NationStates Jolt Archive

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas

It's an ignorant perspective.

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas
All depends on your deffinition of "better" dosent it

If not for us, who would propagate the species? ;)

Men and women are of the same species. Neither one can be said to be more successfull than the other from an evolutionary standpoint. However, from an evolutionary standpoint our species is less successfull than ants.

If not for us, who would propagate the species? ;)
That is a moot argument since if not for us, you couldn't propagate the species either.

You're all woman aren't you?

Calas

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas


hahaha thanks.

It's an ignorant perspective.
True. It demonstrates an ignorance of evolution and basic biology.

You're all woman aren't you?

Calas
Nope Cant speek for the others I am not

That is a moot argument since if not for us, you couldn't propagate the species either.



I know, my point is we couldn't survive without one another. Men need women and women need men :D

I know, my point is we couldn't survive without one another. Men need women and women need men :D
Well... then carry on. :cool:

Natural selection doesn't include the ideas of "better" or "worse". That's all social darwinism and has nothing to do with Darwin. It refers to competition between organisms for survival. Men and women are not in competition for survival (because, you know, cooperation between the genders is necessary for species survival), therefore Darwinism doesn't apply. There are still as many women in the world as men (actually a few more, since men are more likely to die in accidents or as a result of violence).

It seems like I remember reading that 51% of the population is women, therefore by "survival of the fittest" you'd have to say that women win. Right? I prefer to think that anyone is capable of achieving whatever they are willing to put in the effort for, regardless of gender.

Men and women are of the same species. Neither one can be said to be more successfull than the other from an evolutionary standpoint. However, from an evolutionary standpoint our species is less successfull than ants.

How would that be?

All great leaders were men
So then, were Catherine the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_the_great), Elizabeth I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I), and Margaret Thatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) were all just one offs then? You, my dear sir, should have spent less time sleeping in History class.
I'd go on, but there are better wastes of time available.

Other: The creator of this poll has a such a hackneyed view of evolution, it makes the Intelligent Design crowd look better.

How would that be? I think he's refering to the fact that there are more ants in the world than humans.

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas

Are you sexist? Darwinism counted in survival of the fittest, but the fittest doesn't mean the strongest, or the smartest. It can also mean the most cunning, or the most intuitive. Men were greater in records and leadership because it was socially preferable for men to be so. Women, while some as good, and some better, were unable because they were at the time thought to be incompetent to do so.

You're also forgetting that woman have made as many progresses as men, as well. They were, however, once again pressured as during the time of genuis for women, witch trials were often common.

The time where woman were overpowered by men came from a social order from when humaniy first became such. Men were much quicker at progressing strength and much more aggressive than women at the time, therefore they were the hunters mostly. Therefore, the women depended on the food brought from the hunts of the men, and so forth the men gained an albeit advantage. Soon enough, it grew into more extremities, and the woman were taken advantage of.

If you think I'm wrong, then let me say this: Wasn't Britain ruled by a woman, and at her rule, the strongest Britain's ever been?

PS. I'm a guy, and I hate feminists, to clear that up.

Men and women are of the same species. Neither one can be said to be more successfull than the other from an evolutionary standpoint. However, from an evolutionary standpoint our species is less successfull than ants.

How do you figure?

Oh, and the topic doesnt make sense as evolution (at least in our species) depends on mating habits. The sexes are not in competition with each other, thus there is no comparision.

Besides, women live longer than men do. There are a whole list of things that women posses over men that im not going to get into. Im really just interested about the ants thing though.

However, from an evolutionary standpoint our species is less successfull than ants.We aren't in competition for the same resources, so not really. Plus, I wiped out a whole ant civilization once with some strategically placed ant bait. I'd like to see an ant to that to my city.

How would that be?
How would what be?

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman.

incorrect. on several levels.

Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

um, i think you probably shouldn't have slept through both biology and health class.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

in other words, trolling.

Other: The creator of this poll has a such a hackneyed view of evolution, it makes the Intelligent Design crowd look better.
Yeah, he seems to have gotten all of his natural selection ideas from social darwinism, which was last considered a viable theory about 100 years ago.

I think he's refering to the fact that there are more ants in the world than humans.

That still doesn't make them more succesful.

So then, were Catherine the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_the_great), Elizabeth I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I), and Margaret Thatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) were all just one offs then? You, my dear sir, should have spent less time sleeping in History class.
I'd go on, but there are better wastes of time available.

The 2nd two were never great leaders

We aren't in competition for the same resources, so not really. Plus, I wiped out a whole ant civilization once with some strategically placed ant bait. I'd like to see an ant to that to my city.
There are more ants alive today than humans. The evolutionary competition is not for size, strength, intelligence or whatever. It's a competition for numbers. How many copies of your DNA can you produce before you die? A Queen ant can crank out millions, perhaps billions in her lifetime.

How would that be?

Turn on the news and see the human world, that's how it can be. But that's another topic all together.

That still doesn't make them more succesful.
Sure it does. Also they've been around longer than us. We're newcommers. They've stood the test of time. The dinosaurs' eggs were prey for ants.

Sure it does. Also they've been around longer than us. We're newcommers. They've stood the test of time. The dinosaurs' eggs were prey for ants.

