so if we took a bunch of gorillas and put them in antarctica and kept putting gorillas in antarctica they were rapidly evolve

that's not the argument

the argument is,

u'll needlessly kill people until u realize that dumping a guy with more hair has more chances

we have things that help overcome some the basic survival filters

we no longer live in a cave

that if you dump say, 2,000 people on Antarctica, some of them are people much better adapted to that kind of environment, say the Nenets people or the Greenlanders, and some others are like Namibians and Saudis, you won't probably have the latter group members present after two generations because they died out. You would, though, perhaps still have Nenets and Greenlanders

so the environment determines the composition of the group here

no way around it

Different Peoples react to Different Environments in Different Ways, Environment triggers those genes in you that are innate to you, but it can only trigger something that is innate to you.
Yes, there is genetic mutation, but it doesn't change things in radical ways over a few generations or you would see really high IQ Nogs in USA and South Africa on Average...

but you don't ..

^

"desert nogs die in snowland" wow what a boring and asinine point

people will die much sooner, before their ability to adapt kicks in

and this implies dumping them naked

> innate

you do mean the genes which

a) are literally material environment, that is, they came from the primordial soup of matter
b) were evolved in times due to changes in the environment
c) were further adjusted by interactions between the subject and foreign microbiological elements from the environment

@AdorableStormtrooper ?

Apartheid Africa was way different from the rest of Africa in ways that are predictable, they created a Wealthy Western society which Left Intellectuals hoped would carry on after nogs took over, but they didn't...
Different Peoples react to Different Environments in Different ways that don't change radically over short spans of time.

to claim otherwise is folly

Environment is primary here, without it you have nothing. The genes themselves arouse from what we consider "environment"

```> innate

you do mean the genes which

a) are literally material environment, that is, they came from the primordial soup of matter
b) were evolved in times due to changes in the environment
c) were further adjusted by interactions between the subject and foreign microbiological elements from the environment

@AdorableStormtrooper ?```


what even is your contention?

that environment is primary

you've just proven that it isn't with your previous example

what a boring conversation, it's just more materialism

dump nogs in snowland, they die

of course its materialism, its the only sensible doctrine

no

ok so you're playing with the definition of Environment to include Humans and make the term completely useless just to save your Ideology 😂

i didn't realize the game we were playing

I mean if you want to deny the reality of abiogenesis and evolution from that point onwards, that's your call man

your ontology is useless because it is literally myopic

<:facepalm:508484035274735665>

"if you don't adopt marxist weaseling you hate evolution"

this is not even Marxian exclusively

many doctrines hold this viewpoint

mostly because its sensible

Lol

We talk about Humans in Relation to the Environment, if you make Humans part of the Environment, either of the two terms is useless.. because you're not even taking a Human point of view

What r u guys arguing about today

This is a retarded discussion to save the integrity of a stupid ideology

of course in absolute terms the "human" and the "environment" never were and never will be an absolute dichotomy

namely Materialism