Well for one thing you made up that conclusion. But most likely is not good enough and most likely can be found to be wrong.
Why are geeks often atheists?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Well for one thing you made up that conclusion. But most likely is not good enough and most likely can be found to be wrong.
Search me. :shrug:
Did you happen to notice the caption on the bottom of this picture, the Masters Four it says, but there are 5 of them!
Just look at the big picture and see where it leads. Also, when asking for proof and someone gives you proof of something else then that just proves my point. What he is saying is basically that if you breed one species of dog with another you get something that looks a little different but still a pooch. That is meaningless when observing the theory of complete biological evolution and it's probability. In reality it is like comparing apples to oranges.
No it is not. A baby will grow into adulthood. That is a fact of nature.
No, you assume it is because you have never seen a baby do anything else. You're assuming the uniformity of nature, which you cannot demonstrate. Babies could stop growing tomorrow.
You don't understand what speciation is.
Dogs are all the same species. You cannot breed two of them and get a new species which is no longer capable of breeding with the original two dogs. The change he's referring to in the plant produced a new plant which could not breed with the similar species.
Some of those were around in times with obviously inferior ideas about genetics. Some of the others I had to look up
Pretty small list really. As for people not in favor of eugenics... it's not like there are lists on these things, but there are definitely plenty. I bet if I took the time to search all the "prominent" modern evolutionary biologists I could find, most of them would be against eugenics (of the type that you quoted Dawkins as being interested in - but not eugenics related to physical problems such as disease).
What about a chiuaua male and a great dane female?
Exactly.
Again, you're assuming that babies continue to grow into adults as they always have. You cannot demonstrate that assumption to be correct, because it assumes the future is the same as the past. This is a fundamental problem in epistemology that philosophers have debated for centuries. It's usually called "the problem of induction," and I'm amazed you're not familiar with it. It's usually argued from your side of the fence.
Go buy a book about David Hume.
Same species. Just like a human midget and Yao Ming.What about a chiuaua male and a great dane female?
Hmm :scratchin: The height difference might qualify as a reproductive isolating mechanism. I don't know.
In a natural environment my guess is they would not interbreed.Dogs don't exist in a natural environment. Domesticated dogs are the species canis lupus familiaris, all of them. Any animal of that species that is currently wild is descended from an animal that was previously domesticated.Hmm :scratchin: The height difference might qualify as a reproductive isolating mechanism. I don't know.
The variety of breeds you see in dogs are just that: bred. Purposefully.
Presumably geeks are smarter.
I'll make a thread later today, be there
It's a date, hon....