natural selection --->EXPOSED
(M)-adman
Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism in the
sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity and any
of our measures of asymmetry or ratings of symmetry in males.
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/rnt6wfjy6158ulp1/
HTH
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
A.Carlson
wrote:
>Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin. (see
>Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
For which there is plenty of evidence throughout the animal kingdom.
Many species of animals put on displays to attract mates. Do you deny
this.
>the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism in the
>sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.
>http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
So, what's your point? This was only a 'hypothesis'. There is
another hypothesis kicking around out there that claims that the genes
for skin color are effectively self-selecting based on level of solar
radiation (a primary aspect of this study that you failed to mention)
due to the increased need for a healthy body to absorb vitamin D from
the sun the farther north they are located. Those with lighter skin
would have been more likely to survive up north in the past. The
modern diet may now make the whole issue mute.
>The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity and any
>of our measures of asymmetry or ratings of symmetry in males.
>http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/rnt6wfjy6158ulp1/
This only has to do with the ability to judge overall masculinity or
femininity based only on facial features. It makes no claims
whatsoever that, in the real world, these traits are typically judged
only by facial appearances.
This says nothing as to the likelihood of a female, for example,
choosing a more masculine male over a less masculine male - all things
else being equal - I'm sure that there is a lot of factors involved
here, many of which have been successfully tested for.
(M)-adman
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:43:14 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
> wrote:
>
>> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin.
>> (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> For which there is plenty of evidence throughout the animal kingdom.
> Many species of animals put on displays to attract mates. Do you deny
> this.
Not at all. This is just another example that evolution is not as widespread
as claimed and that the theory is misrepresented to do more then it actually
does.
>
>> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism
>> in the sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.
>> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
>
> So, what's your point? This was only a 'hypothesis'. There is
> another hypothesis kicking around out there that claims that the genes
> for skin color are effectively self-selecting based on level of solar
> radiation (a primary aspect of this study that you failed to mention)
> due to the increased need for a healthy body to absorb vitamin D from
> the sun the farther north they are located. Those with lighter skin
> would have been more likely to survive up north in the past. The
> modern diet may now make the whole issue mute.
>
>> The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity
>> and any of our measures of asymmetry or ratings of symmetry in males.
>> http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/rnt6wfjy6158ulp1/
>
> This only has to do with the ability to judge overall masculinity or
> femininity based only on facial features. It makes no claims
> whatsoever that, in the real world, these traits are typically judged
> only by facial appearances.
>
> This says nothing as to the likelihood of a female, for example,
> choosing a more masculine male over a less masculine male - all things
> else being equal - I'm sure that there is a lot of factors involved
> here, many of which have been successfully tested for.
--
Vend
> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin. (see
> Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
Right.
> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism in the
> sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
So?
> The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity and any
> of our measures of asymmetry or ratings of symmetry in males.http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/rnt6wfjy6158ulp1/
So?
> HTH
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
What is your point?
Mark Evans
> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin. (see
> Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism in the
>
> The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity and any
>
> HTH
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Clearly you have no idea as to what women find attractive in a male.
No much of a shock there.
Mark Evans
(M)-adman
Sure i do.
Take a picture of me. Look at it. There ya go.
Inez
I can offer a free hint- being a raving internet troll is not a
positive.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> A.Carlson wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin.
> >> (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> > For which there is plenty of evidence throughout the animal kingdom.
> > Many species of animals put on displays to attract mates. Do you deny
> > this.
>
> Not at all. This is just another example that evolution is not as widespread
> as claimed and that the theory is misrepresented to do more then it actually
> does.
Sexual selection *is* a mechanism of evolution.
Didn't you realise this when you posted the link?
RF
(M)-adman
>
> I can offer a free hint- being a raving internet troll is not a
> positive.
Everyone that disagrees with you k00ks is a troll
(M)-adman
> On Oct 6, 11:29 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> A.Carlson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:43:14 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to
>>>> Darwin. (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>>
>>> For which there is plenty of evidence throughout the animal kingdom.
>>> Many species of animals put on displays to attract mates. Do you
>>> deny this.
>>
>> Not at all. This is just another example that evolution is not as
>> widespread as claimed and that the theory is misrepresented to do
>> more then it actually does.
>
> Sexual selection *is* a mechanism of evolution.
>
> Didn't you realise this when you posted the link?
