The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Darwinism"
 All Comments / On "Darwinism"
    This is atrociously long, criminally even, by internet standards but I post it anyway because I get occasional requests. Few will read it, which is understandable. Apologies. The Devil made me do it. Regular readers, if there is one, will have seen most of it before since in large part it is a gluing together...
  • Just stumbled on this. Great article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If we humans create stuff that we think is hi-tech; what is so hard in assuming that stuff we did not create and whose complexity is mind-boggling, what is so hard in believing that an infinitely more intelligent creature than we are exists i.e God? I think that is common sense!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In the ever-entertaining dispute over Darwinian evolution, “irreducible complexity”–IC–has provided a serviceable bone on which intellectual rodents, such as myself, can gnaw. Briefly, for those who have had better sense than to entangle themselves in such brambles, irreducible complexity is the observation–if it is an observation–that many things in biology consist of many parts such...
  • @utu
    "I have no idea to what you refer in regard to Nov. 12 and Nov. 9." You think we are stupid? On Now. 9 kip was born and Nov. 12 MCPO USN posted his last comment. Why do you change identities while you are unable change styles and personality?

    Looks like the admin caught up with you.

    No, the “admin”, although busybodying to absolute hellandgone, did not catch up to me.

    Put your real name up there, chump. Prove something. Otherwise, cram it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Robert Jensen
    Thanks Fred.
    You done edumacated me on IC now.

    It's always good to see someone with brains stand up to the evolution commissars.
    The authoritarian nature of the theory's promotion is such a real deterrent to making converts: Whenever I see academics browbeat someone for disagreeing with them, I have a strong feeling their argument is lacking somewhere.

    “Whenever I see academics browbeat someone for disagreeing with them, I have a strong feeling their argument is lacking somewhere.” – Bing Bang, Relativity, Global Warming

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thanks Fred.
    You done edumacated me on IC now.

    It’s always good to see someone with brains stand up to the evolution commissars.
    The authoritarian nature of the theory’s promotion is such a real deterrent to making converts: Whenever I see academics browbeat someone for disagreeing with them, I have a strong feeling their argument is lacking somewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Whenever I see academics browbeat someone for disagreeing with them, I have a strong feeling their argument is lacking somewhere." - Bing Bang, Relativity, Global Warming
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous coward
    No offense, but what you wrote is poetic but meaningless bullshit.

    Here's some actual science (and math) for you: if a billion monkeys were each typing a billion random letters each second, it would take them
    231, 080, 957, 811, 190, 927, 269, 310, 943, 118, 483, 284, 648, 496, 845, 439, 628, 381, 252, 911, 541, 331, 943, 555, 697, 329, 212, 210, 172, 013, 971, 626, 240, 946, 988, 971, 751, 394, 837, 672, 615, 850, 148, 618, 263, 638, 353, 131, 386, 962, 373, 575, 159, 518, 819, 874, 308, 635, 067, 341, 309, 329, 249, 874, 178, 479, 566, 038, 914, 832, 646, 621, 137, 284, 333, 772, 314, 459, 034, 100, 053, 876, 949, 811, 722, 656, 280, 844, 471, 657, 984, 507, 140, 868, 872, 074, 738, 112, 013, 547, 919, 968, 047, 188, 518, 048, 212, 155, 498, 448, 337, 702, 206, 623, 211, 349, 884, 261, 431, 354, 161, 075, 265, 369, 049, 027, 518, 481, 664, 577, 556, 287, 008, 022, 255, 053, 265, 819, 995, 218, 943, 355, 184, 256, 370, 011, 068, 489, 993, 534, 650, 940, 409, 745, 215, 489, 528, 869, 936, 090, 378, 648, 461, 557, 547, 077, 736, 292, 017, 771, 802, 770, 318, 030, 566, 982, 534, 902, 015, 286, 884, 472, 795, 623, 515, 605, 996, 077, 207, 721, 431, 280, 055, 630, 198, 353, 990, 182, 017, 679, 645, 429, 986, 030, 013, 148, 682, 207, 445, 163, 351, 921, 499, 429, 124, 224, 185, 006, 641, 656, 758, 677, 652, 698, 179, 988, 809, 209, 686, 517, 444, 424, 880, 054, 612, 799, 473, 038, 467, 120, 062, 007, 815, 493, 638, 731, 511, 812, 204, 051, 911, 734, 939, 635, 619, 819, 731, 536, 776, 664, 692, 115, 625, 779, 716, 066, 116, 319, 206, 027, 730, 172, 287, 179, 710, 101, 352, 758, 632, 767, 433, 392, 008, 077, 643, 576, 522, 823, 038, 576, 216, 540, 493, 295, 724, 633, 562, 125, 452, 060, 730, 617, 440, 037, 804, 773, 537, 634, 251, 871, 362, 846, 694, 661, 432, 149, 773, 842, 764, 716, 793, 907, 899, 391, 314, 769, 070, 299, 263, 895, 596, 583, 745, 191, 038, 819, 661, 941, 799, 184, 255, 640, 401, 833, 774, 092, 322, 217, 538, 015, 387, 700, 398, 351, 974, 145, 750, 662, 566, 607, 402, 357, 336, 196, 406, 331, 131, 875, 592, 094, 720, 957, 143, 334, 164, 596, 247, 907, 613, 120, 196, 441, 627, 640, 638, 776, 207, 236, 180, 763, 146, 044, 537, 248, 696, 477, 705, 988, 370, 607, 069, 992, 219, 317, 646, 857, 496, 689, 885, 277, 297, 436, 557, 695, 326, 253, 170, 896, 269, 952, 448, 600, 832, 436, 654, 193, 186, 284, 977, 634, 312, 993, 476, 115, 858, 779, 843, 654, 036, 208, 550, 074, 951, 717, 040, 273, 454, 543, 399, 309, 908, 968, 853, 154, 334, 539, 334, 281, 483, 310, 552, 513, 876, 212, 801, 637, 002, 548, 388, 159, 420, 176, 979, 845, 376, 566, 000
    billion years to randomly generate your post.

