Evolution

[Typhoon]

The whole heroic science-man myth should be buried alongside creationist whining.

Well, for some reason, mankind prefers its heroes to be noble in all regards which is unrealistic given human nature.

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

~ Newton

Some historians of science now hold the view that Newton was making a sarcastic reference to his contemporary and rival, the polymath Robert Hooke, who was known to be rather short in stature.

Galileo was a vainglorious jack@ss and self-promoter who needlessly antagonized people with little rhyme or reason and ultimately couldn't prove sh!t when he was called on his bluffs.

Riccoli was a thousand percent right that without the coriolis effect and an answer for star sizes, heliocentrism didn't seem feasible with what was known then. And team Galileo's response was to claim they read scripture better and the giant stars were actual warriors guarding heaven. What great scientific champions.

Galileo was the first guy on the block with a new toy and made the most of it-- including promoting and jealously guarding his discoveries through PR and the law (a few of them kinda dodgy) who wasn't satisfied with just being the telecope guy. He wanted to be the scripture guy too, and the cosmologist, and the authority on a host of things which were beyond his grasp.

I would be interested in references to these descriptions.

The progress of science is anything but linear - the standard presentation in textbooks.
Galileo probably jumped the gun with regards to his assertions of heliocentrism without collecting sufficient evidence and ended up antagonizing the powerful of the time. However, he was proven to be correct.
Galileo was driven, competitive, and ambitious with all that that entails.

Galileo also used his telescope to discover the moons of Jupiter - now known as the Galilean moons. They were the first objects found to orbit a planet other than the Earth.

While Galileo is best known for his telescope, promoting heliocentrism, and his conflicts with the authorities of the time, Galileo's actual or thought experiment on the motion of free falling objects in an gravitational field was a remarkable insight that is one of the foundations of physics. A complete explanation was finally achieved by Einstein in his general theory of relativity in 1915.

oYEgdZ3iEKA

There are plenty of incidents wherein the scientific consensus of the time was wrong and progress was made by the outliers.
At the beginning of the 20th century there was a raging debate as to whether matter was continuous and infinitely divisible or composed of discrete particles - atoms and molecules. The scientific consensus was that matter is continuous. The outlier was Boltzmann who showed that one could derive the bulk thermodynamic properties of matter from the large number statistical properties of atoms and molecules. He explained the 2nd law of thermodynamics in terms of what is today known as statistical mechanics. Einstein's explanation of Brownian motion in terms of the statistical properties of matter provided the evidence required for matter as atoms, put an end to the debate, and proved Boltzmann correct.

A tragic example is that of Ignác Semmelweis who observed a correlation between antiseptic practices in maternity wards and the decrease in the incidence puerperal fever in mothers after childbirth.

Despite various publications of results where hand washing [with clorinated lime solution] reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions [the consensus] of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. He died 14 days later after being beaten by the guards, from a gangrenous wound on his right hand which might have been caused by the beating. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

it would be a shame if you lot ended up with a crippled level of science discussion.

Alfred Russel Wallace was a fringe-seeking kook who was publicly dressed down for being psuedo-scientific. The whole Darwin-adjacent milieu, Chambers and the rest, could probably be thrown into kook territory. Success has many fathers; half of them are crazy uncles.

Darwin was wildly mis-interpreted by the early 20th progressive eugenics movement along with the social Darwinists.

To quote myself from much earlier in the thread:

We know Darwin himself avoided the word evolution until the 6th edition of Origin of Species in part because of the baggage of Spencer's "evolution" (and his dislike of Spencer.) But he also benefited mightily by the moods sweeping intellectual circles of the time; after all the Origin of Species is a rather dry tome and that it so suddenly swept up and invigorated popular imagination as it did would be a real curiosity if we didn't know the context of the milieu it was published. Which is why it is one of most seminal texts of 19th century, but along with Jacob Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik; provided a rationalization for a rather dark kind of humanism.

Ultimately like a lot of ideas floating in the aether, you can't control who picks what up and how ideas are organized.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I think it can't be said enough that the dogma of the day was Turgot's Progress- as taught by Condorcet, by Lessig and Hegel, by Spencer....and the dominant religion of the upper classes and intellectual circles was pantheism.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I would be interested in references to these descriptions.

Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo

Setting Aside All Authority is an important account and analysis of seventeenth-century scientific arguments against the Copernican system. Christopher M. Graney challenges the long-standing ideas that opponents of the heliocentric ideas of Copernicus and Galileo were primarily motivated by religion or devotion to an outdated intellectual tradition, and that they were in continual retreat in the face of telescopic discoveries. Graney calls on newly translated works by anti-Copernican writers of the time to demonstrate that science, not religion, played an important, and arguably predominant, role in the opposition to the Copernican system. Anti-Copernicans, building on the work of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, were in fact able to build an increasingly strong scientific case against the heliocentric system at least through the middle of the seventeenth century, several decades after the advent of the telescope. The scientific case reached its apogee, Graney argues, in the 1651 New Almagest of the Italian Jesuit astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli, who used detailed telescopic observations of stars to construct a powerful scientific argument against Copernicus. Setting Aside All Authority includes the first English translation of Monsignor Francesco Ingoli’s essay to Galileo (disputing the Copernican system on the eve of the Inquisition’s condemnation of it in 1616) and excerpts from Riccioli's reports regarding his experiments with falling bodies.

Physics Today: Anatomy of a fall: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the story of g (not about heliocentrism but a sketch of Riccioli confirming Galileo's falling body experiment)

[Typhoon]

I would be interested in references to these descriptions.

Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo

Setting Aside All Authority is an important account and analysis of seventeenth-century scientific arguments against the Copernican system. Christopher M. Graney challenges the long-standing ideas that opponents of the heliocentric ideas of Copernicus and Galileo were primarily motivated by religion or devotion to an outdated intellectual tradition, and that they were in continual retreat in the face of telescopic discoveries. Graney calls on newly translated works by anti-Copernican writers of the time to demonstrate that science, not religion, played an important, and arguably predominant, role in the opposition to the Copernican system. Anti-Copernicans, building on the work of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, were in fact able to build an increasingly strong scientific case against the heliocentric system at least through the middle of the seventeenth century, several decades after the advent of the telescope. The scientific case reached its apogee, Graney argues, in the 1651 New Almagest of the Italian Jesuit astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli, who used detailed telescopic observations of stars to construct a powerful scientific argument against Copernicus. Setting Aside All Authority includes the first English translation of Monsignor Francesco Ingoli’s essay to Galileo (disputing the Copernican system on the eve of the Inquisition’s condemnation of it in 1616) and excerpts from Riccioli's reports regarding his experiments with falling bodies.

Thanks for the link. The Ptolemaic geocentric model required more and more complex corrections to account for new observations, whereas the Copernican heliocentric model provided a simpler unified explanation.

An analogous situation occurred with the anomaly of the perihelion precession of Mercury in the late 19th and early 20th century.
A number of ad hoc changes to Newtonian dynamics were proposed, but none were self-consistent. Einstein's general theory of relativity provided a simpler unified explanation.

Physics Today: Anatomy of a fall: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the story of g (not about heliocentrism but a sketch of Riccioli confirming Galileo's falling body experiment)

The Jesuit scientists have been treated unfairly by history.

Perhaps it is due to the Roman Catholic / Protestant schism in Europe.

[noddy]

being wrong isnt really a problem.

the growth from alchemy to modern chemistry and physics is a never ending list of wrong and/or overly simplistic understandings - but it was always useful and created some our most powerful and incredible tools.

the current inquiries into DNA and all its possibilities are likely to be every bit as rewarding.

any focus on wrongness is gas lighting.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

being wrong isnt really a problem.

the growth from alchemy to modern chemistry and physics is a never ending list of wrong and/or overly simplistic understandings - but it was always useful and created some our most powerful and incredible tools.

the current inquiries into DNA and all its possibilities are likely to be every bit as rewarding.

any focus on wrongness is gas lighting.

[Nonc Hilaire]

G7sykmrNCMs

[Parodite]

being wrong isnt really a problem.

the growth from alchemy to modern chemistry and physics is a never ending list of wrong and/or overly simplistic understandings - but it was always useful and created some our most powerful and incredible tools.

the current inquiries into DNA and all its possibilities are likely to be every bit as rewarding.

any focus on wrongness is gas lighting.

Sum thoughts. The brain always seems to be involved as a modeler. From basic sensory experience to high level abstraction and mathematics. The scientific data set is an experiential data set.

