yet one more thread has devolved due to the unnatural influence of superstition.

Devolution doesn't exist as evolution is a result of change in time, and time is one-directional. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else think a certain obtained trait by evolution is positive or negative.

otto1932,
A mutation, if positive, can propagate through large populations, but it takes much longer and is just less likely to be selected for and to become permanent in the long run. It has a much lager chance to be dampened and eventually to be lost completely. It's statistics.

Information is what is encoded (differences in chemical composition) in the molecule to make it more chemically stable. This eventually lead to DNA because it consists of 2 strands, making it even more stable.

otto1932,
when you say something is not natural, is it then supernatural?

And hugs and dingoes don;t "devolve". They never lost those traits in the first place, but were not expressed for whatever reason. In different circumstances these traits are being expressed again. Evolution is passing and change of acquired traits through the genetic make-up from generation to generation, it doesn't happen on individual level.

These reactions change the information.

Well then it can't be a good storage mechanism then can it? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's good at information storage, or it's good at information production. You try and mix the two and all you get is garbage in garbage out.

Or: why can't a donkey and a horse produce offspring that can reproduce again?

These reactions change the information.

Well then it can't be a good storage mechanism then can it? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's good at information storage, or it's good at information production. You try and mix the two and all you get is garbage in garbage out.

Which is it?

Or: why can't a donkey and a horse produce offspring that can reproduce again?

Well on occasion, they do. Ever heard the term "once in a Blue Moon?" The reason why that is properly capitalized is because "Blue Moon" was the name of a mule that had viable mule offspring.

Well that's certainly not correct. The hard drive you're using right now both produces and stores information without issue. Chemical storage is similar to magnetic storage. Information is both produced and stored based upon what section of the total system.

The problem here is that when the information is changed it changes the very structure of the system ITSELF.

It's not only like the hard drive doing different things on different sectors,

when you change DNA/RNA it's like the hard drive physically re-designing itself as it goes along.

How long before it no longer functions AS a hard drive?

otto1932,
everything happening within the laws of nature is natural, therefor domestication is also natural. The selective pressures were just different than if those animals were running around in the wild.

Wolves occur naturally; wienerdogs do not, and would soon be extinct in a natural environment.

Just because we have a larger brain doesn't make our actions unnatural.

Other species also "domesticate" other life forms

I can't speculate about "what if" scenarios of species that once existed. Just accidentally dropped my crystal ball, I'm sorry.

Could homosapiens mate with australopithecus?

These reactions change the information.

Well then it can't be a good storage mechanism then can it? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's good at information storage, or it's good at information production. You try and mix the two and all you get is garbage in garbage out.

otto1932,
It's seems it's you who's got caught by semantics. Most of the words you use and their definitions were made up when there was little known about animal behavior.

Crows use sticks to get worms out of tree branches. Is this an artificial beak or nail? I [sic] think it is, but still it's not unnatural. The fact that humans are much better at it doesn't instantly make it unnatural, [according to you] neither does a dictionary dictate what's natural or not just because it subscribes certain behavior

They certainly would try.

About the termites/ants: I said "if I remember well". Obviously I was slightly off. It's still symbiosis, like we do with our cultivated plants and animals.

Words defined in dictionaries are not technical definitions.

And why am I misanthropic just because I see there are similarities between human and other animals behaviors?

You keep playing the semantics game. A domesticating process is a natural process, even though the selective pressures are human.

We are part of nature, the animals we domesticate are natural, the means are natural. So domestication is natural.

First let me assert what I think you're trying to say: you're afraid that humans are evolving toward some kinds of a hive-like condition

Would you say that Caesarian Section is a "natural" method of birth?

otto and bartolo I think you both agree

If this keeps up the future of mankind will end up in the hands of the type of person that gives sperm.

But on other counts, I disagree. For instance, size of brain and/or nutritional requirements.

You could say that religious people have more offspring, but is religiosity genetic?

If everything is natural within the scope of natural laws (what other scope is there?), then why do we even have the word natural (and artificial)?

There is no selective pressure for simpler minds.

we'll be bioengineering ourselves

human husbandry has been happening for a very long time

The only way to ensure that warriors were breeding true would have been the hymen

It really takes 2 to birth a human baby, as it necessarily comes out face down. This has been suggested as a reason post-menopausal women have been evolutionarily selected for.

IF the urge to genuflect is caused by a defect and genuflecters tend to fear and loathe those who dont, then this defect could proliferate.

In part-agreement with Pink_elephant, it's this SMALL population that already contained the required information that created the kind of diversity we see today.

I'll give you a start:
"Domestication (from Latin domesticus) or taming is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to HUMAN provision and control."
http://en.wikipedia...

If everything is natural within the scope of natural laws (what other scope is there?), then why do we even have the word natural (and artificial)?

I think it can be argued that contemporary religions select for simple minds. Simple-minded people are also easier to govern.

We will originate completely artificial organisms, both biological and non-biological in construction. True artificial intelligence is absolutely predestined to appear: the only question is when, not if.

Well you did a pretty good job of ignoring his inquiry, and as the one asserting something exists the onus is on YOU

That's a good explanation of how it's coded, stored, transferred...says NOTHING about where the information was produced.

Either it's good at information storage, or it's good at information production. You try and mix the two and all you get is garbage in garbage out.

Which is it?

As we don't yet have - besides wild speculations - the slightest idea of the fundamental components/circuitry by which self-awareness emerges we cannot exclude that it turns out to not be feasible once it is understood.

As we don't yet have - besides wild speculations - the slightest idea of the fundamental components/circuitry by which self-awareness emerges we cannot exclude that it turns out to not be feasible once it is understood.

I'll give you a start:
"Domestication (from Latin domesticus) or taming is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to HUMAN provision and control."
http://en.wikipedia...

Wikipedia is no replacement for some knowledge of Latin. "Domesticus" is derived from "domus". "Domus" has ample meaning:
house, residence, domicile, nest (of animals), cavern (of animals), housing (of animals), carapace (of a turtle), home community, household, family, school of philosophers, hometown, homeland.