    How much more complex is an amoeba compared to your post?

    So its scientific because you use commas? Monkeys randomly typing is a terrible analogy. They cant make Shakespeare, they cant write posts on unz.

    Although, I do appreciate you saying my post was “poetic”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Santoculto,

    I haven't read your whole comment, so I apologize if I misunderstand.

    Surely, though

    I need to know who I’m talking to. Are you religious*
     
    is absurd? At most it introduces a red herring into the discussion.

    Take it that I am a Buddhist (Theravada, naturally). How does this affect your argument?

    On another note, what do the asterisks (one or two) at the end of your sentences mean? Is it a Portuguese orthographical convention?

    RSDB

    I asked for Utu, not for you, sorry.

    Are you Utu*

    * = ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    Yes, with respect to anti-religion, but not at the "crusade" level.

    I have no objection to well-supported theory/hypothesis that contradicts evolution as presented by scientists from Darwin to the present. Or, for that matter, evidence-based theory that does not contradict evolution. Present good evidence, present supported hypotheses, and I will give them a fair shake. I do not regard religious explanation, or "space seed" explanation, as valid.

    I have no idea to what you refer in regard to Nov. 12 and Nov. 9.

    “I have no idea to what you refer in regard to Nov. 12 and Nov. 9.” You think we are stupid? On Now. 9 kip was born and Nov. 12 MCPO USN posted his last comment. Why do you change identities while you are unable change styles and personality?

    Looks like the admin caught up with you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    No, the "admin", although busybodying to absolute hellandgone, did not catch up to me.

    Put your real name up there, chump. Prove something. Otherwise, cram it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Thanks for the support. I'm not sure I make a good point, that is, I certainly don't in the sense of making an original one; I'm just repeating a common observation.

    RSDB

    Probably it s not original but it is a very good point and people should be made aware of its validity. The preponderance of the just-so stories concocted by evolutionist is overwhelming but most of them are unverifiable. We have similar situation in global warming. Every hurricane or dead polar bear is attributed to it. This is not science. It’s a propaganda. I believe in ToE and believe in global warming but I am offended by inflated and unwarranted stories being told just to propagandize the TOE or GW.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Anon is correct. Makes a very good point. Your argument that it is nonsensical is weak and a really copout.

    Thanks for the support. I’m not sure I make a good point, that is, I certainly don’t in the sense of making an original one; I’m just repeating a common observation.

    RSDB

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Probably it s not original but it is a very good point and people should be made aware of its validity. The preponderance of the just-so stories concocted by evolutionist is overwhelming but most of them are unverifiable. We have similar situation in global warming. Every hurricane or dead polar bear is attributed to it. This is not science. It's a propaganda. I believe in ToE and believe in global warming but I am offended by inflated and unwarranted stories being told just to propagandize the TOE or GW.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    So if you didn’t disagree with anything I said, what was the point of quoting me?
     
    This --> "pointless just-so stories produced by lazy biologists" <-- is nonsensical. I quoted it because it makes no sense. Which is exactly what I wrote above. One does not "disagree" with nonsense; one simply notes that it is nonsense.

    I don’t see any semantic issues with the phrase.

    I should have realized -in fact I would usually be aware- that “just-so story” is a trigger phrase for some people. And “lazy” is unnecessarily pejorative, and “pointless” possibly so. Had I been thinking carefully about whom I might offend, I would have used different phrasing.

    Nevertheless, what is once said cannot be unsaid, and I think the intended meaning of the phrase you quoted can be easily deciphered.

    Gould (and Lewontin) agrees with me, see below:

    https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/GouldLewontin.pdf

    RSDB

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Santoculto
    So explain for us what do you think about evolution via objective ways.