The only reason we keep them around is so that in the future we can have dancing ants.

That still doesn't make them more succesful.
Evolutionarily, it does.

There are more ants alive today than humans. The evolutionary competition is not for size, strength, intelligence or whatever. It's a competition for numbers. How many copies of your DNA can you produce before you die? A Queen ant can crank out millions, perhaps billions in her lifetime.
Competition is really for survival, not for specific numbers. In fact, despite what people generally think, natural selection refers to competition within species, not between species. Because homo sapiens and ants both continue to survive, we are equally successful.

Hmmmm, I knew this would happen, let's just say they are equal. I'm not sexist, I'm just saying that if you think about it, Darwin's theory could be used by male sexists.

Calas.

P.S. I'm a man, hehehe ;)

There are more ants alive today than humans. The evolutionary competition is not for size, strength, intelligence or whatever. It's a competition for numbers. How many copies of your DNA can you produce before you die? A Queen ant can crank out millions, perhaps billions in her lifetime.

Um.... OK.....

wait, no its not. Its not for numbers at all. Imagine a situation where for every lion there were 5 gazelles. You could say that the gazelles were more evolutionary fit, but youd be wrong. Fact of the matter is that nature needs a balance of sorts, and the food chain needs to be bottom heavy. There are never as many things on top as there are on the bottom. Is plankton more evolved that a whale?

Also, by your logic we totally won the game. The world is suffering horribly from a human overpopulation problem. We are so good we threw off the balance and are destroying the world. GO TEAM!

Sure it does. Also they've been around longer than us. We're newcommers. They've stood the test of time. The dinosaurs' eggs were prey for ants.

Is illogical. You cant compare survival terms until they are both up...

Notice than men have way more votes on the poll.......

Calas

And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them.
Yeah. Right. That´s like saying that the nazis were right, because there is more rasism against coloured people than against white people. If white people weren´t better, how come people of african heritage get themselves into situations where whites were rasist against towards them?
Plainly speaking; that´s an idiotic argument.

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas

I think you may have misunderstood Darwin a little there. SURVIVAL of the fittest means exactly that. Survival, or more specifically, reproduction. For inventing the wheel, discovering radiation or invading Poland, all bets are off. Find a cure for cancer but don't have any surviving children and you're still a loser in evolutionary terms.

Also, since genes were discovered everyone's realised that that's the level at which this takes place. If you really wanterd to get stupid about it, as you clearly do you could say women are winning as all men have one X chromosome.

And no I'm not a chick.

The only reason we keep them around is so that in the future we can have dancing ants.
No, the only reason we keep you alive is so that you'll grow food. We know you'll drop it and we get to feast. You're just farm animals to us.

Notice than men have way more votes on the poll.......

Calas

One more, at the time of writing.

Hardly a majority.

Plus, this forum is mainly guys... so it's not really a suprise.

Hmmmm, I knew this would happen, let's just say they are equal. I'm not sexist, I'm just saying that if you think about it, Darwin's theory could be used by male sexists.


Not at all. Several people have explained why this theory you are explaining has nothing to do with Darwinism. Darwin explains why species evolve; variants within species become better adapted to their ecosystem and thus become the dominant variant of the species in their ecosystem. Over time, adapted variants of species become different species than the one that they evolved from. Darwin did not create some bizarre ranking system for the success of various organisms, much less for judging the superiority or inferiority of the genders.

Is illogical. You cant compare survival terms until they are both up...
Look at it this way. The ony threat to the human species right now is if a huge rock hits the earth and releases more energy than the combined megatonnage of every nuclear weapon on earth. Human civilization will be burned away by a wave of superheated air. The sky will be blackened for months, maybe over a year. No food could be grown by the few surviving humans.

In that situation ants would still survive. The tiny ammount of food and resources needed by an ant collony would make survival for them a snap.

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas

Darwin never argued that better and successful were analogous. Men were better at gaining power, not abstractly better. And people change, so now that women are gaining rights that means they are better at gaining power.

There should be a parody about ants and tissues.

What the hell?


How on earth are your genes supposed to be carried on to the next generation without females? That is what 'fittest' means, you know...


Evolutionary definition: The fittest individual is the one who has the most offspring who also have offspring. Basically, the one with the most grand kids.

give it a few years, and women won't need men to procreate. After removing the genetic material from a womans egg, new from another cell can be inserted, and there you go, a ready-to-grow human....without men...

Competition is really for survival, not for specific numbers. In fact, despite what people generally think, natural selection refers to competition within species, not between species. Because homo sapiens and ants both continue to survive, we are equally successful.
Ants have been surviving, no, thriving relatively unchanged for eons. Humans are newcommers and are more vulnerable to extinction.

give it a few years, and women won't need men to procreate. After removing the genetic material from a womans egg, new from another cell can be inserted, and there you go, a ready-to-grow human....without men...

More then a few years, considering that primates don't work that way. At least, the way cloning is done now.

Try again?

The only reason we keep them around is so that in the future we can have dancing ants.
If anyone is going to try to make the race of ants extinct, good luck to you. I think it was, roughly calculated of course, about 6 billion ant/human. That would make a total of 36 billion+, on all continents, except ANTartica.

