On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
> Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that "there 
> are othes species where..." Yes. And there are atoms that are radiactive. 
> What are two species to do one with each other?. 

All species are only variations on the same organism.

> As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea horses 
> will be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. This is 
> guaranteed by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of 
> coordinated genes. The people like you that accept the innate , natural 
> -selection driven nature of animal behaviour but reject it form men are 
> victims of a heavy prejuice. 

I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you 
always bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield 
any insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social 
Darwinism, which is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of 
evolutionary biology. Survival of the fittest means only survival of the 
best fit to ecological conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard 
always wins. Just ask the dinosaurs.

> I don´t know if this is political or religious or both. I like to go to 
> the bottom of the motivation of a discussion,. sorry if this is 
> inconvenient. 

It's not inconvenient, it's exposing the left-brain driven defense 
mechanisms which come up in debates. Faced with a more reasonable argument, 
some lash out personally, looking for some motive based on blood or 
character defect so they don't have to face the possibility that they might 
be wrong. It doesn't bother me though, because I debate these issues 
because I am interested in the root of the issue, not the root of the 
personality of those who I am debating with. 

> And I want to know in the name of what the existence of a species-specific 
> nature is worht the title of eugenesist.

I don't understand, but it sounds like you are asking why I would say that 
ideas about inherent gender qualities rooted in immutable evolutionary 
truths are eugenic. If it isn't clear to you then there is nothing that I 
can tell you which will help you see.

> You can demote this at your please, keeping telling about spiritualism or 
> that  there are partenogenetic frogs and there are  planets with no blue 
> skies. There are frogs that sing, by the way. I don´t kniow if this would 
> help to make a point in your argumentation.
> Both of us have have put clear our standpoints.
Sure, although I think that your standpoint is from the 19th century and 
has been factually discredited since then.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to