    Amphibians are another example of how evolution can happen. They have an aquatic phase, when they are born, and when they start to develop they will losing those characteristics, which become adapted to live on dry land.

    There is plenty of evidence, I would not call evolution, necessarily, but continuity in the mental and physiological transformations of / among the life forms, links between all life forms.

    For example, human fetuses in their early stages are very similar to the fetuses of many other species.

    The theory of evolution is not based on weak evidence. And this is one of the reasons to be considered as one of the greatest discoveries of the human being.

    But I'm not understanding your point here, if you're clearer maybe I'll understand.

    I need to know who I'm talking to. Are you religious*

    Santoculto,

    I haven’t read your whole comment, so I apologize if I misunderstand.

    Surely, though

    I need to know who I’m talking to. Are you religious*

    is absurd? At most it introduces a red herring into the discussion.

    Take it that I am a Buddhist (Theravada, naturally). How does this affect your argument?

    On another note, what do the asterisks (one or two) at the end of your sentences mean? Is it a Portuguese orthographical convention?

    RSDB

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I asked for Utu, not for you, sorry.

    Are you Utu*

    * = ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ”See my post above; if evolution is random, then there is not enough time or matter in a universe of universes to create even one giraffe.”

    Evolution can’t be completely random if it is the continuity of physiological and psychological transformations among species…

    What we can conclude, or not, is

    Humans might or might not have ” appeared ”, but when the evolutionary path began to be traced in this direction, the human being became a reality, than just a possibility. The level of macro-randomness is high when a species is undergoing transformations toward speciation. My opinion.

    Evolution always has a starting point, and this starting point determines, possibly, a good part of its trajectory of transformations.

    ”You need evolve… but evolve from what*”

    The micro-randomness/mutability is higher or possibly higher all the time, specially in/for long-term instable environments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @anonymous coward

    Thus, not 1 million generations, but 12 million, at least. Furthermore, what was the age of sexual maturity for each species of the giraffe ancestors that preceded the modern giraffe? Even less?
     
    1 million or 12 million or 12 billion generations -- there's no difference, that is not enough for random drift to do its magic.

    See my post above; if evolution is random, then there is not enough time or matter in a universe of universes to create even one giraffe.

    Do the math, a simple highschool-level calculation with show you that you are off by trillions of orders of magnitude.

    P.S. Darwinian evolution violates the Central Limit Theorem. Biologists really should learn some basic statistics.

    1 million or 12 million or 12 billion generations — there’s no difference, that is not enough for random drift to do its magic.

    Yes, it is. Sorry. Facts talk, bullshit walks.

    Pick your preferred wacko, space-cadet, or jesus-worshipping alternative — it’s your life, and frankly, I just don’t give a damn about you tailless squirrels.

    Oh, and while you’re at it, prove the central limit theorem, and all other probability theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith

    If a Giraffe lives for 50 years (just to give an easy dividable number) and has 1000 Million years to evolve than this species have 20 million generations.
     
    Don't take this as an insult, but there is a signal embedded in your post that you probably lack the background necessary.

    What is that? While giraffes may live 50 years, they are sexually mature and can reproduce by age four. Thus, not 1 million generations, but 12 million, at least. Furthermore, what was the age of sexual maturity for each species of the giraffe ancestors that preceded the modern giraffe? Even less?

    If you turn to the HBD "theorists" who seem to abound in the alt-right organizations, you'll find proponents of a belief that human natural selection can take place in 8 generations, perhaps fewer. And that's humans.

    I don't mind if you prefer to reject evolution; that's your option. But your challenge should begin with a solid basis.

    Thus, not 1 million generations, but 12 million, at least. Furthermore, what was the age of sexual maturity for each species of the giraffe ancestors that preceded the modern giraffe? Even less?

    1 million or 12 million or 12 billion generations — there’s no difference, that is not enough for random drift to do its magic.

    See my post above; if evolution is random, then there is not enough time or matter in a universe of universes to create even one giraffe.

    Do the math, a simple highschool-level calculation with show you that you are off by trillions of orders of magnitude.

    P.S. Darwinian evolution violates the Central Limit Theorem. Biologists really should learn some basic statistics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    1 million or 12 million or 12 billion generations — there’s no difference, that is not enough for random drift to do its magic.
     
    Yes, it is. Sorry. Facts talk, bullshit walks.

    Pick your preferred wacko, space-cadet, or jesus-worshipping alternative -- it's your life, and frankly, I just don't give a damn about you tailless squirrels.

    Oh, and while you're at it, prove the central limit theorem, and all other probability theory.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    I used in my comments the word "confabulation" several times. I do not think I used the phrase

    "I THINK EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS IS JUST A CONFABULATIONs…"

    I did the search of this page and I did not find it. So what is your point? You think I stated this phrase or is it you who is stating it? If the former, you are wrong, if the latter, why should I care.

    So explain for us what do you think about evolution via objective ways.

