Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

[js1138]

Obviously if you go out of your way to find extreme examples of risk taking, you can find them.

But if you confine yourself to things normally regarded as risky, such as fighting or promiscuity, the consequences are less clear. There are times and places where being timid is a good survival strategy, and times and places where being bold is necessary.

The same argument can be made for nearly every trait on which populations vary.

[LeGrande]

"does that mean then that if I look up through my telescope and see pluto overhead it actually won't even be in the night sky at that time, but rather 102 degrees away from where I see it?" --mrjesse

Answer the question, yes or no.

I already did. It depends on "when" you look at Pluto. The 102º is close to the maximum angular disparity. If you want a precise yes or no answer you will have to answer my "when" question.

Are you prepared to answer my question? If not, why not?

[ColdWater]

Degrees between the absolute apparent and absolute observed positions as observed from earth.

As observed from what point on earth at at what time and date.

[Fichori]

“I already did. It depends on "when" you look at Pluto. The 102º is close to the maximum angular disparity. If you want a precise yes or no answer you will have to answer my "when" question.

Are you prepared to answer my question? If not, why not?”

When?
How about right now!
(Or you could do the math and tell us the angular difference between Pluto's actual and observed position at 1200 GMT 09/18/08)

I think the real question of when is, when are you going to back this claim up with multiple external sources?

If not, why not?
Because the sun does not orbit the earth.

Thats why not.

[Fichori]

“As observed from what point on earth at at what time and date.”

1200 GMT on 09/18/08 at 0,0

[GraniteStateConservative]

But if you confine yourself to things normally regarded as risky, such as fighting or promiscuity, the consequences are less clear. There are times and places where being timid is a good survival strategy, and times and places where being bold is necessary.

Promiscuity is a tougher nut because the risky act involves attempted procreation, even though STDs could kill the person or render him incapable of fathering children later.

Fighting is very risky in human populations. Objectively bad for procreation chances. If all of the fit men go off and die in battle, the unfit men left behind will procreate with the young women at home because that's just what nature has men and women programmed to do. Fighting in the wild is different, but a weaker human can pull out a gun and easily slay a brawny Goliath, or a gang of weaker unfit people can overpower the single Goliath, or any other crazy thing could happen. It's really stupid for even a fit Goliath to start fights. Hell, Goliath could survive a fight, but get kicked in the balls repeatedly during the melee, rendering him impotent or sterile.

[js1138]

Fighting is very risky in human populations. Objectively bad for procreation chances.

Then explain why somthing like 16 million men carry Ghengis Kahn's Y chromosome.

[ColdWater]

LeGrande is close.

[ColdWater]

If all of the fit men go off and die in battle,

Uh, those fit men spread quite a few genes around as they go off to battle.

[Fichori]

“LeGrande is close.”

Your kidding!
I thought I was the only person in the room!

But back on topic, how many degrees between the actual and observed positions of an object 12 light hours away?
(Oh, yeah, this object is NOT orbiting the observer)

[ColdWater]

It could be zero but another correct answer is 178.8599

[MartyK]

Thanks!

[Fichori]

“It could be zero but another correct answer is 178.8599”

Under what circumstances could it be zero, or 178.8599?

[LeGrande]

When? How about right now! (Or you could do the math and tell us the angular difference between Pluto's actual and observed position at 1200 GMT 09/18/08)

I don't observe Pluto at this time :)

I think the real question of when is, when are you going to back this claim up with multiple external sources?

Just go to "The Feynman lectures on Physics" 7-5, and read the section on Jupiters moons and the mystery of 1656. I told you and MrJesse a long time ago that I was simply going to use Feynman's lectures. If I tell you anything that contradicts Feynman then a I am probably in error : )

If not, why not?

Because the sun does not orbit the earth. Thats why not.

Are you denying that the Sun appears to move 180º through the sky every day? LOL From my frame of reference on the surface of the Earth, the Sun appears to rise in the East and set in the West.

I think I figured it out! You think that you are Joshua and that the Sun and the Moon don't move in the sky : ) I think I will call you Joshua from now on, to remind me of your belief that the Sun and the Moon don't move through the sky.

