Happy Valentine's Day!

Joe wrote:

Phryne wrote:
for a few years, the group was kept alive by these individuals. whatever their views and your opinion of them, they are professional philosophers.
Phryne wrote:
i've watched you lose debates to them, and it was because you lacked skill at debate, not because you were wrong (which sucks for the peanut gallery cuz someone has to defend Hume, and we can't hang with enrolled, book-writing, professional philosophers).

Keep this in mind: Norton and Steven are "professional philosophers". They know absolutely nothing about evolutionary biology, yet - in their minds, they control every aspect of it! To them and you - since I would not deny the existences of things known to exist in nature, i.e. insect mate preferences and nuptial gifts, I deserve a sound drubbing for refusing to appoint them as chief-engineers in the Darwinian demolition project. After all, redefining science into farce is "skill at debate". Below - from an earlier thread, Norton did not even know that scorpionfiles are not flies! No one can win or lose a debate about science (when science is murdered) - 'cuz no debate occurs.

Steven wrote:
Joe wrote:
Lord Norton wrote:
The whole gifts thing sounds like a word game to state a regulatory process that has more to do with fertility than anything. It has nothing to do with rape or preferences just optimal breeding. The fly is going to breed regardless if the chemicals being produced by the opposite sex are appropriate.

There is no absurd gift giving cultural societal thing among flies. That is at best artistic interpretation. It's cute if you are writing haiku about it or something. What I mean is even that observation of the gift giving is subjective.

This garbage data you provided is not relevant.

Logos Logica

The gifts are described by biologists as: "a mass of hardened saliva they have produced, or a dead insect". Perhaps, data is relevant to the study of scorpionflies?

Whaz da Purpus of Valentine's Dayzorz!?

I'll tell you "Whaz da Purpus" of nuptial gifts. They are an instance of Darwin's "male ornaments". Preference for ornaments, i.e. sexual selection pushes evolution in sexually reproducing species. If there were no "male ornaments" in the archaic lineage which led to Homo Sapiens, then - according to evolutionary biology, the "professional philosophers" would not exist! By denouncing me for refusing to deny what exists in reality, inferentially the cultists (who claim to be evolutionists) deny their own existences as Homo Sapiens. Have you not grasped this irony?

Science ranges-over fundamental features of reality. By denying it, insoluable paradoxes ensue. Should a Fundamentalist drastically bend the data, terms, etc. of evolutionary theory into refuting evolution with word-spells - which would (somehow?) confirm the Genesis account's origin of life - under your own rule that equivocation is "skill at debate", you could not criticize him.

Norton has the IQ of a snap-bean. He believes his own theory: "The fly is going to breed regardless if the chemicals being produced by the opposite sex are appropriate." trumps 140+ years of biology. I wrote an essay, quoting from and linking to about 10 experiments. In the research, his "chemicals" are identified as "pheromones" - one of many sexually selectable, traits carried by male insects. I pleaded all to read my essay - instead of attacking me like rabid animals.

You, Norton, Khuno, JoshingThySelf, Nate, Steven and the rest of the cult are sub-savages with merely the thinnest covering of human skin, preventing you from being shot by hunters or captured (and penned) by zoo-keepers. You all belong with your heads mounted on a wall or in a zoo, cut off forever from humans and their culture. Sub-savages should be shot, looked at or petted, not given the run of the biology show...