Look at it this way. The ony threat to the human species right now is if a huge rock hits the earth and releases more energy than the combined megatonnage of every nuclear weapon on earth. Human civilization will be burned away by a wave of superheated air. The sky will be blackened for months, maybe over a year. No food could be grown by the few surviving humans.

In that situation ants would still survive. The tiny ammount of food and resources needed by an ant collony would make survival for them a snap.

There are many threats to human survival. And if we really wanted to, we could probably destroy all of the ants in the world. It just would make things infinitly harder for us. And the belief that ants would survive your situation is merely theoretical. Human beings have a great ability to adapt when they choose to.

give it a few years, and women won't need men to procreate. After removing the genetic material from a womans egg, new from another cell can be inserted, and there you go, a ready-to-grow human....without men...


Now you've become as bad as the OP!

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas

Obviously written from the perspective of a chauvinstic, mysoginistic male. One question...do you like fast-paced shoot-em-up heavy graphics video games? The kind that you need Flash software to run? Well, news for you, buster...that software was developed by a woman! And I know her, too. Jane Ellen Fairfax. Also, did you know that the ink-jet computer printer and windshield wipers on cars were invented by women?

I have all I can do right now to contain my anger at your post, Calas!! I just cannot believe some of the things you have said!

You think you are so superior to women? Fine, let's see you play tennis against Martina Navratalova or Billie Jean King! Let's see you match wits in science with Madame Curie!

Men always TOOK in this world, by dint of their usually superior physical strength, they took that what they wanted. Takes no brains, whatsoever, to take what you want by brute force. It only takes selfishness and greed to do that!

If selfishness and greed are virtues you extol, well, then, I feel really sorry for you. I better stop here before I start saying some of the things I REALLY want to start saying...and some of them are extremely rude!

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas

ERROR: Misapplied scientific theory...

Opposite sexes are not intercompetitive within the pervue of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection: the theory applies to species and communities; not to individuals!

Overall differeing attributes to the sexes of the species known more popularly as "human" are attributes designed for the competitiveness and survivability of the species as a whole.

Men tend, by biology, to have larger more durable frames, mostly for their initial capacity as hunters and "providers" for the community... Women, on the other hand, tend to be able to endure more pain, have a more complete genome for fending off disease, and longer life-spans; as the biological role of "rearers" in the community unit..... Note this is unit: individually either is incapable of "surviving" (by survival in the sense of Darwin's theory, we mean survival as a "unit", "family" or "group"....)...

Your "opinion" is directly contrary to the purpose form and place whereby Darwin's theories lay; whereby you are found in error...

Ants have been surviving, no, thriving relatively unchanged for eons. Humans are newcommers and are more vulnerable to extinction.
You're missing the point, though. Ants vs. humans is not an issue that has anything to do with Darwinism. Darwinism is an explanation of evolution within species, not a criterion for species vs. species deathmatches. "Survival of the Fittest" refers to variants of a species, and how the fittest will eventually displace the less fit and become the dominant variant. It tells us nothing about the way that ants relate to humans.

What the hell?


How on earth are your genes supposed to be carried on to the next generation without females? That is what 'fittest' means, you know...


Evolutionary definition: The fittest individual is the one who has the most offspring who also have offspring. Basically, the one with the most grand kids.
Huh. That DEFINANTLY makes ants at the top. A queen could get quite a few grandchilds, don´t you think? Also, termites and spiders should be high on the list.

This thread is hilarious in so many, many levels. Thanks! :D
(This is not a joke, is it? I mean, I thought it was a joke for a page... but it's page 4 now...)

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas

Yes, but the theory is for species not genders. Yes, genders have a part in it (Making babies and so on.), but they aren't put against each other for food like, say, Killer Whales and Polar Bears for Ringed Seals.

When you start a thread like this, do some research. Please. Or we'll have the religious nuts appearing...

give it a few years, and women won't need men to procreate. After removing the genetic material from a womans egg, new from another cell can be inserted, and there you go, a ready-to-grow human....without men...

Even if we were close to this type of cloning (were not) it would be a really bad idea to implement. Our species has mechanisms for procreation and evolution that would be rendered useless with this technology, eventually crippiling the human race.

If anyone is going to try to make the race of ants extinct, good luck to you. I think it was, roughly calculated of course, about 6 billion ant/human. That would make a total of 36 billion+, on all continents, except ANTartica.

Actually you need to multiply 6 billion by 6 billion giving you 36 quadrillion, if that is actually a real number.....

Calas

There are many threats to human survival. And if we really wanted to, we could probably destroy all of the ants in the world. It just would make things infinitly harder for us. And the belief that ants would survive your situation is merely theoretical. Human beings have a great ability to adapt when they choose to.
Anything that could wipe out every ant population on earth would make the planet uninhabitable, except perhaps a virus engineered to kill ants. Such a virus would invariably spread to bees and wasps. Then almost every plant that relies on insect polination would go extinct and harmfull insects would breed out of control and eat all of our crops. We'd be reduced to hunting and gathering in an environment poor in edible plants and herbivorous animals. Our population would drop and we'd probably go extinct in a few centuries.

