The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
“Implicit Religion”—Leftist Race Denial Is the New Creationism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
unlikely

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Recently, I reported that Leftist journalist-enforcers had discovered an annual academic conference on subjects like genetic racial differences in intelligence had taken place, almost clandestinely, at the prestigious University College of London for four years without the SJW mob or even the university knowing about it. The usual moral panic ensued.

James Thompson, the lecturer who organized the conference got the Two-Minutes Hate, the SJW mob protested, and the Main Stream Media hauled out the rent-a-quote Leftist scientists to dismiss race and race differences in IQ. The MS and the lefty blogosphere published a series of articles, many by academics or scientifically-trained journalists, arguing that the races do not differ in IQ.

Of course, all this would have been pointless if the very idea of race is an illusion to be dismissed prima facie, the way we dismiss table-rapping during a séance. Beyond that, the reaction was hardly required, given that the Left controls academia and will likely remain in control for the foreseeable future.

But the nature of the popular polemics was especially fascinating. Quite clearly, these Leftists are in some sense akin to the anti-evolutionary cohort they despise: Creationists, the religious descendants of those who condemned Darwin’s theory in 1859. The Left denies racial differences in IQ as a matter, not of science, but of faith.

The most recent example, published in The Guardian by Kevin Mitchell, an associate professor of genetics and neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin: Why Genetic IQ Differences Between Races Are Unlikely, by Kevin Mitchell, The Guardian, May 2, 2018.

This piece inspired an immediate rejoinder by a genomic researcher who tore Mitchell to shreds while wisely disguising his identity: The Guardian Being Right About The Genetics Of IQ Is Unlikely, by Jonatan P, Medium, May 3, 2018.

Steve Sailer gave Mitchell a hearing here last week, and I propose to do so a little more skeptically, with the help of Jonatan P.

Going through Mitchell’s piece line by line, Jonatan P pinpointed Mitchell’s essential argument: many different genes create intelligence, making it a “polygenic trait,” and most mutations of the mind make you dumber. Therefore, selection’s causing genetic IQ differences between populations is highly unlikely.

This is manifestly wrong, because it implies that humanity is at its maximum genetic intelligence. It completely misunderstands how evolution and natural selection work.

Sometimes a mutant gene is beneficial, so it gets selected. And sometimes one mutant gene hugely affects intelligence. Genetic variation explains about 80 percent of the variance in IQ among individuals, and many gene variants increase IQ [Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, Richard Lynn, Ulster Institute For Social Research, 2011].

As Jonatan P put it: “Selection acts mainly through soft sweeps affecting the trait through altering the frequencies of many common variants in the population, and there is plenty of variation for them to act on.”

Mitchell next argued that natural selection is unlikely to produce populations of different intelligence because so many gene variants are involved.

Jonatan P answered that height, for instance, is similarly polygenic. But height clearly differs across the races.

Then Mitchell argued that developing systematic differences in IQ between large ancient populations would have required enormous selective forces.

Not so, Jonatan P wrote. Selective forces needn’t be large because populations are large:

If parents with lower IQ tend to have fewer offspring, this would affect the proportion of low IQ descendants whether the total population is small or large.’

Further, Mitchell argued, these forces would not have acted across entire continents. Wrong, Jonatan P replied, because they would act on population groups within these continents.

Mitchell argued that, “unlike height,” intelligence is always beneficial—so, surely, all races would end up with the same intelligence.

Jonatan P, admirably keeping his cool at this particularly preposterous argument, responded that some environments select more strongly for intelligence. But those environments where bioenergetic resources are limited would press a population group into investing less energy into growing a large brain and more energy in growing big muscles.

And indeed it is clear from the archaeological record that some peoples, such as certain Australian Aboriginal groups, were once more intelligent than they are now. They lost the ability to do things they once could.

If Mitchell were right, then dogs would have the same average IQ as humans, because intelligence would be just as beneficial for them as it is for us.

Mitchell’s arguments can be reduced down to a series of fundamental errors, all of which are underpinned by a kind of Biblical belief in essentialism; in God-ordained categories that are inherently separate and basically unchanging. This belief is exactly the opposite of the worldview which Darwinian Theory proposes.

Mitchell draws an essentialist line between humans and animals, whereby animals follow evolutionary principles—traits such as intelligence vary, depending on their ecology—whereas humans don’t follow those principles because “intelligence” always benefits Man and thus always improves.

Mitchell sees selection working in one direction—toward greater intelligence. But in fact selection is unguided; that is, as Lynn wrote in Dysgenics of Western societies today, evolution sometimes selects against improving intelligence.

Mitchell regards “races” as homogeneous, essential wholes. He fails to understand that “races” are merely groups of ethnicities that are, in turn, merely groups of kinship lines that are, in turn, merely groups of families that are, in turn, merely groups of individuals . . . with selection pressure occurring at every level.

Mitchell also regards psychological traits as essential categories. Population variance in them does not slowly change as the population frequency of the genes which underpin them changes. They are so magically complex that they “essentially” do not change.

Why? Helpful here is a concept in Religious Studies called “implicit religion,” developed by Anglican minister and academic Edward Bailey (1935-2015). It holds that although people may proclaim (and even genuinely believe) that they are atheists and believe in Darwinian theory, this is often not the case at all. If you listen to them carefully, you can discern effectively a kind of religiosity: certain unquestioned beliefs, a kind of belief in Fate, even a vague belief in a person controlling the universe [Implicit Religion: An Introduction, by Edward Bailey, 1999].

Mitchell’s arguments can be reduced to implicit religion: a belief in God-ordained categories, separate and basically unchanging. This belief is the exact opposite of Darwin’s evolutionary view. The question is how a man such as Mitchell, a geneticist and neuroscientist who studied at Berkeley and Stanford, and who considers himself an evolutionist, can deny the obvious; i.e., how he can deny science, again, like one of Darwin’s 19-century religious opponents.

The battle in science over genetic race differences in intelligence is just latest in a war which scientists have always had to fight against Creationists. Creationists simply do not think in a scientific way.

In this case, however, the New Creationism is equality—the idea that “all men are created equal,” not just before the law but right down to their genes.

If true, then racial disparities, for instance, in income or test scores are attributable, not to differences in intelligence largely controlled by genes, but instead to discrimination and prejudice. But if genes account for differences among the races in intelligence, and thus, again, to income and test scores, then all men are not created equal. Racial disparities are thus explained not by prejudice and discrimination (real or imagined) but by a man’s genetic map. Admitting that truth would, of course, destroy the religion of equality.

Equalitarians such as Mitchell, whatever their commendable academic accomplishments in the sciences, aren’t thinking scientifically. They are thinking religiously and ideologically.

And that is what led to hysteria and mob rule at University College—and, increasingly, throughout the Western Word.

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity, Science • Tags: IQ, Political Correctness, Race/IQ 
Hide 271 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. ” Then Mitchell argued that developing systematic differences in IQ between large ancient populations would have required enormous selective forces. ”

    ⦁ William H. Calvin, ‘De opkomst van het intellect, Een reis naar de ijstijd’, Amsterdam 1994 (The Ascent of Mind. Ice Climates and the Evolution of Intelligence’, 1990)
    This book describes these forces, the ice ages.
    Only the most intelligent survived.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. ” Mitchell sees selection working in one direction—toward greater intelligence. But in fact selection is unguided; that is, as Lynn wrote in Dysgenics of Western societies today, evolution sometimes selects against improving intelligence. ”

    Selection unguided ?
    An experiment with mice proved that an artificial fear was transmitted by sperm.
    The big mistake, in my opinion, when Darwin wrote about the species, was using the word evolution.
    I suppose he had to, humans were the highest, whatevere that may be, species.
    If he deliberately used the word evolution, in order to make his theory acceptable in a christian world, or that he himself saw changing species as evolution, I do not know.
    We still do not know how, and maybe why, species change.
    But alien fish that accidentally got into an African lake adapted themselves with a speed that astonished biologists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Dingo jayco says: • Website

    Couldn’t the article been simpler and shorter and still destroyed the left’side piece on intelligence? Just asking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Beckow says:

    People resort to faith to avoid having to deal with unpleasant realities. It is evolutionary helpful in the short run. The key distinction is seeing one’s existence as part of a specific group: medieval professional Christians saw themselves as career Christians first, communists as ‘vanguard of workers paradise’, today out-of-control liberals see themselves as building better global future for all. Movements like that have to ignore inconvenient realities otherwise they couldn’t exist.

    Of course, reality intrudes, so the faithful always go from martyrdom to suppression, from ideals to censoring ideas. First they convince themselves that ends justify any means, then they harden into a self-serving, all-knowing ‘elite’. Eventually cynicism creeps, belly-over-the-belt-phase kicks in, and soon it is over.

    Current globo-liberal ideology is only about half-way there. It is going to get a lot worse before it collapses. The lethal combination of early idealists, people protecting career sinecures, and the usual opportunistic thugs, is just forming. I suspect measuring IQ across groups will not be our biggest problem. This has years to go, we are – as always – being remade by ideologues on a rampage. Hillary will be sanctified, she fits the model perfectly.

    Ideology and greed always combine, a powerful and intriguing engine of human evolution. And if you want to beat them, I would suggest something equally divorced from reality with a strong career potential and attractive to dreamers. Rationality has no chance against it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Well said. Groupthink, enforced ideological conformity, intellectual taboos, etc. are all endemic to all human groups. The Bolsheviks created the NatSocs: equally dogmatic, equally authoritarian and equally bloodthirsty. And today just the specter of the NatSocs fuels the tyrannical left. I've lost track of how many times I've seen a variation of this comment regarding the alt-right on social media: "My grandfather killed Nazis! We should do the same today!"
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Of course, in the end they will be defeated by reality. The sad thing is though, we won't be the ones doing the defeating--they will probably have long since gotten rid of us by then.
    , @Svigor

    People resort to faith to avoid having to deal with unpleasant realities. It is evolutionary helpful in the short run. The key distinction is seeing one’s existence as part of a specific group: medieval professional Christians saw themselves as career Christians first, communists as ‘vanguard of workers paradise’, today out-of-control liberals see themselves as building better global future for all. Movements like that have to ignore inconvenient realities otherwise they couldn’t exist.
     
    This is praising with faint damnation. For most the bugs are just bugs. For leftists, all the "features" are bugs. There's nothing they hang their hat on that isn't stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. The real problem with racial research, for SJWs, is; it’s not telling libtards what they want to hear; that there is no difference between the races in accord with their slogan, “we are all the same under the skin”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    Instead of speilbergs demands that holohoax edjewcation theme parks be made mandatory...Maybe better yet would be to mandate all public and private ed in usa pass out copies of the Protocols of Elders of Zion, to each kid starting at grade level 3 or 4th grade....Then mandate kids read and study it, every word of each protocol....Take class testings to make certain kids actually study it all.

    Then soon every school age kid, and their parents once kids return home and tell parents what was taught today in classrooms, and everyone else hopefully, will notice that one particular protocol specifically deals with this liberal do-gooder know it all agenda of.....Equality!

    And further, they will note upon study of equality as Per those esteemed Zionist elders, that in REALITY....Per the elders mind you, There is No Such Thing as Equality of ANYTHING!

    For all that exists within entire known universe.....be it stars and suns, planets and moons, and even of all created things as pertains to earth and all it contains...From plants to birds to animals to insects to Humans...NO Two are Equal in all ways period. No not even identical twins for each may look alike to point of even own parents have difficult time telling the twin kids apart.

    But never the less, each identical twin kid has different finger prints etc.

    Every snow flake is different....Every animals is different....and unlike some idiot coal burning mud sharks, every animal Knows to Not Mate with Nor make babies with a different type animals.

    Anybody else ever notice how they never yet seen an, for example, 1/2 Racoon+1/2 BlueJay bird offspring?

    Ever notice how Lions never mate with elephants?

    Perhaps some fool folk are less intelligent than said animals and birds eh?

    But bottom line, getting back to them zio elders protocols, they also stated that a huge part of their ZOG/ZIO/Jewdeo owned and run World, will first nessesitate that they cause a global wide promotion in every possible form and way and method, the Lie that All Peoples are indeed Equal or aka full blown global propaganda promotion of Equality for All.....Also known of as commieism. I think maybe them jews invented every "Ism" we ever heard of.

    Indeed, in one section of that protocol writings, they even began to Laugh at the prospect in convincing entire worlds peoples, all non jewish goys that is, of their major scam swindle of,,,Equality for the masses!.....They Laughed loudly, at how only They and Their cohorts and fellow tribe jews will really maintain the real truth that no such equality ever has nor will exist in the world or even entire universe....Everything ever created is a unique different thing or animal or person etc.

    It was just very important, for them to achieve a global JWO ownership and rulership of all others aka goyims, to implement a false equality belief globally. They Counted on the many problems and racial revolts etc such a falsehood would cause as being necessary to acomplish their final JWO reality.

    So, once every usa school kid gets mandatory Protocols of zio elders awareness training, and transfers it to parents, soon the entire usa population can rid itself of this falsehood and all its conected bad effects, especially bad for Whites.

    It will force an end to afrimative action agendas and policies and all else related to current forced false attempts at making everybody 100% equal....Or....Else!

    One more thing on this article...I do not know much nor studied or researched much about all this rather recent dna and evolution stuff....I find it very involved and dull to read of.

    However the little I do know so far on it all....it seems to me that besides some real good acomplishments like cancer cure potentials etc....As far as all the racial and dna and iq stuff goes.

    It seems as if many who believe it all as stated or written, have a motive of potential current or future usage of the info discovered to prove no god exists, or liberal minded leftists and total control freeks such as Schumer or Pelosi or Diane Finestien types will no doubt spin and twist it all Via their typical Talmudic-speak-spin, into some form of proof to enforce every of their many bad agendas....Gun bans, Fags and dykes allowed to marry and have sex with animals and even small children....If such deranged folk like those named and others too can get away with it, they will claim some form dna science proves their policy or agenda correct. Then force it on all of society or else.....Like they Now do with Prison for Hoax questioners in germany or canada and 50+ other nations.

    They already have at least Two deranged loony jewish female "professors" stateing that jew kiddies and only jewish kids inherit "Memory Genes" from actual holohoax dead and survivors both, even from those the kids never knew nor heard of and that are Not genetically related to kids at all!

    Ergo...Same fraud professor jewish women insist jewish small kids also should qualify for....Holohoax reperations $$$ Monthly tax free payments due to bad nitemares from inherited memory genes that cause vivid dream scenes of, kid being tossed into a gas chamber by some evil nazi........If so far they can get that from dna research and dna findings?

    Then there will soon be Zero limits to what else bad or wrong or evil policy or agendas such busy body leftist types can come up with eh?.....10 more years, and even atheists and god haters are going to Pray and Hope for a Real God to exist and intervene before such deranged clowns destroy us all.

    Whitey Folk better soon awaken to Real Reality and get jewized up or no hope at all remains for America and whichever of Us are left alive yet to deal with a very Dark evil future.

    And every needed truth on what-why-who-how-when-these agendas began and what is remedy to fix it?......Can be found within various factual truths research about international jewry, the worlds foremost problem. 109 Prior nations peoples cannot all have been wrong eh.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Heros says:

    First science was politicized, now it has become another front in a genocidal culture war being conducted against goyim.

    Jews can agree on very little, but all accept that jews are smarter than goyim. Meanwhile they squelch any research which would contradict their weaponized science.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    I don't understand how you get from suppressing the evolutionary arguments for IQ differences between races to a Jewish conspiracy.

    One of the strongest reasons for differences between races is the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Persecution and limits to their career choices over the middle ages meant that they were selected for higher IQ. Ashkenazis, Northern Chinese, Koreans and Japanese regularly score higher than whites on IQ tests. Sephardic Jews do not score as highly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. AndrewR says:
    @Beckow
    People resort to faith to avoid having to deal with unpleasant realities. It is evolutionary helpful in the short run. The key distinction is seeing one's existence as part of a specific group: medieval professional Christians saw themselves as career Christians first, communists as 'vanguard of workers paradise', today out-of-control liberals see themselves as building better global future for all. Movements like that have to ignore inconvenient realities otherwise they couldn't exist.

    Of course, reality intrudes, so the faithful always go from martyrdom to suppression, from ideals to censoring ideas. First they convince themselves that ends justify any means, then they harden into a self-serving, all-knowing 'elite'. Eventually cynicism creeps, belly-over-the-belt-phase kicks in, and soon it is over.

    Current globo-liberal ideology is only about half-way there. It is going to get a lot worse before it collapses. The lethal combination of early idealists, people protecting career sinecures, and the usual opportunistic thugs, is just forming. I suspect measuring IQ across groups will not be our biggest problem. This has years to go, we are - as always - being remade by ideologues on a rampage. Hillary will be sanctified, she fits the model perfectly.

    Ideology and greed always combine, a powerful and intriguing engine of human evolution. And if you want to beat them, I would suggest something equally divorced from reality with a strong career potential and attractive to dreamers. Rationality has no chance against it.

    Well said. Groupthink, enforced ideological conformity, intellectual taboos, etc. are all endemic to all human groups. The Bolsheviks created the NatSocs: equally dogmatic, equally authoritarian and equally bloodthirsty. And today just the specter of the NatSocs fuels the tyrannical left. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen a variation of this comment regarding the alt-right on social media: “My grandfather killed Nazis! We should do the same today!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @BenKenobi

    “My grandfather killed Nazis! We should do the same today!”
     
    What really irks me about this is if the grandfather in question could have seen his nation today, he would have sided with the Nazis.

    "Now boys, if you don't defeat Hitler your grandchildren won't be raped by Pakistanis -- and that's not the kind of world my creditors want. So get out there and do your part!"
    - Churchill meme
    , @Svigor

    Well said. Groupthink, enforced ideological conformity, intellectual taboos, etc. are all endemic to all human groups. The Bolsheviks created the NatSocs: equally dogmatic, equally authoritarian and equally bloodthirsty.
     
    And yet still capable of taking their own side in a fight; communists murdered 100m+ of their own kind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. This whole article is an unbelievably naive and blustery pile of steaming shit. It is simply a mass of free-form associations and unmotivated metaphors that completely mis-states the entire debate from top to bottom. The author is too childish, too incompetent, too much of a self-anal-fingering dickweed with a bad haircut, to engage with this subject at the metaphysical level. He’s trying to make a case for race-realism (which is good) but he doesn’t understand that this is a minor matter compared with the much weightier claims he is making in favor of Darwinism. He’s letting the race-realist tail wag the metaphysics dog, and that is unacceptable and stupid.

    Darwinism is shallow materialism with a spluttering of English phlegm—nothing more. It is emphatically not science. It is the drawing-room philosophy of dilettantes and intellectual mediocrities. The idea that Darwinists are engaged in an heroic battle against “Creationism” new and old, is a laughable bit of self-flattery. Creationism is a Darwinian strawman; it is the other side of their own worthless coin. In condemning it they only reveal how pathetic they are.

    In reality the Darwinists are the new Creationists, the Leftist proponents of egalitarianism are the true heirs of the Enlightenment, and the truth is not with either one of them. Dickless morons like the execrable Lance Welton, whoever he is, are incapable of understanding anything outside of their narrow dichotomy, and that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again.

    Read More
    • LOL: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Unintelligent Unsinn.

    You seem to have some kind of problem?
    , @Anon
    GB Shaw, not a 'creationist', exposed the Victorian biases of Darwinism 100 years ago. So did Alan Watts; back in 60s he mocked the idea that we are 'gyrating stupidity born from rocks'. All the turnedon kids agreed with Watts; if we are intelligent, then we must be produced by a equally or more intelligent universe. That's right, Watts was the first to talk of 'intelligent design, and it was hip, man!
    , @Grumbler
    ID, "...that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again."

    A post made up mostly of ad hominem attacks ends with the above quote. Tyrants, big or petty, always call for censorship. Why?
    , @Mulegino1
    Very well stated.

    Creationism, in particular the "young earth" brand, is the 800 pound straw man propped up by the Church of Darwin to "demonstrate" that anyone who dares to doubt the utterly ridiculous and unscientific legend of transformism is a toothless, backwoods, Bible thumping troglodyte. Nothing could be further from the truth. The "Creationists" and the hard core apostles of Darwinian evolution are equally dogmatic and equally intolerant and evince a profound ignorance of the metaphysics which underlie all being.

    By insisting (whether implicitly or explicitly) on only taking into account the material and efficient and the elimination or dismissal of the formal and final in the causal order, contemporary scientism (as opposed to legitimate science) is an iron clad dogmatism as unforgiving of dissent as any of the Inquisitions at their peaks of power.

    Variation within species is a regular, observable occurrence. Transformism is a gross superstition.
    , @Mark M.
    If one were to divide the amount of invective by the amount of intelligent thought in this comment, with the invective being the numerator and the intelligent thought the denominator, the result would approach infinity.
    , @anon
    Thank you Intelligent Dasein. I am clipping this and saving it as the best example of the ad hominem fallacy I've ever seen.
    , @anon
    So you don’t believe in Darwin’s theory, fine. But because of your obscenity and filth about the author the article should never have been posted.

    BTW, free speech and the 1st amendment only applies to government, not websites.
    , @Dave Bowman
    Umm... That strikes me, I must admit, as somewhat... misplaced, reactionary, over-emotional, and unnecessary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Sean says:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2018/04/why-atheists-are-true-believers-too
    What does it mean to say that a communist who yearns for the coming of the classless society is really expressing just the same view as a millenarian looking to the reign of Christ on earth? The form of the belief may be roughly similar, but the content is entirely different. And if these are “inherited” ideas standing in a “lineage”, what is the evidence of a continuous chain of transmission – from, say, the 16th-century radical Anabaptists of Münster (whose chaotic quasi-communist experiment Gray describes in graphic detail) to the Bolsheviks of Petrograd and Moscow? As for the religious myths “renewing themselves” in a secular guise: this seems perilously close to the mindset of Dawkins’s theory of “memes”, which Gray has scornfully dismissed as hardly a theory at all. [...] But if the same impulse can produce a religious idea in one period and a secular one in another, it seems that the impulse is something that stands behind both, itself neither secular nor religious.

    Equalitarians such as Mitchell, whatever their commendable academic accomplishments in the sciences, aren’t thinking scientifically. They are thinking religiously and ideologically.

    Or just like human beings, who are not selected for determining the truth over reproductive fitness enhancing illusions.

    [There is] no distinction to be drawn between the development of reason and that of any other faculty, physiological or psychical, by which the interests of the individual or the race are promoted. From the humblest form of nervous irritation at the one end of the scale, to the reasoning capacity of the most advanced races at the other, everything without exception (sensation, instinct, desire, volition) has been produced directly or indirectly, by natural causes acting for the most part on strictly utilitarian principles. Convenience, not knowledge, therefore, has been the main end to which this process has tended.

    — Arthur Balfour

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Nonono, everything EXCEPT Darwinism is a mere reflex or bland splurt. Darwinism is Truth.
    , @Unladen Swallow
    I think Balfour pointed out at a different point in that piece that evolution would only eliminate delusions that threatened survival ( No suicidal tendencies ) not that it would lead to truth discovering tendencies in cognition. Trivers' works validates this as well, evolution would favor delusions that enabled us to lie more effectively to others by first lying to ourselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Please motivate why the genes implicated in IQ necessarily directly determine IQ, rather than developmental sensitivity of IQ to certain environments. Hint: the latter may have the same twin correlations as the former.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor

    Please motivate why the genes implicated in IQ necessarily directly determine IQ, rather than developmental sensitivity of IQ to certain environments. Hint: the latter may have the same twin correlations as the former.
     
    Hint: Occam's Razor.
    Hint: semantics.
    Hint: distinction without a difference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. El Dato says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This whole article is an unbelievably naive and blustery pile of steaming shit. It is simply a mass of free-form associations and unmotivated metaphors that completely mis-states the entire debate from top to bottom. The author is too childish, too incompetent, too much of a self-anal-fingering dickweed with a bad haircut, to engage with this subject at the metaphysical level. He's trying to make a case for race-realism (which is good) but he doesn't understand that this is a minor matter compared with the much weightier claims he is making in favor of Darwinism. He's letting the race-realist tail wag the metaphysics dog, and that is unacceptable and stupid.

    Darwinism is shallow materialism with a spluttering of English phlegm---nothing more. It is emphatically not science. It is the drawing-room philosophy of dilettantes and intellectual mediocrities. The idea that Darwinists are engaged in an heroic battle against "Creationism" new and old, is a laughable bit of self-flattery. Creationism is a Darwinian strawman; it is the other side of their own worthless coin. In condemning it they only reveal how pathetic they are.

    In reality the Darwinists are the new Creationists, the Leftist proponents of egalitarianism are the true heirs of the Enlightenment, and the truth is not with either one of them. Dickless morons like the execrable Lance Welton, whoever he is, are incapable of understanding anything outside of their narrow dichotomy, and that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again.

    Unintelligent Unsinn.

    You seem to have some kind of problem?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Unfair. I wouldn't want to send time finding it but I'm sure I remember him once writing something prosaically factual (maybe about himself) that suggested a possible 105 IQ (company anyway for those like annamaria who think 90+ is enough for conversation on UR).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live. Since modern IQ tests are almost entirely devised by white, middle class Americans and define the values and assumptions of white, middle class Americans as “intelligence”, it’s in the logic of the system that white, middle class Americans would score higher than any other group of people on the planet. One of the classic figures of European comedy, for example, is the American who doesn’t understand how things work and keeps making a fool of himself, to the great hilarity of Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That of course is why East Asians outscore whites on IQ tests on average.
    , @manorchurch

    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live.
     
    No, they measure individual performance on metrics the society believes are important. Thus, they are skewed to contemporary, and probably very transient, objectives.

    Can you multiply 3-digit numbers in your head? Can you recognize mechanical relationships? Can you recognize abstractions, and can you associate those abstractions with other abstractions your society recognizes? You can? Okay, you have a high IQ, in this society, in this era.
    , @Thomm
    This is false.

    1) Blacks are always low-scorers, despite all attempts to rig tests in their favor.
    2) White Trashionalists score even lower than blacks, despite growing up in the society that you mention. White Trashionalists usually score about 70, whereas normal whites average about 105 or so.
    , @Svigor

    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live.
     
    Hint: semantics.
    Hint: distinction without a difference.

    Problem-solving = adaptability = intellectual capacity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. cezanne says:

    speaking as a race realist or bigot if you like, there is no good reason ever to mix the white race with the coloured races. No matter how smart or kind the other is, it just does not come out well. Just look at the filthy vermin running rampant across Europe now. They know no bounds on their behavior and etiquette is completely lacking! “Gibs me dat” seams to be the national slogan of these others who seek not to conform but subvert white societies into the shitholes that they originate from (and should be sent back to)! No there is no good reason every to mix one drop of the white race with the lesser races. Chinese feel the same as do Japanese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. nickels says:

    “To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/

    Race realism may be one thing, but hanging on to the patently absurd theory of Darwinism is truly groupthink mental suicide.

    Basically put, natural selection cannot act until something exists and provides a benefit. This means every useful organ, biological structure, etc…, had to randomly mutate into existence from a system that takes 2 b years to flip 5 letters.
    And lets not even get started on something like the cell-more complex than any existing human made machine-randomly occurred.

    Stunning how this Whig mind disease continues to thrive in the petri dish of daddy issue, ‘I wanna be an atheist’, modernity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Race realism may be one thing, but hanging on to the patently absurd theory of Darwinism is truly groupthink mental suicide.
     
    LOL. Of course, Dr. Flatearth.

    Evolutionary theory and description works, and works better, explains better, predicts better than any wackadoodle jesus-yahweh-buddha-mohammed bullshit ever has, or ever will.
    , @Stan d Mute

    Stunning how this Whig mind disease continues to thrive in the petri dish of daddy issue, ‘I wanna be an atheist’, modernity.
     
    So, because you can’t wrap your head around the age of the Universe relative to the brevity of Homo sapiens existence, it’s just easier to believe in Tinkerbelle? Because your mommy and daddy told you Tinkerbelle was real? And handed you an old Jewish book of fairytales that fails to answer any questions about the Universe or Reality but contains lots of useful advice on how to deal with menstruating women?

    This is the intellectual equivalent of a three year old accepting Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. And while I expect this from people with an IQ under 100, what scares the crap out of me is how many people with +2SD or higher have the same unreasoned blind faith in superstitious nonsense whether in Tinkerbelle or YHWH or race/sex/biology denialism.
    , @Svigor

    Basically put, natural selection cannot act until something exists and provides a benefit. This means every useful organ, biological structure, etc…, had to randomly mutate into existence from a system that takes 2 b years to flip 5 letters.
    And lets not even get started on something like the cell-more complex than any existing human made machine-randomly occurred.
     
    So we take anecdotes and make rules of them now?

    "It took me five minutes to jerk off, ergo, it always takes everyone five minutes to jerk off; I call it the Universal Law of Onanism."

    No.
    , @Vinegar18
    Hey stupido. With 8 billion people on average that will appear in 3 months.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I have read the link you provide and have an idea of just why it doesn't support your view. The key seems to lie in the fact that they had not only starting conditions for running their computer simulations but "targeted" conditions that counted as success when achieved. If you define success narrowly by deriving definitions from what you know works (or arbitrarily for that matter) you are excluding the vast range of outcomes from myriad iterations that might succeed in providing organisms with photosensitivity or whatever.

    I would hope that some appropriately qualified scientist or mathematician might comment on this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Beckow
    People resort to faith to avoid having to deal with unpleasant realities. It is evolutionary helpful in the short run. The key distinction is seeing one's existence as part of a specific group: medieval professional Christians saw themselves as career Christians first, communists as 'vanguard of workers paradise', today out-of-control liberals see themselves as building better global future for all. Movements like that have to ignore inconvenient realities otherwise they couldn't exist.

    Of course, reality intrudes, so the faithful always go from martyrdom to suppression, from ideals to censoring ideas. First they convince themselves that ends justify any means, then they harden into a self-serving, all-knowing 'elite'. Eventually cynicism creeps, belly-over-the-belt-phase kicks in, and soon it is over.

    Current globo-liberal ideology is only about half-way there. It is going to get a lot worse before it collapses. The lethal combination of early idealists, people protecting career sinecures, and the usual opportunistic thugs, is just forming. I suspect measuring IQ across groups will not be our biggest problem. This has years to go, we are - as always - being remade by ideologues on a rampage. Hillary will be sanctified, she fits the model perfectly.

    Ideology and greed always combine, a powerful and intriguing engine of human evolution. And if you want to beat them, I would suggest something equally divorced from reality with a strong career potential and attractive to dreamers. Rationality has no chance against it.

    Of course, in the end they will be defeated by reality. The sad thing is though, we won’t be the ones doing the defeating–they will probably have long since gotten rid of us by then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. bartok says:

    They are thinking religiously and ideologically.
    And that is what led to hysteria and mob rule at University College—and, increasingly, throughout the Western Word.

    Moldbug has argued that the modern progressive left is mainline Christianity – don’t be fooled by the empty pews. Within this context should be judged the author’s claim that leftist hysteria is increasing.

    Maybe it has two levels – screaming hysteria when their team is out of office and smug score-settling when they are in office. See Defoe’s The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters (not as satire but as the truth).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Yeah but Moldbug's a mischling so naturally he prefers terminology like "Cathedral" over the more accurate "Synagogue."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. res says:
    @Michael Kenny
    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live. Since modern IQ tests are almost entirely devised by white, middle class Americans and define the values and assumptions of white, middle class Americans as "intelligence", it's in the logic of the system that white, middle class Americans would score higher than any other group of people on the planet. One of the classic figures of European comedy, for example, is the American who doesn't understand how things work and keeps making a fool of himself, to the great hilarity of Europeans.

    That of course is why East Asians outscore whites on IQ tests on average.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    It also explains why blacks are still at the bottom of the heap after tests are rigged in their favor.

    Get real, Kenny.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. AKAHorace says:
    @Heros
    First science was politicized, now it has become another front in a genocidal culture war being conducted against goyim.

    Jews can agree on very little, but all accept that jews are smarter than goyim. Meanwhile they squelch any research which would contradict their weaponized science.

    I don’t understand how you get from suppressing the evolutionary arguments for IQ differences between races to a Jewish conspiracy.

    One of the strongest reasons for differences between races is the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Persecution and limits to their career choices over the middle ages meant that they were selected for higher IQ. Ashkenazis, Northern Chinese, Koreans and Japanese regularly score higher than whites on IQ tests. Sephardic Jews do not score as highly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    One of the strongest reasons for differences between races is the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Persecution and limits to their career choices over the middle ages meant that they were selected for higher IQ.
     
    No, stupid. Refer to the actual theory and supporting research. Reproductive success is the only true measure of evolutionary success. Does IQ produce reproductive success? Maybe, maybe not.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Learning was in high esteem among jews.
    Though kabbalism is nonsense in my opinion, it is an intellectual effort.
    Jews indeed could not enter many professions, but is cattle trade, butchering and hide preparation an intellectual excercise ?
    As to banking, do you really think it is difficult ?
    Being so intelligent, why did jews never, in my knowledge, question the Torah or the 22.000 or so rules of the Torahs ?
    One might argue that circumventing these rules was an intellectual effort, however, if one reads
    Simon Schama, ´Two Rothschilds and the land of Israel’, London, 1978
    it seems rather simple.
    , @cezanne
    Ashkenazi jew was the mix of white slaves from Russia and the jews conquered from Israel by Persians (Seria is definettlly the problem (not!) we gotta destroy them (NOT)! Assad should be an ally not a target! The influx of muslims under the refugee flag, is just a long held plan to take over Christianity! The nice is only window dressing!
    , @Svigor
    More like self-selection: if you don't succeed, we push you out of the tribe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Wally says:
    @res
    That of course is why East Asians outscore whites on IQ tests on average.

    It also explains why blacks are still at the bottom of the heap after tests are rigged in their favor.

    Get real, Kenny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. anonymous[886] • Disclaimer says:

    The ‘no such thing as race’ ideology looks to be increasingly bizarre with each passing day which only spurs on it’s adherents to become even more obstinate and fanatical. It really is a religion, a secular leftist version of Creationism. That one segment of the population may hold onto it’s own peculiar beliefs, such as the earth being flat, is one thing; it’s entirely another matter when this group is in a position to enforce it’s ideas upon everyone else and terrorize others into silence. This Red Guard is running a reign of terror in a large part of the developed world, a sort of Red Guard International. A militant percent of the population can impose it’s will upon the unorganized and apathetic majority. That there’s race differences is obvious even to the most ordinary of people and isn’t just pegged at levels of intelligence but runs the gamut of physical and mental differences, all apparent to the eye. But they can force everyone to deny what they see and even confuse them into thinking they aren’t really seeing what they do. How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The only reason the international Red Guard rules Europe and N America but not Mexico is that the industrial. agricultural Educational and political elites want it that way.

    You don’t have the Red Guard in Asian and Central and S American countries or the Arab countries, Turkey and Persia.

    It’s just another protesting Protestant reformation. And like the religious reformation it succeeds only in countries where the elite wants it to succeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. joef says:

    We live in a denial that will eventually bring down the nation. The matter is not so much about racial IQ that is important, for I rather associate with a trustworthy person of low IQ, than a treacherous person of high IQ… it is a matter of afro hostile behavior that is the real concern with racial reality… and the reality is that radical afro americans are the most destructive social/economic influence against other Non Blacks in America.

    Of course leftist live in denial of the facts, where academic social science dictates to the hard sciences what are the acceptably preferred “facts” regarding afro bad (antisocial) behavior. The one thing that leftist progs manifest more than anything else is their inability to ever admit failure. Instead they always say they need more time (the past half century was not enough), and more money (20 Trillion Dollars was not enough) to successfully implement their failed ideas.

    [This is allowed by establishment liberals, rino corporatist, neocons, and anarcho capitalist, who are completely intimidated by the New Left, and constantly try to obtain favor with them, while fecklessly giving in to their nihilism].

    The institutions of modern society still allows for the leftist (and all the rest) to be mostly protected from the results of their catastrophic ideas. But this cannot last, and eventually the afro Frankenstein monster that they created will destroy its own leftist masters. Until then, the leftist progs have the luxury to continuously deny reality.

    When the economy nearly collapses, and the stoppage of welfare entitlement checks directly leads to a afro initiated hot race war (as opposed to the de facto one we are living with now), leftist progs will die off in the process. Despite the fact that SJW naively believe they will be able to co opt this afro animosity into a Commie revolution, radical afros will not make much distinctions between Whites, thus indiscriminately attacking them all (additionally leftist progs will be openly targeted by everyone else for their malevolent political meddling).

    And upon completion of this potential open conflict the end result will leave a historical mess in its wake. It did not have to be this way, but it is what it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor

    We live in a denial that will eventually bring down the nation. The matter is not so much about racial IQ that is important, for I rather associate with a trustworthy person of low IQ, than a treacherous person of high IQ… it is a matter of afro hostile behavior that is the real concern with racial reality… and the reality is that radical afro americans are the most destructive social/economic influence against other Non Blacks in America.
     
    People always say shit like this, but I'd rather associate with a smart, trustworthy person than either of your choices.

    And it's not as if there's no correlation; in my experience, stupid people will fuck you over more often. Turns out stupid people can't process moral calculations, either.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This whole article is an unbelievably naive and blustery pile of steaming shit. It is simply a mass of free-form associations and unmotivated metaphors that completely mis-states the entire debate from top to bottom. The author is too childish, too incompetent, too much of a self-anal-fingering dickweed with a bad haircut, to engage with this subject at the metaphysical level. He's trying to make a case for race-realism (which is good) but he doesn't understand that this is a minor matter compared with the much weightier claims he is making in favor of Darwinism. He's letting the race-realist tail wag the metaphysics dog, and that is unacceptable and stupid.

    Darwinism is shallow materialism with a spluttering of English phlegm---nothing more. It is emphatically not science. It is the drawing-room philosophy of dilettantes and intellectual mediocrities. The idea that Darwinists are engaged in an heroic battle against "Creationism" new and old, is a laughable bit of self-flattery. Creationism is a Darwinian strawman; it is the other side of their own worthless coin. In condemning it they only reveal how pathetic they are.

    In reality the Darwinists are the new Creationists, the Leftist proponents of egalitarianism are the true heirs of the Enlightenment, and the truth is not with either one of them. Dickless morons like the execrable Lance Welton, whoever he is, are incapable of understanding anything outside of their narrow dichotomy, and that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again.

    GB Shaw, not a ‘creationist’, exposed the Victorian biases of Darwinism 100 years ago. So did Alan Watts; back in 60s he mocked the idea that we are ‘gyrating stupidity born from rocks’. All the turnedon kids agreed with Watts; if we are intelligent, then we must be produced by a equally or more intelligent universe. That’s right, Watts was the first to talk of ‘intelligent design, and it was hip, man!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anon[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2018/04/why-atheists-are-true-believers-too
    What does it mean to say that a communist who yearns for the coming of the classless society is really expressing just the same view as a millenarian looking to the reign of Christ on earth? The form of the belief may be roughly similar, but the content is entirely different. And if these are “inherited” ideas standing in a “lineage”, what is the evidence of a continuous chain of transmission – from, say, the 16th-century radical Anabaptists of Münster (whose chaotic quasi-communist experiment Gray describes in graphic detail) to the Bolsheviks of Petrograd and Moscow? As for the religious myths “renewing themselves” in a secular guise: this seems perilously close to the mindset of Dawkins’s theory of “memes”, which Gray has scornfully dismissed as hardly a theory at all. [...] But if the same impulse can produce a religious idea in one period and a secular one in another, it seems that the impulse is something that stands behind both, itself neither secular nor religious.
     

    Equalitarians such as Mitchell, whatever their commendable academic accomplishments in the sciences, aren’t thinking scientifically. They are thinking religiously and ideologically.
     
    Or just like human beings, who are not selected for determining the truth over reproductive fitness enhancing illusions.

    [There is] no distinction to be drawn between the development of reason and that of any other faculty, physiological or psychical, by which the interests of the individual or the race are promoted. From the humblest form of nervous irritation at the one end of the scale, to the reasoning capacity of the most advanced races at the other, everything without exception (sensation, instinct, desire, volition) has been produced directly or indirectly, by natural causes acting for the most part on strictly utilitarian principles. Convenience, not knowledge, therefore, has been the main end to which this process has tended.

    — Arthur Balfour
     

    Nonono, everything EXCEPT Darwinism is a mere reflex or bland splurt. Darwinism is Truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    Mitchell sees selection working in one direction—toward greater intelligence. But in fact selection is unguided; that is, as Lynn wrote in Dysgenics of Western societies today, evolution sometimes selects against improving intelligence
     
    Creationists have more children than Deists, and saying that blacks have lower IQs is not going to help with winning women's hearts. Creationist and race deniers are obeying the content if not the formalist scientific guise of Darwinism. They have the superior intelligence necessary to perceive what is best to espouse for reproductive success, which is the objective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @nickels
    "To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/

    Race realism may be one thing, but hanging on to the patently absurd theory of Darwinism is truly groupthink mental suicide.

    Basically put, natural selection cannot act until something exists and provides a benefit. This means every useful organ, biological structure, etc..., had to randomly mutate into existence from a system that takes 2 b years to flip 5 letters.
    And lets not even get started on something like the cell-more complex than any existing human made machine-randomly occurred.

    Stunning how this Whig mind disease continues to thrive in the petri dish of daddy issue, 'I wanna be an atheist', modernity.

    Race realism may be one thing, but hanging on to the patently absurd theory of Darwinism is truly groupthink mental suicide.

    LOL. Of course, Dr. Flatearth.

    Evolutionary theory and description works, and works better, explains better, predicts better than any wackadoodle jesus-yahweh-buddha-mohammed bullshit ever has, or ever will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Evolutionary theory and description works, and works better, explains better, predicts better than any wackadoodle jesus-yahweh-buddha-mohammed bullshit ever has, or ever will.
     
    Aha! But does it tell you which hand to use when wiping your ass after a big dump? Mohamster does. Does it tell you to avoid women on the rag? YHWH does. And, most importantly, when you are frightened of something does it remind you of sitting on mommy’s lap listening to fairytales and suckling flabby udders?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @AKAHorace
    I don't understand how you get from suppressing the evolutionary arguments for IQ differences between races to a Jewish conspiracy.

    One of the strongest reasons for differences between races is the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Persecution and limits to their career choices over the middle ages meant that they were selected for higher IQ. Ashkenazis, Northern Chinese, Koreans and Japanese regularly score higher than whites on IQ tests. Sephardic Jews do not score as highly.

    One of the strongest reasons for differences between races is the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Persecution and limits to their career choices over the middle ages meant that they were selected for higher IQ.

    No, stupid. Refer to the actual theory and supporting research. Reproductive success is the only true measure of evolutionary success. Does IQ produce reproductive success? Maybe, maybe not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    No, stupid. Refer to the actual theory and supporting research. Reproductive success is the only true measure of evolutionary success. Does IQ produce reproductive success? Maybe, maybe not.

    In the middle ages in Europe Jews who were intelligent were more likely to have many children. Gentiles who were intelligent were more likely to become monks, priests or nuns and have fewer children.

    jilles dykstra
    Learning was in high esteem among jews.
    Though kabbalism is nonsense in my opinion, it is an intellectual effort.
    Jews indeed could not enter many professions, but is cattle trade, butchering and hide preparation an intellectual excercise ?
    As to banking, do you really think it is difficult ?
    Being so intelligent, why did jews never, in my knowledge, question the Torah or the 22.000 or so rules of the Torahs ?


    The question is how important is intelligence in banking/cattle trading/hide preparation compared to it's importance in farming, where sheer hard work and physical strength may be as or more important.

    Plenty of Jews abandoned their religion in the 19th century to become socialists or free thinkers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn’t measure up or that his parents don’t, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child’s success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    Read More
    • Troll: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Factorize
    I, too, am somewhat surprised how focused the discussion on unz.com is on group differences. Given that the technology now exists to enhance intelligence what difference does any of this make? I grew up and had to try and cope with the idea that some groups are more intelligent than others and this had substantial implications for the expected life path they would follow.

