Do our resident conservatives and republicans truly believe women are biologically suited to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

[Elok]

Speciation is a whole different ballgame from divergent populations. And for populations to diverge at all, they need to be kept apart--as they were for thousands of years. But not anymore; technology is making populations more fluid at an astonishing pace, and miscegenation is not only acceptable but common in many parts of the world. Unless we successfully establish a population in another star system, further human divergence doesn't seem likely. Eskimos are very different from Arabs, but they won't get any more different if both are able to keep making babies with each other, and other outsiders to their own communities.

[Elok]

To be fair, Eskimos do have biological adaptations to the cold as well. They're stockier than usual to retain body heat, and there are some other quirks related to blood flow and such. I forget the details, but the long and short of it is that they feel uncomfortably warm at what we consider "room temperature." Anyway, in about a thousand years we'll likely all be within a few shades of the same bland tan color.

[Al B. Sure!]

The Inuit are recent newcomers to the Arctic, though. That's what confuses me. Scandinavians have been in Northern Europe since 1500BC (longer than the Inuit have been in the American Arctic, though admittedly, I'm not sure how long they were in Siberia) and aside from pale skin, they tend to maintain what would appear to be tropical bodies (ie- tall). At the very least, they do not have cold-adapted body types, judging from the oft-repeated claim that short and stocky is ideal to retain body heat. But then when you look at the tropics, you see short and stocky SE Asians, Polynesians (especially Samoans), Indians, etc., which doesn't seem right. Shouldn't they look like the Massai?

I'm not sure short/stocky vs. tall/slender body types has much to do with geography. The tendency for certain body types in populations is literally all over the map.

[Elok]

I thought Samoans were supposed to be really big in every way? I usually think of Asians in general as short and slender, not stocky--which would make them radiate body heat like a mofo. I would guess, WRT Eskimos and Scandinavians, that the former were in the arctic circle in general for a LONG time, and that the latter had a much more fluid population. Certainly they were quite fluid from the Dark Ages onward. But I don't know a whole lot about this subject.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sure the worlds biologists will all be hugely grateful to you for telling them they've all been wrong all these years. Especially given your long and proud experience working in the field of biology.

They themselves know that the system as is isn't perfect and will likely be totally revised, and that lots of the Victorian-era cruft that's there is going to go.

The fact they let you anywhere near children's education is absolutely terrifying, you moron.

I've had biology students previous. I used to get referrals. Students went from failing to As and Bs within a few months. Biology is not hard. Plenty of rote and memorization and you'll do fine. The same study techniques work for biology students as for everyone else. Teach the terminology, teach students how to break down scientific terminology and they find the material is not so difficult to apprehend. Most people's difficulties in biology come from vocabulary issues, rather than theory issues, although I have had some students with serious theory gaps in their knowledge.

Teaching evolution is a luxury when you've got first year college biology students that don't understand colors.

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't seem to remember that I keep telling you that I divorced her.

You also married her in the first place, mr. Alpha dude.

I have no need to be married like you do.

Yet, you've been married and I have not. Odd that!

The truly said thing about you is your greatest desire in life, to be a beta male, goes unfulfilled. Why?

That you associate, 'being married' with 'being a beta male', is telling. I'm sure you tell yourself that every night that getting divorced is what made you a man.

[Ben Kenobi]

Probably because it would cost billions of dollars (maybe trillions?) and kittens are usually available for free.

Perhaps because it's technologically unfeasable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Treating "species" as if it were a fundamental element is not going to work for obvious reasons. Most organisms aren't homogeneous and interchangeable the way atoms are.

Most elements aren't found pure in nature either. What the essential experimental quality of an element, is that it couldn't be further subdivided by chemical means. This is similar to the biological definition of species must being able to be similar enough to interbreed. It's an external way of measuring the substance of an object (an association that goes back to about the 12th century).

Classifications of organisms are necessarily going to involve much more room for variation within the classification, unless the classification happens to be each organism in it's own classification.

This is where the theory comes in. In theory, ever light with a specific wavelength can be quantized into little bits that are different from every other light wave. In practice we have general definitions where one part of the theory applies, and another.

This is no different from biology. The theory comes in where to divide the genome up.

You don't like this

I don't like this because it's imprecise. It's like building on a foundation that isn't solid. If your conclusions about evolution are based on a non-empirical definition of species, then it regards the actual theory itself as not empirical.

Your entire argument relies upon there being something magical about species classifications

If species don't exist then neither does evolution. Evolution requires there be species.

[Kidlicious]

You also married her in the first place, mr. Alpha dude.

AND I divorced her moron.

Yet, you've been married and I have not. Odd that!

AND I'm not married now moron.

That you associate, 'being married' with 'being a beta male', is telling.

Show me where I made that association moron.

I'm sure you tell yourself that every night that getting divorced is what made you a man.

It saved me from being a pathetic loser like you.

[Aeson]

Most elements aren't found pure in nature either. What the essential experimental quality of an element, is that it couldn't be further subdivided by chemical means. This is similar to the biological definition of species must being able to be similar enough to interbreed. It's an external way of measuring the substance of an object (an association that goes back to about the 12th century).

It's also a rather arbitrary delineation that is irrelevant to whether evolution happens or not.

