Moderator: Moderators
Empyrean Nikkou wrote:You can't address my points because you know that, despite the body wanting to be symmetrical, you'll rarely find someone with a body that truly is. And I'm not just saying that the difference is so small, but that the difference is significant enough to warrant it (a few millimeters is significant). I don't know whose nutshell you're referring to, but symmetry aside, the body adapts. Sometimes some sacrifices in symmetry have to be made for that adaptation. Or, in the case of detrimental wears and tears, simple loss of symmetry.
Empyrean Nikkou wrote:Of course it does it itself. Are you saying that, beyond man-made bindings, the hand of God or something decides the length and size of something? I mean, come on. Not only are you oversimplifying it, but you're ignoring biological facts.
Basically you're saying that the decrease in the difference of average height between men and women is because we put women through something like a rack? That's exactly what you're suggesting.
But with the change of diet, and women having more freedom in their environment to do what men used to do exclusively (or almost so), their bodies change to be better suited for it.
I know you said, "by itself," but I'm irritated how you appear to argue my points without even addressing them. You punk. And, at any rate, it's not the binding that really decides how the foot grows (or doesn't). Feet aren't like the roots of a tree, that can burrow into stone, and overcome such physical restrictions on their growth. The body and mind are a lot more flexible than many people give them credit for. The body can address a lot of problems, not all of them learned and prepared for through genetic experience. In fact, a lot of creatures show amazing genetic decisions from indirect sources. Just take camouflage, for example. Somehow the idea of "need to hide" transferred from information from sight to the genes that decide the pattern and color(s) of the fur/skin/scales. I don't know how something like that can "just happen." There's a deep, intricate, biological framework that makes these kinds of decisions.
Sophia Anieri wrote:Helel didn't say the hand of God, he said genetics.
Helel wrote:I haven't said the body doesn't adapt, or that it has to be symmetrical perfectly, but it just doesn't adapt or change in that way by itself.
An example of purposely changing the way the body grows could be shown with the Chinese and binding women's feet.
Sophia Anieri wrote:Basically you're saying that the decrease in the difference of average height between men and women is because we put women through something like a rack? That's exactly what you're suggesting.
Nah, that's what Helel thinks you're suggesting (hence why he said you were arguing for Lamarckism.)
I know you said, "by itself,"
Not that Darwin is necessarily 100% right either, but I want you to understand where Helel is coming from here.
In theory you may be right, but do keep in mind that the prevailing scientific theories say differently. They may be (and probably are) incomplete, but you can hardly accuse those who disagree of ignoring science.
I'll get around to it by next year. Maybe.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests