100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Event In History
Edited by
Thorb
on
Wed 01/19/11 07:49 PM
|
|
One Event ... hmmm. big ones like woodstock you might have actually missed the concert. but then you wouldn't care.
Same for Roswell. Or the walking on the water... would be hittin on some chick and miss the event. That's the luck of the little guy. But then again if ya got lucky ... ya wouldn't care. Being present at the signing of the Declaration of Independance would be quite a high. or the ending of WW2. ... so many momentous events to choose from. How about being present for the first man made fire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree that by a basic understanding of what evolution is ... a term directly related to "natural sellection" ... then devolution would basically be the term for "non natural sellection" ... No, not at all. We have other terms for selective pressure thats caused by humans, such as 'breeding'. It doesn't matter whether the selective pressure originates from human or non-human sources - the proper biological term for the consequence is 'evolution', never 'devolution'. I see it as useful for humans, sometimes, to discriminate between non-human selective pressure and human-motivated selective pressure. The process of evolution makes no such distinction, and biologists sometimes use the phrase 'natural selection' to include 'breeding' and other effects of human actions. If you think this is a misnomer, I somewhat agree. Now the only good argument against its existance {devolution] would be that ... human tinkering is natural in itself ... Of course humans influence evolution; if you want to specify 'human influenced evolution' there are better ways than using a misleading and incorrect term like 'devolution'. Evolution is blind. Evolution does not select for any person's concept of what fittest ought to mean. Evolution only selects for the qualities that favor propagation of those genes in that particular circumstance. Therefore, the whole idea of an evolution/devolution dichotomy makes no sense whatsoever, and encourages people to wrongly think that evolution has a direction. The process of evolution doesn't care whether selective pressure originates from humans or not. Edit: To (redundantly) clarify: Its the assumption of 'moving in a direction' which underlies the typical evolution/devolution dichotomy that makes no sense. I do agree with both of you that discriminating between human-caused and not-human-caused evolution is sometimes helpful. woopdy doo ... you agree with something. as for ... outright no ... to devolution ... if we can make it a word we can give it a meaning if you don't like the meaning to fn bad. if someone finds a way to deconstruct the evolutionary chain and move back along it ... then that will be devolution ... not evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Where do morals come from???
|
|
After reading some of the posts
and the .... you can't equate morality to moral belief. I have to disagree with that statement completely. that is implying morals are some universal law ... like gravity. they are not. the closest to a law morals comes is the will to survive. And has often shown that it trumps any moral beliefs we think we have. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Where do morals come from???
Edited by
Thorb
on
Sun 01/16/11 08:29 AM
|
|
I haven't read this thread yet .... just like the question.
My thought is .... if we eliminate religious brain washing and go to primary human learning. Morals come from trial and error in social contact. We develop a action reaction realization that if we want others to treat us well we better treat them well. Then we set limits on it via social groupings. Families, tribes, race , species etc. its actually natural selection in its primary form. Most species do it in some way or another. Especially social species, herds and flocks and schools etc. morals are basic survival via thought/reason if a person has a problem with reasoning they will have a problem with what we see as morals. Now there does seem to be a slight genetic link but that is far from worked out ... nature/nurture agruments will continue. this is an over simplification but is my thoughts on the idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I hope you have a life jacket for your man ... to keep him afloat.
[hope your both high and dry as of now] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Do you consider...
|
|
I think it takes a special head space for anything like that to work ...as for them leaving for the other person.... almost to be expected ... but it most likely won't last either.
3ways are for non committed people more than for committed couples ... unless the couple has a very special kink. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Thorb
on
Sun 01/16/11 08:10 AM
|
|
Romance is overrated. I'd rather have something real. to me its not just overrated ... its fake. [when its planned] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you come here often?
and if so ... do you carry extra panties or go commando? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
first date
don't distract me |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Best way to approach you?
|
|
best approach is head on
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nope .... I don't cross border shop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really .... lol .... that is the most over used generalization made by bitter disappointed women ....
I have never in my life just wanted one thing ... unless i'm focused on a job or game and then that one thing is to complete the job or win the game. The rest of the time I want everything that could possibly benefit the world I live in. As for picture surfing .... well .... honestly ... most of the time that is what we do in real life too .... we look around parties and bars and clubs and subways and stores and surf the image that our eyes see. If someone exceptionally attracts us ... we may or may not act on it ... depending on our mood or analysis of the situation. In the case of the dating site ... that comes from reading the profile. good luck in all thoses generalizations ... people. we are what we are and do what we can |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
personally I think its hard to mingle with 2 .... I need a crowd to mingle with.
I just assumed it came out of a bunch of texters that don't know how to spell too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
pirates.
|
|
you wouldn't want to run into South Asian pirates ...
Somalie pirates are bad enough the drug runner pirates will kill you and steal your boat sort of like days of old. most of the old world western hemesphere pirates were sanctioned by the British government as privateers to attack the French and Spanish ... it was part of the war effort. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are you Politically Correct?
|
|
Politically correct is an oximoron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dirty blonde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Shaving your head?
|
|
If it was for religious reasons .... no support here
for medical reasons ... mountains of support |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Thought for the day :)
|
|
eat the vegetables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
If you believe in karma....
|
|
Can't say I believe .... I just see a desire to believe.
Karma takes the pressure off me in a sense that I don't have to take responsibility for changes in others via retribution etc. Its a way to explain the injustice we see in the chaos around us. God moves in mysterious ways ... does the same. if karma is real it explains why there are more bedbugs than people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree that by a basic understanding of what evolution is ... a term directly related to "natural sellection" ... then devolution would basically be the term for "non natural sellection" which is what we as humans have been practicing for a very long time.
Now the only good argument against its existance {devolution] would be that ... human tinkering is natural in itself ... so all of what we claim as non natural is actually natural in the sense that anything we choose to do is nature working through human interference. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
