No wonder conservatives hate evolution

[koshergrl]

A new study shows that evolution selects cooperation over selfishness, to the point that selfish individuals will one day die out.

Source

Then why are liberals still around?

Don't worry, their birth rates are so low that they aren't replacing themselves, lol.

The non selfish people are busy having babies they can't really afford but love anyway, raising them in the church, and volunteering at food banks. And there are a LOT of them, lol.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

A new study shows that evolution selects cooperation over selfishness, to the point that selfish individuals will one day die out.

Source

Then why are liberals still around?

Don't worry, their birth rates are so low that they aren't replacing themselves, lol.

The non selfish people are busy having babies they can't really afford but love anyway, raising them in the church, and volunteering at food banks. And there are a LOT of them, lol.

What happened to personal responsibility?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Where did I ever say anything else?

I appreciate your honesty, but I have some sad news for you: USMB doesn't care.

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have said something.

By the way, have you figured out how pointing a gun at your head and demanding something fits in with the article's comments about evolution selecting for cooperation?

You just admitted that you don't care what I think. (I'm not USMB.) Therefore, there's obviously no need for me respond to you with anything more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I appreciate your honesty, but I have some sad news for you: USMB doesn't care.

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have said something.

By the way, have you figured out how pointing a gun at your head and demanding something fits in with the article's comments about evolution selecting for cooperation?

You just admitted that you don't care what I think. (I'm not USMB.) Therefore, there's obviously no need for me respond to you with anything more.

I did not just admit that.

By the way, mocking you is not an indication of me being concerned about what you think, it is just me having fun picking on someone who can't fight back.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have said something.

By the way, have you figured out how pointing a gun at your head and demanding something fits in with the article's comments about evolution selecting for cooperation?

You just admitted that you don't care what I think. (I'm not USMB.) Therefore, there's obviously no need for me respond to you with anything more.

I did not just admit that.

By the way, mocking you is not an indication of me being concerned about what you think, it is just me having fun picking on someone who can't fight back.

You admitted it by claiming to care about nothing beyond showing off to USMB. Not to mention in the second sentence of the above post.

So you don't care what I say, and yet you constantly seek my reply. This makes you co-dependent as well as plagued by delusions of grandeur.

Don't expect to go far in life with that combination.

 

[Stephanie]

A new study shows that evolution selects cooperation over selfishness, to the point that selfish individuals will one day die out.

Source

look at you liberals...YOU and the party you belong to support the killing of your off sping all in the name of CHIOICE...

That is the absolute shining example of SELFISH

dear gawd who did this stupid study...some high school kid

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You just admitted that you don't care what I think. (I'm not USMB.) Therefore, there's obviously no need for me respond to you with anything more.

I did not just admit that.

By the way, mocking you is not an indication of me being concerned about what you think, it is just me having fun picking on someone who can't fight back.

You admitted it by claiming to care about nothing beyond showing off to USMB. Not to mention in the second sentence of the above post.

So you don't care what I say, and yet you constantly seek my reply. This makes you co-dependent as well as plagued by delusions of grandeur.

Don't expect to go far in life with that combination.

Once again, I did not just admit that. I suggest you get a fifth grader to help you understand what that means.

Imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, but you are really bad at it, so I don't really feel flattered.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I did not just admit that.

By the way, mocking you is not an indication of me being concerned about what you think, it is just me having fun picking on someone who can't fight back.

You admitted it by claiming to care about nothing beyond showing off to USMB. Not to mention in the second sentence of the above post.

So you don't care what I say, and yet you constantly seek my reply. This makes you co-dependent as well as plagued by delusions of grandeur.

Don't expect to go far in life with that combination.

Once again, I did not just admit that. I suggest you get a fifth grader to help you understand what that means.

Imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, but you are really bad at it, so I don't really feel flattered.

You obviously don't deny not caring about anything but your own ego, which makes you both dishonest and a narcissist.

It follows that there is absolutely no point in either discussing or fighting with you, because you will invariably declare victory regardless of what either you or the other party says.

Game over, loser.

 

[freedombecki]

Sheesh, my kids fought over a cast-off gum wrapper when they were 18 months and 3. It earned them time in the corner and me the meanest mom in the world reputation for life.