Your distinction between human and non-human is not served well by the Romans. They knew animated ("anima" = soul/air/breath ==> "animal" = being/creature) and non-animated objects, but slaves were just tools with the ability to talk for them.

I think it can be argued that contemporary religions select for simple minds. Simple-minded people are also easier to govern.

If you want to make a career in the RCC or the Greek orthodoxy, a simple mind won't get you far. The late archbishop Christodoulos of Athens was fluent in six languages. The Jesuits are famed for their education. Every serious believer in these churches will be proud to see a family member in the higher clergy. There certainly is no more selection for simple minded people than in any society which is worshipping TV.

If everything is natural within the scope of natural laws (what other scope is there?), then why do we even have the word natural (and artificial)?

Everything not-natural is super-natural. The latter can never be disproved. Natural is everything that obeys the natural laws and everything that is a result of the processes governed by natural laws. "Artificial" things are not part of biological evolution, but are created by creatures that are, no matter if it's done by chimps, crows, ants or humans and can't go against the laws of nature.

If everything is natural within the scope of natural laws (what other scope is there?), then why do we even have the word natural (and artificial)?

It's a convention, a relic from the anthropocentric (not yet finished) past.

Please, point out the flaw(s) in my reasoning

Eth...I don't read your posts, or more accurately I ignore them as far as the conversation goes.

But they tend to fear and loathe each other just as much.

And it really depends on what you mean by "genuflecters". If you mean they're more submissive to authority, then that implies they're also less naturally assertive/aggressive.

Much better for herding onto the battlefield. If you mean they're more gullible, then that implies they're also less intelligent. Neither of those two features would provide a particular advantage.

If they're more taken to flights of fancy, then that's a potential creativity advantage, but at the cost of uniformity...

Domestication makes animals LESS able to survive without their Shepherds.

otto, your remarks are so "2 centuries". Humans are part of nature. That's not minimizing humanity, that's just comparing what other animals can do that's pretty similar to human behavior, though very basic. It's more like recognizing other animals are not as stupid as our ancestors thought centuries ago.

you think you've come up with something unique (it's not) or progressive (it's not) and are trying to demonstrate your talents to the community here.

The distinction between the human animal and everything else has been and is being... debated.

Your 'case' has already been made and most everyone besides you is well aware of that. That you fail to recognize the explanation I've given you for the need for words like artificial and domestication to remain as they are is... tiresome.

But your uncommon density

But your uncommon density

I laughed.

Ironic.

The word artificial is used to describe things that are human-derived.

Ironic

Wait- was that a compliment -?

You don't consider the etymology, the history of the words you are focussing upon.

Today we know better than that. Thus there is no reason to narrow the meaning of "artificial" down to its obsolete ancient use.

Today we know better than that. Thus there is no reason to narrow the meaning of "artificial" down to its obsolete ancient use.

Is the def of artificial 'human-created'? Yes or no?

Is the def of artificial 'human-created'? Yes or no?

No. Artificial is defined as "objects created by non-sentient natural forces."

Up until recently, the prevailing school of thought was that only humans were sentient, and that is demonstrably false now.

So in other words you didn't look it up either? You got a source for your interpretation SH?

Today we know better than that. Thus there is no reason to narrow the meaning of "artificial" down to its obsolete ancient use.

Neither obsolete nor ancient. I've already posted 4 sources, here's another:
http://m.reference.com/d/search.html?q=artificial&o=0&l=dir

But it will become so as it is not justifiable anymore

- like so many artificial distinctions between humans and animals before.

The 7 entries for "artificial" are optional; they don't have to be valid all at the same time.

Otto,

1) Yes or No?
2) Yes or No?

It's so simple a 6 year old could answer these questions

artificial, unreal (contrived by art rather than nature) "artificial flowers"; "artificial flavoring"; "an artificial diamond"; "artificial fibers"; "artificial sweeteners"

Art (from the same source)- S: (n) art, fine art (the products of HUMAN creativity; works of art collectively) "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

-fail.

When I use one of the definitions you quoted "artificial, unreal (contrived by art rather than nature)" both human and chimp tools would fit within this "artificial" definition?

No, I did find definitions not mentioning humans in the definition of "art" and others have posted definitions for "artificial" not mentioning "human" either. You just discard them because the line without "human" has no "1" in front or whatever unmentioned reason.

Otto,

1) Yes or No?
2) Yes or No?

It's so simple a 6 year old could answer these questions

that makes 154 fools on this thread.

Margarine is an artificial form of butter, by the way.

Margarine is an artificial form of butter, by the way.

Butter - A soft yellowish or whitish emulsion of butterfat, water, air, and sometimes salt, churned from milk or cream and processed for use in cooking and as a food.

That sounds artificial to me, so how can you have an artificial version of an already artificial product? :)

Otto tried to write 'chimpian', his own literary contraption, but was blindsided by spellchecker.

as our humanness comes under increasing threat from simulation and augmentation technologies, people will begin to celebrate the distinction again.

They usually put the most common and accepted usage first?

SH - I am pretty sure the origin is with the satellite and not cross breeding equines. Once in a "reproducing mule" doesn't really make sense.

Everything not-natural is super-natural

Eth...I don't read your posts

The distinction between "artificial" and "man-made" is important.
A spider's web is as much artificial (and beautiful) as Beethoven's seventh symphony. Both are natural, too, as spider and human are components of nature.
But only the symphony is man-made.

Trying to force 'Artificial' into a black and black white situation like you are doing is just plain strange. Sorta of reminds of the abuses of English that the religious fanatics engage in. Which is why I find it so annoying.

but if you perform the same action with the word "artificial", are you not...

Its the processing not the species that makes things fit the concept of artificial. At least when other species have factories or even shops. Like in David Brin's Uplift War series.

@otto just cause you like to toss salad don't include me in your camp. maybe since you did not address my comment on your boy's practice of Mendel's principles "inbreeding" perhaps either you did not know that about your Saint (see Church of Virus.com) or you are a master chef and want to toss my salad which i don't appreciate. either way i appreciate the comments idiot.

you know a long time ago little otto and I got into an argument about god...I said it is wrong to oppress people because they believe in something and he eventually admitted to the desire to eradicate them from the planet Hitler style.

