Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Autonomous

Love freedom? Thank a vet

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

QUOTE(Paul @ Dec 11 2007, 09:10 PM)

Bern,

There’s no specific gene for “tendency to volunteer for military service.” Obviously, a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in.

B)

Let's say you've got a country with a population with no military service gene.  In the country next door, the military service gene runs rampant.  One day, the nation that has plenty of the military service gene goes to the first country and kills all of them.

Now let's review:

"Obviously a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in."

Wrong again, Paul.  It depends on the environment.  You know as much about evolution as you know about the oil economy, apparently.

77236[/snapback]

No, actually Paul is right and Bryan is dead wrong – again.

And it’s because Bryan doesn’t understand the science – again.

By definition, a specific military gene would be directed toward military service only. It would incline those who carried it to perform military service, but would not incline them toward any other social factor. If it did, it would no longer be specific for military service. Obviously, people who carried such a gene would be more likely to be killed in war, but they wouldn’t gain any of the benefits of all the more general genes for social behavior, since those are already widespread within the population. Therefore, it would tend to be selected out of the population.

Which explains why there is no specific military service gene . . . it never arose in the first place!

Which also explains why nations survive without one. Genes for more general social factors are more than adequate to induce people to perform military service.

There are no countries where the population has specific military service genes, and there are no countries in which people have no genetic capacity for military service.

In other words, Bryan made up a fantasy world that doesn’t exist except in his imagination – again.

Good God, man, you've been splayed, cut, drawn, quartered, sliced, diced, boiled, parboiled, baked, roasted, fricasseed, deep fried, home fried, refried, chewed up and spit out. And yet you come back for more. You’re great entertainment. Please keep posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
QUOTE(Paul @ Dec 11 2007, 09:10 PM)

Bern,

There’s no specific gene for “tendency to volunteer for military service.” Obviously, a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in.

No, actually Paul is right and Bryan is dead wrong – again.

And it’s because Bryan doesn’t understand the science – again.

By definition, a specific military gene would be directed toward military service only. It would incline those who carried it to perform military service, but would not incline them toward any other social factor. If it did, it would no longer be specific for military service. Obviously, people who carried such a gene would be more likely to be killed in war, but they wouldn’t gain any of the benefits of all the more general genes for social behavior, since those are already widespread within the population. Therefore, it would tend to be selected out of the population.

Which explains why there is no specific military service gene . . . it never arose in the first place!

Which also explains why nations survive without one. Genes for more general social factors are more than adequate to induce people to perform military service.

There are no countries where the population has specific military service genes, and there are no countries in which people have no genetic capacity for military service.

In other words, Bryan made up a fantasy world that doesn’t exist except in his imagination – again.

Good God, man, you've been splayed, cut, drawn, quartered, sliced, diced, boiled, parboiled, baked, roasted, fricasseed, deep fried, home fried, refried, chewed up and spit out. And yet you come back for more. You’re great entertainment. Please keep posting.

77303[/snapback]

Once again, a Loony Lefty bloviates on a subject which he has no knowledge

of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
QUOTE(Paul @ Dec 11 2007, 09:10 PM)

Bern,

There’s no specific gene for “tendency to volunteer for military service.” Obviously, a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in.

No, actually Paul is right and Bryan is dead wrong – again.

And it’s because Bryan doesn’t understand the science – again.

By definition, a specific military gene would be directed toward military service only. It would incline those who carried it to perform military service, but would not incline them toward any other social factor. If it did, it would no longer be specific for military service. Obviously, people who carried such a gene would be more likely to be killed in war, but they wouldn’t gain any of the benefits of all the more general genes for social behavior, since those are already widespread within the population. Therefore, it would tend to be selected out of the population.

Which explains why there is no specific military service gene . . . it never arose in the first place!

Which also explains why nations survive without one. Genes for more general social factors are more than adequate to induce people to perform military service.

There are no countries where the population has specific military service genes, and there are no countries in which people have no genetic capacity for military service.

In other words, Bryan made up a fantasy world that doesn’t exist except in his imagination – again.

