Circling the Paradigm

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

Doesn't it seem that much of what is being passed off as science has evolved into story telling and myth making? I think society has come full circle only the camp fire is now a lecture podium and a bunch of villagers secretly playing on their cell phones behind their note books. (It's OK...no one is really listening to him anyway.)

I still have a pretty good sense of smell and I smell a pile of ....

I believe that, even when accounting for the generally larger physic of Neanderthal, they had larger brains then Homo sapiens. I'm not sure about the brain size of people on Africa or Asia but they both had cultures that could have kicked Aryans ass (intellectually), during the "dark ages". I could have proven this with no doubt if some moron hadn't burned the libraries in Alexander...how big were their brains .I am off to read some goat intrials now, gotta find out what lotto numbers to pick for tomorrow.

Actually I think homo sapieans are insane and the fact that they have survived even this relatively short time is because they breed like rats/rabbits/cockroachs

The other evos should have corrected him on this then.

If you were actually interested in understanding the idea of evolution, the evidence, the logic, and the controversies, so you could intelligently evaluate it yourself and develop sound informed opinions, you would select better source material.

Are your ideas on linguistics also based on what you read on fredoneverything, or do you make every effort to get your facts right, as well as you are able, and to carefully consider a wide variety of ideas?

As the simplest explanation is most likely true, there was this girl long ago, who ignored seasonal mating, when males gave gifts of food, and was everybodies girl, all the time. So were her daughters. One extra offspring, 1000 years, and all were of her line.

Girls without a sense of smell could put up with more smelly men, and that trait evolved. When males lost the sense of smell, that keyed mating season, it was always mating season. Somewhere along the line a mutation of a female who did not come in heat once a year, but once a moon, and she did, they did, and everybody is now.

Evolution is females raising daughters, the rest is optional. All of life goes through one small place.

Considering that humans lived in small family groups, 10-12, and males protected girls they were having sex with, well, a girl has to do what a girl has to do.

Early traits are a loss of body fur, that spread, head hair that was long, a recent development, and intelligence comes from girls who said no became lunch during the next food shortage.

Girls who were just the local girl, no questions asked, reproduced.

No other "Theory of Evolution" is needed.

Homosexuality could very well be due to a recessive gene present in all of us, activated by overpopulation or some other environmental stimulus...

of course, being homosexual doesn't automatically rule out propagation... I know a lesbian chick who's mom is lesbian also, but married to a man (it's a very wierd family)

Sorry, iamnotaparakeet, you misunderstood my intent.

It's obvious that when you're dealing with how languages change with time, you learn and study and consider with dedication and devotion. That was my point.

Nobody can travel back in time and actually talk to people who lived centuries ago, but they left quite a bit of evidence, old writings mostly I guess, I don't know much about linguistics, and you and the people who share your passion work to piece together ideas on what happened and when and how and why it happened.

There are differences in the processes of how languages and organisms change with time, but I don't think it's an absurd analogy.

You didn't state a personal conclusion, so correct me if I am wrong about assuming you have one, but I will note that modern languages didn't get to be the way they are because they were deliberately designed in their present form by a creator.

I don't understand how you could even consider the idea that evolutionary biologists have no data. More than one or two fossils have been found and closely studied. More than one or two things have been learned about genetics. More than one or two things are known about living things, both how they are put together and their behavior.

There's no necessity for faith. The data and the logic behind the conclusions are publicly available. Everything known about biology is data on evolution. The experts don't always agree, and there are things nobody knows. I suspect the same is true of linguistics. This does not imply that all people who study linguistics are fools.

If everything was known and understood, it wouldn't be much fun to learn about.

All them "skanky ho" children carry her gene for survival.

One trait that shows strong survival is pecking order, dominance hierarchy.

Dominate males either lead or direct. Male dogs hump other male dogs to show dominance. That way fighting and killing, making real enemies, is avoided. The pack must have order, and work together.

Female survival has to do with keeping the dominate males happy. As dominate males get first pick of everything, and it does a female no good to chose bottom of the pecking order males, who hence have a frustrated sex drive, it gets redirected.

Less dominate males express their dominance and sex drive on boys. Now there is enough sex so the older males do not have conflicts. Dominate male directs less dominate male to take a boy hunting and teach him how things work.

A classic example is Sparta. Boys were raised by their mothers till six, then given to a thirteen year old boy as sex slave, and for millitary training. After seven or eight years of being the boy of a real warrior, he was given a six year old boy of his own.

The older boy, now twenty, joined his equals in the army. In his late twenties he was assigned a wife. her role was to lay face down and naked, covered with a millitary cape, forbidden too make a sound. After doing the deed, he went back to barracks, she went back home to mom. Spartan women lived and loved in an all female world, and did what they had to to have children.

Young males, and their sex drive, are a threat to any system. Their natural inclination is to kill the older males and take over the stuff. On the other hand, until they are in their twenties, they are not very good at providing for the women and children.

Between leaving the constant care of their mothers, and becoming large and strong enough to join the hunt/war of the men, all the boys were run together as a group, in private places far from the village, where they made their own rules. It kept them busy and out of trouble.

Over fifteen years they rose from new boy, to dominate top boy, and understanding social order, joined the men, knowing they would rise in the dominance hierarchy.

The girls were kept in the village, and in pairs. They had a best friend, they slept together, bathed together, did everything together, and it directed their sex drive away from boys, and early unwanted children.

It is still the order, little children of both sexes play together, then they split into all boy, all girl groups, and later mix. Most cultureas have seen that sexual frustration in the young causes problems, for it becomes redirected and expressed in other ways.

Now that we have evolved beyond evolution, we have adopted the Victorian standard, where no one has sexual thoughts or feelings of any kind before adulthood and marriage. School, homework, and church are the proper role for the young. Keeping them in total ignorance is for the best.