    I am now doing my best to unlearn this pattern of thinking. Current technology will over the medium to long run lead to equalization of group intelligence. At this long run equilibrium we should expect dramatically higher average IQ. Posters should, thus, keep in mind that we are now entering a time when virtually all people currently alive have a reasonably good chance of being labeled developmentally disabled by approaching psychometric norms.

    , @res
    I think the problem is with people oversimplistically mapping group differences in individual traits to concepts like "racial superiority." Are men superior to women because they are taller on average? Is one person superior to another because they have a higher IQ? Are West Africans superior to whites because they are better sprinters on average (and at the tail)?

    For your specific example:

    Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn’t measure up or that his parents don’t, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child’s success and happiness in life.
     
    The solution is simple. Treat people as individuals and realize no one trait is determinative of "superiority."

    How should short children of tall groups and tall children of short groups see themselves?

    I would very much like to hear your response.
    , @Okechukwu
    Don't worry, bro. Anybody that tries to present this nonsense at a scientific conference anywhere in the world would either be laughed or booed out of the building. This stuff is fodder for people who hold 19th century white supremacist beliefs. They are a tiny fringe of (ironically) generally stupid people who are shunned and ridiculed by normal, rational society. More importantly, their "science" is a fantasy. Any 5 year old could debunk junk.

    In short, you have nothing to worry about. Let these clowns fool around in their circle jerks and echo chambers. Enjoy the entertainment and have a hearty laugh.

    , @Faraday's Bobcat
    This post makes the author's point better than he did.
    , @MarkinLA
    both to a population

    Yeah, imagine all the money we have saved and all the great discoveries that have happened due to all those programs like affirmative action, Head Start, and the rest. Oh wait, pretty much nothing of value has come from all the trillions we have spent trying to close the gap.

    Maybe if we recognized the differences we would not have been so quick to listen to morons from economics departments telling us that sending our jobs overseas was not going to be a problem because we would have the "knowledge" jobs.
    , @joef
    Yes, typical response from people who live in cupcake land and never had to deal with afro violence on a real term basis. Oh what a superior open minded intellectual to be able to ignore the multitude of criminal victims, by the hands of radical (ghetto) afro americans. And because of this obtained wisdom, from hard earned second hand sophomoric sources, you should instruct the rest of us who have real world experience in this subject matter.

    After all we all should not discuss this because people like you have never been personally effected by it. While you have the luxury to pontificate from afar, safe & cozy from danger, the rest of us must deal with the real consequences of this on a very personal level (one on one, or many on one, depending on the incident). But after all polite company demands these unfortunate occurrences be ignored.

    Your intellectual pandering aids & abets this problem with no consideration of what your fellow citizens have to contend with. Obviously by your statements you have very limited first hand knowledge of whats its like to reside in a urban neighborhood in close proximity to an afro american ghetto (although I do know some libs who are very happy to be willing victims of afro violence, and expect the rest of us to do the same).

    The most arrogant thing about this is a failure to acknowledge the experience of others beyond your own, just because it does not fit a certain preferred narrative. Maybe you should listen more and talk less about things you have no first hand knowledge of. [And please no anecdotal nonsense about you know some Black people, or you walked through a Black neighborhood once.]

    , @Svigor
    Hi, dumbass. Stick around (and prefer reading over writing). You'll become less of a dumbass, over time.

    You seem to be the one who broached the subject of racial superiority, dumbass, so maybe you should be answering your own question.

    What good does the conversation we were having (before you rudely interjected the non-sequitur of "racial superiority") do? It destroys the left's false accusation that Whitey caused all of Blackie's problems.

    Defending the falsely accused from bogus charges is the sort of thing any person with anything like a moral center can support, so I can see how a libertarian might miss the plot.

    , @megabar
    The reason that race realism is important is that we, as a nation, are in the process of making many decisions that assume that all races are equal.

    Put another way, if 80% of Americans woke up tomorrow and felt that the races were genetically dissimilar, public policy on affirmative action and immigration would radically change.

    Put yet another way -- generalizations on the races matter when making public policy that works in the large.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    You probably wouldn’t care much for real libertarians like Hoppe or Rothbard. Best to stick with Rand Paul, you’ll sleep better at night.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Michael Kenny
    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live. Since modern IQ tests are almost entirely devised by white, middle class Americans and define the values and assumptions of white, middle class Americans as "intelligence", it's in the logic of the system that white, middle class Americans would score higher than any other group of people on the planet. One of the classic figures of European comedy, for example, is the American who doesn't understand how things work and keeps making a fool of himself, to the great hilarity of Europeans.

    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live.

    No, they measure individual performance on metrics the society believes are important. Thus, they are skewed to contemporary, and probably very transient, objectives.

    Can you multiply 3-digit numbers in your head? Can you recognize mechanical relationships? Can you recognize abstractions, and can you associate those abstractions with other abstractions your society recognizes? You can? Okay, you have a high IQ, in this society, in this era.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Grumbler says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This whole article is an unbelievably naive and blustery pile of steaming shit. It is simply a mass of free-form associations and unmotivated metaphors that completely mis-states the entire debate from top to bottom. The author is too childish, too incompetent, too much of a self-anal-fingering dickweed with a bad haircut, to engage with this subject at the metaphysical level. He's trying to make a case for race-realism (which is good) but he doesn't understand that this is a minor matter compared with the much weightier claims he is making in favor of Darwinism. He's letting the race-realist tail wag the metaphysics dog, and that is unacceptable and stupid.

    Darwinism is shallow materialism with a spluttering of English phlegm---nothing more. It is emphatically not science. It is the drawing-room philosophy of dilettantes and intellectual mediocrities. The idea that Darwinists are engaged in an heroic battle against "Creationism" new and old, is a laughable bit of self-flattery. Creationism is a Darwinian strawman; it is the other side of their own worthless coin. In condemning it they only reveal how pathetic they are.

    In reality the Darwinists are the new Creationists, the Leftist proponents of egalitarianism are the true heirs of the Enlightenment, and the truth is not with either one of them. Dickless morons like the execrable Lance Welton, whoever he is, are incapable of understanding anything outside of their narrow dichotomy, and that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again.

    ID, “…that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again.”

    A post made up mostly of ad hominem attacks ends with the above quote. Tyrants, big or petty, always call for censorship. Why?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Thomm says:
    @Michael Kenny
    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live. Since modern IQ tests are almost entirely devised by white, middle class Americans and define the values and assumptions of white, middle class Americans as "intelligence", it's in the logic of the system that white, middle class Americans would score higher than any other group of people on the planet. One of the classic figures of European comedy, for example, is the American who doesn't understand how things work and keeps making a fool of himself, to the great hilarity of Europeans.

    This is false.

    1) Blacks are always low-scorers, despite all attempts to rig tests in their favor.
    2) White Trashionalists score even lower than blacks, despite growing up in the society that you mention. White Trashionalists usually score about 70, whereas normal whites average about 105 or so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    If the trailer's rockin, don't bother knockin.
    , @Svigor
    The lowest-scoring White groups have higher means than your WOG homeland.
    , @anon
    I doubt retarded Whites are White nationalists. 70 IQ can’t even learn to read well enough to read Whibe Nationalist web sites.

    And since they get disability and live in group homes they are not out there in the job market being discriminated against because they are White.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Mulegino1 says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This whole article is an unbelievably naive and blustery pile of steaming shit. It is simply a mass of free-form associations and unmotivated metaphors that completely mis-states the entire debate from top to bottom. The author is too childish, too incompetent, too much of a self-anal-fingering dickweed with a bad haircut, to engage with this subject at the metaphysical level. He's trying to make a case for race-realism (which is good) but he doesn't understand that this is a minor matter compared with the much weightier claims he is making in favor of Darwinism. He's letting the race-realist tail wag the metaphysics dog, and that is unacceptable and stupid.

    Darwinism is shallow materialism with a spluttering of English phlegm---nothing more. It is emphatically not science. It is the drawing-room philosophy of dilettantes and intellectual mediocrities. The idea that Darwinists are engaged in an heroic battle against "Creationism" new and old, is a laughable bit of self-flattery. Creationism is a Darwinian strawman; it is the other side of their own worthless coin. In condemning it they only reveal how pathetic they are.

    In reality the Darwinists are the new Creationists, the Leftist proponents of egalitarianism are the true heirs of the Enlightenment, and the truth is not with either one of them. Dickless morons like the execrable Lance Welton, whoever he is, are incapable of understanding anything outside of their narrow dichotomy, and that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again.

    Very well stated.

    Creationism, in particular the “young earth” brand, is the 800 pound straw man propped up by the Church of Darwin to “demonstrate” that anyone who dares to doubt the utterly ridiculous and unscientific legend of transformism is a toothless, backwoods, Bible thumping troglodyte. Nothing could be further from the truth. The “Creationists” and the hard core apostles of Darwinian evolution are equally dogmatic and equally intolerant and evince a profound ignorance of the metaphysics which underlie all being.

    By insisting (whether implicitly or explicitly) on only taking into account the material and efficient and the elimination or dismissal of the formal and final in the causal order, contemporary scientism (as opposed to legitimate science) is an iron clad dogmatism as unforgiving of dissent as any of the Inquisitions at their peaks of power.

    Variation within species is a regular, observable occurrence. Transformism is a gross superstition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Variation within species is a regular, observable occurrence. Transformism is a gross superstition.
     
    LOL. And yet, there it is, with 400 million years of fossil record, showing the process taking place, over and over and over again. Verifiable, predictable, and so overwhelming more fully descriptive and explanatory than any bullshit religious hogwash.
    , @anon
    So you’re not a fan of Darwinism. I must congratulate you that you expressed your opinion of the article and Darwinism without being obscene.

    I don’t care one way or the other.

    But I did take anatomy and ever since then I’ve thought that intelligent design was a lot more valid idea than just Darwin’s random accidents
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Mark M. says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This whole article is an unbelievably naive and blustery pile of steaming shit. It is simply a mass of free-form associations and unmotivated metaphors that completely mis-states the entire debate from top to bottom. The author is too childish, too incompetent, too much of a self-anal-fingering dickweed with a bad haircut, to engage with this subject at the metaphysical level. He's trying to make a case for race-realism (which is good) but he doesn't understand that this is a minor matter compared with the much weightier claims he is making in favor of Darwinism. He's letting the race-realist tail wag the metaphysics dog, and that is unacceptable and stupid.

    Darwinism is shallow materialism with a spluttering of English phlegm---nothing more. It is emphatically not science. It is the drawing-room philosophy of dilettantes and intellectual mediocrities. The idea that Darwinists are engaged in an heroic battle against "Creationism" new and old, is a laughable bit of self-flattery. Creationism is a Darwinian strawman; it is the other side of their own worthless coin. In condemning it they only reveal how pathetic they are.

    In reality the Darwinists are the new Creationists, the Leftist proponents of egalitarianism are the true heirs of the Enlightenment, and the truth is not with either one of them. Dickless morons like the execrable Lance Welton, whoever he is, are incapable of understanding anything outside of their narrow dichotomy, and that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again.

    If one were to divide the amount of invective by the amount of intelligent thought in this comment, with the invective being the numerator and the intelligent thought the denominator, the result would approach infinity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    LOL! It would be great to have an AI which could automatically compute that for us. I tend to think of it as "SNR" (the logged reciprocal of your measure).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Mulegino1
    Very well stated.

    Creationism, in particular the "young earth" brand, is the 800 pound straw man propped up by the Church of Darwin to "demonstrate" that anyone who dares to doubt the utterly ridiculous and unscientific legend of transformism is a toothless, backwoods, Bible thumping troglodyte. Nothing could be further from the truth. The "Creationists" and the hard core apostles of Darwinian evolution are equally dogmatic and equally intolerant and evince a profound ignorance of the metaphysics which underlie all being.

    By insisting (whether implicitly or explicitly) on only taking into account the material and efficient and the elimination or dismissal of the formal and final in the causal order, contemporary scientism (as opposed to legitimate science) is an iron clad dogmatism as unforgiving of dissent as any of the Inquisitions at their peaks of power.

    Variation within species is a regular, observable occurrence. Transformism is a gross superstition.

    Variation within species is a regular, observable occurrence. Transformism is a gross superstition.

    LOL. And yet, there it is, with 400 million years of fossil record, showing the process taking place, over and over and over again. Verifiable, predictable, and so overwhelming more fully descriptive and explanatory than any bullshit religious hogwash.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Your "400 million years of fossil record" shows no true transitional forms between types, it shows no "process" taking place other than the sudden and inexplicable appearance of diverse species. In other words, there is zero evidence of descent from a common ancestor, zero evidence of abiogenesis, zero evidence of one type turning into another, while there are multitudinous examples of convergence and commonality of design. A bird's wing, a butterfly's wing, and a bat's wing all follow general principles of aerodynamics but there is no commonality of descent between them.

    Gross materialists such as yourself substitute time and the very gross superstition of infinite linear progress for God. Speaking to you intelligently on metaphysics is akin to explaining atmospherics to a goldfish whose world is limited to its bowl.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @AKAHorace
    I don't understand how you get from suppressing the evolutionary arguments for IQ differences between races to a Jewish conspiracy.

    One of the strongest reasons for differences between races is the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Persecution and limits to their career choices over the middle ages meant that they were selected for higher IQ. Ashkenazis, Northern Chinese, Koreans and Japanese regularly score higher than whites on IQ tests. Sephardic Jews do not score as highly.

    Learning was in high esteem among jews.
    Though kabbalism is nonsense in my opinion, it is an intellectual effort.
    Jews indeed could not enter many professions, but is cattle trade, butchering and hide preparation an intellectual excercise ?
    As to banking, do you really think it is difficult ?
    Being so intelligent, why did jews never, in my knowledge, question the Torah or the 22.000 or so rules of the Torahs ?
    One might argue that circumventing these rules was an intellectual effort, however, if one reads
    Simon Schama, ´Two Rothschilds and the land of Israel’, London, 1978
    it seems rather simple.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Generally speaking, no, Jews were not barred from many professions. What they were barred from was replacing the local nobility.

    Cue the violins...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This whole article is an unbelievably naive and blustery pile of steaming shit. It is simply a mass of free-form associations and unmotivated metaphors that completely mis-states the entire debate from top to bottom. The author is too childish, too incompetent, too much of a self-anal-fingering dickweed with a bad haircut, to engage with this subject at the metaphysical level. He's trying to make a case for race-realism (which is good) but he doesn't understand that this is a minor matter compared with the much weightier claims he is making in favor of Darwinism. He's letting the race-realist tail wag the metaphysics dog, and that is unacceptable and stupid.

    Darwinism is shallow materialism with a spluttering of English phlegm---nothing more. It is emphatically not science. It is the drawing-room philosophy of dilettantes and intellectual mediocrities. The idea that Darwinists are engaged in an heroic battle against "Creationism" new and old, is a laughable bit of self-flattery. Creationism is a Darwinian strawman; it is the other side of their own worthless coin. In condemning it they only reveal how pathetic they are.

    In reality the Darwinists are the new Creationists, the Leftist proponents of egalitarianism are the true heirs of the Enlightenment, and the truth is not with either one of them. Dickless morons like the execrable Lance Welton, whoever he is, are incapable of understanding anything outside of their narrow dichotomy, and that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again.

    Thank you Intelligent Dasein. I am clipping this and saving it as the best example of the ad hominem fallacy I’ve ever seen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. AKAHorace says:
    @manorchurch

    One of the strongest reasons for differences between races is the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Persecution and limits to their career choices over the middle ages meant that they were selected for higher IQ.
     
    No, stupid. Refer to the actual theory and supporting research. Reproductive success is the only true measure of evolutionary success. Does IQ produce reproductive success? Maybe, maybe not.

    No, stupid. Refer to the actual theory and supporting research. Reproductive success is the only true measure of evolutionary success. Does IQ produce reproductive success? Maybe, maybe not.

    In the middle ages in Europe Jews who were intelligent were more likely to have many children. Gentiles who were intelligent were more likely to become monks, priests or nuns and have fewer children.

    jilles dykstra
    Learning was in high esteem among jews.
    Though kabbalism is nonsense in my opinion, it is an intellectual effort.
    Jews indeed could not enter many professions, but is cattle trade, butchering and hide preparation an intellectual excercise ?
    As to banking, do you really think it is difficult ?
    Being so intelligent, why did jews never, in my knowledge, question the Torah or the 22.000 or so rules of the Torahs ?

    The question is how important is intelligence in banking/cattle trading/hide preparation compared to it’s importance in farming, where sheer hard work and physical strength may be as or more important.

    Plenty of Jews abandoned their religion in the 19th century to become socialists or free thinkers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Mulegino1 says:
    @manorchurch

    Variation within species is a regular, observable occurrence. Transformism is a gross superstition.
     
    LOL. And yet, there it is, with 400 million years of fossil record, showing the process taking place, over and over and over again. Verifiable, predictable, and so overwhelming more fully descriptive and explanatory than any bullshit religious hogwash.

    Your “400 million years of fossil record” shows no true transitional forms between types, it shows no “process” taking place other than the sudden and inexplicable appearance of diverse species. In other words, there is zero evidence of descent from a common ancestor, zero evidence of abiogenesis, zero evidence of one type turning into another, while there are multitudinous examples of convergence and commonality of design. A bird’s wing, a butterfly’s wing, and a bat’s wing all follow general principles of aerodynamics but there is no commonality of descent between them.

    Gross materialists such as yourself substitute time and the very gross superstition of infinite linear progress for God. Speaking to you intelligently on metaphysics is akin to explaining atmospherics to a goldfish whose world is limited to its bowl.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Your “400 million years of fossil record” shows no true transitional forms between types, it shows no “process” taking place other than the sudden and inexplicable appearance of diverse species.
     
    Oh, you're one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.

    Um, yes, the record does show forms that might be regarded as "transitional", but, basically, the model does not require "transitional" forms. Mutation is mutation, and is not bounded by your understanding of requisite "transition".

    Be that as it may, you are stupid, and I do not discuss with stupids.
    , @anonymous
    Your “400 million years of fossil record” shows no true transitional forms between types

    Couldn't dinos with teeth, feathers, wings, etc., be transitional between featherless dinos and birds?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. cezanne says:
    @AKAHorace
    I don't understand how you get from suppressing the evolutionary arguments for IQ differences between races to a Jewish conspiracy.

    One of the strongest reasons for differences between races is the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Persecution and limits to their career choices over the middle ages meant that they were selected for higher IQ. Ashkenazis, Northern Chinese, Koreans and Japanese regularly score higher than whites on IQ tests. Sephardic Jews do not score as highly.

    Ashkenazi jew was the mix of white slaves from Russia and the jews conquered from Israel by Persians (Seria is definettlly the problem (not!) we gotta destroy them (NOT)! Assad should be an ally not a target! The influx of muslims under the refugee flag, is just a long held plan to take over Christianity! The nice is only window dressing!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    Ashkenazi jew was the mix of white slaves from Russia and the jews conquered from Israel by Persians (Seria is definettlly the problem (not!) we gotta destroy them (NOT)! Assad should be an ally not a target! The influx of muslims under the refugee flag, is just a long held plan to take over Christianity! The nice is only window dressing!

    I read that the Ashkenazis were a mixture of Jewish men and Roman women. Either way they are significantly different from the biblical Jews.

    As to your other comments, I agree with much of what you are saying. Have you read Nicholas Nassim Taleb about Assad vs the Sunni rebels ? Assad's regime is tolerant of Christians and other non Muslim minorities.

    (https://medium.com/opacity/the-syrian-war-condensed-a-more-rigorous-way-to-look-at-the-conflict-f841404c3b1d)

    I don't think that you can blame Israel for the mass migration to Europe though. Netenyahu
    came out in support of the Hungarians for trying to prevent migrants from entering Europe, and he is right to do so. A muslim Europe would be dangerous for Israel. A lot of Jews are hopelessly sentimental about mass migration because of the Holocaust, the more clear sighted of them are becoming realistic about what this will mean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Factorize says:
    @A Libertarian
    I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn't measure up or that his parents don't, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child's success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    I, too, am somewhat surprised how focused the discussion on unz.com is on group differences. Given that the technology now exists to enhance intelligence what difference does any of this make? I grew up and had to try and cope with the idea that some groups are more intelligent than others and this had substantial implications for the expected life path they would follow.

    I am now doing my best to unlearn this pattern of thinking. Current technology will over the medium to long run lead to equalization of group intelligence. At this long run equilibrium we should expect dramatically higher average IQ. Posters should, thus, keep in mind that we are now entering a time when virtually all people currently alive have a reasonably good chance of being labeled developmentally disabled by approaching psychometric norms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Posters should, thus, keep in mind that we are now entering a time when virtually all people currently alive have a reasonably good chance of being labeled developmentally disabled by approaching psychometric norms.
     
    Really? The norms of FOUR BILLION Sub-Saharan Africans expected by 2,100CE?
    , @Anon
    Are you serious? What technologies? Genetic engineering isn't anywhere being able to produce more intelligent children yet. Or are you just a bullshitting troll?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. res says:
    @A Libertarian
    I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn't measure up or that his parents don't, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child's success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    I think the problem is with people oversimplistically mapping group differences in individual traits to concepts like “racial superiority.” Are men superior to women because they are taller on average? Is one person superior to another because they have a higher IQ? Are West Africans superior to whites because they are better sprinters on average (and at the tail)?

    For your specific example:

    Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn’t measure up or that his parents don’t, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child’s success and happiness in life.

    The solution is simple. Treat people as individuals and realize no one trait is determinative of “superiority.”

    How should short children of tall groups and tall children of short groups see themselves?

    I would very much like to hear your response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @A Libertarian
    I agree with everything you said. In general, I think the whole discussion of the superiority of one group over another is counter productive and distracting. We should be talking about things that matter in the world. Things that are openly and honestly talked about on unz.com. The world so needs to hear the truth right now, when the truth is in such short supply. I would like for unz.com to be unsullied by destructive articles about white superiority and other such pointless and devaluing distractions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. res says:
    @Mark M.
    If one were to divide the amount of invective by the amount of intelligent thought in this comment, with the invective being the numerator and the intelligent thought the denominator, the result would approach infinity.

    LOL! It would be great to have an AI which could automatically compute that for us. I tend to think of it as “SNR” (the logged reciprocal of your measure).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Factorize says:

    There is one great benefit, though, of these types of articles: it focuses attention on psychometrics and in so doing gets people thinking about how we can use intelligence enhancement to make a better world.

    In many Western nations there has been great ambivalence about IQ enhancement. Notably an international conference held in Washington a few years ago proposed an international moratorium on gene editing the human germline which is one route to enhance IQ. Public opinion is likely still somewhat against such enhancement. We have already reached the point in which the marginal utility of money and perhaps even IQ is typically understood as being small.

    This is not true, however, in Sub-Saharan Africa. Some nations there have essentially reached their psychometric critical points. A great example of this is Zimbabwe. With a national IQ of 71, Zimbabwe is very near the intelligence point at which complete social collapse might occur (if it hasn’t already been judged to have done so). Current research tools should allow future psychohistorians to provide clear answers about these questions. It is entirely possible that if these answers provide definitive evidence of psychometric critical points as being of relevance to various serious social consequences of low IQ, an entirely new legal concept might emerge that would find legal liability for those who espoused factually wrong ideas about the role of IQ and social outcomes. Perhaps so called stupid speech could be placed alongside hate speech as a crime against humanity. Considering the very severe risk that exists in several SSA nations due to their psychometric profiles, people of conscience should be aware of how vitally important IQ enhancement is to their development and human rights

    Read More
    • Replies: @PP
    Good evening. I have read articles on UNZ for about 6 months and have decided to start commenting on the ones regarding IQ and related HBD topics.

    Your comment #41 provides a leg into a question I have been wondering about for quite some time: in my very superficial understanding of IQ scores, I had always understood than an IQ score below 80 would make someone officially retarded.

    I have met people whose children were retarded for various reasons, ranging from problems at delivery to not properly understood causes for which the parents were seeing various explanations. In any event, it appears to me that a society formed with people like that would not even be on the verge of collapsing: they would simply die of starvation or something else within a few days.

    Therefore I have a hard time reconciling this notion of an IQ of 80 corresponding to that of a retarded individual, to a mean (or maybe it is the median?) IQ score of 71 in any given country which, evidently, is not completely starving to death right now. What gives?

    Thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Sean says:
    @Anon
    Nonono, everything EXCEPT Darwinism is a mere reflex or bland splurt. Darwinism is Truth.

    Mitchell sees selection working in one direction—toward greater intelligence. But in fact selection is unguided; that is, as Lynn wrote in Dysgenics of Western societies today, evolution sometimes selects against improving intelligence

    Creationists have more children than Deists, and saying that blacks have lower IQs is not going to help with winning women’s hearts. Creationist and race deniers are obeying the content if not the formalist scientific guise of Darwinism. They have the superior intelligence necessary to perceive what is best to espouse for reproductive success, which is the objective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Dutch Boy says:

    There can be great variety within “God-ordained categories”, e.g., dogs and humans. Both have diverged into multiple forms with different characteristics while remaining dogs and humans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Sean says:
    @Thomm
    This is false.

    1) Blacks are always low-scorers, despite all attempts to rig tests in their favor.
    2) White Trashionalists score even lower than blacks, despite growing up in the society that you mention. White Trashionalists usually score about 70, whereas normal whites average about 105 or so.

    If the trailer’s rockin, don’t bother knockin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Mulegino1
    Your "400 million years of fossil record" shows no true transitional forms between types, it shows no "process" taking place other than the sudden and inexplicable appearance of diverse species. In other words, there is zero evidence of descent from a common ancestor, zero evidence of abiogenesis, zero evidence of one type turning into another, while there are multitudinous examples of convergence and commonality of design. A bird's wing, a butterfly's wing, and a bat's wing all follow general principles of aerodynamics but there is no commonality of descent between them.

    Gross materialists such as yourself substitute time and the very gross superstition of infinite linear progress for God. Speaking to you intelligently on metaphysics is akin to explaining atmospherics to a goldfish whose world is limited to its bowl.

    Your “400 million years of fossil record” shows no true transitional forms between types, it shows no “process” taking place other than the sudden and inexplicable appearance of diverse species.

    Oh, you’re one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.

    Um, yes, the record does show forms that might be regarded as “transitional”, but, basically, the model does not require “transitional” forms. Mutation is mutation, and is not bounded by your understanding of requisite “transition”.

    Be that as it may, you are stupid, and I do not discuss with stupids.

    Read More
    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh, you’re one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.
     
    Nobody cares about your wasted words, faggot. Your whore of a mother already wasted her couchie-juice in birthing your worthless ass. You are nothing. You think you have something to add, bitch? You think you're even capable of conceiving a thought that your betters have not considered and rejected a thousand times over? You wouldn't even know where to begin with us, you low-life sack of shit. If you think you have a case, go ahead and make it. Try me, motherfucker. I will massacre you. I will fuck you up.

    You do not understand the fossil record, nor do you understand the theory of evolution, nor do you understand religion. You are the trifecta of perfectly despicable ignorance. You are modern man in all his ingloriousness. If I see you posting in this thread again, I will slaughter you. Do you understand me, you faggot-fuck?

    Get the hell out of here, you 80-posting loser. We crushed Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens a long time ago. You know nothing that didn't come from them, and you are not a tenth of the men they were. If I ever hear from you again I will wipe my fucking ass with you. Now piss off.
    , @Mulegino1
    Of course the model "does not require" transitional forms because there are not any viable transitional forms between types, so the transformists come up with all kinds of specious theories to explain away the lack thereof, such as "hopeful monsters." Mutations - when major- are invariably harmful to an organism. The experiment conducted by radiating the drosophilia over thousands of their generations showed no favorable mutations, merely monstrosities and deformations, along with the inevitable reversion to type, which occurs in all instances of controlled breeding, whether it is fruit flies, sheep or dogs.

    The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of complex organisms. There are no gradual transitions from type to type. Darwin was correct in a micro-evolutionary sense of variation within species due to many factors, environmental or otherwise, but totally wrong about "the origin of species" if by species we mean type. As a matter of fact, Darwin's theories were based upon gross misunderstandings of the origins of life, and the Lamarckian theory of the inheritance of non-genetic acquired characteristics. His ideas about the race of bears becoming baleen whales is particularly laughable, and puts any medieval hagiographer to shame with respect to fantasy and credulity.

    You are simply a materialist bigot who is completely unable to grasp the concept of vertical causality.

    Attempting to argue with an individual who uses a childish phrase like "I do not discuss with stupids" is an exercise in futility.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @res
    I think the problem is with people oversimplistically mapping group differences in individual traits to concepts like "racial superiority." Are men superior to women because they are taller on average? Is one person superior to another because they have a higher IQ? Are West Africans superior to whites because they are better sprinters on average (and at the tail)?

    For your specific example:

    Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn’t measure up or that his parents don’t, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child’s success and happiness in life.
     
    The solution is simple. Treat people as individuals and realize no one trait is determinative of "superiority."

    How should short children of tall groups and tall children of short groups see themselves?

    I would very much like to hear your response.

    I agree with everything you said. In general, I think the whole discussion of the superiority of one group over another is counter productive and distracting. We should be talking about things that matter in the world. Things that are openly and honestly talked about on unz.com. The world so needs to hear the truth right now, when the truth is in such short supply. I would like for unz.com to be unsullied by destructive articles about white superiority and other such pointless and devaluing distractions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    How do you feel about the concept of disparate impact when group differences exist? I believe that is one reason these differences need to be discussed openly. And there are few venues for that besides unz.com.

    I am confused by your focus on truth at the same time you seem to be criticizing this blog post. Perhaps you could be more specific about what bothers you? I do not think attacking a strawman of white superiority (where do you see that here?) is helpful.
    , @Svigor
    In other words, you're either too ignorant to know that unequal outcomes are used by the left as prima facie evidence of White malfeasance (and as justification for all their harmful social engineering) or too stupid to make the obvious connection between that and race-realism, or too immoral to object, or some combination of the three.

    Also, you think it's fine for Jews to say "we're more successful than Whites because IQ, but Whites are more successful than Blacks because racism."

    Congrats, quite a cucked worldview you have there.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. PP says:
    @Factorize
    There is one great benefit, though, of these types of articles: it focuses attention on psychometrics and in so doing gets people thinking about how we can use intelligence enhancement to make a better world.

    In many Western nations there has been great ambivalence about IQ enhancement. Notably an international conference held in Washington a few years ago proposed an international moratorium on gene editing the human germline which is one route to enhance IQ. Public opinion is likely still somewhat against such enhancement. We have already reached the point in which the marginal utility of money and perhaps even IQ is typically understood as being small.

    This is not true, however, in Sub-Saharan Africa. Some nations there have essentially reached their psychometric critical points. A great example of this is Zimbabwe. With a national IQ of 71, Zimbabwe is very near the intelligence point at which complete social collapse might occur (if it hasn't already been judged to have done so). Current research tools should allow future psychohistorians to provide clear answers about these questions. It is entirely possible that if these answers provide definitive evidence of psychometric critical points as being of relevance to various serious social consequences of low IQ, an entirely new legal concept might emerge that would find legal liability for those who espoused factually wrong ideas about the role of IQ and social outcomes. Perhaps so called stupid speech could be placed alongside hate speech as a crime against humanity. Considering the very severe risk that exists in several SSA nations due to their psychometric profiles, people of conscience should be aware of how vitally important IQ enhancement is to their development and human rights

    Good evening. I have read articles on UNZ for about 6 months and have decided to start commenting on the ones regarding IQ and related HBD topics.

    Your comment #41 provides a leg into a question I have been wondering about for quite some time: in my very superficial understanding of IQ scores, I had always understood than an IQ score below 80 would make someone officially retarded.

    I have met people whose children were retarded for various reasons, ranging from problems at delivery to not properly understood causes for which the parents were seeing various explanations. In any event, it appears to me that a society formed with people like that would not even be on the verge of collapsing: they would simply die of starvation or something else within a few days.

    Therefore I have a hard time reconciling this notion of an IQ of 80 corresponding to that of a retarded individual, to a mean (or maybe it is the median?) IQ score of 71 in any given country which, evidently, is not completely starving to death right now. What gives?

    Thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Have you seen this article?
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-does-iq-70-mean-for-black-and/
    , @Factorize
    PP, thank you for posting.

    Think back to when you were in primary school. If somehow your intellectual development had been frozen in time until now, then your adult IQ would be somewhere in the 50s. This seems surprising to me because I do not ever remember ever feeling as if I were developmentally disabled when I was in primary school, I actually remember having a great deal of fun. I got along quite well.

    Now think back to when you were in middle school. Again if you could time travel ahead now without additional mental development, your IQ would be somewhere in the 60s to mid 70s. Yet, when I think back on it now, I still do not really believe that I was mentally disabled when I had this level of IQ.

    In the high school years you would probably still have an IQ of less than 90 (in adult terms).
    This is a good personal reference guide for what different IQ ranges actually would feel like.

    Something else to consider is that population IQs have evolved within their environmental
    contexts sometimes for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. For many people in Africa the community standard of IQ would feel right with respect to the intellectual challenges that they face.
    My suspicion is that if we were to travel to Africa and observe how people were behaving, it seems doubtful to me that there would be endless discussions and arguments about psychometrics. People have the intelligence toolkit that is relevant for the things that they want to do in life. Ironically, the ongoing arguments about intelligence are likely most present in those places in which there is the high end IQ to complexify life beyond the coping capacity of many within the community. Western nations might soon face a circumstance in which those with an IQ less than 100 would be considered essentially unemployable, and yet in Africa such people would be considered within the top 2% (i.e. genius)

    The idea that has been expressed on this thread about racial superiority does not conform to the fact that indigenous populations are highly adapted to the environments in which they find themselves. In one of the other unz threads an African poster strenuously rebutted the idea that there might be an IQ difference between African and other populations. Yet, when I asked about nerd type behavior in Africa, he admitted that this behavior was largely absent there. This for me is an important point to consider. IQ is not merely an empty measure of intellect. IQ has substantial implications for the way in which people will live their lives. Perhaps we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that once intelligence enhancement becomes available that there might be populations that decide that they are not interested in pursuing increased intelligence. Africa very likely has a deeply rich social culture that they might not want to lose.
    , @Svigor
    No, 70 is the traditional IQ dividing line between "retarded" and "not retarded." Or it was, for a long time; I have no idea what the wanna-be scientists in psychology are saying these days.

    Interestingly, that means the distance between mean Black American IQ and mean White American IQ is half the distance between "average" and a "retard," from the White American POV.

    P.S., I think Rushton has an essay on this. TL;DR version, Whites with IQ of 70 or less are retarded, i.e., almost always "disabled" in some way, whereas Blacks start from a lower mean, so their threshold for "more going on here than just stupidity" is lower, starting as it does from a mean of 85.

    , @Svigor
    Found it for you:

    https://www.vdare.com/articles/solving-the-african-iq-conundrum-winning-personality-masks-low-scores
    , @Vinegar18
    A small fish in a smaller pond is king.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. BenKenobi says:
    @AndrewR
    Well said. Groupthink, enforced ideological conformity, intellectual taboos, etc. are all endemic to all human groups. The Bolsheviks created the NatSocs: equally dogmatic, equally authoritarian and equally bloodthirsty. And today just the specter of the NatSocs fuels the tyrannical left. I've lost track of how many times I've seen a variation of this comment regarding the alt-right on social media: "My grandfather killed Nazis! We should do the same today!"

    “My grandfather killed Nazis! We should do the same today!”

    What really irks me about this is if the grandfather in question could have seen his nation today, he would have sided with the Nazis.

    “Now boys, if you don’t defeat Hitler your grandchildren won’t be raped by Pakistanis — and that’s not the kind of world my creditors want. So get out there and do your part!”
    - Churchill meme

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Okechukwu says:
    @A Libertarian
    I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn't measure up or that his parents don't, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child's success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    Don’t worry, bro. Anybody that tries to present this nonsense at a scientific conference anywhere in the world would either be laughed or booed out of the building. This stuff is fodder for people who hold 19th century white supremacist beliefs. They are a tiny fringe of (ironically) generally stupid people who are shunned and ridiculed by normal, rational society. More importantly, their “science” is a fantasy. Any 5 year old could debunk junk.

    In short, you have nothing to worry about. Let these clowns fool around in their circle jerks and echo chambers. Enjoy the entertainment and have a hearty laugh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Good point; Galileo? Definitely not science; everybody believed his opponents!

    [email protected]

    Holy shit there's a lot of stupid in the comments. Can't read it anymore.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. res says:
    @A Libertarian
    I agree with everything you said. In general, I think the whole discussion of the superiority of one group over another is counter productive and distracting. We should be talking about things that matter in the world. Things that are openly and honestly talked about on unz.com. The world so needs to hear the truth right now, when the truth is in such short supply. I would like for unz.com to be unsullied by destructive articles about white superiority and other such pointless and devaluing distractions.

    How do you feel about the concept of disparate impact when group differences exist? I believe that is one reason these differences need to be discussed openly. And there are few venues for that besides unz.com.

    I am confused by your focus on truth at the same time you seem to be criticizing this blog post. Perhaps you could be more specific about what bothers you? I do not think attacking a strawman of white superiority (where do you see that here?) is helpful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @A Libertarian
    My main point is that a discussion of group differences as regards intelligence benefits no one and unfairly disadvantages and emotionally impacts innocent and capable individuals. It is also viewed as an unsavory subject by a great number of people. As such, it has the potential to taint the reputation of unz.com. This I hate because unz.com is one of the few sources of intelligent and unbiased information about the hidden forces that drive our country to a continual state of war endangering the lives and welfare of ourselves and our children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. res says:
    @PP
    Good evening. I have read articles on UNZ for about 6 months and have decided to start commenting on the ones regarding IQ and related HBD topics.

    Your comment #41 provides a leg into a question I have been wondering about for quite some time: in my very superficial understanding of IQ scores, I had always understood than an IQ score below 80 would make someone officially retarded.

    I have met people whose children were retarded for various reasons, ranging from problems at delivery to not properly understood causes for which the parents were seeing various explanations. In any event, it appears to me that a society formed with people like that would not even be on the verge of collapsing: they would simply die of starvation or something else within a few days.

    Therefore I have a hard time reconciling this notion of an IQ of 80 corresponding to that of a retarded individual, to a mean (or maybe it is the median?) IQ score of 71 in any given country which, evidently, is not completely starving to death right now. What gives?

    Thank you.
    Read More
    • Replies: @PP
    I had not -- until you sent me the link, and I read it immediately. Thank you very much.

    As a result of this paragraph in particular:

    By the way, people with IQ 70 can do lots of things. Humans are spectacularly intelligent even at 2 sigma below the Greenwich Population Mean. A great deal can be achieved, even in a group who, compared to everyone else, are considered to be at high risk.
     
    I now stand corrected regarding what an IQ of 80 means.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @manorchurch

    Your “400 million years of fossil record” shows no true transitional forms between types, it shows no “process” taking place other than the sudden and inexplicable appearance of diverse species.
     
    Oh, you're one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.

    Um, yes, the record does show forms that might be regarded as "transitional", but, basically, the model does not require "transitional" forms. Mutation is mutation, and is not bounded by your understanding of requisite "transition".

    Be that as it may, you are stupid, and I do not discuss with stupids.

    Oh, you’re one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.

    Nobody cares about your wasted words, faggot. Your whore of a mother already wasted her couchie-juice in birthing your worthless ass. You are nothing. You think you have something to add, bitch? You think you’re even capable of conceiving a thought that your betters have not considered and rejected a thousand times over? You wouldn’t even know where to begin with us, you low-life sack of shit. If you think you have a case, go ahead and make it. Try me, motherfucker. I will massacre you. I will fuck you up.

    You do not understand the fossil record, nor do you understand the theory of evolution, nor do you understand religion. You are the trifecta of perfectly despicable ignorance. You are modern man in all his ingloriousness. If I see you posting in this thread again, I will slaughter you. Do you understand me, you faggot-fuck?

    Get the hell out of here, you 80-posting loser. We crushed Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens a long time ago. You know nothing that didn’t come from them, and you are not a tenth of the men they were. If I ever hear from you again I will wipe my fucking ass with you. Now piss off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    If I see you posting in this thread again, I will slaughter you. Do you understand me, you faggot-fuck?
     
    I take it Muley must be your bunk-buddy? Are you infatuated, or just being defensive/offensive in the homosexual tradition? It is unfortunate that you stupids abound, but, fortunately, there is the Ignore List.

    Toodles, cuddles.
    , @Faraday's Bobcat

    Nobody cares about your wasted words, faggot. Your whore of a mother already wasted her couchie-juice in birthing your worthless ass... You wouldn’t even know where to begin with us, you low-life sack of shit. If you think you have a case, go ahead and make it. Try me, motherfucker. I will massacre you. I will fuck you up.
     
    Color me unconvinced.
    , @anonymous
    lol.. Instead of telling everyone about how much of an internet badass you are, maybe you can show us by making an actual argument as to why the theory of evolution is incorrect and demonstrating what it is that you know that 99% of people who've diligently studied the field apparently don't know.
    , @A Libertarian
    I was raised to be Christian. Then I became an atheist. Then agnostic. Then I read eastern religion. First Buddhism then Hinduism. Then I read The Power of Now. Then one day I discovered that beyond all words and logical thought there are infinite strands of living and undeniable truth. It is a place where hate cannot enter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Sean

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2018/04/why-atheists-are-true-believers-too
    What does it mean to say that a communist who yearns for the coming of the classless society is really expressing just the same view as a millenarian looking to the reign of Christ on earth? The form of the belief may be roughly similar, but the content is entirely different. And if these are “inherited” ideas standing in a “lineage”, what is the evidence of a continuous chain of transmission – from, say, the 16th-century radical Anabaptists of Münster (whose chaotic quasi-communist experiment Gray describes in graphic detail) to the Bolsheviks of Petrograd and Moscow? As for the religious myths “renewing themselves” in a secular guise: this seems perilously close to the mindset of Dawkins’s theory of “memes”, which Gray has scornfully dismissed as hardly a theory at all. [...] But if the same impulse can produce a religious idea in one period and a secular one in another, it seems that the impulse is something that stands behind both, itself neither secular nor religious.
     

    Equalitarians such as Mitchell, whatever their commendable academic accomplishments in the sciences, aren’t thinking scientifically. They are thinking religiously and ideologically.
     
    Or just like human beings, who are not selected for determining the truth over reproductive fitness enhancing illusions.

    [There is] no distinction to be drawn between the development of reason and that of any other faculty, physiological or psychical, by which the interests of the individual or the race are promoted. From the humblest form of nervous irritation at the one end of the scale, to the reasoning capacity of the most advanced races at the other, everything without exception (sensation, instinct, desire, volition) has been produced directly or indirectly, by natural causes acting for the most part on strictly utilitarian principles. Convenience, not knowledge, therefore, has been the main end to which this process has tended.

    — Arthur Balfour
     

    I think Balfour pointed out at a different point in that piece that evolution would only eliminate delusions that threatened survival ( No suicidal tendencies ) not that it would lead to truth discovering tendencies in cognition. Trivers’ works validates this as well, evolution would favor delusions that enabled us to lie more effectively to others by first lying to ourselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The only delusion that threatens survival is that one is clever enough to not need to be part of the community, group, herd ect.

    I think the impulse behind secular and religious ideas is to bind communities together; all the better to fight each other. The medium is the message, or in other words, the content of beliefs is irrelevant. And we cannot know what is true and what we have evolved to believe

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Mulegino1 says:
    @manorchurch

    Your “400 million years of fossil record” shows no true transitional forms between types, it shows no “process” taking place other than the sudden and inexplicable appearance of diverse species.
     
    Oh, you're one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.

    Um, yes, the record does show forms that might be regarded as "transitional", but, basically, the model does not require "transitional" forms. Mutation is mutation, and is not bounded by your understanding of requisite "transition".

    Be that as it may, you are stupid, and I do not discuss with stupids.