    Amphibians are another example of how evolution can happen. They have an aquatic phase, when they are born, and when they start to develop they will losing those characteristics, which become adapted to live on dry land.

    There is plenty of evidence, I would not call evolution, necessarily, but continuity in the mental and physiological transformations of / among the life forms, links between all life forms.

    For example, human fetuses in their early stages are very similar to the fetuses of many other species.

    The theory of evolution is not based on weak evidence. And this is one of the reasons to be considered as one of the greatest discoveries of the human being.

    But I’m not understanding your point here, if you’re clearer maybe I’ll understand.

    I need to know who I’m talking to. Are you religious*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Santoculto,

    I haven't read your whole comment, so I apologize if I misunderstand.

    Surely, though

    I need to know who I’m talking to. Are you religious*
     
    is absurd? At most it introduces a red herring into the discussion.

    Take it that I am a Buddhist (Theravada, naturally). How does this affect your argument?

    On another note, what do the asterisks (one or two) at the end of your sentences mean? Is it a Portuguese orthographical convention?

    RSDB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Juice
    Are you joking with this article?

    Whoever runs this website needs to make sure articles like this never again appear on its pages if you ever want it to be taken seriously.

    I'm far from joking. If this website wants any actual credibility, it cannot host articles espousing creationism. It just can't.

    This article does not espouse creationism. But you on the other hand suffer from the dogmatic ossification of the brain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Are you joking with this article?

    Whoever runs this website needs to make sure articles like this never again appear on its pages if you ever want it to be taken seriously.

    I’m far from joking. If this website wants any actual credibility, it cannot host articles espousing creationism. It just can’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    This article does not espouse creationism. But you on the other hand suffer from the dogmatic ossification of the brain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Personal opinions


    I THINK EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS IS JUST A CONFABULATIONs...


    Argumentations

    BECAUSE...

    Be happy because i no have any 0,00002% of will to improve my napolitanic english. You and many others here can use this excuse to avoid debate with me.

    I used in my comments the word “confabulation” several times. I do not think I used the phrase

    “I THINK EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS IS JUST A CONFABULATIONs…”

    I did the search of this page and I did not find it. So what is your point? You think I stated this phrase or is it you who is stating it? If the former, you are wrong, if the latter, why should I care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    So explain for us what do you think about evolution via objective ways.

    Amphibians are another example of how evolution can happen. They have an aquatic phase, when they are born, and when they start to develop they will losing those characteristics, which become adapted to live on dry land.

    There is plenty of evidence, I would not call evolution, necessarily, but continuity in the mental and physiological transformations of / among the life forms, links between all life forms.

    For example, human fetuses in their early stages are very similar to the fetuses of many other species.

    The theory of evolution is not based on weak evidence. And this is one of the reasons to be considered as one of the greatest discoveries of the human being.

    But I'm not understanding your point here, if you're clearer maybe I'll understand.

    I need to know who I'm talking to. Are you religious*

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @Know that i don't know

    Best explanation is that it takes a long, long, long, long time — pretty much a basic premise of evolution.
     
    But what is a long long .... time? If a Giraffe lives for 50 years (just to give an easy dividable number) and has 1000 Million years to evolve than this species have 20 million generations. Not very much to build such a complicated system simply by coincidence and selection.

    Apart from the fact that there are very very very.... few positive mutations where are all the bad ones? If you , for example, design a wrist watch with this concept than you may have a watch at the end. But there must be gigantic steelyards of wrong ones. Where they are in nature?

    If a Giraffe lives for 50 years (just to give an easy dividable number) and has 1000 Million years to evolve than this species have 20 million generations.

    Don’t take this as an insult, but there is a signal embedded in your post that you probably lack the background necessary.

    What is that? While giraffes may live 50 years, they are sexually mature and can reproduce by age four. Thus, not 1 million generations, but 12 million, at least. Furthermore, what was the age of sexual maturity for each species of the giraffe ancestors that preceded the modern giraffe? Even less?

    If you turn to the HBD “theorists” who seem to abound in the alt-right organizations, you’ll find proponents of a belief that human natural selection can take place in 8 generations, perhaps fewer. And that’s humans.

    I don’t mind if you prefer to reject evolution; that’s your option. But your challenge should begin with a solid basis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Thus, not 1 million generations, but 12 million, at least. Furthermore, what was the age of sexual maturity for each species of the giraffe ancestors that preceded the modern giraffe? Even less?
     
    1 million or 12 million or 12 billion generations -- there's no difference, that is not enough for random drift to do its magic.

    See my post above; if evolution is random, then there is not enough time or matter in a universe of universes to create even one giraffe.

    Do the math, a simple highschool-level calculation with show you that you are off by trillions of orders of magnitude.

    P.S. Darwinian evolution violates the Central Limit Theorem. Biologists really should learn some basic statistics.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    I do not know what you want me to tell you or what is your objections. And I suspect that you do not know either. Pls put more effort in writing your comments. Then I may respond.