Actually Darwin described it as dimorphism. Didn't you read the links?
Boikat
But in your case, it's the fact that you don't understand anything
your are blathering about.
Besides that, the link to the "CAT" article said that men are
*universally* attracted to lighter skinned women. Horse shit, pure
and simple. If that were true, then there would be no such business
as "Tanning Salons".
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 11:29 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> A.Carlson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:43:14 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to
> >>>> Darwin. (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> >>> For which there is plenty of evidence throughout the animal kingdom.
> >>> Many species of animals put on displays to attract mates. Do you
> >>> deny this.
>
> >> Not at all. This is just another example that evolution is not as
> >> widespread as claimed and that the theory is misrepresented to do
> >> more then it actually does.
>
> > Sexual selection *is* a mechanism of evolution.
>
> > Didn't you realise this when you posted the link?
>
> Actually Darwin described it as dimorphism. Didn't you read the links?
>
>
Your point?
Do you understand what the term "dimorphism" means?
Evidently not.
RF
>
>
>
> >>>> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism
> >>>> in the sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.
> >>>>http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
>
> >>> So, what's your point? This was only a 'hypothesis'. There is
> >>> another hypothesis kicking around out there that claims that the
> >>> genes for skin color are effectively self-selecting based on level
> >>> of solar radiation (a primary aspect of this study that you failed
> >>> to mention) due to the increased need for a healthy body to absorb
> >>> vitamin D from the sun the farther north they are located. Those
> >>> with lighter skin would have been more likely to survive up north
> >>> in the past. The modern diet may now make the whole issue mute.
>
> >>>> The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity
> >>>> and any of our measures of asymmetry or ratings of symmetry in
> >>>> males.http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/rnt6wfjy6158ulp1/
Boikat
> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin. (see
> Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism in the
> sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
I'd call that a dubious study, since they claim that it is *universal*
that men seek out lighter skinned women.
>
> The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity and any
> of our measures of asymmetry or ratings of symmetry in males.http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/rnt6wfjy6158ulp1/
So what? It's been known for eons that what women usually look for a
good provider. Looks are secondary, in many cases.
>
> HTH
It helps to show that you are ignorant, since the two articles are not
really about *natural* selection.
Boikat
Inez
No. Some of them are sincere but wrong.
Mark Evans
And it is often a case of "he's not quite what I want but he is what
is available".
Mark Evans
Mark Evans
Somehow I doubt it. And you ignore that looks are only a small part
of being attractive. As I keep telling my sons, looks fade but a good
brain lasts.
Mark Evans
wf3h
> A.Carlson wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin.
> >> (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> > For which there is plenty of evidence throughout the animal kingdom.
> > Many species of animals put on displays to attract mates. Do you deny
> > this.
>
> Not at all. This is just another example that evolution is not as widespread
> as claimed and that the theory is misrepresented to do more then it actually
> does.
>
existence of individual atoms disproves the fact that molecules exist.
what's actually going on is that you don't understand evolution.
theocons generally don't
Desertphile
wrote:
> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin. (see
> Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism in the
> sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.
> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
That's nice. Now read the part about light skin being a positive
trait in high latitudes.
It seems very odd that you are a very forgetful person, or at
least you like to run away and try to forget things. However, on
the 29th September 2008 you failed to deal with a number of items
that were first listed by Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now
myself) think you need to address:-
Claiming Paul Neuman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this
news group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any
given sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
(M)-adman
WTF is there to understand? Plants and animals can evolve within their own
species.
(M)-adman
Women like money and to think they are smarter.
TimK
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:7blke45mmov8tiuvs...@4ax.com...
I love your 20 steps to a better USA! Especially #5.
Mark Evans
Yet more proof that you are clueless about women also. On the bright
side this means that the chances of you passing on your DNA and
culture are greatly reduced.
Mark Evans
(M)-adman
I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
That is a Fact Jack.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>
You had cats?
By the way, I like the "(M)" that you've added to your identifier.
I've always found that peculiar fundie fascination with martyrdom to
be awfully entertaining.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Do you tell them that you, uh, talk to God?
Do you ever, uh, call the Hand of the Lord to Smite any of them if
they don't give it up for you?
(snicker) (giggle)
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
>>
> >> Not at all. This is just another example that evolution is not as
> >> widespread as claimed and that the theory is misrepresented to do
> >> more then it actually does.
