Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
OK let’s move away from the edge of religious discussion whilst we’re still on the right side of it

Yep, I agree.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
*snipped long-ass post*

Welcome to Q-Anon! They also think JFK Jr. will be Trump's running mate in 2020. Yes, the dead guy.

Q posts are the modern versions of Nostradamus quatrains.

Vague and broad enough to be (re)interpreted as really specific in hind sight, but utterly useless to actually predict anything.
As with Nostradamus, those crumbs that doesn't pan out are simply ignored.

Those who doesn't know history are doomed to repeat it.

TBF i'd vote for the dead JFK. However if he'd find out he'd be running mate to trump i rekon he'd shoot himself again.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also a general trait of the Conspirasphere.

Any predictions/claims tend to be wide, and sometimes loony, enough that sooner or later, if one squints in the right way, parts look to be correct.

Remember "the Bible code" from the 90s? You put the Bible through an algorithm and it pumped out predictions about all events in human history.

What wasn't explained at the time was that the Bible in English is a bastardised affair that was deliberately misspelled with poor grammar to give it unwarranted gravitas, making it less divinely inspired and more manufactured gibberish, and that you got identical results regardless of which version of the Bible you used.

You would get the same results whether you used a Bible, the collected works of Shakespeare or the combined Flashman chronicles.


Then there was the ley-lines skit on QI which proved how magical and mystical the positioning of Woolworths shops were.

People see what they want to see.

This site has some great random correlations of data on it, conspiracy theorists would get their minds blown...

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

For the sheer randomness of it, I rather like how the number of people drowning by falling into a pool correlates with the number of films Nicholas Cage appeared in...

Cage Films are really that bad it seems

Oh man that reminds me of the conspiracy theory that Outback was positioning their restaurants to conduct satanic rituals in cities.



Outback's official twitter thread claimed it had to do with Bloomin' Onions.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Oh man that reminds me of the conspiracy theory that Outback was positioning their restaurants to conduct satanic rituals in cities.

Spoiler:

Outback's official twitter thread claimed it had to do with Bloomin' Onions.

Outback is probably babies first attempt at satanist corporation ritual over city.

Steelmage99 wrote:
No, it would be a hypothesis (barely), that requires evidence before belief is justified.....and definitely before retelling as fact (hidden by the standard excuse of "I am just asking questions").

Indeed, here I believe you are on the "right track." To me, I think I'd generally take the same sort of approach that Cass Sunstein does in Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas (you can read the initial paper here which is a bit lighter on the details), which goes something like this (I'll quote the book, but the paper has similar parts):

Start with what he refers to as a sort of crippled epistemology: "In some domains, people suffer from what Professor Russell Hardin has called a crippled epistemology, in the sense that they know relatively few things, and what they know is wrong."

Add to that the fact that there is a sort of economy to what he called "conspiracy entrepreneurs:" "Some conspiracy entrepreneurs are entirely sincere; others are interested in money or fame, or in achieving some general social goal. In the context of the AIDS virus, a diverse set of people have initiated rumors, many involving conspiracies, and, in view of the confusion and fear surrounding that virus, several of those rumors spread widely"

Then, consider how people find themselves within "information cascades:" "Conspiracy cascades arise through more complex processes in which people’s diverse thresholds are important. In the standard pattern, the conspiracy theory is initially accepted by people with low thresholds for its acceptance; as we have seen, some people do have such thresholds. Perhaps the theory will be limited to such people. But sometimes the informational pressure, based on the shared judgments of those people, builds to the point where many other people, with somewhat higher thresholds, begin to accept the theory too. As those with higher thresholds accept the theory, the pressure continues to build, to the point where a large number of people end up accepting it. As we shall see, this outcome is especially likely in close-knit or isolated social networks." For more on this, consider part of his source material here.

Next, within the information cascade, he has us consider the role of reputation in there: "Conspiracy theories do not take hold only because of information. Sometimes people profess belief in a conspiracy theory, or at least suppress their doubts, because they seek to curry favor or to avoid disfavor. Reputational pressures help account for conspiracy theories, and they feed conspiracy cascades. In a reputational cascade, people think that they know what is right, but they go along with the crowd in order to maintain the approval of others."