Later I proved positive he was a troll

and he vanished for about a month.

My point?

Otto the more I read your comments the more it becomes clear that what I said was false. I said "You are smart, I've seen it." Turns out you are just a crap pipe.

And a major reason great articles spiral down the toilet rather than being intelligently discussed.

And who cares what you think?

I said it is wrong to oppress people because they believe in something and he eventually admitted to the desire to eradicate them from the planet Hitler style.

And then there is the fact you act like a 12 year old anytime some one confronts you.

Its the processing not the species that makes things fit the concept of artificial. At least when other species have factories or even shops. Like in David Brin's Uplift War series.

See how hard it is to communicate? You read 'arkaine obviously loses' and think this means you actually win somehow?

And then there is the fact that you can bite me-

-But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar because it is based on nothing REAL and is constructed on principles of exclusionism and elitism and reproductive opportunism, which all major religions are. Dont you agree?

But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar

But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar

Every small-minded tyrant was, is, and will be able to claim that his opponents believe just what you described.
This planet has been flooded with blood because of mighty people thinking/preaching/acting exactly what you are talking.

-How would you deal with nazis, islamists, gangsters, or the like who wish to do the same to you? Do we acknowledge that religions all inevitably cause these things to be done to people without fail?

kevinrtrs said.

But as it stands, there's no known random physical process that can generate that kind of information. There just isn't. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that such a process exists.

Then Ethelrd said

MUTATIONS are random.
SELECTION is NOT random.

Information comes from the environment via natural selection. The process of selection is in no way random. Mutations often don't create any new genetic material, but damage that which exists.

Selection can only happen at the organism level, not at the genetic level. If genetic information is not expressed in way that enhances survival, then it cannot be SELECTED for. Any genetic information that was incomplete in terms of physical expression could not be preserved through SELECTION.

Since a physical mutagen affects the genetic code without a plan, then one must either show that physical/chemical laws constrain that affect or accept that it is a random change.

Evolution of the human species has more or less come to a stand-still because of we're in such large numbers living relatively close to each other and all our traveling and intermingling habits don't support fast evolution either.

No people like you are the cause of these things. You find a cause, the easiest one is a religion (as it is for you), and you manipulate it, twist it, and then use it to gather support and grow your own power. It is people like you who lead to the suffering of the world. Religion is the excuse for evil people, it is not the reason reason for evil.

And yet, we may still want to have separate words to describe what humans are and what they do exclusively

what would you think of the various hive-like social creaure, ants, bees, etc that do have a similar division of labor and social construct?

Selection can only happen at the organism level, not at the genetic level

If genetic information is not expressed in way that enhances survival, then it cannot be SELECTED for

Any genetic information that was incomplete in terms of physical expression could not be preserved through SELECTION

then one must either show that physical/chemical laws constrain that affect or accept that it is a random change

What we don't know is that this evolution can or has done anything really interesting.

Nor does anyone have a reasonable materialistic explanation for why life exists at all.

Until that day, I have happy sticking with what the evidence actually suggests: that something or someone transcendent is required to account

That evolution can accomplish anything beyond minor change within species is a guess

unnecessary obligation to materialism keeps otherwise smart folks from recognizing this.

Yes, we know that minor changes have resulted from these forces. In that sense, "evolution" occurs. What we don't know is that this evolution can or has done anything really interesting.

Nor does anyone have a reasonable materialistic explanation for why life exists at all.

I have happy sticking with what the evidence actually suggests: that something or someone transcendent is required to account for the presence of life and the incredibly diverse and interdependent life systems we observe.

Distorting English is not really the way to make a point.

As long as we are talking about the words "nature" and "artificial" we are not talking just about plain English words.

Only dead languages don't evolve anymore

The word "nature" is not plain English. It is Latin (natura)

What can be considered natural?

I'm still convinced that everything coming forward out of natural processes is natural by nature.

Humans came forward out of a natural process

We can't do anything that wouldn't be possible that can be considered unnatural.

One could maybe conciser artificial (man- and animal-made) a subset of "natural", but that wouldn't make them un-natural

I'm not trying to distort English

Otherwise its just taking racism into new territory.

The word "nature" is not plain English. It is Latin (natura) and used in French, German, Russian and a lot of other languages, too.

Your rigid interpretations of dictionaries and "the first definition is the only one I use" just doesn't make sense.

And concerning the eradication of religion debate: It's not what's written that's important, it's what's done with it by the followers. Most muslims are no terrorists

Someone lead Otto down the primrose path which is when Artificial came into the picture.

Can't be away for a day and people start smashing each others heads in ;)

The violence itself is what matters.

I would also suggest you Haven't read the Koran as it is not translated, that being a key part in Islam.

A specific word in one language can have a set of various meanings.

I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Budism is NOT a violent religion and NEVER has been.

That is Budism not Islam. Which is something Otto should learn. Budism is NOT a violent religion and NEVER has been. Christianity has mellowed over the last few centuries.

@otto

I would also suggest you Haven't read the Koran as it is not translated, that being a key part in Islam. Again it all boils down to Religion is an excuse for evil men.

Yes Otto overdoes it.

You statement is technically correct in so far that Buddhism isn't a religion, therefore it can't be a violent religion. It is, however, violent

No I believe it is you sir, who underdoes it

The religion, as taught by The Budda, does NOT espouse violence, as far as I can tell. For that matter neither does Christianity IF one actually goes on the words of Jesus

Whereas Islam is quite explicit about it. Every bit as bad and often worse than the Old Testament.

Which did not prevent the Tibetan theocracy to skin their (Buddhist)..
..not prevent Christian powers to leave the largest trail of blood...

Which did not prevent the golden era of Spain where Muslims, Jews, and Christians worked peacefully together under Muslim rule.

People ought to be judged individually by their deeds.

Not by the contents of scriptures they cannot influence. And not by one's ends but by one's means.

Otto, there is concept called TOLERANCE. As in if they don't kill others I am not going to start killing them. You appear to advocating preemptive strikes. Against ALL religious groups. Which would include pacifist groups as some religions, even some Christians, are pacifist.