Yes, but the theory is for species not genders. Yes, genders have a part in it (Making babies and so on.), but they aren't put against each other for food like, say, Killer Whales and Polar Bears for Ringed Seals.

When you start a thread like this, do some research. Please. Or we'll have the religious nuts appearing...



/slap


Quit comparing the best institution of mankind to this tripe.

Obviously written from the perspective of a chauvinstic, mysoginistic male. One question...do you like fast-paced shoot-em-up heavy graphics video games? The kind that you need Flash software to run? Well, news for you, buster...that software was developed by a woman! And I know her, too. Jane Ellen Fairfax. Also, did you know that the ink-jet computer printer and windshield wipers on cars were invented by women?

I have all I can do right now to contain my anger at your post, Calas!! I just cannot believe some of the things you have said!

You think you are so superior to women? Fine, let's see you play tennis against Martina Navratalova or Billie Jean King! Let's see you match wits in science with Madame Curie!

Men always TOOK in this world, by dint of their usually superior physical strength, they took that what they wanted. Takes no brains, whatsoever, to take what you want by brute force. It only takes selfishness and greed to do that!

If selfishness and greed are virtues you extol, well, then, I feel really sorry for you. I better stop here before I start saying some of the things I REALLY want to start saying...and some of them are extremely rude!

I never said myself as a singular person was better than the female race, I said that Darwin's theory states that men as an entire race are the superior sex.

Calas

Not that any of this matters. Ive replaced my feet with those of a duck making me more evolutionary fit than the rest of you. Try to evolve me now!

Anything that could wipe out every ant population on earth would make the planet uninhabitable, except perhaps a virus engineered to kill ants. Such a virus would invariably spread to bees and wasps. Then almost every plant that relies on insect polination would go extinct and harmfull insects would breed out of control and eat all of our crops. We'd be reduced to hunting and gathering in an environment poor in edible plants and herbivorous animals. Our population would drop and we'd probably go extinct in a few centuries.

How do you figure? At the current rate of consumption the planet may be uninhabitable in a hundred years. At which time we will be living in space and eating space tonsils. No Ants Needed. Just shot down your lame duck feet theory, didnt I?

Not that any of this matters. Ive replaced my feet with those of a duck making me more evolutionary fit than the rest of you. Try to evolve me now!



You can outswim us but we can outrun you :p

Actually you need to multiply 6 billion by 6 billion giving you 36 quadrillion, if that is actually a real number.....

Calas
6 quintillion, actually. And there aren't that many ants.

I never said myself as a singular person was better than the female race, I said that Darwin's theory states that men as an entire race are the superior sex.

Calas


Just because they've always been in power?

Give me proof (tables, statistics, studies by a reputable source) showing that women can't handle the same amount of power as men (and I swear, if you mention 'because they get pregnant' or 'because they're too moody half the time' I'll hurt you) then I'll give you that mean are better.

Until then, it states nothing... except that men have been power-hungry, greedy, sexist pigs for most of history. :P

I never said myself as a singular person was better than the female race, I said that Darwin's theory states that men as an entire race are the superior sex.

Calas

A "race" biologically (as would apply to the theory) is "An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies."

There is no "male" and "female" races.... male and female are sexual divisions found in most higher species on earth (pretty much from athropods, and up...)

Humans (male and female) are "men" in terms of "race"....

I never said myself as a singular person was better than the female race, I said that Darwin's theory states that men as an entire race are the superior sex.

Calas

And we are trying to tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that Darwin never said anything about any species or gender or anything being "superior". Maybe you should go read some Darwin, or even something about him, rather than picking up what you can from Saved By the Bell reruns.

You can outswim us but we can outrun you :p

Psch, I used the duck feet with the built in jetpacks. try and catch me now. Oh, was that your icecream come? Well, cant get it, because im so fast. BIZOW

How do you figure? At the current rate of consumption the planet may be uninhabitable in a hundred years. At which time we will be living in space and eating space tonsils. No Ants Needed. Just shot down your lame duck feet theory, didnt I?
As if my people would ever let the human infestation of this planet spread. The only reason we don't wipe you out is that it would inconvenience earth's ant population.

:) question:
are you suggesting that one day men will "EVOLVE" to were we dont need women?
:) question:
:) was darwin right¿ in his theory?

Neither one is better than the other, they strike a balance. It takes both to propogate the species, therefore it takes both to make the species better.

Behind every great man, there is a great woman. :fluffle:

As if my people would ever let the human infestation of this planet spread. The only reason we don't wipe you out is that it would inconvenience earth's ant population.

Apparently, you didnt realize it, but I win the conversation. So take that, ants.


Oh, theres an appeals process. But its me all the way up and turtles all the way down. And the turtles side with me.

I think men would be superior to women from an evolutionary standpoint if their genetic variations made it so they didn't need women any longer. Like if men mutated to the point where they could reproduce asexually.

But then technically, would they still be men?

Apparently, you didnt realize it, but I win the conversation. So take that, ants.


Oh, theres an appeals process. But its me all the way up and turtles all the way down. And the turtles side with me.
Just wait until you wake up with a mess of fire ants in your crotch. We'll see if you still feel like a winner.