Follow that with notions about the "availability" of the theory: "Informational and reputational cascades can occur without any particular triggering event. But a distinctive kind of cascade arises when such an event is highly salient or cognitively “available,” in the sense that it comes readily to mind. In the context of many risks, such as those associated with terrorism, crime, economic catastrophe, and environmental disasters, a particular event initiates a cascade. It works as a trigger, an icon, or a symbol justifying public concern, whether or not that concern is warranted. Availability cascades occur through the interaction between a salient event and social influences, both informational and reputational. [...] A terrible event becomes “available,” in the sense that everyone knows about it, and conspiracy theories are invoked both to explain it and to use it as a symbol for broader social forces. Within certain nations and groups, the claim that the United States or Israel was responsible for the attacks of 9/11 fits well within a general narrative about who is the aggressor, and the liar, in a series of disputes—and the view that Al Qaeda was responsible raises questions about that same narrative. Conspiracy theories are frequently a product of availability cascades."

Finally, within the cascade(s) consider the role of emotion: "But it is clear that emotions, and not merely information, play a large role in the circulation of rumors of all kinds. Many rumors persist and spread because they serve to justify or rationalize an antecedent emotional state produced by some landmark event, such as a disaster or a war. When people are especially angry or fearful, they may be more likely to focus on particular sorts of rumors and spread them to others. And when rumors trigger intense feelings, they are far more likely to be circulated."

Now, consider the effect of "group polarization" upon all that: "There are clear links between cascades and the well-established phenomenon of group polarization, by which members of a deliberating group typically end up taking a more extreme position in the same direction as their inclinations before deliberation began. [...] For purposes of understanding how conspiracy theories spread, it is especially important to see that group polarization is particularly likely, and particularly pronounced, when people have a shared sense of identity and are connected by bonds of solidarity. Social networks matter greatly, and tightly connected networks are more likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories. These are circumstances in which arguments by outsiders, unconnected with the group, will lack much credibility and fail to have much effect in reducing polarization. In such circumstances, direct government rebuttals of the reigning conspiracy theory are especially likely to prove ineffective."

And then, enter in selection effects: "A crippled epistemology can arise not only from informational and reputational dynamics but also from self-selection of members into and out of groups with extreme views. Once cascades arise or polarization occurs, and the group’s view begins to move in a certain direction, skeptics and partial believers will tend to depart, while intense believers remain. [...] Group members may segregate themselves in order to protect their beliefs from challenges by outsiders. Group leaders may enforce such segregation in order to insulate the rank and file from information or arguments that would undermine the leaders’ hold on the group. Even if contrary information and arguments are in some literal sense heard, they will be ridiculed and made a subject of contempt—and, if at all possible, used as further confirmation of the conspiracy theory. As a result, group polarization will intensify."

All of that likely forms a sort of "loop" feeding back into itself, sort of, to increasingly "radicalize" the conspiratorial thinking of all members. In a sense, it could even be sort of (in my own thinking) tied to this as well, the "Gamification" of public discourse. In what way? Well, here is a sort of summary I wrote of that video I wrote elsewhere:

"A sort of initial thesis presented that we might be using, as a society, simplified morals as "pleasure." That is, complex or nuanced morality is uncomfortable, so simplified, or clear morality has the pleasure of making us feel more secure and confident. The speaker's concern though is that if this is the case, it does allow for the "gaming" of this system, where agents could present simplified moral stances to essentially manipulate people. And, (maybe, possibly) since people enjoy the clarity, they are more than willing to accept the manipulation, even were it exposed as manipulation [my editorialized stance here].

A distinction, credited to the book Echo Chambers, by Jamieson and Campbell, between filter bubbles and echo chambers. Filter bubbles as the case where you do not hear the "other side" and an echo chamber where you are informed to essentially not trust the "other side." The speaker wants to note that we seem to be, as a society, much more in the latter than the former. This is an interesting distinction and I would tend to agree, it is less of a non-hearing, and far more of a blanket mistrust of the "other side.""

Clarity appeals to us because we need to sort of ration out our time and attention. So we develop heuristic methods to give us a sense of when to begin and end investigations. The sort of aesthetic quality is maybe one those those sort of heuristic method, so when things are clear we "feel" like an investigation has been sufficiently done. Appeals to quantitative results, i.e. numbers, often give us this feeling of clarity because they eschew all the contextual details and relate, essentially, extremely well to themselves (i.e. makes comparison easy)."