Good God, man, you've been splayed, cut, drawn, quartered, sliced, diced, boiled, parboiled, baked, roasted, fricasseed, deep fried, home fried, refried, chewed up and spit out. And yet you come back for more. You’re great entertainment. Please keep posting.

77303[/snapback]

Not to mention minced, sauteed and pureed! Hold the pepper, Louie, this one's too bitter already.

Oh, and did I mention creamed? Yeah, keep writing, Bryan. Now that Peanuts isn't running any more and Stewart, Colbert and Letterman are on strike, we need some comic relief.

Seriously, Bryan, are you being paid to set yourself up? Go ahead, big boy, answer this one. Let's see how witty you can be. Don't forget "Oh yeah!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Not to mention minced, sauteed and pureed! Hold the pepper, Louie, this one's too bitter already.

Oh, and did I mention creamed? Yeah, keep writing, Bryan. Now that Peanuts isn't running any more and Stewart, Colbert and Letterman are on strike, we need some comic relief.

Seriously, Bryan, are you being paid to set yourself up? Go ahead, big boy, answer this one. Let's see how witty you can be. Don't forget "Oh yeah!"

77403[/snapback]

Cut back on the Kool-aid junior, you're getting a little excited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Cut back on the Kool-aid junior, you're getting a little excited.

77449[/snapback]

Gee, silence from Bryan. He must be thinking . . .

Nah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again

77390[/snapback]

Oh, shut up. Anytime I see your stupid name attached to a post in which something substantial was written, I can already tell it's going to be another one of your retarded one-liners before I even scroll down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Cut back on the Kool-aid junior, you're getting a little excited.

77449[/snapback]

I find it interesting that for someone who cannot formulate a single, cognative thought without invoking the phrase "Kool-Aid", you constantly accuse others of drinking it. It is sad indeed that you are unable to construct you own opinion without parroting Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. Kool Aid ,indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Paul @ Dec 11 2007, 09:10 PM)

Bern,

There’s no specific gene for “tendency to volunteer for military service.” Obviously, a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in.

No, actually Paul is right and Bryan is dead wrong – again.

And it’s because Bryan doesn’t understand the science – again.

By definition, a specific military gene would be directed toward military service only.

That doesn't follow. There's no reason why, for example, a gene that determines eye color can't also affect a separate trait.

It's funny how so many guests who don't understand science keep running around baselessly suggesting that I don't understand science.

It would incline those who carried it to perform military service, but would not incline them toward any other social factor. If it did, it would no longer be specific for military service. Obviously, people who carried such a gene would be more likely to be killed in war, but they wouldn’t gain any of the benefits of all the more general genes for social behavior, since those are already widespread within the population. Therefore, it would tend to be selected out of the population.

That doesn't follow, either.

So long as the gene for military service were neutral in terms of selection in a peaceful society (such as one that wiped out its peaceful neighbor), the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium would tend to sustain the trait at a given level. That's basic genetics--a topic you apparently don't understand.

Which explains why there is no specific military service gene . . . it never arose in the first place!

Irrelevant, since it was a scenario suggested for the sake of argument by Mr. LaClair.

Which also explains why nations survive without one. Genes for more general social factors are more than adequate to induce people to perform military service.

There are no countries where the population has specific military service genes, and there are no countries in which people have no genetic capacity for military service.

In other words, Bryan made up a fantasy world that doesn’t exist except in his imagination – again.

"Obviously, a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in."

--Paul LaClair

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...c=18533&st=140#

Paul produced the hypothetical world in which a gene for military service exists and selected against.

And "Guest" showed up to skew the record. What a fine clone he is!

Good God, man, you've been splayed, cut, drawn, quartered, sliced, diced, boiled, parboiled, baked, roasted, fricasseed, deep fried, home fried, refried, chewed up and spit out. And yet you come back for more. You’re great entertainment. Please keep posting.

77303[/snapback]

And you keep right on making stuff up. That's why you are anonymous "Guest" is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
That doesn't follow.  There's no reason why, for example, a gene that determines eye color can't also affect a separate trait.

It's funny how so many guests who don't understand science keep running around baselessly suggesting that I don't understand science.

