Sayonara

The lecturer.

It is more evidence of the fact that exploiting a niche is not enough to guarantee species survival. The species that uses X to encode its information may be better at exploiting a niche than the species that use DNA/RNA, but if X is not as effective at preserving information then it will give way to RNA/DNA no matter the population-level circumstances.

Like, say, competition? Consider that if a mere phenotypic expression is being selected against, such as coloration, it will most likely have a much less drastic effect on a species' survival than would selection against the very mechanism by which they pass on their information. It is possible (in fact, I'd say likely) that other systems of information preservation have existed on Earth in the past, but it would only take a slight selective nudge from competing systems to obliterate them entirely.

Are you talking about humans, or your average animal species?

Same as YT. Oh the fun.

Because the word season in "mating season" refers to an arbitrary period of time, not a season in the sense of "the four seasons".

Competition would quickly put an end to the least efficient systems.

Any Philip K. Dick would be a good choice too.

@quartz ought to be in there all the time - he's the bot that keeps the channel open. If you don't see @quartz, you are not in the correct channel - check the new server address etc above.

For you crazy Americans, over here "pissed" = mildly drunk and "pissed off" = what you call pissed. I hope that explains everything.

If it's channel #sfn on irc.blackcobalt.net, and @quartz is in there, then it is our room, and it's just a matter of idling until other people drop by.

The intolerance of Victorian society was not to do with conservatism, it was the age of the socialite smear campaign.

Also get a copy of Spybot: Search and Destroy. Unlike AdAware it has an immunisation function that stops malware getting on your PC in the first place. Also install Spyware Guard - it warns you about system changes and unsolicited downloads.

"I, Robot" would be a good start

Ask him to explain the second law of thermodynamics. After all, it's part of his argument so he ought to know it inside out.

I'm pretty sure one of my lecturers at uni went to great lengths explaining this but I am quite pissed right now so he can just shut up.

But is it? Mating season is essentially a perfect description - it is the season in which mating occurs. It does not mean that mating outside of that season would be medically fruitless, simply that the behaviour is not there. The question is then one of definition - what percentage of the population must be conceived in the identified season in order for it to be considered a breeding period?

Ask yourself whether I am attacking you or the things you are saying. Yet still nobody has demonstrated the link between the alleged cause and effect.

Don't wear a baggy shirt.

I am not arguing with you, I am (a) telling you that you are wrong and (b) asking you not to put words in my mouth. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

What has that got to do with this thread? And doesn't it directly contradict the idea that we are the "superior species"? Would you care to show evidence for any of that? I don't know why you'd assume that is what I meant when there are plenty of better reasons, many of which surround the fact that in humans there are a great deal more non-procreative (usually accidental) conceptions than there are in animals. I have made the observation that human births do not occur with uniform distribution throughout the year, and therefore mating does not either. I have not suggested what the cause might be and I don't really plan to do so. I would suggest though that if you want to find the reason, you might do well to consult some peer-reviewed research on the matter instead of making wild guesses and coming up with your own terms for things.

With regards to what? Certainly we aren't better adapted at everything. As I have already said several times, we do appear to have - at the very least - a partially effected mating season. In other words, you're just making generalisations instead of applying any actual biology. Good luck.

In what way are we "a step ahead", specifically? It seems to me that you are saying: 1) We are a step ahead because we have no mating season, and 2) We have no mating season because we are a step ahead. ...which is tautological. Firstly the birth rate in humans changes over the year, so clearly we do still have a mating season of sorts. Secondly, you are ignoring the vast swathes of biology and ecology that are involved in defining "forwardness", such as genetic fitness, selective pressures, population ecology and behavioural ecology. It is not all down to population size. If it were, bacteria and viruses would be the most advanced species we know of, and third world countries - which on average have higher birth rates per capita than Western countries - would be the most advanced human societies. (b) is a good point, however it does not necessarily follow that this makes us a better species, since you have not linked the increased likelihood of individual infant survival to population success. © does not happen as often as you would imagine. It also suggests an artificial mating season or seasons, which is biologically similar to a "natural" mating season. Well, not really. You are just picking out random ecological/social features and claiming they are an advantage without directly comparing them to anything or considering them in context. I would debate that strongly, seeing as species with mating seasons don't seem to have trouble surviving. You still haven't defined what you consider to be "ahead". Not really. Not necessarily. A larger population, for instance, does not automatically mean higher fecundity or better genotypic fitness. Take ants for example - vast populations, virtually no diversity. A large population is generally better for individuals in that population, but it does not always follow that a large population is serving its best interests as a whole. Can you not read? We. Do. Have. A. Mating. Season. Even assuming we had no mating season, I'd love to know how you worked that out, given that Swanson's proposed "clothing and fire" trigger has nothing to do with adapting an environment. Yes, for individuals. Big whoopee. I think you should revise your conclusions, only this time involve some biology in your approach instead of random internet splurge that is coming out of the top of someone's head. It doesn't. How about if we don't randomly assume restrictions that are not valid without an ecological reason? Assuming we didn't have a season, how does it show that? What utter gubbins.

By "special evolution" I am guessing he means "evolution of a species", which would be a fairly pointless term as it is suggestive of a need to distinguish from a scenario where evolution is occuring without a species being present. We qualified biologists call the splitting-off of a new species "speciation". He can call it what he likes; chances are he is copying what some other creationist told him.

Gahhhhhh