Real Science Radio: Schooling National Geographic on Camels

[Lordkalvan]

That we should find nature rejuvenating is hardly surprising. After all, our tribe arose not in cinderbelt but in wild forests and grasslands. Our ears are made not for the stinging scream of sirens but for the sly scratch of a predator's paws and the whistle of wind that warns of impending weather. Our eyes evolved to tease apart not the monotonous grays of cityscapes but the subtle gold, olive, and burgundy hues that signaled ripe fruit and tender leaves, and our brains to reward our sensory efforts with feelings of deep pleasure.

Kuo speculates that over the course of human evolution, there was selection for this response to the natural world. Our ancestors who found nature effortlessly engaging had an advantage. "They were the ones more likely to know where the berries could be found and where the critters hung out," she says. "When push came to shove in difficult environmental conditions, they were better able to survive."

-- source​

And your argument from these citations is.....?

 

[Stripe]

And your argument from these citations is.....?

:AMR:

Argument? I said you could name any issue and I would look into examples of a bias toward evolution.

 

[Lordkalvan]

:AMR:

Argument? I said you could name any issue and I would look into examples of a bias toward evolution.

And if you remember I pointed out that such a 'search' would not be evidence of articles published 'recklessly that [are] overtly false' and 'evidently...motivated by bias'? I also noted that you were shifting the goalposts.

So simply asserting that an article constitutes 'evolutionary bias' is not evidence that the article is 'reckless' and 'overtly false', nor that it is 'evidently...motivated by bias'.

 

[Stripe]

And if you remember I pointed out that such a 'search' would not be evidence of articles published 'recklessly that [are] overtly false' and 'evidently...motivated by bias'? I also noted that you were shifting the goalposts.So simply asserting that an article constitutes 'evolutionary bias' is not evidence that the article is 'reckless' and 'overtly false', nor that it is 'evidently...motivated by bias'.

:AMR:

Perhaps you should not have accepted my challenge. :idunno:

 

[Lordkalvan]

:AMR:

Perhaps you should not have accepted my challenge. :idunno:

Oh, I was just happy to watch you kick your balls through the goalposts you'd shifted to where you wanted them, rather than contribute anything substantive and pertinent to the discussion. You didn't fail me.

 

[GuySmiley]

Oh, I was just happy to watch you kick your balls through the goalposts

:shocked: That would be a trick.

 

[Stripe]

:noid:

Meanwhile, it seems NG does have an evolutionary bias. Who would have thunk it? :chuckle:

 

[Lordkalvan]

:shocked: That would be a trick.

And yet you managed it so effortlessly.

 

[Lordkalvan]

:noid:

Meanwhile, it seems NG does have an evolutionary bias. Who would have thunk it? :chuckle:

But not of articles that you have shown to be published 'recklessly that [are] overtly false' and 'evidently...motivated by bias'.