[Fichori]

“I don't observe Pluto at this time :)” [excerpt]

Its a mathematical question.
You don't have to be able to see Pluto to do the math.

Saying you can't do a math problem because you can't see Pluto is a cheap copout.

“Just go to "The Feynman lectures on Physics" 7-5, and read the section on Jupiters moons and the mystery of 1656. I told you and MrJesse a long time ago that I was simply going to use Feynman's lectures. If I tell you anything that contradicts Feynman then a I am probably in error : )” [excerpt]

Were not talking about Jupiter's moons.
Were talking about the sun and its alleged 2.1 degrees, and Pluto along with its 102 degrees.
(If your going to reference Feynman, provide a link to the exact quote you are referencing.)

“Are you denying that the Sun appears to move 180º through the sky every day? LOL From my frame of reference on the surface of the Earth, the Sun appears to rise in the East and set in the West.” [excerpt]

I've always maintained that the Sun's actually position was within 21 arc seconds of its apparent position.
The Sun does appear to rise in the East and set in the West, and its gravitational pull is synchronized within 21 arcseconds of its apparent position.

“ I think I figured it out! You think that you are Joshua and that the Sun and the Moon don't move in the sky : ) I think I will call you Joshua from now on, to remind me of your belief that the Sun and the Moon don't move through the sky.” [excerpt]

The Sun does not orbit the earth. (The moon does.)
(Are you claiming that there is no difference between the earth orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting the earth?)

does the 2.1 degrees come from the Sun's motion through the galaxy?

Does it come from the rotation of the earth? (would it still be present of the Sun was completely stationary?)


LeGrande, Your an atheist.

Wikipedia covers just about every idea that any atheist could find intriguing.

Please provide a Wikipedia link.


If it is true that the apparent position of the sun and its actual position are separated by 2.1 degrees, Wikipedia, Nasa, etc, should list it as a common fact.


The fact is, you would be 100% right about the 2.1 degrees IF the sun orbited the earth.

You have had plenty of time and countless opportunities to empirically demonstrate the physics behind your claims.

All you have put forward is slight of hand logic that does not hold up to scrutiny.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Then explain why somthing like 16 million men carry Ghengis Kahn's Y chromosome.

They can impregnate the women of villages they conquer, but a ton of people who fight in wars die. Over 40M men died during WW2, never to reproduce again. Genghis Khan lead a conquering army. He wasn't a foot soldier. He had harems and concubines and procreated with a ton of women, mostly selected virgins. Further, his sons did much the same and they inherited both his Y chromosome and his status as rulers of their own lands, and the Mongol Empire was enormous. So Khan had a ridiculous number of grandsons, legitimate and illegitimate. That right there gave his Y chromosome a boost in appearing later in the future. Khan isn't an example of a fighter being able to spread his genes far and wide, he was a ruler who constantly engaged in behaviors that almost always resulted in pregnancies yielding his children, including getting first crack at the most beautiful women they would win during conquests (and those beautiful women probably had above average fertility).

[GraniteStateConservative]

Uh, those fit men spread quite a few genes around as they go off to battle.

Yeah, but many don't live to repeat the act. A man who didn't fight in WW1 or WW2 is much more likely to have ultimately fathered 8+ children than a man who did.

[js1138]

So you see Genghis Khan as a Bill clinton type, a bureaucrat who got the chicks without being a warrior.

You can waste as much time as you wish on this line of argument, but a common strategy among mammals is for the males to duke it out.

I’m not convinced yet that human females prefer librarians.

[js1138]

You are defining “fighting” much too narrowly. Human warfare is not a typical kind of fighting. Far more people engage in sports, which is closer to how other mammals display their prowess.

There’s another kind of low level fighting among teenage boys, basically picking on the weaker and more timid. I guarantee this has some predictive value in eventual mating.

[GraniteStateConservative]

So you see Genghis Khan as a Bill clinton type, a bureaucrat who got the chicks without being a warrior.

How much actual danger was Khan in during battles after he'd successfully strategized himself into power? He was not on the front lines of battle. Of course, Khan was a warrior in his early days. Soon thereafter, he was a leader of warriors.