It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
The length of time between generations will certainly have an effect on the rate of evolution.
This will also be affected by the living conditions within the society studied. The more difficult it is for individuals to live long enough to pass on their genes, the more quickly negative survival traits will disappear from the genome.


Which would support the hypothesis that it's the chimps' Y chromosome that is actually further (evolutionarily speaking) from whatever Y looked like before chimp/human divergence, right?


The need for sperm of various potential sires to compete against each other causes fitter sperm to be favoured, and have a greater chance of passing on their genetic code.
The traits most likely to enable the sperm of a primate to win this race are swimming-speed, volume, and pacmanoidism.


And to extrapolate again to the chimp/human contrast -- if much of the Y chromosome is related to sexual development, this could mean more evolutionary advantage in Y-chromosome mutations for chimps, and also more direct selection based on those mutations?


You see pacmanoidism, (the development of scavenger sperm which seek out and ingest sperm of the rival primate,) would inevitably result in evolutionary countermeasures, such as a taste disgusting enough to make ingestion of sperm abhorrent.

Such males could find their seminal fluid becoming as bitter and unwanted as the resident misogynists.


Good to know




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Well a bunch of replies, so this is to everyone.

Amazons did exist. They know this know. And Sparta was ultra masculine. And of course this total exemplification of one sex lead to temporary power that was later replaced by more moderate forces.

Also I never said being strong means your better. Quite contrary, it's just an evolutionary feat. You can catch more animals with a muscular arm, and seeing as jug jug the caveman got meat, natural selection favored sexual extremism. Jo Jo the Cave woman got water and plants, so natural selection favored noticing details to colors and better hands. However, all of you are forgetting something. The fact that this accounts for pretty much only 100,000 years of human evolution, not exactly enough time to make any significant abilities, just faster learning.

Remember that humanity is a blank slate. As Johnmike said, it's far more environmental. A male such as myself brought up around females is quite feminine in abilities, and I'm not a manly man to feel that's bad. I like to read, draw, and do experiments as opposed to hunt game, grow muscles, and play sports.

Again, maybe after a million years of that something would develop, but humans only PHYSICALLY changed to meet these needs. Humans are MENTALLY equal.

Edrick, you fail to realize that 100,000 years ago, men and women were both hunting game and doing the same things, because they did not have a need to be otherwise any different.

Just look at homo erectus.

msnbcmedia4.msn.com...

That female is hardly anything of a modern human female.


Edrick, you seem to think that it's sexist to "lower" men to equals as women, which in and of itself is sexist. Men are better than women at mat because for the last century, women were told to use the unit cancellation method while men were told to physically convert the units. I recall my high school chem teacher having a whole discussion in his tutor days:

"Back when I tutored the woemans, they always would cancel the units instead of do the math. I just sat with my head in my face in pity. But you know that argument that men are better at math? BULL-SH*T. You see, we "MEN", with out beauty and awesomeness, have been taught to do math, while society has told women to just cancel the units and skip math. This has thus bred a generation of dimwitted dumb women. But I tell you this! first thing I do in that case! I teach 'em the math" And all of the sudden these dumb woman are as good as US MEN!"

So sorry Edrick, but sexism in the last century is your culprit. Look at modern statistics and they are beginning to change, because more people recognize that teaching work arounds instead of actually teaching math is the problem.

Oh, and you say women are better then men at logic? Do explain. Because it seems like women were the first to go rally against beer, slavery, and a heap of other issues.



Now As I said, men and women have skills that they are able to achieve better at naturally, but they can both achieve the same level. It has been my experience that I can't find orange juice in the fridge, or my ID cards on my desk, back in school days, but my mother would just walk over and find it. The same was with my dad. Every woman I know had higher grades in math than I did. One went to MIT, another went to some other God knows where Ivy league school, and many went many places.

Now returning to John Mike, doll vs lego has a lot to do with it. because it ever so happens that those women didn't play with dolls. I did. And no, I'm not afraid to admit that. I had my dolls and I loved them. But of course, I got into legos too right away. Now my dolls are gathering dust in the attic with my legos, and I'm busy cutting away limbs in l4d2 and similar games, where I find women too.

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but give a toddler the right toys, and they end up totally different.