Now, mind you, the video is much better than my summary, and while he is talking about morality, I think the notion of "clarity for pleasure" is useful to understand what is going on. In light of sort of crippled epistemologies, and within informational cascades, the aim is to induce clarity, to make one feel that the unknown, chaotic, is really just structured, ordered, design on some nebulous agent(s) behalf. Not to mention, the fact that social media (and just money in-itself) "gamifies" the information process by it's very nature, since it rewards with more attention and more money, the ideas which, not necessarily are "most true" but which people most want to hear.

Let me note that I am not an epistemologist, I am not a sociologist or anything of the like, so take whatever I say with a huge grain of salt. I am not trying to be definitive, but rather just sketching a rough frame of my thinking. In any case, let me get down off my

That was a righteous first post in the thread!

Shall read it all a bit later!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That was a righteous first post in the thread!

Shall read it all a bit later!

Sorry for it being such a huge info dump of sorts, but I've been meaning to post something like since the thread started, I just didn't have the time before. It's still rather rough and I wish Sunstein's book was a little better than it actually comes across to me as being, but I think it does put one on a decent path to framing the phenomenology of conspiratorial thinking, but it definitely does not "full explain it" in all likelihood though.

 H wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That was a righteous first post in the thread!

Shall read it all a bit later!

Sorry for it being such a huge info dump of sorts, but I've been meaning to post something like since the thread started, I just didn't have the time before. It's still rather rough and I wish Sunstein's book was a little better than it actually comes across to me as being, but I think it does put one on a decent path to framing the phenomenology of conspiratorial thinking, but it definitely does not "full explain it" in all likelihood though.

well you pretty much nailed it down from a theorethical standpoint.

Not Online!!! wrote:
well you pretty much nailed it down from a theorethical standpoint.

Well, that's probably the best I could ever do, haha. Theory is my wheelhouse, I don't really want to get involved in dirty actual things,

But seriously, I think the issue at hand is that, probably like most human behavior, to fully excavate the actuality of it, you'd need full expositions of (at least), epistemology, psychology, sociology, information theory, and history. And likely even more (like notions of causality and so on)! Who can realistically be anything like an expert in all that? Let alone be able to take in and synthesize something understandable all the connections, permutations and combinations there-in. Plus, then consider external influences on all of those.

Human behavior might well be the most complex thing we readily interact with, the only exception probably being the universe as a whole. But I think Sunstein's overall sort of "heuristic" approach is fairly spot on as a way to at least make sense of what we observe, even if we can't readily say why it would be the case, or when it might only be the case to certain relative degrees.

 H wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
well you pretty much nailed it down from a theorethical standpoint.

Well, that's probably the best I could ever do, haha. Theory is my wheelhouse, I don't really want to get involved in dirty actual things,

But seriously, I think the issue at hand is that, probably like most human behavior, to fully excavate the actuality of it, you'd need full expositions of (at least), epistemology, psychology, sociology, information theory, and history. And likely even more (like notions of causality and so on)! Who can realistically be anything like an expert in all that? Let alone be able to take in and synthesize something understandable all the connections, permutations and combinations there-in. Plus, then consider external influences on all of those.

Human behavior might well be the most complex thing we readily interact with, the only exception probably being the universe as a whole. But I think Sunstein's overall sort of "heuristic" approach is fairly spot on as a way to at least make sense of what we observe, even if we can't readily say why it would be the case, or when it might only be the case to certain relative degrees.

If my studies in philosophy have taught me anything, it's like with war: "Kein Operationsplan reicht mit einiger Sicherheit über das erste Zusammentreffen mit der feindlichen Hauptmacht hinaus" von Moltke.Theory is fine and dandy and might give you something akin to a workable approach, but that's that.

Oddly, Conspiracy Theorist are awfully fond of taking nobody being an expert in all their nonsense is, again, just proof they’re right, and smarter than everyone else.

That could be their audience being literally dumbfounded, and unable to process the sheer amount of twaddle.

It can also be An Actual Expert, in a specific field, not being able to answer questions outside of that field. This is seemingly prevalent where the theory claims all Science to be wrong, and somehow, a single subject.

I mean, consider the photo of a black hole, from around this time last year (conveniently enough!). Now, whilst I lack any real knowledge as to the whys and hows, I do understand it was the sum knowledge of many, many people. A Conspiracy Theorist however, would demand that Team Member A be able to field any and all questions - and any hesitation is taken as a sign of deceit etc.