    Personal opinions

    I THINK EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS IS JUST A CONFABULATIONs…

    Argumentations

    BECAUSE…

    Be happy because i no have any 0,00002% of will to improve my napolitanic english. You and many others here can use this excuse to avoid debate with me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I used in my comments the word "confabulation" several times. I do not think I used the phrase

    "I THINK EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS IS JUST A CONFABULATIONs…"

    I did the search of this page and I did not find it. So what is your point? You think I stated this phrase or is it you who is stating it? If the former, you are wrong, if the latter, why should I care.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith

    how does a short-necked giraffe acquire all of the thousands of genetic changes to become a long necked giraffe when the changes individually have no value, or are more likely harmful?
     
    How? Best explanation is that it takes a long, long, long, long time -- pretty much a basic premise of evolution. If a genetic change does not contribute to reproductive success (i.e. "no value"), it remains in the genome, unless it acts directly to reduce reproductive success (i.e. "harmful"), in which case it extinguishes. At some later time, environmental factors may become such that a "dormant" gene acquires circumstances that improve reproductive success.

    This is really, really, easy basic stuff. Read-up on evolution -- it's very well documented and has been conclusively demonstrated to be fact.

    Best explanation is that it takes a long, long, long, long time — pretty much a basic premise of evolution.

    But what is a long long …. time? If a Giraffe lives for 50 years (just to give an easy dividable number) and has 1000 Million years to evolve than this species have 20 million generations. Not very much to build such a complicated system simply by coincidence and selection.

    Apart from the fact that there are very very very…. few positive mutations where are all the bad ones? If you , for example, design a wrist watch with this concept than you may have a watch at the end. But there must be gigantic steelyards of wrong ones. Where they are in nature?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    If a Giraffe lives for 50 years (just to give an easy dividable number) and has 1000 Million years to evolve than this species have 20 million generations.
     
    Don't take this as an insult, but there is a signal embedded in your post that you probably lack the background necessary.

    What is that? While giraffes may live 50 years, they are sexually mature and can reproduce by age four. Thus, not 1 million generations, but 12 million, at least. Furthermore, what was the age of sexual maturity for each species of the giraffe ancestors that preceded the modern giraffe? Even less?

    If you turn to the HBD "theorists" who seem to abound in the alt-right organizations, you'll find proponents of a belief that human natural selection can take place in 8 generations, perhaps fewer. And that's humans.

    I don't mind if you prefer to reject evolution; that's your option. But your challenge should begin with a solid basis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    A story

    You have the fossil of a marine species on the top of a mountain. How that fossil or rather, how that sea creature got up there *

    This does not just seem like a story to me.

    I think you need prove your points, or will be other confabulations.

    I do not know what you want me to tell you or what is your objections. And I suspect that you do not know either. Pls put more effort in writing your comments. Then I may respond.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Personal opinions


    I THINK EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS IS JUST A CONFABULATIONs...


    Argumentations

    BECAUSE...

    Be happy because i no have any 0,00002% of will to improve my napolitanic english. You and many others here can use this excuse to avoid debate with me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Which part of evolution? Say you have a fossil A and fossil B then what kind of story are you going to tell linking fossil A with fossil B. You can tell many stories. Which one of them can you verify as being true? From the fact that you cannot verify any of this stories it does not follow that ToE is wrong. They are just confabulations, making up stories that have the same point of departure: ToE is right so it follows that B must have evolved from A. These stories do not reinforce ToE. They are just-so stories, ad hoc fallacies.

    "In science and philosophy, a just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

    A story

    You have the fossil of a marine species on the top of a mountain. How that fossil or rather, how that sea creature got up there *

    This does not just seem like a story to me.

    I think you need prove your points, or will be other confabulations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I do not know what you want me to tell you or what is your objections. And I suspect that you do not know either. Pls put more effort in writing your comments. Then I may respond.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:

    Yes, with respect to anti-religion, but not at the “crusade” level.

    I have no objection to well-supported theory/hypothesis that contradicts evolution as presented by scientists from Darwin to the present. Or, for that matter, evidence-based theory that does not contradict evolution. Present good evidence, present supported hypotheses, and I will give them a fair shake. I do not regard religious explanation, or “space seed” explanation, as valid.

    I have no idea to what you refer in regard to Nov. 12 and Nov. 9.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "I have no idea to what you refer in regard to Nov. 12 and Nov. 9." You think we are stupid? On Now. 9 kip was born and Nov. 12 MCPO USN posted his last comment. Why do you change identities while you are unable change styles and personality?

    Looks like the admin caught up with you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    Laughing out loud, you pathetic religionist schmigockel.

    “religionist schmigockel” ??? – Are you on some anti-religion crusade? Any criticism of ToE is perceived as an attack form religious ignoramuses? Man, you have a temperament of old Bolshevik hack. You should stay away from science. It ain’t for you.