Just wait until you wake up with a mess of fire ants in your crotch. We'll see if you still feel like a winner.

can we compromise on an organized stack of ants in my crotch?

acctually this is incorrect according to modern Darwinism evolution

If you think about this reall how many men do we acctually need to support a species to prevent it from becoming extinct

If you had 100 females and 1 male as long as there was nothing wrong with the man and he didn't die then your species could well be able breed to a sufficient level to survive

however if you had 100 males and 1 female most species (especially homo sapians sapians which I am assuming all the people on this board are) would probably die out

to put it bluntly in the majority of situations men are relitivly unimportant as women can do all the same tasks with the exception of inseminating women, note they may not be as able at all tasks but the same could be said for men and some tasks women excell at due to the way we work physically.

so basicly men are expendable (as can be shown by the fact that we are more prone to illness under equal circumstances and so on)

This is why in hunter gathering societies men generally did most of the hunting of big dangerous things (i.e. mamoths, bison, etc) while women did the tasks that were less dangerous but more necessary (i.e gathering of seafood, nuts, berrys, smaller prey)

Behind every great man, there is a great woman. :fluffle:
It's better if the man is behind.

6 quintillion, actually. And there aren't that many ants.

Actually, originally in Britain a billion was 10^12 quadrillion actually still is 10^24. So 6 billion ² could be 36 quadrillion.

The only reason it's so messed up is the U.S.A. :mad:

It's better if the man is behind.

I did consider Behind every great man, is a great woman (with a strap on) but I thought it unnecessary.

can we compromise on an organized stack of ants in my crotch?
Fine.

Fine.

too bad

Behind every great man, is a great woman (with a strap on)

How about behind every great man, is a woman with a great strapon

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman.
That's asinine blather, and nothing of what Charles Darwin wrote about.

It'd be comparable to claiming that Karl Marx and Josef Engels were actually addressing Martians when they wrote, 'Workers of the World, unite!'. 'Which world? They weren't specific!'

I never said myself as a singular person was better than the female race, I said that Darwin's theory states that men as an entire race are the superior sex.

Calas

I refuse to contribute further to this thread on the grounds that I am about the width of a Missouri mosquito's eyelash away from spewing all sorts of vicious and hateful flame all over you!

Oh, and seeing as you didn't include any options for the transgendered, I went ahead voted "other".

Just wait until you wake up with a mess of fire ants in your crotch. We'll see if you still feel like a winner.Don't joke about that. It brings back bad memories...:(

(snip) men have been power-hungry, greedy, sexist pigs for most of history. :P

My thoughts exactly.

I refuse to contribute further to this thread on the grounds that I am about the width of a Missouri mosquito's eyelash away from spewing all sorts of vicious and hateful flame all over you!Lyric, chill! Take a break from the thread if you need to.

Men and women are of the same species. Neither one can be said to be more successfull than the other from an evolutionary standpoint. However, from an evolutionary standpoint our species is less successfull than ants.
That depends on how you define "succesful"

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas

from an Evolutionary perspective Humans are successful, but since both human females and human males are extant, from this point of view such a claim ridiculous! Do you even know anything about the theory of evolution, or are you just using your ignorance for trolling (To be fair it was quite a good attempt, and I don't know you, perhaps you genuinely need the attention!!!)

I wish he had just said "men are better than women" and not brought his ridiculous and frankly baffling misunderstanding of Darwin into it (are they already banning evolution from high school biology, or do kids just not pay attention?)

Oh, and seeing as you didn't include any options for the transgendered, I went ahead voted "other".

I always KNEW there was a reason I liked you, Dobbs!!

I refuse to contribute further to this thread on the grounds that I am about the width of a Missouri mosquito's eyelash away from spewing all sorts of vicious and hateful flame all over you!

Lyric, I wouldn't bother. Everyone else on this thread pretty much realizes that his chosen viewpoint makes no sense from a classic Darwinian point of view.

If men are more successful, why are there more women in the world?

I think men would be superior to women from an evolutionary standpoint if their genetic variations made it so they didn't need women any longer. Like if men mutated to the point where they could reproduce asexually.

But then technically, would they still be men?

"Men", as I've stated, are not a "race" (in terms of sex); sexually, males and females of "Homo Sapien Sapien" are "men"... Mutation does not occur independantly; would a segment of the "Homo Sapien Sapien" evolve to reproduce asexually; they would not longer be in the same species as us (Homo Sapien Sapiens); but would be a new subspecies of Hominids.

This, however, is unlikely.... Asexual reproduction is very unreliable; as direct errors in the genes of the parents propagate to the offsping.... Part of the suvivability of the high-suborder species and families of the planet, is due to more stable genetic carriers through expanding the genetic materials passed to off-spring from multiple sources; the evolution of multi-partner sexual reproduction in our orders.