    Of course the model “does not require” transitional forms because there are not any viable transitional forms between types, so the transformists come up with all kinds of specious theories to explain away the lack thereof, such as “hopeful monsters.” Mutations – when major- are invariably harmful to an organism. The experiment conducted by radiating the drosophilia over thousands of their generations showed no favorable mutations, merely monstrosities and deformations, along with the inevitable reversion to type, which occurs in all instances of controlled breeding, whether it is fruit flies, sheep or dogs.

    The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of complex organisms. There are no gradual transitions from type to type. Darwin was correct in a micro-evolutionary sense of variation within species due to many factors, environmental or otherwise, but totally wrong about “the origin of species” if by species we mean type. As a matter of fact, Darwin’s theories were based upon gross misunderstandings of the origins of life, and the Lamarckian theory of the inheritance of non-genetic acquired characteristics. His ideas about the race of bears becoming baleen whales is particularly laughable, and puts any medieval hagiographer to shame with respect to fantasy and credulity.

    You are simply a materialist bigot who is completely unable to grasp the concept of vertical causality.

    Attempting to argue with an individual who uses a childish phrase like “I do not discuss with stupids” is an exercise in futility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    The experiment conducted by radiating the drosophilia over thousands of their generations showed no favorable mutations, merely monstrosities and deformations

    Are you referring to this experiment?

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160204111403.htm

    https://www.nature.com/news/flies-reared-in-the-dark-for-60-years-give-up-their-genetic-secrets-1.19339

    On 11 November 1954, Japanese ecologist Syuiti Mori placed a dark cloth over a captive colony of fruit flies and began one of evolutionary biology's longest-running lab experiments. Sixty-one years and some 1,500 generations later, researchers have now identified dozens of genetic variations that may help the flies’ descendants to cope with life in total darkness.

    The dark flies look just like normal fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster), except for their slightly longer head bristles, which are used as sensory organs. They also seem to have a keener sense of smell, and a superior ability to find a mate in the dark, compared with normal flies. But despite a life shrouded in darkness, the dark flies are drawn to light and retain their circadian cycles, says Naoyuki Fuse, a geneticist at Kyoto University who became the steward of Mori's ‘dark-fly’ project in 2008; Mori himself died in 2007.
     
    , @Bliss

    The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of complex organisms. There are no gradual transitions from type to type. Darwin was correct in a micro-evolutionary sense of variation within species due to many factors, environmental or otherwise, but totally wrong about “the origin of species” if by species we mean type.
     
    Wrong. The fossil record shows that simple organisms preceded the complex organisms. There is no evidence in all the observed universe of complex structures arising “suddenly” out of nothing.

    You accept evolution within a species since it is an observable, proven fact. So you accept that evolution is a fact of nature. But your attachment to a primitive religious superstition prevents you from seeing how this fact of nature also explains the origin of species.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Them Guys says:
    @kerdasi amaq
    The real problem with racial research, for SJWs, is; it's not telling libtards what they want to hear; that there is no difference between the races in accord with their slogan, "we are all the same under the skin".

    Instead of speilbergs demands that holohoax edjewcation theme parks be made mandatory…Maybe better yet would be to mandate all public and private ed in usa pass out copies of the Protocols of Elders of Zion, to each kid starting at grade level 3 or 4th grade….Then mandate kids read and study it, every word of each protocol….Take class testings to make certain kids actually study it all.

    Then soon every school age kid, and their parents once kids return home and tell parents what was taught today in classrooms, and everyone else hopefully, will notice that one particular protocol specifically deals with this liberal do-gooder know it all agenda of…..Equality!

    And further, they will note upon study of equality as Per those esteemed Zionist elders, that in REALITY….Per the elders mind you, There is No Such Thing as Equality of ANYTHING!

    For all that exists within entire known universe…..be it stars and suns, planets and moons, and even of all created things as pertains to earth and all it contains…From plants to birds to animals to insects to Humans…NO Two are Equal in all ways period. No not even identical twins for each may look alike to point of even own parents have difficult time telling the twin kids apart.

    But never the less, each identical twin kid has different finger prints etc.

    Every snow flake is different….Every animals is different….and unlike some idiot coal burning mud sharks, every animal Knows to Not Mate with Nor make babies with a different type animals.

    Anybody else ever notice how they never yet seen an, for example, 1/2 Racoon+1/2 BlueJay bird offspring?

    Ever notice how Lions never mate with elephants?

    Perhaps some fool folk are less intelligent than said animals and birds eh?

    But bottom line, getting back to them zio elders protocols, they also stated that a huge part of their ZOG/ZIO/Jewdeo owned and run World, will first nessesitate that they cause a global wide promotion in every possible form and way and method, the Lie that All Peoples are indeed Equal or aka full blown global propaganda promotion of Equality for All…..Also known of as commieism. I think maybe them jews invented every “Ism” we ever heard of.

    Indeed, in one section of that protocol writings, they even began to Laugh at the prospect in convincing entire worlds peoples, all non jewish goys that is, of their major scam swindle of,,,Equality for the masses!…..They Laughed loudly, at how only They and Their cohorts and fellow tribe jews will really maintain the real truth that no such equality ever has nor will exist in the world or even entire universe….Everything ever created is a unique different thing or animal or person etc.

    It was just very important, for them to achieve a global JWO ownership and rulership of all others aka goyims, to implement a false equality belief globally. They Counted on the many problems and racial revolts etc such a falsehood would cause as being necessary to acomplish their final JWO reality.

    So, once every usa school kid gets mandatory Protocols of zio elders awareness training, and transfers it to parents, soon the entire usa population can rid itself of this falsehood and all its conected bad effects, especially bad for Whites.

    It will force an end to afrimative action agendas and policies and all else related to current forced false attempts at making everybody 100% equal….Or….Else!

    One more thing on this article…I do not know much nor studied or researched much about all this rather recent dna and evolution stuff….I find it very involved and dull to read of.

    However the little I do know so far on it all….it seems to me that besides some real good acomplishments like cancer cure potentials etc….As far as all the racial and dna and iq stuff goes.

    It seems as if many who believe it all as stated or written, have a motive of potential current or future usage of the info discovered to prove no god exists, or liberal minded leftists and total control freeks such as Schumer or Pelosi or Diane Finestien types will no doubt spin and twist it all Via their typical Talmudic-speak-spin, into some form of proof to enforce every of their many bad agendas….Gun bans, Fags and dykes allowed to marry and have sex with animals and even small children….If such deranged folk like those named and others too can get away with it, they will claim some form dna science proves their policy or agenda correct. Then force it on all of society or else…..Like they Now do with Prison for Hoax questioners in germany or canada and 50+ other nations.

    They already have at least Two deranged loony jewish female “professors” stateing that jew kiddies and only jewish kids inherit “Memory Genes” from actual holohoax dead and survivors both, even from those the kids never knew nor heard of and that are Not genetically related to kids at all!

    Ergo…Same fraud professor jewish women insist jewish small kids also should qualify for….Holohoax reperations $$$ Monthly tax free payments due to bad nitemares from inherited memory genes that cause vivid dream scenes of, kid being tossed into a gas chamber by some evil nazi……..If so far they can get that from dna research and dna findings?

    Then there will soon be Zero limits to what else bad or wrong or evil policy or agendas such busy body leftist types can come up with eh?…..10 more years, and even atheists and god haters are going to Pray and Hope for a Real God to exist and intervene before such deranged clowns destroy us all.

    Whitey Folk better soon awaken to Real Reality and get jewized up or no hope at all remains for America and whichever of Us are left alive yet to deal with a very Dark evil future.

    And every needed truth on what-why-who-how-when-these agendas began and what is remedy to fix it?……Can be found within various factual truths research about international jewry, the worlds foremost problem. 109 Prior nations peoples cannot all have been wrong eh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh, you’re one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.
     
    Nobody cares about your wasted words, faggot. Your whore of a mother already wasted her couchie-juice in birthing your worthless ass. You are nothing. You think you have something to add, bitch? You think you're even capable of conceiving a thought that your betters have not considered and rejected a thousand times over? You wouldn't even know where to begin with us, you low-life sack of shit. If you think you have a case, go ahead and make it. Try me, motherfucker. I will massacre you. I will fuck you up.

    You do not understand the fossil record, nor do you understand the theory of evolution, nor do you understand religion. You are the trifecta of perfectly despicable ignorance. You are modern man in all his ingloriousness. If I see you posting in this thread again, I will slaughter you. Do you understand me, you faggot-fuck?

    Get the hell out of here, you 80-posting loser. We crushed Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens a long time ago. You know nothing that didn't come from them, and you are not a tenth of the men they were. If I ever hear from you again I will wipe my fucking ass with you. Now piss off.

    If I see you posting in this thread again, I will slaughter you. Do you understand me, you faggot-fuck?

    I take it Muley must be your bunk-buddy? Are you infatuated, or just being defensive/offensive in the homosexual tradition? It is unfortunate that you stupids abound, but, fortunately, there is the Ignore List.

    Toodles, cuddles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. PP says:
    @res
    Have you seen this article?
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-does-iq-70-mean-for-black-and/

    I had not — until you sent me the link, and I read it immediately. Thank you very much.

    As a result of this paragraph in particular:

    By the way, people with IQ 70 can do lots of things. Humans are spectacularly intelligent even at 2 sigma below the Greenwich Population Mean. A great deal can be achieved, even in a group who, compared to everyone else, are considered to be at high risk.

    I now stand corrected regarding what an IQ of 80 means.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @nickels
    "To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/

    Race realism may be one thing, but hanging on to the patently absurd theory of Darwinism is truly groupthink mental suicide.

    Basically put, natural selection cannot act until something exists and provides a benefit. This means every useful organ, biological structure, etc..., had to randomly mutate into existence from a system that takes 2 b years to flip 5 letters.
    And lets not even get started on something like the cell-more complex than any existing human made machine-randomly occurred.

    Stunning how this Whig mind disease continues to thrive in the petri dish of daddy issue, 'I wanna be an atheist', modernity.

    Stunning how this Whig mind disease continues to thrive in the petri dish of daddy issue, ‘I wanna be an atheist’, modernity.

    So, because you can’t wrap your head around the age of the Universe relative to the brevity of Homo sapiens existence, it’s just easier to believe in Tinkerbelle? Because your mommy and daddy told you Tinkerbelle was real? And handed you an old Jewish book of fairytales that fails to answer any questions about the Universe or Reality but contains lots of useful advice on how to deal with menstruating women?

    This is the intellectual equivalent of a three year old accepting Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. And while I expect this from people with an IQ under 100, what scares the crap out of me is how many people with +2SD or higher have the same unreasoned blind faith in superstitious nonsense whether in Tinkerbelle or YHWH or race/sex/biology denialism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Aliens, tinkerbell, whatever.
    Just not neo-Darwinian evolution.
    The statistics aren't even close. As a matter of fact, the statistics mean belief in Darwinism is equal to insanity.
    They should have quit digging before they found DNA and had to start actually explaining how their neo-pagan mysticism works.
    Because the can't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @manorchurch

    Race realism may be one thing, but hanging on to the patently absurd theory of Darwinism is truly groupthink mental suicide.
     
    LOL. Of course, Dr. Flatearth.

    Evolutionary theory and description works, and works better, explains better, predicts better than any wackadoodle jesus-yahweh-buddha-mohammed bullshit ever has, or ever will.

    Evolutionary theory and description works, and works better, explains better, predicts better than any wackadoodle jesus-yahweh-buddha-mohammed bullshit ever has, or ever will.

    Aha! But does it tell you which hand to use when wiping your ass after a big dump? Mohamster does. Does it tell you to avoid women on the rag? YHWH does. And, most importantly, when you are frightened of something does it remind you of sitting on mommy’s lap listening to fairytales and suckling flabby udders?

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Aha! But does it tell you which hand to use when wiping your ass after a big dump?
     
    Wipe? Simpler to just pray it clean. No unsanitary wiping action at all. Just - poof - in Jesus' name, and it's gone.

    Excuse you and me for noticing, but this article seems to have captured the imagination of some major wackadoodles. Mean ones, too.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. allan j says:

    “white, middle class Americans would score higher than any other group of people on the planet”.
    They don’t. The group that scores highest in these tests (devised by whites in the west) are East Asians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. @Factorize
    I, too, am somewhat surprised how focused the discussion on unz.com is on group differences. Given that the technology now exists to enhance intelligence what difference does any of this make? I grew up and had to try and cope with the idea that some groups are more intelligent than others and this had substantial implications for the expected life path they would follow.

    I am now doing my best to unlearn this pattern of thinking. Current technology will over the medium to long run lead to equalization of group intelligence. At this long run equilibrium we should expect dramatically higher average IQ. Posters should, thus, keep in mind that we are now entering a time when virtually all people currently alive have a reasonably good chance of being labeled developmentally disabled by approaching psychometric norms.

    Posters should, thus, keep in mind that we are now entering a time when virtually all people currently alive have a reasonably good chance of being labeled developmentally disabled by approaching psychometric norms.

    Really? The norms of FOUR BILLION Sub-Saharan Africans expected by 2,100CE?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    200.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @A Libertarian
    I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn't measure up or that his parents don't, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child's success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    This post makes the author’s point better than he did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh, you’re one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.
     
    Nobody cares about your wasted words, faggot. Your whore of a mother already wasted her couchie-juice in birthing your worthless ass. You are nothing. You think you have something to add, bitch? You think you're even capable of conceiving a thought that your betters have not considered and rejected a thousand times over? You wouldn't even know where to begin with us, you low-life sack of shit. If you think you have a case, go ahead and make it. Try me, motherfucker. I will massacre you. I will fuck you up.

    You do not understand the fossil record, nor do you understand the theory of evolution, nor do you understand religion. You are the trifecta of perfectly despicable ignorance. You are modern man in all his ingloriousness. If I see you posting in this thread again, I will slaughter you. Do you understand me, you faggot-fuck?

    Get the hell out of here, you 80-posting loser. We crushed Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens a long time ago. You know nothing that didn't come from them, and you are not a tenth of the men they were. If I ever hear from you again I will wipe my fucking ass with you. Now piss off.

    Nobody cares about your wasted words, faggot. Your whore of a mother already wasted her couchie-juice in birthing your worthless ass… You wouldn’t even know where to begin with us, you low-life sack of shit. If you think you have a case, go ahead and make it. Try me, motherfucker. I will massacre you. I will fuck you up.

    Color me unconvinced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Then you try it, pussy. The whole thread is waiting. Let's see what you got.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @res
    How do you feel about the concept of disparate impact when group differences exist? I believe that is one reason these differences need to be discussed openly. And there are few venues for that besides unz.com.

    I am confused by your focus on truth at the same time you seem to be criticizing this blog post. Perhaps you could be more specific about what bothers you? I do not think attacking a strawman of white superiority (where do you see that here?) is helpful.

    My main point is that a discussion of group differences as regards intelligence benefits no one and unfairly disadvantages and emotionally impacts innocent and capable individuals. It is also viewed as an unsavory subject by a great number of people. As such, it has the potential to taint the reputation of unz.com. This I hate because unz.com is one of the few sources of intelligent and unbiased information about the hidden forces that drive our country to a continual state of war endangering the lives and welfare of ourselves and our children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I definitely agree it is viewed as an unsavory subject. In terms of tainting the reputation of unz.com, that possibility is certainly there, but I am not sure it is even the most controversial topic discussed here. The big difference I see is that it is the one where the popular viewpoint is most decidedly (provably) wrong (IMO of course). I suspect that is a large part of the reason it bothers people so much. Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable.

    Regarding this

    a discussion of group differences as regards intelligence benefits no one and unfairly disadvantages and emotionally impacts innocent and capable individuals.
     
    the benefit is it provides a counterweight to the toxic idea of disparate impact which seems to be becoming more and more important in the US. I am a believer in understanding the truth being better for someone than fantasies--no matter how good those might make one feel.

    Thanks for the civil conversation. I hope to hear more from you here. The conversation here has a wide variety of viewpoints (and some can be a bit much, including mine by many people's standards as you have seen) but I think it is good to gain an appreciation of what other people think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Factorize says:
    @PP
    Good evening. I have read articles on UNZ for about 6 months and have decided to start commenting on the ones regarding IQ and related HBD topics.

    Your comment #41 provides a leg into a question I have been wondering about for quite some time: in my very superficial understanding of IQ scores, I had always understood than an IQ score below 80 would make someone officially retarded.

    I have met people whose children were retarded for various reasons, ranging from problems at delivery to not properly understood causes for which the parents were seeing various explanations. In any event, it appears to me that a society formed with people like that would not even be on the verge of collapsing: they would simply die of starvation or something else within a few days.

    Therefore I have a hard time reconciling this notion of an IQ of 80 corresponding to that of a retarded individual, to a mean (or maybe it is the median?) IQ score of 71 in any given country which, evidently, is not completely starving to death right now. What gives?

    Thank you.

    PP, thank you for posting.

    Think back to when you were in primary school. If somehow your intellectual development had been frozen in time until now, then your adult IQ would be somewhere in the 50s. This seems surprising to me because I do not ever remember ever feeling as if I were developmentally disabled when I was in primary school, I actually remember having a great deal of fun. I got along quite well.

    Now think back to when you were in middle school. Again if you could time travel ahead now without additional mental development, your IQ would be somewhere in the 60s to mid 70s. Yet, when I think back on it now, I still do not really believe that I was mentally disabled when I had this level of IQ.

    In the high school years you would probably still have an IQ of less than 90 (in adult terms).
    This is a good personal reference guide for what different IQ ranges actually would feel like.

    Something else to consider is that population IQs have evolved within their environmental
    contexts sometimes for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. For many people in Africa the community standard of IQ would feel right with respect to the intellectual challenges that they face.
    My suspicion is that if we were to travel to Africa and observe how people were behaving, it seems doubtful to me that there would be endless discussions and arguments about psychometrics. People have the intelligence toolkit that is relevant for the things that they want to do in life. Ironically, the ongoing arguments about intelligence are likely most present in those places in which there is the high end IQ to complexify life beyond the coping capacity of many within the community. Western nations might soon face a circumstance in which those with an IQ less than 100 would be considered essentially unemployable, and yet in Africa such people would be considered within the top 2% (i.e. genius)

    The idea that has been expressed on this thread about racial superiority does not conform to the fact that indigenous populations are highly adapted to the environments in which they find themselves. In one of the other unz threads an African poster strenuously rebutted the idea that there might be an IQ difference between African and other populations. Yet, when I asked about nerd type behavior in Africa, he admitted that this behavior was largely absent there. This for me is an important point to consider. IQ is not merely an empty measure of intellect. IQ has substantial implications for the way in which people will live their lives. Perhaps we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that once intelligence enhancement becomes available that there might be populations that decide that they are not interested in pursuing increased intelligence. Africa very likely has a deeply rich social culture that they might not want to lose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I'll leave you to fly Air Congo round the world when the Democratic Republic of the Congo provides local pilots and locally manufactured planes - unless the Chinese have taken over by then.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. The whole “all men are created equal” mantra is just a load of Viking baloney, ancient assumptions of barbarians for whom endless war is the future, endless war pushed on and on forever by warriors who are all considered equal. Every worrier is on an equal political footing, and this is an ancient mantra that has no connection whatever with science or objective reality. Nor is it essential to civilisation as practiced for several thousand years in Egypt, Messopotamia, India, and China before these Viking barbarians of norther Europe became masters of the sea, much as the Mongols became masters of the steppes, for a time.

    Americans have taken as truth this “all men are created” line, ever since it was handed to them by a slave master. Their first president was the largest land owner and the greatest producer of whiskey on the continent. They now take this to mean “all humans are created equal,” and since a majority of the humans are women and homosexuals a highly undisciplined outcome is a given, in the long run. American schools systematically give preference to students who will swallow anything and persecute those who ask real questions. Nonsense like this Jefferson quote never gets any real examination by anyone with a brain, and if you are a gentile male you are totally out of the loop, so do what Confucius would suggest. When the society no longer is operated by good men, a strong man hides himself, moves off into the countryside, and waits. He does not want his efforts to prolong this evil period but trows himself into the work again as soon as sane leadership is again in control.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    Your "400 million years of fossil record" shows no true transitional forms between types, it shows no "process" taking place other than the sudden and inexplicable appearance of diverse species. In other words, there is zero evidence of descent from a common ancestor, zero evidence of abiogenesis, zero evidence of one type turning into another, while there are multitudinous examples of convergence and commonality of design. A bird's wing, a butterfly's wing, and a bat's wing all follow general principles of aerodynamics but there is no commonality of descent between them.

    Gross materialists such as yourself substitute time and the very gross superstition of infinite linear progress for God. Speaking to you intelligently on metaphysics is akin to explaining atmospherics to a goldfish whose world is limited to its bowl.

    Your “400 million years of fossil record” shows no true transitional forms between types

    Couldn’t dinos with teeth, feathers, wings, etc., be transitional between featherless dinos and birds?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Theoretically, yes, provided there were a gradual series of major mutations leading to the transition between cold blooded reptiles and warm blooded avians, but there is no evidence in the fossil record for this, and its genetic probabilities are close to zero, due to many factors, including the utter uselessness of appendages which were previously feet or claws gradually becoming wings, and scales gradually becoming feathers, due to thousands of generations of entirely fortuitous genetic mutations. Organisms in nature do not behave in this fashion, i.e., they do not undergo "linear progress" but are subject to the laws of causality, and it is the formal/final-vertical information defining organisms- which act upon them, and the material and efficient causes are usually entirely subordinate to the former. When this is not fully the case, there are deviations and deformities, and the result is never good.
    , @manorchurch

    Couldn’t dinos with teeth, feathers, wings, etc., be transitional between featherless dinos and birds?
     
    Of course not. Not transitional enough. Not form-y enough. Not magick enough. It's gotta be direct from Tyrannosaurus Rex to homo religioso, or it's not evolution. Not that it could ever be evolution, onaccounta Jesus, yanno.

    Fucking nutjob bible-thumping mystical wackadoodles. Some day, there will be a bounty on 'em.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Faraday's Bobcat

    Nobody cares about your wasted words, faggot. Your whore of a mother already wasted her couchie-juice in birthing your worthless ass... You wouldn’t even know where to begin with us, you low-life sack of shit. If you think you have a case, go ahead and make it. Try me, motherfucker. I will massacre you. I will fuck you up.
     
    Color me unconvinced.

    Then you try it, pussy. The whole thread is waiting. Let’s see what you got.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    I’m just waiting to see you go all caps. If you’re really this angry, please consider taking a break.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh, you’re one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.
     
    Nobody cares about your wasted words, faggot. Your whore of a mother already wasted her couchie-juice in birthing your worthless ass. You are nothing. You think you have something to add, bitch? You think you're even capable of conceiving a thought that your betters have not considered and rejected a thousand times over? You wouldn't even know where to begin with us, you low-life sack of shit. If you think you have a case, go ahead and make it. Try me, motherfucker. I will massacre you. I will fuck you up.

    You do not understand the fossil record, nor do you understand the theory of evolution, nor do you understand religion. You are the trifecta of perfectly despicable ignorance. You are modern man in all his ingloriousness. If I see you posting in this thread again, I will slaughter you. Do you understand me, you faggot-fuck?

    Get the hell out of here, you 80-posting loser. We crushed Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens a long time ago. You know nothing that didn't come from them, and you are not a tenth of the men they were. If I ever hear from you again I will wipe my fucking ass with you. Now piss off.

    lol.. Instead of telling everyone about how much of an internet badass you are, maybe you can show us by making an actual argument as to why the theory of evolution is incorrect and demonstrating what it is that you know that 99% of people who’ve diligently studied the field apparently don’t know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    lol.. Instead of telling everyone about how much of an internet badass you are, maybe you can show us by making an actual argument as to why the theory of evolution is incorrect and demonstrating what it is that you know that 99% of people who’ve diligently studied the field apparently don’t know.
     
    That's already been done many times over. And not just by me but by Spengler, Kant, Goethe, Aristotle, and literally hundreds of others. You Darwinists simply choose to ignore it all, and that's why you no longer deserve the courtesy of rational arguments. It ought to tell you something that "Darwinism" was discussed and refuted by Aristotle 2300 years avant la lettre, but your intellectual horizon only begins the day before yesterday, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    So don't demand arguments from me when the arguments have already been given. It's not like you're going to listen anyway. You already think you know it all and you are impervious to both truth and reason. Had you ever bothered to think about the subject for half an hour, you also would have realized that Darwinism cannot possibly be true. Anybody still propounding that ridiculous theory is nothing but a pruling, regurgitating numb-nuts incapable of serious thought. You deserve every bit of scorn I could possibly heap upon you, and much more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. MarkinLA says:
    @A Libertarian
    I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn't measure up or that his parents don't, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child's success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    both to a population

    Yeah, imagine all the money we have saved and all the great discoveries that have happened due to all those programs like affirmative action, Head Start, and the rest. Oh wait, pretty much nothing of value has come from all the trillions we have spent trying to close the gap.

    Maybe if we recognized the differences we would not have been so quick to listen to morons from economics departments telling us that sending our jobs overseas was not going to be a problem because we would have the “knowledge” jobs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. nickels says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Stunning how this Whig mind disease continues to thrive in the petri dish of daddy issue, ‘I wanna be an atheist’, modernity.
     
    So, because you can’t wrap your head around the age of the Universe relative to the brevity of Homo sapiens existence, it’s just easier to believe in Tinkerbelle? Because your mommy and daddy told you Tinkerbelle was real? And handed you an old Jewish book of fairytales that fails to answer any questions about the Universe or Reality but contains lots of useful advice on how to deal with menstruating women?

    This is the intellectual equivalent of a three year old accepting Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. And while I expect this from people with an IQ under 100, what scares the crap out of me is how many people with +2SD or higher have the same unreasoned blind faith in superstitious nonsense whether in Tinkerbelle or YHWH or race/sex/biology denialism.

    Aliens, tinkerbell, whatever.
    Just not neo-Darwinian evolution.
    The statistics aren’t even close. As a matter of fact, the statistics mean belief in Darwinism is equal to insanity.
    They should have quit digging before they found DNA and had to start actually explaining how their neo-pagan mysticism works.
    Because the can’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Aliens, tinkerbell, whatever.
     
    Thanks for the honesty anyway. One problem we face as a species is that our reach exceeds our grasp. But just because I can’t understand all the math involved in rocket science doesn’t negate the fact that human minds discovered how it works and made it happen. The seemingly impenetrable fog of Quantum Entanglement doesn’t mean YHWH is “making spooky things happen at a distance” only that even our brightest minds haven’t yet unwound the complexities of our Universe.

    Given that, what hope is there - ever - for anyone with an IQ of say just 120? How could the average idiot ever have the faintest hope of wrapping his head around the double slit experiment? I despair that humans, on average, are too stupid to survive without a Tinkerbelle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Mulegino1 says:
    @anonymous
    Your “400 million years of fossil record” shows no true transitional forms between types

    Couldn't dinos with teeth, feathers, wings, etc., be transitional between featherless dinos and birds?

    Theoretically, yes, provided there were a gradual series of major mutations leading to the transition between cold blooded reptiles and warm blooded avians, but there is no evidence in the fossil record for this, and its genetic probabilities are close to zero, due to many factors, including the utter uselessness of appendages which were previously feet or claws gradually becoming wings, and scales gradually becoming feathers, due to thousands of generations of entirely fortuitous genetic mutations. Organisms in nature do not behave in this fashion, i.e., they do not undergo “linear progress” but are subject to the laws of causality, and it is the formal/final-vertical information defining organisms- which act upon them, and the material and efficient causes are usually entirely subordinate to the former. When this is not fully the case, there are deviations and deformities, and the result is never good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Then what explains Archaeopteryx, Serikornis, Microraptor, and all of the other Dromaeosaurids (along with some other Theropods)? Where did they all get their feathers/wings? On that note, since you consider darwinian selection unviable, what is your explanation for the emergence of different species at specific points in the fossil record?
    , @Mark Presco
    Nova - Judgment Day Intelligent Design On Trial

    Very interesting points at timelines 50:00 and 1:04:00

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HZzGXnYL5I
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    Of course the model "does not require" transitional forms because there are not any viable transitional forms between types, so the transformists come up with all kinds of specious theories to explain away the lack thereof, such as "hopeful monsters." Mutations - when major- are invariably harmful to an organism. The experiment conducted by radiating the drosophilia over thousands of their generations showed no favorable mutations, merely monstrosities and deformations, along with the inevitable reversion to type, which occurs in all instances of controlled breeding, whether it is fruit flies, sheep or dogs.

    The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of complex organisms. There are no gradual transitions from type to type. Darwin was correct in a micro-evolutionary sense of variation within species due to many factors, environmental or otherwise, but totally wrong about "the origin of species" if by species we mean type. As a matter of fact, Darwin's theories were based upon gross misunderstandings of the origins of life, and the Lamarckian theory of the inheritance of non-genetic acquired characteristics. His ideas about the race of bears becoming baleen whales is particularly laughable, and puts any medieval hagiographer to shame with respect to fantasy and credulity.

    You are simply a materialist bigot who is completely unable to grasp the concept of vertical causality.

    Attempting to argue with an individual who uses a childish phrase like "I do not discuss with stupids" is an exercise in futility.

    The experiment conducted by radiating the drosophilia over thousands of their generations showed no favorable mutations, merely monstrosities and deformations

    Are you referring to this experiment?

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160204111403.htm

    https://www.nature.com/news/flies-reared-in-the-dark-for-60-years-give-up-their-genetic-secrets-1.19339

    On 11 November 1954, Japanese ecologist Syuiti Mori placed a dark cloth over a captive colony of fruit flies and began one of evolutionary biology’s longest-running lab experiments. Sixty-one years and some 1,500 generations later, researchers have now identified dozens of genetic variations that may help the flies’ descendants to cope with life in total darkness.

    The dark flies look just like normal fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster), except for their slightly longer head bristles, which are used as sensory organs. They also seem to have a keener sense of smell, and a superior ability to find a mate in the dark, compared with normal flies. But despite a life shrouded in darkness, the dark flies are drawn to light and retain their circadian cycles, says Naoyuki Fuse, a geneticist at Kyoto University who became the steward of Mori’s ‘dark-fly’ project in 2008; Mori himself died in 2007.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Yes, and similar experiments.

    Despite their superior ability to live in the dark and find a mate, they remain fruit flies.

    This is little different, in a qualitative sense, than horse or dog breeding. There are significant differences between Clysdales and Arabians, and Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but they do not cease to be horses and dogs.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. joef says:
    @A Libertarian
    I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn't measure up or that his parents don't, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child's success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    Yes, typical response from people who live in cupcake land and never had to deal with afro violence on a real term basis. Oh what a superior open minded intellectual to be able to ignore the multitude of criminal victims, by the hands of radical (ghetto) afro americans. And because of this obtained wisdom, from hard earned second hand sophomoric sources, you should instruct the rest of us who have real world experience in this subject matter.

    After all we all should not discuss this because people like you have never been personally effected by it. While you have the luxury to pontificate from afar, safe & cozy from danger, the rest of us must deal with the real consequences of this on a very personal level (one on one, or many on one, depending on the incident). But after all polite company demands these unfortunate occurrences be ignored.

    Your intellectual pandering aids & abets this problem with no consideration of what your fellow citizens have to contend with. Obviously by your statements you have very limited first hand knowledge of whats its like to reside in a urban neighborhood in close proximity to an afro american ghetto (although I do know some libs who are very happy to be willing victims of afro violence, and expect the rest of us to do the same).

    The most arrogant thing about this is a failure to acknowledge the experience of others beyond your own, just because it does not fit a certain preferred narrative. Maybe you should listen more and talk less about things you have no first hand knowledge of. [And please no anecdotal nonsense about you know some Black people, or you walked through a Black neighborhood once.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @A Libertarian
    I think if you read again what I've said you might see that we are talking about different things. You refer to the violence of blacks and I referred to the discussions of intelligence differences between different groups. I didn't refer to blacks at all. Also, I agree and sympathize with you and others whose daily lives are made uneasy and dangerous by whatever ethnic group - black, hispanic, etc.

    Finally, you are right, what I'm really pushing for is a different narrative, not that I "prefer" it in any way. I am sickened by the narrative of our being pushed into middle eastern wars by neoconservatives, Israel and the Israeli lobby. The effect of this, though more remote and harder to see, could be eventually catastrophic for you, me, our families and the entire world.

    I refer to basically what is documented here - https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815 and here https://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Cabal-Neoconservative-National-Interest-ebook/dp/B004FGLX4W
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Mulegino1 says:
    @anonymous
    The experiment conducted by radiating the drosophilia over thousands of their generations showed no favorable mutations, merely monstrosities and deformations

    Are you referring to this experiment?

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160204111403.htm

    https://www.nature.com/news/flies-reared-in-the-dark-for-60-years-give-up-their-genetic-secrets-1.19339

    On 11 November 1954, Japanese ecologist Syuiti Mori placed a dark cloth over a captive colony of fruit flies and began one of evolutionary biology's longest-running lab experiments. Sixty-one years and some 1,500 generations later, researchers have now identified dozens of genetic variations that may help the flies’ descendants to cope with life in total darkness.

    The dark flies look just like normal fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster), except for their slightly longer head bristles, which are used as sensory organs. They also seem to have a keener sense of smell, and a superior ability to find a mate in the dark, compared with normal flies. But despite a life shrouded in darkness, the dark flies are drawn to light and retain their circadian cycles, says Naoyuki Fuse, a geneticist at Kyoto University who became the steward of Mori's ‘dark-fly’ project in 2008; Mori himself died in 2007.
     

    Yes, and similar experiments.

    Despite their superior ability to live in the dark and find a mate, they remain fruit flies.

    This is little different, in a qualitative sense, than horse or dog breeding. There are significant differences between Clysdales and Arabians, and Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but they do not cease to be horses and dogs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Despite their superior ability to live in the dark and find a mate, they remain fruit flies.

    Lol. What do you expect them to turn into in an EXTREMELY short period of time?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Stan d Mute

    Evolutionary theory and description works, and works better, explains better, predicts better than any wackadoodle jesus-yahweh-buddha-mohammed bullshit ever has, or ever will.
     
    Aha! But does it tell you which hand to use when wiping your ass after a big dump? Mohamster does. Does it tell you to avoid women on the rag? YHWH does. And, most importantly, when you are frightened of something does it remind you of sitting on mommy’s lap listening to fairytales and suckling flabby udders?

    Aha! But does it tell you which hand to use when wiping your ass after a big dump?

    Wipe? Simpler to just pray it clean. No unsanitary wiping action at all. Just – poof – in Jesus’ name, and it’s gone.

    Excuse you and me for noticing, but this article seems to have captured the imagination of some major wackadoodles. Mean ones, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This whole article is an unbelievably naive and blustery pile of steaming shit. It is simply a mass of free-form associations and unmotivated metaphors that completely mis-states the entire debate from top to bottom. The author is too childish, too incompetent, too much of a self-anal-fingering dickweed with a bad haircut, to engage with this subject at the metaphysical level. He's trying to make a case for race-realism (which is good) but he doesn't understand that this is a minor matter compared with the much weightier claims he is making in favor of Darwinism. He's letting the race-realist tail wag the metaphysics dog, and that is unacceptable and stupid.

    Darwinism is shallow materialism with a spluttering of English phlegm---nothing more. It is emphatically not science. It is the drawing-room philosophy of dilettantes and intellectual mediocrities. The idea that Darwinists are engaged in an heroic battle against "Creationism" new and old, is a laughable bit of self-flattery. Creationism is a Darwinian strawman; it is the other side of their own worthless coin. In condemning it they only reveal how pathetic they are.

    In reality the Darwinists are the new Creationists, the Leftist proponents of egalitarianism are the true heirs of the Enlightenment, and the truth is not with either one of them. Dickless morons like the execrable Lance Welton, whoever he is, are incapable of understanding anything outside of their narrow dichotomy, and that is why this loser must never be invited or allowed to speak on this subject again.

    So you don’t believe in Darwin’s theory, fine. But because of your obscenity and filth about the author the article should never have been posted.

    BTW, free speech and the 1st amendment only applies to government, not websites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @anonymous
    Your “400 million years of fossil record” shows no true transitional forms between types

    Couldn't dinos with teeth, feathers, wings, etc., be transitional between featherless dinos and birds?

    Couldn’t dinos with teeth, feathers, wings, etc., be transitional between featherless dinos and birds?

    Of course not. Not transitional enough. Not form-y enough. Not magick enough. It’s gotta be direct from Tyrannosaurus Rex to homo religioso, or it’s not evolution. Not that it could ever be evolution, onaccounta Jesus, yanno.

    Fucking nutjob bible-thumping mystical wackadoodles. Some day, there will be a bounty on ‘em.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    Very well stated.

    Creationism, in particular the "young earth" brand, is the 800 pound straw man propped up by the Church of Darwin to "demonstrate" that anyone who dares to doubt the utterly ridiculous and unscientific legend of transformism is a toothless, backwoods, Bible thumping troglodyte. Nothing could be further from the truth. The "Creationists" and the hard core apostles of Darwinian evolution are equally dogmatic and equally intolerant and evince a profound ignorance of the metaphysics which underlie all being.

    By insisting (whether implicitly or explicitly) on only taking into account the material and efficient and the elimination or dismissal of the formal and final in the causal order, contemporary scientism (as opposed to legitimate science) is an iron clad dogmatism as unforgiving of dissent as any of the Inquisitions at their peaks of power.

    Variation within species is a regular, observable occurrence. Transformism is a gross superstition.

    So you’re not a fan of Darwinism. I must congratulate you that you expressed your opinion of the article and Darwinism without being obscene.

    I don’t care one way or the other.

    But I did take anatomy and ever since then I’ve thought that intelligent design was a lot more valid idea than just Darwin’s random accidents

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Kudos for having an open mind on the subject!

    Micro-evolution- in my opinion- is a fact of everyday life which can be validated by observing something as simple as a small fishpond housing goldfish, for example:

    During the winter, there was extensive cloud cover, so very little algae grew, and the water in the pond was clear. There was a Heron who came in from the seashore who came in looking for an easy meal, so the dark goldfish stuck out like sore thumbs and were easy prey for the heron. The prolific goldfish population became almost all white or gold, with few or no dark colored goldfish surviving the heron's onslaught.

    On the other hand, during the summer, there was abundant sunshine, so the algae grew to murky up the water in the fishpond, and the gold and white colored goldfish were easily targets for the heron, while those dark colored goldfish could easily hide in the algae. So the goldfish population became dominantly dark colored. This cycle could have continued for hundreds, thousands or millions of years and the overwhelming likelihood would be that the goldfish- whether light or dark colored- would remain goldfish.

    Even had Darwin confined his theories to the variations within a species, he would have gone down in history as a great naturalist. Instead, he extrapolated wildly from micro-evolution to macro-evolution and that is what set him off the deep end.

    The problem with the most strident Darwinians is that they are as dogmatic, or perhaps more so, than Biblical fundamentalists.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. res says:
    @A Libertarian
    My main point is that a discussion of group differences as regards intelligence benefits no one and unfairly disadvantages and emotionally impacts innocent and capable individuals. It is also viewed as an unsavory subject by a great number of people. As such, it has the potential to taint the reputation of unz.com. This I hate because unz.com is one of the few sources of intelligent and unbiased information about the hidden forces that drive our country to a continual state of war endangering the lives and welfare of ourselves and our children.

    I definitely agree it is viewed as an unsavory subject. In terms of tainting the reputation of unz.com, that possibility is certainly there, but I am not sure it is even the most controversial topic discussed here. The big difference I see is that it is the one where the popular viewpoint is most decidedly (provably) wrong (IMO of course). I suspect that is a large part of the reason it bothers people so much. Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable.

    Regarding this

    a discussion of group differences as regards intelligence benefits no one and unfairly disadvantages and emotionally impacts innocent and capable individuals.

    the benefit is it provides a counterweight to the toxic idea of disparate impact which seems to be becoming more and more important in the US. I am a believer in understanding the truth being better for someone than fantasies–no matter how good those might make one feel.

    Thanks for the civil conversation. I hope to hear more from you here. The conversation here has a wide variety of viewpoints (and some can be a bit much, including mine by many people’s standards as you have seen) but I think it is good to gain an appreciation of what other people think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. anonymous[289] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    Theoretically, yes, provided there were a gradual series of major mutations leading to the transition between cold blooded reptiles and warm blooded avians, but there is no evidence in the fossil record for this, and its genetic probabilities are close to zero, due to many factors, including the utter uselessness of appendages which were previously feet or claws gradually becoming wings, and scales gradually becoming feathers, due to thousands of generations of entirely fortuitous genetic mutations. Organisms in nature do not behave in this fashion, i.e., they do not undergo "linear progress" but are subject to the laws of causality, and it is the formal/final-vertical information defining organisms- which act upon them, and the material and efficient causes are usually entirely subordinate to the former. When this is not fully the case, there are deviations and deformities, and the result is never good.

    Then what explains Archaeopteryx, Serikornis, Microraptor, and all of the other Dromaeosaurids (along with some other Theropods)? Where did they all get their feathers/wings? On that note, since you consider darwinian selection unviable, what is your explanation for the emergence of different species at specific points in the fossil record?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. anonymous[289] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    Yes, and similar experiments.

    Despite their superior ability to live in the dark and find a mate, they remain fruit flies.

    This is little different, in a qualitative sense, than horse or dog breeding. There are significant differences between Clysdales and Arabians, and Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but they do not cease to be horses and dogs.

    Despite their superior ability to live in the dark and find a mate, they remain fruit flies.

    Lol. What do you expect them to turn into in an EXTREMELY short period of time?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    I don't expect them to turn into anything else, because they won't, anymore than breeding sheep over generations favoring the short legged variety will cause them to turn into snake like slithering mammals. They will revert to type.

    Endless progress over time is an enlightenment idol and a liberal superstition which led to Spencer heavily influencing Darwin's concept of the origin of species, which is ultimately false. If he had confined himself to ornithological studies, and the variations among his finches, he would have been fine. It was the farrago of false ideas such as spontaneous generation, bathybios, endless progress overtime and Lamarckianism which caused Darwin to go over the deep end.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @anonymous
    lol.. Instead of telling everyone about how much of an internet badass you are, maybe you can show us by making an actual argument as to why the theory of evolution is incorrect and demonstrating what it is that you know that 99% of people who've diligently studied the field apparently don't know.

    lol.. Instead of telling everyone about how much of an internet badass you are, maybe you can show us by making an actual argument as to why the theory of evolution is incorrect and demonstrating what it is that you know that 99% of people who’ve diligently studied the field apparently don’t know.

    That’s already been done many times over. And not just by me but by Spengler, Kant, Goethe, Aristotle, and literally hundreds of others. You Darwinists simply choose to ignore it all, and that’s why you no longer deserve the courtesy of rational arguments. It ought to tell you something that “Darwinism” was discussed and refuted by Aristotle 2300 years avant la lettre, but your intellectual horizon only begins the day before yesterday, and you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    So don’t demand arguments from me when the arguments have already been given. It’s not like you’re going to listen anyway. You already think you know it all and you are impervious to both truth and reason. Had you ever bothered to think about the subject for half an hour, you also would have realized that Darwinism cannot possibly be true. Anybody still propounding that ridiculous theory is nothing but a pruling, regurgitating numb-nuts incapable of serious thought. You deserve every bit of scorn I could possibly heap upon you, and much more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Why do you care?

    Theory of evolution can’t do harm or good. It’s not like affirmative action or tariffs or onerous business regulations high taxes or religious persecution, Dr Fraud’s theory of talk therapy vs meds alleviate mental illness these are concrete things that do affect people

    Evolution, intelligent design by some kind of God these theories have no affect on anything.

    One reason evolution was accepted so readily in the 19th century is that most people were farmers and were constantly evolving or breeding farm animals.

    Animals pulled vehicles. It was obvious to every one that different kinds of horses were evolved for different purposes. Small horses could pull a light weight 2 person buggy. Huge loads on heavy weight wagons were pulled by huge horses that were bred or evolved for that job.

