I do mean "evolution" only as a talking point is overrated. You can never have too much of evolution, as in the concept itself.
I read this somewhere on the interwebs: "Homosexuality is pro-evolution because it allows a community to control for overpopulation." What? That's bullshyte. Being homosexual does not prevent the ability to produce children. How many people are gay and still fathered or mothered children back in the days before they realized they were gay? Answer: a lot of them.
When the subject of state rights for married couples is brought up, a common conservative response is that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. And the gay response is that infertile couples and elderly couples cannot produce children, so how come they are given state benefits. I have to concur with that, that is a pretty good comeback.
But if this is true, then how exactly does being gay help with evolution? Again, how does homosexuality align with evolution? Answer: it does not. No, the most effective natural means of controlling for overpopulation is infertility. You see both these facts mentioned everywhere, and yet gay right activists don't seem to be able to reconcile these two facts with each other.
Homosexuality is supposedly an answer to overpopulation? This is a common gay activist answer any time anyone asks if homosexuality aligns with evolution. But wait, what? That's not true. Back in ancient Greece and other long-ago cultures, they had gay people. The earth was young and abundant, there was no lack of resources.
The point is, stop trying to justify everything in the name of evolution. Not everything that happens on the planet is in line with evolution. For god's sake, there are other fields of intellect. Some examples are hormone and other protein production, art, string theory, economics, thermodynamics, classical music, and computational linguistics. Stop knee-jerking with the stock response of "evolution."
Evolution as a sociopolitical defense argument is so overrated.
Then you have the other extreme. There are the dumbasses, the armchair evolutionists that have probably never taken a biology class their whole entire lives, that say that evolution does not necessarily mean better, that evolution does not indicate any direction, that it does not mean improvement of any kind.
Bullshyte. Of course it does, dummy. That is the definition of evolution: advancement, improvement. Otherwise, why would we say that humans are more evolved than gorillas and other apes? Why would we say that humans (multi-celled eukaryotes) are more evolved than single-celled eukaryotes? And that single-celled eukaryotes (complex single-celled organisms such as protists) are more evolved than prokaryotes (bacteria, which are comparatively simple)? Why would we say that evolutionary advantage gives some species fitness, better chance of survival, over other species?
Why would there be such a concept as an evolutionary advantage in the first place? If evolution were directionless and aimless, then it would just be called "mutations."
Then again, thinking about it a little more, I realize that I should not waste time being offended by their claims that evolution does not exist, or whatever. In pretty much every sphere of discussion, you always see a few weird fringe, unhinged, screws-loose lunatics that are usually ill-informed.
You see violent crime apologists. You see gang apologists. You see rape apologists. You have people that insist that all street drugs should be legalized. You have people that insist that marriage is just a relationship that has been co-opted by the government and that they don't need a piece of paper to declare their love. Or that marriage as an institution should be done away with completely. You have people that insist that animals, as in non-humans, should be represented in government and in the democratic process. Yes, I really, honestly have read this, but only on the internets, thank goodness. So, ah well, just another day on the interwebz.
Getting back to "evolution" and how it is overrated. Biology means biology -- the physical and natural science that can be observed conclusively and unequivocally. Gene mutations result in a genotype of an organism different from the genotype that was present in the previous generation. The genotype will be expressed as the phenotype, which is essentially what the organism looks like, although they do not always match exactly. Phenotype is the physical growth and appearance of an organism -- protein structure, cell structure, organs, tissues, conditions of all parts (e.g., kidney function, any heart conditions).
Phenotype might not turn out exactly how the genotype had dictated in the current generation. But with the genotype having changed due to a mutation, the groundwork is there for possible expression of the genotype as phenotype in future generations. Let me repeat, all of that is evolutionary *biology.*
The people that call themselves evolutionary biologists but are in fact trying to apply biological principles to psychological whimsy, need to stop calling themselves scientists.
It is pure speculation that it is possible to justify abstract, odd, often baffling behaviors by using biological explanations. There is no biological imperative for personalities, for character flaws, for unwanted behaviors. Biology does not make anyone consciously *do* anything. It does not manifest itself as actions taking place through time.
If you want to study biology, then study biology. Don't study fantasy, legends, and opinions and then try to apply biological principles to them. Those are fields that are by definition subject to flawed human interpretation.