People ought to be judged individually by their deeds.

The religion, as taught by The Budda, does NOT espouse violence, as far as I can tell. For that matter neither does Christianity IF one actually goes on the words of Jesus as opposed to the more psychotic parts of the Old Testament.

Whereas Islam is quite explicit about it. Every bit as bad and often worse than the Old Testament.

There is a wide spectrum within each religion as to what is acceptable and what is not. You cannot paint any adherant with a single broad brush. You must, as Frajo said, look at the individual and judge them on their particular beliefs.

And as Frajo says, we ought to hunt down Nazis wherever they exist and crush them without pity.

You use different wording, but essentially you talk nazi talk. (Replace "Jews" by "believers".)

however, this sect of Buddhism doesn't practice Ahimsa (non-violence)

Depends on which Hadith you read.

You cannot paint any adherant with a single broad brush.

look at the individual and judge them on their particular beliefs.

What can be considered natural?

believing in a scifi/fantasy story.

All religions are inherently violent because people are inherently violent.

Otto's idea of eugenics and population control is as disturbing and ill-founded as marjon's idea of capitalist anarchy,

For instance the Trinity was made up later and was NOT from Jesus and therefor is not inherently Christian.

I am simply pointing out that SOME religions, contrary to Otto's rant, are not inherently violent. I was pretty clear about that.

But I am also playing the Role I am given, as we all do. People like me find religionism reprehensible and we are speaking out, because at this particular point in history we are SUPPOSED to. And again I cite bill maher and dawkins and legions of others who agree that all religions are dangerous.

Religion comes down to one question. Was Jesus Christ the Son of God as he claimed? For it would be the critcal point of the supernatural meeting the natural.

Religion comes down to one question. Was Jesus Christ the Son of God as he claimed? For it would be the critcal point of the supernatural meeting the natural.

No, there are a great many more questions that invalidate the mere mention of that question. Secondly, most religions don't believe in Jesus anything.

He is either a liar, a madman, or He is God. Those are the logical conclusions and to reckon with that changes the entire religion arguement.

But I am also playing the Role I am given, as we all do. People like me find religionism reprehensible and we are speaking out, because at this particular point in history we are SUPPOSED to.

If I am then so are you, as is EVERYBODY. We cannot escape Influence. I can recognize it in myself and accept it. Can you?

No, there are a great many more questions that invalidate the mere mention of that question. Secondly, most religions don't believe in Jesus anything.

Doesnt matter. If Christ is God, all other religions are thus false. Their denial has no power to change that. In other words, your second statement is a strawman.

Other's beliefs about Jesus have nothing to do with what Jesus himself claimed.

He is either a liar, a madman, or He is God.

Those are the logical conclusions and to reckon with that changes the entire religion arguement.

So, for everybody - what citations do you have that have done research on the percentage of mutations in coding sequences of the DNA of any organism that are beneficial, neutral, or harmful?

So, for everybody - what citations do you have that have done research on the percentage of mutations in coding sequences of the DNA of any organism that are beneficial, neutral, or harmful?

You can't do that research realistically. Each change is almost impossible to quatify as we're largely unaware of what most genes do, then you have gene regulatory networks, then you have the fact that we've barely sequenced a millionth of the genomes on the planet, then you'd need to look at variance over a multitude of generations, then you have to look at the trait within the existing environment, etc, etc, etc.

There's no way to account for positive, negative, or neutral.

You speak of influence as if it is final and inescapable,

you state that you are simply playing a role you where given

to full fill as if handed down to you by some divine host.

You pass the buck just like any religious zealot as if it where a burden laid before you to take up.

So, for everybody - what citations do you have that have done research on the percentage of mutations in coding sequences of the DNA of any organism that are beneficial, neutral, or harmful?

You can't do that research realistically. Each change is almost impossible to quatify as we're largely unaware of what most genes do, then you have gene regulatory networks, then you have the fact that we've barely sequenced a millionth of the genomes on the planet, then you'd need to look at variance over a multitude of generations, then you have to look at the trait within the existing environment, etc, etc, etc.

There's no way to account for positive, negative, or neutral.

then what basis is used for asserting that conserved beneficial mutations and neutral mutations are the basis for speciation.

Wouldn't observational and statistical research be needed before drawing that conclusion?

But I am also playing the Role I am given, as we all do

What are you talking about? What buck am I passing? Do others besides religious zealots pass bucks, which I'm not?

But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous,

This is not societies doing, this is not the work of the times you live in nor the "role" life has given you, this is you. By stating such things you are doing the exact mental gymnastics every religious zealot does by putting the burden of their guilt upon the divine will of god and not his own.

Oppression does not stop oppression, it only leads to greater conflict and violence.

"The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live...This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must END their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves... protest; for to do otherwise is to be an enabler... of the true devils of extremism who draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers... Thats it; grow up, or die." etc. Bill Maher

This is the difference between your ideas... and mine. I have no quotes to give you from men on television or from any books.

My ideas are amassed among 20 years of personal study as well as university study of Computer Science

(oddly is very related),

Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology,

as well as man studies of religion and culture.

Great Comedians, Artist, and Musicians.

I have chosen my own influences

and I do not displace my actions upon them. I am sure Bill Maher would be appalled by your statements and conclusions made using his own words,

but I am not bill Maher

I am sure Bill Maher would be appalled by your statements and conclusions made using his own words

to advocating that anybody who has a faith ought to be culled in order to make way for a New World Order of science and peace

a cabal of superpowerful conspirators whose traditions stretch unbroken to the beginnings of human history, and of whom no consistent evidence can be found because its perpetrators were too smart, despite being human beings fully embedded in the culture of their times.

This is the difference between your ideas... and mine. I have no quotes to give you from men on television or from any books.

Cant use google?

My ideas are amassed among 20 years of personal study as well as university study of Computer Science

Not very good if you cant use google. They accredited?