    There were draft dogs, bred so big and strong they could pull carts.
    It only took farmers about 15 years to breed low fat pigs. Farmers have bred sugar out of fruit and bred in long storage life

    Breeding or evolution what’s the difference. It really doesn’t matter, Darwin or intelligent design
    , @Mulegino1
    How dare you compare brobdingnagian greats such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to such lilliputian light weights as Spengler, Goethe, Kant, Aristotle (I will throw in Leibniz, Sts. Thomas and Augustine for good measure)!

    Those who accept the Darwinist paradigm live in the fish bowl world of Cartesian bifurcation, Newtonian mechanics and the anachronistic world view of scientism and positivism. Descartes and Newton certainly made some great contributions to philosophy and science, and although their world views were fundamentally incorrect, they would have been horrified at the gross materialism of the Encyclopedists and their British liberal successors, culminating in the dead end of Darwinism, with its world of chimeras and its naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress.
    , @anonymous
    So you have a killer refutation of evolution, but you won't reveal it to us heathens because it's TOP SECRET? Haha... What a joke....

    And not just by me but by Spengler, Kant, Goethe, Aristotle
     
    Nice try, but neither you nor any of these fine gentlemen have refuted evolutionary theory in its present form.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Svigor says:
    @Beckow
    People resort to faith to avoid having to deal with unpleasant realities. It is evolutionary helpful in the short run. The key distinction is seeing one's existence as part of a specific group: medieval professional Christians saw themselves as career Christians first, communists as 'vanguard of workers paradise', today out-of-control liberals see themselves as building better global future for all. Movements like that have to ignore inconvenient realities otherwise they couldn't exist.

    Of course, reality intrudes, so the faithful always go from martyrdom to suppression, from ideals to censoring ideas. First they convince themselves that ends justify any means, then they harden into a self-serving, all-knowing 'elite'. Eventually cynicism creeps, belly-over-the-belt-phase kicks in, and soon it is over.

    Current globo-liberal ideology is only about half-way there. It is going to get a lot worse before it collapses. The lethal combination of early idealists, people protecting career sinecures, and the usual opportunistic thugs, is just forming. I suspect measuring IQ across groups will not be our biggest problem. This has years to go, we are - as always - being remade by ideologues on a rampage. Hillary will be sanctified, she fits the model perfectly.

    Ideology and greed always combine, a powerful and intriguing engine of human evolution. And if you want to beat them, I would suggest something equally divorced from reality with a strong career potential and attractive to dreamers. Rationality has no chance against it.

    People resort to faith to avoid having to deal with unpleasant realities. It is evolutionary helpful in the short run. The key distinction is seeing one’s existence as part of a specific group: medieval professional Christians saw themselves as career Christians first, communists as ‘vanguard of workers paradise’, today out-of-control liberals see themselves as building better global future for all. Movements like that have to ignore inconvenient realities otherwise they couldn’t exist.

    This is praising with faint damnation. For most the bugs are just bugs. For leftists, all the “features” are bugs. There’s nothing they hang their hat on that isn’t stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Svigor says:
    @AndrewR
    Well said. Groupthink, enforced ideological conformity, intellectual taboos, etc. are all endemic to all human groups. The Bolsheviks created the NatSocs: equally dogmatic, equally authoritarian and equally bloodthirsty. And today just the specter of the NatSocs fuels the tyrannical left. I've lost track of how many times I've seen a variation of this comment regarding the alt-right on social media: "My grandfather killed Nazis! We should do the same today!"

    Well said. Groupthink, enforced ideological conformity, intellectual taboos, etc. are all endemic to all human groups. The Bolsheviks created the NatSocs: equally dogmatic, equally authoritarian and equally bloodthirsty.

    And yet still capable of taking their own side in a fight; communists murdered 100m+ of their own kind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @Mulegino1
    Theoretically, yes, provided there were a gradual series of major mutations leading to the transition between cold blooded reptiles and warm blooded avians, but there is no evidence in the fossil record for this, and its genetic probabilities are close to zero, due to many factors, including the utter uselessness of appendages which were previously feet or claws gradually becoming wings, and scales gradually becoming feathers, due to thousands of generations of entirely fortuitous genetic mutations. Organisms in nature do not behave in this fashion, i.e., they do not undergo "linear progress" but are subject to the laws of causality, and it is the formal/final-vertical information defining organisms- which act upon them, and the material and efficient causes are usually entirely subordinate to the former. When this is not fully the case, there are deviations and deformities, and the result is never good.

    Nova – Judgment Day Intelligent Design On Trial

    Very interesting points at timelines 50:00 and 1:04:00

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    It is a matter of philosophical world views, not facts. With respect to the highlights of the documentary you referred to- these scientists do not believe in "the truth" because truth is a metaphysical or ontological concept, not something that can be circumscribed or defined by empirical observation or statistics. And of course, in a scientific community absolutely dominated by Darwinian orthodoxy, all discoveries and observations will be used to retroactively validate Darwinian theory, since the heresy of vertical, non-temporal causality has no place in the world of scientism.

    I can just as easily refer you to this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IHO-QkmomY



    Now, you may object that this documentary was made by those with an agenda. However, Nova and PBS also have a Darwinian agenda. The idea that any scientist or anyone else is absolutely objective in drawing conclusions based upon data is highly dubious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Svigor says:
    @Johan Meyer
    Please motivate why the genes implicated in IQ necessarily directly determine IQ, rather than developmental sensitivity of IQ to certain environments. Hint: the latter may have the same twin correlations as the former.

    Please motivate why the genes implicated in IQ necessarily directly determine IQ, rather than developmental sensitivity of IQ to certain environments. Hint: the latter may have the same twin correlations as the former.

    Hint: Occam’s Razor.
    Hint: semantics.
    Hint: distinction without a difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Re Occam's razor, blacks have higher blood lead than whites, on average, for the same environment.

    Re semantics and distinctions without differences, should the pathological environment be removed, direct genetic causation of IQ will remain, while genetically variable environmental effects will cease to be felt.

    When it comes to IQ, SI room temperature is rather chilly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Svigor says:
    @Michael Kenny
    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live. Since modern IQ tests are almost entirely devised by white, middle class Americans and define the values and assumptions of white, middle class Americans as "intelligence", it's in the logic of the system that white, middle class Americans would score higher than any other group of people on the planet. One of the classic figures of European comedy, for example, is the American who doesn't understand how things work and keeps making a fool of himself, to the great hilarity of Europeans.

    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live.

    Hint: semantics.
    Hint: distinction without a difference.

    Problem-solving = adaptability = intellectual capacity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch
    Problem-solving != adaptability != intellectual capacity.

    Utter nonsense.
    , @anon
    So why did those Vietnam refugee kids who were not from the cities with educated parents but were from simple villages do so well in school and score so high on IQ tests.

    China is allegedly pretty civilized now, but 1948 to about 2,000 it was totally different from American European society. But as soon as they got to America they did well in school and IQ tests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Svigor says:
    @Thomm
    This is false.

    1) Blacks are always low-scorers, despite all attempts to rig tests in their favor.
    2) White Trashionalists score even lower than blacks, despite growing up in the society that you mention. White Trashionalists usually score about 70, whereas normal whites average about 105 or so.

    The lowest-scoring White groups have higher means than your WOG homeland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HogHappenin
    Most of his ilk are now completely enthralled by Juuish "success" at infiltration/subversion and I'm sure they are salivating at the prospect of being the new "coolie" class for them.

    Back home in their WOG homeland, they are quite fond of Bibi and look forward to being their "preferred partners" in everything from defence to bollywood (LOL)!

    So caste Hindoos and them Juus are a match made in heaven. Both have grand impressions of themselves. The difference being one has the world by the ballz and other just wants to cash in on the "successes" of their ideological brethren, both at home and on the "world stage"!
    , @Thomm
    'Svigor' actually rhymes with Wigger, which is appropriate, because that is what you are.

    Well then, Swigger, what next?

    BTW, I'm white. I know it pains you to be reminded that successful whites like me correctly see you wiggers as waste matter, and we thus exclude you from polite society.

    Get off my lawn, faggot!

    Heh heh heh heh

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Svigor says:
    @nickels
    "To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/

    Race realism may be one thing, but hanging on to the patently absurd theory of Darwinism is truly groupthink mental suicide.

    Basically put, natural selection cannot act until something exists and provides a benefit. This means every useful organ, biological structure, etc..., had to randomly mutate into existence from a system that takes 2 b years to flip 5 letters.
    And lets not even get started on something like the cell-more complex than any existing human made machine-randomly occurred.

    Stunning how this Whig mind disease continues to thrive in the petri dish of daddy issue, 'I wanna be an atheist', modernity.

    Basically put, natural selection cannot act until something exists and provides a benefit. This means every useful organ, biological structure, etc…, had to randomly mutate into existence from a system that takes 2 b years to flip 5 letters.
    And lets not even get started on something like the cell-more complex than any existing human made machine-randomly occurred.

    So we take anecdotes and make rules of them now?

    “It took me five minutes to jerk off, ergo, it always takes everyone five minutes to jerk off; I call it the Universal Law of Onanism.”

    No.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Svigor says:
    @bartok

    They are thinking religiously and ideologically.
    And that is what led to hysteria and mob rule at University College—and, increasingly, throughout the Western Word.
     
    Moldbug has argued that the modern progressive left is mainline Christianity - don't be fooled by the empty pews. Within this context should be judged the author's claim that leftist hysteria is increasing.

    Maybe it has two levels - screaming hysteria when their team is out of office and smug score-settling when they are in office. See Defoe's The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters (not as satire but as the truth).

    Yeah but Moldbug’s a mischling so naturally he prefers terminology like “Cathedral” over the more accurate “Synagogue.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Svigor says:
    @AKAHorace
    I don't understand how you get from suppressing the evolutionary arguments for IQ differences between races to a Jewish conspiracy.

    One of the strongest reasons for differences between races is the higher average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews. Persecution and limits to their career choices over the middle ages meant that they were selected for higher IQ. Ashkenazis, Northern Chinese, Koreans and Japanese regularly score higher than whites on IQ tests. Sephardic Jews do not score as highly.

    More like self-selection: if you don’t succeed, we push you out of the tribe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AKAHorace

    More like self-selection: if you don’t succeed, we push you out of the tribe.
     
    You could be right here, I don't know enough to say. The end result is the same, higher intelligence.
    , @anon
    That’s why a synogue membership costs $10,000 to $20,000 a year plus a lot of fundraisers and expensive cars so as not to be disgraced in the parking lot plus Saks 5th Avenue, not upper middle class Nordstrom clothes for the women.

    It’s the only religion in the world that charges people of their own faith to enter their own places of worship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Svigor says:
    @joef
    We live in a denial that will eventually bring down the nation. The matter is not so much about racial IQ that is important, for I rather associate with a trustworthy person of low IQ, than a treacherous person of high IQ... it is a matter of afro hostile behavior that is the real concern with racial reality... and the reality is that radical afro americans are the most destructive social/economic influence against other Non Blacks in America.

    Of course leftist live in denial of the facts, where academic social science dictates to the hard sciences what are the acceptably preferred "facts" regarding afro bad (antisocial) behavior. The one thing that leftist progs manifest more than anything else is their inability to ever admit failure. Instead they always say they need more time (the past half century was not enough), and more money (20 Trillion Dollars was not enough) to successfully implement their failed ideas.

    [This is allowed by establishment liberals, rino corporatist, neocons, and anarcho capitalist, who are completely intimidated by the New Left, and constantly try to obtain favor with them, while fecklessly giving in to their nihilism].

    The institutions of modern society still allows for the leftist (and all the rest) to be mostly protected from the results of their catastrophic ideas. But this cannot last, and eventually the afro Frankenstein monster that they created will destroy its own leftist masters. Until then, the leftist progs have the luxury to continuously deny reality.

    When the economy nearly collapses, and the stoppage of welfare entitlement checks directly leads to a afro initiated hot race war (as opposed to the de facto one we are living with now), leftist progs will die off in the process. Despite the fact that SJW naively believe they will be able to co opt this afro animosity into a Commie revolution, radical afros will not make much distinctions between Whites, thus indiscriminately attacking them all (additionally leftist progs will be openly targeted by everyone else for their malevolent political meddling).

    And upon completion of this potential open conflict the end result will leave a historical mess in its wake. It did not have to be this way, but it is what it is.

    We live in a denial that will eventually bring down the nation. The matter is not so much about racial IQ that is important, for I rather associate with a trustworthy person of low IQ, than a treacherous person of high IQ… it is a matter of afro hostile behavior that is the real concern with racial reality… and the reality is that radical afro americans are the most destructive social/economic influence against other Non Blacks in America.

    People always say shit like this, but I’d rather associate with a smart, trustworthy person than either of your choices.

    And it’s not as if there’s no correlation; in my experience, stupid people will fuck you over more often. Turns out stupid people can’t process moral calculations, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Those black women government workplaces are full of witches trying to harm workmates.

    Is it stupidity or viciousness?
    , @EliteCommInc.
    Uhhh, this is a fairly subjective conclusion based on who knows what. The myriad of factors the impact any species -- randomly, bu chance -- chaos, does not select any particular IQ for hurdles to existence. Anyone touting evolutionary shifts, is going to acknowledge that surviving the planet.

    You have an IQ of 177 and I have an IQ 10. We are both walking down main street. Mrs Smith driving down the street doesn't see the pot hole, hits it and her car jumps the curb missing me but smashes head long into you.

    Nothing about your intelligence is going to make yo any better equipped to survive head on collision with a car.

    The Romans did not lose to a superior intellect, they lost to brute force.

    And if you ae uncomfortable with Mrs Smith's car ---

    A lightening strike will accomplish the same task.
    , @joef
    To a certain degree you are correct, however from the White ethnic (and Hispanic) urban "ghetto" I grew up in, I knew some pretty ruthless people who were very intelligent, and this intelligence made them much more effective in the carrying out of their various nefarious activities. I also known dumb people who wouldn't harm a fly.

    I do not believe afro americans are an observable destructive force based on their low collective IQ scores... I believe it is because they have become a culture of destructive behavior by their own choice. And the real danger is not that libertarian/liberal/leftist deny the bell curve of IQ, but instead deny the wantonly destructive habits of the radical element (and its supporters) within the afro american community.

    What surprises me the most is libertarianism: in the past there was a movement of paleo libertarianism that advocated for limited government, but was firmly rooted in the concepts of racial reality, and the reality of crime. This changed when the Iraq war came about, to which many opposed due to not being in America's self interest to pursue (I generally agreed with this assessment). As a result they attempted to form common cause on this issue with the left.

    But they ended with cozying up to liberals & leftist progs a little too much, and started agreeing with their nonsensical social positions. They randomly quote Von Misses, but rabidly follow Rothbard. They want acceptance so much from the intellectual left that they are willing to pander to almost all their social positions. [Paleo conservatives (which I am one) also took the same position on the war, but did not suffer undue influence from the left.]

    They became as utopian as communist, with the only difference of believing 'no state' will usher in paradise, instead of an all powerful state. They don't believe in Hobbes Leviathan (to which present day radical afro americans are the biggest component of such a Leviathan). And they come up with such idiocy that present day Detroit is an anarcho capitalist paradise (really maybe they should go live there, and tell the rest of us how it turned out... LOL).

    Much of this is because many of them probably never had to deal with Leviathan behavior directly, so have the luxury of believing their own intellectual drivel. Thus they pontificate from afar telling the rest of us what we should believe about radical afro behavior, while we deal with the real world violent consequences that these libs so desperately want to ignore.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Svigor says:
    @A Libertarian
    I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn't measure up or that his parents don't, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child's success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    Hi, dumbass. Stick around (and prefer reading over writing). You’ll become less of a dumbass, over time.

    You seem to be the one who broached the subject of racial superiority, dumbass, so maybe you should be answering your own question.

    What good does the conversation we were having (before you rudely interjected the non-sequitur of “racial superiority”) do? It destroys the left’s false accusation that Whitey caused all of Blackie’s problems.

    Defending the falsely accused from bogus charges is the sort of thing any person with anything like a moral center can support, so I can see how a libertarian might miss the plot.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Svigor

    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live.
     
    Hint: semantics.
    Hint: distinction without a difference.

    Problem-solving = adaptability = intellectual capacity.

    Problem-solving != adaptability != intellectual capacity.

    Utter nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Svigor says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Learning was in high esteem among jews.
    Though kabbalism is nonsense in my opinion, it is an intellectual effort.
    Jews indeed could not enter many professions, but is cattle trade, butchering and hide preparation an intellectual excercise ?
    As to banking, do you really think it is difficult ?
    Being so intelligent, why did jews never, in my knowledge, question the Torah or the 22.000 or so rules of the Torahs ?
    One might argue that circumventing these rules was an intellectual effort, however, if one reads
    Simon Schama, ´Two Rothschilds and the land of Israel’, London, 1978
    it seems rather simple.

    Generally speaking, no, Jews were not barred from many professions. What they were barred from was replacing the local nobility.

    Cue the violins…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Svigor says:
    @A Libertarian
    I agree with everything you said. In general, I think the whole discussion of the superiority of one group over another is counter productive and distracting. We should be talking about things that matter in the world. Things that are openly and honestly talked about on unz.com. The world so needs to hear the truth right now, when the truth is in such short supply. I would like for unz.com to be unsullied by destructive articles about white superiority and other such pointless and devaluing distractions.

    In other words, you’re either too ignorant to know that unequal outcomes are used by the left as prima facie evidence of White malfeasance (and as justification for all their harmful social engineering) or too stupid to make the obvious connection between that and race-realism, or too immoral to object, or some combination of the three.

    Also, you think it’s fine for Jews to say “we’re more successful than Whites because IQ, but Whites are more successful than Blacks because racism.”

    Congrats, quite a cucked worldview you have there.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Svigor says:
    @PP
    Good evening. I have read articles on UNZ for about 6 months and have decided to start commenting on the ones regarding IQ and related HBD topics.

    Your comment #41 provides a leg into a question I have been wondering about for quite some time: in my very superficial understanding of IQ scores, I had always understood than an IQ score below 80 would make someone officially retarded.

    I have met people whose children were retarded for various reasons, ranging from problems at delivery to not properly understood causes for which the parents were seeing various explanations. In any event, it appears to me that a society formed with people like that would not even be on the verge of collapsing: they would simply die of starvation or something else within a few days.

    Therefore I have a hard time reconciling this notion of an IQ of 80 corresponding to that of a retarded individual, to a mean (or maybe it is the median?) IQ score of 71 in any given country which, evidently, is not completely starving to death right now. What gives?

    Thank you.

    No, 70 is the traditional IQ dividing line between “retarded” and “not retarded.” Or it was, for a long time; I have no idea what the wanna-be scientists in psychology are saying these days.

    Interestingly, that means the distance between mean Black American IQ and mean White American IQ is half the distance between “average” and a “retard,” from the White American POV.

    P.S., I think Rushton has an essay on this. TL;DR version, Whites with IQ of 70 or less are retarded, i.e., almost always “disabled” in some way, whereas Blacks start from a lower mean, so their threshold for “more going on here than just stupidity” is lower, starting as it does from a mean of 85.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Svigor says:
    @Okechukwu
    Don't worry, bro. Anybody that tries to present this nonsense at a scientific conference anywhere in the world would either be laughed or booed out of the building. This stuff is fodder for people who hold 19th century white supremacist beliefs. They are a tiny fringe of (ironically) generally stupid people who are shunned and ridiculed by normal, rational society. More importantly, their "science" is a fantasy. Any 5 year old could debunk junk.

    In short, you have nothing to worry about. Let these clowns fool around in their circle jerks and echo chambers. Enjoy the entertainment and have a hearty laugh.

    Good point; Galileo? Definitely not science; everybody believed his opponents!

    [email protected]

    Holy shit there’s a lot of stupid in the comments. Can’t read it anymore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Svigor says:
    @PP
    Good evening. I have read articles on UNZ for about 6 months and have decided to start commenting on the ones regarding IQ and related HBD topics.

    Your comment #41 provides a leg into a question I have been wondering about for quite some time: in my very superficial understanding of IQ scores, I had always understood than an IQ score below 80 would make someone officially retarded.

    I have met people whose children were retarded for various reasons, ranging from problems at delivery to not properly understood causes for which the parents were seeing various explanations. In any event, it appears to me that a society formed with people like that would not even be on the verge of collapsing: they would simply die of starvation or something else within a few days.

    Therefore I have a hard time reconciling this notion of an IQ of 80 corresponding to that of a retarded individual, to a mean (or maybe it is the median?) IQ score of 71 in any given country which, evidently, is not completely starving to death right now. What gives?

    Thank you.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    This is false.

    1) Blacks are always low-scorers, despite all attempts to rig tests in their favor.
    2) White Trashionalists score even lower than blacks, despite growing up in the society that you mention. White Trashionalists usually score about 70, whereas normal whites average about 105 or so.

    I doubt retarded Whites are White nationalists. 70 IQ can’t even learn to read well enough to read Whibe Nationalist web sites.

    And since they get disability and live in group homes they are not out there in the job market being discriminated against because they are White.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Vinegar18 says:
    @nickels
    "To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/

    Race realism may be one thing, but hanging on to the patently absurd theory of Darwinism is truly groupthink mental suicide.

    Basically put, natural selection cannot act until something exists and provides a benefit. This means every useful organ, biological structure, etc..., had to randomly mutate into existence from a system that takes 2 b years to flip 5 letters.
    And lets not even get started on something like the cell-more complex than any existing human made machine-randomly occurred.

    Stunning how this Whig mind disease continues to thrive in the petri dish of daddy issue, 'I wanna be an atheist', modernity.

    Hey stupido. With 8 billion people on average that will appear in 3 months.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Svigor

    Please motivate why the genes implicated in IQ necessarily directly determine IQ, rather than developmental sensitivity of IQ to certain environments. Hint: the latter may have the same twin correlations as the former.
     
    Hint: Occam's Razor.
    Hint: semantics.
    Hint: distinction without a difference.

    Re Occam’s razor, blacks have higher blood lead than whites, on average, for the same environment.

    Re semantics and distinctions without differences, should the pathological environment be removed, direct genetic causation of IQ will remain, while genetically variable environmental effects will cease to be felt.

    When it comes to IQ, SI room temperature is rather chilly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    The 'no such thing as race' ideology looks to be increasingly bizarre with each passing day which only spurs on it's adherents to become even more obstinate and fanatical. It really is a religion, a secular leftist version of Creationism. That one segment of the population may hold onto it's own peculiar beliefs, such as the earth being flat, is one thing; it's entirely another matter when this group is in a position to enforce it's ideas upon everyone else and terrorize others into silence. This Red Guard is running a reign of terror in a large part of the developed world, a sort of Red Guard International. A militant percent of the population can impose it's will upon the unorganized and apathetic majority. That there's race differences is obvious even to the most ordinary of people and isn't just pegged at levels of intelligence but runs the gamut of physical and mental differences, all apparent to the eye. But they can force everyone to deny what they see and even confuse them into thinking they aren't really seeing what they do. How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?

    The only reason the international Red Guard rules Europe and N America but not Mexico is that the industrial. agricultural Educational and political elites want it that way.

    You don’t have the Red Guard in Asian and Central and S American countries or the Arab countries, Turkey and Persia.

    It’s just another protesting Protestant reformation. And like the religious reformation it succeeds only in countries where the elite wants it to succeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. AKAHorace says:
    @Svigor
    More like self-selection: if you don't succeed, we push you out of the tribe.

    More like self-selection: if you don’t succeed, we push you out of the tribe.

    You could be right here, I don’t know enough to say. The end result is the same, higher intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. AKAHorace says:
    @cezanne
    Ashkenazi jew was the mix of white slaves from Russia and the jews conquered from Israel by Persians (Seria is definettlly the problem (not!) we gotta destroy them (NOT)! Assad should be an ally not a target! The influx of muslims under the refugee flag, is just a long held plan to take over Christianity! The nice is only window dressing!

    Ashkenazi jew was the mix of white slaves from Russia and the jews conquered from Israel by Persians (Seria is definettlly the problem (not!) we gotta destroy them (NOT)! Assad should be an ally not a target! The influx of muslims under the refugee flag, is just a long held plan to take over Christianity! The nice is only window dressing!

    I read that the Ashkenazis were a mixture of Jewish men and Roman women. Either way they are significantly different from the biblical Jews.

    As to your other comments, I agree with much of what you are saying. Have you read Nicholas Nassim Taleb about Assad vs the Sunni rebels ? Assad’s regime is tolerant of Christians and other non Muslim minorities.

    (https://medium.com/opacity/the-syrian-war-condensed-a-more-rigorous-way-to-look-at-the-conflict-f841404c3b1d)

    I don’t think that you can blame Israel for the mass migration to Europe though. Netenyahu
    came out in support of the Hungarians for trying to prevent migrants from entering Europe, and he is right to do so. A muslim Europe would be dangerous for Israel. A lot of Jews are hopelessly sentimental about mass migration because of the Holocaust, the more clear sighted of them are becoming realistic about what this will mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Vinegar18 says:
    @PP
    Good evening. I have read articles on UNZ for about 6 months and have decided to start commenting on the ones regarding IQ and related HBD topics.

    Your comment #41 provides a leg into a question I have been wondering about for quite some time: in my very superficial understanding of IQ scores, I had always understood than an IQ score below 80 would make someone officially retarded.

    I have met people whose children were retarded for various reasons, ranging from problems at delivery to not properly understood causes for which the parents were seeing various explanations. In any event, it appears to me that a society formed with people like that would not even be on the verge of collapsing: they would simply die of starvation or something else within a few days.

    Therefore I have a hard time reconciling this notion of an IQ of 80 corresponding to that of a retarded individual, to a mean (or maybe it is the median?) IQ score of 71 in any given country which, evidently, is not completely starving to death right now. What gives?

    Thank you.

    A small fish in a smaller pond is king.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    lol.. Instead of telling everyone about how much of an internet badass you are, maybe you can show us by making an actual argument as to why the theory of evolution is incorrect and demonstrating what it is that you know that 99% of people who’ve diligently studied the field apparently don’t know.
     
    That's already been done many times over. And not just by me but by Spengler, Kant, Goethe, Aristotle, and literally hundreds of others. You Darwinists simply choose to ignore it all, and that's why you no longer deserve the courtesy of rational arguments. It ought to tell you something that "Darwinism" was discussed and refuted by Aristotle 2300 years avant la lettre, but your intellectual horizon only begins the day before yesterday, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    So don't demand arguments from me when the arguments have already been given. It's not like you're going to listen anyway. You already think you know it all and you are impervious to both truth and reason. Had you ever bothered to think about the subject for half an hour, you also would have realized that Darwinism cannot possibly be true. Anybody still propounding that ridiculous theory is nothing but a pruling, regurgitating numb-nuts incapable of serious thought. You deserve every bit of scorn I could possibly heap upon you, and much more.

    Why do you care?

    Theory of evolution can’t do harm or good. It’s not like affirmative action or tariffs or onerous business regulations high taxes or religious persecution, Dr Fraud’s theory of talk therapy vs meds alleviate mental illness these are concrete things that do affect people

    Evolution, intelligent design by some kind of God these theories have no affect on anything.

    One reason evolution was accepted so readily in the 19th century is that most people were farmers and were constantly evolving or breeding farm animals.

    Animals pulled vehicles. It was obvious to every one that different kinds of horses were evolved for different purposes. Small horses could pull a light weight 2 person buggy. Huge loads on heavy weight wagons were pulled by huge horses that were bred or evolved for that job.

    There were draft dogs, bred so big and strong they could pull carts.
    It only took farmers about 15 years to breed low fat pigs. Farmers have bred sugar out of fruit and bred in long storage life

    Breeding or evolution what’s the difference. It really doesn’t matter, Darwin or intelligent design

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    We live in a denial that will eventually bring down the nation. The matter is not so much about racial IQ that is important, for I rather associate with a trustworthy person of low IQ, than a treacherous person of high IQ… it is a matter of afro hostile behavior that is the real concern with racial reality… and the reality is that radical afro americans are the most destructive social/economic influence against other Non Blacks in America.
     
    People always say shit like this, but I'd rather associate with a smart, trustworthy person than either of your choices.

    And it's not as if there's no correlation; in my experience, stupid people will fuck you over more often. Turns out stupid people can't process moral calculations, either.

    Those black women government workplaces are full of witches trying to harm workmates.

    Is it stupidity or viciousness?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor
    More like self-selection: if you don't succeed, we push you out of the tribe.

    That’s why a synogue membership costs $10,000 to $20,000 a year plus a lot of fundraisers and expensive cars so as not to be disgraced in the parking lot plus Saks 5th Avenue, not upper middle class Nordstrom clothes for the women.

    It’s the only religion in the world that charges people of their own faith to enter their own places of worship.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    As those who develop and administer IQ tests will tell you, such tests do not measure intellectual capacity, they measure adaptability to the society in which you live.
     
    Hint: semantics.
    Hint: distinction without a difference.

    Problem-solving = adaptability = intellectual capacity.

    So why did those Vietnam refugee kids who were not from the cities with educated parents but were from simple villages do so well in school and score so high on IQ tests.

    China is allegedly pretty civilized now, but 1948 to about 2,000 it was totally different from American European society. But as soon as they got to America they did well in school and IQ tests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Svigor
    The lowest-scoring White groups have higher means than your WOG homeland.

    Most of his ilk are now completely enthralled by Juuish “success” at infiltration/subversion and I’m sure they are salivating at the prospect of being the new “coolie” class for them.

    Back home in their WOG homeland, they are quite fond of Bibi and look forward to being their “preferred partners” in everything from defence to bollywood (LOL)!

    So caste Hindoos and them Juus are a match made in heaven. Both have grand impressions of themselves. The difference being one has the world by the ballz and other just wants to cash in on the “successes” of their ideological brethren, both at home and on the “world stage”!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Svigor

    We live in a denial that will eventually bring down the nation. The matter is not so much about racial IQ that is important, for I rather associate with a trustworthy person of low IQ, than a treacherous person of high IQ… it is a matter of afro hostile behavior that is the real concern with racial reality… and the reality is that radical afro americans are the most destructive social/economic influence against other Non Blacks in America.
     
    People always say shit like this, but I'd rather associate with a smart, trustworthy person than either of your choices.

    And it's not as if there's no correlation; in my experience, stupid people will fuck you over more often. Turns out stupid people can't process moral calculations, either.

    Uhhh, this is a fairly subjective conclusion based on who knows what. The myriad of factors the impact any species — randomly, bu chance — chaos, does not select any particular IQ for hurdles to existence. Anyone touting evolutionary shifts, is going to acknowledge that surviving the planet.

    You have an IQ of 177 and I have an IQ 10. We are both walking down main street. Mrs Smith driving down the street doesn’t see the pot hole, hits it and her car jumps the curb missing me but smashes head long into you.

    Nothing about your intelligence is going to make yo any better equipped to survive head on collision with a car.

    The Romans did not lose to a superior intellect, they lost to brute force.

    And if you ae uncomfortable with Mrs Smith’s car —

    A lightening strike will accomplish the same task.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @nickels
    Aliens, tinkerbell, whatever.
    Just not neo-Darwinian evolution.
    The statistics aren't even close. As a matter of fact, the statistics mean belief in Darwinism is equal to insanity.
    They should have quit digging before they found DNA and had to start actually explaining how their neo-pagan mysticism works.
    Because the can't.

    Aliens, tinkerbell, whatever.

    Thanks for the honesty anyway. One problem we face as a species is that our reach exceeds our grasp. But just because I can’t understand all the math involved in rocket science doesn’t negate the fact that human minds discovered how it works and made it happen. The seemingly impenetrable fog of Quantum Entanglement doesn’t mean YHWH is “making spooky things happen at a distance” only that even our brightest minds haven’t yet unwound the complexities of our Universe.

    Given that, what hope is there – ever – for anyone with an IQ of say just 120? How could the average idiot ever have the faintest hope of wrapping his head around the double slit experiment? I despair that humans, on average, are too stupid to survive without a Tinkerbelle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    How could the average idiot ever have the faintest hope of wrapping his head around the double slit experiment? I despair that humans, on average, are too stupid to survive without a Tinkerbelle.
     
    Caucasian slits, or Asian? There was much talk of the double-slit experiment involving Asians, back in 'Nam. Not that I would know.

    IMO, humans have done rather well, survival-wise, with a few fairly-innocuous Tinkerbellish theologies. But, hey, when you recognize that theology is inherently a Tinkerbelle domain, what for to quibble?

    Tinkerbelle seems to turn more savage when competition for resources increments. Maybe some 121 IQ should go all JP-like on that topic?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. joef says:
    @Svigor

    We live in a denial that will eventually bring down the nation. The matter is not so much about racial IQ that is important, for I rather associate with a trustworthy person of low IQ, than a treacherous person of high IQ… it is a matter of afro hostile behavior that is the real concern with racial reality… and the reality is that radical afro americans are the most destructive social/economic influence against other Non Blacks in America.
     
    People always say shit like this, but I'd rather associate with a smart, trustworthy person than either of your choices.

    And it's not as if there's no correlation; in my experience, stupid people will fuck you over more often. Turns out stupid people can't process moral calculations, either.

    To a certain degree you are correct, however from the White ethnic (and Hispanic) urban “ghetto” I grew up in, I knew some pretty ruthless people who were very intelligent, and this intelligence made them much more effective in the carrying out of their various nefarious activities. I also known dumb people who wouldn’t harm a fly.

    I do not believe afro americans are an observable destructive force based on their low collective IQ scores… I believe it is because they have become a culture of destructive behavior by their own choice. And the real danger is not that libertarian/liberal/leftist deny the bell curve of IQ, but instead deny the wantonly destructive habits of the radical element (and its supporters) within the afro american community.

    What surprises me the most is libertarianism: in the past there was a movement of paleo libertarianism that advocated for limited government, but was firmly rooted in the concepts of racial reality, and the reality of crime. This changed when the Iraq war came about, to which many opposed due to not being in America’s self interest to pursue (I generally agreed with this assessment). As a result they attempted to form common cause on this issue with the left.

    But they ended with cozying up to liberals & leftist progs a little too much, and started agreeing with their nonsensical social positions. They randomly quote Von Misses, but rabidly follow Rothbard. They want acceptance so much from the intellectual left that they are willing to pander to almost all their social positions. [Paleo conservatives (which I am one) also took the same position on the war, but did not suffer undue influence from the left.]

    They became as utopian as communist, with the only difference of believing ‘no state’ will usher in paradise, instead of an all powerful state. They don’t believe in Hobbes Leviathan (to which present day radical afro americans are the biggest component of such a Leviathan). And they come up with such idiocy that present day Detroit is an anarcho capitalist paradise (really maybe they should go live there, and tell the rest of us how it turned out… LOL).

    Much of this is because many of them probably never had to deal with Leviathan behavior directly, so have the luxury of believing their own intellectual drivel. Thus they pontificate from afar telling the rest of us what we should believe about radical afro behavior, while we deal with the real world violent consequences that these libs so desperately want to ignore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @joef
    Yes, typical response from people who live in cupcake land and never had to deal with afro violence on a real term basis. Oh what a superior open minded intellectual to be able to ignore the multitude of criminal victims, by the hands of radical (ghetto) afro americans. And because of this obtained wisdom, from hard earned second hand sophomoric sources, you should instruct the rest of us who have real world experience in this subject matter.

    After all we all should not discuss this because people like you have never been personally effected by it. While you have the luxury to pontificate from afar, safe & cozy from danger, the rest of us must deal with the real consequences of this on a very personal level (one on one, or many on one, depending on the incident). But after all polite company demands these unfortunate occurrences be ignored.

    Your intellectual pandering aids & abets this problem with no consideration of what your fellow citizens have to contend with. Obviously by your statements you have very limited first hand knowledge of whats its like to reside in a urban neighborhood in close proximity to an afro american ghetto (although I do know some libs who are very happy to be willing victims of afro violence, and expect the rest of us to do the same).

    The most arrogant thing about this is a failure to acknowledge the experience of others beyond your own, just because it does not fit a certain preferred narrative. Maybe you should listen more and talk less about things you have no first hand knowledge of. [And please no anecdotal nonsense about you know some Black people, or you walked through a Black neighborhood once.]

    I think if you read again what I’ve said you might see that we are talking about different things. You refer to the violence of blacks and I referred to the discussions of intelligence differences between different groups. I didn’t refer to blacks at all. Also, I agree and sympathize with you and others whose daily lives are made uneasy and dangerous by whatever ethnic group – black, hispanic, etc.

    Finally, you are right, what I’m really pushing for is a different narrative, not that I “prefer” it in any way. I am sickened by the narrative of our being pushed into middle eastern wars by neoconservatives, Israel and the Israeli lobby. The effect of this, though more remote and harder to see, could be eventually catastrophic for you, me, our families and the entire world.

    I refer to basically what is documented here – https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815 and here https://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Cabal-Neoconservative-National-Interest-ebook/dp/B004FGLX4W

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Mulegino1 says:
    @anonymous
    Despite their superior ability to live in the dark and find a mate, they remain fruit flies.

    Lol. What do you expect them to turn into in an EXTREMELY short period of time?

    I don’t expect them to turn into anything else, because they won’t, anymore than breeding sheep over generations favoring the short legged variety will cause them to turn into snake like slithering mammals. They will revert to type.

    Endless progress over time is an enlightenment idol and a liberal superstition which led to Spencer heavily influencing Darwin’s concept of the origin of species, which is ultimately false. If he had confined himself to ornithological studies, and the variations among his finches, he would have been fine. It was the farrago of false ideas such as spontaneous generation, bathybios, endless progress overtime and Lamarckianism which caused Darwin to go over the deep end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    I don’t expect them to turn into anything else, because they won’t, anymore than breeding sheep over generations favoring the short legged variety will cause them to turn into snake like slithering mammals. They will revert to type.
     
    Your use of "generations" here is functionally meaningless. It could be 2 generations or it could be 2 billion generations. Have you sat and observed all of the descendants of sheep over the span of 10's of millions of years? If not, then how in the world can you be so sure of your assertion without any evidence for it?

    I also noticed you ignored my question about how species arise. Very typical. I've been asking IDers this question for years, yet not a single person has ever been able to given me an answer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Stan d Mute

    Aliens, tinkerbell, whatever.
     
    Thanks for the honesty anyway. One problem we face as a species is that our reach exceeds our grasp. But just because I can’t understand all the math involved in rocket science doesn’t negate the fact that human minds discovered how it works and made it happen. The seemingly impenetrable fog of Quantum Entanglement doesn’t mean YHWH is “making spooky things happen at a distance” only that even our brightest minds haven’t yet unwound the complexities of our Universe.

    Given that, what hope is there - ever - for anyone with an IQ of say just 120? How could the average idiot ever have the faintest hope of wrapping his head around the double slit experiment? I despair that humans, on average, are too stupid to survive without a Tinkerbelle.

    How could the average idiot ever have the faintest hope of wrapping his head around the double slit experiment? I despair that humans, on average, are too stupid to survive without a Tinkerbelle.

    Caucasian slits, or Asian? There was much talk of the double-slit experiment involving Asians, back in ‘Nam. Not that I would know.

    IMO, humans have done rather well, survival-wise, with a few fairly-innocuous Tinkerbellish theologies. But, hey, when you recognize that theology is inherently a Tinkerbelle domain, what for to quibble?

    Tinkerbelle seems to turn more savage when competition for resources increments. Maybe some 121 IQ should go all JP-like on that topic?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Since I tend to actually think there is a God who is or at least can be active in our existence, I find it odd to read commentary in the scientific community that treats “natural selection” as it it were some manner of intellect choosing one being over another for survival.

    Humans — supposedly the most intelligent species on the planet still build below Mount Vesuvius, along the Florida coast line and inhabit the over priced real estate in San Francisco. Humans repeatedly, make choices that are risk laden and life threatening despite their intelligence.

    I think it is a safe bet that our intelligence is the the predominant characteristic of our gene pool. Something taking a look at our real estate insurance premiums should make abundantly clear. Einstein for all of his genius, didn’t hove a thought’s notice in the inherent issues in having affairs multiple affairs, not has his genius to out knowledge been passed along to his heirs. His theories and thus far those that are in our understanding fact have produced the most destructive man made devices in human history – to our knowledge. It would appear that while natural selection as it is often referred to has inclined human beings to prefer self destruction or at the least risk of self destruction over preservation,

    In which case — fear to risk taking seems to be the predominant nature select mechanism for survival – event above intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. Thomm says:
    @Svigor
    The lowest-scoring White groups have higher means than your WOG homeland.

    ‘Svigor’ actually rhymes with Wigger, which is appropriate, because that is what you are.

    Well then, Swigger, what next?

    BTW, I’m white. I know it pains you to be reminded that successful whites like me correctly see you wiggers as waste matter, and we thus exclude you from polite society.

    Get off my lawn, faggot!

    Heh heh heh heh

    Read More
    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    Whoa, a lot of hate here, time for you to both learn to sing the song below.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmTV62mE1PA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Well, the comments are really crazy. Now I understand intelligent dasien’s name. His big thing is anti Darwinism. His language and threats to. slaughter someone if that someone ever posts on Ron Unz’ site again turns off anyone who might want to explore his anti Darwinism.

    Then there is the member of a religion started cerca 620 in southern Arabia who decided to jump in and accuse the followers of other and no religion of being pagan polytheists. Since the names of his religion were so horribly offensive I didn’t name the religion, for fear of causing offense to a member of a perpetually offended group.

    The l00ns are sure madly posting on this article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    The l00ns are sure madly posting on this article.
     
    I am beginning to think this is a tactic to discredit the article and its more sensible comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Mulegino1 says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    lol.. Instead of telling everyone about how much of an internet badass you are, maybe you can show us by making an actual argument as to why the theory of evolution is incorrect and demonstrating what it is that you know that 99% of people who’ve diligently studied the field apparently don’t know.
     
    That's already been done many times over. And not just by me but by Spengler, Kant, Goethe, Aristotle, and literally hundreds of others. You Darwinists simply choose to ignore it all, and that's why you no longer deserve the courtesy of rational arguments. It ought to tell you something that "Darwinism" was discussed and refuted by Aristotle 2300 years avant la lettre, but your intellectual horizon only begins the day before yesterday, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    So don't demand arguments from me when the arguments have already been given. It's not like you're going to listen anyway. You already think you know it all and you are impervious to both truth and reason. Had you ever bothered to think about the subject for half an hour, you also would have realized that Darwinism cannot possibly be true. Anybody still propounding that ridiculous theory is nothing but a pruling, regurgitating numb-nuts incapable of serious thought. You deserve every bit of scorn I could possibly heap upon you, and much more.

    How dare you compare brobdingnagian greats such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to such lilliputian light weights as Spengler, Goethe, Kant, Aristotle (I will throw in Leibniz, Sts. Thomas and Augustine for good measure)!

    Those who accept the Darwinist paradigm live in the fish bowl world of Cartesian bifurcation, Newtonian mechanics and the anachronistic world view of scientism and positivism. Descartes and Newton certainly made some great contributions to philosophy and science, and although their world views were fundamentally incorrect, they would have been horrified at the gross materialism of the Encyclopedists and their British liberal successors, culminating in the dead end of Darwinism, with its world of chimeras and its naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Darwinism's "naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress"!!!!

    Where did you get such total and utter rubbish from? Yes I ask where you have gone for your unfortunate self education. Has it occurred to you to ask why a person (with few exceptions) with even a modest degree from a good university doesn't share your reading list? Actually you wouldn't know but your first step ought to be to find out what mainstream scholarship says before you go loop-the-loop with loons. Try some good online study at one of the Ivies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mark Presco
    Nova - Judgment Day Intelligent Design On Trial

    Very interesting points at timelines 50:00 and 1:04:00

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HZzGXnYL5I

    It is a matter of philosophical world views, not facts. With respect to the highlights of the documentary you referred to- these scientists do not believe in “the truth” because truth is a metaphysical or ontological concept, not something that can be circumscribed or defined by empirical observation or statistics. And of course, in a scientific community absolutely dominated by Darwinian orthodoxy, all discoveries and observations will be used to retroactively validate Darwinian theory, since the heresy of vertical, non-temporal causality has no place in the world of scientism.

