Your Definition of Non-Violent Protests

[Philly]

[The Dharma Bum]

[Philly]

[Gremlin]

"Definition of Non-Violent Protests"


There is no such thing, resistance is terrorism.

[John Galt]

[Philly]

[John Galt]

natural selection favors the individual who can survive (to reproduce). sexual selection only favors its ability to reproduce (such as the male praying mantis). it's also for ability to signify hey i'm of your species, so let's f**k. it's part of it, but it's not just survival of the fittest genes. and no, long tail feathers are not the fittest. for example, it's theorized that the irish elk, which had the largest antlers of any deer known, was driven to bigger and bigger antlers through sexual selection, favoring the larger ones, that eventually made them unfit to live, because they were so unwieldly. my point was more generalized that it's okay to talk about problems with the theory, but the fact still is species change over time

[broken robot]

galt, sexual selection is still a form of natural selection. if a peacock for example has plumage that attracts mates but undermines its ability to survive in other areas, as long as it aids its overall reproductive fitness it's still considered an individual trait that is selected for according to basic underlying principles of natural selection. essentially, costs and benefits. in the case of natural selection, we don't care what happens to the individual itself, what matter is its reproductive fitness; meaning, fitness is defined as the ability to pass on traits. in that sense, the peacock plumage is the "fittest" trait if it aids an individual in overall reproductive success. that's the baseline in darwin's theory. similar way of explaining altruism too. kin will protect other kin even if their own reproductive fitness suffers so long as the coefficient of relatedness is high enough that it's likely the ones they protect share the same alleles.

darwin's theory ran into issues explaining variation in populations, particularly how it's maintained, and for that we have mendel who identified genetic variation (particularly as expressed through different combinations of alleles). both these figures contributed to modern population genetics, and we now have a remarkably consistent understanding of natural selection (a set of scientific principles) that supports the theory of evolution.

nevermind trying to explain any of the above to creationists however. once had a religious teacher ask us "if humans evolved from apes, why are apes still around?" basically you need to understand the totality of scientific principles in order to make the proper inferences about how natural selection operates, otherwise you're left with a bunch of stuff that seems to contradict common sense (also why people say things like, "it's just as likely a tornado would blow through a junkyard and create a boeing 747 as it is if such a complex creature as humans were to have evolved")

[Philly]

Forget I asked.

[broken robot]

No one cares.