This is often down to the Dunning Kruger, so far as I can make out. Because the CT has no idea just how little they know, but genuinely think they know everything? They just cannot conceive there’s so much to know that no one person can know it all - because they’re utterly convinced they do indeed know it all themself.

Makes them hecka difficult to reason with!

Conspiracy theory cook book.

-Asking questions counts as research.
-Not being able to find evidence is proof of a cover up.
-If one single part of a conspiracy is true, that all parts of a conspiracy must also be true.
-If questioned, Gish Gallop on to the next issue.
-Place special weight on corroborating evidence.
-Ignore conflicting evidence.
-Keep everything unfalsifable.
-If you hear it repeated a lot, it must be true.
-NEVER name studies or experts. Keep it nice and vague.
-Ignore all previously made failed predictions.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Conspiracy theory cook book.

-Asking questions counts as research.
-Not being able to find evidence is proof of a cover up.
-If one single part of a conspiracy is true, that all parts of a conspiracy must also be true.
-If questioned, Gish Gallop on to the next issue.
-Place special weight on corroborating evidence.
-Ignore conflicting evidence.
-Keep everything unfalsifable.
-If you hear it repeated a lot, it must be true.
-NEVER name studies or experts. Keep it nice and vague.
-Ignore all previously made failed predictions.

If it wasn't for forum rule #1 we could apply that list to a bunch of topics that people hold dear. But somehow it's ok to point at conspiracy theorists and ask why do they believe crazy things, as though they are an exception.

That's the violence inherent to the system for you

 Henry wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Conspiracy theory cook book.

-Asking questions counts as research.
-Not being able to find evidence is proof of a cover up.
-If one single part of a conspiracy is true, that all parts of a conspiracy must also be true.
-If questioned, Gish Gallop on to the next issue.
-Place special weight on corroborating evidence.
-Ignore conflicting evidence.
-Keep everything unfalsifable.
-If you hear it repeated a lot, it must be true.
-NEVER name studies or experts. Keep it nice and vague.
-Ignore all previously made failed predictions.

If it wasn't for forum rule #1 we could apply that list to a bunch of topics that people hold dear. But somehow it's ok to point at conspiracy theorists and ask why do they believe crazy things, as though they are an exception.

We are 100% in agreement.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oddly, Conspiracy Theorist are awfully fond of taking nobody being an expert in all their nonsense is, again, just proof they’re right, and smarter than everyone else.

That could be their audience being literally dumbfounded, and unable to process the sheer amount of twaddle.

It can also be An Actual Expert, in a specific field, not being able to answer questions outside of that field. This is seemingly prevalent where the theory claims all Science to be wrong, and somehow, a single subject.

I mean, consider the photo of a black hole, from around this time last year (conveniently enough!). Now, whilst I lack any real knowledge as to the whys and hows, I do understand it was the sum knowledge of many, many people. A Conspiracy Theorist however, would demand that Team Member A be able to field any and all questions - and any hesitation is taken as a sign of deceit etc.

This is often down to the Dunning Kruger, so far as I can make out. Because the CT has no idea just how little they know, but genuinely think they know everything? They just cannot conceive there’s so much to know that no one person can know it all - because they’re utterly convinced they do indeed know it all themself.

Makes them hecka difficult to reason with!

Another thing that makes them difficult to reason with is they are often so very, very wrong it can be difficult for someone with even a passing interest and knowledge of an area to process what they're arguing, often because the CT themselves has no real idea. My few brushes with Flat Earthers mostly fall into this category - they take some simple scientific principle, misunderstand it so badly it's quite easy to miss their screw-up because even the semi-informed would never assume someone could be that stupid, then build a whole skyscraper of cards on this shaky foundation. Another great example of this is evolution deniers and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The point about people not being able to answer questions goes back to an earlier discussion in here about the God of the Gaps approach to "research". Any failure to answer is seen as an admission the CT is automatically correct. It also ignores the fact that the world is very complicated and most scientific models that measure complex real-world things often make some assumptions that allow the models to have powerful predictive properties but not always 100% accuracy. 9/11 CTs work like this. The events of that day created a lot of confusion and the collapse of the towers is something that's well understood in principle but there are still some gaps/inconsistencies in some places because it's the very definition of a chaotic event. Maybe there's a beam that you would expect to have snapped that actually didn't, for example. To an engineer or a scientist these gaps are an opportunity to refine their models, to a conspiracy theorist it's proof the entire official story is wrong.

