The Pub - Discuss Anything

[Dion 2,476]

You mean people are attracted to people with different traits and characters to them. That is completely different. We cannot be attracted to people with different DNA simply because we can't tell what their DNA is without scientific experiments. And even that is not entirely true. If you are a very organized person, it is less likely that you find someone who is messy attractive.

On any account, the theory that Tom is referring to (Westermarck Mechanism) states that you have a mechanism in your brain that makes you not get attracted to people who you spend a lot of your early life with.

No, I was talking in biological sense. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/dmarck.html

[Stingray 9,441]

There is nothing weird or Lamarckian about my ideas.

1. Is incest wide spread? No. Check the HRAF database. The worlds biggest database on ethnographic, historical and anthropological material.

2. Is incest avoidance universal? Yes. Check Donald Brown's world renowned scietific list of human universals. Google is your friend.

3. Is the work of Debra Lieberman a - mere possibility? No, it is amongst the finest work in psychology the last decade and is also thus regarded among scientists. It is an empirical work that doesnt rely on a 'gene' for anything. That is a pure strawman attack. Instead, google Westermarck hypotheses if you want to know the mechanism in which pur brain deciphers our 'kin'. You don't need a gene. You have genes that build brains, brains that have computatinal algorithms. Algorithms that - yes - install an avoidance mechanism. Just because the mechanism is fast and frugal doesnt mean it cannot make errors. Some people actually live a sibling in a sexual way. This does not falsify the hypotheses.

4. You said avoidance of homosexuals ..... So i wanted to joke actually that the only reason to avoid them is to not get your butt hurt. Do we have a gene for homosexuality. No. It is an epigenetic thing. Somethingi expalined in here a long time ago. hutcho found it boring :-) so i will not repeat.

5. Is my reasoning Lamarckianist? No. That is quite the insult :-). It is a purely adaptationist way of thinking. One in which you use teleological language, but that is standard in the field.

Enough of this. I get annoyed.

Ps: ow ..... I just finished my last two days at work debatig evolution against fundamentalistic mulsims. So excuse me I dont feel all that happy about the subject. I am in the mood for some religion bashing though. Who takes it up? My tolerance level for dogmatic stupidity has reached a new low. Try me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[DustinC 136]

Ummmmm.........

I think I clicked on the wrong thread. Sorry, I'll be off to The Pub now.

[Dion 2,476]

There is nothing weird or Lamarckian about my ideas. 1. Is incest wide spread? No. Check the HRAF database. The worlds biggest database on ethnographic, historical and anthropological material. 2. Is incest avoidance universal? Yes. Check Donald Brown's world renowned scietific list of human universals. Google is your friend. 3. Is the work of Debra Lieberman a - mere possibility? No, it is amongst the finest work in psychology the last decade and is also thus regarded among scientists. It is an empirical work that doesnt rely on a 'gene' for anything. That is a pure strawman attack. Instead, google Westermarck hypotheses if you want to know the mechanism in which pur brain deciphers our 'kin'. You don't need a gene. You have genes that build brains, brains that have computatinal algorithms. Algorithms that - yes - install an avoidance mechanism. Just because the mechanism is fast and frugal doesnt mean it cannot make errors. Some people actually live a sibling in a sexual way. This does not falsify the hypotheses. 4. You said avoidance of homosexuals ..... So i wanted to joke actually that the only reason to avoid them is to not get your butt hurt. Do we have a gene for homosexuality. No. It is an epigenetic thing. Somethingi expalined in here a long time ago. hutcho found it boring :-) so i will not repeat. 5. Is my reasoning Lamarckianist? No. That is quite the insult :-). It is a purely adaptationist way of thinking. One in which you use teleological language, but that is standard in the field. Enough of this. I get annoyed. Ps: ow ..... I just finished my last two days at work debatig evolution against fundamentalistic mulsims. So excuse me I dont feel all that happy about the subject. I am in the mood for some religion bashing though. Who takes it up? My tolerance level for dogmatic stupidity has reached a new low. Try me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It's just because the way you spoke, it seemed like evolution went that way because it was needed, but evolution goes by "random" natural selection, not because something is or isn't needed. My Biology teacher hated when people made statements that way, he used to say that was a Lamarckist way of thinking. Even though I never saw a close relation to Lamarckism in that way of speech, I wanted to have a laugh at you by being picky

[CHOULO19 24,332]

No, I was talking in biological sense. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/dmarck.html

Ah yes, I've read about this before. But like I said, the mechanism speaks about avoidance of people who you spend your early life with.

[Dion 2,476]

Ah yes, I've read about this before. But like I said, the mechanism speaks about avoidance of people who you spend your early life with.

Probably both are factors.

[Stingray 9,441]

No, I was talking in biological sense. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/dmarck.html

Ah yes, I've read about this before. But like I said, the mechanism speaks about avoidance of people who you spend your early life with.

Exactly, that is the best way we hace to recognize kin. And this is an evolutionary mechanism. But a very fast and frugal one ..... It makes errors.

Also: the taboo in itself is something we do in a rotual context. It always happens that way ... If we eat the 'body of Christ' in church. It is the same ...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[yuvala 2,167]

Btw, incest is legal in Israel. Only country in Asia.

yea.. but it's against Judaism. Not that im religious or anything.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I am in the mood for some religion bashing though. Who takes it up? My tolerance level for dogmatic stupidity has reached a new low. Try me.

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php Bash away.

[Dion 2,476]

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php Bash away.

I click. I read the website title. I quit.

If anyone could go beyond that, report your findings.

[Barbara 15,149]

Ah yes, I've read about this before. But like I said, the mechanism speaks about avoidance of people who you spend your early life with.

the fact remains it's very difficult for people who aren't part of Muslim culture to understand how the values are completely different and how for them many things that apply to occidental world don't apply to them. So they take their western studies and try to make it fit in all cultures where it mainly only applies to occidental culture in general... regardless of where that reaches. It doesn't reach some of the Muslim world, tribes in Africa, some Asian cultures. But still they label the entire humankind and put it into their so small box.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

yea.. but it's against Judaism. Not that im religious or anything.

Good. So you there is absolutely nothing stopping you from sleeping with your hot sister

Kidding, of course.

[Dion 2,476]

Good. So you there is absolutely nothing stopping you from sleeping with your hot sister

Kidding, of course.

Kidding... right!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I click. I read the website title. I quit.

If anyone could go beyond that, report your findings.

I got to a thread that tries to explain how the moon is just a optical illusion created by the reflection of the sun light off the sides of the huge "Snowball" that the earth and sun are apparently in.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go jump off the building roof..

[CHOULO19 24,332]

the fact remains it's very difficult for people who aren't part of Muslim culture to understand how the values are completely different and how for them many things that apply to occidental world don't apply to them. So they take their western studies and try to make it fit in all cultures where it mainly only applies to occidental culture in general... regardless of where that reaches. It doesn't reach some of the Muslim world, tribes in Africa, some Asian cultures. But still they label the entire humankind and put it into their so small box.

Amen to that although it is only natural. No theory can fit all the cases. All scientists should know that.