    I can just as easily refer you to this:

    Now, you may object that this documentary was made by those with an agenda. However, Nova and PBS also have a Darwinian agenda. The idea that any scientist or anyone else is absolutely objective in drawing conclusions based upon data is highly dubious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Presco
    Like this documentary you ignore inconvenient evidence, and pointing out problems in Darwin’s theory disproves nothing.

    Let’s discuss your Creation theory. If you claim that miraculous things require more miraculous creators, then who created God? And who created that creator, and on and on you go into infinity postulating ever more miraculous creators. This is called infinite regression. Philosophers have a lame rationalization for this called the “uncaused cause”, or first cause. It’s nonsense.

    Your theory is obliterated if you argue that God doesn’t require a creator. It is far more reasonable to assert that we lesser humans require no creator.

    I can provide an expanded theory that may appeal to you religious types, but we are far off topic already.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. res says:
    @Anon
    Well, the comments are really crazy. Now I understand intelligent dasien’s name. His big thing is anti Darwinism. His language and threats to. slaughter someone if that someone ever posts on Ron Unz’ site again turns off anyone who might want to explore his anti Darwinism.

    Then there is the member of a religion started cerca 620 in southern Arabia who decided to jump in and accuse the followers of other and no religion of being pagan polytheists. Since the names of his religion were so horribly offensive I didn’t name the religion, for fear of causing offense to a member of a perpetually offended group.

    The l00ns are sure madly posting on this article.

    The l00ns are sure madly posting on this article.

    I am beginning to think this is a tactic to discredit the article and its more sensible comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon
    So you’re not a fan of Darwinism. I must congratulate you that you expressed your opinion of the article and Darwinism without being obscene.

    I don’t care one way or the other.

    But I did take anatomy and ever since then I’ve thought that intelligent design was a lot more valid idea than just Darwin’s random accidents

    Kudos for having an open mind on the subject!

    Micro-evolution- in my opinion- is a fact of everyday life which can be validated by observing something as simple as a small fishpond housing goldfish, for example:

    During the winter, there was extensive cloud cover, so very little algae grew, and the water in the pond was clear. There was a Heron who came in from the seashore who came in looking for an easy meal, so the dark goldfish stuck out like sore thumbs and were easy prey for the heron. The prolific goldfish population became almost all white or gold, with few or no dark colored goldfish surviving the heron’s onslaught.

    On the other hand, during the summer, there was abundant sunshine, so the algae grew to murky up the water in the fishpond, and the gold and white colored goldfish were easily targets for the heron, while those dark colored goldfish could easily hide in the algae. So the goldfish population became dominantly dark colored. This cycle could have continued for hundreds, thousands or millions of years and the overwhelming likelihood would be that the goldfish- whether light or dark colored- would remain goldfish.

    Even had Darwin confined his theories to the variations within a species, he would have gone down in history as a great naturalist. Instead, he extrapolated wildly from micro-evolution to macro-evolution and that is what set him off the deep end.

    The problem with the most strident Darwinians is that they are as dogmatic, or perhaps more so, than Biblical fundamentalists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Certainly you are equating evolve with adaptation . . . and even then, the fish in the pond didn't respond to their prey, but supposedly the environment in which they lived.


    Laugh. There's plenty of room for fundamentalist thought and the theory of adaptation.


    The problem with evolve -- is not that plants and animals don't adapt to their environments, but that they don't leap into a anther species. I think your final assessment is line with your observations -- goldfish didn't start producing swords.

    , @Anon
    A basic college anatomy class led me to believe there is a lot to be said for some kind of intelligibly design Being the sister of a farmer, dairy cattle and chickens, not crops leads me to believe in evolution

    I took college biology as well. We were shown a video that claimed wolves and whales had a common ancestor millions of years ago. This idea was based on the inner ear of both. Didn’t make much sense to me.

    I really don’t care as both theories have no impact on daily life. Neither causes harm or benefit
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Sean says:
    @Unladen Swallow
    I think Balfour pointed out at a different point in that piece that evolution would only eliminate delusions that threatened survival ( No suicidal tendencies ) not that it would lead to truth discovering tendencies in cognition. Trivers' works validates this as well, evolution would favor delusions that enabled us to lie more effectively to others by first lying to ourselves.

    The only delusion that threatens survival is that one is clever enough to not need to be part of the community, group, herd ect.

    I think the impulse behind secular and religious ideas is to bind communities together; all the better to fight each other. The medium is the message, or in other words, the content of beliefs is irrelevant. And we cannot know what is true and what we have evolved to believe

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    The only delusion that threatens survival is that one is clever enough to not need to be part of the community, group, herd ect.
     
    Averagely stupid, often unconscious evil or real-morally indifferent groups... During most part of humanhuhnkind, always there was a minority of people who can't identified with that usual human averageness...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Mulegino1
    Kudos for having an open mind on the subject!

    Micro-evolution- in my opinion- is a fact of everyday life which can be validated by observing something as simple as a small fishpond housing goldfish, for example:

    During the winter, there was extensive cloud cover, so very little algae grew, and the water in the pond was clear. There was a Heron who came in from the seashore who came in looking for an easy meal, so the dark goldfish stuck out like sore thumbs and were easy prey for the heron. The prolific goldfish population became almost all white or gold, with few or no dark colored goldfish surviving the heron's onslaught.

    On the other hand, during the summer, there was abundant sunshine, so the algae grew to murky up the water in the fishpond, and the gold and white colored goldfish were easily targets for the heron, while those dark colored goldfish could easily hide in the algae. So the goldfish population became dominantly dark colored. This cycle could have continued for hundreds, thousands or millions of years and the overwhelming likelihood would be that the goldfish- whether light or dark colored- would remain goldfish.

    Even had Darwin confined his theories to the variations within a species, he would have gone down in history as a great naturalist. Instead, he extrapolated wildly from micro-evolution to macro-evolution and that is what set him off the deep end.

    The problem with the most strident Darwinians is that they are as dogmatic, or perhaps more so, than Biblical fundamentalists.

    Certainly you are equating evolve with adaptation . . . and even then, the fish in the pond didn’t respond to their prey, but supposedly the environment in which they lived.

    Laugh. There’s plenty of room for fundamentalist thought and the theory of adaptation.

    The problem with evolve — is not that plants and animals don’t adapt to their environments, but that they don’t leap into a anther species. I think your final assessment is line with your observations — goldfish didn’t start producing swords.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Stephen Hawking: 3 kids.

    Me: 4 kids.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. If Mitchell were right, then dogs would have the same average IQ as humans, because intelligence would be just as beneficial for them as it is for us.

    Extremely horrible argumentation!!1 Jeesus!! IT’s you**

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. @Sean
    The only delusion that threatens survival is that one is clever enough to not need to be part of the community, group, herd ect.

    I think the impulse behind secular and religious ideas is to bind communities together; all the better to fight each other. The medium is the message, or in other words, the content of beliefs is irrelevant. And we cannot know what is true and what we have evolved to believe

    The only delusion that threatens survival is that one is clever enough to not need to be part of the community, group, herd ect.

    Averagely stupid, often unconscious evil or real-morally indifferent groups… During most part of humanhuhnkind, always there was a minority of people who can’t identified with that usual human averageness…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. anonymous[289] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    lol.. Instead of telling everyone about how much of an internet badass you are, maybe you can show us by making an actual argument as to why the theory of evolution is incorrect and demonstrating what it is that you know that 99% of people who’ve diligently studied the field apparently don’t know.
     
    That's already been done many times over. And not just by me but by Spengler, Kant, Goethe, Aristotle, and literally hundreds of others. You Darwinists simply choose to ignore it all, and that's why you no longer deserve the courtesy of rational arguments. It ought to tell you something that "Darwinism" was discussed and refuted by Aristotle 2300 years avant la lettre, but your intellectual horizon only begins the day before yesterday, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    So don't demand arguments from me when the arguments have already been given. It's not like you're going to listen anyway. You already think you know it all and you are impervious to both truth and reason. Had you ever bothered to think about the subject for half an hour, you also would have realized that Darwinism cannot possibly be true. Anybody still propounding that ridiculous theory is nothing but a pruling, regurgitating numb-nuts incapable of serious thought. You deserve every bit of scorn I could possibly heap upon you, and much more.

    So you have a killer refutation of evolution, but you won’t reveal it to us heathens because it’s TOP SECRET? Haha… What a joke….

    And not just by me but by Spengler, Kant, Goethe, Aristotle

    Nice try, but neither you nor any of these fine gentlemen have refuted evolutionary theory in its present form.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Nice try, but neither you nor any of these fine gentlemen have refuted evolutionary theory in its present form.
     
    We all know that you are not familiar either with philosophy or with "evolutionary theory in its present form." You're a mindless, chattering pez dispenser regurgitating bromides from 5th-rate science popularizers.

    But in any case, there is nothing top secret about the refutations of Darwinism. I would certainly write one if Ron Unz would publish it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. anonymous[289] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    I don't expect them to turn into anything else, because they won't, anymore than breeding sheep over generations favoring the short legged variety will cause them to turn into snake like slithering mammals. They will revert to type.

    Endless progress over time is an enlightenment idol and a liberal superstition which led to Spencer heavily influencing Darwin's concept of the origin of species, which is ultimately false. If he had confined himself to ornithological studies, and the variations among his finches, he would have been fine. It was the farrago of false ideas such as spontaneous generation, bathybios, endless progress overtime and Lamarckianism which caused Darwin to go over the deep end.

    I don’t expect them to turn into anything else, because they won’t, anymore than breeding sheep over generations favoring the short legged variety will cause them to turn into snake like slithering mammals. They will revert to type.

    Your use of “generations” here is functionally meaningless. It could be 2 generations or it could be 2 billion generations. Have you sat and observed all of the descendants of sheep over the span of 10′s of millions of years? If not, then how in the world can you be so sure of your assertion without any evidence for it?

    I also noticed you ignored my question about how species arise. Very typical. I’ve been asking IDers this question for years, yet not a single person has ever been able to given me an answer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    There are plenty of hurdles for strict evolutionists. nothing about evolutionary theory defeats the existence of God.

    http://www.blogos.org/thinkabout/science-in-scripture.Html

    Whether in the mind of man god took six days or 6 trillion years is really inconsequential. The beauty of acknowledging God is in acknowledging he can shatter human understanding, of space and time -- physics at will.

    Hence the term -- supernatural

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @Mulegino1
    It is a matter of philosophical world views, not facts. With respect to the highlights of the documentary you referred to- these scientists do not believe in "the truth" because truth is a metaphysical or ontological concept, not something that can be circumscribed or defined by empirical observation or statistics. And of course, in a scientific community absolutely dominated by Darwinian orthodoxy, all discoveries and observations will be used to retroactively validate Darwinian theory, since the heresy of vertical, non-temporal causality has no place in the world of scientism.

    I can just as easily refer you to this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IHO-QkmomY



    Now, you may object that this documentary was made by those with an agenda. However, Nova and PBS also have a Darwinian agenda. The idea that any scientist or anyone else is absolutely objective in drawing conclusions based upon data is highly dubious.

    Like this documentary you ignore inconvenient evidence, and pointing out problems in Darwin’s theory disproves nothing.

    Let’s discuss your Creation theory. If you claim that miraculous things require more miraculous creators, then who created God? And who created that creator, and on and on you go into infinity postulating ever more miraculous creators. This is called infinite regression. Philosophers have a lame rationalization for this called the “uncaused cause”, or first cause. It’s nonsense.

    Your theory is obliterated if you argue that God doesn’t require a creator. It is far more reasonable to assert that we lesser humans require no creator.

    I can provide an expanded theory that may appeal to you religious types, but we are far off topic already.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Reasonable according to whom?
    , @Mulegino1
    Your metaphysics are quite amateurish. God does not require a creator as He is the Supreme Being, the source of all subordinate beings, the author and ground of the causal order and, is eternal and self-subsistent. Being eternal, infinite and pure spirit, He is not circumscribed by time or space. He is the Author of time - the principle of contingency and change, the relationship between agent and patient, and space, the ground for the interaction of subordinate beings within the world of contingency and corporal beings. Space and time are themselves the ground for the causal order in the physical world. This casual order was created by God, who is not subject to it. With God there is no before or after.

    Darwinists, transformists, or whatever they choose to call themselves are the ones who are obsessed with God, or rather, with excluding any thought of vertical, non- mechanistic based causality from their pitiful universe since it tends to upset their own rather limited- anachronistic world view based upon long discredited notions of a purely material and mechanistic universe. They want to abolish formal and final causality- which is certainly and absolutely operative in nature - keeping only the efficient and material causes. Like the proverbial goldfish in a bowl, their world is matter. How they can even speak of things like "Natural selection" with a straight face- one wonders what god of matter is doing the selecting- is beyond me.
    , @manorchurch

    Your theory is obliterated if you argue that God doesn’t require a creator. It is far more reasonable to assert that we lesser humans require no creator.
     
    Not to get too technical, and not to be, um, argumentative? -- but, all of that "can't have something from nothing" analysis went out the window with Hume (on a metaphysical level, of course). Assuming/reasoning from principles of infinitely regressive cause/effect instantiated from one point of origination in space and time -- she no work. Worse, assuming that said "origin" requires and establishes omnipotence, immanence, infinity and eternity is many steps too far.

    Sure, it works for Italians, Jews and Palestinians, but it is still unfounded assumption.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. megabar says:
    @A Libertarian
    I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn't measure up or that his parents don't, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child's success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    The reason that race realism is important is that we, as a nation, are in the process of making many decisions that assume that all races are equal.

    Put another way, if 80% of Americans woke up tomorrow and felt that the races were genetically dissimilar, public policy on affirmative action and immigration would radically change.

    Put yet another way — generalizations on the races matter when making public policy that works in the large.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    Kudos for having an open mind on the subject!

    Micro-evolution- in my opinion- is a fact of everyday life which can be validated by observing something as simple as a small fishpond housing goldfish, for example:

    During the winter, there was extensive cloud cover, so very little algae grew, and the water in the pond was clear. There was a Heron who came in from the seashore who came in looking for an easy meal, so the dark goldfish stuck out like sore thumbs and were easy prey for the heron. The prolific goldfish population became almost all white or gold, with few or no dark colored goldfish surviving the heron's onslaught.

    On the other hand, during the summer, there was abundant sunshine, so the algae grew to murky up the water in the fishpond, and the gold and white colored goldfish were easily targets for the heron, while those dark colored goldfish could easily hide in the algae. So the goldfish population became dominantly dark colored. This cycle could have continued for hundreds, thousands or millions of years and the overwhelming likelihood would be that the goldfish- whether light or dark colored- would remain goldfish.

    Even had Darwin confined his theories to the variations within a species, he would have gone down in history as a great naturalist. Instead, he extrapolated wildly from micro-evolution to macro-evolution and that is what set him off the deep end.

    The problem with the most strident Darwinians is that they are as dogmatic, or perhaps more so, than Biblical fundamentalists.

    A basic college anatomy class led me to believe there is a lot to be said for some kind of intelligibly design Being the sister of a farmer, dairy cattle and chickens, not crops leads me to believe in evolution

    I took college biology as well. We were shown a video that claimed wolves and whales had a common ancestor millions of years ago. This idea was based on the inner ear of both. Didn’t make much sense to me.

    I really don’t care as both theories have no impact on daily life. Neither causes harm or benefit

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    We were shown a video that claimed wolves and whales had a common ancestor millions of years ago. This idea was based on the inner ear of both. Didn’t make much sense to me.
     
    It didn't? Makes sense to me.

    For example, have you ever given some thought (certainly while being cautious as to harm and benefit) as to the extensive array of "things that are hammers"? Bullets, for example, are hammers. Rolling mills that make steel are hammers.

    Has it occurred to you that ALL life on Earth has the first living cell as a common ancestor? Why sweat the inner ears of whales and wolves?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh, you’re one of those. Damn, another wasted couple-hundred words.
     
    Nobody cares about your wasted words, faggot. Your whore of a mother already wasted her couchie-juice in birthing your worthless ass. You are nothing. You think you have something to add, bitch? You think you're even capable of conceiving a thought that your betters have not considered and rejected a thousand times over? You wouldn't even know where to begin with us, you low-life sack of shit. If you think you have a case, go ahead and make it. Try me, motherfucker. I will massacre you. I will fuck you up.

    You do not understand the fossil record, nor do you understand the theory of evolution, nor do you understand religion. You are the trifecta of perfectly despicable ignorance. You are modern man in all his ingloriousness. If I see you posting in this thread again, I will slaughter you. Do you understand me, you faggot-fuck?

    Get the hell out of here, you 80-posting loser. We crushed Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens a long time ago. You know nothing that didn't come from them, and you are not a tenth of the men they were. If I ever hear from you again I will wipe my fucking ass with you. Now piss off.

    I was raised to be Christian. Then I became an atheist. Then agnostic. Then I read eastern religion. First Buddhism then Hinduism. Then I read The Power of Now. Then one day I discovered that beyond all words and logical thought there are infinite strands of living and undeniable truth. It is a place where hate cannot enter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Then one day I discovered that beyond all words and logical thought there are infinite strands of living and undeniable truth. It is a place where hate cannot enter.
     
    Be careful. People thinking they had found "infinite strands of living, and undeniable truth", is how we got Hare Krishnas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Micky says: • Website

    This idiotic article is making a nonsensical comparison. The academic left censors the truth – that’s why they censor theories on racial difference AND on Creationism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. @A Libertarian
    I have recently become a fan of unz.com but I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn't measure up or that his parents don't, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child's success and happiness in life.

    And, like I said, I have recently become a fan of unz.com. It think that this kind of article is a blotch on the reputation of the website and diminishes its credibility.

    You probably wouldn’t care much for real libertarians like Hoppe or Rothbard. Best to stick with Rand Paul, you’ll sleep better at night.

    Read More
    • Replies: @A Libertarian
    I don't know those gentlemen. I'll definitely take a look. I don't care that much for sleep anymore. Thank you.
    , @A Libertarian
    I am very much in sync with what these guys are saying. Thanks for the references.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Mark Presco
    Like this documentary you ignore inconvenient evidence, and pointing out problems in Darwin’s theory disproves nothing.

    Let’s discuss your Creation theory. If you claim that miraculous things require more miraculous creators, then who created God? And who created that creator, and on and on you go into infinity postulating ever more miraculous creators. This is called infinite regression. Philosophers have a lame rationalization for this called the “uncaused cause”, or first cause. It’s nonsense.

    Your theory is obliterated if you argue that God doesn’t require a creator. It is far more reasonable to assert that we lesser humans require no creator.

    I can provide an expanded theory that may appeal to you religious types, but we are far off topic already.

    Reasonable according to whom?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Presco

    Reasonable according to whom?
     
    More reasonable by the simple logic that we are so much simpler than an Omnipotent Being capable of creating space/time itself.

    In fact what was created in the “big bang” was the simplest thing of all, a single elementary particle that I call the God particle. Evolution is all about this God particle assembling itself into the God we seek.

    Shortly after the “big bang” this God particle evolved into the 12 elementary particles of the Standard Model, then into hydrogen and helium. Then into first generation stars where elements up to iron evolved. Then super novae where the heavier elements evolved. Then into second generation stars where DNA evolved.

    After another 3.5 billion years of evolution we achieved consciousness. Our belief in the Gods is simply self awareness, a realization of who we are and what we are becoming.

    Think about how you created yourself in your mother’s womb. You started out as very small single cell and assembled yourself. There was no creator in there assembling you.

    This is how the universe works. It is bottom up, not top down. The universe is God’s womb and we are embryonic Gods. It has taken us 15 billion years to get this far and it may take another 15 billion years to get there, but the pleasure is in the journey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @anonymous
    So you have a killer refutation of evolution, but you won't reveal it to us heathens because it's TOP SECRET? Haha... What a joke....

    And not just by me but by Spengler, Kant, Goethe, Aristotle
     
    Nice try, but neither you nor any of these fine gentlemen have refuted evolutionary theory in its present form.

    Nice try, but neither you nor any of these fine gentlemen have refuted evolutionary theory in its present form.

    We all know that you are not familiar either with philosophy or with “evolutionary theory in its present form.” You’re a mindless, chattering pez dispenser regurgitating bromides from 5th-rate science popularizers.

    But in any case, there is nothing top secret about the refutations of Darwinism. I would certainly write one if Ron Unz would publish it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Yeah yeah yeah, your understanding of evolution and its philosophical underpinnings is so far above my own that it has essentially become the creator itself: it transcends space-time; it cannot be observed; and it may only exist in your imagination... Meanwhile, you continue to dance around the topic and produce nothing worthwhile to speak of. It is a waste to even reply to you. How about some results, champ... Put up or shut up already.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Evolutionary theories are equilibrium theories. That is not a knock against them, equilibrium thinking can be a very powerful tool. But there are no dynamics in evolutionary theory, and anyone who thinks there are simply doesn’t understand it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Evolutionary theories are equilibrium theories. That is not a knock against them, equilibrium thinking can be a very powerful tool. But there are no dynamics in evolutionary theory, and anyone who thinks there are simply doesn’t understand it.
     
    Will I go down in history if I remark that Nature abhors equilibrium? Prolly not, but do spell my name right.

    Cogent of you to point out that evolution is not dynamic. Correct, but it does encompass reaction (or perhaps, it exhibits the products of) external dynamic forces. The only way genes have changed for X billion years is through mutation - mutation being the only "dynamic" of evolution. That change can be a random biochemical event within the cell, arguably, but is most typically characterized as being externally precipitated.

    The current state of evolution reflects eons of the most trivial of changes to the DNA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Beefcake the Mighty
    You probably wouldn’t care much for real libertarians like Hoppe or Rothbard. Best to stick with Rand Paul, you’ll sleep better at night.

    I don’t know those gentlemen. I’ll definitely take a look. I don’t care that much for sleep anymore. Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Factorize
    I, too, am somewhat surprised how focused the discussion on unz.com is on group differences. Given that the technology now exists to enhance intelligence what difference does any of this make? I grew up and had to try and cope with the idea that some groups are more intelligent than others and this had substantial implications for the expected life path they would follow.

    I am now doing my best to unlearn this pattern of thinking. Current technology will over the medium to long run lead to equalization of group intelligence. At this long run equilibrium we should expect dramatically higher average IQ. Posters should, thus, keep in mind that we are now entering a time when virtually all people currently alive have a reasonably good chance of being labeled developmentally disabled by approaching psychometric norms.

    Are you serious? What technologies? Genetic engineering isn’t anywhere being able to produce more intelligent children yet. Or are you just a bullshitting troll?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Thank you very much for responding!

    The future has arrived! Below article describes over 35 SD of Educational Attainment.
    While Educational Attainment and IQ are not the same thing, 35 SD of IQ is equal to over 500 IQ points. Experts in the psychometric community no longer have any doubt that substantial IQ enhancement is now approaching.

    https://www.thessgac.org/data

    Soon fixating on population differences in intelligence will seem quaint (if isn't already). The most obvious differences in IQ will be determined by age. No current population has an average IQ of 1 SD above Greenwich mean. Current embryo selection technology should allow 1 SD increases for each of the next several generations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mark Presco
    Like this documentary you ignore inconvenient evidence, and pointing out problems in Darwin’s theory disproves nothing.

    Let’s discuss your Creation theory. If you claim that miraculous things require more miraculous creators, then who created God? And who created that creator, and on and on you go into infinity postulating ever more miraculous creators. This is called infinite regression. Philosophers have a lame rationalization for this called the “uncaused cause”, or first cause. It’s nonsense.

    Your theory is obliterated if you argue that God doesn’t require a creator. It is far more reasonable to assert that we lesser humans require no creator.

    I can provide an expanded theory that may appeal to you religious types, but we are far off topic already.

    Your metaphysics are quite amateurish. God does not require a creator as He is the Supreme Being, the source of all subordinate beings, the author and ground of the causal order and, is eternal and self-subsistent. Being eternal, infinite and pure spirit, He is not circumscribed by time or space. He is the Author of time – the principle of contingency and change, the relationship between agent and patient, and space, the ground for the interaction of subordinate beings within the world of contingency and corporal beings. Space and time are themselves the ground for the causal order in the physical world. This casual order was created by God, who is not subject to it. With God there is no before or after.

    Darwinists, transformists, or whatever they choose to call themselves are the ones who are obsessed with God, or rather, with excluding any thought of vertical, non- mechanistic based causality from their pitiful universe since it tends to upset their own rather limited- anachronistic world view based upon long discredited notions of a purely material and mechanistic universe. They want to abolish formal and final causality- which is certainly and absolutely operative in nature – keeping only the efficient and material causes. Like the proverbial goldfish in a bowl, their world is matter. How they can even speak of things like “Natural selection” with a straight face- one wonders what god of matter is doing the selecting- is beyond me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Presco
    Thanks for getting this thread back on topic. You cannot prove one single thing you wrote. You have no evidence whatever. It is all fabricated nonsense. You believe it simply because you want to believe it.

    This is Lance Welton’s point. The belief that there is no difference between the races despite mountains of evidence to contrary, is as irrational as your belief in a magical being. The capacity for human self delusion is astounding.

    The new religion of Antiracism is eclipsing Christianity and will result in the destruction of Western Civilization if not stopped.
    , @Bliss

    He is the Supreme Being, the source of all subordinate beings, the author and ground of the causal order and, is eternal and self-subsistent. Being eternal, infinite and pure spirit, He is not circumscribed by time or space.
     
    Nice. But how do you manage to reconcile such a transcendent God with your primitive belief that God got angry and needed a blood sacrifice to appease Him?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. anonymous[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Nice try, but neither you nor any of these fine gentlemen have refuted evolutionary theory in its present form.
     
    We all know that you are not familiar either with philosophy or with "evolutionary theory in its present form." You're a mindless, chattering pez dispenser regurgitating bromides from 5th-rate science popularizers.

    But in any case, there is nothing top secret about the refutations of Darwinism. I would certainly write one if Ron Unz would publish it.

    Yeah yeah yeah, your understanding of evolution and its philosophical underpinnings is so far above my own that it has essentially become the creator itself: it transcends space-time; it cannot be observed; and it may only exist in your imagination… Meanwhile, you continue to dance around the topic and produce nothing worthwhile to speak of. It is a waste to even reply to you. How about some results, champ… Put up or shut up already.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:

    “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.”

    The deadliest blow to Christianity was dealt by Galileo. All of these arguments about Darwin are just a footnote to Galileo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    No.

    Galileo got into trouble because he suggested that the Pope was a dunce. Not because he claimed that the Sun was the center of the universe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Then you try it, pussy. The whole thread is waiting. Let's see what you got.

    I’m just waiting to see you go all caps. If you’re really this angry, please consider taking a break.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Anonymous
    "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

    The deadliest blow to Christianity was dealt by Galileo. All of these arguments about Darwin are just a footnote to Galileo.

    No.

    Galileo got into trouble because he suggested that the Pope was a dunce. Not because he claimed that the Sun was the center of the universe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HallParvey

    Galileo got into trouble because he suggested that the Pope was a dunce.
     
    So nothing has really changed in 500 years, has it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @anonymous

    I don’t expect them to turn into anything else, because they won’t, anymore than breeding sheep over generations favoring the short legged variety will cause them to turn into snake like slithering mammals. They will revert to type.
     
    Your use of "generations" here is functionally meaningless. It could be 2 generations or it could be 2 billion generations. Have you sat and observed all of the descendants of sheep over the span of 10's of millions of years? If not, then how in the world can you be so sure of your assertion without any evidence for it?

    I also noticed you ignored my question about how species arise. Very typical. I've been asking IDers this question for years, yet not a single person has ever been able to given me an answer.

    There are plenty of hurdles for strict evolutionists. nothing about evolutionary theory defeats the existence of God.

    http://www.blogos.org/thinkabout/science-in-scripture.Html

    Whether in the mind of man god took six days or 6 trillion years is really inconsequential. The beauty of acknowledging God is in acknowledging he can shatter human understanding, of space and time — physics at will.

    Hence the term — supernatural

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    nothing about evolutionary theory defeats the existence of God.

    I would never claim it does. The fact of the matter is either evolution is a thing or it isn't. Either it can explain natural phenomena or it can't. I'm waiting every day for evidence that disproves it. I have no dog in this fight.

    I've noticed IDers/creationist like to cleverly/slyly avoid revealing which flavor of ID they believe in, or avoid specifying what it is about the theory of speciation by natural selection that they disagree with, probably to avoid any constructive criticism of their most cherished beliefs that might otherwise come their way as a result. Fine, whatever. I'm not all that interested in being antagonistic towards anyone's belief system.

    I get that IDers believe in something that transcends material and mechanistic processes. All I'm asking for is what, in theory, this may look like once it crosses into the realm of observable phenomenon. That's it! Just a plausible explanation for how this may manifest in observable reality. In return, I get idiots like idasein bragging about how much philosophy literature he's read and how he could easily prove evolution wrong (any day now, I'm sure).

    , @nickels
    Theistic evolution is just as much nonsense as materialistic evolution.

    The simple mechanism of natural selection is an absurdity.

    There is no evidence of evolving complexity-there is only evidence for the attrition of forms.

    We humans were created as we are, or, in fact, better than we are.

    There are also many theological reasons to ignore evolution, as it profanes and makes absurd the entire theology of mankind and the fall.

    Read Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @Mulegino1
    Your metaphysics are quite amateurish. God does not require a creator as He is the Supreme Being, the source of all subordinate beings, the author and ground of the causal order and, is eternal and self-subsistent. Being eternal, infinite and pure spirit, He is not circumscribed by time or space. He is the Author of time - the principle of contingency and change, the relationship between agent and patient, and space, the ground for the interaction of subordinate beings within the world of contingency and corporal beings. Space and time are themselves the ground for the causal order in the physical world. This casual order was created by God, who is not subject to it. With God there is no before or after.

    Darwinists, transformists, or whatever they choose to call themselves are the ones who are obsessed with God, or rather, with excluding any thought of vertical, non- mechanistic based causality from their pitiful universe since it tends to upset their own rather limited- anachronistic world view based upon long discredited notions of a purely material and mechanistic universe. They want to abolish formal and final causality- which is certainly and absolutely operative in nature - keeping only the efficient and material causes. Like the proverbial goldfish in a bowl, their world is matter. How they can even speak of things like "Natural selection" with a straight face- one wonders what god of matter is doing the selecting- is beyond me.

    Thanks for getting this thread back on topic. You cannot prove one single thing you wrote. You have no evidence whatever. It is all fabricated nonsense. You believe it simply because you want to believe it.

    This is Lance Welton’s point. The belief that there is no difference between the races despite mountains of evidence to contrary, is as irrational as your belief in a magical being. The capacity for human self delusion is astounding.

    The new religion of Antiracism is eclipsing Christianity and will result in the destruction of Western Civilization if not stopped.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Thanks for getting this thread back on topic. You cannot prove one single thing you wrote. You have no evidence whatever. It is all fabricated nonsense. You believe it simply because you want to believe it.
     
    There is no arguing with this kind of rank stupidity. Mulegino gives a clear synopsis of some rather basic metaphysical prerequisites for understand the natural (not the "supernatural") world, and this idiot, Mark Presco, just jabbers away like a wound-up Dennett bobble-head.

    Can anyone not see that these self-styled, high-IQ "brights" are really the biggest morons that God ever let through the door? Can anyone not agree that they deserve, at this point, only invective, all attempts at being reasonable having utterly failed?
    , @Sbaker
    Mark, and you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Mark Presco
    Thanks for getting this thread back on topic. You cannot prove one single thing you wrote. You have no evidence whatever. It is all fabricated nonsense. You believe it simply because you want to believe it.

    This is Lance Welton’s point. The belief that there is no difference between the races despite mountains of evidence to contrary, is as irrational as your belief in a magical being. The capacity for human self delusion is astounding.

    The new religion of Antiracism is eclipsing Christianity and will result in the destruction of Western Civilization if not stopped.

    Thanks for getting this thread back on topic. You cannot prove one single thing you wrote. You have no evidence whatever. It is all fabricated nonsense. You believe it simply because you want to believe it.

    There is no arguing with this kind of rank stupidity. Mulegino gives a clear synopsis of some rather basic metaphysical prerequisites for understand the natural (not the “supernatural”) world, and this idiot, Mark Presco, just jabbers away like a wound-up Dennett bobble-head.

    Can anyone not see that these self-styled, high-IQ “brights” are really the biggest morons that God ever let through the door? Can anyone not agree that they deserve, at this point, only invective, all attempts at being reasonable having utterly failed?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Mark Presco
    Like this documentary you ignore inconvenient evidence, and pointing out problems in Darwin’s theory disproves nothing.

    Let’s discuss your Creation theory. If you claim that miraculous things require more miraculous creators, then who created God? And who created that creator, and on and on you go into infinity postulating ever more miraculous creators. This is called infinite regression. Philosophers have a lame rationalization for this called the “uncaused cause”, or first cause. It’s nonsense.

    Your theory is obliterated if you argue that God doesn’t require a creator. It is far more reasonable to assert that we lesser humans require no creator.

    I can provide an expanded theory that may appeal to you religious types, but we are far off topic already.

    Your theory is obliterated if you argue that God doesn’t require a creator. It is far more reasonable to assert that we lesser humans require no creator.

    Not to get too technical, and not to be, um, argumentative? — but, all of that “can’t have something from nothing” analysis went out the window with Hume (on a metaphysical level, of course). Assuming/reasoning from principles of infinitely regressive cause/effect instantiated from one point of origination in space and time — she no work. Worse, assuming that said “origin” requires and establishes omnipotence, immanence, infinity and eternity is many steps too far.

    Sure, it works for Italians, Jews and Palestinians, but it is still unfounded assumption.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Evolutionary theories are equilibrium theories. That is not a knock against them, equilibrium thinking can be a very powerful tool. But there are no dynamics in evolutionary theory, and anyone who thinks there are simply doesn’t understand it.

    Evolutionary theories are equilibrium theories. That is not a knock against them, equilibrium thinking can be a very powerful tool. But there are no dynamics in evolutionary theory, and anyone who thinks there are simply doesn’t understand it.

    Will I go down in history if I remark that Nature abhors equilibrium? Prolly not, but do spell my name right.

    Cogent of you to point out that evolution is not dynamic. Correct, but it does encompass reaction (or perhaps, it exhibits the products of) external dynamic forces. The only way genes have changed for X billion years is through mutation – mutation being the only “dynamic” of evolution. That change can be a random biochemical event within the cell, arguably, but is most typically characterized as being externally precipitated.

    The current state of evolution reflects eons of the most trivial of changes to the DNA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @A Libertarian
    I was raised to be Christian. Then I became an atheist. Then agnostic. Then I read eastern religion. First Buddhism then Hinduism. Then I read The Power of Now. Then one day I discovered that beyond all words and logical thought there are infinite strands of living and undeniable truth. It is a place where hate cannot enter.

    Then one day I discovered that beyond all words and logical thought there are infinite strands of living and undeniable truth. It is a place where hate cannot enter.

    Be careful. People thinking they had found “infinite strands of living, and undeniable truth”, is how we got Hare Krishnas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Anon
    A basic college anatomy class led me to believe there is a lot to be said for some kind of intelligibly design Being the sister of a farmer, dairy cattle and chickens, not crops leads me to believe in evolution

    I took college biology as well. We were shown a video that claimed wolves and whales had a common ancestor millions of years ago. This idea was based on the inner ear of both. Didn’t make much sense to me.

    I really don’t care as both theories have no impact on daily life. Neither causes harm or benefit

    We were shown a video that claimed wolves and whales had a common ancestor millions of years ago. This idea was based on the inner ear of both. Didn’t make much sense to me.

    It didn’t? Makes sense to me.

    For example, have you ever given some thought (certainly while being cautious as to harm and benefit) as to the extensive array of “things that are hammers”? Bullets, for example, are hammers. Rolling mills that make steel are hammers.

    Has it occurred to you that ALL life on Earth has the first living cell as a common ancestor? Why sweat the inner ears of whales and wolves?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Factorize says:
    @Anon
    Are you serious? What technologies? Genetic engineering isn't anywhere being able to produce more intelligent children yet. Or are you just a bullshitting troll?

    Thank you very much for responding!

    The future has arrived! Below article describes over 35 SD of Educational Attainment.
    While Educational Attainment and IQ are not the same thing, 35 SD of IQ is equal to over 500 IQ points. Experts in the psychometric community no longer have any doubt that substantial IQ enhancement is now approaching.

    https://www.thessgac.org/data

    Soon fixating on population differences in intelligence will seem quaint (if isn’t already). The most obvious differences in IQ will be determined by age. No current population has an average IQ of 1 SD above Greenwich mean. Current embryo selection technology should allow 1 SD increases for each of the next several generations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Factorize says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Posters should, thus, keep in mind that we are now entering a time when virtually all people currently alive have a reasonably good chance of being labeled developmentally disabled by approaching psychometric norms.
     
    Really? The norms of FOUR BILLION Sub-Saharan Africans expected by 2,100CE?

    200.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Randal says:

    A much more appropriate treatment of the Guardian’s Statement of Official Dogma than was Sailer’s, which seemed bizarrely deferential to me.

    Equalitarians such as Mitchell, whatever their commendable academic accomplishments in the sciences, aren’t thinking scientifically.

    Ideology enstupidates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  159. @Beefcake the Mighty
    You probably wouldn’t care much for real libertarians like Hoppe or Rothbard. Best to stick with Rand Paul, you’ll sleep better at night.

    I am very much in sync with what these guys are saying. Thanks for the references.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. anonymous[228] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    There are plenty of hurdles for strict evolutionists. nothing about evolutionary theory defeats the existence of God.

    http://www.blogos.org/thinkabout/science-in-scripture.Html

    Whether in the mind of man god took six days or 6 trillion years is really inconsequential. The beauty of acknowledging God is in acknowledging he can shatter human understanding, of space and time -- physics at will.

    Hence the term -- supernatural

    nothing about evolutionary theory defeats the existence of God.

    I would never claim it does. The fact of the matter is either evolution is a thing or it isn’t. Either it can explain natural phenomena or it can’t. I’m waiting every day for evidence that disproves it. I have no dog in this fight.

    I’ve noticed IDers/creationist like to cleverly/slyly avoid revealing which flavor of ID they believe in, or avoid specifying what it is about the theory of speciation by natural selection that they disagree with, probably to avoid any constructive criticism of their most cherished beliefs that might otherwise come their way as a result. Fine, whatever. I’m not all that interested in being antagonistic towards anyone’s belief system.

    I get that IDers believe in something that transcends material and mechanistic processes. All I’m asking for is what, in theory, this may look like once it crosses into the realm of observable phenomenon. That’s it! Just a plausible explanation for how this may manifest in observable reality. In return, I get idiots like idasein bragging about how much philosophy literature he’s read and how he could easily prove evolution wrong (any day now, I’m sure).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    To add a religious-friendly hypothetical, I see no reason people can't believe in a god having created the process of natural selection and then tailored it to his liking. He could have set it up so humans would have emerged as a species exactly when he wanted them to. Why he wanted humans hanging around for 200,000 years before his son and all of the prophets showed up, I don't know, but humans have existed for that long in both evolution and intelligent design (aside from young Earth creationism), so I don't really see what the problem is...
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    In return, I get idiots like idasein bragging about how much philosophy literature he’s read and how he could easily prove evolution wrong (any day now, I’m sure).
     
    I'm not independently wealthy. I have a full-time day job and a family to take care of. I do not get paid to write scholarly articles, which take an awful lot of time and work. When I am able to do it, I will do it.
    , @HallParvey

    I’ve noticed IDers/creationist like to cleverly/slyly avoid revealing which flavor of ID they believe in, or avoid specifying what it is about the theory of speciation by natural selection that they disagree with, probably to avoid any constructive criticism of their most cherished beliefs that might otherwise come their way as a result. Fine, whatever. I’m not all that interested in being antagonistic towards anyone’s belief system.
     
    It's called lying by omission. Just remember, they're really lying to themselves, not just you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Reasonable according to whom?

    Reasonable according to whom?

    More reasonable by the simple logic that we are so much simpler than an Omnipotent Being capable of creating space/time itself.

    In fact what was created in the “big bang” was the simplest thing of all, a single elementary particle that I call the God particle. Evolution is all about this God particle assembling itself into the God we seek.

    Shortly after the “big bang” this God particle evolved into the 12 elementary particles of the Standard Model, then into hydrogen and helium. Then into first generation stars where elements up to iron evolved. Then super novae where the heavier elements evolved. Then into second generation stars where DNA evolved.

    After another 3.5 billion years of evolution we achieved consciousness. Our belief in the Gods is simply self awareness, a realization of who we are and what we are becoming.

    Think about how you created yourself in your mother’s womb. You started out as very small single cell and assembled yourself. There was no creator in there assembling you.

    This is how the universe works. It is bottom up, not top down. The universe is God’s womb and we are embryonic Gods. It has taken us 15 billion years to get this far and it may take another 15 billion years to get there, but the pleasure is in the journey.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Bizarre.
    You are ok with a mystical pantheism that came from nothing, but not ok with a creator.
    Your position is irrational.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. anonymous[228] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    nothing about evolutionary theory defeats the existence of God.

    I would never claim it does. The fact of the matter is either evolution is a thing or it isn't. Either it can explain natural phenomena or it can't. I'm waiting every day for evidence that disproves it. I have no dog in this fight.

    I've noticed IDers/creationist like to cleverly/slyly avoid revealing which flavor of ID they believe in, or avoid specifying what it is about the theory of speciation by natural selection that they disagree with, probably to avoid any constructive criticism of their most cherished beliefs that might otherwise come their way as a result. Fine, whatever. I'm not all that interested in being antagonistic towards anyone's belief system.

    I get that IDers believe in something that transcends material and mechanistic processes. All I'm asking for is what, in theory, this may look like once it crosses into the realm of observable phenomenon. That's it! Just a plausible explanation for how this may manifest in observable reality. In return, I get idiots like idasein bragging about how much philosophy literature he's read and how he could easily prove evolution wrong (any day now, I'm sure).

    To add a religious-friendly hypothetical, I see no reason people can’t believe in a god having created the process of natural selection and then tailored it to his liking. He could have set it up so humans would have emerged as a species exactly when he wanted them to. Why he wanted humans hanging around for 200,000 years before his son and all of the prophets showed up, I don’t know, but humans have existed for that long in both evolution and intelligent design (aside from young Earth creationism), so I don’t really see what the problem is…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The trouble is you avoid the idiocy of believing in any of the versions of the Abrahamic God at all. Obviously a Creator God who communicates with mankind does not have the important characteristics of loving all people and caring what choices they make if he failed to communicate correct facts and beliefs to any or nearly all of them. So that god doesn't exist. One that simply set the Big Bang and evolution going because he was bored and needed entertainment is at least consistent with the facts but not very Christian... Thomas More realised that the rich and powerful would/might behave very badly if not threatened with an unsatisfactory afterlife and that suggests a God of the infinite who fancied sorting out his creatures who were to enjoy infinite bliss for eternity by setting a very perverse and complicated pseudo IQ test, pretending to be a test of morality, with varying features over time, for his creatures granted a few years on earth. Well why not? It makes as much sense as any existing Godbotherers claptrap.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. nickels says:
    @Mark Presco

    Reasonable according to whom?
     
    More reasonable by the simple logic that we are so much simpler than an Omnipotent Being capable of creating space/time itself.

    In fact what was created in the “big bang” was the simplest thing of all, a single elementary particle that I call the God particle. Evolution is all about this God particle assembling itself into the God we seek.

    Shortly after the “big bang” this God particle evolved into the 12 elementary particles of the Standard Model, then into hydrogen and helium. Then into first generation stars where elements up to iron evolved. Then super novae where the heavier elements evolved. Then into second generation stars where DNA evolved.

    After another 3.5 billion years of evolution we achieved consciousness. Our belief in the Gods is simply self awareness, a realization of who we are and what we are becoming.

    Think about how you created yourself in your mother’s womb. You started out as very small single cell and assembled yourself. There was no creator in there assembling you.