Along many orders, Females are the dominative sex of the species. Amongst all collective organisms, such as Ants, Termites and Bees, the entire Colony is female.... Males are produced by the colony only during mating periods to fertilize new queens (the males die shortly afterwards)... In many other groups of insects and arachnids, the females are physically larger and stronger than their male counterparts... Mating generallt resulting in the loss of the male's life (as food in some cases; some species of spiders, after mating, paralyze their mate, and then implant their eggs in the males body to act as host-food for the babies which hatch.... the Mantis females eat the males after mating...). Along many higher-order placental mamals, familiar groups are dominated by females... This can be found in Lion Prides; where the Male is a virtual outsider, not much more than a "sperm donor" for the females during mating periods... second-class members of the pride at other times; who do not even get food (which is hunted by the females of hte pride) untill after all the females and cubs have eaten...

This is all part of the development of the differing species community structures to best ensure the survivability of the group as a whole.... Differing species, groups and families compete to lead to the advancement of the species as a whole.... It's not singular organism vs. singular organism...

For the sake of clarifying a misconception that the Original Poster made, I offer you this:
When people hear the phrase "survival of the fittest" they are likely to think of the great biologist Charles Darwin. The phrase in fact appears to have been coined by a contemporary of Darwin's, the philosopher Herbert Spencer.
Source (http://www2.truman.edu/~rgraber/cultev/spencer.html)

Lyric, chill! Take a break from the thread if you need to.

Hey...who died and made you a Mod? chill, yourself! You didn't even READ my response before posting this!

I already said I refused to further contribute to the thread BECAUSE I was very close to spewing out a bunch of rude and hateful things at the OP.

I don't believe in Darwin's theories but I see a large flaw in this topic.

Even if it is proven to be a sexist theory, it does nothing to discredit it.

Or did I misinterpret the objective of this thread?

"Men", as I've stated, are not a "race" (in terms of sex); sexually, males and females of "Homo Sapien Sapien" are "men"... Mutation does not occur independantly; would a segment of the "Homo Sapien Sapien" evolve to reproduce asexually; they would not longer be in the same species as us (Homo Sapien Sapiens); but would be a new subspecies of Hominids.

This, however, is unlikely.... Asexual reproduction is very unreliable; as direct errors in the genes of the parents propagate to the offsping.... Part of the suvivability of the high-suborder species and families of the planet, is due to more stable genetic carriers through expanding the genetic materials passed to off-spring from multiple sources; the evolution of multi-partner sexual reproduction in our orders.

Along many orders, Females are the dominative sex of the species. Amongst all collective organisms, such as Ants, Termites and Bees, the entire Colony is female.... Males are produced by the colony only during mating periods to fertilize new queens (the males die shortly afterwards)... In many other groups of insects and arachnids, the females are physically larger and stronger than their male counterparts... Mating generallt resulting in the loss of the male's life (as food in some cases; some species of spiders, after mating, paralyze their mate, and then implant their eggs in the males body to act as host-food for the babies which hatch.... the Mantis females eat the males after mating...). Along many higher-order placental mamals, familiar groups are dominated by females... This can be found in Lion Prides; where the Male is a virtual outsider, not much more than a "sperm donor" for the females during mating periods... second-class members of the pride at other times; who do not even get food (which is hunted by the females of hte pride) untill after all the females and cubs have eaten...

This is all part of the development of the differing species community structures to best ensure the survivability of the group as a whole.... Differing species, groups and families compete to lead to the advancement of the species as a whole.... It's not singular organism vs. singular organism...


True. The female preying mantis actually initiates copulation by ripping the male's head off. Apparently, the male cannot copulate if his head is still attached to his shoulders. Hmmmm....I could make a comment on that, but I'll refrain....

"Men", as I've stated, are not a "race" (in terms of sex); sexually, males and females of "Homo Sapien Sapien" are "men". snip .

My post was kind of a joke, but erm, thanks for the explanation!

I'm at a loss about the lion reference as every documentary I've seen about lions feeding shows the male eating alongside the females. :confused:

True. The female preying mantis actually initiates copulation by ripping the male's head off. Apparently, the male cannot copulate if his head is still attached to his shoulders. Hmmmm....I could make a comment on that, but I'll refrain....
The male can copulate with his head intact, but since the neurons responsible for sexual inhibition and fear of predators are located in his head, and those responsible for copulation are a few millimeters above his abdomen, in his lower thorax, removing the head makes him a better lover.

I don't believe in Darwin's theories but I see a large flaw in this topic.

Even if it is proven to be a sexist theory, it does nothing to discredit it.

Or did I misinterpret the objective of this thread?


...the theory says *nothing* about sexes. It's talking about variants in a species.

Say.. feathered wings vs. bat wings in a species. Webbed feet vs. unwebbed. Not male vs. female, as that'd just kill a species.

I think the main theory as to why mammals developed bigger and stronger males is that males were in competition for females. Because female mammals have smaller litters, a male could only insure the survival of his genetic line by impregnating as large a number of females as possible. This meant, however, that there were not enough females to go around. So the stronger men would tend to win out in the inevitable battles to have sex with the women.

You could extrapolate this in a way that explains a good portion of what men have accomplished as an vestige of that primal competitive instinct, with the attention of females always an implicit or explicit goal. Of course, this doesn't necessarily explain the ambitions of gay men.

I don't believe in Darwin's theories but I see a large flaw in this topic.