    What happened to MCPO USN? Expired on Nov. 12 and you were born on Nov. 9. Was it election related?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @melendwyr
    Pumpkins don't grow on trees because God's mercy spares the creatures that would be hit by their fall?

    So how do we explain coconuts, then? They kill several people every year, IIRC. On the other hand, coconuts have been extensively selected and transported by humans, so they're at least partially a product of human selection (somewhat-intelligent design). On the other other hand, so are pumpkins.

    Evolutionary change can't be run backwards, I'm afraid, even theoretically.

    Don’t ask me. Ask the hypothetical scientist of Theory of Creation who came up with the explanation for pumpkins. Perhaps he did not know about coconuts. This was an example of just-so story which I made to illustrate the fact that the Theory of Evolution is polluted with similar just-so stories that cannot be verified and which do not contribute anything to the ToE. They are just like Jewish haggadah, and also like a form of propaganda. They have no empirical nor theoretical value. They are made for “children” so they can go to sleep at ease knowing that everything is explained, our belief system is sound, everything is in order, we have no unsolved problems so we do not have to worry. Every culture and every belief system is full of jut-so stories. The Theory of Evolution is full of them. The just-so stories serve only cultural purpose but they do not contribute to the Theory of Evolution itself because most of the just-so stories are unverifiable so they cannot be proven right or wrong. Still they make evolutions very content.

    “In science and philosophy, a just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto

    Evolutionists’ hagagdah that confabulates stories how adaptation A evolved from adaptation B is just haggadah, confabulation, just-so story. These stories cannot be verified but still they are told with a straight face by evolutionist story tellers.
     
    Develop your argumentation, by now it's just personal opinions.

    Why evolution cannot be VERIFIED**

    Which part of evolution? Say you have a fossil A and fossil B then what kind of story are you going to tell linking fossil A with fossil B. You can tell many stories. Which one of them can you verify as being true? From the fact that you cannot verify any of this stories it does not follow that ToE is wrong. They are just confabulations, making up stories that have the same point of departure: ToE is right so it follows that B must have evolved from A. These stories do not reinforce ToE. They are just-so stories, ad hoc fallacies.

    “In science and philosophy, a just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    A story

    You have the fossil of a marine species on the top of a mountain. How that fossil or rather, how that sea creature got up there *

    This does not just seem like a story to me.

    I think you need prove your points, or will be other confabulations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    "If one can produce twenty evolutionary explanations of the same adaptation, with no possibility of verifying any of them, one is writing fiction, not doing science. "

    Exactly. All those story tellers if they did not have evolution theory principle they would be employed by the Church making up stories that start form the God Is Good (GIG) principle like for example: Pumpkins do not grow on trees because God did not want other animals to be hurt by falling pumpkins. The room for creative story writing would be equally infinite as it is in the case of the theory of evolution.

    Pumpkins don’t grow on trees because God’s mercy spares the creatures that would be hit by their fall?

    So how do we explain coconuts, then? They kill several people every year, IIRC. On the other hand, coconuts have been extensively selected and transported by humans, so they’re at least partially a product of human selection (somewhat-intelligent design). On the other other hand, so are pumpkins.

    Evolutionary change can’t be run backwards, I’m afraid, even theoretically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Don't ask me. Ask the hypothetical scientist of Theory of Creation who came up with the explanation for pumpkins. Perhaps he did not know about coconuts. This was an example of just-so story which I made to illustrate the fact that the Theory of Evolution is polluted with similar just-so stories that cannot be verified and which do not contribute anything to the ToE. They are just like Jewish haggadah, and also like a form of propaganda. They have no empirical nor theoretical value. They are made for "children" so they can go to sleep at ease knowing that everything is explained, our belief system is sound, everything is in order, we have no unsolved problems so we do not have to worry. Every culture and every belief system is full of jut-so stories. The Theory of Evolution is full of them. The just-so stories serve only cultural purpose but they do not contribute to the Theory of Evolution itself because most of the just-so stories are unverifiable so they cannot be proven right or wrong. Still they make evolutions very content.

    “In science and philosophy, a just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Evolutionists' hagagdah that confabulates stories how adaptation A evolved from adaptation B is just haggadah, confabulation, just-so story. These stories cannot be verified but still they are told with a straight face by evolutionist story tellers.

    Anon was correct to point this fact out. And you Kip by screaming nonsense, nonsense, nonsense are just having a childish tantrum. You have to grow up and face the world w/o the just-so stories. That's what grownups do.

    Evolutionists’ hagagdah that confabulates stories how adaptation A evolved from adaptation B is just haggadah, confabulation, just-so story. These stories cannot be verified but still they are told with a straight face by evolutionist story tellers.

    Develop your argumentation, by now it’s just personal opinions.