And like it or not, personal observation > your words. because God knows who you are or where you are. Here on the East Coast, we have smart women. Admittedly they are few, but the same is with smart men. It's prett much even from what I can see. Within my old all-boy's high school of some 350, only 30 people were smart. Within my sister's old all girl's high school of even fewer, there were still only 30 smart people.

So I really couldn't care about what you claim, because it doesn't change what I know.

Men and women are the same. Their physical differences allows each to gain skills faster and be better at certain things, but both are fully capable of being just as good with enough dedication. I continue to be outdone by women in math and logic, but I am better than them in physics and simulating things in my brain.

But of course, in high-school physics, I had country bumpkins quite literally spitting watermelon seeds at me.

For every smart man, I find a smart woman. For every dumb male, I find just as many dumb women.




No, that is not *MY* logic, that is the logic of the person that I am arguing with, claiming that the inventions of Albert Einstein were because of his wife, claiming that the Leadership qualities of George Washington were because of his Wife, etc, etc, etc.... I was taking *HIS* argument to its final logical conclusion to highlight the ABSURDITY of it.


On the contrary, I was saying they couldn't be done alone. But you're sexist, and so take that as giving full credit to the others.

No dear sexist fool. When I say that I simply mean that no man woman or child has ever done something alone and without the support of another successfully. What I mean is that Without his wife, George Washington would be consumed by war and fail to have anything to return to. What I mean is not that Abigail Adams invented republicanism, I mean that John Adams would not have been as good without Abigail Adams.

Sorry Edrick, but you have little to any support here and are simply wrong. name me an invention not based on previous inventions besides the work of Nikola Tesla. Still waiting.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]



Originally posted by Johnmike

This is actually extremely untrue. Read up on Sparta if you will. Not that it matters, but it's bad to use this.
And that biology thing with men and women, I'd hypothesize that it was due to developmental activities and differences in occupations. ex. Legos vs. dolls, outside games vs. indoor, etc.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Johnmike]


Making Patriots by Walter Berns

Sparta practiced Eugenics as part of its extreme soldier building ideals. They killed unfit infants.

www.channel4.com...




It was also called the 'place of rejection', because newly born Spartan boys were thrown into the ravine if they were judged unfit to live. Infanticide was common throughout ancient Greece. Unwanted babies – usually girls – were left on hillsides. Sometimes they would be placed in a basket or protective pot so that there was at least a chance of someone coming along and taking the child in.

In Sparta, things were, as ever, different. Boys rather than girls were the likeliest candidates for infanticide. The decision about whether the child lived or died was not left to the parents but was taken by the city elders. And there was no possibility of a kindly shepherd rescuing a newborn child after it had been 'placed' down here. The decision of the city elders was final, terminal and absolute.

Such state-sponsored eugenics has won Sparta many admirers over the years. Here's what one 20th-century leader had to say on the subject:

The abandonment of sick, puny and misshapen children by the Spartans was more humanitarian and, in reality, a thousand times more humane than the pitiful madness of our present time where the most sickly subjects are preserved at any price only to be followed by the breeding of a race from degenerates burdened with disease.

No prizes for guessing that these are the words of Adolf Hitler.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Sorry. I am female, and I assure you that as someone who was essentially without parental influence to decide - I played outside. By preference.

There are gender differences - by they are a scale and not a barrier.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Edrick is playing strawman games. Very well apparently.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Sorry. I am female, and I assure you that as someone who was essentially without parental influence to decide - I played outside. By preference.

There are gender differences - by they are a scale and not a barrier.

Are you claiming that men and women don't have different activities, that our society doesn't encourage different activities for young boys and girls? I expressed that as a possible explanation for the statistical discrepancies between certain mental abilities of men and women.

I really don't get what you're whining about.


reply to post by BigfootNZ
 

Well, thank you for reading it. Better than most people here.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Amazons did exist. They know this know.


Who is "They", how do "They" know this, what source did you derive this information from, etc, etc, etc....

CITATION NEEDED!


Edrick, you fail to realize that 100,000 years ago, men and women were both hunting game and doing the same things, because they did not have a need to be otherwise any different.


Both were doing the same thing?

Really?

Where did you derive this information from?

What is your source?

CITATION NEEDED!


Edrick, you seem to think that it's sexist to "lower" men to equals as women


Lets backtrack here a Bit.... and check *YOUR* viewpoint on women and men, shall we?


