quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Some might see that as a pipe dream, but I say it is an eventual possibility, even though the movie is science fiction. 

No, it isnt. It would take major changes in human DNA, and since we arent evolving in any signficant way any longer, that isnt going to happen.

Willbur you're going to have to explain to me precisely how our DNA seems to, in your view, influence determine and/or control the economics of any country.

If you can manage that successfully (and I know it's a big 'if'), please explain how a virtues/qualities such as cooperation and altruism exist in cultures that don't have money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Who made the decision that we are not evolving anymore?

Darwin. he sent a note and said he was revising his thoughts and re-writing his book, based upon the last 40 years of American politicians.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



If she knew anything about Darwinism she would know that the conditions required for significant human evolution no longer exist. In terms even she might understand, when the fittest prop up the less fit there is no mechanism for the less fit to be removed from the gene pool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Some might see that as a pipe dream, but I say it is an eventual possibility, even though the movie is science fiction. 

No, it isnt. It would take major changes in human DNA, and since we arent evolving in any signficant way any longer, that isnt going to happen.

Willbur you're going to have to explain to me precisely how our DNA seems to, in your view, influence determine and/or control the economics of any country.

If you can manage that successfully (and I know it's a big 'if'), please explain how a virtues/qualities such as cooperation and altruism exist in cultures that don't have money.

Its simple enough even for you. Competition (along with cooperation and altruism) are evolutionary developments. As long as there is a competitive drive there will be people who achieve more, enciting the jealousy of those that lose the competition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



If she knew anything about Darwinism she would know that the conditions required for significant human evolution no longer exist. In terms even she might understand, when the fittest prop up the less fit there is no mechanism for the less fit to be removed from the gene pool.

That in itself is genetic pressure. Humans are still evolving both phenotypically (we are larger than as recently as 100 years ago) and genotypically, (alleles that were lethal as recently as a half century ago are now not only survivable but those afflicted are successfully reproducing and passing on those genes thus increasing their frequency among the industrialized populations).
With increased outcrossing due to easier travel, 'hybrid vigor' is affecting large populations in industrialized areas.

I published a paper regarding contemporary evolutionary biology of humans when I was in grad school.

You might want to stick with insurance and leave Biology to those who know what the hell they're talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You are aware Willbur, aren't you that no one, (that's like NO ONE ever, anywhere, anytime, anyhow) has established a causal relationship where DNA causes human behaviour, such as competition, co operation or altruism among humans?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/dec/12/protesters-halt-operations-some-western-ports/


I have largely refrained from criticizing OWS, but I fail to see how blocking ports is supposed to help the American middle class.  On the contrary, it seems like a really stupid, counterproductive thing to do.  What is the point? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/dec/12/protesters-halt-operations-some-western-ports/


I have largely refrained from criticizing OWS, but I fail to see how blocking ports is supposed to help the American middle class.  On the contrary, it seems like a really stupid, counterproductive thing to do.  What is the point? 

Products once made in the US,  now made in foreign countries due to off-shoring of jobs, come in through ports. I think ports are a great place to protest. I wish there were thousands of protesters at every US port. End free-trade deals and off-shoring!

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



If she knew anything about Darwinism she would know that the conditions required for significant human evolution no longer exist. In terms even she might understand, when the fittest prop up the less fit there is no mechanism for the less fit to be removed from the gene pool.

That in itself is genetic pressure. Humans are still evolving both phenotypically (we are larger than as recently as 100 years ago) and genotypically, (alleles that were lethal as recently as a half century ago are now not only survivable but those afflicted are successfully reproducing and passing on those genes thus increasing their frequency among the industrialized populations).
With increased outcrossing due to easier travel, 'hybrid vigor' is affecting large populations in industrialized areas.

I published a paper regarding contemporary evolutionary biology of humans when I was in grad school.

You might want to stick with insurance and leave Biology to those who know what the hell they're talking about.

You might want to revisit reading then. I said no SIGNIFICANT evolution. the crap you site is nothing like what would be needed to change the evoloutionary basis of our societal structure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You are aware Willbur, aren't you that no one, (that's like NO ONE ever, anywhere, anytime, anyhow) has established a causal relationship where DNA causes human behaviour, such as competition, co operation or altruism among humans?