    Why evolution cannot be VERIFIED**

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Which part of evolution? Say you have a fossil A and fossil B then what kind of story are you going to tell linking fossil A with fossil B. You can tell many stories. Which one of them can you verify as being true? From the fact that you cannot verify any of this stories it does not follow that ToE is wrong. They are just confabulations, making up stories that have the same point of departure: ToE is right so it follows that B must have evolved from A. These stories do not reinforce ToE. They are just-so stories, ad hoc fallacies.

    "In science and philosophy, a just-so story, also called an ad hoc fallacy, is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    Bobagem é bobagem.

    You’re that boringly hyperactive guy** huuumm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    Did you want to tell me all about your handle?

    Haven’t I?

    Was complimenting you on your taste in literature, dude.

    -(Prefers to remain anonymous)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous

    Just say “Ah, this illustrates the Glory of God. Praised be His Name.” They dig that shit — makes ‘em roll over like petting a boxer puppy.
     
    Surely you know Mr. Reed well enough to understand that this is nonsense.

    You've got a nice handle now, btw.

    -(Prefers to remain anonymous)

    Did you want to tell me all about your handle?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Haven't I?

    Was complimenting you on your taste in literature, dude.

    -(Prefers to remain anonymous)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon

    For instance, the stress of a famine might cause the epigenome to direct that females die sooner so that they are not consuming resources beyond their contribution to species survival.
     
    Is this something that has been actually observed? If so I'd be very interested.

    Check (should be easily Googled) the Swedish famine of maybe 1836.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    When ever people try to disprove evolution and say its too complex i try to explain how long ONE BILLION YEARS IS.
     
    Oh, yes, per the usual. Humans have no concept of how stupendously long a billion years is, much less 4 billion. There's no point whatsoever in attempting to convince a True Believer of evolution -- or of anything, really, other than something hokey like "the glory of God". They believe pure rot, Snail -- what possibility is there of them coming to understand anything, anything at all, really?

    Just say "Ah, this illustrates the Glory of God. Praised be His Name." They dig that shit -- makes 'em roll over like petting a boxer puppy.

    Just say “Ah, this illustrates the Glory of God. Praised be His Name.” They dig that shit — makes ‘em roll over like petting a boxer puppy.

    Surely you know Mr. Reed well enough to understand that this is nonsense.

    You’ve got a nice handle now, btw.

    -(Prefers to remain anonymous)

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Did you want to tell me all about your handle?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    Complete nonsense, fideist religion format.

    Are you the fellow who used to post under “MCPO USN”? You sound alike.
    If you were accurate then, I salute your service.
    Nevertheless, you really ought to cut down on this sort of trolling. What does insulting your interlocutors gain you? Laughs? Seriously, pal, go plant a whoopee cushion if you need to get your kicks this way.
    Why do you keep changing your name? Though I’ll admit “Kip Russell” is a good one.

    -(Prefers to remain anonymous)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Evolutionists' hagagdah that confabulates stories how adaptation A evolved from adaptation B is just haggadah, confabulation, just-so story. These stories cannot be verified but still they are told with a straight face by evolutionist story tellers.

    Anon was correct to point this fact out. And you Kip by screaming nonsense, nonsense, nonsense are just having a childish tantrum. You have to grow up and face the world w/o the just-so stories. That's what grownups do.

    Laughing out loud, you pathetic religionist schmigockel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "religionist schmigockel" ??? - Are you on some anti-religion crusade? Any criticism of ToE is perceived as an attack form religious ignoramuses? Man, you have a temperament of old Bolshevik hack. You should stay away from science. It ain't for you.

    What happened to MCPO USN? Expired on Nov. 12 and you were born on Nov. 9. Was it election related?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith

    The “just-so stories” are like haggadah which are confabulations that make you look good. Anon in #20 was correct pointing out to the unverifiable stories:
     
    Next, you'll be telling us the Just So stories are all true.

    Anon's comment was nonsensical. When nonsense is posted, those who thrive on nonsense begin to wax eloquent about how accurate and illuminating that particular nonsense is. The nonsense remains nonsense.

    Evolutionists’ hagagdah that confabulates stories how adaptation A evolved from adaptation B is just haggadah, confabulation, just-so story. These stories cannot be verified but still they are told with a straight face by evolutionist story tellers.

    Anon was correct to point this fact out. And you Kip by screaming nonsense, nonsense, nonsense are just having a childish tantrum. You have to grow up and face the world w/o the just-so stories. That’s what grownups do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Laughing out loud, you pathetic religionist schmigockel.
    , @Santoculto

    Evolutionists’ hagagdah that confabulates stories how adaptation A evolved from adaptation B is just haggadah, confabulation, just-so story. These stories cannot be verified but still they are told with a straight face by evolutionist story tellers.
     
    Develop your argumentation, by now it's just personal opinions.

    Why evolution cannot be VERIFIED**
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    Mister Nonsense, ;)

    Kick Russ

    Bobagem é bobagem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    You're that boringly hyperactive guy** huuumm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Mister Nonsense, ;)

    Kick Russ

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Bobagem é bobagem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @Mulegino1
    Excellent summation!