-But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar because it is based on nothing REAL and is constructed on principles of exclusionism and elitism and reproductive opportunism, which all major religions are. Dont you agree?

the plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live...This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must END their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves... protest; for to do otherwise is to be an enabler... of the true devils of extremism who draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers... Thats it; grow up, or die." etc. Bill Maher

Eugenics is Inevitable, given that humans have had 20k+ yrs experience with husbandry and that Rulers would have wanted to breed undesirable traits, if anything, out of their flocks.

-But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous,

Religionism should be regarded as one malignant, self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating menace.

No religion is safe, all must go.

Was Jesus Christ the Son of God as he claimed?

you may enjoy reading a work by a former atheist

Well for that matter Jesus wasn't a Xian

At the moment, right? Not violent NOW

Accepting one enables them all and ensures inevitable violence. You agree with this or not?

1) Could you please supply a reference for your assertion that most mutations are neutral? I mean, how would you know if it didn't express somatically?

2)What would be the relative ratio of retained and not retained 'neutral' mutations?

3) And, if mutations without survival enhancing properties were expressed in small populations - wouldn't that have a tendency to bring about population extinction more rapidly?

I don't think the Amish are going to become violent anytime soon. Annoying they already are but that is not a crime

Doesnt matter. If Christ is God, all other religions are thus false.

. Other's beliefs about Jesus have nothing to do with what Jesus himself claimed.

He is either a liar, a madman, or He is God.

Those are the logical conclusions

This strikes me as, probably, a critical question as the only mechanism being cited for Darwinian or neo-Darwinian speciation is this mutational mechanism.

OK - if you are correct, then how can anyone make an assertion that they KNOW that mutations are the mechanism of speciation?

Doesn't there need to be both observational and statistical work done before drawing that conclusion?

Absolutely would be, which is why we have millions of books and countless billions of pages worth of said observations to confirm the theory.

Therefore Otto.. you should oppress yourself. Your belief system has the potential to degenerate into something dangerous, based on nothing real and is constructed on the basis of exclusion-ism and elitism.

And these just within this thread, otto, you supporting the genocide of the religious, painting them as irredeemable and deserving to be destroyed

No religion is safe, all must go.

This doesn't help those of us who would like to see religion destroyed on the merits, rather than as they destroy themselves.

This is obviously telling me to kill the religious... right?

I mean after all Bill Maher said religion should die, and you said its okay to oppress "when they believe in something inherently dangerous".

The relative percentage of white moths and dark moths change in the population due to environmental factors.

Only relatively. The life expectency of a man with that condition is shortened to 42 years.

In every other set of conditions it is maladaptive.

what basis is there for claiming that 'benefical' mutations are the fundamental mechanism for evolutionary speciation?

OK, I am trying to not to get involved in the semantics.

.. and Evolutionary Psychology is a part of... Anthropology... it does not discredit in any kind of way those AREAS of study.

What is the percentage of beneficial (steps 'forward'), neutral (stay put),and harmful (steps 'back')?

If an organism is undergoing mutation, then the cumulative effect has to be 'forward'

Does experimental science show that there tends to be more steps 'forward' than 'back' from mutations of the coding DNA?

Where do the "major ecological changes" fit in? In my eyes, the discussion of good/bad/neutral falls off in that many are probably lost in the turmoil of these change events.

suspect that I am being unclear as you have persisted in answering questions that I am definitely not asking

Mutations that can be inherited are a small percentage of all mutations.

I would be really interested in seeing information on novel genetic code that is beneficial - by observation.

If mutations are random, and the deleterious mutations accumulate

where actual cummulative mutations are induced,

ou say that environmental changes, population isolation, and other factors cause selection - got that

but they change BACK when the weather changes BACK.

mutations are the proposed mechanism for that change.

outcome of this previously unavailable genetic code

You stated that such things as larger lung capacity and even eye color are MUTATIONS that have been conserved - did I understand that right?

? By implication that many (all?) variation among humans are expressed mutations that have been conserved?

don't think this group is going to be able to provide me any citations that I can research for myself.

I have read many of Dawkin's books and I'm sorry - he doesn't either.

Absolutely would be, which is why we have millions of books and countless billions of pages worth of said observations to confirm the theory.

Really now SH. Think that might be just bit of hyperbole? Millions and Billions. Been watching Cosmos again?

Ethelred

It is still absolutely amazing, your complete and utter lack of sense and wisdom.

your own words can easily be used to draw the conclusion that you want the genocide of all religious people.

Oppression is okay" is simply irresponsible,

and the same goes for Bill Maher saying "religion should die".

u inability to see this makes you truly no different than any other religious zealot.

-But I will say this- it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous,

Religionism should be regarded as one malignant, self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating menace.

No religion is safe, all must go.

-They feel western sanctions are oppression. They feel that others who hold conflicting beliefs are oppressing them just by existing. So they consider whatever it is we do to oppose their sickness oppression anyway, even if we do not.

The operative word here is 'unjust'. Any rejection or criticism of religionists is regarded as unjust and thusly as oppression by them. But they still need to be rejected and they still need to be criticized despite what the namecallers would label these actions.

In case you missed it, here is my qualifier on my oppression statement:

it is the words we choose to bring about this end that make the difference. When you say things like "religion should be regarded as a malignant tumor"

Religionism should be regarded as one malignant, self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating menace.

it paints a picture that it should be destroyed with massive dosages of radiation.

So when arcane says he wants to destroy religions, by using his same logic, he must mean killing adherents by more socially acceptable means? Non-violently perhaps?

Where did I say that I wanted to "destroy" all religions Otto? Please... quote me.

This doesn't help those of us who would like to see religion destroyed on the merits, rather than as they destroy themselves.

that you're clever enough to know what you're doing

when one or more of these atheists and agnostics challenge your imagination, you lump them in with religionists and start calling names.

-Or was it the other butt monkey TM?

you like being able to advocate for genocide

You use different wording, but essentially you talk nazi talk. (Replace "Jews" by "believers".)

It is still absolutely amazing, your complete and utter lack of sense and wisdom...makes you truly no different than any other religious zealot...like being able to advocate for genocide

I would not undermine or attack the people who use it.