You are apparently oblivous to the fact that virtually all human behavior is driven by biology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



If she knew anything about Darwinism she would know that the conditions required for significant human evolution no longer exist. In terms even she might understand, when the fittest prop up the less fit there is no mechanism for the less fit to be removed from the gene pool.

That in itself is genetic pressure. Humans are still evolving both phenotypically (we are larger than as recently as 100 years ago) and genotypically, (alleles that were lethal as recently as a half century ago are now not only survivable but those afflicted are successfully reproducing and passing on those genes thus increasing their frequency among the industrialized populations).
With increased outcrossing due to easier travel, 'hybrid vigor' is affecting large populations in industrialized areas.

I published a paper regarding contemporary evolutionary biology of humans when I was in grad school.

You might want to stick with insurance and leave Biology to those who know what the hell they're talking about.

You might want to revisit reading then. I said no SIGNIFICANT evolution. the crap you site is nothing like what would be needed to change the evoloutionary basis of our societal structure.

I'll let you in on a DEEP DARK SECRET.

You won't see significant evolution in 5 generations. Not with any organism. Evolution is a slow process and humans are a long lived, slow breeding species. Dozens of generations are necessary to make a significant change in any organism.

This is why things like bacteria and fruit flies can be observed to evolve. Livestock and other domestic animals can be selectively bred 'force evolved as it were' within 20 generations or so. With the speed at which they breed, a single human can do that within his career. A single human can observe hundreds of generations of truly fast breeding species in his lifetime.

As for evolutionary basis of our societal structure, most authors think our present societal structure is antagonistic to our hardwiring. It goes against our genetics. Societal structures are evolving faster then the human genome. Look at society 5 generations ago compared to now. Totally different. We were much more warlike and agressive both within and between societies.

Weapons technology has forced us to go against our programming and tone the agression down lest the species go the way of the Dodo.

By the way, it's 'cite' not 'site'

Once again. Leave biology to the biologists and stick with insurance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



Once again, brush up on your reading. I didnt say anything about 1 2 5 or 50 generations. I said EVER. And I have nothing to do with insurance,so there is nothing to stick to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You are aware Willbur, aren't you that no one, (that's like NO ONE ever, anywhere, anytime, anyhow) has established a causal relationship where DNA causes human behaviour, such as competition, co operation or altruism among humans?

You are apparently oblivous to the fact that virtually all human behavior is driven by biology.

You are totally ignorant of the fact that most modern human behavior is totally against our biological hardwiring.

Wilbur. With all due respect, you know fuckall about biology

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Actually, wilbur is quite knowledgable about some things and I'm not above asking his opinion from time to time on areas outside my expertise.

Believe it or not, he and I dont always disagree LOL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Actually, wilbur is quite knowledgable about some things and I'm not above asking his opinion from time to time on areas outside my expertise.

Believe it or not, he and I dont always disagree LOL.

Far be it from me to disagree - but I will be guided by the evidence if and when I see it.

To date, I haven't seen any such evidence though I do recall a single two-line post of his not too long ago that wasn't completely moronic. I even complimented him on it, hoping that a little encouragement would help him sustain a new and higher standard. Alas my optimism was misplaced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Actually, from a logistics point of view, I can see why requiring the truckers to use the restroom at the truckstops, and not devote a huge parking area (In the port where land is incredibly expensive, as opposed to a truck stop 10 miles out of the city where land is dirt cheap) for truckers to leave thier rigs and go potty(eat, hang out, get a hooker, whatever). It would seem from a logistic and security standpoint to get the trucks in and out as fast as possible. Some % of the trucks when turned off will fail to start, jamming up the works, for example.

Yeah that sucks, but its part of the job. Perhaps they should invent a usefull disposable shitter, to keep in the trucks for those times when you just can't wait.


W, I was thinking more about the Oakland port specifically, it was the only one that even closed for part of a day. But I was mistaken in thinking that criteria existed in the thread.

Good catch. 5. (What I wrote was correct but not relevant. A logical error on my part)

If it's about getting them in and out fast, why does the process take hours, if they get any load at all?

Sorry, but your hypothesis is clearly false.