As I recall, before his divorce, Eisenstein loved talking to his wife about his theories and she helped him figure stuff out.


Presuming that the accomplishments of Einstein were because of his wife.


In addition, men like John Adams contributed to the fundamentals of Republican government with the aid of his wife.


Assuming that the accomplishments of John Adams were because of his wife.


Also, the reason women have not innovated is simply you ignoring places where they did.


Double standard of assuming that while MEN's accomplishments were due to a woman, that women's accomplishments were SOLELY women's


Here's a fact. Humanity doesn't change.


I had to add this one in because of its absurdity.


I think Adam owes all mankind's achievement's to Eve.


I could go On and On here.... You are not willing to give credit where credit is due.

Every Male who has accomplished something, you are looking for a woman to give credit to.

Every woman who accomplishes something, you are holding up as an example of their greatness.

You *ARE* BIASED.


Men are better than women at mat because for the last century, women were told to use the unit cancellation method while men were told to physically convert the units.


Again, here is a prime example.

mjperry.blogspot.com...

As you can see, even *TODAY* there is a huge difference between SAT scores in math of men and women.

And you are still attributing it to their "Victim-hood"

YOU ARE BIASED.


So sorry Edrick, but sexism in the last century is your culprit.


Explain the CURRENT differences in math scores.


Oh, and you say women are better then men at logic? Do explain. Because it seems like women were the first to go rally against beer....


Beer?

Really?

How is that Logical, to rally against it?

Pray Tell.


I'd hate to burst your bubble, but give a toddler the right toys, and they end up totally different.


Your presumption of the inherent "Blank Slate" of humanity is quite flawed.

The differences between the sexes is due to the Biological roles that they play.

You yourself have ceded that women are more capable at some things than men (Although the reverse you always attribute to sexism), even BEFORE society was established.

This itself proves that the genders are cut out for roles that compliment each other, as opposed to THE SAME JOBS.


And like it or not, personal observation > your words.


My words ARE based on personal Observation... You don't even know what it is that you just said.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gender Differences in IQ have been well documented.

Women's intelligence is more towards the average, where as Men's intelligence is more spread out (More Stupid, and More Smart)

This is linked with the discussion we are having on the Y chromosome.

Where as mutations in the X chromosome are guarded against because of the extra X chromosome in females, the Y has no analogue redundancy, and thus, mutates at a higher rate, for better AND worse.

To claim that the Behavioral Differences of two Genders that are FUNDAMENTALLY different from each other on the *GENETIC LEVEL* are due only to social conditioning is quite childish, naive, and puerile.

Men and women are *DIFFERENT* why can't you understand that?


So I really couldn't care about what you claim, because it doesn't change what I know.


You can't know something, if you are WRONG, what you have, is called *BELIEF*


Men and women are the same.


You do realize that you are saying this in a thread whose topic is the GENETIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEXES, right?

Are you being ignorant on PURPOSE?


On the contrary, I was saying they couldn't be done alone. But you're sexist, and so take that as giving full credit to the others.


Do I need to quote your argument about Einstein, John Adams, and George Washington Again?

Giving credit for their accomplishments to the women in their lives?

What is wrong with you?


Sorry Edrick, but you have little to any support here


Logical fallacy, Appeal to authority.

It all becomes clear, doesn't it.

You are not actually concerned with arguing a point... you are trying to change popular opinion to suit your own view.

Your words are quite telling.


name me an invention not based on previous inventions besides the work of Nikola Tesla.


The Light Bulb
The Vacuum Tube
Gunpowder
Metal Forging
etc, etc, etc

you are a sad, sad little man.

-Edrick

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



Edrick is playing strawman games. Very well apparently.


Would you be so kind as to qualify your statement with an example, or citation?

Or can you not explain your position?

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


you totaly ignored me? and your reply did not anser anything i said. i`m only still reading this thread because i want to see how long it takes untill you realise you have sexist views of women. humans are not awesom nature and a few of mankinds inventions/buildings are awesom, humans are just smart animals at the end of the day



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


some claim amazons did exsist here is all i could findamazons

but i seen it on discovery channel aswel or nat geo(so it MUST be true
lol)



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Scythia or another tribe had women warriors. Their outfits as described by the Greeks look kind of Parthian. They were the people of the East. One tribe was women.