The planet has what, 3-4 billion irrational believers on it. They are either poorly educated and religion is doing its job controlling them, or they aren't and it is even scarier why they ignore reality and believe in whatever it is they do. They out breed us. In the US the right has used religion to rape the poor and middle class. It IS time to use strong words.

Benign religion, if it truly exists, is a vast minority. I am afraid for me and my hopefully atheist children.

Could this be because ottos nick is german and he writes in German sometimes?

and die Pudel attack, without even reading ottos posts, as arkaine admits arf arf.

nowhere has otto said he thinks killing is warranted and has even said that religion must end to prevent further killing.

And I am not frajo or Arcain, so check your quotes. - Thrasymachus

Bill said he wanted RELIGIONS to die. NOT THE RELIGIOUS people that belong to the religions. There is a VAST difference between the two concepts.

I used to 5 you otto, until I learned how deeply perverse your views are.

and advocating violence against them.

I'll make my problem with you more explicit, maybe then you'll get it.

what? and what did I admit? Now who is putting words in whose mouth.

yeah... that was 4 - 6 posts down. After you stated oppression was okay, I know it wasn't a time issue, because I got in two posts...

You like Otto have missed the point.

The point is, you like TH like branding people like me homocidal maniacs because you enjoy it.

The point is, you like TH like branding people like me homocidal maniacs because you enjoy it.

no... I am branding you a "homicidal maniac" because you are dangerous and continuously fail to see why. The way you speak is just as dangerous as the way all religious extremist speak and either directly or inadvertently that speak cause violence and hate.

And you too are a liar. Me and Bill Maher both think so. Ive never said anything different than he does in his movie.

Just because someone on television says it doesn't mean its right

You fail even to try to understand the role of historical investigations into the function and structure of logic and perception. Your obstinacy is rivaled only by the religious fanatics you claim you oppose.

While you obviously feel that your response is all that is needed

also feel that I must be some sort of 'fundamentalist' if I don't agree that your explanation is sufficient

I continue to see your assertions as insufficient. I

you have resorted to name calling

anybody who looks at the facts and draws different conclusions than you is deficient in some fashion

I wish you well in your obvious olympian superiority.

I will go there in the hope that there are observational experiments to follow up

If mutations are random, and the deleterious mutations accumulate

You fail even to try to understand the role of historical investigations into the function and structure of logic and perception.

Your obstinacy is rivaled only by the religious fanatics you claim you oppose.

You mean all that bullshit that has been thoroughly discredited and superseded by scientific investigation and clinical study?

the role of historical investigations into the function and structure of logic and perception.

Is your lack of understanding this because your German? This could clarify a lot of things...

I do want to see religion destroyed, but not the religious. Religion is a method of thinking and relating oneself to the world through adherence to unprovable or blatantly false beliefs. The religious are those who use that method. I would undermine that method and attack its appeal for those who use it.

Maybe he even knows the speeches of Horst Mahler, a present-day German former anarchist lawyer now turned nazi leader whose preaching carefully avoids any advocating of crimes. His followers nevertheless understand his intentions very well.

Well, now that we've all devolved into calling each other liars, I'm done

Maher and other antireligionists are decidedly not Nazis, not genocidal maniacs, and yet they all reach the same conclusions that I and others here have- there is no good, no value, no worth in religions and they must end.

Link your evidence and I mean your evidence that discredits

No, that's not accurate. They evaluate and show that western religion is easily corruptable and encourages ignorance.

Similar misreads of Nietzche led to rampant racism and bigotry. That is what the posters above are attempting to show you.

As such they will naturally end when we promote rational thought, as they did during the enlightenment.

I do not, have not, and will not advocate hatred or killing. But I will continue to try to make sense of it, by looking right AT it and accepting the reality of it.

But looking at these things and discussing them enthusiastically does not make one a proponent or a practitioner of them.

So it's clear SH didn't watch Mahers movie where he specifically states these things?

You are playing the apologist.

Is the sin in the honest inquiry or the dishonest misreading of it?

It's pretty clear the posters are accusing me of being something I am not because I engage in discussion of things which they are afraid of

and reach conclusions they do not like.

But many of these same conclusions are shared by people who are decidedly not malevolent

No, that's not accurate. They evaluate and show that western religion is easily corruptable and encourages ignorance.

You don't reach conclusions. You make demands, which no one is paying attention to because they're as ridiculous as Marjon's demands.

Nope.

Similar misreads of Nietzche led to rampant racism and bigotry. That is what the posters above are attempting to show you.

-when I was citing what maher concludes at the end of his movie that religion must die for the world to live? This means ALL religions, which the movie makes clear.

Then they would have said so, rather than directly comparing the things I have said to the things goebbels said, and deeming me a Nazi by implication, and by directly calling me GENOCIDAL and a murderer.

Do you?? THEY implied I was a Nazi and SAID I advocated murder.

You say they were only trying to caution against the dangers of misreading my posts. You should let them speak for themselves.

Then you obviously haven't watched the movie. I'd like to know when he got into Buddhism and Jainism and the other 180 thousand religions not covered in his diatribe against abrahmic faiths.

Your statements are akin to the ramblings made by NAZI party officials before the Blitzkrieg.

So you're saying he had to specifically attack each religion separately??

His movie contained pictures of many of those religions, including Buddhists. He said 'religion must die'.

It's clear this statement meant ALL religion, and is a summation of his intent in the film.

No, they're telling you that you're pushing the edge of what would be considered rational and heading into the realm of bias and bigotry, as I am.

Then they would have said so, rather than directly comparing the things I have said to the things goebbels said, and deeming me a Nazi by implication, and by directly calling me GENOCIDAL and a murderer.

your own words can easily be used to draw the conclusion that you want the genocide of all religious people. This is the same kind of thing that is done with religious systems. Your crusade against religion is no different than any other religious crusade and your beliefs can be used in the exact same way as a religion to spur genocide.

The way you speak is just as dangerous as the way all religious extremist speak and either directly or indirectly that speak cause violence and hate.

You know the truth is I do want Otto to keep screaming as well, just more intelligently.

If I say "Otto, don't touch the stove because you'll hurt yourself" does that carry the same meaning as "Otto, don't touch the stove OR YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF."