The elephant in the room is the unanswered question what the experiential data set may or may not reveal (if at all) about experience independent reality; experience independent as per Einstein's "the moon when nobody looks at it". (Side nut: if one believes/assumes there is such a moon. I do, and it is God for me, well in a way. I'm not there yet to chant with Leo that I myself are God, an infinite bla-bla consciousness that freely creates any appearance of anything included its own. A God that imagines him/her/itself into existence... who knows, but that smells like some ultimate and bit too frivolous free of charge narcissism. (Perhaps narcissism is an antidote to nihilist, monochromatic and depressing solipsism? When nothing matters.. at least I do )

Within our experiential data set evolution theory fits reasonably well, especially because alternatives have this tendency to never fit anywhere but in the realms of speculation or wishful fantasy. But that doesn't mean the experiential data set should be confused with experience-independent reality. That's the major caveat.

As an appetizer for a possible way out here's an analogy alias funology:

What according to our experiential data set always is a square.. might in the experience independent world actually start as a circle, where the brain's algorithms are "squaring the circle".

Experience independent circle -> brain ops "squaring the circle"-> you see a square

Which would be only a small operation and part of a massive toolbox of trans-mutating algorithms that create the world as you know it. Do I believe reality is some sort of boiling soup of mathematical noodles? Nah. You always need X to breath life into the equations. But it is remarkable that while we probe through the experiential interface into experience independent reality... the echos talk mathematics, giving physics and technology their wings.

[Simple Minded]

for those who like outside the box paradigms:

mR5i0lI3xrw

[noddy]

that video is blocked to my people.

more interesting news - while testing a theory of finding life by looking for things only life makes, Venus got surprising.

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2015/

An international team of astronomers today announced the discovery of a rare molecule — phosphine — in the clouds of Venus. On Earth, this gas is only made industrially or by microbes that thrive in oxygen-free environments. Astronomers have speculated for decades that high clouds on Venus could offer a home for microbes — floating free of the scorching surface but needing to tolerate very high acidity. The detection of phosphine could point to such extra-terrestrial “aerial” life.

“When we got the first hints of phosphine in Venus’s spectrum, it was a shock!”, says team leader Jane Greaves of Cardiff University in the UK, who first spotted signs of phosphine in observations from the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT), operated by the East Asian Observatory, in Hawaiʻi. Confirming their discovery required using 45 antennas of the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, a more sensitive telescope in which the European Southern Observatory (ESO) is a partner. Both facilities observed Venus at a wavelength of about 1 millimetre, much longer than the human eye can see — only telescopes at high altitude can detect it effectively.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

that video is blocked to my people.

more interesting news - while testing a theory of finding life by looking for things only life makes, Venus got surprising.

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2015/

An international team of astronomers today announced the discovery of a rare molecule — phosphine — in the clouds of Venus. On Earth, this gas is only made industrially or by microbes that thrive in oxygen-free environments. Astronomers have speculated for decades that high clouds on Venus could offer a home for microbes — floating free of the scorching surface but needing to tolerate very high acidity. The detection of phosphine could point to such extra-terrestrial “aerial” life.

“When we got the first hints of phosphine in Venus’s spectrum, it was a shock!”, says team leader Jane Greaves of Cardiff University in the UK, who first spotted signs of phosphine in observations from the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT), operated by the East Asian Observatory, in Hawaiʻi. Confirming their discovery required using 45 antennas of the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, a more sensitive telescope in which the European Southern Observatory (ESO) is a partner. Both facilities observed Venus at a wavelength of about 1 millimetre, much longer than the human eye can see — only telescopes at high altitude can detect it effectively.

This is why we need more Venusian projects. It's cheaper than Mars at the moment, and perhaps more interesting too.

[Simple Minded]

that video is blocked to my people.

maybe you could view it by pretending to be someone else? or by claiming discrimination/oppression?

interesting film mostly about all the giant skeletons found in America, and reports from American Indians and early European settlers of their encounters with giants. And a few foot prints found in rock that is supposedly 100's of millions of years old.

Most of these mysteries are post Ice Age. Really makes me wonder what happened on our planet prior to the ice age.

more interesting news - while testing a theory of finding life by looking for things only life makes, Venus got surprising.