This tradition continued up to the soviet union, who had nothing against using women in war. This was a common joke they laughed at to the Americans, who claimed to be free, but didn't let women fight.

This tradition within Russian origins goes ALLLLL the way back to Amazons. Of course they were not called the Amazons back then. This is a modern linguistic evolution.

Where do I derive my information on people 100,000 years ago? Simple. The modern forms of men and women are not the same as their forms 100,000 years ago. Men grew taller, women grew smoother. In many ways men are just physically apemen with less fur and a better face. (this has nothing to do with mental capacity) Women have undergone a vast physical change over the last 100,000 years. And good for that, because now they look as good as they do. Citation? I showed you, but you ignored it. Perhaps some more skeletons will help:

Bellow is the remains of a homo erectus female pelvic. It's 30% larger than expected. Ergo, she was hardly a smooth beautiful woman, but a muscular ape-woman with few curves.

anthropology.net...

Anther calamity to your side, homo erectus females were over 50% larger than australopithecine You may wonder what that matters for anything, but it matters a lot here's australpo above, our much earlier ancestor. A female reconstruction.

en.wikipedia.org...:A.afarensis.jpg

As you can see, no real womanly figure other than breasts. Our homo erectus ancestors were 50% bigger than that on the female side, despite the height difference of something like 1 foot. Ergo, she was one helluva tough girl, running and hunting with her male counterparts, and making many ancient African speceis go extinct, including some of our own relatives.

www3.interscience.wiley.com...

She ran. hunted, and was everything a man was.



Oh but Edrick, you're pulling more well crafted, but structurally lacking, straw man fallacies. Those great men could not have done it ALONE. Significant work was done with women and, in fact, helped a large amount along the way. HOWEVER, if you think a statement like


"Also, the reason women have not innovated is simply you ignoring places where they did."


That never states that those woman worked alone.

You see what you did there? I see what you did there! maybe you don;t, because your so entangled in your need to make men look better that you have a confirmation bias to your opponents, but none the less... I see what you did there. And it failed.




Every woman who accomplishes something, you are holding up as an example of their greatness. You *ARE* BIASED.


LOL, then I'll let you do something you'll love to: find me a woman who did everything on their own! There are none. EVERY single thing humanity has ever done was undertook by men and women working together to accomplish some great task.

SATs? Is that your best proof? Dude, let me tell you a little something about SATs ok? They do not measure intelligence. They measure test taking skills. The ability to conform to a set direction and attitude. IE, college preparations. And a little something more on the SAT's. I was one of 15ish people in my large high school to get above a 2000. Ok? That's BAD. It's an all Boy's school.

As a matter of fact, just for laughs, let's compare, shall we? I live in a pretty small community, cut off from the rest of the worlds. The East coast has a lot of places like that, so it's great in terms of viewing true potential versus conformity of the masses elsewhere.

All girls school on this community average statistic:

Verbal 553
Math 547
Writing 573

I tell you this, my school was lower, much lower. As I recall from my principal one angry announcement morning "YOU ARE THE WORST SENIOR CLASS IN THIS SCHOOL'S HISTORY"... except me and my bros who got well above average. And of course, that's why we all went to good colleges.




Explain the CURRENT differences in math scores.


I did. Most women still use non-math based techniques in mathematics school. These women became teachers and taught it. It will take quite some time to get rid of, but do me the favor of taking the 2nd derivative of the statistics for the last 10 years. Is it positive or negative?


Beer is a very bad substance that destroys the brain and other things. I fancy a cup of wine on occasion to celebrate things, but I have never had more than a single quarter glass of beer in all my life. Nasty stuff.

The blank slate hypothesis is for mental abilities. Again, physical and mental are two different things. Because men and women are fully capable of being just as smart as each other. Men can recognize space better, as I said. I've used this to calculate things in mental simulations. When I do math, I see stuff like this:

www.youtube.com...

However, my dear Edrick, I've yet to see most men do this as well as most women. And I have seen women think in such ways. Holographic mental simulation is an uncommon trait, but none the less exists in both sexes.

And now, it's not sexist to say men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. It is sexist to say they are not capable of doing the same things.

See what I did that? I did not use a straw man fallacy like you did.