>
> > uh...how does this prove your assertion? it's like saying that the
> > existence of individual atoms disproves the fact that molecules exist.
>
> > what's actually going on is that you don't understand evolution.
>
> > theocons generally don't
>
> WTF is there to understand? Plants and animals can evolve within their own
> species.
and the easter bunny exists.
how do we know that? by the same reason you just gave: you just said
it so it must be so
i didn't know you were a proponent of easter bunny science
(M)-adman
bwaha!!!
Boikat
> Mark Evans wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 2:15 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Mark Evans wrote:
> >>> On Oct 6, 9:33 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> >>> Somehow I doubt it. And you ignore that looks are only a small part
> >>> of being attractive. As I keep telling my sons, looks fade but a
> >>> good brain lasts.
>
> >>> Mark Evans
>
> >> Women like money and to think they are smarter.
>
> >> --
> >> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Yet more proof that you are clueless about women also. On the bright
> > side this means that the chances of you passing on your DNA and
> > culture are greatly reduced.
>
> > Mark Evans
>
> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
Gee. How would you know? Oh, that's right. You have a habit of
spewing about things you know nothing about.
Like claiming Hitlers knowledge of the ToE was responsible for WW1...
Like claiming "dr" Kent Hovind made "scientific discoveries"...
Like any number of posts where you think you've made some sort of
point...
>
> That is a Fact Jack.
Bullshit.
Boikat
Boikat
Then again, if a lot of people tell you that you are wrong, maybe
there is a possibility that you are wrong. Has that never occured to
you?
But that's a silly question, concidering how well you've supported
your lcaims, like:
Hitler's understanding of the ToE being manifest in WW1...
Like claiming "dr" Kent the convict Hovind made scientific
discoveries...
Like claiming that wars have been fought because science disproved
some religious belief...
Oh, wait. You have *not* supported those claims.
What was I thinking?
Boikat
John Wilkins
> On Oct 6, 7:35 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > Mark Evans wrote:
> > > On Oct 6, 2:15 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > >> Mark Evans wrote:
> > >>> On Oct 6, 9:33 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >
> > >>> Somehow I doubt it. And you ignore that looks are only a small part
> > >>> of being attractive. As I keep telling my sons, looks fade but a
> > >>> good brain lasts.
> >
> > >>> Mark Evans
> >
> > >> Women like money and to think they are smarter.
> >
> > >> --
> > >> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
> >
> > >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > > Yet more proof that you are clueless about women also. On the bright
> > > side this means that the chances of you passing on your DNA and
> > > culture are greatly reduced.
> >
> > > Mark Evans
> >
> > I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>
> Gee. How would you know? Oh, that's right. You have a habit of
> spewing about things you know nothing about.
Hey, he may be right. He may just never have been caught. But the
question is how often he passed on his DNA. I thnk rape victims are
entitled to abortions even in the US, right?
>
> Like claiming Hitlers knowledge of the ToE was responsible for WW1...
>
> Like claiming "dr" Kent Hovind made "scientific discoveries"...
>
> Like any number of posts where you think you've made some sort of
> point...
>
>
> >
> > That is a Fact Jack.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Boikat
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Mark Evans wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2:15 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> Mark Evans wrote:
>>>> On Oct 6, 9:33 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somehow I doubt it. And you ignore that looks are only a small part
>>>> of being attractive. As I keep telling my sons, looks fade but a
>>>> good brain lasts.
>>>
>>>> Mark Evans
>>>
>>> Women like money and to think they are smarter.
>>>
>>> --
>>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>>
>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Yet more proof that you are clueless about women also. On the bright
>> side this means that the chances of you passing on your DNA and
>> culture are greatly reduced.
>>
>> Mark Evans
>
>
>I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>
>That is a Fact Jack.
Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us know.
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to run
away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you
failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming the actor Paul Newman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
Ron O
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
Exposed!?
The real trick would be covering it up.
Ron Okimoto
Mark Evans
Wow, 2 false assertions in a single sentence.
Mark Evans
Tim Miller
That's not even CLOSE to his record.
Cheezits
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>>
>>That is a Fact Jack.
>
> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us know.
This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much about.
:-D
Sue
--
I didn't lie! I was writing fiction with my mouth! - Homer Simpson
(M)-adman
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> [etc.]