Slipspace wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oddly, Conspiracy Theorist are awfully fond of taking nobody being an expert in all their nonsense is, again, just proof they’re right, and smarter than everyone else.

That could be their audience being literally dumbfounded, and unable to process the sheer amount of twaddle.

It can also be An Actual Expert, in a specific field, not being able to answer questions outside of that field. This is seemingly prevalent where the theory claims all Science to be wrong, and somehow, a single subject.

I mean, consider the photo of a black hole, from around this time last year (conveniently enough!). Now, whilst I lack any real knowledge as to the whys and hows, I do understand it was the sum knowledge of many, many people. A Conspiracy Theorist however, would demand that Team Member A be able to field any and all questions - and any hesitation is taken as a sign of deceit etc.

This is often down to the Dunning Kruger, so far as I can make out. Because the CT has no idea just how little they know, but genuinely think they know everything? They just cannot conceive there’s so much to know that no one person can know it all - because they’re utterly convinced they do indeed know it all themself.

Makes them hecka difficult to reason with!

Another thing that makes them difficult to reason with is they are often so very, very wrong it can be difficult for someone with even a passing interest and knowledge of an area to process what they're arguing, often because the CT themselves has no real idea. My few brushes with Flat Earthers mostly fall into this category - they take some simple scientific principle, misunderstand it so badly it's quite easy to miss their screw-up because even the semi-informed would never assume someone could be that stupid, then build a whole skyscraper of cards on this shaky foundation. Another great example of this is evolution deniers and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The point about people not being able to answer questions goes back to an earlier discussion in here about the God of the Gaps approach to "research". Any failure to answer is seen as an admission the CT is automatically correct. It also ignores the fact that the world is very complicated and most scientific models that measure complex real-world things often make some assumptions that allow the models to have powerful predictive properties but not always 100% accuracy. 9/11 CTs work like this. The events of that day created a lot of confusion and the collapse of the towers is something that's well understood in principle but there are still some gaps/inconsistencies in some places because it's the very definition of a chaotic event. Maybe there's a beam that you would expect to have snapped that actually didn't, for example. To an engineer or a scientist these gaps are an opportunity to refine their models, to a conspiracy theorist it's proof the entire official story is wrong.

The whole tower simulation thing is also just that, a SIMULATION.
Often we just pick the most idealized data points for material, etc. (and not just the more mathematical minded sciences make that idealized simulation, the worst offenders of this are actually philosophers like me, working basically just with in most cases idealized scenarios for ethics or theory etc.)

Now imagine if the steel weas subpar, the cement was shoddy, or worse the mafia got involved and you got sand and other random junk in the cement? (cue a certain bridge in genoa.)

Some are wilfully ignorant.

To skirt the religious side of things, without knocking any specific religion? A common thread is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Evolution actually predicts.

For instance, there’s often an insistence along the lines of. ‘Show us a crocaduck then’, and harping on about Kinds, and Macro Evolution etc. To the casual observer, what they’re saying sounds plausible. They’re using big words. (Or at least, big enough words. And in common with other CT, their own ‘evidence’ is wide enough to be really poorly defined, giving them wiggle room to apparently ‘gotcha’.

Yet, it takes only a modicum of reading to learn enough about Evolutionary Theory to see they’re talking nonsense.

I mean, why have we seen few examples of Evolution in the world as it is, outside of microbial? Simple. Evolution predicts such changes take a long, long time. And, ideally, new niches for a given species to exploit. Currently, all niches are occupied, which acts as a resistance to evolution.

Now, if we see a mass extinction event again? Or even just a significant environmental change? That removes much of the resistance. In short, there’s more room for those random mutations to prove truly beneficial to the point where the benefactor is in a better position to breed.

There’s also ‘but what of detrimental mutations’. Well....guess what. That’s also evidence for Evolution. If a mutation is truly detrimental (carnivore with an allergy to meat, or less able to digest meat, for curt examples?) then the sufferer is far less likely to breed in the wild. Rinse and repeat a few generations, and whatever predilection to that mutation exists will likely be bred out, strengthening the gene pool.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


To skirt the religious side of things, without knocking any specific religion? A common thread is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Evolution actually predicts.