Even if it is proven to be a sexist theory, it does nothing to discredit it.

Or did I misinterpret the objective of this thread?
While Darwin's theories had a few flaws that other scientists have corrected, they are, on the whole, true and verifiable.

Why would you not believe in them?

Lyric, chill! Take a break from the thread if you need to.


How thick is a Missouri mosquito's eyelash anyway?

For the sake of clarifying a misconception that the Original Poster made, I offer you this:

Source (http://www2.truman.edu/~rgraber/cultev/spencer.html)



Then shouldn't it be called Social Spencerism? :eek:

We only see it in mammals where the males compete with each other for mates. Larger mammals have an advantage in intimidating or fighting for females. That's what the essay I read by the late Steven Jay Gould said anyway.
Yeah, that's what I said. And it really comes down to the fact that mammals have relatively small litters. A fish, for example, can fertilized thousands and thousands of eggs at a time. A female human very rarely has more than one child at a time, and usually just one (before modern medicine, twins would have been very dangerous for the mother). Considering that premodern infant mortality rates were well above 50%, any man sticking to one female would have been very unlikely to pass on his genetics.

Yeah, that's what I said. And it really comes down to the fact that mammals have relatively small litters. A fish, for example, can fertilized thousands and thousands of eggs at a time. A female human very rarely has more than one child at a time, and usually just one (before modern medicine, twins would have been very dangerous for the mother). Considering that premodern infant mortality rates were well above 50%, any man sticking to one female would have been very unlikely to pass on his genetics.
Sorry. I gotta stop skimming posts and actually reading all of them.

Then shouldn't it be called Social Spencerism? :eek:
It is sometimes called Spencerism. In fact, most people who study the topic consider that a more appropriate term for it considering that it's relationship to Darwinism is pretty shallow.

Hey...who died and made you a Mod? chill, yourself! You didn't even READ my response before posting this!

I already said I refused to further contribute to the thread BECAUSE I was very close to spewing out a bunch of rude and hateful things at the OP.Yes I did. Lyric, I'm not a mod, I'm trying to give you good advice because I think you're a nice person that can easily get out of hand. I read your post and it sounded pretty riled to me.
If you don't want my advice, I will not give it to you in the future, but please note that I wouldn't say this to anyone that I'd like to get in trouble with the mods.

Then shouldn't it be called Social Spencerism? :eek:Basically, yes. The idea that evolution is about the survival of the fittest isn't quite appropriate. Needless to say, if that's how the arguement went, neither men nor women are superior to each other with that respect, since it's evident that neither women nor men have died out, nor is it likely that either of them would survive without the other, as you said. The premise that men are superior to women according to Calas is quite misguided.

give it a few years, and women won't need men to procreate. After removing the genetic material from a womans egg, new from another cell can be inserted, and there you go, a ready-to-grow human....without men...
yeah but then who would take the trash out and open the pickle jar?

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.
You say this as though each sex was a separate race. This amuses me.

Anyway, I believe you are misapplying the theory of evolution here. It isn't about who is dumber and who is smarter, it is about which traits survive and which traits do not. Women exist, and are quite necessary for the continuation of the species, therefore it is obvious that being a woman isn't a detrimental trait. If it were, women would be bred out of the population.

You seem to be one of those who is trying to apply Darwin's theorems to social situations, if I am understanding you correctly. I don't think they apply there quite as well.
Unless every single piece of one's personality and every choice one will make is hardwired into one's genetics, then there are situations in society (oppression of women and such) which are caused by choices made by people, rather than created out of one gene being more fit than another. This would mean that Darwin's theories say nothing that.

Oh jayzez. I'm dying of laughter here. Darwin's survival of the fittest is just "The Survivor - BackwaterislandWithoutatoilet" - now!?!

ok, GENDER isn't a RACE... nuff said really.

(side note: if it was, you would be contributing to the downfall of whatever gender you are by saying it is... silly silly)

Nature provided that in most species besides human that it is the male that must win the female through displays of plumage, their song, or their scent.

In the human species women have to 1. put up with sexist men 2. endure periods 3. bear children and 4. go through menopause .. now you tell me which gender is superior.

Signed,
An enlightened male

Yes I did. Lyric, I'm not a mod, I'm trying to give you good advice because I think you're a nice person that can easily get out of hand. I read your post and it sounded pretty riled to me.
If you don't want my advice, I will not give it to you in the future, but please note that I wouldn't say this to anyone that I'd like to get in trouble with the mods.

Well it is rather annoying when you say it in response to MY response that I already am refusing to contribute further to the thread....

Ants are arguably the greatest success story in the history of terrestrial metazoa. On average, ants monopolize 15-20% of the terrestrial animal biomass, and in tropical regions where ants are especially abundant, they monopolize 25% or more.

From http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/26/14028.

A few notes:

E.O. Wilson posited the existence of around 10 million billion individual ants (of a cumulative weight greater than that of humanity in its entirety) and approximately 20,000 species thereof (other sources feel 30,000 a distinct possibility). Definite formicids have been recovered from Gallic Cretaceous strata (anatomically modern H. sapiens emerged some 160,000 to 200,000 years ago). The structural and behavioral diversity, ecological significance, and ubiquity of the Formicidae is staggering.