If I say "Otto, don't touch the stove because you'll hurt yourself" does that carry the same meaning as "Otto, don't touch the stove OR YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF."

Yeah. In the same manner as a religionist might say 'don't question the bible' or a historian might say 'don't question the official historical record'. Otto will continue to question, and spout, and scare the people who are only yapping little Pudel anklebiters. It's Inevitable dude.

If I say "Otto, don't touch the stove because you'll hurt yourself" does that carry the same meaning as "Otto, don't touch the stove OR YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF."

Like I said, intent matters.

If I say "Otto, don't touch the stove because you'll hurt yourself" does that carry the same meaning as "Otto, don't touch the stove OR YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF."

Yeah. In the same manner as a religionist might say 'don't question the bible' or a historian might say 'don't question the official historical record'. Otto will continue to question, and spout, and scare the people who are only yapping little Pudel anklebiters. It's Inevitable dude.

How does that relate to

Do you see the disconnect now?

People are inevitably going to be perturbed by what I want to talk about. So what. Nothing eschatological about that. No otto is not the lamb. No otto has no 4 heads and 20 eyes. No otto is not the whore of Babylon.

Having read through the latest exchanges, I fail to comprehend: what the hell are you all fighting about?

I empathize with otto's (and Maher's) sentiments

(1)I said you are dangerous.

(2)I said your words have the potential to be turned into a weapon that can be used to justify the actions of violence and hate.

(3)I said your words mirror those of an upstart religious zealot trying to recruit people to his cause (refer back to 2).

(4)I even showed you how your own words can be turned into a fuel for hate and violence...

Everyone else seemed to get it... except you.

Rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves

I am being shouted down because I say religions are bad?

-I also take issue with the tone of criticism here in general. I am being shouted down because I say religions are bad? Thats just wrong. Maybe you agree that censorship of this sort is really what nazis were all about?

Each time I hear the religious wave the banner of Atheist oppression, or extremism, I like ot stick it in their face

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion, and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a reductive vision of the person and his destiny

-I also take issue with the tone of criticism here in general. I am being shouted down because I say religions are bad?

it is VERY right and proper to oppress peoples when they believe in something inherently dangerous, like national socialists or islamists, or by extrapolation any belief system that has the propensity to degenerate into something similar because it is based on nothing REAL and is constructed on principles of exclusionism and elitism and reproductive opportunism, which all major religions are. Dont you agree?

They think I'm a genocidal nazi because I said religions must end. I take issue with that.

realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.

I also take issue with the tone of criticism here in general. I am being shouted down because I say religions are bad?

This is inevitable. ... It must be stopped.

They/I asked you whether you are a nazi. Because some of your statements sound like nazi propaganda.

You said all religion must end but didn't specify by what means.

Nor did you specify how an individual could prove _not_ to be religious when the Holy Anti-Religious Inquisition threatens to torture him.

You never told how. That's why.

The German people were terrified and desperate, and when someone came along who offered a solution, they were ready to accept it.

The German people were terrified and desperate, and when someone came along who offered a solution, they were ready to accept it.

Now this is scary, because America parallels Nazi Germany today. We see the media becoming marginalized while opinion pieces on FOX tell a story that is so far from the truth it hurts to watch it if you have common sense. You have a group of people doing the exact same thing as the early Nazi sympathizers did. The only difference is, this time Hitler has a vagina, and he's from Alaska.

Hitler was never popular with the people.

You have a group of people doing the exact same thing as the early Nazi sympathizers did. The only difference is, this time Hitler has a vagina, and he's from Alaska.

And it is enough to agree with others when it's obvious that all religions harbor the potential for unspeakable violence, and that there is NO way to ensure that they will not produce it.

In my opinion, all HUMANS harbor that potential, quite regardless of religion.

Our tropical repro rate has made overcrowding endemic and the resulting conflict inevitable.

Religions possess an inertia which ensures their persistance long past their utility

In fact, throughout history ethnicity, culture, and race were much more prominent motivators for organized conflict, than religion.

At the root of all, it's just Humans doing the Human thing, with religion merely providing a thin veneer on top.

And as Frajo says, we ought to hunt down Nazis wherever they exist and crush them without pity.

And as Frajo says, we ought to hunt down Nazis wherever they exist and crush them without pity.

When you wrote this you knew it is not true.
How then can anyone trust your statements anymore?

In the US nazis are allowed to stage parades so people can throw things at them.

And have demonstrations that say GOD HATES THE US.

but religion made them controllable

religion-inspired war and revolution

one could not conceive of any better suited than the worlds major religions

it soon became evident that humans could, and would inevitably, extinct themselves

Humans were a plague and needed to be flushed

Religions cause humans to do markedly unhuman things- like monogamy for instance.

There is little about organized religions which can in any way be considered natural, even in terms of superstition.

they have shaped the growth of society and enabled civilization to achieve what it never could without them- sustainable world domination

The church obscured the fact that we are animals for so long, perhaps to distance us from the idea that we, too, could be an ongoing work of husbandry.

Who doesnt laugh at nazi rallies? 20 nazis and 300 protesters show up.

Illeism is used with an air of grandeur, to give the speaker lofty airs. Idiosyncratic and conceited people are known to either use or are lampooned as using illeism to puff themselves up or illustrate their egoism.

I don't know of too many wars or revolutions that were religion-inspired. Most of them were inspired by power struggles

Oh, I don't know. Have you checked out North Korea, lately?

Religions are far older than technology. I attribute "sustainable world domination" to evolution of technology, not religion.

I think not. Humans always assumed the earth and its resources were infinite, and there for the taking.

The fourth crusade, e.g., was financed by whom? On what conditions? Destroyed which city? Massacred whom by whom?

You should spend more time reading history books than watching movies, TV, and comic strips.

as most wars in history - means for economical ends.

Environmental disasters were never the direct fault of humans; they were the wrath of the gods.

True connections were never made, due to a lack of proper perspective.

Of course, the structures of organized religion are quite elaborate, but I don't see deliberate design there.