Allow me to say this about your straw man fallacies. When I give credit to women, it is because they often do not get credit. It does not negate the work of men around them. OK? Got it? No more strawman fallacies for now on bro? Can I trust you on that? I sure hope so, because it's very hard to debate someone who takes everything you say out of context and assumes from it multiple other things which are untrue, a la Fox news method of investigation and debate.

The Light Bulb: The sum results of experiments done by several other scientists before hand on electricity, as well as simply using it to burn something. It is an electronic burner. Experiments done to reveal oxygen in the air feeds firs lead a smart man to realize that if he stops the oxygen, he significantly slows down material degradation due to lack of fire. Vacuum experiments in centuries past led him to combine the two. Va la, light bulb.

The Vacuum Tube: A derivative of work done on the light bulb, only realizing that gases in this vacuum can effect electronic flow. In fact it's quite ignorant of you to say the vacuum tube was some new invention not based of something else.

Gunpowder: origins in the east. For many eons magicians used it with fire for tricks and games. This evolved into fireworks, and eventually rockets. And from there history records the rest. Gun powder is hardly something brand new. It's the sum total of man's experiments with chemicals. It's known that even before the Chinese used it. Gun powder is nothing more than man realizing that fire, his greatest discovery, can affect materials around it. In many ways gun powder is a derivative of earlier works regarding explosive technology ranging from Greek fire to roman oil artillery. Alchemists discovered that, like oil, it burned. But it also exploded.

Also Gunpowder isn't an invention, it's a discovery. Inventions are work of men, discoveries are understanding of nature. An invention requires a man to make it happen, a discovery is something that would have existed with or without mankind. The only significant discoveries are the ones within physics and advanced modern chemistry, whereby these things, like gravity and the speed of light, are significantly important. As opposed to a bunch of alchemists mixing random things together to see what happens.

This is known as the experimental process, which precedes the iterative process. The experimental process is a significant advancement of man, but understand that the very nature of the experimental process entitles that all things from it are no brand new.

Thus, gun powder is the sum total of alchemist studies of the rocks around them. It was not suddenly discovered. It was a process of looking at the characteristics of rocks, then recognizing their abilities, then mixing them.

Metal Forging: You're joking, right? Dude, that's virtually the basis OF the iterative process. Metal forging is nothing but mankind's experiments with metal. For every successful forge, many failed for they did not have the correct percentage. Metal forging is the end point of endless experimentation of other metals previously known. It's the desire to see if two strengths can be combines into something better.

So, care to list any other? Virtually all inventions are nothing more than the results of many people working over time previously. Now that I think about it, maybe Nikola Tesla even took some of his work on the work of others.


Now there's plenty of artistic and architectural creations that were right out of the ideas of mankind without any precedence, but I doubt you'll talk about them, seeing as it's pretty 50/50 in terms of men and women.

Sorry Edrick, you're a sad sad little strawman.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Aceofclubs
 


Ok, you're next then.

Spartans were pretty masculine. I posted above links to their Eugenics. While there were spartan women who were powerful, they were far fewer, and eugenics targeted males mostly. Perhaps it can be argued that they knew the male passed on the gender and thus eugenics targeted them more, but that's speculation.

With regards to the amazons, I was talking about such radicals as cutting off parts of themselves. Also I've known busty women with quite a quick shot at the bow. I prefer the cross bow, but I'm not a women, so that's pointless. I was simply talking about their desire to extremist their gender to a certain form, just like the Spartans. It is extreme gender differentiation, and it always leads to certain doom.


As i stated, my analyzation of the genders was a generalization in and of itself. But bare in mind, again as I stated, while I've seen a few men run simulations in their brain, I've seen few men do this, not all. And Just a but fewer women. Both sexes are possible of doing this because the x and y are very similar and such traits aren't had to mis match.

One can even argue that the lack of sexual placement like that of the days of old will inevitable lead to a natural distribution of these traits 50/50 within the sexes within a few generations, a little a 5-10. And indeed this is more recently so.

These traits are present in both, but due to sexual selection have been changed a bit to their commonality. But none the less, the adaptability of the human brain pretty much allows these traits to be put forward young.

Case in point, I was pretty fat, but muscularity runs in my family. I did exercise for a few weeks and lost it all. Women statistically take longer to lose weight. But again, these are physical differences. MENTALLY they are pretty much the same, with a few strengths and weaknesses in different areas. My religious beliefs are that these differences are prebuilt to encourage unity, and support for one another. Because just as much as these differences exist, they are unevenly distributed as well.

