Magical Sailor Fuku

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: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.

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. But it'd have to be done during/before puberty. Otherwise, you're not going to be able to will/work/drive your body to change like that. Certainly not once it's totally mature. Kinda reminds me of that one guy in rurouni kenshin, that had the long arm because he bound it while he was still growing. I dunno if it would work that way, but eh. :O

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.

All I have to say is that Giraffe's got such long necks because they kept straining to each, obviously

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.

Helel didn't say the hand of God, he said genetics.

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.)

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.

According to the Darwinian theory of evolution, this can only happen if those already naturally predisposed to be better suited have more surviving offspring than those who don't. Lamarck was the (discredited) biologist that thought that if someone's body changed during their lifetime, their kid would be changed as well. Of course, that was before anyone really understood genetics.

Not that Darwin is necessarily 100% right either, but I want you to understand where Helel is coming from here.

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.

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.

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.

I know what he said. We were arguing about genetics, since we have differing views of it.

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 never suggested such artificial means. Besides which, most of that paragraph (some of which you quoted from) was supposed to be sarcastic. Which is why the following paragraph starts with:

I know you said, "by itself,"

Pay attention.

Not that Darwin is necessarily 100% right either, but I want you to understand where Helel is coming from here.

I kind of knew, but I better understood once he took our arguing into PM a few days ago. or whenever it was. I can't say I've been all that aware of time lately.

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.

Well, so long as they're theories, as mine is, mine's as good as theirs until it's discredited. Mwa-ha-ha! ;p

By the way, the only reason why it seems that I kinda left this discussion hanging, if anyone is wondering, is because I took it into PMs with Nikkou. So we're set. :O

Well aside from that physics problem, but I hate physics. I'll get around to it by next year. Maybe.

Oh look, a butterfly!

Yup; he went all pre-menstrual on me, alright.

I'll get around to it by next year. Maybe.

NUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!

Say it isn't so! Y.Y

Wewt for lefties...

i actually use my left hand for everything except writing, but i do a much better job drawing with my left hand.