Tres Juicy

Even so, without selection pressure the overall tend can be towards a smaller weaker species

How are these two statements not horribly contradictory? Isn't belief in god just belief in magic? If not please explain the difference

Ok, you're entitled to your own opinion and your own beliefs but if thats your veiw why bother with science at all? Why not just explain everything with magic and be done with it? Surely it's more satisfying to get to the truth? No? Magic it is then...

Surely any perceived fulfillment is just a placebo? Yes, there are suicide bombers who believe they'll go to heaven There are other, more tangible things that inspire hope Yes they do, and because they are based in reallity they are more valuable than those that are not Of course. Fulfillment cannot come from false hopes and fairy tales about magical creator gods

Again these are genetic traits, not aquired ones. If someone is not naturally suited to a sport but dedicates their life to it and becomes good these newly aquired traits will not be passed on

I dont think that is what was intended by the OP

This will not affect evolution. Evolution selects for genetic traits rather than aquired ones.

Externalised evolution?

Evolution will still happen due to random mutations but the variables that have changed recently (using "recently" fairly loosely here) are: A) natural selection due to predation. We are no longer experiencing selection pressure to be physically fit or healthy (strong, fast etc...) B) Diet and lifestyle. We eat crap these days and sit around too much C) Detrimental mutations which would have killed off our ancestors (usually through predation) are now fairly easy to deal with and certainly won't kill us, meaning they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation These things will affect how we evolve in the future. It would be interesting to experiment on a species that reproduces quickly to see what affect these changes have on evolution (fat lazy fruit flies with more than usual defective genes maybe?)

J'allais à utiliser "Très drôle"

*Surreptitiously sets up new account*

A) I see no evidence of your posts being unfairly "Negged" B) There is a massive difference between being a visionary and just being wrong (evidence usually) C) I have never seen anyone complain so much. You have posted under 4 different names, you have copy and pasted other peoples work into your posts and passed it off as your own, you make extraordinary claims without any evidence to back them up and when they are refuted you write a long post complaining and compare yourself to Galileo and copernicus - Really? Yet, you still receive fair treatment from the staff and members alike (even when they disagree with you or when you are in breach of the rules) What do you have to complain about?

Surely that's the point? If everyone went back in time, who would know?

Conversely, we have all heard of unicorns....

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... -- Richard P. Feynman From Dr Rockets sig

Is this a joke?

Moron...

What was your first clue?

I disagree. And I'm certainly not saying that colour perception is a learned behaviour. What I am saying is that, whatever your perception, the names of colours remain the same. What part of this do you not understand?

Just to confirm, in the six pages of text so far, has anyone presented any evidence either way?

One of my favourite quotes is: "Only an idiot makes broad generalisations"

What happened to my ability to spell and use words in this post?!

I once had aguy know my door, who after a heated debate, tried to punch me in the face. I deftly avoided his rather inept attemp at violence and told him that he had proved my point with his actions and shut the door. Oh how I laughed that day

They are delicious. Similarly, I would get strange responses in America if I said "I'm going to smoke a fag"