May 2, 2012 -- 1:09AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:59PM, vra wrote:

Darwin's main theory included natural selection, random genetic drift, and mutation, although his terminology with the last two was different (mostly using the term "variation") since so little was known about genetics during his time. 

In accordance with Darwin's original terminology, the term "natural selection" refers to the cumulative effect on populations of phenotypical environmental impact, and the term "mutation" means spontaneous genetic change, i.e., any allele possessed by an offspring that is not present in either parent. Natural selection, in this specific sense, can never, under any circumstances, be the source of complexification. This is because natural selection decreases genetic diversity (or variability). Natural selection favours the proliferation of (positively selects) certain existing genotypes by reducing or eliminating (negatively selecting) other (competing) forms.

I was using the analogy of natural selection in the above to indicate that certain spiritual truths in an ancient book may be valid. If they survive thousands of years as relevant notions, yield good results and remain genuinely true to hundreds of millions of people (as opposed to traditionally true or true only due to indoctrination), it suggests validity in a purely objective sense. If certain beliefs produce only harm, conflict, empty rites and destruction, they warrant discarding and necessarily fade away after a critically long period of germinating trouble and tension.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

Thanks for clarifying what you were saying.  BTW, for what it's worth, I'm an anthropologist who's been retired (or is it retarded?) for nine years.

And the kindest regards to you as well,

Vern

May 2, 2012 -- 12:19PM, vra wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 1:09AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:59PM, vra wrote:

Darwin's main theory included natural selection, random genetic drift, and mutation, although his terminology with the last two was different (mostly using the term "variation") since so little was known about genetics during his time. 

In accordance with Darwin's original terminology, the term "natural selection" refers to the cumulative effect on populations of phenotypical environmental impact, and the term "mutation" means spontaneous genetic change, i.e., any allele possessed by an offspring that is not present in either parent. Natural selection, in this specific sense, can never, under any circumstances, be the source of complexification. This is because natural selection decreases genetic diversity (or variability). Natural selection favours the proliferation of (positively selects) certain existing genotypes by reducing or eliminating (negatively selecting) other (competing) forms.

I was using the analogy of natural selection in the above to indicate that certain spiritual truths in an ancient book may be valid. If they survive thousands of years as relevant notions, yield good results and remain genuinely true to hundreds of millions of people (as opposed to traditionally true or true only due to indoctrination), it suggests validity in a purely objective sense. If certain beliefs produce only harm, conflict, empty rites and destruction, they warrant discarding and necessarily fade away after a critically long period of germinating trouble and tension.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

Thanks for clarifying what you were saying.  BTW, for what it's worth, I'm an anthropologist who's been retired (or is it retarded?) for nine years.

And the kindest regards to you as well,

Vern

I've always admired the work of conscientious physical anthropologists. And you come across everything but retarded.

Pleasure to make your acquaintance...

Wabbit

May 2, 2012 -- 1:06PM, vra wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 12:48PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

I've always admired the work of conscientious physical anthropologists. And you come across everything but retarded.

Pleasure to make your acquaintance...

Wabbit

Well, Wabbit, I'm gonna disappoint ya because I "converted" from physical to cultural while doing my undergrad work.  ;(

And it's a pleasure to make your acquantance as well, and I enjoy your posts.

Vern

Does anyone else find it strange that we have a Wabbit and a Squirrel debating each other? (With a Rocketsquirrel watching in the wings?) What is this, Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom?!

Squirrel and I disagree on many things but we have a silent underlying agreement that only true rodents can appreciate (albeit rabbits are not technically rodents).

May 2, 2012 -- 2:05PM, rocketjsquirell wrote:

Jastor

VRA is using a skunk icon not a squirell icon. you should know that skunk it is Pepe lePew

for more images of Pepe

www.google.com/search?q=pepe+le+pew&hl=e...

See how limiting the internet is? If our avatars smelled like they look I would have figured that out... On second thought, better that they don't.