    This is how the universe works. It is bottom up, not top down. The universe is God’s womb and we are embryonic Gods. It has taken us 15 billion years to get this far and it may take another 15 billion years to get there, but the pleasure is in the journey.

    Bizarre.
    You are ok with a mystical pantheism that came from nothing, but not ok with a creator.
    Your position is irrational.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    He really is full of shit, yes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. nickels says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    There are plenty of hurdles for strict evolutionists. nothing about evolutionary theory defeats the existence of God.

    http://www.blogos.org/thinkabout/science-in-scripture.Html

    Whether in the mind of man god took six days or 6 trillion years is really inconsequential. The beauty of acknowledging God is in acknowledging he can shatter human understanding, of space and time -- physics at will.

    Hence the term -- supernatural

    Theistic evolution is just as much nonsense as materialistic evolution.

    The simple mechanism of natural selection is an absurdity.

    There is no evidence of evolving complexity-there is only evidence for the attrition of forms.

    We humans were created as we are, or, in fact, better than we are.

    There are also many theological reasons to ignore evolution, as it profanes and makes absurd the entire theology of mankind and the fall.

    Read Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Presco
    You mentioned the fall. Do you believe that your God is going to cast all who are not saved by Jesus into a lake of fire and cause them to suffer the horrors of being burnt alive, every second of their existence for eternity? Isn’t this the vast majority of the human race? You worship an evil God.

    Genesis 3:17

    To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

    "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”


    Revelation 20:10
    And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

    Matthew 25:41
    Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

    However, Billy Graham is an acknowledged authority on the Evangelical concept of Hell. The following is an excerpt from one of his sermons:

    You say, "Well, what kind of a place is hell?" I'm going to read to you right out of the Bible what kind of place it is. This is where some of you are going to spend billions and billions of years. You'd better listen. This is God's Word.

    Revelation 20:15 says it's a lake of fire. Psalm 11:6 says it's a horrible tempest. Psalm 18:5 says it's a place of sorrows. Matthew 13:42 says it's a place of wailing, a furnace of fire. Luke 16:23 says it's a place of torments. Matthew 8:12 says it's a place of outer darkness. Revelation 14:11 says it's a place of unrest. Luke 16:24 says it's a place where people scream for mercy. Matthew 25:46 says it's a place of everlasting punishment.

    That is God's description-not mine. And God says that all people outside of Jesus Christ are headed to that place unless they repent of their sins and turn by faith to Jesus Christ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @nickels
    Theistic evolution is just as much nonsense as materialistic evolution.

    The simple mechanism of natural selection is an absurdity.

    There is no evidence of evolving complexity-there is only evidence for the attrition of forms.

    We humans were created as we are, or, in fact, better than we are.

    There are also many theological reasons to ignore evolution, as it profanes and makes absurd the entire theology of mankind and the fall.

    Read Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man.

    You mentioned the fall. Do you believe that your God is going to cast all who are not saved by Jesus into a lake of fire and cause them to suffer the horrors of being burnt alive, every second of their existence for eternity? Isn’t this the vast majority of the human race? You worship an evil God.

    Genesis 3:17

    To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’

    “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”

    Revelation 20:10
    And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

    Matthew 25:41
    Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

    However, Billy Graham is an acknowledged authority on the Evangelical concept of Hell. The following is an excerpt from one of his sermons:

    You say, “Well, what kind of a place is hell?” I’m going to read to you right out of the Bible what kind of place it is. This is where some of you are going to spend billions and billions of years. You’d better listen. This is God’s Word.

    Revelation 20:15 says it’s a lake of fire. Psalm 11:6 says it’s a horrible tempest. Psalm 18:5 says it’s a place of sorrows. Matthew 13:42 says it’s a place of wailing, a furnace of fire. Luke 16:23 says it’s a place of torments. Matthew 8:12 says it’s a place of outer darkness. Revelation 14:11 says it’s a place of unrest. Luke 16:24 says it’s a place where people scream for mercy. Matthew 25:46 says it’s a place of everlasting punishment.

    That is God’s description-not mine. And God says that all people outside of Jesus Christ are headed to that place unless they repent of their sins and turn by faith to Jesus Christ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    We Orthodox believe that everyone will eventually participate in the light of God.
    To some that will be an unbearable scorching light, i.e. the burning flames of hell. To the saved it will be some sort of profound completion, paradise.

    I personally believe this relates to our free will in the same way as our understanding of his creation, the world. Some see the beautiful architecture and the wonder-others deny that and insist it must be random, and that life, therefore is totally meaningless, as we are just electrons bound to disintegrate one say. But that is only a personal interpretation, not dogma.

    Our God is glorious, loving and terrifying all at once. Too many people thing our God is a hippie-that is not at all the case.
    God wants those who make the cut, not slackers.

    , @HallParvey

    That is God’s description-not mine. And God says that all people outside of Jesus Christ are headed to that place unless they repent of their sins and turn by faith to Jesus Christ.
     
    No. That description was written by mortal man using quills on papyrus or some other such early writing system. Just as the fables surrounding the Greek gods were written. Just as the fables surrounding the Norse gods were written. Just as J K Rowling wrote the fables of Hogwarts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @anonymous
    nothing about evolutionary theory defeats the existence of God.

    I would never claim it does. The fact of the matter is either evolution is a thing or it isn't. Either it can explain natural phenomena or it can't. I'm waiting every day for evidence that disproves it. I have no dog in this fight.

    I've noticed IDers/creationist like to cleverly/slyly avoid revealing which flavor of ID they believe in, or avoid specifying what it is about the theory of speciation by natural selection that they disagree with, probably to avoid any constructive criticism of their most cherished beliefs that might otherwise come their way as a result. Fine, whatever. I'm not all that interested in being antagonistic towards anyone's belief system.

    I get that IDers believe in something that transcends material and mechanistic processes. All I'm asking for is what, in theory, this may look like once it crosses into the realm of observable phenomenon. That's it! Just a plausible explanation for how this may manifest in observable reality. In return, I get idiots like idasein bragging about how much philosophy literature he's read and how he could easily prove evolution wrong (any day now, I'm sure).

    In return, I get idiots like idasein bragging about how much philosophy literature he’s read and how he could easily prove evolution wrong (any day now, I’m sure).

    I’m not independently wealthy. I have a full-time day job and a family to take care of. I do not get paid to write scholarly articles, which take an awful lot of time and work. When I am able to do it, I will do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Sure. Take your time and do what you gotta do. Hopefully you address the obvious problems associated with species and genera popping into existence in the ID model (if this is a strawman, I have yet to be corrected on it).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @nickels
    Bizarre.
    You are ok with a mystical pantheism that came from nothing, but not ok with a creator.
    Your position is irrational.

    He really is full of shit, yes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch
    We need a defining term. "Fullashitism" seems appropriate, but a bit vulgar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Beefcake the Mighty
    He really is full of shit, yes.

    We need a defining term. “Fullashitism” seems appropriate, but a bit vulgar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Presco
    Gee guys, great comebacks, maybe if you could come up with cogent arguments I might take you seriously.

    Everything I said about the evolution of the universe is current valid scientific theory based on the big bang. This is the best evidence we have. If you can’t accept scientific theory, you are hopeless. If you need to hear it from an actual physicist start at 4:15

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gq1cv

    Everything I said about the evolution of DNA is current valid scientific theory, or Darwinism as you people utterly failed to discredit. See comment 46.

    My putting a God spin on it is a sincere effort to reconcile science, religion and philosophy, all of which have contributed so much to understanding our existence. It seems that you are incredibly close minded.

    But I do believe want I said. Science fiction is loaded with ideas about evolving to a higher plane of existence. Stargate SG1 and Atlantis are loaded with them. Or start here:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5v2nwu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. nickels says:
    @Mark Presco
    You mentioned the fall. Do you believe that your God is going to cast all who are not saved by Jesus into a lake of fire and cause them to suffer the horrors of being burnt alive, every second of their existence for eternity? Isn’t this the vast majority of the human race? You worship an evil God.

    Genesis 3:17

    To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

    "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”


    Revelation 20:10
    And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

    Matthew 25:41
    Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

    However, Billy Graham is an acknowledged authority on the Evangelical concept of Hell. The following is an excerpt from one of his sermons:

    You say, "Well, what kind of a place is hell?" I'm going to read to you right out of the Bible what kind of place it is. This is where some of you are going to spend billions and billions of years. You'd better listen. This is God's Word.

    Revelation 20:15 says it's a lake of fire. Psalm 11:6 says it's a horrible tempest. Psalm 18:5 says it's a place of sorrows. Matthew 13:42 says it's a place of wailing, a furnace of fire. Luke 16:23 says it's a place of torments. Matthew 8:12 says it's a place of outer darkness. Revelation 14:11 says it's a place of unrest. Luke 16:24 says it's a place where people scream for mercy. Matthew 25:46 says it's a place of everlasting punishment.

    That is God's description-not mine. And God says that all people outside of Jesus Christ are headed to that place unless they repent of their sins and turn by faith to Jesus Christ.

    We Orthodox believe that everyone will eventually participate in the light of God.
    To some that will be an unbearable scorching light, i.e. the burning flames of hell. To the saved it will be some sort of profound completion, paradise.

    I personally believe this relates to our free will in the same way as our understanding of his creation, the world. Some see the beautiful architecture and the wonder-others deny that and insist it must be random, and that life, therefore is totally meaningless, as we are just electrons bound to disintegrate one say. But that is only a personal interpretation, not dogma.

    Our God is glorious, loving and terrifying all at once. Too many people thing our God is a hippie-that is not at all the case.
    God wants those who make the cut, not slackers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Presco

    To the saved it will be some sort of profound completion, paradise.
     

    God wants those who make the cut, not slackers.
     
    I read long ago that this is one facet that drew people to Christianity. The elitist attitude that only chosen few would sit beside their King in court and haughtily look down their noses at the lesser souls writhing in hell.

    To some that will be an unbearable scorching light, i.e. the burning flames of hell.

     

    Let me reiterate that it will be the vast majority since most are not Christians, plus those that don’t make the cut. It would not surprise me to learn that you believe your Orthodox sect is the one true religion, and therefore the only ones to qualify.

    I personally believe this relates to our free will in the same way as our understanding of his creation, the world.
     
    What about the children who are raised in, say, Hindu countries. Their free will is impeded. If God holds us to such high standards, He needs to hold himself to higher standards and do more to get his word out if He punishes us for breaking His laws.

    His deafening silence is evidence to me that your God doesn’t exist. If He does exist, I consider the God you describe to me as pure evil. I don’ believe it. This is why I left the Catholic church long ago and never looked back.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @manorchurch
    We need a defining term. "Fullashitism" seems appropriate, but a bit vulgar.

    Gee guys, great comebacks, maybe if you could come up with cogent arguments I might take you seriously.

    Everything I said about the evolution of the universe is current valid scientific theory based on the big bang. This is the best evidence we have. If you can’t accept scientific theory, you are hopeless. If you need to hear it from an actual physicist start at 4:15

    Everything I said about the evolution of DNA is current valid scientific theory, or Darwinism as you people utterly failed to discredit. See comment 46.

    My putting a God spin on it is a sincere effort to reconcile science, religion and philosophy, all of which have contributed so much to understanding our existence. It seems that you are incredibly close minded.

    But I do believe want I said. Science fiction is loaded with ideas about evolving to a higher plane of existence. Stargate SG1 and Atlantis are loaded with them. Or start here:

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    My putting a God spin on it is a sincere effort to reconcile science, religion and philosophy, all of which have contributed so much to understanding our existence. It seems that you are incredibly close minded.
     
    Whatever for? I see no need to "reconcile" science, religion and philosophy. Not that "philosophy" is semantically applicable in your context.

    Here, read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

    It's heavy-going, if you can understand it at all. But, if you do, you'll be a lot closer to knowing why any "reconciliation" is non sequitur.
    , @Sbaker
    Mark, and you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.
    , @Sbaker
    There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support the spontaneous generation of the earth, a near perfect habitat for the existence of complex life. Some humans, no animal species, are simply taken in by observing the beauty of what is around, and in us, that calls many of us to believe in God. We find this belief in God only in humans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. AKAHorace says:
    @Thomm
    'Svigor' actually rhymes with Wigger, which is appropriate, because that is what you are.

    Well then, Swigger, what next?

    BTW, I'm white. I know it pains you to be reminded that successful whites like me correctly see you wiggers as waste matter, and we thus exclude you from polite society.

    Get off my lawn, faggot!

    Heh heh heh heh

    Whoa, a lot of hate here, time for you to both learn to sing the song below.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. anonymous[457] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    In return, I get idiots like idasein bragging about how much philosophy literature he’s read and how he could easily prove evolution wrong (any day now, I’m sure).
     
    I'm not independently wealthy. I have a full-time day job and a family to take care of. I do not get paid to write scholarly articles, which take an awful lot of time and work. When I am able to do it, I will do it.

    Sure. Take your time and do what you gotta do. Hopefully you address the obvious problems associated with species and genera popping into existence in the ID model (if this is a strawman, I have yet to be corrected on it).

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch
    In case that needs essplaining, Lucee, a premise of "intelligent design" is that God did the designing, and in so doing, it is assumed that God created the perfect design for each. After all, how could He not? How could He produce imperfect design, that evolved, mutated and changed? If He did, then the entire concept of "intelligent design" is pretty much shot to the four winds.

    Considering the hugely gaping holes of petitio principii in ID theory, you just might want to abandon that entire approach.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Mark Presco
    Gee guys, great comebacks, maybe if you could come up with cogent arguments I might take you seriously.

    Everything I said about the evolution of the universe is current valid scientific theory based on the big bang. This is the best evidence we have. If you can’t accept scientific theory, you are hopeless. If you need to hear it from an actual physicist start at 4:15

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gq1cv

    Everything I said about the evolution of DNA is current valid scientific theory, or Darwinism as you people utterly failed to discredit. See comment 46.

    My putting a God spin on it is a sincere effort to reconcile science, religion and philosophy, all of which have contributed so much to understanding our existence. It seems that you are incredibly close minded.

    But I do believe want I said. Science fiction is loaded with ideas about evolving to a higher plane of existence. Stargate SG1 and Atlantis are loaded with them. Or start here:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5v2nwu

    My putting a God spin on it is a sincere effort to reconcile science, religion and philosophy, all of which have contributed so much to understanding our existence. It seems that you are incredibly close minded.

    Whatever for? I see no need to “reconcile” science, religion and philosophy. Not that “philosophy” is semantically applicable in your context.

    Here, read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

    It’s heavy-going, if you can understand it at all. But, if you do, you’ll be a lot closer to knowing why any “reconciliation” is non sequitur.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @anonymous
    Sure. Take your time and do what you gotta do. Hopefully you address the obvious problems associated with species and genera popping into existence in the ID model (if this is a strawman, I have yet to be corrected on it).

    In case that needs essplaining, Lucee, a premise of “intelligent design” is that God did the designing, and in so doing, it is assumed that God created the perfect design for each. After all, how could He not? How could He produce imperfect design, that evolved, mutated and changed? If He did, then the entire concept of “intelligent design” is pretty much shot to the four winds.

    Considering the hugely gaping holes of petitio principii in ID theory, you just might want to abandon that entire approach.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Don't you know that God has a sense of humour? That's just one of the things that we can infer from "made in his image". We also know that he couldn't have stopped with the fun of just one universe. It would be really addictive to set off all those Big Bangs and Inflations so we can be sure that there are trillions of multiverses unless some have ended for recycling.
    , @anonymous
    God created the perfect design for each.

    But did he create each at the same time or at different times? Do old Earth/young Earth creationists see eye to eye on these questions?

    What always seemed strange to me is how God could create different animals in whichever epoch that he wanted to, but instead of having a little fun with it and mixing it up a bit, he decides to just place every single species in the EXACT periods that you would expect to find them if they had evolved. I mean, he could've tossed pandas (and bamboo) in with T.rex in the late cretaceous, orcas and megalodons into the oceans of the late Jurassic, gorgonopsids in late pleistocene N. America, anglerfish in the Silurian, pteranodons in the devonian (these things mostly just ate fish anyway), dimetrodons in the carboniferous, etc.. Just think of how neat (and convenient) it would have been if Jesus had been able to give his sermons while riding around on a pet Triceratops. Pretty fucking cool, if you ask me. We could've got some kind of crazy ass looking plant-animal hybrid too. But nope. For every single organism, it's the same old boring family tree-like structure. Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis....

    It's almost as if God sticks with one species in a chain of morphologically similar species for a very long time, and then once in a great while, he suddenly decides that he wants to make a very minor upgrade to it, and then he "poofs" the slightly upgraded new species into existence. In the end, it only takes him 3+ billion years to finally get around to creating the one species that will be made in his image (which will also be made in the image of other hominids, for some reason)....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    To add a religious-friendly hypothetical, I see no reason people can't believe in a god having created the process of natural selection and then tailored it to his liking. He could have set it up so humans would have emerged as a species exactly when he wanted them to. Why he wanted humans hanging around for 200,000 years before his son and all of the prophets showed up, I don't know, but humans have existed for that long in both evolution and intelligent design (aside from young Earth creationism), so I don't really see what the problem is...

    The trouble is you avoid the idiocy of believing in any of the versions of the Abrahamic God at all. Obviously a Creator God who communicates with mankind does not have the important characteristics of loving all people and caring what choices they make if he failed to communicate correct facts and beliefs to any or nearly all of them. So that god doesn’t exist. One that simply set the Big Bang and evolution going because he was bored and needed entertainment is at least consistent with the facts but not very Christian… Thomas More realised that the rich and powerful would/might behave very badly if not threatened with an unsatisfactory afterlife and that suggests a God of the infinite who fancied sorting out his creatures who were to enjoy infinite bliss for eternity by setting a very perverse and complicated pseudo IQ test, pretending to be a test of morality, with varying features over time, for his creatures granted a few years on earth. Well why not? It makes as much sense as any existing Godbotherers claptrap.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Mulegino1
    How dare you compare brobdingnagian greats such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to such lilliputian light weights as Spengler, Goethe, Kant, Aristotle (I will throw in Leibniz, Sts. Thomas and Augustine for good measure)!

    Those who accept the Darwinist paradigm live in the fish bowl world of Cartesian bifurcation, Newtonian mechanics and the anachronistic world view of scientism and positivism. Descartes and Newton certainly made some great contributions to philosophy and science, and although their world views were fundamentally incorrect, they would have been horrified at the gross materialism of the Encyclopedists and their British liberal successors, culminating in the dead end of Darwinism, with its world of chimeras and its naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress.

    Darwinism’s “naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress”!!!!

    Where did you get such total and utter rubbish from? Yes I ask where you have gone for your unfortunate self education. Has it occurred to you to ask why a person (with few exceptions) with even a modest degree from a good university doesn’t share your reading list? Actually you wouldn’t know but your first step ought to be to find out what mainstream scholarship says before you go loop-the-loop with loons. Try some good online study at one of the Ivies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Seriously? That’s your response, to start tossing credentials about? You’re an even bigger ass-hat than I thought (and that’s saying something).
    , @Mulegino1
    The myth of progress in the evolution of Science
    Manuel Alfonseca



    "The theory of Indefinite Progress appeared during the eighteen century. It is the inverse of the medieval idea, and affirms that the future is always superior to the present. Abbé St. Pierre (1658-1753), Turgot (1727-1781) and Condorcet (1743-1794) may be considered its fathers. Condorcet divided History into ten successive steps. The tenth (ours) is the age of science, rationalism and revolution, and will open the way to an age of prosperity, tolerance and illustration (Utopia is always just around the corner)."
    "The theory of Indefinite Progress gained general acceptance during the nineteenth century. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) proposed a different succession of steps, the last being the age of science and industry. As always, back turns are forbidden. Our arrival to the scientific era is final.
    The discovery of evolution in the nineteenth century gave new expression to the principle of Indefinite Progress, which came to be redefined in biological terms: Biological evolution is a process towards more and more complexity. Comte's ideas blended with Darwin's in the work of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) and Karl Marx (1919-1903), who assert that social evolution is automatic and unavoidable. As those before him, Marx divided History in several successive and progressive eras (tribalism, slavism, feudalism, capitalism and socialism). The coming of the latter would be unavoidable through the dictatorship of the proletariat and a society without classes."


    A pretty good summation, in my estimation, which also shows the affinity between Darwinism and Marxism, although on different levels. This is not to say that Darwin would agree with Marx's inverted Hegelianism - which replaced Absolute Spirit as the driver of the dialectics of history with Feurbach's materialism, but the theories are hardly contradictory and run parallel to one another.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @manorchurch
    In case that needs essplaining, Lucee, a premise of "intelligent design" is that God did the designing, and in so doing, it is assumed that God created the perfect design for each. After all, how could He not? How could He produce imperfect design, that evolved, mutated and changed? If He did, then the entire concept of "intelligent design" is pretty much shot to the four winds.

    Considering the hugely gaping holes of petitio principii in ID theory, you just might want to abandon that entire approach.

    Don’t you know that God has a sense of humour? That’s just one of the things that we can infer from “made in his image”. We also know that he couldn’t have stopped with the fun of just one universe. It would be really addictive to set off all those Big Bangs and Inflations so we can be sure that there are trillions of multiverses unless some have ended for recycling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    It would be really addictive to set off all those Big Bangs and Inflations so we can be sure that there are trillions of multiverses unless some have ended for recycling.
     
    Ja. An infinite number of universes in an eternity of time. Perfectly consistent, as well as an infinity of Gods that rule the infinity of universes.

    After all, what the hell do WE know for sure? Not a damn thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Hopefully you address the obvious problems associated with species and genera popping into existence in the ID model (if this is a strawman, I have yet to be corrected on it).

    Well, here you go. The ID model is indefensible nonsense and you certainly won’t hear any defenses of it from me. I have tried to tell you, over and over again, that you do not know what I am talking about, but instead of taking me seriously and reflecting on that for a moment, you continue to accuse me of prevaricating. The fact of the matter is that you are not working from a paradigm that is at all related to reality. This is a fact; and unless and until that fact changes, there is no argument I can make—no matter how carefully crafted, metaphysically valid, and rhetorically powerful—that is going to make the slightest bit of difference to you.

    Take intelligent design, for instance. If that unfortunate term is to be used at all, it can only be employed as a euphemism for a self-consistent, transcendental order. It is not and cannot be a physical theory. You understand it to mean a mechanistic scheme that functions in place of Darwinian evolution, and then you dare me to defend that. So yes, it is a strawman after a fashion, but it’s not a strawman you’re conscious of employing. You simply have no conception of the reality being referred to here.

    Living creatures are monadic, not mechanistic; they are simple, not compound. They do not come into being by processes of accidental change in a preexisting substance. That means that they cannot be “designed” either by natural selection or by an intelligent agent. They do not arise from anything (in the material order) more fundamental than themselves; rather they are themselves the prime phenomenon. It follows from their nature as simple substances that the (completely independently derived) laws of causality can be applied to them only in certain ways, not in others; and it is this which renders the entire concept of Darwinian evolution null and void from the outset, just as it also nullifies intelligent design. The only difference between the Paleyian design-concept and the Darwinian selection process is who or what is doing the designing. Obviously the nature of life itself prevents any theory of this type from being correct.

    To ask, then, what are the material origins of life on Earth, or the nature of speciation, or other similar questions, is to commit a category mistake. Life is not something virtually present in matter, such that it can be educed from matter by the actions of material causes of any kind whatsoever. Living creatures must have a formal—viz. an immaterial—cause. Darwin, strange to say, simply takes no notice of any of this and proceeds upon an implied definition of life that is entirely meaningless. Darwinism is therefore “not even wrong,” as the saying goes. It is the result of an error in the faculty of judgment, not in the use of the reason. That is why many learned men, who are notoriously judgment-poor, may profess Darwinism in all seriousness, while many common people not nearly as articulate have been able to see through it without explaining why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Cellular processes are material. Even if you don't believe that they give rise to life/consciousness, you can still clearly see that they contribute to the life of an organism, in that, when these processes cease to function properly, the life (or at least the physical manifestation of it) of the organism is extinguished. The cellular processes themselves don't exist independently of DNA transmission, which doesn't exist independently of other observable phenomena such as mutation, drift, and selection (e.g. dog breeds). I'm curious as to where all of these things fit in your worldview.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. anonymous[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @manorchurch
    In case that needs essplaining, Lucee, a premise of "intelligent design" is that God did the designing, and in so doing, it is assumed that God created the perfect design for each. After all, how could He not? How could He produce imperfect design, that evolved, mutated and changed? If He did, then the entire concept of "intelligent design" is pretty much shot to the four winds.

    Considering the hugely gaping holes of petitio principii in ID theory, you just might want to abandon that entire approach.

    God created the perfect design for each.

    But did he create each at the same time or at different times? Do old Earth/young Earth creationists see eye to eye on these questions?

    What always seemed strange to me is how God could create different animals in whichever epoch that he wanted to, but instead of having a little fun with it and mixing it up a bit, he decides to just place every single species in the EXACT periods that you would expect to find them if they had evolved. I mean, he could’ve tossed pandas (and bamboo) in with T.rex in the late cretaceous, orcas and megalodons into the oceans of the late Jurassic, gorgonopsids in late pleistocene N. America, anglerfish in the Silurian, pteranodons in the devonian (these things mostly just ate fish anyway), dimetrodons in the carboniferous, etc.. Just think of how neat (and convenient) it would have been if Jesus had been able to give his sermons while riding around on a pet Triceratops. Pretty fucking cool, if you ask me. We could’ve got some kind of crazy ass looking plant-animal hybrid too. But nope. For every single organism, it’s the same old boring family tree-like structure. Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis….

    It’s almost as if God sticks with one species in a chain of morphologically similar species for a very long time, and then once in a great while, he suddenly decides that he wants to make a very minor upgrade to it, and then he “poofs” the slightly upgraded new species into existence. In the end, it only takes him 3+ billion years to finally get around to creating the one species that will be made in his image (which will also be made in the image of other hominids, for some reason)….

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    It’s almost as if God sticks with one species in a chain of morphologically similar species for a very long time, and then once in a great while, he suddenly decides that he wants to make a very minor upgrade to it, and then he “poofs” the slightly upgraded new species into existence.
     
    Ja. God seems absent-minded at times, doesn't he? He's really old, so this might be expected. He should give some thought to shaving that beard and using a bit of Grecian Formula. There's other Gods looking for full-time employment who don't have their own universe to rule, ya know. Gotta stay sharp if you're gonna succeed in the God-business.
    , @nickels


    he decides to just place every single species in the EXACT periods that you would expect to find them if they had evolved.

     

    You do realize that Lyell and Darwin were in a circular loop? The dating of Lyell was based on the when they thought certain fossils should exist, and the theory of evolution was supported by the dating of Lyell.

    It was a sort of Circle J.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato
    Unintelligent Unsinn.

    You seem to have some kind of problem?

    Unfair. I wouldn’t want to send time finding it but I’m sure I remember him once writing something prosaically factual (maybe about himself) that suggested a possible 105 IQ (company anyway for those like annamaria who think 90+ is enough for conversation on UR).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Wizard of Oz
    Darwinism's "naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress"!!!!

    Where did you get such total and utter rubbish from? Yes I ask where you have gone for your unfortunate self education. Has it occurred to you to ask why a person (with few exceptions) with even a modest degree from a good university doesn't share your reading list? Actually you wouldn't know but your first step ought to be to find out what mainstream scholarship says before you go loop-the-loop with loons. Try some good online study at one of the Ivies.

    Seriously? That’s your response, to start tossing credentials about? You’re an even bigger ass-hat than I thought (and that’s saying something).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    As usual your brevity doesn't join up with accuracy. "Tossing credentials about"? Loose jabber.

    Actually I wondered in an idle moment whether someone like Muliegino1 on UR threads, who can be quite wordy but clearly neither well educated in any usual sense of the words, nor very intelligent, just might be jolted on to a more cerebral track. 1 per cent chance maybe?

    Admitttedly I can't be bothered to read through all his rubbish every time but thought it enough to hit a bulls eye with his egregious nonsense that I started by deriding. Now a very good question for you to see whether your opinion on evolution and related matters would be worth a row of beans: do you deny that it is egregious nonsense to write of Darwinism's "naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress"? Come clean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Seriously? That’s your response, to start tossing credentials about? You’re an even bigger ass-hat than I thought (and that’s saying something).

    As usual your brevity doesn’t join up with accuracy. “Tossing credentials about”? Loose jabber.

    Actually I wondered in an idle moment whether someone like Muliegino1 on UR threads, who can be quite wordy but clearly neither well educated in any usual sense of the words, nor very intelligent, just might be jolted on to a more cerebral track. 1 per cent chance maybe?

    Admitttedly I can’t be bothered to read through all his rubbish every time but thought it enough to hit a bulls eye with his egregious nonsense that I started by deriding. Now a very good question for you to see whether your opinion on evolution and related matters would be worth a row of beans: do you deny that it is egregious nonsense to write of Darwinism’s “naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress”? Come clean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Actually I wondered in an idle moment whether someone like Muliegino1 on UR threads, who can be quite wordy but clearly neither well educated in any usual sense of the words, nor very intelligent, just might be jolted on to a more cerebral track. 1 per cent chance maybe?
     
    No chance at all, short of an accident with electricity, which has a vanishingly small potential for converting the stupid into the intelligent.

    Really, they stay stupid. I've seen the form of stupidity change, even (miraculously) from mean stupid to kind stupid. But, always stupid.
    , @Mulegino1
    I have known many, many people with "degrees from good universities" who do not know what century the First World War occurred in, have never heard of Charles Darwin or John Clerk Maxwell, did not know who Josef Stalin, or Martin Luther were, and have never listened to a single composition by J.S. Bach. To these people, Tesla is merely an automaker. These days a "degree from a good university" can equate to nothing more for its possessor than a lifetime of paying off student loan debts at interest and chronic unemployment.

    It appears to me, as Beefcake pointed out, that you are a credentialist, which is so typical of your tribe. As far as the "Ivies" are concerned, most of them, such as Harvard, were founded as Bible colleges by the same sort of devoutly religious believers so despised here that the apostles of dogmatic atheism and materialist positivism found here so despise. Could you tell me what Harvard's original curriculum and requirements were?

    Having deviated from their founders' purposes, the "Ivies" serve nowadays the purpose that Oxford and Cambridge served in the Victorian age- the molding of the managerial class of the Empire, in this case the Atlanticist-Zionist Empire.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Factorize
    PP, thank you for posting.

    Think back to when you were in primary school. If somehow your intellectual development had been frozen in time until now, then your adult IQ would be somewhere in the 50s. This seems surprising to me because I do not ever remember ever feeling as if I were developmentally disabled when I was in primary school, I actually remember having a great deal of fun. I got along quite well.

    Now think back to when you were in middle school. Again if you could time travel ahead now without additional mental development, your IQ would be somewhere in the 60s to mid 70s. Yet, when I think back on it now, I still do not really believe that I was mentally disabled when I had this level of IQ.

    In the high school years you would probably still have an IQ of less than 90 (in adult terms).
    This is a good personal reference guide for what different IQ ranges actually would feel like.

    Something else to consider is that population IQs have evolved within their environmental
    contexts sometimes for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. For many people in Africa the community standard of IQ would feel right with respect to the intellectual challenges that they face.
    My suspicion is that if we were to travel to Africa and observe how people were behaving, it seems doubtful to me that there would be endless discussions and arguments about psychometrics. People have the intelligence toolkit that is relevant for the things that they want to do in life. Ironically, the ongoing arguments about intelligence are likely most present in those places in which there is the high end IQ to complexify life beyond the coping capacity of many within the community. Western nations might soon face a circumstance in which those with an IQ less than 100 would be considered essentially unemployable, and yet in Africa such people would be considered within the top 2% (i.e. genius)

    The idea that has been expressed on this thread about racial superiority does not conform to the fact that indigenous populations are highly adapted to the environments in which they find themselves. In one of the other unz threads an African poster strenuously rebutted the idea that there might be an IQ difference between African and other populations. Yet, when I asked about nerd type behavior in Africa, he admitted that this behavior was largely absent there. This for me is an important point to consider. IQ is not merely an empty measure of intellect. IQ has substantial implications for the way in which people will live their lives. Perhaps we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that once intelligence enhancement becomes available that there might be populations that decide that they are not interested in pursuing increased intelligence. Africa very likely has a deeply rich social culture that they might not want to lose.

    I’ll leave you to fly Air Congo round the world when the Democratic Republic of the Congo provides local pilots and locally manufactured planes – unless the Chinese have taken over by then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Thank you for replying!

    I should clarify my thinking. The problems that are now emerging in Sub-Saharan Africa are so extremely severe that there will be no choice but to apply genetic enhancement to increase IQ.
    One can select numerous examples of what has happened there with national IQs in the 70s or less.
    Consider the Rwandan genocide, the near total social collapse currently occurring in Zimbabwe, the financial withdrawal of international AIDs support when Uganda moved to criminalize homosexuality among many others. My suggestion is that genetic enhancement will need to be inevitably applied there because life has become so dysfunctional. Yet, in Western nations it is not as clear whether Iq enhancement will be embraced. A few years ago an International conference in Washington endorsed a global moratorium on gene editing. For many in Western nations increasing IQ might not seem worth the trouble.

    In fact, relative differences could greatly intensify as infotech and genotech continue to advance in the developed world versus the developing world. The developed world is likely approaching a time in which there are no car accidents, no mass violence, ... while if anything the conditions in SSA appear to be deteriorating. The incentive to enhance IQ might be marginal.

    Hopefully, it will soon be acknowledged that a problem exists in the developing world and existing technology will be applied to address this problem. Once the technology is rolled out, a large amount of momentum will develop to continue to apply it. Each generation would be 1 SD more intelligent than the last for several generations. It will be a remarkable transformation watching the entire planet undergo an IQ uplift.

    This is without question the most fascinating time in all of human history. It is currently recognized that in the past when human IQ increased by perhaps 1 IQ point over a thousand year period that humans developed new behaviors (such as living in cities etc.). Increasing IQ by 1 point per year for the few centuries will have a dramatic effect on human potential.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @nickels
    "To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/

    Race realism may be one thing, but hanging on to the patently absurd theory of Darwinism is truly groupthink mental suicide.

    Basically put, natural selection cannot act until something exists and provides a benefit. This means every useful organ, biological structure, etc..., had to randomly mutate into existence from a system that takes 2 b years to flip 5 letters.
    And lets not even get started on something like the cell-more complex than any existing human made machine-randomly occurred.

    Stunning how this Whig mind disease continues to thrive in the petri dish of daddy issue, 'I wanna be an atheist', modernity.

    I have read the link you provide and have an idea of just why it doesn’t support your view. The key seems to lie in the fact that they had not only starting conditions for running their computer simulations but “targeted” conditions that counted as success when achieved. If you define success narrowly by deriving definitions from what you know works (or arbitrarily for that matter) you are excluding the vast range of outcomes from myriad iterations that might succeed in providing organisms with photosensitivity or whatever.

    I would hope that some appropriately qualified scientist or mathematician might comment on this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    I would hope that some appropriately qualified scientist or mathematician might comment on this.
     
    Urk. You are being too kind to the puir laddie. It never fails to amaze me how people can convince themselves that what does exist, cannot exist. Always seems to be based on some variation on the assertion that God wouldn't let that happen.
    , @nickels
    Its actually even much worse than all this.
    Creating, say, an arm, is actually not the product of some short genetic sequence.
    To produce an arm, you need to alter the early formation sequence of the organism. But altering the genes within the early embryo stage therefore cause alterations in the entire gene sequence that codes event following.
    So, to add some new organ, you basically need to rewrite the entire genetic sequence.
    And, remember, the crucial point is that all sequences between the starting configuration and the target configuration of a working arm, say, are deadly. They organism is a blob of bloody useless tissues, a virtual horror show.
    So, somehow, you have to have a random mutation that changes the entire genetic code, all at once, and then, WOW, the natural miracle of natural selection can take over.

    The theory of evolution is so absurd that it boggles the imagination.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Wizard of Oz
    Don't you know that God has a sense of humour? That's just one of the things that we can infer from "made in his image". We also know that he couldn't have stopped with the fun of just one universe. It would be really addictive to set off all those Big Bangs and Inflations so we can be sure that there are trillions of multiverses unless some have ended for recycling.

    It would be really addictive to set off all those Big Bangs and Inflations so we can be sure that there are trillions of multiverses unless some have ended for recycling.

    Ja. An infinite number of universes in an eternity of time. Perfectly consistent, as well as an infinity of Gods that rule the infinity of universes.

    After all, what the hell do WE know for sure? Not a damn thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Wizard of Oz
    As usual your brevity doesn't join up with accuracy. "Tossing credentials about"? Loose jabber.

    Actually I wondered in an idle moment whether someone like Muliegino1 on UR threads, who can be quite wordy but clearly neither well educated in any usual sense of the words, nor very intelligent, just might be jolted on to a more cerebral track. 1 per cent chance maybe?

    Admitttedly I can't be bothered to read through all his rubbish every time but thought it enough to hit a bulls eye with his egregious nonsense that I started by deriding. Now a very good question for you to see whether your opinion on evolution and related matters would be worth a row of beans: do you deny that it is egregious nonsense to write of Darwinism's "naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress"? Come clean.

    Actually I wondered in an idle moment whether someone like Muliegino1 on UR threads, who can be quite wordy but clearly neither well educated in any usual sense of the words, nor very intelligent, just might be jolted on to a more cerebral track. 1 per cent chance maybe?

    No chance at all, short of an accident with electricity, which has a vanishingly small potential for converting the stupid into the intelligent.

    Really, they stay stupid. I’ve seen the form of stupidity change, even (miraculously) from mean stupid to kind stupid. But, always stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Do you think that inert matter organizes itself? Do you not understand the absolute stochastic impossibility of abiogenesis or of the random development of a single strand of DNA?

    Have you deluded yourself into believing that the God or the Supreme Being as conceived by the great religious traditions is an anthropomorphic bearded man sitting in the clouds hurling bolts of lightning? You do understand the difference between religious iconography and theology, right?

    Those who are profoundly ignorant, such as yourself, evince their own lack of knowledge by deflecting it upon others with whom they disagree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Wizard of Oz
    I have read the link you provide and have an idea of just why it doesn't support your view. The key seems to lie in the fact that they had not only starting conditions for running their computer simulations but "targeted" conditions that counted as success when achieved. If you define success narrowly by deriving definitions from what you know works (or arbitrarily for that matter) you are excluding the vast range of outcomes from myriad iterations that might succeed in providing organisms with photosensitivity or whatever.

    I would hope that some appropriately qualified scientist or mathematician might comment on this.

    I would hope that some appropriately qualified scientist or mathematician might comment on this.

    Urk. You are being too kind to the puir laddie. It never fails to amaze me how people can convince themselves that what does exist, cannot exist. Always seems to be based on some variation on the assertion that God wouldn’t let that happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @anonymous
    God created the perfect design for each.

    But did he create each at the same time or at different times? Do old Earth/young Earth creationists see eye to eye on these questions?

    What always seemed strange to me is how God could create different animals in whichever epoch that he wanted to, but instead of having a little fun with it and mixing it up a bit, he decides to just place every single species in the EXACT periods that you would expect to find them if they had evolved. I mean, he could've tossed pandas (and bamboo) in with T.rex in the late cretaceous, orcas and megalodons into the oceans of the late Jurassic, gorgonopsids in late pleistocene N. America, anglerfish in the Silurian, pteranodons in the devonian (these things mostly just ate fish anyway), dimetrodons in the carboniferous, etc.. Just think of how neat (and convenient) it would have been if Jesus had been able to give his sermons while riding around on a pet Triceratops. Pretty fucking cool, if you ask me. We could've got some kind of crazy ass looking plant-animal hybrid too. But nope. For every single organism, it's the same old boring family tree-like structure. Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis....

    It's almost as if God sticks with one species in a chain of morphologically similar species for a very long time, and then once in a great while, he suddenly decides that he wants to make a very minor upgrade to it, and then he "poofs" the slightly upgraded new species into existence. In the end, it only takes him 3+ billion years to finally get around to creating the one species that will be made in his image (which will also be made in the image of other hominids, for some reason)....

    It’s almost as if God sticks with one species in a chain of morphologically similar species for a very long time, and then once in a great while, he suddenly decides that he wants to make a very minor upgrade to it, and then he “poofs” the slightly upgraded new species into existence.

    Ja. God seems absent-minded at times, doesn’t he? He’s really old, so this might be expected. He should give some thought to shaving that beard and using a bit of Grecian Formula. There’s other Gods looking for full-time employment who don’t have their own universe to rule, ya know. Gotta stay sharp if you’re gonna succeed in the God-business.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @EliteCommInc.
    No.

    Galileo got into trouble because he suggested that the Pope was a dunce. Not because he claimed that the Sun was the center of the universe.

    Galileo got into trouble because he suggested that the Pope was a dunce.

    So nothing has really changed in 500 years, has it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @anonymous
    nothing about evolutionary theory defeats the existence of God.

    I would never claim it does. The fact of the matter is either evolution is a thing or it isn't. Either it can explain natural phenomena or it can't. I'm waiting every day for evidence that disproves it. I have no dog in this fight.

    I've noticed IDers/creationist like to cleverly/slyly avoid revealing which flavor of ID they believe in, or avoid specifying what it is about the theory of speciation by natural selection that they disagree with, probably to avoid any constructive criticism of their most cherished beliefs that might otherwise come their way as a result. Fine, whatever. I'm not all that interested in being antagonistic towards anyone's belief system.

    I get that IDers believe in something that transcends material and mechanistic processes. All I'm asking for is what, in theory, this may look like once it crosses into the realm of observable phenomenon. That's it! Just a plausible explanation for how this may manifest in observable reality. In return, I get idiots like idasein bragging about how much philosophy literature he's read and how he could easily prove evolution wrong (any day now, I'm sure).

    I’ve noticed IDers/creationist like to cleverly/slyly avoid revealing which flavor of ID they believe in, or avoid specifying what it is about the theory of speciation by natural selection that they disagree with, probably to avoid any constructive criticism of their most cherished beliefs that might otherwise come their way as a result. Fine, whatever. I’m not all that interested in being antagonistic towards anyone’s belief system.

    It’s called lying by omission. Just remember, they’re really lying to themselves, not just you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    As usual your brevity doesn't join up with accuracy. "Tossing credentials about"? Loose jabber.

    Actually I wondered in an idle moment whether someone like Muliegino1 on UR threads, who can be quite wordy but clearly neither well educated in any usual sense of the words, nor very intelligent, just might be jolted on to a more cerebral track. 1 per cent chance maybe?

    Admitttedly I can't be bothered to read through all his rubbish every time but thought it enough to hit a bulls eye with his egregious nonsense that I started by deriding. Now a very good question for you to see whether your opinion on evolution and related matters would be worth a row of beans: do you deny that it is egregious nonsense to write of Darwinism's "naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress"? Come clean.

    I have known many, many people with “degrees from good universities” who do not know what century the First World War occurred in, have never heard of Charles Darwin or John Clerk Maxwell, did not know who Josef Stalin, or Martin Luther were, and have never listened to a single composition by J.S. Bach. To these people, Tesla is merely an automaker. These days a “degree from a good university” can equate to nothing more for its possessor than a lifetime of paying off student loan debts at interest and chronic unemployment.

    It appears to me, as Beefcake pointed out, that you are a credentialist, which is so typical of your tribe. As far as the “Ivies” are concerned, most of them, such as Harvard, were founded as Bible colleges by the same sort of devoutly religious believers so despised here that the apostles of dogmatic atheism and materialist positivism found here so despise. Could you tell me what Harvard’s original curriculum and requirements were?

    Having deviated from their founders’ purposes, the “Ivies” serve nowadays the purpose that Oxford and Cambridge served in the Victorian age- the molding of the managerial class of the Empire, in this case the Atlanticist-Zionist Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Regrettably you don't surprise me. Your points are consistent with my assessment of you. At least you have the sense not to lie about yourself. Maybe decency too aided by your Bible college education.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. nickels says:
    @anonymous
    God created the perfect design for each.

