On Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:47:19 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
> Dear Craig,
> You have much to learn about evolution. there have been a lot of 
> developments since Darwin. You adhere to a caricature that is outdated. 

Dear Alberto,

You make a lot of assumptions about me and what I should do. I try to avoid 
doing that. It's not polite and it is misinforms others.

> Almost everything can drive to totalitarianism, The idea that nothing is 
> innate drives to totalitarian social engineering. the idea that men are 
> different because they are genetically (innately) different drives to 
> Eugenesism. But I can not see how  the idea that men are genetically 
> (innately) equal could could drive to eugenesism.

I don't know about genetically equal, but I would say that all humans are 
innately potentially equivalent. What might be initially a disadvantageous 
inherited trait may very well turn out to generate a compensating 
intentional trait (i.e. Napoleon), or might find them at an advantage in a 
different set of conditions which arise (i.e. the King of England likes the 
sound of your name and promotes you from hunchback latrine boy to Lord 

I'm not so much concerned about what the effects of the truth might be, or 
which truths should be avoided to be safe. If anything, that is the most 
common impetus for fascism - to herd other human beings like cattle in the 
direction that you deem wise for them. Who appointed you or me shepherd?

> By the way, unless you are a variation of the primeval bacterias (are you 
> a dolphin?) different from my specie, 

(FYI 'species' is the singular form of species. The word specie refers to 
currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie )

you will agree that the fast moral evaluation mechanism that you posted at 
> the beginning of this discussion comes as the result of something. 

Yes, it comes as the result of the nature of awareness and intention as 
more primitive than biology.

>  If you reject natural selection as the process that conform the human 
> psichology as an adaptation to the social and phisical medium, What do you 
> think that produced this remarcable moral ability in humans (and only 
> humans)  apart from natural selection. 

I think that our range of contemporary human capacities are the result of 
countless feedback loops of personal interactions and events on many levels 
simultaneously and sequentially. These range in frequency from the 
sub-personal to the personal to the super-personal and include many genetic 
and environmental factors. As far as the moral ability in the article, I 
don't know that it is more pronounced in humans than in other species, just 
that it is more pronounced in humans than it should be if you believe that 
free will is an illusion.

> The god of diversity? Gaia?  randomness?  State planned education?.  



> 2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
>> 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.
>> Craig
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OiS8g8m6P3EJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> -- 
> Alberto.

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