That doesn't follow, either.

So long as the gene for military service were neutral in terms of selection in a peaceful society (such as one that wiped out its peaceful neighbor), the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium would tend to sustain the trait at a given level.  That's basic genetics--a topic you apparently don't understand.

Irrelevant, since it was a scenario suggested for the sake of argument by Mr. LaClair.

"Obviously, a specific military service gene would tend to be selected out of a population, not selected in."

--Paul LaClair

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...c=18533&st=140#

Paul produced the hypothetical world in which a gene for military service exists and selected against.

And "Guest" showed up to skew the record.  What a fine clone he is!

And you keep right on making stuff up.  That's why you are anonymous "Guest" is it not?

77546[/snapback]

Congratulations, Bryan. You can look stuff up.

Now perhaps you can explain what would have to happen for a gene specific to military service to arise. Don't forget to explain how long it would take, and what the relationship is between genes for general behavioral traits and genes for more specific behavioral traits.

Of course, you've just admitted that there is no military service gene anyway, so who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Congratulations, Bryan. You can look stuff up.

Now perhaps you can explain what would have to happen for a gene specific to military service to arise. Don't forget to explain how long it would take, and what the relationship is between genes for general behavioral traits and genes for more specific behavioral traits.

Of course, you've just admitted that there is no military service gene anyway, so who cares?

77582[/snapback]

Technically Bryan has a point that once a gene is in a population, it takes a lot to get it out. The problem with Bryan's argument (and it is fatal) is that there is no military gene. There are no means for one to arise. Think about what would have to happen. A gene specific to military service would have to be introduced into a population that is already capable of banding together to defend itself. Genes just aren't that specific to such complex behaviors. There may be specific genes for the sucking reflex in infants (for obvious reasons), but a gene for military service --- I'd like to see the support or the explanation for that one. Just because someone can say "let's suppose it happened" doesn't mean it happens.

Another interesting point: chimpanzees and humans are aggressive, but their close cousins the bonobos are not. How did the bonobos survive without these tendencies for aggression?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Oh, shut up. Anytime I see your stupid name attached to a post in which something substantial was written, I can already tell it's going to be another one of your retarded one-liners before I even scroll down.

77467[/snapback]

And this brilliant comment comes from someone who tells his computer to shut up !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically Bryan has a point that once a gene is in a population, it takes a lot to get it out ...

That part's worth saving, even if "Guest" apparently missed out on the fact that LaClair introduced the notion of a specific military gene (for the sake of argument).

Another interesting point: chimpanzees and humans are aggressive, but their close cousins the bonobos are not. How did the bonobos survive without these tendencies for aggression?

77668[/snapback]

Because they murdered the bonobos who carried the military gene?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Considering what a ridiculous statement this is, I'd hold back on using the word "brilliant" sarcastically.

77848[/snapback]

Carefule-Patriot, 2 Dim, and Senior Kearny Resident might jump on you for your spelling of 'rediculous.' :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does every post have to turn into a political arguement? All I said was that I was amazed that more people did not come to pay their respects to our fallen vets and the men and women still fighting. This should have been a simple post, this was their day,  by all rights.

74217[/snapback]

you are right it should have been a simple comment to honor all our vets,if it helps i work with a few viet nam vets and some desert storm vets i think you think like i think l called them and simply said thanks ,they were so greatful for my thinking of them and there service to us all even those who want to deniy there importance. if you dont believe in something you will fall for anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
That part's worth saving, even if "Guest" apparently missed out on the fact that LaClair introduced the notion of a specific military gene (for the sake of argument).

Because they murdered the bonobos who carried the military gene?

77798[/snapback]

I thought your point was that carriers of a military gene would be the ones to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are right it should have been a simple comment to honor all our vets,if it helps i work with a few viet nam vets and some desert storm vets i think you think like i think l called them and simply said thanks ,they were so greatful for my thinking of them and there service to us all even those who want to deniy there importance.  if you dont believe in something you will fall for anything

77914[/snapback]

I really didn't expect this thread to turn into this when I started it, but unfortunately I'm not particularly surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×