    But did he create each at the same time or at different times? Do old Earth/young Earth creationists see eye to eye on these questions?

    What always seemed strange to me is how God could create different animals in whichever epoch that he wanted to, but instead of having a little fun with it and mixing it up a bit, he decides to just place every single species in the EXACT periods that you would expect to find them if they had evolved. I mean, he could've tossed pandas (and bamboo) in with T.rex in the late cretaceous, orcas and megalodons into the oceans of the late Jurassic, gorgonopsids in late pleistocene N. America, anglerfish in the Silurian, pteranodons in the devonian (these things mostly just ate fish anyway), dimetrodons in the carboniferous, etc.. Just think of how neat (and convenient) it would have been if Jesus had been able to give his sermons while riding around on a pet Triceratops. Pretty fucking cool, if you ask me. We could've got some kind of crazy ass looking plant-animal hybrid too. But nope. For every single organism, it's the same old boring family tree-like structure. Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis....

    It's almost as if God sticks with one species in a chain of morphologically similar species for a very long time, and then once in a great while, he suddenly decides that he wants to make a very minor upgrade to it, and then he "poofs" the slightly upgraded new species into existence. In the end, it only takes him 3+ billion years to finally get around to creating the one species that will be made in his image (which will also be made in the image of other hominids, for some reason)....

    he decides to just place every single species in the EXACT periods that you would expect to find them if they had evolved.

    You do realize that Lyell and Darwin were in a circular loop? The dating of Lyell was based on the when they thought certain fossils should exist, and the theory of evolution was supported by the dating of Lyell.

    It was a sort of Circle J.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Mark Presco
    You mentioned the fall. Do you believe that your God is going to cast all who are not saved by Jesus into a lake of fire and cause them to suffer the horrors of being burnt alive, every second of their existence for eternity? Isn’t this the vast majority of the human race? You worship an evil God.

    Genesis 3:17

    To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

    "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”


    Revelation 20:10
    And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

    Matthew 25:41
    Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

    However, Billy Graham is an acknowledged authority on the Evangelical concept of Hell. The following is an excerpt from one of his sermons:

    You say, "Well, what kind of a place is hell?" I'm going to read to you right out of the Bible what kind of place it is. This is where some of you are going to spend billions and billions of years. You'd better listen. This is God's Word.

    Revelation 20:15 says it's a lake of fire. Psalm 11:6 says it's a horrible tempest. Psalm 18:5 says it's a place of sorrows. Matthew 13:42 says it's a place of wailing, a furnace of fire. Luke 16:23 says it's a place of torments. Matthew 8:12 says it's a place of outer darkness. Revelation 14:11 says it's a place of unrest. Luke 16:24 says it's a place where people scream for mercy. Matthew 25:46 says it's a place of everlasting punishment.

    That is God's description-not mine. And God says that all people outside of Jesus Christ are headed to that place unless they repent of their sins and turn by faith to Jesus Christ.

    That is God’s description-not mine. And God says that all people outside of Jesus Christ are headed to that place unless they repent of their sins and turn by faith to Jesus Christ.

    No. That description was written by mortal man using quills on papyrus or some other such early writing system. Just as the fables surrounding the Greek gods were written. Just as the fables surrounding the Norse gods were written. Just as J K Rowling wrote the fables of Hogwarts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Presco
    Sorry if I was't clear, that's a quote from Bill Graham.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. nickels says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I have read the link you provide and have an idea of just why it doesn't support your view. The key seems to lie in the fact that they had not only starting conditions for running their computer simulations but "targeted" conditions that counted as success when achieved. If you define success narrowly by deriving definitions from what you know works (or arbitrarily for that matter) you are excluding the vast range of outcomes from myriad iterations that might succeed in providing organisms with photosensitivity or whatever.

    I would hope that some appropriately qualified scientist or mathematician might comment on this.

    Its actually even much worse than all this.
    Creating, say, an arm, is actually not the product of some short genetic sequence.
    To produce an arm, you need to alter the early formation sequence of the organism. But altering the genes within the early embryo stage therefore cause alterations in the entire gene sequence that codes event following.
    So, to add some new organ, you basically need to rewrite the entire genetic sequence.
    And, remember, the crucial point is that all sequences between the starting configuration and the target configuration of a working arm, say, are deadly. They organism is a blob of bloody useless tissues, a virtual horror show.
    So, somehow, you have to have a random mutation that changes the entire genetic code, all at once, and then, WOW, the natural miracle of natural selection can take over.

    The theory of evolution is so absurd that it boggles the imagination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    The theory of evolution is so absurd that it boggles the imagination.

     

    It doesn’t boggle the imagination of free-thinking humans superior to you in intellect.

    It is very telling that evolution boggles your mind but the idea that God will torture his own creation for all eternity makes complete sense. Face it: you have been brainwashed by morally and rationally indefensible bull crap.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Mulegino1 says:
    @manorchurch

    Actually I wondered in an idle moment whether someone like Muliegino1 on UR threads, who can be quite wordy but clearly neither well educated in any usual sense of the words, nor very intelligent, just might be jolted on to a more cerebral track. 1 per cent chance maybe?
     
    No chance at all, short of an accident with electricity, which has a vanishingly small potential for converting the stupid into the intelligent.

    Really, they stay stupid. I've seen the form of stupidity change, even (miraculously) from mean stupid to kind stupid. But, always stupid.

    Do you think that inert matter organizes itself? Do you not understand the absolute stochastic impossibility of abiogenesis or of the random development of a single strand of DNA?

    Have you deluded yourself into believing that the God or the Supreme Being as conceived by the great religious traditions is an anthropomorphic bearded man sitting in the clouds hurling bolts of lightning? You do understand the difference between religious iconography and theology, right?

    Those who are profoundly ignorant, such as yourself, evince their own lack of knowledge by deflecting it upon others with whom they disagree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Mulegino1
    I have known many, many people with "degrees from good universities" who do not know what century the First World War occurred in, have never heard of Charles Darwin or John Clerk Maxwell, did not know who Josef Stalin, or Martin Luther were, and have never listened to a single composition by J.S. Bach. To these people, Tesla is merely an automaker. These days a "degree from a good university" can equate to nothing more for its possessor than a lifetime of paying off student loan debts at interest and chronic unemployment.

    It appears to me, as Beefcake pointed out, that you are a credentialist, which is so typical of your tribe. As far as the "Ivies" are concerned, most of them, such as Harvard, were founded as Bible colleges by the same sort of devoutly religious believers so despised here that the apostles of dogmatic atheism and materialist positivism found here so despise. Could you tell me what Harvard's original curriculum and requirements were?

    Having deviated from their founders' purposes, the "Ivies" serve nowadays the purpose that Oxford and Cambridge served in the Victorian age- the molding of the managerial class of the Empire, in this case the Atlanticist-Zionist Empire.

    Regrettably you don’t surprise me. Your points are consistent with my assessment of you. At least you have the sense not to lie about yourself. Maybe decency too aided by your Bible college education.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    On the contrary, Beefcake's estimation of you is spot on, which you further evince by assuming that, since I pointed out a well known historical fact, namely that Harvard was founded as a Divinity School/Bible College, that I attended Bible college myself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @nickels
    We Orthodox believe that everyone will eventually participate in the light of God.
    To some that will be an unbearable scorching light, i.e. the burning flames of hell. To the saved it will be some sort of profound completion, paradise.

    I personally believe this relates to our free will in the same way as our understanding of his creation, the world. Some see the beautiful architecture and the wonder-others deny that and insist it must be random, and that life, therefore is totally meaningless, as we are just electrons bound to disintegrate one say. But that is only a personal interpretation, not dogma.

    Our God is glorious, loving and terrifying all at once. Too many people thing our God is a hippie-that is not at all the case.
    God wants those who make the cut, not slackers.

    To the saved it will be some sort of profound completion, paradise.

    God wants those who make the cut, not slackers.

    I read long ago that this is one facet that drew people to Christianity. The elitist attitude that only chosen few would sit beside their King in court and haughtily look down their noses at the lesser souls writhing in hell.

    To some that will be an unbearable scorching light, i.e. the burning flames of hell.

    Let me reiterate that it will be the vast majority since most are not Christians, plus those that don’t make the cut. It would not surprise me to learn that you believe your Orthodox sect is the one true religion, and therefore the only ones to qualify.

    I personally believe this relates to our free will in the same way as our understanding of his creation, the world.

    What about the children who are raised in, say, Hindu countries. Their free will is impeded. If God holds us to such high standards, He needs to hold himself to higher standards and do more to get his word out if He punishes us for breaking His laws.

    His deafening silence is evidence to me that your God doesn’t exist. If He does exist, I consider the God you describe to me as pure evil. I don’ believe it. This is why I left the Catholic church long ago and never looked back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    It sounds like you have a lot to learn about Christianity.
    I suggest going to an Orthodox church or Catholic church.

    Often when we are younger we completely miss the message. You should go back now that you have all these questions in your mind.

    Your questions are easily addressed and easily answered, they are very common basic questions that a priest can help with.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Darwinism's "naive belief in the myth of endless linear progress"!!!!

    Where did you get such total and utter rubbish from? Yes I ask where you have gone for your unfortunate self education. Has it occurred to you to ask why a person (with few exceptions) with even a modest degree from a good university doesn't share your reading list? Actually you wouldn't know but your first step ought to be to find out what mainstream scholarship says before you go loop-the-loop with loons. Try some good online study at one of the Ivies.

    The myth of progress in the evolution of Science
    Manuel Alfonseca

    “The theory of Indefinite Progress appeared during the eighteen century. It is the inverse of the medieval idea, and affirms that the future is always superior to the present. Abbé St. Pierre (1658-1753), Turgot (1727-1781) and Condorcet (1743-1794) may be considered its fathers. Condorcet divided History into ten successive steps. The tenth (ours) is the age of science, rationalism and revolution, and will open the way to an age of prosperity, tolerance and illustration (Utopia is always just around the corner).”
    “The theory of Indefinite Progress gained general acceptance during the nineteenth century. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) proposed a different succession of steps, the last being the age of science and industry. As always, back turns are forbidden. Our arrival to the scientific era is final.
    The discovery of evolution in the nineteenth century gave new expression to the principle of Indefinite Progress, which came to be redefined in biological terms: Biological evolution is a process towards more and more complexity. Comte’s ideas blended with Darwin’s in the work of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) and Karl Marx (1919-1903), who assert that social evolution is automatic and unavoidable. As those before him, Marx divided History in several successive and progressive eras (tribalism, slavism, feudalism, capitalism and socialism). The coming of the latter would be unavoidable through the dictatorship of the proletariat and a society without classes.”

    A pretty good summation, in my estimation, which also shows the affinity between Darwinism and Marxism, although on different levels. This is not to say that Darwin would agree with Marx’s inverted Hegelianism – which replaced Absolute Spirit as the driver of the dialectics of history with Feurbach’s materialism, but the theories are hardly contradictory and run parallel to one another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Dear boy when you next bring an essay to our tutorial I want it to be your own work and I want any quotes to be relevant to the assigned subject matter. The subject I remind you was the proposition you uttered last week that produced such derision in your fellow students here and that I invited you to justify, namely that Darwinism involved a "naive faith in the myth of endless linear progress".

    Frankly I am at a loss to understand what relevance your extended quote has to that unless you think you are managing a glancing blow on progress by mentioning complexity, which might I suppose be given a nod for idiosyncrasy.

    You could have benefited from first looking up a good dictionary definition of "linear" which so far you appear to have treated as a piece of decoration. Anyway rewrite for next time and leave your essay with me the night before. I don't think we will inflict it further on these chaps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Regrettably you don't surprise me. Your points are consistent with my assessment of you. At least you have the sense not to lie about yourself. Maybe decency too aided by your Bible college education.

    On the contrary, Beefcake’s estimation of you is spot on, which you further evince by assuming that, since I pointed out a well known historical fact, namely that Harvard was founded as a Divinity School/Bible College, that I attended Bible college myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    No you dim fellow, true to my assessment, your "assuming" that you attribute to me shows that you did not recognise a pretty obvious jibe or provocation. (The word or concept you wanted was, anyway, not "assumption" but "inference" - though also wrong in fact).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @HallParvey

    That is God’s description-not mine. And God says that all people outside of Jesus Christ are headed to that place unless they repent of their sins and turn by faith to Jesus Christ.
     
    No. That description was written by mortal man using quills on papyrus or some other such early writing system. Just as the fables surrounding the Greek gods were written. Just as the fables surrounding the Norse gods were written. Just as J K Rowling wrote the fables of Hogwarts.

    Sorry if I was’t clear, that’s a quote from Bill Graham.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. nickels says:
    @Mark Presco

    To the saved it will be some sort of profound completion, paradise.
     

    God wants those who make the cut, not slackers.
     
    I read long ago that this is one facet that drew people to Christianity. The elitist attitude that only chosen few would sit beside their King in court and haughtily look down their noses at the lesser souls writhing in hell.

    To some that will be an unbearable scorching light, i.e. the burning flames of hell.

     

    Let me reiterate that it will be the vast majority since most are not Christians, plus those that don’t make the cut. It would not surprise me to learn that you believe your Orthodox sect is the one true religion, and therefore the only ones to qualify.

    I personally believe this relates to our free will in the same way as our understanding of his creation, the world.
     
    What about the children who are raised in, say, Hindu countries. Their free will is impeded. If God holds us to such high standards, He needs to hold himself to higher standards and do more to get his word out if He punishes us for breaking His laws.

    His deafening silence is evidence to me that your God doesn’t exist. If He does exist, I consider the God you describe to me as pure evil. I don’ believe it. This is why I left the Catholic church long ago and never looked back.

    It sounds like you have a lot to learn about Christianity.
    I suggest going to an Orthodox church or Catholic church.

    Often when we are younger we completely miss the message. You should go back now that you have all these questions in your mind.

    Your questions are easily addressed and easily answered, they are very common basic questions that a priest can help with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Factorize says:
    @Anon
    I'll leave you to fly Air Congo round the world when the Democratic Republic of the Congo provides local pilots and locally manufactured planes - unless the Chinese have taken over by then.

    Thank you for replying!

    I should clarify my thinking. The problems that are now emerging in Sub-Saharan Africa are so extremely severe that there will be no choice but to apply genetic enhancement to increase IQ.
    One can select numerous examples of what has happened there with national IQs in the 70s or less.
    Consider the Rwandan genocide, the near total social collapse currently occurring in Zimbabwe, the financial withdrawal of international AIDs support when Uganda moved to criminalize homosexuality among many others. My suggestion is that genetic enhancement will need to be inevitably applied there because life has become so dysfunctional. Yet, in Western nations it is not as clear whether Iq enhancement will be embraced. A few years ago an International conference in Washington endorsed a global moratorium on gene editing. For many in Western nations increasing IQ might not seem worth the trouble.

    In fact, relative differences could greatly intensify as infotech and genotech continue to advance in the developed world versus the developing world. The developed world is likely approaching a time in which there are no car accidents, no mass violence, … while if anything the conditions in SSA appear to be deteriorating. The incentive to enhance IQ might be marginal.

    Hopefully, it will soon be acknowledged that a problem exists in the developing world and existing technology will be applied to address this problem. Once the technology is rolled out, a large amount of momentum will develop to continue to apply it. Each generation would be 1 SD more intelligent than the last for several generations. It will be a remarkable transformation watching the entire planet undergo an IQ uplift.

    This is without question the most fascinating time in all of human history. It is currently recognized that in the past when human IQ increased by perhaps 1 IQ point over a thousand year period that humans developed new behaviors (such as living in cities etc.). Increasing IQ by 1 point per year for the few centuries will have a dramatic effect on human potential.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Anyone who believes that reproduction favors intelligence obviously hasn’t attended high school.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  204. Bliss says:
    @nickels
    Its actually even much worse than all this.
    Creating, say, an arm, is actually not the product of some short genetic sequence.
    To produce an arm, you need to alter the early formation sequence of the organism. But altering the genes within the early embryo stage therefore cause alterations in the entire gene sequence that codes event following.
    So, to add some new organ, you basically need to rewrite the entire genetic sequence.
    And, remember, the crucial point is that all sequences between the starting configuration and the target configuration of a working arm, say, are deadly. They organism is a blob of bloody useless tissues, a virtual horror show.
    So, somehow, you have to have a random mutation that changes the entire genetic code, all at once, and then, WOW, the natural miracle of natural selection can take over.

    The theory of evolution is so absurd that it boggles the imagination.

    The theory of evolution is so absurd that it boggles the imagination.

    It doesn’t boggle the imagination of free-thinking humans superior to you in intellect.

    It is very telling that evolution boggles your mind but the idea that God will torture his own creation for all eternity makes complete sense. Face it: you have been brainwashed by morally and rationally indefensible bull crap.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Bliss says:
    @Mulegino1
    Of course the model "does not require" transitional forms because there are not any viable transitional forms between types, so the transformists come up with all kinds of specious theories to explain away the lack thereof, such as "hopeful monsters." Mutations - when major- are invariably harmful to an organism. The experiment conducted by radiating the drosophilia over thousands of their generations showed no favorable mutations, merely monstrosities and deformations, along with the inevitable reversion to type, which occurs in all instances of controlled breeding, whether it is fruit flies, sheep or dogs.

    The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of complex organisms. There are no gradual transitions from type to type. Darwin was correct in a micro-evolutionary sense of variation within species due to many factors, environmental or otherwise, but totally wrong about "the origin of species" if by species we mean type. As a matter of fact, Darwin's theories were based upon gross misunderstandings of the origins of life, and the Lamarckian theory of the inheritance of non-genetic acquired characteristics. His ideas about the race of bears becoming baleen whales is particularly laughable, and puts any medieval hagiographer to shame with respect to fantasy and credulity.

    You are simply a materialist bigot who is completely unable to grasp the concept of vertical causality.

    Attempting to argue with an individual who uses a childish phrase like "I do not discuss with stupids" is an exercise in futility.

    The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of complex organisms. There are no gradual transitions from type to type. Darwin was correct in a micro-evolutionary sense of variation within species due to many factors, environmental or otherwise, but totally wrong about “the origin of species” if by species we mean type.

    Wrong. The fossil record shows that simple organisms preceded the complex organisms. There is no evidence in all the observed universe of complex structures arising “suddenly” out of nothing.

    You accept evolution within a species since it is an observable, proven fact. So you accept that evolution is a fact of nature. But your attachment to a primitive religious superstition prevents you from seeing how this fact of nature also explains the origin of species.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    The fossil record is a big problem for Darwinism, as Darwin himself recognized. That’s why people like Gould concocted his “punctuated equilibrium” theory, which really has nothing to do with equilibrium but is a deus ex machina meant to rationalize the known gaps in the fossil record.
    , @Mulegino1
    Ascending degrees of complexity over time does not prove transformism since it only proves that more complex forms of life appeared subsequent to more primitive forms. How does this evince commonality of ancestry or descent with modification? The difference between the types- single celled organisms, crustaceans, fish, amphibians, mammals, etc. is enormous and requires genetic and morphological changes so vast that their unlikelihood of having occurred randomly cannot be explained away by invoking a series of fortuitous mutations and natural selection and "millions and millions of years" as the Darwinians do. The latter simply ascribe to something called blind "nature" a kind of godlike power of overcoming overwhelming odds due to...what? "Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are simply tautologies. Mutations are almost always harmful. To expect something which in nature which is almost always harmful to act as a providential force for improvement in a species or type is really beggaring the imagination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Bliss says:
    @Mulegino1
    Your metaphysics are quite amateurish. God does not require a creator as He is the Supreme Being, the source of all subordinate beings, the author and ground of the causal order and, is eternal and self-subsistent. Being eternal, infinite and pure spirit, He is not circumscribed by time or space. He is the Author of time - the principle of contingency and change, the relationship between agent and patient, and space, the ground for the interaction of subordinate beings within the world of contingency and corporal beings. Space and time are themselves the ground for the causal order in the physical world. This casual order was created by God, who is not subject to it. With God there is no before or after.

    Darwinists, transformists, or whatever they choose to call themselves are the ones who are obsessed with God, or rather, with excluding any thought of vertical, non- mechanistic based causality from their pitiful universe since it tends to upset their own rather limited- anachronistic world view based upon long discredited notions of a purely material and mechanistic universe. They want to abolish formal and final causality- which is certainly and absolutely operative in nature - keeping only the efficient and material causes. Like the proverbial goldfish in a bowl, their world is matter. How they can even speak of things like "Natural selection" with a straight face- one wonders what god of matter is doing the selecting- is beyond me.

    He is the Supreme Being, the source of all subordinate beings, the author and ground of the causal order and, is eternal and self-subsistent. Being eternal, infinite and pure spirit, He is not circumscribed by time or space.

    Nice. But how do you manage to reconcile such a transcendent God with your primitive belief that God got angry and needed a blood sacrifice to appease Him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Nice. But how do you manage to reconcile such a transcendent God with your primitive belief that God got angry and needed a blood sacrifice to appease Him?
     
    These dimwits are stupid and sure of it, Bliss. Just point and laugh. There is no fixing stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. It doesn’t boggle the imagination of free-thinking humans superior to you in intellect.

    Oh, please. If Dunning-Kruger were an ice cream flavor, it’d be pralines and you. You are nothing but the fart-gas of an (ahem) intellectual tradition that has digested its last triumph.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  208. Basically, humanity has different breeds. The word “race” is problematic.

    In the dog and cat world, it’s easy to see that the different breeds have different characteristics, including physical characteristics, dispositions, different intelligence/learning aptitudes.

    The fact that different breeds of humans have different intelligence characteristics, among other differences, is about as obvious as pointing to the sun as a source of heat and light and simply affirming that fact.

    When one breed or group of relatively closely related breeds ( generally isolated for thousands of years from another very distinct breed or grouping of relatively closely related breeds) left to its own devices comes up with things like wheeled transportation, multi-story architecture, advanced metallurgy, complex plumbing, highly productive agriculture, motorized transportation, flying machines, electric lights, railroads and so on, while (during the same period) another distinct breed grouping left to their own devices for thousands of years never gets beyond mud huts, sharp sticks and dancing naked around a campfire, it just seems like racial differences in intelligence is a better explanation than “evil white men are always trying to keep everyone else down” (which explanation itself is a blatantly racist formula).

    Transposing the leftist arguments about universal equality to the realm of highly paid professional basketball careers is always good for a laugh too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Yap, I am not sure whether I would now agree with the conception of "breeds of humans".
    (I declare my perspective that we are now rapidly approaching a time in which a large scale IQ upgrade will occur across all human populations.)

    The breeds of human idea seems to me to be based on the idea that there are specific genetic features that are uniquely present in some populations and not others. I do not believe this is currently scientifically supported. The genetic architecture of human intelligence is constructed through many many variants almost all of which have very small effect sizes and are mostly common. Notably, due to this polygenic architecture, it is expected that "different breeds of humans" will not actually be "true breeding".

    The entire elitist perspective has been largely discredited. All human populations will be able to greatly increase their IQs well past what is currently observed by simply embryo selecting. When the use of this technology becomes common, the most noticeable "breed" of human will not be defined by race or ancestral origin but date of birth. It seems highly likely that over the next few decades all existing humans will be regarded as being developmentally disabled.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Bliss

    The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of complex organisms. There are no gradual transitions from type to type. Darwin was correct in a micro-evolutionary sense of variation within species due to many factors, environmental or otherwise, but totally wrong about “the origin of species” if by species we mean type.
     
    Wrong. The fossil record shows that simple organisms preceded the complex organisms. There is no evidence in all the observed universe of complex structures arising “suddenly” out of nothing.

    You accept evolution within a species since it is an observable, proven fact. So you accept that evolution is a fact of nature. But your attachment to a primitive religious superstition prevents you from seeing how this fact of nature also explains the origin of species.

    The fossil record is a big problem for Darwinism, as Darwin himself recognized. That’s why people like Gould concocted his “punctuated equilibrium” theory, which really has nothing to do with equilibrium but is a deus ex machina meant to rationalize the known gaps in the fossil record.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    The fossil record is a big problem for Darwinism, as Darwin himself recognized.
     
    [Explosive, hilarious laughter!] You are an idiot! The fossil record is direct, incontrovertible evidence of Darwinian process, not theory -- setting "gradualism" aside. Darwin's theory is not modern evolutionary theory, any more than Galileo's discoveries are the current state of astrophysics.

    It also directly contradicts religious bullshit along the lines of full Creation occurring 6000 years ago. That's you wacko's real beef, isn't it?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    It might be relevant to consider what is likely to have happened on the way to evolution of descendant creatures that can be classified as separate species.

    Presumably a large population is severely pruned by some environmental challenge and only a few of them, mostly with valuable mutant alleles, reproduce. Compare the survival of a few resistant bacteria after antibiotics have destroyed nearly all. It stands to reason that fossils are typically small fractional representatives of their generation so that it will not be until evolution has settled on a survivor for the medium to long term that the evolved creature will be so abundant as to be likely to be represented in fossils today. Anything wrong with that in fact or logic?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Bliss

    He is the Supreme Being, the source of all subordinate beings, the author and ground of the causal order and, is eternal and self-subsistent. Being eternal, infinite and pure spirit, He is not circumscribed by time or space.
     
    Nice. But how do you manage to reconcile such a transcendent God with your primitive belief that God got angry and needed a blood sacrifice to appease Him?

    Nice. But how do you manage to reconcile such a transcendent God with your primitive belief that God got angry and needed a blood sacrifice to appease Him?

    These dimwits are stupid and sure of it, Bliss. Just point and laugh. There is no fixing stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @Beefcake the Mighty
    The fossil record is a big problem for Darwinism, as Darwin himself recognized. That’s why people like Gould concocted his “punctuated equilibrium” theory, which really has nothing to do with equilibrium but is a deus ex machina meant to rationalize the known gaps in the fossil record.

    The fossil record is a big problem for Darwinism, as Darwin himself recognized.

    [Explosive, hilarious laughter!] You are an idiot! The fossil record is direct, incontrovertible evidence of Darwinian process, not theory — setting “gradualism” aside. Darwin’s theory is not modern evolutionary theory, any more than Galileo’s discoveries are the current state of astrophysics.

    It also directly contradicts religious bullshit along the lines of full Creation occurring 6000 years ago. That’s you wacko’s real beef, isn’t it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Sbaker says:
    @Mark Presco
    Thanks for getting this thread back on topic. You cannot prove one single thing you wrote. You have no evidence whatever. It is all fabricated nonsense. You believe it simply because you want to believe it.

    This is Lance Welton’s point. The belief that there is no difference between the races despite mountains of evidence to contrary, is as irrational as your belief in a magical being. The capacity for human self delusion is astounding.

    The new religion of Antiracism is eclipsing Christianity and will result in the destruction of Western Civilization if not stopped.

    Mark, and you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Sbaker says:
    @Mark Presco
    Gee guys, great comebacks, maybe if you could come up with cogent arguments I might take you seriously.

    Everything I said about the evolution of the universe is current valid scientific theory based on the big bang. This is the best evidence we have. If you can’t accept scientific theory, you are hopeless. If you need to hear it from an actual physicist start at 4:15

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gq1cv

    Everything I said about the evolution of DNA is current valid scientific theory, or Darwinism as you people utterly failed to discredit. See comment 46.

    My putting a God spin on it is a sincere effort to reconcile science, religion and philosophy, all of which have contributed so much to understanding our existence. It seems that you are incredibly close minded.

    But I do believe want I said. Science fiction is loaded with ideas about evolving to a higher plane of existence. Stargate SG1 and Atlantis are loaded with them. Or start here:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5v2nwu

    Mark, and you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.
     
    You seem to be asserting a belief that some system is "complex". I think you really mean that it seems complex to you. Like most people, you define "complex" as being anything you have difficulty understanding.
    , @Mark Presco
    I consider your omnipotent Creator to be the most complex thing imaginable. By definition he must be, in order to create his less complex creations. We can’t do what you claim your god does. Yet you accept that he doesn’t require a more complex creator. He spontaneously created himself, or always existed. You don’ know.

    The metaphysical basis for his existence is solely a product of the human mind. “There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this”.

    I provided a link to a documentary that contains a lot of empirical evidence that show how the universe evolved. Apparently you didn’t watch it or understand it. Please watch and try to understand it. There is mountains of empirical scientific evidence that show how the earth evolved. Your ignorance of this data is astounding.

    What I am proposing is that the mountains of scientific empirical evidence is showing that god is not what primitive minds thought he was. God began this creation not as a fully formed omnipotent being from the top down, but in his elementary form as the basic elementary particle from the bottom up. Because you cannot grasp the concept that god is capable of doing it this way doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

    I am not a fan of the proposition of the uncaused cause, but let’s start from there. Some people argue that the “big bang” is something out of nothing. There is a theory that before the “big bang” the god particles existed in a very small singularity outside of space/time. It may have always been there, as in the God theory. The “big bang” created space/time itself.

    Scientists downplay this theory, because it is as metaphysical as the god theory. And there are other such theories such as eternal inflation and the multiverse. But there is no empirical evidence for any of them, so the beginning must be simply that the universe exists as we know it.

    It gets worse, every time we think we find an answer, two more questions pop up. The universe keeps getting stranger and stranger.

    Every primitive human culture has had a creation theory that posits good spirits and evil spirits and that all things happen by the will of the gods. I’ve never seen a good spirit, I’ve never seen an evil spirit, I’ve never seen a god. Have you seen any of them? Were the Greeks and Romans right? They have all been proven wrong.

    What I have seen is mountains of empirical evidence that support scientific theories. Please educate yourself.

    I call this particle the god particle because it does indeed have the power to create. But it has no intelligence, no purpose. So why do I think it will evolve into the god we seek? There is a theory called the Omega Point. It posits that it draws us to divine unification.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

    I reject this because it implies purpose. I will make the same case with a little logic. We will continue to evolve until it’s not possible to evolve further. That point is perfection as defined by our universe. Perfection is God.

    Just to get you started:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEUq0mruDzo

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Sbaker says:
    @Mark Presco
    Gee guys, great comebacks, maybe if you could come up with cogent arguments I might take you seriously.

    Everything I said about the evolution of the universe is current valid scientific theory based on the big bang. This is the best evidence we have. If you can’t accept scientific theory, you are hopeless. If you need to hear it from an actual physicist start at 4:15

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gq1cv

    Everything I said about the evolution of DNA is current valid scientific theory, or Darwinism as you people utterly failed to discredit. See comment 46.

    My putting a God spin on it is a sincere effort to reconcile science, religion and philosophy, all of which have contributed so much to understanding our existence. It seems that you are incredibly close minded.

    But I do believe want I said. Science fiction is loaded with ideas about evolving to a higher plane of existence. Stargate SG1 and Atlantis are loaded with them. Or start here:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5v2nwu

    There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support the spontaneous generation of the earth, a near perfect habitat for the existence of complex life. Some humans, no animal species, are simply taken in by observing the beauty of what is around, and in us, that calls many of us to believe in God. We find this belief in God only in humans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support the spontaneous generation of the earth, a near perfect habitat for the existence of complex life.
     
    Nor is there evidence of creation. The known fact is that the universe (and the earth) exists. There is no evidence that the universe has NOT existed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Sbaker
    Mark, and you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.

    you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.

    You seem to be asserting a belief that some system is “complex”. I think you really mean that it seems complex to you. Like most people, you define “complex” as being anything you have difficulty understanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sbaker
    I've made a 3 decade career in the biosciences. Enlighten and tell me the depth of your understanding. Belief in God, is uniquely, a human endeavor. Nowhere in the kingdom of lower animals do we find the practice of a belief in a higher being. A highly developed cognitive state leads humans to evaluate the complexity of their world and ask; how did this perfection come to be? In other words, humans believe in God because of simple observation of a very complex world. As human observation methods advance, a yet greater complexity is discovered. Every complex system requires a plan by a designer. In the world created and modified by humans, we find a plan for every complex system from cars to computers. It should occur to those who study living systems, that those same systems of which we are but one, require a plan that had to come from somewhere. Spontaneous generation of complex systems is a far-fetched possibility, but requires only rudimentary thought processes. As a species, as we become more "sophisticated" and "knowledgeable" we tend to think we know the mind of God or that we don't need God or that we ARE God! All illusions..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @Sbaker
    There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support the spontaneous generation of the earth, a near perfect habitat for the existence of complex life. Some humans, no animal species, are simply taken in by observing the beauty of what is around, and in us, that calls many of us to believe in God. We find this belief in God only in humans.

    There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support the spontaneous generation of the earth, a near perfect habitat for the existence of complex life.

    Nor is there evidence of creation. The known fact is that the universe (and the earth) exists. There is no evidence that the universe has NOT existed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. Mulegino1 says:
    @Bliss

    The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of complex organisms. There are no gradual transitions from type to type. Darwin was correct in a micro-evolutionary sense of variation within species due to many factors, environmental or otherwise, but totally wrong about “the origin of species” if by species we mean type.
     
    Wrong. The fossil record shows that simple organisms preceded the complex organisms. There is no evidence in all the observed universe of complex structures arising “suddenly” out of nothing.

    You accept evolution within a species since it is an observable, proven fact. So you accept that evolution is a fact of nature. But your attachment to a primitive religious superstition prevents you from seeing how this fact of nature also explains the origin of species.

    Ascending degrees of complexity over time does not prove transformism since it only proves that more complex forms of life appeared subsequent to more primitive forms. How does this evince commonality of ancestry or descent with modification? The difference between the types- single celled organisms, crustaceans, fish, amphibians, mammals, etc. is enormous and requires genetic and morphological changes so vast that their unlikelihood of having occurred randomly cannot be explained away by invoking a series of fortuitous mutations and natural selection and “millions and millions of years” as the Darwinians do. The latter simply ascribe to something called blind “nature” a kind of godlike power of overcoming overwhelming odds due to…what? “Natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” are simply tautologies. Mutations are almost always harmful. To expect something which in nature which is almost always harmful to act as a providential force for improvement in a species or type is really beggaring the imagination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @Beefcake the Mighty
    The fossil record is a big problem for Darwinism, as Darwin himself recognized. That’s why people like Gould concocted his “punctuated equilibrium” theory, which really has nothing to do with equilibrium but is a deus ex machina meant to rationalize the known gaps in the fossil record.

    It might be relevant to consider what is likely to have happened on the way to evolution of descendant creatures that can be classified as separate species.

    Presumably a large population is severely pruned by some environmental challenge and only a few of them, mostly with valuable mutant alleles, reproduce. Compare the survival of a few resistant bacteria after antibiotics have destroyed nearly all. It stands to reason that fossils are typically small fractional representatives of their generation so that it will not be until evolution has settled on a survivor for the medium to long term that the evolved creature will be so abundant as to be likely to be represented in fossils today. Anything wrong with that in fact or logic?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    You mean apart from the rampant question-begging? Yeah, besides that, no problems.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. @Mulegino1
    On the contrary, Beefcake's estimation of you is spot on, which you further evince by assuming that, since I pointed out a well known historical fact, namely that Harvard was founded as a Divinity School/Bible College, that I attended Bible college myself.

    No you dim fellow, true to my assessment, your “assuming” that you attribute to me shows that you did not recognise a pretty obvious jibe or provocation. (The word or concept you wanted was, anyway, not “assumption” but “inference” – though also wrong in fact).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Just how did you "infer" that I had a "Bible college education"? Because of your moronic assumption- not inference- that because I cited a well known and indisputable historical fact- namely that Harvard was founded as a Divinity School/Bible College- that I was an alumnus of a similar institution. You were wrong in fact, and in assumption, you validated Beefcake's assessment of you, you dimmest of all bulbs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. The difference between the types- single celled organisms, crustaceans, fish, amphibians, mammals, etc. is enormous and requires genetic and morphological changes so vast that their unlikelihood of having occurred randomly cannot be explained away by invoking a series of fortuitous mutations and natural selection and “millions and millions of years” as the Darwinians do.

    Pish. Creationist boilerplate.

    The “genetic and morphological changes” are not “vast”. Sorry. There’s something like 3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome. But, f’rinstance, there’s 120 billion base pairs in salamander genomes, even more in lungfish. Those are combinations — pair permutations, not actual genes. Human DNA contains 21,000 genes, although there is argument for as many as 30,000. Rice has more than 45,000.

    Time means nothing. Complexity means nothing. Frost can produce a design complexity that is limited only by the size of your picture window. No repetition, either. Damn, huh? How could frost have evolved into such complexity in the 30 minutes it takes for your window to frost? It’s impossible — Jesus SAYS it’s impossible.

    LOL. You Thumpers and your whining.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  221. @Mulegino1
    The myth of progress in the evolution of Science
    Manuel Alfonseca



    "The theory of Indefinite Progress appeared during the eighteen century. It is the inverse of the medieval idea, and affirms that the future is always superior to the present. Abbé St. Pierre (1658-1753), Turgot (1727-1781) and Condorcet (1743-1794) may be considered its fathers. Condorcet divided History into ten successive steps. The tenth (ours) is the age of science, rationalism and revolution, and will open the way to an age of prosperity, tolerance and illustration (Utopia is always just around the corner)."
    "The theory of Indefinite Progress gained general acceptance during the nineteenth century. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) proposed a different succession of steps, the last being the age of science and industry. As always, back turns are forbidden. Our arrival to the scientific era is final.
    The discovery of evolution in the nineteenth century gave new expression to the principle of Indefinite Progress, which came to be redefined in biological terms: Biological evolution is a process towards more and more complexity. Comte's ideas blended with Darwin's in the work of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) and Karl Marx (1919-1903), who assert that social evolution is automatic and unavoidable. As those before him, Marx divided History in several successive and progressive eras (tribalism, slavism, feudalism, capitalism and socialism). The coming of the latter would be unavoidable through the dictatorship of the proletariat and a society without classes."


    A pretty good summation, in my estimation, which also shows the affinity between Darwinism and Marxism, although on different levels. This is not to say that Darwin would agree with Marx's inverted Hegelianism - which replaced Absolute Spirit as the driver of the dialectics of history with Feurbach's materialism, but the theories are hardly contradictory and run parallel to one another.

    Dear boy when you next bring an essay to our tutorial I want it to be your own work and I want any quotes to be relevant to the assigned subject matter. The subject I remind you was the proposition you uttered last week that produced such derision in your fellow students here and that I invited you to justify, namely that Darwinism involved a “naive faith in the myth of endless linear progress”.

    Frankly I am at a loss to understand what relevance your extended quote has to that unless you think you are managing a glancing blow on progress by mentioning complexity, which might I suppose be given a nod for idiosyncrasy.

    You could have benefited from first looking up a good dictionary definition of “linear” which so far you appear to have treated as a piece of decoration. Anyway rewrite for next time and leave your essay with me the night before. I don’t think we will inflict it further on these chaps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. anonymous[219] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Hopefully you address the obvious problems associated with species and genera popping into existence in the ID model (if this is a strawman, I have yet to be corrected on it).
     
    Well, here you go. The ID model is indefensible nonsense and you certainly won't hear any defenses of it from me. I have tried to tell you, over and over again, that you do not know what I am talking about, but instead of taking me seriously and reflecting on that for a moment, you continue to accuse me of prevaricating. The fact of the matter is that you are not working from a paradigm that is at all related to reality. This is a fact; and unless and until that fact changes, there is no argument I can make---no matter how carefully crafted, metaphysically valid, and rhetorically powerful---that is going to make the slightest bit of difference to you.

    Take intelligent design, for instance. If that unfortunate term is to be used at all, it can only be employed as a euphemism for a self-consistent, transcendental order. It is not and cannot be a physical theory. You understand it to mean a mechanistic scheme that functions in place of Darwinian evolution, and then you dare me to defend that. So yes, it is a strawman after a fashion, but it's not a strawman you're conscious of employing. You simply have no conception of the reality being referred to here.

    Living creatures are monadic, not mechanistic; they are simple, not compound. They do not come into being by processes of accidental change in a preexisting substance. That means that they cannot be "designed" either by natural selection or by an intelligent agent. They do not arise from anything (in the material order) more fundamental than themselves; rather they are themselves the prime phenomenon. It follows from their nature as simple substances that the (completely independently derived) laws of causality can be applied to them only in certain ways, not in others; and it is this which renders the entire concept of Darwinian evolution null and void from the outset, just as it also nullifies intelligent design. The only difference between the Paleyian design-concept and the Darwinian selection process is who or what is doing the designing. Obviously the nature of life itself prevents any theory of this type from being correct.

    To ask, then, what are the material origins of life on Earth, or the nature of speciation, or other similar questions, is to commit a category mistake. Life is not something virtually present in matter, such that it can be educed from matter by the actions of material causes of any kind whatsoever. Living creatures must have a formal---viz. an immaterial---cause. Darwin, strange to say, simply takes no notice of any of this and proceeds upon an implied definition of life that is entirely meaningless. Darwinism is therefore "not even wrong," as the saying goes. It is the result of an error in the faculty of judgment, not in the use of the reason. That is why many learned men, who are notoriously judgment-poor, may profess Darwinism in all seriousness, while many common people not nearly as articulate have been able to see through it without explaining why.

    Cellular processes are material. Even if you don’t believe that they give rise to life/consciousness, you can still clearly see that they contribute to the life of an organism, in that, when these processes cease to function properly, the life (or at least the physical manifestation of it) of the organism is extinguished. The cellular processes themselves don’t exist independently of DNA transmission, which doesn’t exist independently of other observable phenomena such as mutation, drift, and selection (e.g. dog breeds). I’m curious as to where all of these things fit in your worldview.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/three-identical-strangers-a-documentary-about-separated-at-birth-triplets/#comment-2169889

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/three-identical-strangers-a-documentary-about-separated-at-birth-triplets/#comment-2169976

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @Wizard of Oz
    It might be relevant to consider what is likely to have happened on the way to evolution of descendant creatures that can be classified as separate species.

    Presumably a large population is severely pruned by some environmental challenge and only a few of them, mostly with valuable mutant alleles, reproduce. Compare the survival of a few resistant bacteria after antibiotics have destroyed nearly all. It stands to reason that fossils are typically small fractional representatives of their generation so that it will not be until evolution has settled on a survivor for the medium to long term that the evolved creature will be so abundant as to be likely to be represented in fossils today. Anything wrong with that in fact or logic?

    You mean apart from the rampant question-begging? Yeah, besides that, no problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Where, precisely, do you see the question begging? Obviously Darwin couldn't give the answer to the supposed problem in terms of the mathematics of mutation and fixing of genes as I have amateurishly but logically proposed. So where now is the assumption of what has to be proved?

    I don't suppose you deny that the genes composed of DNA are the blueprint for the development of living organisms or that those genes can mutate randomly (and usually but not always deleteriously) so I am not sure where your beef is.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Sbaker says:
    @manorchurch

    you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.
     
    You seem to be asserting a belief that some system is "complex". I think you really mean that it seems complex to you. Like most people, you define "complex" as being anything you have difficulty understanding.

    I’ve made a 3 decade career in the biosciences. Enlighten and tell me the depth of your understanding. Belief in God, is uniquely, a human endeavor. Nowhere in the kingdom of lower animals do we find the practice of a belief in a higher being. A highly developed cognitive state leads humans to evaluate the complexity of their world and ask; how did this perfection come to be? In other words, humans believe in God because of simple observation of a very complex world. As human observation methods advance, a yet greater complexity is discovered. Every complex system requires a plan by a designer. In the world created and modified by humans, we find a plan for every complex system from cars to computers. It should occur to those who study living systems, that those same systems of which we are but one, require a plan that had to come from somewhere. Spontaneous generation of complex systems is a far-fetched possibility, but requires only rudimentary thought processes. As a species, as we become more “sophisticated” and “knowledgeable” we tend to think we know the mind of God or that we don’t need God or that we ARE God! All illusions..

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Belief in God, is uniquely, a human endeavor.
     
    Insufficient data for that conclusion. On Earth, probably. Universally, seems unlikely.

    A highly developed cognitive state leads humans to evaluate the complexity of their world and ask; how did this perfection come to be?
     
    Oh, bullshit. You are fabulizing your own perception, and attributing it to "highly developed cognitive state".

