Choada_Boy Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 35% of dolphin sex is gay sex 95% of all statistics are 35% wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Frans de Waal's awards, aka "the moron" according to Jackass: # 2010 Order of the Netherlands' Lion (knighted). # 2009 Medal, Società di Medicina & Scienze Naturali, Parma (Italy) # 2009 Medal, Ariëns Kappers (Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience) # 2009 Doctor Honoris Causa, University for Humanistics (Netherlands) # 2008 Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences # 2007 Time Magazine 100 World’s Most Influential People Today # 2005 Member of the American Philosophical Society # 2005 Arthur W. Staats Award, American Psychological Foundation # 2004 Member of the (US) National Academy of Sciences # 1993 Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences I'll bet FW can come up with more credentials than that. Actually, we've been studying this in a class I've been taking @ UW Tacoma campus: Evolutionary Analysis. It turns out that altruism outside of kinship is highly controversial and completely unproven. A simple formula known as Hamilton's Rule: Br-C>0-- where B is the benefit to the recipient, C is the cost to the actor, and r is the degree of relatedness--can properly explain observations regarding altruism. Since natural selection only rewards individuals and NOT groups, there is no reason to believe altruism is anything more than a mechanism to ensure genetic fitness within a closely related group. See also; Green Beard hypothesis. There are ongoing studies regarding reciprocal altruism which may exist outside x degrees of relatedness and, in any event, simply represent tit for tat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Keep working at it, FW! You'll get there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Meanwhile, I truly believe you and j_b should go and get yourselves tested for the DRD47R gene. It might even explain some of TTK's "issues". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 I would think that when evolutionary scientists tread into the area of sociobiology then all sorts of seemingly anthropic notions could be suggested as applicable to human society. E.O. Wilson comes to mind with his work on insects. And, by extension to politics or economics, this can be taken to the extreme to justify all sorts of policy directives. If it’s observed in nature especially in other mammals then it’s taken as a natural law. But, it would be interesting to see when the “lizard” brain overrules the “mammal” brain. Some of the findings that delves out of the field laboratory and into the inner space of the human mind appears promising as recent research in neuromarketing shows. Should you be concerned if free will becomes an illusion? Jeremy Rifkin sees the positive side, [video:youtube]v=l7AWnfFRc7g whereas others see it differently. [video:youtube]v=Xbp6umQT58A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Altruism is, in fact, coded for. The problem is that political agendas corrupt the science. This is how you get idealists like j_b or TTK who wrongly believe a concept like altruism lends legitimacy to their collectivist belief system, when, in fact, the opposite is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 (edited) No. Actually, the problem is morons like you that confuse altruism with cooperation and other kinds of behavior that individuals engage in that are mutually beneficial to the individuals and the communities of which they are a part. Activities that are seen in abundance across the natural world. [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6rgWzYRXiI Edited June 7, 2010 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Apparently you didn't bother to watch your own video. See where Dawkins discusses bees and "degrees of relatedness" in his somewhat dated piece. But if you wish, feel free to continue believing your misinterpretation of a Youtube video stands above my classroom/lab experience. Then, try to get out and learn something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Apparently you didn't bother to watch your own video. See where Dawkins discusses bees and "degrees of relatedness" in his somewhat dated piece. But if you wish, feel free to continue believing your misinterpretation of a Youtube video stands above my classroom/lab experience. Then, try to get out and learn something. How much money are you wasting in order to reconfirm what you already think you know and throw "Charles Tilly" and "Meiji Restoration" around in an effort to score points on an internet message board while coming off like some brown-shirted Cliff Clavin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 (edited) Or are you bucking for a job in some tinpot teabagger's administration? Your own? Edited June 7, 2010 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 In some fictional scenairo set in the future some scientists will suggest "laws" such as the -3/2 thinning law to guide global population to some sustainable level. Here, some individuals who have more value than others will be spared the culling out as the rest perish. The "tallest plants" will survive whereas the smaller plants will die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Well, since this is a climbing website, I do try to post content here in the form of trip reports from time to time--in a futile effort to mitigate the time I spend in Spray with morons like you. (A sort of altruism?) If only you would reciprocate. Hell, I'm not even sure you climb at all. The fact is, you and j_b have no credentials regarding climbing or any of the drivel you post here during all hours of the day. Between the university of Google and your all-too-frequent anti-Semitic posts, maybe it would behoove you to take a class, actually climb something--or get a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Mmm, must've touched a nerve there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 does anyone remember when spray used to be fun to read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 does anyone remember when spray used to be fun to read? This letter is to politely inform you that your trolling has gotten you ignored! Congratulations! Keep up the good work. I think this sentence would make more sense like this. "This could mean not creating new trails, if possible." (just in case he again edits his handiwork) for those who haven't done it yet, it's in the bottom of the first box in his profile No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 does anyone remember when spray used to be fun to read? read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 SURE IS SMOKY IN HERE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 7, 2010 Author Share Posted June 7, 2010 Apparently you didn't bother to watch your own video. See where Dawkins discusses bees and "degrees of relatedness" in his somewhat dated piece. But if you wish, feel free to continue believing your misinterpretation of a Youtube video stands above my classroom/lab experience. Then, try to get out and learn something. Dawkins mentions relatedness among bees from the same hive BUT in the next sentence he says: "But there is a great deal of cooperation in nature when genetic relatedness cannot be the explanation. When the individuals concerned aren't even of the same species" and he goes on to discuss examples of cooperation between species. Not only Fairweather is a pathological liar and he is thoroughly incompetent, but he pretends to give lessons about the material from a class that he doesn't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 7, 2010 Author Share Posted June 7, 2010 The fact is, you and j_b have no credentials regarding climbing I don't climb stuff that is worth talking about anymore, but please don't assume because you like to think the hiking you do amounts to climbing, that my silence on the topic is anything more than considerate behavior toward a creep like yourself (and that is altruism beyond reason because your behavior doesn't warrant such kindness). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 7, 2010 Author Share Posted June 7, 2010 No. Actually, the problem is morons like you that confuse altruism with cooperation and other kinds of behavior that individuals engage in that are mutually beneficial to the individuals and the communities of which they are a part. Activities that are seen in abundance across the natural world. We are back to page one of this thread when Attila, the other service moron, also confused cooperation and altruism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 (edited) Apparently you didn't bother to watch your own video. See where Dawkins discusses bees and "degrees of relatedness" in his somewhat dated piece. But if you wish, feel free to continue believing your misinterpretation of a Youtube video stands above my classroom/lab experience. Then, try to get out and learn something. Dawkins mentions relatedness among bees from the same hive BUT in the next sentence he says: "But there is a great deal of cooperation in nature when genetic relatedness cannot be the explanation. When the individuals concerned aren't even of the same species" and he goes on to discuss examples of cooperation between species. Glad I'm not the only one to catch this, as it's actually the entire point of the video. That Fairweather only made it as far as the part he thought reinforced his ideological position speaks loads about his new academic pretensions. Edited June 7, 2010 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 I don't climb stuff that is worth talking about anymore, but please don't assume because you like to think the hiking you do amounts to climbing, that my silence on the topic is anything more than considerate behavior toward a creep like yourself (and that is altruism beyond reason because your behavior doesn't warrant such kindness). how does evolutionary biology explain the concentration of retardation that is spray however? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Not only Fairweather is a pathological liar and he is thoroughly incompetent, but he pretends to give lessons about the material from a class that he doesn't understand. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Be glad you're not in class with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.