I'll say again what I said before. It is not sexist to say there are differences. It is sexist to say that they can not do the same things and accomplish the same things.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Scythia or another tribe had women warriors.


We are not debating whether this or that tribe HAD women warriors, we are debating the existance of a WHOLLY woman tribe *OF* warriors that went by the name of "Amazons"

Your argument fails to support the existence of such.

Do not debate me on this, or assert that they *DID* exist, until you have something to back up your claims.

Something more than Assertions and Assumptions.


Citation? I showed you, but you ignored it. Perhaps some more skeletons will help:

Bellow is the remains of a homo erectus female pelvic. It's 30% larger than expected. Ergo, she was hardly a smooth beautiful woman, but a muscular ape-woman with few curves.


Yes, women were different then than they are now... I am not debating you on this point.

You CLAIMED:


Edrick, you fail to realize that 100,000 years ago, men and women were both hunting game and doing the same things


A picture of a skeleton or reconstruction is not proof of their behavior.

What you are doing is known as a Red Herring, you are attempting to distract attention from the fact that you *SAID* that women and men were doing the same things 100,000 years ago...

So, faced with a challenge to your assertions, you bring up pictures of skeletal reconstructions that have nothing to do with ancient man's behaviors.


Oh but Edrick, you're pulling more well crafted, but structurally lacking, straw man fallacies. Those great men could not have done it ALONE. Significant work was done with women and, in fact, helped a large amount along the way. HOWEVER, if you think a statement like

"Also, the reason women have not innovated is simply you ignoring places where they did."




That never states that those woman worked alone.


You see what you did there? I see what you did there! maybe you don;t, because your so entangled in your need to make men look better that you have a confirmation bias to your opponents, but none the less... I see what you did there. And it failed.


So, you are willing to admit that the GREAT female inventors, leaders, etc... could not have done ANYTHING without men?

Very well, I accept your apology.


SATs? Is that your best proof? Dude, let me tell you a little something about SATs ok? They do not measure intelligence. They measure test taking skills.


Are you saying that someone with no mathematical abilities, but who follows directions can score well on the math part of an SAT?


I tell you this, my school was lower, much lower. As I recall from my principal one angry announcement morning "YOU ARE THE WORST SENIOR CLASS IN THIS SCHOOL'S HISTORY"... except me and my bros who got well above average. And of course, that's why we all went to good colleges.


Your story is nice and all, but you are not arguing the point....

This is known as a Red Herring, an attempt to distract from the argument.


I did. Most women still use non-math based techniques in mathematics school.


CITATION NEEDED!


Beer is a very bad substance that destroys the brain and other things. I fancy a cup of wine on occasion to celebrate things, but I have never had more than a single quarter glass of beer in all my life. Nasty stuff.


So, you are saying that it is intelligent to control what people do to their own bodies?


Because men and women are fully capable of being just as smart as each other.


No, they are not.

Intelligence distributions are quite different for men and women.

Where as men have a more varied curve, women have a more average curve.

I have already spelled this out for you.


However, my dear Edrick, I've yet to see most men do this as well as most women. And I have seen women think in such ways. Holographic mental simulation is an uncommon trait, but none the less exists in both sexes.


Bragging about yourself is not the same as arguing the point.

You are once again engaging in the argumentative fallacy known as the Red herring.

I don't *CARE* about your abilities, we are NOT ARGUING about your "Abilities"

IT is already CLEAR that you have a High opinion of yourself, this does not make your case any more accurate.


And now, it's not sexist to say men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. It is sexist to say they are not capable of doing the same things.


No, it's not sexist to say that they are not capable of doing the same things.

Men cannot give birth.

Women cannot fertilize an egg.

This, I believe we can agree on.


See what I did that? I did not use a straw man fallacy like you did.


No, what you DID, was contradict yourself.


It does not negate the work of men around them. OK? Got it? No more strawman fallacies for now on bro? Can I trust you on that?


Are you going to stop beating your wife?


Also Gunpowder isn't an invention, it's a discovery. Inventions are work of men, discoveries are understanding of nature.


I suppose that Gunpowder exists naturally in the correct ratios then?