I don't like this because it's imprecise. It's like building on a foundation that isn't solid. If your conclusions about evolution are based on a non-empirical definition of species, then it regards the actual theory itself as not empirical.

You're just constructing a strawman to attack. The precise way to look at evolution is to look at genetics. It doesn't matter how you classify the organism in regards to "species". What matters is the actual genetics, how they change (or don't). That is rather precise.

Which is why you won't deal with it, and instead want to focus on a high-level abstraction and somewhat arbitrary delineations. You're just intellectually dishonest.

If species don't exist then neither does evolution. Evolution requires there be species.

That's a moronic assertion. If tomorrow we reclassified you as a baboon, would that mean you evolved into a baboon? That's all "species" is ... a classification. You'd still be the same organism you were the day before (at least for the most part). (This actually happens, when species delineations are changed. The organisms don't have to change, only our classifications of them does.)

What is necessary for evolution to exist is for actual changes in organisms to be made over time, and for there not to be bright lines that cannot be crossed throughout the spectrum. (Note, there may be bright lines that cannot be crossed. But you'd need 1 for every "species" for evolution to not happen at all. And since "species" could be defined in many, many ways, that's obviously not possible.)

What you call the resulting organisms is complete fluff.

[Ben Kenobi]

Show me where I made that association moron.

You said that "my number one goal in life is to be married", and you said, "my number one goal in live is to be a beta male", So presumably getting married = being a beta male.

It saved me from being a pathetic loser like you.

Like I said, you believe that you became a man when you got divorced. Some of us don't need that.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're just constructing a strawman to attack. The precise way to look at evolution is to look at genetics. It doesn't matter how you classify the organism in regards to "species". What matters is the actual genetics, how they change (or don't). That is rather precise.

The theory of evolution cares about the classification. Hey, it's the way the theory works. No species = no evolution.

That's a moronic assertion. If tomorrow we reclassified you as a baboon, would that mean you evolved into a baboon? That's all "species" is ... a classification. You'd still be the same organism you were the day before (at least for the most part). (This actually happens, when species delineations are changed. The organisms don't have to change, only our classifications of them does.)

If you are stating that the organism changes, then you are stating precisely what I already stated that this change is differentiation (change within a species), rather than evolution (change between a species).

Redefining me as a 'baboon', renders the term itself meaningless. It's one thing to argue that baboons 'don't exist' because there's just one 'baboon/human' species, but this is fatal to Darwinian natural selection.

[Kidlicious]

You said that "my number one goal in life is to be married", and you said, "my number one goal in live is to be a beta male", So presumably getting married = being a beta male.

Post numbers for the quotes please. What I'm a wasting my time for? You have no honor. Everyone knows that. You are a well known liar and deal breaker.

Like I said, you believe that you became a man when you got divorced. Some of us don't need that.

Again you are wrong. And I never said that I became a man when I got divorced. What I did say is that you are a loser beta male who wants to die for a woman. You're the one who pathetically brought up the fact that I was once married which means nothing.

Your religion is more like Judaism and I'm not saying Catholicism is like that. If I were a Catholic I would denounce you. I can't believe the other Catholics haven't called out against you more. You are making your church look like ****. You're a ****ing Pharisee of the absolute worst kind.

[Ben Kenobi]

Post numbers for the quotes please. What I'm a wasting my time for? You have no honor. Everyone knows that. You are a well known liar and deal breaker.

Are you saying that my number one goal in life *isn't* to get married?

Again you are wrong. And I never said that I became a man when I got divorced. What I did say is that you are a loser beta male who wants to die for a woman.

I didn't say that, now did I? I said that a husband ought to be willing to die for his wife. Does it mean that I would be happy about it? No. I'd much prefer to live with her than die for her. But it does mean that I would do it if that's what it took.

It's a Christian outlook on marriage. I don't expect non-Christians to believe in it. I, however, have felt that way for a long time, that the woman I marry will be someone that I feel that strongly for.

You're the one who pathetically brought up the fact that I was once married which means nothing.

You've been frothing at the assertion that 'a Christian husband ought to be willing to die for his wife'. I never said anything about you. You see this, and go on full attack mode the instant I posted that.

Why? presumably because it teaches something about sacrifice and love in a marriage relationship that is offensive to you.

Your religion is more like Judaism and I'm not saying Catholicism is like that.

Ohoho. Now you're arguing Catholicism with me? That takes balls.

If I were a Catholic

So why aren't you a Catholic?

I would denounce you.

I should post that strip with Elan trying to zap me with Banjo the clown. Smite me oh mighty smiter. Yeah, sure. Good luck with that.

I can't believe the other Catholics haven't called out against you more.

Oh looky here. I just dug out my catechism!

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

"The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."95

'1611 Seeing God's covenant with Israel in the image of exclusive and faithful married love, the prophets prepared the Chosen People's conscience for a deepened understanding of the unity and indissolubility of marriage'

'God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her"

And there you go.

You are making your church look like ****. You're a ****ing Pharisee of the absolute worst kind.

I love it how you make the distinction between 'Jewish' and Catholicism, when the catechism explicitly makes the connection clear.

[Kidlicious]

Put up the post numbers for your quotes that you claim that I said. You can't. You're dishonest and I'm not going to entertain your claim that you are either a catholic or a Christian. You waste everyone's time on this site.