You are not an evolutionist. Get over it.
I read this somewhere on the interwebs: "Homosexuality is pro-evolution because it allows a community to control for overpopulation." What? That's bullshyte. Being homosexual does not prevent the ability to produce children. How many people are gay and still fathered or mothered children back in the days before they realized they were gay? Answer: a lot of them.
When the subject of state rights for married couples is brought up, a common conservative response is that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. And the gay response is that infertile couples and elderly couples cannot produce children, so how come they are given state benefits. I have to concur with that, that is a pretty good comeback.
But if this is true, then how exactly does being gay help with evolution? Again, how does homosexuality align with evolution? Answer: it does not. No, the most effective natural means of controlling for overpopulation is infertility. You see both these facts mentioned everywhere, and yet gay right activists don't seem to be able to reconcile these two facts with each other.
Homosexuality is supposedly an answer to overpopulation? This is a common gay activist answer any time anyone asks if homosexuality aligns with evolution. But wait, what? That's not true. Back in ancient Greece and other long-ago cultures, they had gay people. The earth was young and abundant, there was no lack of resources.
The point is, stop trying to justify everything in the name of evolution. Not everything that happens on the planet is in line with evolution. For god's sake, there are other fields of intellect. Some examples are hormone and other protein production, art, string theory, economics, thermodynamics, classical music, and computational linguistics. Stop knee-jerking with the stock response of "evolution."
Evolution as a sociopolitical defense argument is so overrated.
Then you have the other extreme. There are the dumbasses, the armchair evolutionists that have probably never taken a biology class their whole entire lives, that say that evolution does not necessarily mean better, that evolution does not indicate any direction, that it does not mean improvement of any kind.
Bullshyte. Of course it does, dummy. That is the definition of evolution: advancement, improvement. Otherwise, why would we say that humans are more evolved than gorillas and other apes? Why would we say that humans (multi-celled eukaryotes) are more evolved than single-celled eukaryotes? And that single-celled eukaryotes (complex single-celled organisms such as protists) are more evolved than prokaryotes (bacteria, which are comparatively simple)? Why would we say that evolutionary advantage gives some species fitness, better chance of survival, over other species?
Why would there be such a concept as an evolutionary advantage in the first place? If evolution were directionless and aimless, then it would just be called "mutations."
Then again, thinking about it a little more, I realize that I should not waste time being offended by their claims that evolution does not exist, or whatever. In pretty much every sphere of discussion, you always see a few weird fringe, unhinged, screws-loose lunatics that are usually ill-informed.
You see violent crime apologists. You see gang apologists. You see rape apologists. You have people that insist that all street drugs should be legalized. You have people that insist that marriage is just a relationship that has been co-opted by the government and that they don't need a piece of paper to declare their love. Or that marriage as an institution should be done away with completely. You have people that insist that animals, as in non-humans, should be represented in government and in the democratic process. Yes, I really, honestly have read this, but only on the internets, thank goodness. So, ah well, just another day on the interwebz.
Getting back to "evolution" and how it is overrated. Biology means biology -- the physical and natural science that can be observed conclusively and unequivocally. Gene mutations result in a genotype of an organism different from the genotype that was present in the previous generation. The genotype will be expressed as the phenotype, which is essentially what the organism looks like, although they do not always match exactly. Phenotype is the physical growth and appearance of an organism -- protein structure, cell structure, organs, tissues, conditions of all parts (e.g., kidney function, any heart conditions).
Phenotype might not turn out exactly how the genotype had dictated in the current generation. But with the genotype having changed due to a mutation, the groundwork is there for possible expression of the genotype as phenotype in future generations. Let me repeat, all of that is evolutionary *biology.*
The people that call themselves evolutionary biologists but are in fact trying to apply biological principles to psychological whimsy, need to stop calling themselves scientists.
It is pure speculation that it is possible to justify abstract, odd, often baffling behaviors by using biological explanations. There is no biological imperative for personalities, for character flaws, for unwanted behaviors. Biology does not make anyone consciously *do* anything. It does not manifest itself as actions taking place through time.
If you want to study biology, then study biology. Don't study fantasy, legends, and opinions and then try to apply biological principles to them. Those are fields that are by definition subject to flawed human interpretation.
You are not an evolutionist. Get over it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment