Thread: What causes physical attraction?

Originally Posted by theMagician

So you are saying that survival of a species has to do with evolution, right?

No I'm not saying that. What about my post would lead you to think that that's what I was saying?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Honestly, what do you expect me to reply to this?

Well if your opinion of the average man is so poor, then it seems like you would know that what the average man wants is boobs. So as long as you have those, you're set. We also like people to cook and clean for us.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Well if your opinion of the average man is so poor, then it seems like you would know that what the average man wants is boobs. So as long as you have those, you're set. We also like people to cook and clean for us.

Okay, maybe not the average man, but the average man who cares a lot about personality will tend to like the characteristics I described (which isn't surprising).

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No I'm not saying that. What about my post would lead you to think that that's what I was saying?

this

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Only in the context of gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Also, it's normally applied to individual organisms so I don't see what it has to do with species. A more accurate statement would be "survival of the fit enough to survive."

You just said that survival of a species has everything to do with evolution.

And about the individual organisms and not the entire species... Tell that to the dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by theMagician

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

He can't, they're dead. :[

Originally Posted by GavinGill

He can't, they're dead. :[

Man that was a really sad statement. I wish dinosaurs were still around

Originally Posted by theMagician

this



You just said that survival of a species has everything to do with evolution.

No I didn't. I said that a more accurate characterization of evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive". In context of what I said previously one would expect that an intelligent person would read that as "survival of the organisms that are fit enough to survive". Oh well.

And about the individual organisms and not the entire species... Tell that to the dinosaurs.

Technically birds are dinosaurs but whatever. Let's assume that the dinosaurs are extinct. The reason that they're extinct is because there were not any individual dinosaurs that were fit enough to survive. What does that have to do with "species"? Where does "species" come into that? Please use your brain. Evolution is a local phenomenon. A "species" going extinct is a global phenomenon. Evolution does not happen "to" prevent our "species" from going extinct. There is no "to". You are thinking teleologically. It is a good way to think about people. People do stuff "to" cause things to happen. It is not a good way to think about other stuff. Stuff happens. There is no "to". Evolution happens because organisms that are fit enough to survive and reproduce survive and reproduce. This can have the consequence that a "species" doesn't go extinct.

To take this back on topic, we do not want to reproduce so that our "species" doesn't go extinct. Our "species" doesn't go extinct because we want to reproduce. There's a very powerful principle in evolution called "The Extended Phenotype". It says that "a behavior behavior benefits the genes that encode for it." In this case, a gene that causes us to want to reproduce will spread through the population and a gene that causes us to not want to reproduce will not spread through the population. Hence a "species" evolves.

Please educate yourself before you post on this topic again. I'll know if you've educated yourself because your response will be something along the lines of "OMG PhilosopherStoned. You're absolutely right. I really had no fucking clue what I was talking about. Thank you for taking the time to correct my very basic and obvious error. I was essentially postulating that evolution is magic. I was really making a creationist out of myself on that one."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Only in the context of gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Also, it's normally applied to individual organisms so I don't see what it has to do with species. A more accurate statement would be "survival of the fit enough to survive."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No I didn't. I said that a more accurate characterization of evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive". In context of what I said previously one would expect that an intelligent person would read that as "survival of the organisms that are fit enough to survive". Oh well.




Technically birds are dinosaurs but whatever. Let's assume that the dinosaurs are extinct. The reason that they're extinct is because there were not any individual dinosaurs that were fit enough to survive. What does that have to do with "species"? Where does "species" come into that? Please use your brain. Evolution is a local phenomenon. A "species" going extinct is a global phenomenon. Evolution does not happen "to" prevent our "species" from going extinct. There is no "to". You are thinking teleologically. It is a good way to think about people. People do stuff "to" cause things to happen. It is not a good way to think about other stuff. Stuff happens. There is no "to". Evolution happens because organisms that are fit enough to survive and reproduce survive and reproduce. This can have the consequence that a "species" doesn't go extinct.

To take this back on topic, we do not want to reproduce so that our "species" doesn't go extinct. Our "species" doesn't go extinct because we want to reproduce. There's a very powerful principle in evolution called "The Extended Phenotype". It says that "a behavior behavior benefits the genes that encode for it." In this case, a gene that causes us to want to reproduce will spread through the population and a gene that causes us to not want to reproduce will not spread through the population. Hence a "species" evolves.

Please educate yourself before you post on this topic again. I'll know if you've educated yourself because your response will be something along the lines of "OMG PhilosopherStoned. You're absolutely right. I really had no fucking clue what I was talking about. Thank you for taking the time to correct my very basic and obvious error. I was essentially postulating that evolution is magic. I was really making a creationist out of myself on that one."

Have you smoked yourself retarded? You said a more accurate statement about evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive" after you said survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Really?! Which is it, you are confusing to listen to.

Originally Posted by theMagician

Have you smoked yourself retarded? You said a more accurate statement about evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive" after you said survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Really?! Which is it, you are confusing to listen to.

Please explain to me how "survival of the fit enough to survive" has anything to do with species.