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2015/

An international team of astronomers today announced the discovery of a rare molecule — phosphine — in the clouds of Venus. On Earth, this gas is only made industrially or by microbes that thrive in oxygen-free environments. Astronomers have speculated for decades that high clouds on Venus could offer a home for microbes — floating free of the scorching surface but needing to tolerate very high acidity. The detection of phosphine could point to such extra-terrestrial “aerial” life.

“When we got the first hints of phosphine in Venus’s spectrum, it was a shock!”, says team leader Jane Greaves of Cardiff University in the UK, who first spotted signs of phosphine in observations from the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT), operated by the East Asian Observatory, in Hawaiʻi. Confirming their discovery required using 45 antennas of the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, a more sensitive telescope in which the European Southern Observatory (ESO) is a partner. Both facilities observed Venus at a wavelength of about 1 millimetre, much longer than the human eye can see — only telescopes at high altitude can detect it effectively.

First the moon, then Mars, then Titan, now Venus, seems like there's evidence of life everywhere we look!

The more places we look, the more conspiracy theories and coverups we find........

[Mr. Perfect]

In the meantime, Copernicus and Galileo are still waiting for their apologies from The Church.

How do you know that.

God told me.

Galileo remained a fan of the Church till the end. People speak for Galileo when they don't know anything about him.

[Mr. Perfect]

being wrong isnt really a problem.

the growth from alchemy to modern chemistry and physics is a never ending list of wrong and/or overly simplistic understandings

Unless it's evolution, then you can't question it.

- but it was always useful and created some our most powerful and incredible tools.

the current inquiries into DNA and all its possibilities are likely to be every bit as rewarding.

any focus on wrongness is gas lighting.

Unless it is creationism, then...

[Mr. Perfect]

Evolution appears to survive because it provides a construct for atheists to replace God.

right, this is your honest argument - the rest is tedious gotchas and cut n pasted talking points.

No, it's solid falsification arguments. Over and over again.

[noddy]

being wrong isnt really a problem.

the growth from alchemy to modern chemistry and physics is a never ending list of wrong and/or overly simplistic understandings

Unless it's evolution, then you can't question it.

provide a theory that captures plate techtonics, dna studies and the tree of life better than evolution does and the world is your oyster.

ive read all the creationist stuff, its just reacting to evolution, backfilling on new discoveries , it provides no alternative except theory "god dunnit"

- but it was always useful and created some our most powerful and incredible tools.

the current inquiries into DNA and all its possibilities are likely to be every bit as rewarding.

any focus on wrongness is gas lighting.

Unless it is creationism, then...

creationism is fine in terms of emotional therapeutics or moral philosophy, it has lots of relevance in those domains - the effects of thought on the human psyche are important, they just have nothing to do with physical biology and its proposed mechanisms.

if reality has profound implications on your morality, thats not sciences problem.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The Jesuit scientists have been treated unfairly by history.

Perhaps it is due to the Roman Catholic / Protestant schism in Europe.

That plays a role; though perhaps now we often have it overemphasized or over-corrected in some venues. Another thing which would play a role is the Jesuit knack for annoying, agitating and getting involved in all sorts of political intrigue-- not the sort of stuff which produces good will.

I think the bigger conflation is the Jesuits with the Dominicans; and writing the narrative as a renewal of the break between the early moderns and the late medievalists in Europe.

My understanding is that the Dominicans in general presented the most consistent opposition from Copernicus on down. They had the most to lose and were an embodiment of a world passing away.

I can't think of an individual who is popularly remembered for his contributions who didn't generally agree with the mentality of "out with the old, and in with the new" from art to mathematics to science and religion, Catholic and Protestant.

=============

Well, what does any of this have to do with evolution?

I know a lot more about the early period than the later one; but what strikes me is how many English Aristotelians are among those arguing against the milieu of radicals running around believing in the transmutation of species.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Dad sent me this link mainly because he was disturbed by many of the comments. See if you can guess why?:

Classical Evolutionary Story Overturned: Our Mud-Slurping Chinless Ancestors Had All the Moves

Researchers from the University of Bristol used computer simulations to explore how avatars of our extinct ancestors interacted with water currents. These experiments revealed the bizarre spikes and spines that ornamented the heads of these jawless vertebrates were actually hydrodynamic adaptations, passively generating lift from water currents flowing over the body. The varying head shapes of different species allowed them to adapt to different positions, some high, others low, within the water. Our ancient ancestors were already ecologically diverse, long before the evolution of their jawed vertebrate relatives.

https://scitechdaily.com/classical-evol ... the-moves/

A mook responds........