We'll just skip the lectio divinia and let it go at that. I hope you gentlemen do, too.

 

[Avorysuds]

Sounds like the OP is greedy, wants conservatives to die off so they can take all their stuff... figures.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

A new study shows that evolution selects cooperation over selfishness, to the point that selfish individuals will one day die out.

Source

look at you liberals...YOU and the party you belong to support the killing of your off sping all in the name of CHIOICE...

That is the absolute shining example of SELFISH

dear gawd who did this stupid study...some high school kid

"Republicans: we love you in utero, but after that, you're on yer own."

 

[Stephanie]

A new study shows that evolution selects cooperation over selfishness, to the point that selfish individuals will one day die out.

Source

look at you liberals...YOU and the party you belong to support the killing of your off sping all in the name of CHIOICE...

That is the absolute shining example of SELFISH

dear gawd who did this stupid study...some high school kid

"Republicans: we love you in utero, but after that, you're on yer own."

how can they be on their own, they have what's called, parents...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You admitted it by claiming to care about nothing beyond showing off to USMB. Not to mention in the second sentence of the above post.

So you don't care what I say, and yet you constantly seek my reply. This makes you co-dependent as well as plagued by delusions of grandeur.

Don't expect to go far in life with that combination.

Once again, I did not just admit that. I suggest you get a fifth grader to help you understand what that means.

Imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, but you are really bad at it, so I don't really feel flattered.

You obviously don't deny not caring about anything but your own ego, which makes you both dishonest and a narcissist.

It follows that there is absolutely no point in either discussing or fighting with you, because you will invariably declare victory regardless of what either you or the other party says.

Game over, loser.

FYI, there is a difference between not admitting something and denying something that is the opposite.

For instance, I never said anything to give anyone the impression I care about the opinions of anyone on this board about what I think. Unlike you, and a few others, my self esteem is not dependent on random internet strangers. I have also never spelled out exactly what I care about, and what I don't.

Does that mean I don't care about things, or does it just mean you can't figure me out? I think most pesters here would have a pretty good diea about what I care about, and what I don't.

 

[flacaltenn]

Only a wonky partisian pundit would believe that evolution has been redefined by that article..
It's just another excuse for a pissing match. Very little to do with evolutionary science. Because someone asserts that gaming theory and computer simulations ON HUMANS -- has anything to do with yeast cells --- doesn't make it so..

Enjoy the piss y'all.. This ain't no science..

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Only a wonky partisian pundit would believe that evolution has been redefined by that article..
It's just another excuse for a pissing match. Very little to do with evolutionary science. Because someone asserts that gaming theory and computer simulations ON HUMANS -- has anything to do with yeast cells --- doesn't make it so..

Enjoy the piss y'all.. This ain't no science..

Clearly Mr. Partisan had some of it in his Wheaties this morning.

He can't even get his facts straight, either: the article isn't "redefining" evolution at all. But at least he recognizes one thing: correct or not, the article does a nice job of making the right look bad.

 

[flacaltenn]

Only a wonky partisian pundit would believe that evolution has been redefined by that article..
It's just another excuse for a pissing match. Very little to do with evolutionary science. Because someone asserts that gaming theory and computer simulations ON HUMANS -- has anything to do with yeast cells --- doesn't make it so..

Enjoy the piss y'all.. This ain't no science..

Clearly Mr. Partisan had some of it in his Wheaties this morning.

He can't even get his facts straight, either: the article isn't "redefining" evolution at all. But at least he recognizes one thing: correct or not, the article does a nice job of making the right look bad.

Really? Where in the article does it mention politics? Please tell me Mr. Darwin --- how do you generalize guilt, conscience, reasoning and game playing to all of nature and make this cruddy study a statement about Evolution in the animal (plant) kingdom?

Love to hear something topical about the OP..

I think it's just about progressive academics that want to discover vital leftist qualities in places where they are not apparent...