>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>>>
>>> That is a Fact Jack.
>>
>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
>> know. [etc.
>
> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much about.
> :-D
naww.. just an additional way to discover God
:-D
Ye Old One
He seems to make no attempt to cover it up.
--
Bob.
Cheezits
> Cheezits wrote:
>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> [etc.]
>>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>>>>
>>>> That is a Fact Jack.
>>>
>>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
>>> know. [etc.
>>
>> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much about.
>> :-D
>
> naww.. just an additional way to discover God
<ROFL>
You really are just trolling, aren't you? :-D
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Kermit
(M)-adman wrote:
> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin. (see
> Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
What is this "according to Darwin" nonsense? Evolutionary science is a
*science, not a personality cult. Many, perhaps most scientists in the
field haven't read Darwin. But yes, sexual selection is a type of
natural selection.
>
> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism in the
> sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.
> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
Ummm... yes. Why are you posting this? There was a hypothesis that
dimorphism would be increased in higher latitudes, but it turned out
not to be the case. The preference may still be there, but sexual
selection as well as selective pressure from other environmental
factors may override it. This is a fine example of science in action:
Hypothesize, then try to *disprove it. Pseudoscience proponents
typically look for data that (if you squint your eyes) seems to
suppport their goofy ideas. Real scientists test their models. If it
ain't testable, it can't be science. and data isn't data unless it's
verifiable.
>
> The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity and any
> of our measures of asymmetry or ratings of symmetry in males.
> http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/rnt6wfjy6158ulp1/
Here there found no strong correlation between perceived masculinity
and faical symmetry.Why are you posting this? I assume you think this
is a gotcha discovery of some kind ("Look! My discovery of a science
paper disproves science!"), but your understanding of science is so
astonishingly poor that I really don't know what your point could
possibly be. I'd ask you to explain it, but I know from experience
that if you did, it wouldn't clarify anything.
>
> HTH
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> �.�Adman�.�
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Kermit
(M)-adman
> (M)-adman wrote:
>> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin.
>> (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> What is this "according to Darwin" nonsense? Evolutionary science is a
> *science, not a personality cult. Many, perhaps most scientists in the
> field haven't read Darwin. But yes, sexual selection is a type of
> natural selection.
There is no doubt to the fact that evolution is a cult.
>
>>
>> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism
>> in the sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.
>> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
>
> Ummm... yes. Why are you posting this? There was a hypothesis that
> dimorphism would be increased in higher latitudes, but it turned out
> not to be the case. The preference may still be there, but sexual
> selection as well as selective pressure from other environmental
> factors may override it. This is a fine example of science in action:
> Hypothesize, then try to *disprove it. Pseudoscience proponents
> typically look for data that (if you squint your eyes) seems to
> suppport their goofy ideas. Real scientists test their models. If it
> ain't testable, it can't be science. and data isn't data unless it's
> verifiable.
>
Where is your testable verifiable model for evolution?
>>
>> The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity
>> and any of our measures of asymmetry or ratings of symmetry in males.
>> http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/rnt6wfjy6158ulp1/
>
> Here there found no strong correlation between perceived masculinity
> and faical symmetry.Why are you posting this? I assume you think this
> is a gotcha discovery of some kind ("Look! My discovery of a science
> paper disproves science!"), but your understanding of science is so
> astonishingly poor that I really don't know what your point could
> possibly be. I'd ask you to explain it, but I know from experience
> that if you did, it wouldn't clarify anything.
>
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> --
>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>
>> ?.?Adman?.?
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Kermit
(M)-adman
> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Cheezits wrote:
>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>> [etc.]
>>>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a Fact Jack.
>>>>
>>>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
>>>> know. [etc.
>>>
>>> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much
>>> about. :-D
>>
>> naww.. just an additional way to discover God
>
> <ROFL>
>
> You really are just trolling, aren't you? :-D
>
> Sue
I make love, not troll.
<G>
Ernest Major
<gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
>Kermit wrote:
>> (M)-adman wrote:
>>> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin.
>>> (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>>
>> What is this "according to Darwin" nonsense? Evolutionary science is a
>> *science, not a personality cult. Many, perhaps most scientists in the
>> field haven't read Darwin. But yes, sexual selection is a type of
>> natural selection.
>
>There is no doubt to the fact that evolution is a cult.