The Light Bulb


So, you are saying that the light bulb has ALWAYS existed, and that men just tweaked it, right?


The Vacuum Tube


So, you are saying that a device used to switch electrical current through thermionic emission has always existed?


Metal Forging


So, you are saying that Forged metal has ALWAYS existed in nature?

Blast Furnaces that purify and separate raw ores?

These are Natural?


So, care to list any other?


No, I think those were sufficient.


Sorry Edrick, you're a sad sad little strawman.


Keep Thinking that Red herring.

-Edrick

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Guys have to evolve faster now because they don't need to be the protector anymore, you know, the alpha male. So my theory is their bodies are trying to make up for that by evolving in other fields in unexplainable means.

Men are awesome like that.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91

your like the ever ready bunny just keeps going n going n......

go read about the spartans it was female dominated culture if the men did not fight or do there "duty" thay were heckeld in the street and outcast by women thay were even scared of the wicked toung the spartan women had all greeks were. eugenics has nothing to do with this AND the women could take multipul partners if thay wanted. look were the spartans are now just on DVD and BOOKS

go and read your posts you contradict yourself many times in your last post to me you seem to have toned down the women are better than men crap but keep saying "this is BETTER or thats BETTER" and thats silly because thay are different and VERY hard to say one sex is better than the other thay are two halfs of the same puzzle

like what half of a friends forever chain set is better? nether thay are both cheap crap

you seem judge the world on your personal beleafs which is not objective at all and useless for debate

i`m not gonna call you names but your BIAS is annoying as you don`t seem to see it or maybe just wont admit it. hmm hmm

P.S. if you cut your word count down maby your contradictions count will go down aswel


edit to add reply to post by Gorman91

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Aceofclubs]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
(Post Removed, due to misunderstanding)

(Second line provides source material)

-Edrick

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Ace, I didn't contradict myself. You have to learn that I';m talikng about physical differences some places and mental differences elsewhere. The human brain and body are quite different worlds.

If you want me to cut down my words, I'll just repeat the last: It's sexist to say men and women are not capable of doing the same things, it's not sexist to say they are physically different, and that gives them some betterment in areas.

Oh and Edrick, Thanks to the wonders of technology, men can make eggs and woman can make sperm.


www.independent.co.uk...

And no, those technologies did not always exist. Again this is called the iterative process, which comes after the experimental process. These process, however, are based off previous things. The vacuum tube did not always exist, but vacuums have. Man just learned how to use it. No electronics have not always exist, but electricity has, and all electronics are essentially based off of what we learn and know and develop from the properties of electricity. No gunpowder did not always exist in the correct ratio, but people found out that different ratios did different things.

And I did not apologies for women or men. You assumed that when I talked about women that i was saying they did everything by themselves. Assumption and apology are different.

Also Edrick, maybe you missed the last 20 years of bio, but the simple fact is that you CAN tell the physical traits and behaviors of a species based on their skeletons.

Also there may be a curve, but that's average. That does not remove the fact that there are people above that curve. Just look at society: hot babes and smart men. Change the culture, get different results. Now I ask again, please go find the 2nd derivative of grades of female students in the US for the past 10 years.

Also the key point of red herring:

Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

Topic b is not irrelevant, and topic a, at least I hope, is not over.... So no.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]
as to Units conversion by factor-label being used by women more, just go to an AP (insert math/chem/whatever subject) test grading. Most of the time a test with a woman's name on it has Units conversion by factor-label. I can't provide statistics, because that's college board, and it's illegal.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Oh and Edrick, Thanks to the wonders of technology, men can make eggs and woman can make sperm.


Are you making a point?


And no, those technologies did not always exist. Again this is called the iterative process, which comes after the experimental process. These process, however, are based off previous things. The vacuum tube did not always exist, but vacuums have. Man just learned how to use it. No electronics have not always exist, but electricity has, and all electronics are essentially based off of what we learn and know and develop from the properties of electricity. No gunpowder did not always exist in the correct ratio, but people found out that different ratios did different things.


So, you are saying that Inventions do not exist, because they are merely ways of organizing the forces of reality to suit specific ends?

You might as well say that Humanity Has never Existed... because Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, etc... FAR predate the existence of man.

Your argument here has very little substance.


And I did not apologies for women or men. You assumed that when I talked about women that i was saying they did everything by themselves. Assumption and apology are different.