And what makes you think that if they HAD a case for this ass-in-nine assertion, that Conservatives would reject "cooperation" as a tool for survival??? Been to Church lately?
Is that a hotbed of ANTI-Cooperative sentiment?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Only a wonky partisian pundit would believe that evolution has been redefined by that article..
It's just another excuse for a pissing match. Very little to do with evolutionary science. Because someone asserts that gaming theory and computer simulations ON HUMANS -- has anything to do with yeast cells --- doesn't make it so..

Enjoy the piss y'all.. This ain't no science..

Clearly Mr. Partisan had some of it in his Wheaties this morning.

He can't even get his facts straight, either: the article isn't "redefining" evolution at all. But at least he recognizes one thing: correct or not, the article does a nice job of making the right look bad.

Really? Where in the article does it mention politics? Please tell me Mr. Darwin --- how do you generalize guilt, conscience, reasoning and game playing to all of nature and make this cruddy study a statement about Evolution in the animal (plant) kingdom?

Love to hear something topical about the OP..

I think it's just about progressive academics that want to discover vital leftist qualities in places where they are not apparent...

And what makes you think that if they HAD a case for this ass-in-nine assertion, that Conservatives would reject "cooperation" as a tool for survival??? Been to Church lately?
Is that a hotbed of ANTI-Cooperative sentiment?

Now this is terribly confusing.....

You say you DON'T believe that this study does anything to make the right look bad, and yet you're spending so much energy desperately yelling about how terrible the citation is. Why?

And are the stakes so high that you have to drag religion into it, too?

 

[flacaltenn]

Clearly Mr. Partisan had some of it in his Wheaties this morning.

He can't even get his facts straight, either: the article isn't "redefining" evolution at all. But at least he recognizes one thing: correct or not, the article does a nice job of making the right look bad.

Really? Where in the article does it mention politics? Please tell me Mr. Darwin --- how do you generalize guilt, conscience, reasoning and game playing to all of nature and make this cruddy study a statement about Evolution in the animal (plant) kingdom?

Love to hear something topical about the OP..

I think it's just about progressive academics that want to discover vital leftist qualities in places where they are not apparent...

And what makes you think that if they HAD a case for this ass-in-nine assertion, that Conservatives would reject "cooperation" as a tool for survival??? Been to Church lately?
Is that a hotbed of ANTI-Cooperative sentiment?

Now this is terribly confusing.....

You say you DON'T believe that this study does anything to make the right look bad, and yet you're spending so much energy desperately yelling about how terrible the citation is. Why?

And are the stakes so high that you have to drag religion into it, too?

I thought you'd be sharp enough to realize that once you typed the title and included the words --- "conservative" "evolution" and then implied that this silly study made them look bad --- that RELIGION was already implied..

But I guess I had to point that out..

So WHAT if cooperation helps HUMAN (and a minor number of lower animal) societies?

Who is more fond of cooperation and conformance?

Church going conservatives or rock worshipping new age liberals?

(We could still eek out some brain stimulation on this topic).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Clearly Mr. Partisan had some of it in his Wheaties this morning.

He can't even get his facts straight, either: the article isn't "redefining" evolution at all. But at least he recognizes one thing: correct or not, the article does a nice job of making the right look bad.

Really? Where in the article does it mention politics? Please tell me Mr. Darwin --- how do you generalize guilt, conscience, reasoning and game playing to all of nature and make this cruddy study a statement about Evolution in the animal (plant) kingdom?

Love to hear something topical about the OP..

I think it's just about progressive academics that want to discover vital leftist qualities in places where they are not apparent...

And what makes you think that if they HAD a case for this ass-in-nine assertion, that Conservatives would reject "cooperation" as a tool for survival??? Been to Church lately?
Is that a hotbed of ANTI-Cooperative sentiment?

Now this is terribly confusing.....

You say you DON'T believe that this study does anything to make the right look bad, and yet you're spending so much energy desperately yelling about how terrible the citation is. Why?

And are the stakes so high that you have to drag religion into it, too?

It doesn't make the right look bad because the right does not oppose cooperation. Even far left wing anarchists are not opposed to mutually beneficial cooperation, something even a drooling idiot like you should understand. Apparently simple concepts like this are beyond you, which is why you totally missed the point when I asked where it said anything about holding a gun to your head counts as cooperation.

Idiot.

Or did you miss the title of the thread when you typed it?