I see you also suffer from missing negative syndrome - that should read
"is not a cult".
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism
>>> in the sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.
>>> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
>>
>> Ummm... yes. Why are you posting this? There was a hypothesis that
>> dimorphism would be increased in higher latitudes, but it turned out
>> not to be the case. The preference may still be there, but sexual
>> selection as well as selective pressure from other environmental
>> factors may override it. This is a fine example of science in action:
>> Hypothesize, then try to *disprove it. Pseudoscience proponents
>> typically look for data that (if you squint your eyes) seems to
>> suppport their goofy ideas. Real scientists test their models. If it
>> ain't testable, it can't be science. and data isn't data unless it's
>> verifiable.
>>
>
>Where is your testable verifiable model for evolution?
>
Are you claiming to be unaware of the testable and verified nature of
the theory of evolution?
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Cheezits wrote:
>> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> Cheezits wrote:
>>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>>>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>> [etc.]
>>>>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a Fact Jack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
>>>>> know. [etc.
>>>>
>>>> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much
>>>> about. :-D
>>>
>>> naww.. just an additional way to discover God
>>
>> <ROFL>
>>
>> You really are just trolling, aren't you? :-D
>>
>> Sue
>
>I make love,
Only to yourself.
>not troll.
Liar!
>
><G>
wf3h
>
> There is no doubt to the fact that evolution is a cult.
>
>
if that's the case then all of nature is a cult since science is the
only way to study it.
this is as opposed to the theocon view of reality which, for 2000
years, led precisely nowhere.
Max
> Mark Evans wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 9:33 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> > Somehow I doubt it. And you ignore that looks are only a small part
> > of being attractive. As I keep telling my sons, looks fade but a good
> > brain lasts.
>
> > Mark Evans
>
> Women like money and to think they are smarter.
>
Max
> <snip>
>
> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>
> That is a Fact Jack.
>
Max
> On Oct 6, 9:23 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> > Inez wrote:
>
> > > I can offer a free hint- being a raving internet troll is not a
> > > positive.
>
> > Everyone that disagrees with you k00ks is a troll
>
> your are blathering about.
>
> Besides that, the link to the "CAT" article said that men are
> *universally* attracted to lighter skinned women. Horse shit, pure
> and simple. If that were true, then there would be no such business
> as "Tanning Salons".
>
> Boikat
Lighter skinned is a rather ambiguous term. Lighter than what. My
preferred range runs from a light tan to milk chocolate, all other
things being equal.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>Cheezits wrote:
>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> [etc.]
>>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>>>>
>>>> That is a Fact Jack.
>>>
>>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
>>> know. [etc.
>>
>> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much about.
>> :-D
>
>naww.. just an additional way to discover God
....or clap.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>Kermit wrote:
>> (M)-adman wrote:
>>> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin.
>>> (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>> What is this "according to Darwin" nonsense? Evolutionary science is a
>> *science, not a personality cult. Many, perhaps most scientists in the
>> field haven't read Darwin. But yes, sexual selection is a type of
>> natural selection.
>There is no doubt to the fact that evolution is a cult.
Not in the minds of deranged fundies, there isn't. But
rational adults who understand science know better.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mark Evans
<mev...@gcfn.org>:
>On Oct 6, 2:15 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Mark Evans wrote:
>> > On Oct 6, 9:33 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>
>> > Somehow I doubt it. And you ignore that looks are only a small part
>> > of being attractive. As I keep telling my sons, looks fade but a good
>> > brain lasts.
>> Women like money and to think they are smarter.
>Yet more proof that you are clueless about women also. On the bright
>side this means that the chances of you passing on your DNA and
>culture are greatly reduced.
Unfortunately, he can pass on his culture without the active
participation of women (as the RCC has demonstrated for a
couple of millennia) if he can find anyone stupid enough to
embrace it. And equally unfortunately, history shows that
such individuals are rather common.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>Mark Evans wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2:15 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> Mark Evans wrote:
>>>> On Oct 6, 9:33 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somehow I doubt it. And you ignore that looks are only a small part
>>>> of being attractive. As I keep telling my sons, looks fade but a
>>>> good brain lasts.
>>>
>>>> Mark Evans
>>>
>>> Women like money and to think they are smarter.
