Homosexuals

[Sava]

Only twice as many. Ideally, you'd need more, since you won't be giving all of your attention to everyone of them.

Your siblings share 1/2 of your genes, and their kids have 1/2 of theirs. So you have 1/4 of your genes in common with your nieces and nephews. Your kids have 1/2 of your genes. So, genetically speaking, it's the same if one of your kids passes on his gene than for two of your nephews to do so.

How can my sister only share 1/2 of my genes when monkeys share 99% or whatever?

Why do species like humans and elephants who only have one kid at a time and gestate for almost a year still on earth, when there's rabbits and dogs to out-breed them?

Uhm. Humans can have more than one child at a time. And it's only a relatively recent phenomenon... the whole human beings having low infant mortality rates.

And I'm pretty sure Catholics can outbreed rabbits.

[MrFun]

We share 99 percent of our genes with chimpanzees (apes), not monkeys.

[Sava]

I said "or whatever".

[MrFun]

whatever

[Sava]

I ROLL EYES AT YOU

[MrFun]

OMG!! Too many!! Overwhelmed!!

[Sava]

muhauah

[MrFun]

[Sava]

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as homo or hetero sexuality. It's just tits, ass, vaj and johnson.

Humans made up the names to describe things they don't fully understand... as per usual. And now every one is all pissed off about it.

And there shouldn't be gay marriage. There shouldn't be straight marriage. There should be no marriage at all as far as the government is concerned. Marriage is religious. All the legal stuff can be sorted out easily. It is moronic to restrict the legal benefits of marriage to any relationship, gay or otherwise.

Keep the government out of my church... and your church out of my government.

[N35t0r]

The first reason is that, according to the theory of evolution, there has not been as many generations of humans and their ancestors as there have been of rabbits and their ancestors.

So humans just popped out of mid air?

The second is that it is not possible for humans to reproduce that quickly, because they are too complicated.

So, according to your theory, we should all be dead from being out-competed by rabbits.

[Kidlicious]

So humans just popped out of mid air?

Huh? No. We just haven't had as many opportunities to evolve.

So, according to your theory, we should all be dead from being out-competed by rabbits.

It's not my theory. It's the theory of evolution. Rabbits should have out-competed human beings long ago. But that doesn't change the fact that it's common sense that if species have evolved like that the species that consumed more resources would have had an advantage, not the species that consumed less. When you play civ games do you think you will win by consuming less resources?

[N35t0r]

Huh? No. We just haven't had as many opportunities to evolve.

That would only make sense if we had popped out of thin air. There's probably an unbroken line of evolution lining both humans and rabbits (and probably every other living thing on earth) to whatever the first self-replicator was. In fact, rabbits being around a a recognisable species for longer than humans meant they evolved less .

It's not my theory. It's the theory of evolution. Rabbits should have out-competed human beings long ago.

Which they haven't. So either a crapload of scientists have somewhat missed this basic fact, or your take on it might be a bit flawed.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's common sense that if species have evolved like that the species that consumed more resources would have had an advantage, not the species that consumed less.

Um, no? In fact, in times of scarce resources, the species that is most efficient with them will have an advantage.

[Kidlicious]

That would only make sense if we had popped out of thin air. There's probably an unbroken line of evolution lining both humans and rabbits (and probably every other living thing on earth) to whatever the first self-replicator was. In fact, rabbits being around a a recognisable species for longer than humans meant they evolved less .

Well there's a problem there because there have been many many more generations of rabbits than of humans, so rabbits should have evolved more, not less. But what you're saying is that their reproductive system is primative, that if they were more evolved they would have less babies. Now that seems absurd. Have you really thought about how the species would have survived over time if they had less babies?

Which they haven't. So either a crapload of scientists have somewhat missed this basic fact, or your take on it might be a bit flawed.

If you put a monkey in front of a typewriter he will type out the full works of shakespear. Believe that one? But I guess it's only certain monkeys.

Um, no? In fact, in times of scarce resources, the species that is most efficient with them will have an advantage.

Strawman. It isn't more efficient to have less babies.

[onodera]

How can my sister only share 1/2 of my genes when monkeys share 99% or whatever?

Different meanings. Genes are settings. You and your sister can share from 0 to 100% of their values (well, not 100% if she's your sister), but the list of settings is almost 100% the same (this "almost" is what makes evolution work). You and your pet gorilla share 99% of the settings, and the values these shared settings have can be the same for what it's worth, but this 1% makes you human.

[molly bloom]

Speaking through your anus is a learned behavior?

Was a Communist, is now a rockbrained Christianista. I'd say it was learned behaviour, but perhaps that implies some intelligent conscious activity that I for one don't think took place.

I didn't try to make sense of that.

What do you expect ? With your illogical approach to just about everything now (including it seems the bits of your religion you claim to understand) that comes as no great shock.