Evidence of evolution: Sex ratio as a function of male competition

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

The difference between adults and children in conversation, is that children often lose sight of the context and switch topic while responding to the last question. I assume that you are an adult.

You: Do you need to be a scientist to figure out why there is a one to one birth ratio?
I: What did God say about insects?
You: Not to eat most of them.

Who's acting dumb?
More...

Another easy question to answer. You.
And rather juvenile I might add.
 
Quote from jem:

This has to be one of the least sincere or one of dumbest statements I have ever heard.

Society is structured based on appeals to authority.

Science gets funded and studied based on appeals to authority.

Laws are made and people convicted based on appeals to scientific authority.

I just answered your question. The science is above your skills so you will have to accept the authority.

You go look up what Wienberg predicted. How is was found, how it was measured and why it may means that if there is only one universe - it looks designed according to top physicists.

I have already provided many of the links on the other thread in which we discussed the null hypothesis.
More...

Science does not appeal to authority. If you think otherwise then you don't know what science is.

I may not have the skills needed to judge everything Weinberg said, but I have enough skill to tell the difference between a scientific theory (that might be wrong) which has passed the scrutiny of peer-review, and sheer speculation which has not. So far you have only presented sheer speculation with no shred of scientific truth in it. You have never been able to show us a link from a peer-reviewed journal.

I repeat, write down an equation and then we have something concrete to discuss.
 
If the X and Y chromosomes are the right way of reproduction, and they produce the 1:1 ratio at birth, then why did God make the B chromosome which messes everything up?
 
Why did God do this, why did God do that...

Why do these people think they could understand God's reasoning?

They don't even know their own mind, yet they think they could understand the intelligence of one who created the Universe?

Reminds me of children who continually ask their parents, but why, but why, but why...

How about this?

Create something from absolutely nothing, then explain how you did it to others...

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

If the X and Y chromosomes are the right way of reproduction, and they produce the 1:1 ratio at birth, then why did God make the B chromosome which messes everything up?
More...
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

If the X and Y chromosomes are the right way of reproduction, and they produce the 1:1 ratio at birth, then why did God make the B chromosome which messes everything up?
More...

If something is "all messed up", the bible is very specific as to who the "messer upper" is, and for the bible ignorant, it ain't God.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Why did God do this, why did God do that...

Why do these people think they could understand God's reasoning?

They don't even know their own mind, yet they think they could understand the intelligence of one who created the Universe?

Reminds me of children who continually ask their parents, but why, but why, but why...

How about this?

Create something from absolutely nothing, then explain how you did it to others...
More...

Thank you for providing the best argument against the ID theory. You're perfectly right. All this design nonsense must've been created by the devil to confuse us and make us question our faith in God. We don't even know our own mind. How can we understand the intelligence of one who created the Universe? Any "design" we see are simply reflections of our own mind, not God's.
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Science does not appeal to authority. If you think otherwise then you don't know what science is.

I may not have the skills needed to judge everything Weinberg said, but I have enough skill to tell the difference between a scientific theory (that might be wrong) which has passed the scrutiny of peer-review, and sheer speculation which has not. So far you have only presented sheer speculation with no shred of scientific truth in it. You have never been able to show us a link from a peer-reviewed journal.

I repeat, write down an equation and then we have something concrete to discuss.
More...

O.k.

Before I lecture you on the the science regarding the cosmological constant and prove you can do nothing but rely on authority for your counter argument.

I will also straighten you out on the use of authority in science.

Prove that the speed of light is constant and always has been.

Prove fingerprints are unique.

This list can go on.
----------

Leonard Susskind said http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html

Weinberg's argument, which is clearly stated in his general audience book Dreams of a Final Theory is not that the cosmological constant has to be smaller than the limit from galaxy formation. If it were, then Smolin would be correct: the Anthropic Principle doesn't add much to the observed fact that galaxies exist. What Weinberg argued was that if the Anthropic Principle is correct, then the cosmological constant will probably not be much smaller than the galaxy formation limit. Weinberg was just expressing the common sense opinion that if anthropics is the only reason the cosmological constant is small, then it is unlikely that it will be orders of magnitude smaller than the anthropic limit.

Was it a prediction that could be proved wrong? Most people thought so. Just about everyone I know was certain that the cosmological constant was exactly zero.
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You guys only read half a sentence then jump to the conclusion. If that's how you learn, I have nothing to say.

Read the whole post then come back and make a meaningful comment.

I'll reserve the word "idiot" for those who don't get it after the 2nd try.
More...


well, you first suggested that 1:1 was an inefficient design, and therefore more evidence against the existence of a Designer. You then went on to explain how 1:1 is predicted by evolution and therefore more proof of its validity. Evolution is presented as the most efficient of biological processes.

So which is it? Is 1:1 Efficient or Not?

I'd think evolution should predict more Males ... Why should natural selection limited the number of choices a female has?


Question; is 1:1 pretty universal amongst all organisms?


(feel free to label me an idiot ... it adds to the enjoyment when slaughtering people in arguments)
 
Quote from pattersb:

well, you first suggested that 1:1 was an inefficient design, and therefore more evidence against the existence of a Designer. You then went on to explain how 1:1 is predicted by evolution and therefore more proof of its validity. Evolution is presented as the most efficient of biological processes.

So which is it? Is 1:1 Efficient or Not?

I'd think evolution should predict more Males ... Why should natural selection limited the number of choices a female has?


Question; is 1:1 pretty universal amongst all organisms?
More...

Idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top