Men vs. Women

[Evil Hamster]

However, we have overriden quiet a bit of our original biological factors, like socrdawg said, some men do prefer smaller breast. Likewise some women prefer 'cute' men, over manly men.

That's not culture, that's chemical:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1218808/Contraceptive-pill-women-attracted-masculine-men--interested-boyish-looks.html

3. they define "big breasts" as something seen on porn movies. These are usually way too big and sometimes strange shape (both indicate bad health or bad genes)

Don't forget bad silicone...

Also- deleted from your quote, but a good portion of science is based on faith and/or pre-decided conclusions where contrary evidence is rejected (just like religion). It's not as cut and dry as you make it sound. Granted, scientific beliefs do change over time (just like religion) but that doesn't mean it is infallable. Not to mention there are a lot of phenomenon that science can't answer. But that's off-topic for this thread!

[Forfeit]

However, we have overriden quiet a bit of our original biological factors, like socrdawg said, some men do prefer smaller breast. Likewise some women prefer 'cute' men, over manly men.

That's not culture, that's chemical:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1218808/Contraceptive-pill-women-attracted-masculine-men--interested-boyish-looks.html

3. they define "big breasts" as something seen on porn movies. These are usually way too big and sometimes strange shape (both indicate bad health or bad genes)

Don't forget bad silicone...

Also- deleted from your quote, but a good portion of science is based on faith and/or pre-decided conclusions where contrary evidence is rejected (just like religion). It's not as cut and dry as you make it sound. Granted, scientific beliefs do change over time (just like religion) but that doesn't mean it is infallable. Not to mention there are a lot of phenomenon that science can't answer. But that's off-topic for this thread!

Both cultural and chemical, mainly our culture allows for the chemical reactions to be accepted.

Also, thank you for that post about science, as I was too irritated to post the (exact, really) same thing myself. Also, I'd just like to add, that quiet a few theorys we have have no backing for proof other than logic, and that science isn't all facts as well with how they collect evidence, which is why I mentioned anecdotal evidence earlier. Pretty cool thing about science, huh?

P.S. Science chages a lot more than religion, because we have to admit we're not yet finished everything and fix it when faced with new facts.

[Forfeit]

Just to sort of modify what you just said,

Both cultural and chemical, mainly our culture allows for the chemical reactions to be accepted.

, the chemical processes affect behavior, desires, etc. but culture can overrule these processes (you may want to kill someone you're mad at, but your culture (religion, law, morals).

SG's example of men and breasts makes perfect sense. However, we know that there are exceptions to what science has shown to be genetically determined. So the next question is are those exceptions due to a genetic mutation, or are they part of some other factor? If you were to look at food foraging societies, you might find that all men like large breasts. If you were to find any that didn't, and they couldn't give a reason as to why they preferred small ones, then it's probably a genetic mutation. If you look at a post-industrial or industrial society and find specific groups of men prefer smaller breasts, then it could very well be cultural (groups as in things a person belongs to in society, like a church, or a state, or a geographic region, not races, because that might be genetic).

Thanks for expanding, your example really hit the target too. And for the groups being cultural vs. genetic mutation in a single preson, I like the way you have for the two to be seperated. Although, how would you find out if it was a genetic mutation if it was accepted by a group of people, where not all or only one of then actually has genetics affecting it? Rehtorical. I think when getting away from the theorys and actually discussing sicence, way more factrs are taken into account. Hence why I'm opting out of any of the more technical parts on this debate.

[Demagog]

Religion is part of culture, not separate. In regards to culture, there are many factors. Biology, resources, history, social stucture, geography, food supply, religion, economy, etc.

[Forfeit]

Ah, I love when we use the theroys to support our opinion instad of change it. To my credit, my opinion has been changed many times, I just se things that support what I think. Btw technically this dowan't fit into religion/politics but maybe we should start a psycology board, no? Seriously, no, jk.

Although, how new point, how does religion affect the culutral part of use that overrides biological functions, or does religion support our biology, while our culture trys to override it, while most of our culture takes its cues from religion? Interesting tiangle there. Plus a way to make it fit into religion, xD.

[Forfeit]

Religion is part of culture, not separate. In regards to culture, there are many factors. Biology, resources, history, social stucture, geography, food supply, religion, economy, etc.

Religion is a well defined part of culture, branching in it's own directions regardless of culture. Culture when looked at for a society becomes it's own entity to, affect by but not only encompassing those formentioned subjects you said.

[Demagog]

Woo hoo what? He agreed with me... actually I think he was disagreeing but misunderstood, so he was actually agreeing.