    In other words, humans believe in God because of simple observation of a very complex world.
     
    Oh, hogwash. No proof.

    As human observation methods advance, a yet greater complexity is discovered.
     
    But simplicity is more elegant, more pure, and more conceptually complete.

    Every complex system requires a plan by a designer.
     
    LOL. Nonsense. Proof?

    In the world created and modified by humans, we find a plan for every complex system from cars to computers. It should occur to those who study living systems, that those same systems of which we are but one, require a plan that had to come from somewhere.
     
    Non sequitur. Post hoc.

    As a species, as we become more “sophisticated” and “knowledgeable” we tend to think we know the mind of God or that we don’t need God or that we ARE God!
     
    What you mean "we", white man?

    No offense intended, my dear fellow. You are free to believe as you like. Having sufficiently demonstrated your naivete, you may go in peace. TTFN.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. I’ve made a 3 decade career in the biosciences.

    Computer systems on my side.

    Enlighten and tell me the depth of your understanding.

    No. You figure it out for yourself. I may have a question or two, but tears I’m not shedding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  226. @Sbaker
    I've made a 3 decade career in the biosciences. Enlighten and tell me the depth of your understanding. Belief in God, is uniquely, a human endeavor. Nowhere in the kingdom of lower animals do we find the practice of a belief in a higher being. A highly developed cognitive state leads humans to evaluate the complexity of their world and ask; how did this perfection come to be? In other words, humans believe in God because of simple observation of a very complex world. As human observation methods advance, a yet greater complexity is discovered. Every complex system requires a plan by a designer. In the world created and modified by humans, we find a plan for every complex system from cars to computers. It should occur to those who study living systems, that those same systems of which we are but one, require a plan that had to come from somewhere. Spontaneous generation of complex systems is a far-fetched possibility, but requires only rudimentary thought processes. As a species, as we become more "sophisticated" and "knowledgeable" we tend to think we know the mind of God or that we don't need God or that we ARE God! All illusions..

    Belief in God, is uniquely, a human endeavor.

    Insufficient data for that conclusion. On Earth, probably. Universally, seems unlikely.

    A highly developed cognitive state leads humans to evaluate the complexity of their world and ask; how did this perfection come to be?

    Oh, bullshit. You are fabulizing your own perception, and attributing it to “highly developed cognitive state”.

    In other words, humans believe in God because of simple observation of a very complex world.

    Oh, hogwash. No proof.

    As human observation methods advance, a yet greater complexity is discovered.

    But simplicity is more elegant, more pure, and more conceptually complete.

    Every complex system requires a plan by a designer.

    LOL. Nonsense. Proof?

    In the world created and modified by humans, we find a plan for every complex system from cars to computers. It should occur to those who study living systems, that those same systems of which we are but one, require a plan that had to come from somewhere.

    Non sequitur. Post hoc.

    As a species, as we become more “sophisticated” and “knowledgeable” we tend to think we know the mind of God or that we don’t need God or that we ARE God!

    What you mean “we”, white man?

    No offense intended, my dear fellow. You are free to believe as you like. Having sufficiently demonstrated your naivete, you may go in peace. TTFN.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sbaker
    Ok. That tells me something about your understanding of living systems. I'm shocked you won't be shedding any tears. Perhaps because you study comparatively simple electronic gadgets, you simply don't know enough about living systems to provide a reasonable evaluation. Manmade items are relatively simple.

    Do you have any reason to think there is life other than here on earth?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Mulegino1 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    No you dim fellow, true to my assessment, your "assuming" that you attribute to me shows that you did not recognise a pretty obvious jibe or provocation. (The word or concept you wanted was, anyway, not "assumption" but "inference" - though also wrong in fact).

    Just how did you “infer” that I had a “Bible college education”? Because of your moronic assumption- not inference- that because I cited a well known and indisputable historical fact- namely that Harvard was founded as a Divinity School/Bible College- that I was an alumnus of a similar institution. You were wrong in fact, and in assumption, you validated Beefcake’s assessment of you, you dimmest of all bulbs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Find a kind and patient Grade 8 teacher to explain your latest error. I was pointing out that YOU should - given YOUR fundamental mistaken understanding - have said that I inferred something rather than that I assumed something; in short that, having failed to understand the nature of the discourse because you didn't recognise a mildly provocative jibe as such, you even chose the wrong words to embody your misunderstanding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @Sbaker
    Mark, and you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.

    I consider your omnipotent Creator to be the most complex thing imaginable. By definition he must be, in order to create his less complex creations. We can’t do what you claim your god does. Yet you accept that he doesn’t require a more complex creator. He spontaneously created himself, or always existed. You don’ know.

    The metaphysical basis for his existence is solely a product of the human mind. “There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this”.

    I provided a link to a documentary that contains a lot of empirical evidence that show how the universe evolved. Apparently you didn’t watch it or understand it. Please watch and try to understand it. There is mountains of empirical scientific evidence that show how the earth evolved. Your ignorance of this data is astounding.

    What I am proposing is that the mountains of scientific empirical evidence is showing that god is not what primitive minds thought he was. God began this creation not as a fully formed omnipotent being from the top down, but in his elementary form as the basic elementary particle from the bottom up. Because you cannot grasp the concept that god is capable of doing it this way doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

    I am not a fan of the proposition of the uncaused cause, but let’s start from there. Some people argue that the “big bang” is something out of nothing. There is a theory that before the “big bang” the god particles existed in a very small singularity outside of space/time. It may have always been there, as in the God theory. The “big bang” created space/time itself.

    Scientists downplay this theory, because it is as metaphysical as the god theory. And there are other such theories such as eternal inflation and the multiverse. But there is no empirical evidence for any of them, so the beginning must be simply that the universe exists as we know it.

    It gets worse, every time we think we find an answer, two more questions pop up. The universe keeps getting stranger and stranger.

    Every primitive human culture has had a creation theory that posits good spirits and evil spirits and that all things happen by the will of the gods. I’ve never seen a good spirit, I’ve never seen an evil spirit, I’ve never seen a god. Have you seen any of them? Were the Greeks and Romans right? They have all been proven wrong.

    What I have seen is mountains of empirical evidence that support scientific theories. Please educate yourself.

    I call this particle the god particle because it does indeed have the power to create. But it has no intelligence, no purpose. So why do I think it will evolve into the god we seek? There is a theory called the Omega Point. It posits that it draws us to divine unification.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

    I reject this because it implies purpose. I will make the same case with a little logic. We will continue to evolve until it’s not possible to evolve further. That point is perfection as defined by our universe. Perfection is God.

    Just to get you started:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    "I consider your omnipotent Creator to be the most complex thing imaginable. By definition he must be, in order to create his less complex creations. We can’t do what you claim your god does. Yet you accept that he doesn’t require a more complex creator. He spontaneously created himself, or always existed. You don’ know."

    Of course God, or the Being, does not require a creator, since He is the ground and author of all contingent being and all causality. "We" obviously cannot do what God does because we are not God. God is pure act; He is immutable, eternal. He did not "spontaneously create Himself" because creation is a temporal, or contingent event. God is the author of time, space and contingent events.

    "The metaphysical basis for his existence is solely a product of the human mind. 'There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this'."

    The metaphysical basis for His existence is not solely a product of the human mind, but a rational philosophical conclusion based upon the order of causality, which, in its non-temporal forms, cannot be quantified, measured or empirically observed. It can only be deduced from its effects, which are clearly not based upon mechanics or time.

    "What I am proposing is that the mountains of scientific empirical evidence is showing that god is not what primitive minds thought he was. God began this creation not as a fully formed omnipotent being from the top down, but in his elementary form as the basic elementary particle from the bottom up. Because you cannot grasp the concept that god is capable of doing it this way doesn’t mean it isn’t so."

    What you are proposing is modernist Protestant process theology, which is, in essence, the idea that the causal order proceeds from the inferior to the superior in kind of a reverse hierarchy, actually a lowerarchy, i.e., matter is the principle of eminence and dependence, which acts upon efficient causality which in turn acts upon the formal and final causes. This is simply an inversion of the true causal order, in which the superior causes, namely the formal and final, act upon the material and efficient. Such concepts are merely signs of one of the degenerative principles, or anti-principles, of the modern world, the revolt of the inferior, and what Rene Guenon described as the "Reign of Quantity."

    All great spiritual traditions are metaphysical in origin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Mulegino1 says:

    You implied that Darwinian belief in limitless or unending progress was false. You were shown to be in error. Darwin did indeed possess a naive faith in endless progress, as he was an acolyte of Spencer, for whom he reserved the most reverential (even worshipful) praises imaginable. The only small error in the quote above was that it seems to imply that Spencer was influenced by Darwin, when the historical reality is quite the opposite.

    Don’t attempt to obfuscate by claiming that I do not know the definition of “linear” which simply means unidirectional progression, as in Darwinism, from the more simple to the more complex. This is a rank superstition, ultimately based upon Utopian notions, as the previous quote demonstrated. Teilhard, with his Omega Point, was another champion of such notions, and he was an ardent champion of transformism. He was also the likely culprit in the Piltdown Man forgery, which was to cause great embarrassment to the champions of Darwinian evolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Getting confused between what Darwin (or those who tried to build on his work and theories in the 19th century) knew or believed and 21st century science with genes, DNA and mutations added as well as a billion fossils and much ancient DNA? You seem to have a relevance problem when it comes to answering whoever you think you are replying to here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Mulegino1 says:

    So what if there are “3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome” or “120 billion base pairs in salamander genomes, even more in lungfish”? Numbers mean nothing, probability means everything, and the odds against the random origins of life and of variation of origins as the fossil record are absolutely prohibitive.

    Also, in citing the formation of frost and comparing it to organic life, you are confusing order with complexity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Also, in citing the formation of frost and comparing it to organic life, you are confusing order with complexity.
     
    Oh, for god's sake, get your head out of your colon. Frost patterns are complex, you dumbass. Frost patterns are not ordered, you dumbass.

    You are just too stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @Mulegino1
    So what if there are "3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome" or "120 billion base pairs in salamander genomes, even more in lungfish"? Numbers mean nothing, probability means everything, and the odds against the random origins of life and of variation of origins as the fossil record are absolutely prohibitive.

    Also, in citing the formation of frost and comparing it to organic life, you are confusing order with complexity.

    Also, in citing the formation of frost and comparing it to organic life, you are confusing order with complexity.

    Oh, for god’s sake, get your head out of your colon. Frost patterns are complex, you dumbass. Frost patterns are not ordered, you dumbass.

    You are just too stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    No, frost patterns are ordered, not complex.

    DNA and cells are complex. The organisms they compose are also incredibly complex. No comparison between them and frost patterns or snowflakes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mark Presco
    I consider your omnipotent Creator to be the most complex thing imaginable. By definition he must be, in order to create his less complex creations. We can’t do what you claim your god does. Yet you accept that he doesn’t require a more complex creator. He spontaneously created himself, or always existed. You don’ know.

    The metaphysical basis for his existence is solely a product of the human mind. “There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this”.

    I provided a link to a documentary that contains a lot of empirical evidence that show how the universe evolved. Apparently you didn’t watch it or understand it. Please watch and try to understand it. There is mountains of empirical scientific evidence that show how the earth evolved. Your ignorance of this data is astounding.

    What I am proposing is that the mountains of scientific empirical evidence is showing that god is not what primitive minds thought he was. God began this creation not as a fully formed omnipotent being from the top down, but in his elementary form as the basic elementary particle from the bottom up. Because you cannot grasp the concept that god is capable of doing it this way doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

    I am not a fan of the proposition of the uncaused cause, but let’s start from there. Some people argue that the “big bang” is something out of nothing. There is a theory that before the “big bang” the god particles existed in a very small singularity outside of space/time. It may have always been there, as in the God theory. The “big bang” created space/time itself.

    Scientists downplay this theory, because it is as metaphysical as the god theory. And there are other such theories such as eternal inflation and the multiverse. But there is no empirical evidence for any of them, so the beginning must be simply that the universe exists as we know it.

    It gets worse, every time we think we find an answer, two more questions pop up. The universe keeps getting stranger and stranger.

    Every primitive human culture has had a creation theory that posits good spirits and evil spirits and that all things happen by the will of the gods. I’ve never seen a good spirit, I’ve never seen an evil spirit, I’ve never seen a god. Have you seen any of them? Were the Greeks and Romans right? They have all been proven wrong.

    What I have seen is mountains of empirical evidence that support scientific theories. Please educate yourself.

    I call this particle the god particle because it does indeed have the power to create. But it has no intelligence, no purpose. So why do I think it will evolve into the god we seek? There is a theory called the Omega Point. It posits that it draws us to divine unification.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

    I reject this because it implies purpose. I will make the same case with a little logic. We will continue to evolve until it’s not possible to evolve further. That point is perfection as defined by our universe. Perfection is God.

    Just to get you started:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEUq0mruDzo

    “I consider your omnipotent Creator to be the most complex thing imaginable. By definition he must be, in order to create his less complex creations. We can’t do what you claim your god does. Yet you accept that he doesn’t require a more complex creator. He spontaneously created himself, or always existed. You don’ know.”

    Of course God, or the Being, does not require a creator, since He is the ground and author of all contingent being and all causality. “We” obviously cannot do what God does because we are not God. God is pure act; He is immutable, eternal. He did not “spontaneously create Himself” because creation is a temporal, or contingent event. God is the author of time, space and contingent events.

    “The metaphysical basis for his existence is solely a product of the human mind. ‘There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this’.”

    The metaphysical basis for His existence is not solely a product of the human mind, but a rational philosophical conclusion based upon the order of causality, which, in its non-temporal forms, cannot be quantified, measured or empirically observed. It can only be deduced from its effects, which are clearly not based upon mechanics or time.

    “What I am proposing is that the mountains of scientific empirical evidence is showing that god is not what primitive minds thought he was. God began this creation not as a fully formed omnipotent being from the top down, but in his elementary form as the basic elementary particle from the bottom up. Because you cannot grasp the concept that god is capable of doing it this way doesn’t mean it isn’t so.”

    What you are proposing is modernist Protestant process theology, which is, in essence, the idea that the causal order proceeds from the inferior to the superior in kind of a reverse hierarchy, actually a lowerarchy, i.e., matter is the principle of eminence and dependence, which acts upon efficient causality which in turn acts upon the formal and final causes. This is simply an inversion of the true causal order, in which the superior causes, namely the formal and final, act upon the material and efficient. Such concepts are merely signs of one of the degenerative principles, or anti-principles, of the modern world, the revolt of the inferior, and what Rene Guenon described as the “Reign of Quantity.”

    All great spiritual traditions are metaphysical in origin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Presco

    Of course God, or the Being, does not require a creator, since He is the ground and author of all contingent being and all causality.
     
    I didn’t say that god required a creator. Only that it undermines his assertion that:

    Mark, and you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.
     
    According to you god required no such input.

    The metaphysical basis for His existence is not solely a product of the human mind, but a rational philosophical conclusion based upon the order of causality, which, in its non-temporal forms, cannot be quantified, measured or empirically observed. It can only be deduced from its effects, which are clearly not based upon mechanics or time.

     


    All great spiritual traditions are metaphysical in origin.
     
    This demonstrates how illogical you are. No matter how much verbiage you use, it is still the product of the human mind. The Greeks, Romans and all other primitive cultures did exactly the same thing. They have been proven wrong. Do you believe in their Gods? Why do you believe that the very recent Jewish god is the one true god. And by the way you now have a pantheon of 3 gods.

    This is simply an inversion of the true causal order
     
    Duh! I stated that in no uncertain terms. Good sleuthing.

    Look, I wouldn’t mind having a discussion with you, but you keep regurgitating the same dogma. Try to open your mind. If you feel that Christianity is under attack, it is because of the intolerance of people like you.

    I have stated my desire to bridge the gap between science and religion. What do you think of the Catholic priests effort to do the same by proposing the omega point?

    , @ANON
    Can you suggest any reason why we should care about this God's preferences or commands or consider Him/Her as in any way benevolent - or even threatening for that matter - towards us?

    Do you think this God has ever communicated with humans? If so, why not a consistent message to all humans? Why did he leave out giving the Word to billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Taoists etc.?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Mulegino1 says:
    @manorchurch

    Also, in citing the formation of frost and comparing it to organic life, you are confusing order with complexity.
     
    Oh, for god's sake, get your head out of your colon. Frost patterns are complex, you dumbass. Frost patterns are not ordered, you dumbass.

    You are just too stupid.

    No, frost patterns are ordered, not complex.

    DNA and cells are complex. The organisms they compose are also incredibly complex. No comparison between them and frost patterns or snowflakes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch
    Frost patterns are random. The patterns are complex. In thirty minutes on a cold evening, frost will produce a pattern -- an unpredictable and randomly-ordered pattern -- on a large sheet of glass that is more complex than DNA will produce of a gene sequence in 3 billion years.

    Just letting you know that God didn't match frost performance with human DNA, if He was shooting for "grandly complex".

    Just FYI, complexity is not a valuable and mystical feature; order reduces, or simplifies anything complex.

    Just FYI, simplicity is the serenely mystical benefit, not complexity.

    Think about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Sbaker says:
    @manorchurch

    Belief in God, is uniquely, a human endeavor.
     
    Insufficient data for that conclusion. On Earth, probably. Universally, seems unlikely.

    A highly developed cognitive state leads humans to evaluate the complexity of their world and ask; how did this perfection come to be?
     
    Oh, bullshit. You are fabulizing your own perception, and attributing it to "highly developed cognitive state".

    In other words, humans believe in God because of simple observation of a very complex world.
     
    Oh, hogwash. No proof.

    As human observation methods advance, a yet greater complexity is discovered.
     
    But simplicity is more elegant, more pure, and more conceptually complete.

    Every complex system requires a plan by a designer.
     
    LOL. Nonsense. Proof?

    In the world created and modified by humans, we find a plan for every complex system from cars to computers. It should occur to those who study living systems, that those same systems of which we are but one, require a plan that had to come from somewhere.
     
    Non sequitur. Post hoc.

    As a species, as we become more “sophisticated” and “knowledgeable” we tend to think we know the mind of God or that we don’t need God or that we ARE God!
     
    What you mean "we", white man?

    No offense intended, my dear fellow. You are free to believe as you like. Having sufficiently demonstrated your naivete, you may go in peace. TTFN.

    Ok. That tells me something about your understanding of living systems. I’m shocked you won’t be shedding any tears. Perhaps because you study comparatively simple electronic gadgets, you simply don’t know enough about living systems to provide a reasonable evaluation. Manmade items are relatively simple.

    Do you have any reason to think there is life other than here on earth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch
    Nah, man, you just don't get it. Complexity means nothing. God is a fairly simple concept, which becomes decidedly more human in nature as complexity is added to "God" by humans.

    As for other life, you fail to make a point. I have no evidence, and no immediate means of acquiring evidence. Not being one to invent things out of whole speculation, "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. @Mulegino1
    No, frost patterns are ordered, not complex.

    DNA and cells are complex. The organisms they compose are also incredibly complex. No comparison between them and frost patterns or snowflakes.

    Frost patterns are random. The patterns are complex. In thirty minutes on a cold evening, frost will produce a pattern — an unpredictable and randomly-ordered pattern — on a large sheet of glass that is more complex than DNA will produce of a gene sequence in 3 billion years.

    Just letting you know that God didn’t match frost performance with human DNA, if He was shooting for “grandly complex”.

    Just FYI, complexity is not a valuable and mystical feature; order reduces, or simplifies anything complex.

    Just FYI, simplicity is the serenely mystical benefit, not complexity.

    Think about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @Mulegino1
    "I consider your omnipotent Creator to be the most complex thing imaginable. By definition he must be, in order to create his less complex creations. We can’t do what you claim your god does. Yet you accept that he doesn’t require a more complex creator. He spontaneously created himself, or always existed. You don’ know."

    Of course God, or the Being, does not require a creator, since He is the ground and author of all contingent being and all causality. "We" obviously cannot do what God does because we are not God. God is pure act; He is immutable, eternal. He did not "spontaneously create Himself" because creation is a temporal, or contingent event. God is the author of time, space and contingent events.

    "The metaphysical basis for his existence is solely a product of the human mind. 'There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this'."

    The metaphysical basis for His existence is not solely a product of the human mind, but a rational philosophical conclusion based upon the order of causality, which, in its non-temporal forms, cannot be quantified, measured or empirically observed. It can only be deduced from its effects, which are clearly not based upon mechanics or time.

    "What I am proposing is that the mountains of scientific empirical evidence is showing that god is not what primitive minds thought he was. God began this creation not as a fully formed omnipotent being from the top down, but in his elementary form as the basic elementary particle from the bottom up. Because you cannot grasp the concept that god is capable of doing it this way doesn’t mean it isn’t so."

    What you are proposing is modernist Protestant process theology, which is, in essence, the idea that the causal order proceeds from the inferior to the superior in kind of a reverse hierarchy, actually a lowerarchy, i.e., matter is the principle of eminence and dependence, which acts upon efficient causality which in turn acts upon the formal and final causes. This is simply an inversion of the true causal order, in which the superior causes, namely the formal and final, act upon the material and efficient. Such concepts are merely signs of one of the degenerative principles, or anti-principles, of the modern world, the revolt of the inferior, and what Rene Guenon described as the "Reign of Quantity."

    All great spiritual traditions are metaphysical in origin.

    Of course God, or the Being, does not require a creator, since He is the ground and author of all contingent being and all causality.

    I didn’t say that god required a creator. Only that it undermines his assertion that:

    Mark, and you want to believe in the spontaneous generation of complex systems without input from a designer or information necessary for that complex system.

    According to you god required no such input.

    The metaphysical basis for His existence is not solely a product of the human mind, but a rational philosophical conclusion based upon the order of causality, which, in its non-temporal forms, cannot be quantified, measured or empirically observed. It can only be deduced from its effects, which are clearly not based upon mechanics or time.

    All great spiritual traditions are metaphysical in origin.

    This demonstrates how illogical you are. No matter how much verbiage you use, it is still the product of the human mind. The Greeks, Romans and all other primitive cultures did exactly the same thing. They have been proven wrong. Do you believe in their Gods? Why do you believe that the very recent Jewish god is the one true god. And by the way you now have a pantheon of 3 gods.

    This is simply an inversion of the true causal order

    Duh! I stated that in no uncertain terms. Good sleuthing.

    Look, I wouldn’t mind having a discussion with you, but you keep regurgitating the same dogma. Try to open your mind. If you feel that Christianity is under attack, it is because of the intolerance of people like you.

    I have stated my desire to bridge the gap between science and religion. What do you think of the Catholic priests effort to do the same by proposing the omega point?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1

    The Greeks, Romans and all other primitive cultures did exactly the same thing. They have been proven wrong. Do you believe in their Gods? Why do you believe that the very recent Jewish god is the one true god. And by the way you now have a pantheon of 3 gods.
     
    I would hardly characterize the Greeks and Romans as "primitive cultures." By the time of Socrates, the Greek gods- or rather their concept of the gods- had degenerated to the point of an anthropomorphic and purely exoteric popular religiosity. The Roman cult, which avoided the anthropomorphic conception of the gods more so than the Greeks, had become for the most part a formalized and empty ceremonial ritual. However, during this period many aspects of the ancient primordial Tradition or revelation had been preserved in the mystery cults, such as those of Eleusis.

    One can observe such a cycle in most of the great spiritual traditions, even in Christianity, which has degenerated in this manner ever since the Renaissance period, evinced by the iconography and architecture of the period. The Gothic was a magnificent expression of the Medieval synthesis with its emphasis upon the transcendence and infinity of the Supreme Being and the celestial realm, while the Renaissance art and architecture, however magnificent, became more and more earth oriented and anthropomorphic. The changes reflected in art and architecture reflected the increasing descent of spirituality from contemplative to active, from esoteric to exoteric.

    I have stated my desire to bridge the gap between science and religion. What do you think of the Catholic priests effort to do the same by proposing the omega point?



     

    Are you referring to Teilhard de Chardin, the famous Jesuit paleontologist?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. @Sbaker
    Ok. That tells me something about your understanding of living systems. I'm shocked you won't be shedding any tears. Perhaps because you study comparatively simple electronic gadgets, you simply don't know enough about living systems to provide a reasonable evaluation. Manmade items are relatively simple.

    Do you have any reason to think there is life other than here on earth?

    Nah, man, you just don’t get it. Complexity means nothing. God is a fairly simple concept, which becomes decidedly more human in nature as complexity is added to “God” by humans.

    As for other life, you fail to make a point. I have no evidence, and no immediate means of acquiring evidence. Not being one to invent things out of whole speculation, “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. Factorize says:
    @Yap Skarusky
    Basically, humanity has different breeds. The word "race" is problematic.

    In the dog and cat world, it's easy to see that the different breeds have different characteristics, including physical characteristics, dispositions, different intelligence/learning aptitudes.

    The fact that different breeds of humans have different intelligence characteristics, among other differences, is about as obvious as pointing to the sun as a source of heat and light and simply affirming that fact.

    When one breed or group of relatively closely related breeds ( generally isolated for thousands of years from another very distinct breed or grouping of relatively closely related breeds) left to its own devices comes up with things like wheeled transportation, multi-story architecture, advanced metallurgy, complex plumbing, highly productive agriculture, motorized transportation, flying machines, electric lights, railroads and so on, while (during the same period) another distinct breed grouping left to their own devices for thousands of years never gets beyond mud huts, sharp sticks and dancing naked around a campfire, it just seems like racial differences in intelligence is a better explanation than "evil white men are always trying to keep everyone else down" (which explanation itself is a blatantly racist formula).

    Transposing the leftist arguments about universal equality to the realm of highly paid professional basketball careers is always good for a laugh too.

    Yap, I am not sure whether I would now agree with the conception of “breeds of humans”.
    (I declare my perspective that we are now rapidly approaching a time in which a large scale IQ upgrade will occur across all human populations.)

    The breeds of human idea seems to me to be based on the idea that there are specific genetic features that are uniquely present in some populations and not others. I do not believe this is currently scientifically supported. The genetic architecture of human intelligence is constructed through many many variants almost all of which have very small effect sizes and are mostly common. Notably, due to this polygenic architecture, it is expected that “different breeds of humans” will not actually be “true breeding”.

    The entire elitist perspective has been largely discredited. All human populations will be able to greatly increase their IQs well past what is currently observed by simply embryo selecting. When the use of this technology becomes common, the most noticeable “breed” of human will not be defined by race or ancestral origin but date of birth. It seems highly likely that over the next few decades all existing humans will be regarded as being developmentally disabled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich3423
    "The breeds of human idea seems to me to be based on the idea that there are specific genetic features that are uniquely present in some populations and not others. I do not believe this is currently scientifically supported".

    It is.

    For example, White and Asian people have Neanderthal genes that Africans do not have. That's a scientific fact that debunks your assertion outright.

    These genes were from interbreeding, and the specific Neanderthal genes present in Europeans and Asians differ due to interbreeding with differing Neanderthal populations that were local to each region. Europeans with the Caucus Neandethal and Asians with a Mongolian breed.

    Asians also have the genetics of another hominid, Denosivan, and have a slightly higher percentage (about 1% more) of total non-human hominid genome in their gene pool relative to Europeans.

    Specific European groups are the only humans, worldwide, to have individuals that are closest to a pure unmixed human type : Cro Magnon. This is all documented, mainstream science.

    Africans have hominid genes of a much earlier type than Neanderthal, spread over several species, which accounts for the wide variety of genes in Africa despite there only being one example of an early modern human (Cro Magnon) that can account for donating the genes necessary for modern human anatomy.

    This was also from intermixing, which accounts for the skin color of Africans, their wide noses, their kinky hair, the group IQ difference, the difference in emotional capacity, behavioral impulse, and also their more rudimentary skull anatomy as well as their different hormone levels and resultant lean muscle development. Of course, research on this is restricted and / or suppressed in the manner of the other studies that you are ignoring that have long ago documented the anatomical differences between races. But this is the truth of the matter.

    The original human template is he same for everyone. The difference is from the earlier hominids that were interbred, forming each racial group.
    , @Rich343
    "The entire elitist perspective has been largely discredited. All human populations will be able to greatly increase their IQs well past what is currently observed by simply embryo selecting. When the use of this technology becomes common, the most noticeable “breed” of human will not be defined by race or ancestral origin but date of birth. It seems highly likely that over the next few decades all existing humans will be regarded as being developmentally disabled".

    Borderline trans-humanist, overly optimistic claptrap that is not an argument. Its a prediction.

    If you are so interested in eugenics, why not just have let the Nazis complete their task? You will deselect for humans that would have otherwise have lived, which is the same exact moral and practical effect. Selecting for Blacks with large brains just means that those with smaller brains will not be born. So, I ask you, whats the point of this at all? It could have been accomplished much less artificially with Nazi methods. Is it so you can look at a Black person, who would have never come to be naturally, and pat yourself on the back because they are nominally "black" in color? What you seem to be is a be retarded in regard the the philosophy of ethics and the history of eugenics.

    Of course, this is ignoring skull shape limitations that you would have to select out of, essentially changing not only the IQ development of the race but their fundamental anatomy. Again, you would be caught in the white liberal hypocrite's dilemma that has them self-congratulating while having the opposite practical effect that they would aim to have as an ani-racist. Just for the virtue signalling credits of being able to see black skin.

    The world is becoming more practical than you are at an alarming rate.

    , @Yap Skarusky
    "The breeds of human idea seems to me to be based on the idea that there are specific genetic features that are uniquely present in some populations and not others."

    Unless you're playing word games and creating your own new definitions of terms like "breed" and "genetic features", I would have to say that there obviously are genetic features that are uniquely present in some populations and not others.

    If we accepted your statement as being true, we would have to be open to the idea that two Chihuahua's could give birth to a a litter of St. Bernards. We would have to believe that the mating of two blonde, blue-eyed Swedes could randomly give birth to a child having all of the physical characteristics of a Zulu tribesman.

    Human populations vary every bit as much as different breeds of cats or dogs. Pygmies of the Congo are just about as different from 190cm tall Dutch people as Poodles are different from German Sheperds. I'm not making value statements... Just stating easily observable and manifestly obvious facts.

    If we accepted your statement as true, everything that farmers and breeders have ever known about heredity would have to be discarded, despite the fact that it has actually been proven true over millenia.

    Of course, I'm talking about natural processes of impregnation and birth and breeding based on observable hereditable traits, observable couplings of like with like versus like with unlike and so on. Breeds can mix. Mixed breeds can produce desirable combinations of genetic features that motivate efforts to maintain that particular mix, so that it becomes a distinct breed in its own right.

    On the other hand, most of what you are talking about is actually the introduction of genetic manipulation technology and obtrusive intentional intervention aimed at actually eliminating or suppressing certain genetic features in favor of inserting or modifying other genetic features. I suppose, with enough genetic manipulation, relying heavily on highly advanced developments of genetic technology, the genetic features found in the fertilized egg produced by the mating of two Chihuahuas could be altered so as to produce a litter of St. Bernards (likely with early removal of embryos and artificial incubation processes being required). But even in such heavily manipulated process we would still essentially be dealing with different genetic features and breeds in such a scenario as both the starting points and end points. Any similar technological intervention to alter human IQ to create higher, more uniform IQ across all human populations would be the same type of thing. "Embryo selecting" that you refer to would of necessity be based on testing for indicators of genetic features associated with higher IQ.

    As for other of your statements, a lot of it appears to be word salad... I can offer you some delicious russian salad dressing or some ranch-flavor dressing, but that's about all. ;o)
    , @Yap Skarusky
    "The breeds of human idea seems to me to be based on the idea that there are specific genetic features that are uniquely present in some populations and not others."

    Unless you're playing word games and creating your own new definitions of terms like "breed" and "genetic features", I would have to say that there obviously are genetic features that are uniquely present in some populations and not others.

    If we accepted your statement as being true, we would have to be open to the idea that two Chihuahua's could give birth to a a litter of St. Bernards. We would have to believe that the mating of two blonde, blue-eyed Swedes could randomly give birth to a child having all of the physical characteristics of a Zulu tribesman.

    Human populations vary every bit as much as different breeds of cats or dogs. Pygmies of the Congo are just about as different from 190cm tall Dutch people as Poodles are different from German Sheperds. I'm not making value statements... Just stating easily observable and manifestly obvious facts.

    If we accepted your statement as true, everything that farmers and breeders have ever known about heredity would have to be discarded, despite the fact that it has actually been proven true over millenia.

    Of course, I'm talking about natural processes of impregnation and birth and breeding based on observable hereditable traits, observable couplings of like with like versus like with unlike and so on. Breeds can mix. Mixed breeds can produce desirable combinations of genetic features that motivate efforts to maintain that particular mix, so that it becomes a distinct breed in its own right.

    On the other hand, most of what you are talking about is actually the introduction of genetic manipulation technology and obtrusive intentional intervention aimed at actually eliminating or suppressing certain genetic features in favor of inserting or modifying other genetic features. I suppose, with enough genetic manipulation, relying heavily on highly advanced developments of genetic technology, the genetic features found in the fertilized egg produced by the mating of two Chihuahuas could be altered so as to produce a litter of St. Bernards (likely with early removal of embryos and artificial incubation processes being required). But even in such heavily manipulated process we would still essentially be dealing with different genetic features and breeds in such a scenario as both the starting points and end points. Any similar technological intervention to alter human IQ to create higher, more uniform IQ across all human populations would be the same type of thing. "Embryo selecting" that you refer to would of necessity be based on testing for indicators of genetic features associated with higher IQ.

    As for other of your statements, a lot of it appears to be word salad... I can offer you some delicious russian salad dressing or some ranch-flavor dressing, but that's about all. ;o)

    In fact, if I understand the rough implications of some of that word salad, you seem to be advocating the elimination of the diversity of different populations in order to create a uniform population (or perhaps leading to an end result of only 2 or 3 breeds of humanity after the manner of Brave New World).

    , @Yap Skarusky
    I see that you have changed your opening line.

    In any case, you are still making essentially a statement of personal belief rather than refuting any scientific facts about heredity, genetics and highly relevant differences between different breeds within a broad species.

    When you say "I declare my perspective that we are now rapidly approaching a time in which a large scale IQ upgrade will occur across all human populations", it is essentially the equivalent of someone stating a religious belief.

    Certainly a "large scale IQ upgrade" would be nice. I'll be really happy if it happens without mass slaughter, mayhem and misery being the prime ingredients in the "upgrade." But I don't see what you are basing this "perspective" on. Is it going to be the work of space aliens? Jesus? Thor & Loki putting the band back together and raising everyone's IQ in the process? Enhanced flouridation of everyone's water supply?

    I love hope porn, but I need to see something plausible underpinning it or the fantasy fails to have any sizzle for me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. MEH 0910 says:
    @anonymous
    Cellular processes are material. Even if you don't believe that they give rise to life/consciousness, you can still clearly see that they contribute to the life of an organism, in that, when these processes cease to function properly, the life (or at least the physical manifestation of it) of the organism is extinguished. The cellular processes themselves don't exist independently of DNA transmission, which doesn't exist independently of other observable phenomena such as mutation, drift, and selection (e.g. dog breeds). I'm curious as to where all of these things fit in your worldview.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @Mulegino1
    Just how did you "infer" that I had a "Bible college education"? Because of your moronic assumption- not inference- that because I cited a well known and indisputable historical fact- namely that Harvard was founded as a Divinity School/Bible College- that I was an alumnus of a similar institution. You were wrong in fact, and in assumption, you validated Beefcake's assessment of you, you dimmest of all bulbs.

    Find a kind and patient Grade 8 teacher to explain your latest error. I was pointing out that YOU should – given YOUR fundamental mistaken understanding – have said that I inferred something rather than that I assumed something; in short that, having failed to understand the nature of the discourse because you didn’t recognise a mildly provocative jibe as such, you even chose the wrong words to embody your misunderstanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    "Find a kind and patient Grade 8 teacher to explain your latest error. "

    No doubt you are speaking from recent experience.

    How am I supposed to know if you inferred, assumed, presumed, deduced or guessed I attended Bible college based upon the fact that I pointed out that Harvard was founded as a Divinity/Bible College? I am not telepathic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. @Beefcake the Mighty
    You mean apart from the rampant question-begging? Yeah, besides that, no problems.

    Where, precisely, do you see the question begging? Obviously Darwin couldn’t give the answer to the supposed problem in terms of the mathematics of mutation and fixing of genes as I have amateurishly but logically proposed. So where now is the assumption of what has to be proved?

    I don’t suppose you deny that the genes composed of DNA are the blueprint for the development of living organisms or that those genes can mutate randomly (and usually but not always deleteriously) so I am not sure where your beef is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    You’re trying to rationalize the gaps in the fossil record by appealing to Darwinism. You’re assuming the thing you’re trying to prove.

    It’s interesting that, like the Darwinists here, mainstream economists also abuse equilibrium theory. Their claims also cannot be falsified because any observable event that seemingly conflicts with the theory can be dismissed by assuming the existence of some other, unobserved factor that rescues the theory. In this sense modern economics, like Darwinism, is more like religion than science.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Anonymous[221] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    You implied that Darwinian belief in limitless or unending progress was false. You were shown to be in error. Darwin did indeed possess a naive faith in endless progress, as he was an acolyte of Spencer, for whom he reserved the most reverential (even worshipful) praises imaginable. The only small error in the quote above was that it seems to imply that Spencer was influenced by Darwin, when the historical reality is quite the opposite.

    Don't attempt to obfuscate by claiming that I do not know the definition of "linear" which simply means unidirectional progression, as in Darwinism, from the more simple to the more complex. This is a rank superstition, ultimately based upon Utopian notions, as the previous quote demonstrated. Teilhard, with his Omega Point, was another champion of such notions, and he was an ardent champion of transformism. He was also the likely culprit in the Piltdown Man forgery, which was to cause great embarrassment to the champions of Darwinian evolution.

    Getting confused between what Darwin (or those who tried to build on his work and theories in the 19th century) knew or believed and 21st century science with genes, DNA and mutations added as well as a billion fossils and much ancient DNA? You seem to have a relevance problem when it comes to answering whoever you think you are replying to here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. ANON[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    "I consider your omnipotent Creator to be the most complex thing imaginable. By definition he must be, in order to create his less complex creations. We can’t do what you claim your god does. Yet you accept that he doesn’t require a more complex creator. He spontaneously created himself, or always existed. You don’ know."

    Of course God, or the Being, does not require a creator, since He is the ground and author of all contingent being and all causality. "We" obviously cannot do what God does because we are not God. God is pure act; He is immutable, eternal. He did not "spontaneously create Himself" because creation is a temporal, or contingent event. God is the author of time, space and contingent events.

    "The metaphysical basis for his existence is solely a product of the human mind. 'There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this'."

    The metaphysical basis for His existence is not solely a product of the human mind, but a rational philosophical conclusion based upon the order of causality, which, in its non-temporal forms, cannot be quantified, measured or empirically observed. It can only be deduced from its effects, which are clearly not based upon mechanics or time.

    "What I am proposing is that the mountains of scientific empirical evidence is showing that god is not what primitive minds thought he was. God began this creation not as a fully formed omnipotent being from the top down, but in his elementary form as the basic elementary particle from the bottom up. Because you cannot grasp the concept that god is capable of doing it this way doesn’t mean it isn’t so."

    What you are proposing is modernist Protestant process theology, which is, in essence, the idea that the causal order proceeds from the inferior to the superior in kind of a reverse hierarchy, actually a lowerarchy, i.e., matter is the principle of eminence and dependence, which acts upon efficient causality which in turn acts upon the formal and final causes. This is simply an inversion of the true causal order, in which the superior causes, namely the formal and final, act upon the material and efficient. Such concepts are merely signs of one of the degenerative principles, or anti-principles, of the modern world, the revolt of the inferior, and what Rene Guenon described as the "Reign of Quantity."

    All great spiritual traditions are metaphysical in origin.

    Can you suggest any reason why we should care about this God’s preferences or commands or consider Him/Her as in any way benevolent – or even threatening for that matter – towards us?

    Do you think this God has ever communicated with humans? If so, why not a consistent message to all humans? Why did he leave out giving the Word to billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Taoists etc.?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. Rich3423 says:
    @Factorize
    Yap, I am not sure whether I would now agree with the conception of "breeds of humans".
    (I declare my perspective that we are now rapidly approaching a time in which a large scale IQ upgrade will occur across all human populations.)

    The breeds of human idea seems to me to be based on the idea that there are specific genetic features that are uniquely present in some populations and not others. I do not believe this is currently scientifically supported. The genetic architecture of human intelligence is constructed through many many variants almost all of which have very small effect sizes and are mostly common. Notably, due to this polygenic architecture, it is expected that "different breeds of humans" will not actually be "true breeding".

    The entire elitist perspective has been largely discredited. All human populations will be able to greatly increase their IQs well past what is currently observed by simply embryo selecting. When the use of this technology becomes common, the most noticeable "breed" of human will not be defined by race or ancestral origin but date of birth. It seems highly likely that over the next few decades all existing humans will be regarded as being developmentally disabled.

    “The breeds of human idea seems to me to be based on the idea that there are specific genetic features that are uniquely present in some populations and not others. I do not believe this is currently scientifically supported”.

    It is.

    For example, White and Asian people have Neanderthal genes that Africans do not have. That’s a scientific fact that debunks your assertion outright.

    These genes were from interbreeding, and the specific Neanderthal genes present in Europeans and Asians differ due to interbreeding with differing Neanderthal populations that were local to each region. Europeans with the Caucus Neandethal and Asians with a Mongolian breed.

    Asians also have the genetics of another hominid, Denosivan, and have a slightly higher percentage (about 1% more) of total non-human hominid genome in their gene pool relative to Europeans.

    Specific European groups are the only humans, worldwide, to have individuals that are closest to a pure unmixed human type : Cro Magnon. This is all documented, mainstream science.

    Africans have hominid genes of a much earlier type than Neanderthal, spread over several species, which accounts for the wide variety of genes in Africa despite there only being one example of an early modern human (Cro Magnon) that can account for donating the genes necessary for modern human anatomy.

    This was also from intermixing, which accounts for the skin color of Africans, their wide noses, their kinky hair, the group IQ difference, the difference in emotional capacity, behavioral impulse, and also their more rudimentary skull anatomy as well as their different hormone levels and resultant lean muscle development. Of course, research on this is restricted and / or suppressed in the manner of the other studies that you are ignoring that have long ago documented the anatomical differences between races. But this is the truth of the matter.

    The original human template is he same for everyone. The difference is from the earlier hominids that were interbred, forming each racial group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Rich3423, thank you for replying!

    Yes, this is true about the different evolutionary histories for different modern human populations. It will obviously be extremely interesting to have a better understanding of how this might have shaped differences in IQ that are seen today. It also helps to fill in the question of how humans underwent rapid behavioral changes after they contacted these different early humans. It has been something of a mystery to many how these behavioral changes could have happened in the evolutionary blink of the eye of only thousands of years. Introgressions offer a highly plausible explanation.

    My statement about different breeds of humans, though, was more directed at the notion that there are clearly and inherently different "types" of people specifically with respect to intelligence. There is no unique and perhaps magical genetic property that has endowed some with high intelligence and others with not so high intelligence. It is now realized that the genetic architecture of human intelligence is made of probably tens of thousands of variants with super-small effect sizes.

    It is now understood that there are no large common effect size variants that influence intelligence. This is now known with near complete certainty because they have already run IQ GWAS with over 100,000 people (over 1 million for Educational Attainment) and they have as yet not found any such variants.

    The Mendelian conception of human intelligence is simply incorrect. This must be one of the biggest failures in human imagination of all time! Could we really not see one step ahead? Where are the Einsteins that understand the world by thinking? Those with expert knowledge of IQ clearly understand that we are now approaching a liftoff point for humanity.

    We were totally unprepared of this eventually. The science fiction and much of the scientific community had believed that human traits would have been more Mendelian. Even less than 10 years ago it was still not clear that we would arrive where we are now. But here we are. Simply by using extreme embryo selection, any parents on this planet could hav