@thefinn@VaxxSabbath@Aly You're right about American sensibilities in that regard; 18 is ridiculous, but it's not as simple as a consent age, because you can't just walk away from your teacher if the thing goes sour, you have to see her every day in class and get graded by her.
My first real girlfriend was fifteen, a year younger than me, and we fucked all the time. When she started seeing someone else and I had to find out from her helpful girlfriend, I was crushed, and very glad we didn't attend the same school.
The best qualified was a woman, and he was ready to employ her when he noticed that she'd take a big pay cut from her previous job. Asked about it, she said "I just want to work somewhere without women."
It freaked him out, and he picked a guy instead. Sometimes you can't win.
Here in Denmark, some diversity hire brown girl "journalist" trading in muh racism, went back to Turkey for a holiday and saw that it was being overrun by filthy Arabs.
She had the stones to write about this when she got back to Denmark, admitting that she suddenly understood how Danes felt, but the Schadenfreude was still strong with me.
@doonxib@judgedread He gives you a clear and logical explanation of how evolutionary pressure could effect such a change. You can call it "hypothetical" and "speculative" since we have no fossilized eyes, but give that lack of material evidence, we have little choice but to pick the most likely explanation. And that explanation is natural selection, which has proven its merit over and over and over again, both in the field and in the laboratory.
You apparently do not accept that such a thing as a light-sensitive cell could be created by mutation, so that precludes you from believing in evolution, but IF you were to assume that such a thing might happen, his explanation is perfectly rational and in accordance with what we observe in nature today: eyes of different designs and in different stages of development.
@doonxib@judgedread It's only meaningless jargon if you don't believe in the premises, namely that inheritable, beneficial mutations sometimes happen.
"It's not the best looking nor most talented guy that gets the girl."
Statistically aggregated over millions of individuals and thousands of generations, yes, the best looking or most talented (or most violent) guy gets the girl.
And vice versa, of course. The hottest girl gets the chad; sexual selection is the main contender for an explanation for why blue eyes spread so rapidly.
@doonxib@judgedread "Evolutionary pressure" is shorthand for "the individuals better suited for survival in their given environment have better chances of passing on their genes."
It is perfectly logical, so there's nothing to "get around," and it explains why evolutionary development is anything but random.
@doonxib@judgedread Blindness is not inheritable, it's a pathological condition like Downs syndrome - congenital but not inheritable. Most of the detrimental mutations in the genome are on recessive alleles or (as in the case of niggers) were beneficial until the environment changed.
And if you'd watched that 15-minute Dawkins video (in the 5 minutes it took you write a dismissive reply about it), you'd have understood why half an eye is perfectly serviceable in a world of the blind, ensuring that half-eyed creatures would quickly come to dominate a population.
@doonxib@judgedread They're only functional additions because all the 99.9% fatal mutations are weeded out by natural selection, leaving only (or mostly) the beneficial mutation in the gene pool. And looking back 500 million years, with all the harmful mutations long gone, one might therefore be tempted to say "hey, what a fucking coincidence that all these beneficial traits just happen to pop up in the gene pool in the right order and with the right timing to produce the human eye."
The assumption of intent is left out because the theory of evolution by natural selection works fine without that assumption, same way as Newtonian mechanics does away with the necessity of having angels pushing the planets around.
@doonxib@white_male@judgedread "But, I do believe it is a commonly understood truth that incidental day to day labors bring about far more inventions and discoveries than deliberate activity to find such things"
That is not a commonly understood truth.
And not wanting to offer one single example because muh precious time, is a bit weak. I can name half a dozen examples of the opposite off the top of my head, and dozens more if I had a few minutes to google. In no particular order:
- Radar - Nuclear power - The jet engine - The solid-state semiconductor - Atomic clocks - Inertial navigation - Nylon - Solar panels - X-ray machines
@sickburnbro@TrevorGoodchild@AmonMaritza It's not even a matter of whether Tolkien is good - because taste cannot be disputed - but it is undeniable that Tolkien wrote a unique work of art that stands alone in a category created by itself.
No other book can claim that. In 300 years, LOTR will likely be the only 20th C. novel that's widely read.