>>>
>>> --
>>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>>
>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Yet more proof that you are clueless about women also. On the bright
>> side this means that the chances of you passing on your DNA and
>> culture are greatly reduced.
>>
>> Mark Evans
>
>
>I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>
>That is a Fact Jack.
I suspect that "jack" is the operative word in that claim.
Off with you...
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <c6jne49072ptt9lq9...@4ax.com>):
>> I make love,
>
> Only to yourself.
The thought of anyone, even madman, getting that close to madman is just...
ewww. Why, not even Jabriol would contemplate such a mix.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
(M)-adman
You got a testable model?
Boikat
> Cheezits wrote:
> > "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Cheezits wrote:
> >>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >>> [etc.]
> >>>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>
> >>>>> That is a Fact Jack.
>
> >>>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
> >>>> know. [etc.
>
> >>> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much
> >>> about. :-D
>
> >> naww.. just an additional way to discover God
>
> > <ROFL>
>
> > You really are just trolling, aren't you? :-D
>
> > Sue
>
> I make love, not troll.
Jacking off is not "making love", but it's probably as close as you
are going to ever get. You have my sympathies.
NOT!
Boikat
Boikat
Same here.
Boikat
Boikat
> Kermit wrote:
> > (M)-adman wrote:
> >> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to Darwin.
> >> (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> > What is this "according to Darwin" nonsense? Evolutionary science is a
> > *science, not a personality cult. Many, perhaps most scientists in the
> > field haven't read Darwin. But yes, sexual selection is a type of
> > natural selection.
>
> There is no doubt to the fact that evolution is a cult.
Only in a dishonest mind.
>
> >> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of dimorphism
> >> in the sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin color.
> >>http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535965
>
> > Ummm... yes. Why are you posting this? There was a hypothesis that
> > dimorphism would be increased in higher latitudes, but it turned out
> > not to be the case. The preference may still be there, but sexual
> > selection as well as selective pressure from other environmental
> > factors may override it. This is a fine example of science in action:
> > Hypothesize, then try to *disprove it. Pseudoscience proponents
> > typically look for data that (if you squint your eyes) seems to
> > suppport their goofy ideas. Real scientists test their models. If it
> > ain't testable, it can't be science. and data isn't data unless it's
> > verifiable.
>
> Where is your testable verifiable model for evolution?
Whenever a paleontologists prepaires to look for something like a
transitional form, and consults a geological map and determines that s/
he has to look in a certain formation at a certain location, with the
aim of better chances of finding the transitional form s/he's looking
for, and does find the transitional form, as was the case for
Arcanthostega (or was it Tictalic?)
Or, how about the prediction that the genetic relationship would
closely match the physical/morphological relationship of the multiple
nested hierarchy of species?
Or, how about a relatively long term study of the morphology of anoles
lizards transplanted from their native island, shich was forested, to
an island that had only scrub and grass, and after twenty years,
easily decernable changes in legs length was observed? Yes, fool,
they were still lizards.
Or, the case of bighorn sheep, with less "big horn" due to hunters
targeting the bighorn with the biggest horn, thus removing those
bighorns from the breeding population. The sme is happening with
african elephants.
Then there is the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
But to you, those examples, and there are a lot more, are not
acceptable, because they demonstrate that you are, again, ignorant.
>
> >> The RS found no significant correlations between facial masculinity
> >> and any of our measures of asymmetry or ratings of symmetry in males.
> >>http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/rnt6wfjy6158ulp1/
>
> > Here there found no strong correlation between perceived masculinity
> > and faical symmetry.Why are you posting this? I assume you think this
> > is a gotcha discovery of some kind ("Look! My discovery of a science
> > paper disproves science!"), but your understanding of science is so
> > astonishingly poor that I really don't know what your point could
> > possibly be. I'd ask you to explain it, but I know from experience
> > that if you did, it wouldn't clarify anything.
>
> >> HTH
>
> >> --
> >> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> >> ?.?Adman?.?
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Kermit
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
You wouldn't know "truth" i it was standing on the side of the road
holding the word "Truth" written on it with bright, Day-Glo green
letters. If anything, you'd probably swerve and say "Oops!" at the
sound of the "thump".
Boikat
Ernest Major
<gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
(Pretty much every time someone sequences a new piece of DNA, or digs up
a new fossil, or discovers a new species of living organism, they're
testing the theory of evolution.)