I disagree about superstition. It is indeed VERY natural. Nobody TEACHES children that there are monsters under their beds, or hiding in dark closets.

Superstition is everywhere, even in the modern world, and even quite apart from any religion. Just look at baseball players, or Wall Street traders. Look at all the "folk wisdom", from black cats crossing paths, to whistling in the house, to looking into broken mirrors, etc.

The fourth crusade, e.g., was financed by whom? On what conditions? Destroyed which city? Massacred whom by whom?

Fear of the nonexistant misdirects the attention of individuals and provides unneeded stress. It cannot be a survival mechanism as it wastes resources and divorces people from their environment. Looks like a flaw to me.

This isn't just a human idiosyncrasy, either. Most animals -- even down to fish -- who are not top predators, feature similar built-in behavioral biases.

This instinctual mapping of our own consciousness upon other humans is however not very specific at the outset. You can see children attribute minds to inanimate dolls, to animals, to plants, to natural phenomena. And this is not altogether maladaptive

Here you have all the necessary ingredients to build not just superstitions but outright religions.

I can guarantee you that the very first generation of such a population will have invented from scratch a religion of its own

This is why I posit that religion must predate technology. Our ancestors were religious long before the invention of fire, and long before the invention of stone tools.

Apropos, let's touch upon your analysis of history... I am going to accuse you of falling prey to the same dynamics that ensnare the religious: you see patterns and a grand design where there are none

you impose your modern knowledge, perspective, and 20-20 hindsight (never mind your Euro-centric cultural context) onto ancient peoples

you ignore cognitively dissonant evidence that contradicts your thesis, and you dismiss plausible alternative explanations out of hand

You're reaching conclusions here based on your preconceptions of what I must be

I was discussing euro history, and you're discerning a pattern?

First you gotta present some.

the first indications of religion date to perhaps 300k years ago, while stone tools date to 2.5M yrs

I dont believe animals walk around feeling scared a lot. Caution as opposed to fear.

technology which allowed protohumans to defeat their natural enemies

, I merely asked you to take a good look at yourself in the mirror

You postulated a multi-century pan-European conspiracy

By any measure, that is a panoply of extraordinary claims

All you have so far, is a few carefully chosen incidents and cultural snippets

while having thoroughly ignored the bulk of the historical context.

Never mind total lack of plausibility.

You would recall that wars were fought constantly over land, titles, and control of trading routes.

You wouldn't have forgotten the truly epic military adventures of antiquity, such as the Hun invasion,

or Alexander's little spree across Eurasia

They were vainglorious megalomaniacs, and wanted to leave their indelible mark upon history.

If you really have studied history, you wouldn't be committing the rookie mistake of inchoate religion-bashers

That's because religion doesn't fossilize very well.

It is an inherent function of human cognition

Until very recently, the "defeat" wasn't exactly all that resounding

Hunting was a high-risk sport

Alexander spent years educating ang grooming key Players for the Task. Brilliance.

War has always been the most dire threat to civilization, and Leaders knew that it absolutely could not be avoided. And so They must have begun looking for ways of managing war besides just postponing it until the next generation.

War has always been the most dire threat to civilization, and Leaders knew that it absolutely could not be avoided. And so They must have begun looking for ways of managing war besides just postponing it until the next generation.

War is only inevitable if you aren't a human being. War is the pre-primate response to primate planning exercises showing a resource problem. To go to war is to give in to primalism.

Hmmm. Did you read the article I posted SH?? Thats NOT what the experts say. Like I say, war has always been inevitable and unavoidable, up until the present.

Fucking Nazis.

The paper approaches the subject of war from an evolutionary perspective, that being the idea that our brains were shaped and sized in the context of a few million years of conflict.

Assuming tribal warfare was the norm has been seen as faulty when compared to the prehistoric record. It wasn't until we became a predominantly urban culture

And that's the problem. We've found that all primates, including homo sapiens tend to avoid conflict and in most cases prefer cooperation.

Fucking Nazis.

I don't like your misuse of the term "nazi". You are devaluating a term which ought to keep its strength of disapproval.

And that's the problem. We've found that all primates, including homo sapiens tend to avoid conflict and in most cases prefer cooperation.

Assuming tribal warfare was the norm has been seen as faulty when compared to the prehistoric record. It wasn't until we became a predominantly urban culture, or were faced with undue hardship that we become agressive and warlike. You're ignoring all that which has given us a competitive edge over nature and other animals. Cooperation is our norm.

Human society is mirrored by pigs. When left to their own devices they build a bower, raise young, visit each other, play socially, work together...

When penned in and stuffed next to their neighbors shoulder to shoulder, the weak are killed or starved to death and then eaten by the dominant. Sound familiar?

Assuming tribal warfare was the norm has been seen as faulty when compared to the prehistoric record. It wasn't until we became a predominantly urban culture, or were faced with undue hardship that we become agressive and warlike. You're ignoring all that which has given us a competitive edge over nature and other animals. Cooperation is our norm.

Human society is mirrored by pigs. When left to their own devices they build a bower, raise young, visit each other, play socially, work together...

Assuming tribal warfare was the norm has been seen as faulty when compared to the prehistoric record.

SH, you going to offer a reference for

Assuming tribal warfare was the norm has been seen as faulty when compared to the prehistoric record.

-because if its true, I would really like to know. Because all I can find is stuff like this:

As I always say for every stereotype there are the exceptions it is the nature of everything. However there is a period between the paleolithic and the upper paleolithic where cooperation or at least avoidance was preferred over conflict.

how long can this thread survive?

The Prehistory article also covers Endemic warfare but states that there is no evidence that conflict appears until after development of ranged weapons.

how long can this thread survive?

Untrue.

Ranged combat is FAR more risky for all involved. Close quarters combat, with or without weapons is almost always VERY one sided and short. The guy that has a lot of skill with his weapon, or is simply stronger wins...unless he gets really unlucky.

Ranged combat, (especially with firearms) equalized this somewhat and actually SPREAD OUT the risk of combat. If they sold pre-historic conflict insurance the rates would have skyrocketed when bows and arrows were developed.

As long as otto keeps digging it up and flogging it with his insane, pointless monologue.