Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

I know, but this is a scientific definition. It's dictionary definitions that have creationists describe evolution as "just a theory."

It wasn't meant as an insult, it was a serious question. Someone who has not taken quantum physics, for example, can be excused not knowing that jargon, either. Your area of study is music, right? (sorry if I misremembered). I'd butcher any use of music theory jargon, for example, even though I love music.

Again, no insult even hinted at.

Ah, so I am disqualified from the discussion based upon my occupation. Very well, you may have it as you like it. If I were a smaller man, I'd ask what it is that you do, and then use it against you in a similar manner. Fortunately for you, I am that that type of person.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Ah, so I am disqualified from the discussion based upon my occupation. Very well, you may have it as you like it. If I were a smaller man, I'd ask what it is that you do, and then use it against you in a similar manner. Fortunately for you, I am that that type of person.

Not DQ'd, just ignorant.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Not DQ'd, just ignorant.

Also classy.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Don't be a jackass, Maddog.

[the_tyrant]

For a taste of the future, watch Idiocracy!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
great movie

[Gerald]

Sci-Fi movie..

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Also classy.

Just having some fun, I intentionally left it ambiguous. Call it 'fishing', no offense meant.

I also am ignorant of molecular biology, quantum physics, trek lore, a few other things.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Ah, so I am disqualified from the discussion based upon my occupation. Very well, you may have it as you like it. If I were a smaller man, I'd ask what it is that you do, and then use it against you in a similar manner. Fortunately for you, I am that that type of person.

Not at all disqualified. I did not say that at all, nor did I mean that.

The point was merely to use the "fitness" definition from evolutionary biology or population genetics, that's all. Just like "theory" in other discussions we've had here before. If someone uses the dictionary definition, then an observed fact like evolution can become "just a theory" since the scientific definition of theory is so very much more specific than the dictionary version. The scientific fitness definitions include reproduction (sometimes as math (relative abundance of a genotype, etc)).

The definition is important in this case I think because social darwinists (who misuse the language of evolutionary biology) will in effect use the dictionary definition to weed out the "weak" with terrible consequences.

If my writing was poor enough to give offense (quite possible for me) then I apologize, sincerely. No offense was meant, I didn't read what I wrote in that way at all, or I would have written it differently. I am not a biologist, but I entertained paleontology for a while in school (and took classes)—then ended up working with a bunch of paleontologists for about 10 years.