--
alias Ernest Major
(M)-adman
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 07:04:20 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>
>> Cheezits wrote:
>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>> [etc.]
>>>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a Fact Jack.
>>>>
>>>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
>>>> know. [etc.
>>>
>>> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much
>>> about. :-D
>>
>> naww.. just an additional way to discover God
>
> ....or clap.
That was actually funny.
I had no idea humor could come from YOU
(M)-adman
I'll take that as a "no"
Tim_Miller
Take it any way you want. But, the only one you hurt by ignoring
the evidence (and the answers to your questions) is you.
Boikat
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > <g...@hotmail.ed> writes
> >> Ernest Major wrote:
> >>> In message <v9OGk.45553$Ep1.8...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> writes
> >>>> Kermit wrote:
> >>>>> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>>>>> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to
> >>>>>> Darwin. (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> >>>>> What is this "according to Darwin" nonsense? Evolutionary science
> >>>>> is a *science, not a personality cult. Many, perhaps most
> >>>>> scientists in the field haven't read Darwin. But yes, sexual
> >>>>> selection is a type of natural selection.
>
> >>>> There is no doubt to the fact that evolution is a cult.
>
> >>> I see you also suffer from missing negative syndrome - that should
> >>> read "is not a cult".
>
> >>>>>> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of
> >>>>>> dimorphism in the sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin
>
> >>>>> Ummm... yes. Why are you posting this? There was a hypothesis that
> >>>>> dimorphism would be increased in higher latitudes, but it turned
> >>>>> out not to be the case. The preference may still be there, but
> >>>>> sexual selection as well as selective pressure from other
> >>>>> environmental factors may override it. This is a fine example of
> >>>>> science in action: Hypothesize, then try to *disprove it.
> >>>>> Pseudoscience proponents typically look for data that (if you
> >>>>> squint your eyes) seems to suppport their goofy ideas. Real
> >>>>> scientists test their models. If it ain't testable, it can't be
> >>>>> science. and data isn't data unless it's verifiable.
>
> >>>> Where is your testable verifiable model for evolution?
>
> >>> Are you claiming to be unaware of the testable and verified nature
> >>> of the theory of evolution?
>
> >> You got a testable model?
>
> > Are you claiming to be unaware of the testable and verified nature
> > ofthe theory of evolution?
>
> > (Pretty much every time someone sequences a new piece of DNA, or digs
> > up a new fossil, or discovers a new species of living organism,
> > they're testing the theory of evolution.)
>
> I'll take that as a "no"
>
Apparently, you cannot read very well. Either that or you are truely
nothing but a fuctard troll.
Boikat
Boikat
> > In message <elWGk.45972$vX2.5...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "(M)-adman"
> > <g...@hotmail.ed> writes
> >> Ernest Major wrote:
> >>> In message <v9OGk.45553$Ep1.8...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> writes
> >>>> Kermit wrote:
> >>>>> (M)-adman wrote:
> >>>>>> Sexual selection is a form of natural selection according to
> >>>>>> Darwin. (see Darwin's book The Descent of Man)
>
> >>>>> What is this "according to Darwin" nonsense? Evolutionary science
> >>>>> is a *science, not a personality cult. Many, perhaps most
> >>>>> scientists in the field haven't read Darwin. But yes, sexual
> >>>>> selection is a type of natural selection.
>
> >>>> There is no doubt to the fact that evolution is a cult.
>
> >>> I see you also suffer from missing negative syndrome - that should
> >>> read "is not a cult".
>
> >>>>>> the CAT.inist says they found no evidence in support of
> >>>>>> dimorphism in the sexual selection hypothesis regarding skin
>
> >>>>> Ummm... yes. Why are you posting this? There was a hypothesis that
> >>>>> dimorphism would be increased in higher latitudes, but it turned
> >>>>> out not to be the case. The preference may still be there, but
> >>>>> sexual selection as well as selective pressure from other
> >>>>> environmental factors may override it. This is a fine example of
> >>>>> science in action: Hypothesize, then try to *disprove it.
> >>>>> Pseudoscience proponents typically look for data that (if you
> >>>>> squint your eyes) seems to suppport their goofy ideas. Real
> >>>>> scientists test their models. If it ain't testable, it can't be
> >>>>> science. and data isn't data unless it's verifiable.
>
> >>>> Where is your testable verifiable model for evolution?
