RE: Circumcision in various populations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 12:38:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I have no idea what you are referring to.


Oh I think you do Mr Supergenius.

"but to a Social Darwinist concept as defined by me." << Your words not mine.



DomKen -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 12:54:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

The consequences go beyond the individual level. This is about population genetics, not individual genetics. One can be circumcised and not have any progeny, yet nevertheless contribute to an increased frequency of deleterious alleles in the future gene pool.

pure bunk.

If you have no progeny you contribute nothing to the future gene pool. By your logic anyone circumcised or not who doesn't reproduce contributes to an increased frequency of deleterious alleles in the future gene pool.




Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 1:08:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
"but to a Social Darwinist concept as defined by me." << Your words not mine.

Ah. Well, defining concepts is what is done in science in order that we can talk about them and work with them. For example, the concept of visible light is defined as those photons that have wavelengths between 400 and 800 nanometers (or thereabouts).

I defined the concept, so obviously now it can be discussed.



Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 1:12:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If you have no progeny you contribute nothing to the future gene pool.

Not your own alleles, indeed.

However, by being circumcised one may affect the future gene pool nevertheless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
By your logic anyone circumcised or not who doesn't reproduce contributes to an increased frequency of deleterious alleles in the future gene pool.

You have no idea of nor can you fathom my reasoning and therefore you cannot possibly judge my logic.



Moonhead -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 1:19:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
As far as circumcisions... if the flesh makes the man... what does that say about the man?

Well, there's that old joke about the useless bit of skin on the end of a penis being called the man, isn't there?



Moonhead -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 1:22:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
"but to a Social Darwinist concept as defined by me." << Your words not mine.

Ah. Well, defining concepts is what is done in science in order that we can talk about them and work with them. For example, the concept of visible light is defined as those photons that have wavelengths between 400 and 800 nanometers (or thereabouts).

I defined the concept, so obviously now it can be discussed.


You didn't define the concept, I'm afraid: referring to "social darwinism" in this context is a pretty grotesque misdefinition, of the sort no scientist who expected to get taken even halfway seriously would make.



DomKen -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 1:50:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If you have no progeny you contribute nothing to the future gene pool.

Not your own alleles, indeed.

However, by being circumcised one may affect the future gene pool nevertheless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
By your logic anyone circumcised or not who doesn't reproduce contributes to an increased frequency of deleterious alleles in the future gene pool.

You have no idea of nor can you fathom my reasoning and therefore you cannot possibly judge my logic.


Actually we've already discussed your lack of knowledge of population genetics. While it was sometimes hilarious it was ultimately boring as you couldn't come up with anything more than 'I'm smarter than everyone.'

If you feel up to the task I'm perfectly willing to give it another go but I reserve the right to make fun of you as soon as you make any claims to superior reasoning or knowledge.



Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 1:58:14 PM)

I refer you to my post 12.



tweakabelle -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 7:52:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


Well, there's that old joke about the useless bit of skin on the end of a penis being called the man, isn't there?


Is that a joke? I've been under the impression it's an axiom of life.



Edited with a lingering sensitive touch followed by a gentle squeeze [:D] [:D]



Lucylastic -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 7:53:42 PM)

I <3 Tweak



tazzygirl -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/1/2011 9:19:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If you have no progeny you contribute nothing to the future gene pool.

Not your own alleles, indeed.

However, by being circumcised one may affect the future gene pool nevertheless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
By your logic anyone circumcised or not who doesn't reproduce contributes to an increased frequency of deleterious alleles in the future gene pool.

You have no idea of nor can you fathom my reasoning and therefore you cannot possibly judge my logic.



If this were true, then foreskins would have been removed from the gene pool.



Lucylastic -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/2/2011 12:41:31 PM)

Im waiting for some proof, but I fear you cannot prove the impossible, even if you are a supergenius(self proclaimed not withstanding)
Im guessing I will be ignored or talked down too, which will only reinforce my bias[;)]




cyprian -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/2/2011 1:08:22 PM)

isn't that what he is alluding to? that the continued practice of circumcision will eventually lead to males not having foreskins in the future? evolution of the penis



Lucylastic -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/2/2011 1:14:38 PM)

How many millennium have we had an appendix. a throwback to when we ate a more herbacious diet, pretty damn useless and obsolete, yet we still are born with one, Ive had my appendix removed, I dont expect it changed my DNA
What about our coccyx, remnants of our tails, useless, but unchanged for millennium
surgical removal of skin, does not change DNA
and wont for more years than I will ever care about.




mnottertail -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/2/2011 1:14:39 PM)

There would have to be some fuckin goin on to have that take place, would be a little saner, but there will be no spontaneous remission by going to the same McDonalds and leaving the mayo off the bun together.

Gregor Mendel

(read my new book:  "Two peas in a pod: Cornholing in the Iowa plains, a love story"
in paperback wherever fine literature is sold).





jlf1961 -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/2/2011 1:57:30 PM)

The op has no clue about anything that requires the use of a brain.



DomKen -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/2/2011 2:07:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cyprian

isn't that what he is alluding to? that the continued practice of circumcision will eventually lead to males not having foreskins in the future? evolution of the penis

cutting off a foreskin doesn't change the genes that made it in the first place.



Rule -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/2/2011 2:12:22 PM)

Cutting off one's head doesn't change the genes that made it in the first place, either. Nevertheless it has an effect on reproductive success. Not so?



DomKen -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/2/2011 2:15:03 PM)

Are you trying to argue that circumcision results in differential rates of reproduction? Got any evdence?



Lucylastic -> RE: Circumcision in various populations (2/2/2011 2:17:23 PM)

pathetic argument



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625