Very much so. I have yet to met a religious apologist coming even close to accurately representing evolution......or atheists.....or cosmology.....or the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or science, in general.

What annoys me the most, is how religious apologists constantly uses arguments, that they themselves would never accept, if the roles were reversed.

- and to circle back on topic, that is a thing they seemingly share with conspiracy theorists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Evolution predicts such changes take a long, long time.

Actually, it isn't that evolution predicts long time frames, as such.

It is that evolutionary changes are small, incremental and happens from generation to generation.

Now, generations of bacteria or fruit flies go by really fast.
Humans, not so much.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


To skirt the religious side of things, without knocking any specific religion? A common thread is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Evolution actually predicts.

Very much so. I have yet to met a religious apologist coming even close to accurately representing evolution......or atheists.....or cosmology.....or the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or science, in general.

What annoys me the most, is how religious apologists constantly uses arguments, that they themselves would never accept, if the roles were reversed.

- and to circle back on topic, that is a thing they seemingly share with conspiracy theorists.

Hello, i am catholic, nice to meet you. I am also a philosophy student.
Please don't throw me in the same category of creationists or other nutjobs.
Further, the concept of godlessness or the fact your existence has no point by not achieving something is quite a fundamental total oposition to anything modern society makes you believe, because it is loss of (the ilusion of) controll on a fundamental level. Not everyone can deal with that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Evolution predicts such changes take a long, long time.

Actually, it isn't that evolution predicts long time frames, as such.

It is that evolutionary changes are small, incremental and happens from generation to generation.

Now, generations of bacteria or fruit flies go by really fast.
Humans, not so much.

the human lifespan comparatively to our planet is a flicker of light, and our planets existence compared to the univerese even more so.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


There’s also ‘but what of detrimental mutations’. Well....guess what. That’s also evidence for Evolution. If a mutation is truly detrimental (carnivore with an allergy to meat, or less able to digest meat, for curt examples?) then the sufferer is far less likely to breed in the wild. Rinse and repeat a few generations, and whatever predilection to that mutation exists will likely be bred out, strengthening the gene pool.

Sickle-cell anemia is a good example. Despite it being a nasty thing to have, it is still relatively common in Africa as it conveys a resistance to malaria as a side effect.

Crispy78 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


There’s also ‘but what of detrimental mutations’. Well....guess what. That’s also evidence for Evolution. If a mutation is truly detrimental (carnivore with an allergy to meat, or less able to digest meat, for curt examples?) then the sufferer is far less likely to breed in the wild. Rinse and repeat a few generations, and whatever predilection to that mutation exists will likely be bred out, strengthening the gene pool.

Sickle-cell anemia is a good example. Despite it being a nasty thing to have, it is still relatively common in Africa as it conveys a resistance to malaria as a side effect.

Aye, its also come about that genetics aren't a single gene for a single "property" as we see it. More often its a collection that combine to produce several results all intermingling. So a negative trait might well be preserved because the genes that influence it also influence several other beneficial traits within the population. There's also different perceptions on what counts as positive and negative

Yup.

I mean, my ancestry on Dad’s side goes back to Orkney. So I’ve very likely got a decent slice of Viking type DNA.

Which explains my pasty skin. That’s a beneficial mutation in the U.K., at it allows my body to better synthesise the weaker and more limited sunlight into Vitamin D.

If I ever moved closer to the equator, I’d need lots and lots of sun screen, less I a) burn to a crisp and/or b) develop skin cancer, thanks to the stronger intensity and duration of sunlight.

So whereas light skin (let alone my near translucent complexion) is beneficial in area A, it’s detrimental in area B.

Best bit? The classic ‘blonde hair, fair skin’ look claimed as genetically superior by some? All recessive, and therefore less useful and advantageous, genes. Yet to here a racist explain that one.....

I feel you! i was out in the garden on friday with no shirt, back got ridiculously sunburnt, now I have to rub it on brick walls to relieve the itching!

And I'm just here with a suppressed immune system. Increased chance of skin cancer, yay!

Not Online!!! wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Very much so. I have yet to met a religious apologist coming even close to accurately representing evolution......or atheists.....or cosmology.....or the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or science, in general.

Hello, i am catholic, nice to meet you. I am also a philosophy student.

You are mistaking his criticisms of religious apologists for a criticism of religious belief in general. They are not the same thing, as your very existence demonstrates.