If anyone is going to try to make the race of ants extinct, good luck to you. I think it was, roughly calculated of course, about 6 billion ant/human. That would make a total of 36 billion+, on all continents, except ANTartica.

Apparently you have never heard of a joke.

Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

Calas

Women are "stupider". Hahahahahahaha... stupider. You made my day. I don't even have to argue this on the basis of one word. Stupider.

Women are "stupider". Hahahahahahaha... stupider. You made my day. I don't even have to argue this on the basis of one word. Stupider.

...9 pages and no one caught that?

:eek:

Academics have known for decades that Darwin was an idiot all in all.. so what he thought really means nadda!

Academics have known for decades that Darwin was an idiot all in all.. so what he thought really means nadda!
Those same academics know that labels don't mean much. Darwin might have been an idiot (news to me, btw) and Einstein might have been a dyslectic. Their work still rates somewhat above 'nadda'.

Those same academics know that labels don't mean much. Darwin might have been an idiot (news to me, btw) and Einstein might have been a dyslectic. Their work still rates somewhat above 'nadda'.

Fair enough.. but Darwinism died decades ago as irrelevant, impractical and simply wrong! His theories that is.

Fair enough.. but Darwinism died decades ago as irrelevant, impractical and simply wrong! His theories that is.
Sure, decades ago. As a person of subnormal intelligence... perhaps not.
Edit: lol... yes.. -ism.

Fair enough.. but Darwinism died decades ago as irrelevant, impractical and simply wrong! His theories that is.
Darwinism isn't dead. It just underwent some revision, mostly incorporating genetics and punctuated equilibrium. Now it's called Neo-Darwinism.

Now it's called Neo-Darwinism.

If that's anything like "Neo-Con" I rest my case..lol

Survival of the fittest would surely not apply to specific genders as it is basically the passing on of useful traits to offspring via DNA, therefore requiring both males and females. However in the modern world evolution of the human species is somewat different as with the aid of modern healthcare individuals who would not have otherwise survived to breed and therefore pass on DNA and traits to offspring, can now do so.

If that's anything like "Neo-Con" I rest my case..lolSteph, could you explain what you think Darwinism is then (aside from "wrong")?

I think we are equal, although men kick ass in rational thinking and generosity. No offense, but in most cases.

Men are better than women in some areas, while women are better than men in others.

The entireity of Darwin's scientific work is too simple and in many cases bunk, when viewed through modern DNA science. First I doubt that he ever made such judgement between men and women, even if it was already the stereotype of his lifetime. Second, men and women have such similar talents, abilities and ethics in today's society that given the chance, any can be an expert. Who knows what a man will excell at or that a woman will excell at? Let each do what they know best. Men and Women are a team, not a war.

Academics have known for decades that Darwin was an idiot all in all.. so what he thought really means nadda!
*is perplexed*
I had thought that you supported the theories of evolution in the past?

Technically, males are stronger, faster, and have better motor control.
Females can withstand more Gs, withstand more pain, and have better balance.

In either case, what's really important is equal in both male and female. Intellegence.

*is perplexed*
I had thought that you supported the theories of evolution in the past?
I thought that too. Oddly, the last few posts don't have the same style as her normal posts. I'm beginning to suspect that her account was hijacked.

Women are "stupider". Hahahahahahaha... stupider. You made my day. I don't even have to argue this on the basis of one word. Stupider.

Nice pick!! I was too fucking MAD when I read this bullshit to notice it. Glad you picked up on it, though.

Nice pick!! I was too fucking MAD when I read this bullshit to notice it. Glad you picked up on it, though.Didn't you say you weren't going to post here anymore? :p

If that's anything like "Neo-Con" I rest my case..lol
Aha, it's exactly like neo-con in the same sense that aged wine is like aged fruit....and new shoes are like new diseases....

As for the vote, I really dont know who is auperior, mostly because I'm not entirely certain what auperior means... :confused:

Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Men must be better because they have been more succesful than woman. Survival of the fittest. If that is true then men are better because they are in the position of power. Men have succeded more than women throughout history as the most succesful sex. All great leaders were men, most great inventors were men, record breakers, you name it. And if men were not better than women, why did women get themselves into the situation where men were sexist towards them. Even if women were better, that one point proves they are stupider than men and don't deserve to get a chance at being the superior race.

I'll probably get flamed out of it for this but it's not my opinion, just looking at this age old argument from a different perspective.

Calas


dont mean to be disrespectful.. but honestly, you came up with your illogical conclusion without actually knowing Darwin's Theory of Evolution.


FIRST OF ALL.... MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT DIFFERENT RACES.... they are humans.. and of the same race.. therefore they do not evolve separately from each other.

Darwin's theory of evolution deals with SURVIVAL of the fittest. You are taking SURVIVAL, and making it into a type of social darwinism. Both Men and Women are needed for the success of the HUMAN RACE... becuase if you knew ANYTHING about Darwin's theory of evolution... individuals do not evolve, entire races evolve over hundreds of generations. So it is not only incorrect in theory that Men are more evolved... but it is completely undescribed in your less-than-descent introduction to this thread.