Explain why these retards are being funded to come up with this idiotic crap. Evolution will never be proven. Never. It’s such lies and bs, even God REFUSES to allow y’all to call it anything but a ‘theory’, which is code for ‘we made this up’. You are unable to call it fact. The majority of the autistic trash you so-called ‘scientists’ post is ‘maybe this, perhaps that, could be, might be’ etc, when you know it’s a dysfunctional lie. It serves absolutely no purpose but to confuse and mislead people. If you didn’t believe in a Creator, you wouldn’t put so much effort into creating a completely false alternative. Only thing accidental and randomly put together seems to be your intelligence, or rather, lack thereof. The laws of ‘nature’ are governed, just like everything else in life is. Your lies won’t help you.

Okay, I'll spoil this. My response to Dad's email:

I think it's the clickbait title. The mooks read "Classical Evolutionary Theory Overturned" and smacked their lips thinking evolution as an established process has been disproven. They were wrong......

Early organisms had more capability and sophisticated social structures than previously assumed. That's not too controversial. The etiology (cause of disease or injury) of evolution on the mainline Protestant psyche can be readily established: social darwinism in the early 20th century used to justify racism and eugenics went against the gospel of Jesus, (as understood in the Social Gospel) and the suggestion that life can diversify and self create without the intervention of God as absolute heresy. Since everything is personal and political in public discourse, evolutionary theory became the creation myth of godless communism and soulless secular humanist bent on destroying Amurica.........

Nothing more need be said.....'>.....

[Typhoon]

The Jesuit scientists have been treated unfairly by history.

Perhaps it is due to the Roman Catholic / Protestant schism in Europe.

That plays a role; though perhaps now we often have it overemphasized or over-corrected in some venues. Another thing which would play a role is the Jesuit knack for annoying, agitating and getting involved in all sorts of political intrigue-- not the sort of stuff which produces good will.

It certainly did not go over well in Japan.

I think the bigger conflation is the Jesuits with the Dominicans; and writing the narrative as a renewal of the break between the early moderns and the late medievalists in Europe.

My understanding is that the Dominicans in general presented the most consistent opposition from Copernicus on down. They had the most to lose and were an embodiment of a world passing away.

I can't think of an individual who is popularly remembered for his contributions who didn't generally agree with the mentality of "out with the old, and in with the new" from art to mathematics to science and religion, Catholic and Protestant.

That's well beyond my limited knowledge of Euro history. Sounds probable.

[Typhoon]

Dad sent me this link mainly because he was disturbed by many of the comments. See if you can guess why?:

Classical Evolutionary Story Overturned: Our Mud-Slurping Chinless Ancestors Had All the Moves

Researchers from the University of Bristol used computer simulations to explore how avatars of our extinct ancestors interacted with water currents. These experiments revealed the bizarre spikes and spines that ornamented the heads of these jawless vertebrates were actually hydrodynamic adaptations, passively generating lift from water currents flowing over the body. The varying head shapes of different species allowed them to adapt to different positions, some high, others low, within the water. Our ancient ancestors were already ecologically diverse, long before the evolution of their jawed vertebrate relatives.

https://scitechdaily.com/classical-evol ... the-moves/

A mook responds........

Explain why these retards are being funded to come up with this idiotic crap. Evolution will never be proven. Never. It’s such lies and bs, even God REFUSES to allow y’all to call it anything but a ‘theory’, which is code for ‘we made this up’. You are unable to call it fact. The majority of the autistic trash you so-called ‘scientists’ post is ‘maybe this, perhaps that, could be, might be’ etc, when you know it’s a dysfunctional lie. It serves absolutely no purpose but to confuse and mislead people. If you didn’t believe in a Creator, you wouldn’t put so much effort into creating a completely false alternative. Only thing accidental and randomly put together seems to be your intelligence, or rather, lack thereof. The laws of ‘nature’ are governed, just like everything else in life is. Your lies won’t help you.

Learned something new. Added "mook" to my vocabulary.