>
> >>> Are you claiming to be unaware of the testable and verified nature
> >>> of the theory of evolution?
>
> >> You got a testable model?
>
> > Are you claiming to be unaware of the testable and verified nature
> > ofthe theory of evolution?
>
> > (Pretty much every time someone sequences a new piece of DNA, or digs
> > up a new fossil, or discovers a new species of living organism,
> > they're testing the theory of evolution.)
>
> I'll take that as a "no"
And then there is this, where you also claimed to be a "christian",
and are denying in another thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/free.christians/msg/c3ef6f24ad53ba74
As Ernest Major said, and you ignored, every discovery of the nature
cited is a test of the model of the ToE.
But you are too stupid, or dishonest, or both, to admit it. BTW
*FUCTARD*, self inflicted persecution points probably do not count for
squat,
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
The truth is, you are a fuctard liar, and everyone knows it.
Including your "god-thingy", if he exists.
But then again, you deny being a "Christian", so you do not believe in
any God, and are really just a fuctard lying piece of troll shit that
slipped out of the toilet that someone forgot to flush.
Boikat
Ernest Major
you are incapable of comprehension, one hopes that other people are
capable of recognising a "yes" when they see it.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 07:04:20 -0500, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>>
>>> Cheezits wrote:
>>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>>>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>> [etc.]
>>>>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a Fact Jack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
>>>>> know. [etc.
>>>>
>>>> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much
>>>> about. :-D
>>>
>>> naww.. just an additional way to discover God
>>
>> ....or clap.
>
>That was actually funny.
>
>I had no idea humor could come from YOU
I'm a very funny guy.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by nmp <add...@is.invalid>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, he can pass on his culture without the active
>> participation of women (as the RCC has demonstrated for a couple of
>> millennia)
>
>To pick a nit, I'm not so sure the Church could have done what it did
>without the active participation of women. Unfortunately, women often do
>participate in misogynistic/patriarchal subjugation of women. In the
>Church, women are often the most devout believers of all. When the
>numbers of churchgoers are dwindling, like they do in my country, the
>people who remain loyal are mostly (older) women.
I'd never claim women have (and had) zero influence, but the
"culture" is passed on, sometimes with modifications, by the
Church hierarchy. And note that I said the *active*
participation of women. Unless the victims of rape, abuse
(mental and physical) and general misogyny are counted as
"active participants" then women can't be counted as such.
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:14:04 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>
> >Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 07:04:20 -0500, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
> >>
> >>> Cheezits wrote:
> >>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
> >>>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >>>> [etc.]
> >>>>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is a Fact Jack.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
> >>>>> know. [etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much
> >>>> about. :-D
> >>>
> >>> naww.. just an additional way to discover God
> >>
> >> ....or clap.
> >
> >That was actually funny.
> >
> >I had no idea humor could come from YOU
>
> I'm a very funny guy.
Is your name Benjamin Pearce?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins):
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:14:04 -0500, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>>
>> >Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 07:04:20 -0500, the following appeared in
>> >> talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>> >>
>> >>> Cheezits wrote:
>> >>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:54 -0500, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>> >>>>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> >>>> [etc.]
>> >>>>>> I got more pussy in college then you got in your entire life.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> That is a Fact Jack.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hohohohohoho! When you get into single figures be sure to let us
>> >>>>> know. [etc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This must be more of that True Spirituality we've heard so much
>> >>>> about. :-D
>> >>>
>> >>> naww.. just an additional way to discover God
>> >>
>> >> ....or clap.
>> >
>> >That was actually funny.
>> >
>> >I had no idea humor could come from YOU
>>
>> I'm a very funny guy.
>
>Is your name Benjamin Pearce?
I wish...
No, I'm actually Vlad Tepes, and I'd really like to meet
AddledManiac in person; you might say I have a stake in it.
John Wilkins
Very Draconian of you.
(M)-adman
Arf..Arf..Arf... Seal Claps and then a Wooden stake for you.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
<snip>
>Arf..Arf..Arf...
Lick your crotch. Roll over. Play dead.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Nearly forgot...
>On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 22:13:55 -0500, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>
><snip>
>
>>Arf..Arf..Arf...
>
>Lick your crotch. Roll over. Play dead.
Spinnie, that's an algorithm - 3 unambiguous instructions
designed to accomplish a task.