Well, if your stance is that all human affairs are based on the delicate interactions of thousands and millions of different forces subtly interacting to create the decisions and situations that humans are prone to, then Yes, I would of course, Agree.

This position does not refute the fact that Men are FAR more Inventive than women, and create changes in society on a far greater scale than women.

Unless you want to go back to your Holistic understanding of Inventiveness, in which case Grass and trees are in a subtle way responsible for Particle Physics.

Give credit where Credit is due.

Einstein Created the Theory of General Relativity, his wife did NOT.


Also Edrick, maybe you missed the last 20 years of bio, but the simple fact is that you CAN tell the physical traits and behaviors of a species based on their skeletons.


That is absolutely WONDERFUL!

Would you mind providing proof that Men and Women were responsible for the exact same tasks 100,000 years ago, as was your previous assertion?

You will of course, forgive me, if I don't take everything you say as absolute truth without some Data and Facts to back up your claims...


Also there may be a curve, but that's average. That does not remove the fact that there are people above that curve.[


No, there is NOONE above the curve.

The "Curve" is a bell curve, a distribution of Intelligence by population.

There can be NO ONE beyond the curve, because the Curve is a map of intelligence.

I am not talking about the type of curve that you are talking about.

www.iqtestnow.com...


Now I ask again, please go find the 2nd derivative of grades of female students in the US for the past 10 years.


IT's your position, YOU back it up.

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 





Are you making a point?


Men and woman can do much that you seem to think they can't




So, you are saying that Inventions do not exist, because they are merely ways of organizing the forces of reality to suit specific ends? You might as well say that Humanity Has never Existed... because Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, etc... FAR predate the existence of man. Your argument here has very little substance.


You might as well say the universe never existed because it's just a bubble of higgs fields. Are you making a point?




Well, if your stance is that all human affairs are based on the delicate interactions of thousands and millions of different forces subtly interacting to create the decisions and situations that humans are prone to, then Yes, I would of course, Agree. This position does not refute the fact that Men are FAR more Inventive than women, and create changes in society on a far greater scale than women. Unless you want to go back to your Holistic understanding of Inventiveness, in which case Grass and trees are in a subtle way responsible for Particle Physics. Give credit where Credit is due. Einstein Created the Theory of General Relativity, his wife did NOT.


Many people discovered the theory of relativity. Einstein just wrote E=mc^2. Each of those elements were thoroughly known about significantly before Einstein. Eisenstein, his wife, is friends, his colleagues, etc etc all discussed the matter. Einstein just put an equal sign and a squared in the right place.

Einstein was a player, and he knew many women. He worked with them. that and a bunch of other stuff.

You can just watch this and other similar videos.

www.youtube.com...




That is absolutely WONDERFUL! Would you mind providing proof that Men and Women were responsible for the exact same tasks 100,000 years ago, as was your previous assertion? You will of course, forgive me, if I don't take everything you say as absolute truth without some Data and Facts to back up your claims...


Homo erectus females were 50% bigger than their predecessors, and more bulk than modern day woman. I provided you with all the proof in my last links. Not reading them and assuming they're wrong does not make you right.




No, there is NOONE above the curve. The "Curve" is a bell curve, a distribution of Intelligence by population. There can be NO ONE beyond the curve, because the Curve is a map of intelligence. I am not talking about the type of curve that you are talking about. www.iqtestnow.com...


That wasn't your last curve

mjperry.blogspot.com...




IT's your position, YOU back it up.


its your opportunity to prove me wrong once and for all if you so desire to take up the challenge....

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Piché
 


They encode the the chain reactions that lead to sex. These are years-long chain reactions. Statistically, women take longer. God made it that way because they're so damn perfect.


you failed to take my advice to read your old posts so i help you out by doing it for you, how is this not a sexist statment? there are more but this is enough i think

n going n going n going



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Aceofclubs
 


Actually I may have gotten that wrong. I do know that one gender takes 28 years and the other takes 30 years. This is average. But I seem to suddenly forgotten which is which.

Also, how is that sexist? Brain development is not only intelligence. Most people have their intelligence capacity fully recognized by their 20s. Brain development encodes morality centers, "common sense" centers, etc etc.

common sense is one of the last thing to develop.

www.kidsandguns.org...

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join