Okay, I'll spoil this. My response to Dad's email:

I think it's the clickbait title. The mooks read "Classical Evolutionary Theory Overturned" and smacked their lips thinking evolution as an established process has been disproven. They were wrong......

Early organisms had more capability and sophisticated social structures than previously assumed. That's not too controversial. The etiology (cause of disease or injury) of evolution on the mainline Protestant psyche can be readily established: social darwinism in the early 20th century used to justify racism and eugenics went against the gospel of Jesus, (as understood in the Social Gospel) and the suggestion that life can diversify and self create without the intervention of God as absolute heresy. Since everything is personal and political in public discourse, evolutionary theory became the creation myth of godless communism and soulless secular humanist bent on destroying Amurica.........

Nothing more need be said.....'>.....

Spot on. Well said.

The title of the press release is classic click bait.

[Simple Minded]

Dad sent me this link mainly because he was disturbed by many of the comments. See if you can guess why?:

Okay, I'll spoil this. My response to Dad's email:

Thanks for posting LG. Please tell your Dad, that IMSMO, that he did a fine job raising you and that he should be proud.

On a similar note, I once told my older brother about a sllave-driver, taskmaster mason I was working for, who would yell at you all day long, but when you went to lunch he felt it was his duty to say "Ya, know, Jesus loves you!"

After about 2 seconds of thought, my brother replied "Well, there's a lot of a**holes out there. You gonna let them all get to ya?"

Not sure what Bible verse number that is, but it sure sounds like timeless wisdom from an enlightened soul.

I'm pretty sure Jesus said that to his apostles on a daily basis.

[Typhoon]

Quanta Mag |New Clues to Chemical Origins of Metabolism at Dawn of Life

On the early Earth, a forerunner of the complex cycle of reactions that underpins metabolism in today’s cells might have originated from interactions between just two simple, versatile molecules in water, according to new research.

Popular speculations about how life evolved out of a soup of chemicals on the early Earth often focus on the origins of DNA and RNA, the molecules of genetic information. But the genesis of genes is only one of the mysteries that origin-of-life theories must reckon with. Another is the rise of metabolism — the biochemical processes inside cells that make life possible by continuously drawing energy from the environment and directing it into the assembly of vital molecules. It’s a complex problem on which there has been little headway.

[noddy]

It appears anyone that didnt marry a violent and aggresive partner has contributed to the pussification of humanity

https://www.sciencealert.com/monkeys-ma ... y-suggests

It's long been recognised that domestication in animals promotes certain physical features that aren't observed in their wild counterparts. This phenomenon – called domestication syndrome – has been noted since the era of Charles Darwin and is thought to lie behind all sorts of physical traits and characteristics.

While the term 'domestication' is perhaps most often used in the context of humans domesticating animals, it doesn't always mean that. Scientists also hypothesise that humans unwittingly self-domesticated ourselves – opting for partners exhibiting less aggressive and more social behaviours.

The thinking is that, over generations, those choices may have bred out some of the more wild and animalistic aspects of our ancient demeanour, promoting tolerance and prosocial conduct instead, which in turn could have led to the development of human civilisation as we know it.

not sure how the super macho types will react to this news, maybe more beatings from their missus is in order.

[Mr. Perfect]

provide a theory that captures plate techtonics, dna studies and the tree of life better than evolution does and the world is your oyster.

Evolution doesn't capture any of those things, and again that completely fails the standards of science. Science has no interes in "best explanations" you should know that by now.

ive read all the creationist stuff, its just reacting to evolution, backfilling on new discoveries , it provides no alternative except theory "god dunnit"

That's no different than evolution, "evolution done it" how where why when, no answer.

the current inquiries into DNA and all its possibilities are likely to be every bit as rewarding.

any focus on wrongness is gas lighting.

So anticreationists are gaslighting?

creationism is fine in terms of emotional therapeutics or moral philosophy, it has lots of relevance in those domains - the effects of thought on the human psyche are important, they just have nothing to do with physical biology and its proposed mechanisms.

if reality has profound implications on your morality, thats not sciences problem.

Reality reinforces my morals quite well, that's not the issue. The issue is was all this created or did it happen at random, currently there is no answer from science. As such it seems stupid to shout down one side and falsely promote the other. And I mean that both ways.