    The rank superstition of materialist reductionism must of necessity exclude the vertical causality so evident and manifest in biological organisms; it cannot exclude entirely talk of the formal and the final without sounding ridiculous, so it implies that the latter are fortuitous products of the merely efficient and material, which is a true absurdity and a total inversion of the causal order.

    The rank superstition of materialist reductionism must of necessity exclude the vertical causality so evident and manifest in biological organisms; it cannot exclude entirely talk of the formal and the final without sounding ridiculous

    Nonsense. Aristotelian causality (which is what you reference with “formal” and “final”) is only a system for analysis. There is no requirement that all four “causes” must be present. Nor has the Aristotelian approach to causality been proven to be infallible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Intelligent Dasein
    My God, man! Have I died and gone to heaven? Finally another essentialist on Unz.com, and somebody who understands what metaphysics actually means! Of course, I am also a creationist in the sense that I accept de fide the belief that God created the heavens and the earth, but apart from that my understanding is indistinguishable from Aristotle's, as was St. Thomas'.

    I am rather annoyed that there is not a broader understanding of the fact that the entire organism is irreducible. Cut a dog in half, and you do not end up with half a dog. You end up with a dead piece of meat. There is no such thing as a partial dog, a pre-dog, a post-dog, or an approximate dog. There are only dogs and non-dogs. The substantial form---which alone makes a dog what it is rather than an indeterminate mass of cytoplasm---is monadic. The issue here is not so much irreducible complexity as it is irreducible simplicity. Organs, organ systems, biochemical pathways and the like, are nothing in themselves. They only acquire significance insofar as they are related to a living creature, the essence of which is point-like and indivisible. Clearly these essences could not have arisen from anything else, nor do they transform into anything else. They are either eternal elements of the logos (i.e. logoi spermatikoi or rationes seminales) or they were created by the First Cause, i.e. God---and as far as the natural reason is concerned, it makes absolutely no difference which one is the case, as indeed the natural reason alone is incapable of distinguishing between the two alternatives or their effects. The doctrine of creation concerns only the revealed faith; the natural reason alone is sufficient to demonstrate that evolution is impossible.

    Excellent summation!

    The rank superstition of materialist reductionism must of necessity exclude the vertical causality so evident and manifest in biological organisms; it cannot exclude entirely talk of the formal and the final without sounding ridiculous, so it implies that the latter are fortuitous products of the merely efficient and material, which is a true absurdity and a total inversion of the causal order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    The rank superstition of materialist reductionism must of necessity exclude the vertical causality so evident and manifest in biological organisms; it cannot exclude entirely talk of the formal and the final without sounding ridiculous
     
    Nonsense. Aristotelian causality (which is what you reference with "formal" and "final") is only a system for analysis. There is no requirement that all four "causes" must be present. Nor has the Aristotelian approach to causality been proven to be infallible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    "keep in mind that 4 billion years is a length of time of which the human mind can speak, but not truly comprehend"

    When ever people try to disprove evolution and say its too complex i try to explain how long ONE BILLION YEARS IS. Humans have been around roughly 100000 years. We've been recording our antics for only 10000 years. So 1/10 of the time we have been here, we have developed all our nifty gadgets, gizmos and intellectual property (languages,mathematics,art). In less then 20 thousand years, we went from living in caves to living in space.

    Now, this timeframe (20,000 years) is 1/50 of (only) one million years. We need to go another 999 million years just to hit a billion. That means humans have been making stuff for only 1/50000 of one billion years. And thats just 1 billion. Earth is a few billion years old.

    Its like future generations in 1000 years saying we couldnt have gone from living in caves to living in space in such a tiny time frame.

    When ever people try to disprove evolution and say its too complex i try to explain how long ONE BILLION YEARS IS.

    Oh, yes, per the usual. Humans have no concept of how stupendously long a billion years is, much less 4 billion. There’s no point whatsoever in attempting to convince a True Believer of evolution — or of anything, really, other than something hokey like “the glory of God”. They believe pure rot, Snail — what possibility is there of them coming to understand anything, anything at all, really?

    Just say “Ah, this illustrates the Glory of God. Praised be His Name.” They dig that shit — makes ‘em roll over like petting a boxer puppy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Just say “Ah, this illustrates the Glory of God. Praised be His Name.” They dig that shit — makes ‘em roll over like petting a boxer puppy.
     
    Surely you know Mr. Reed well enough to understand that this is nonsense.

    You've got a nice handle now, btw.

    -(Prefers to remain anonymous)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Intelligent Dasein
    My God, man! Have I died and gone to heaven? Finally another essentialist on Unz.com, and somebody who understands what metaphysics actually means! Of course, I am also a creationist in the sense that I accept de fide the belief that God created the heavens and the earth, but apart from that my understanding is indistinguishable from Aristotle's, as was St. Thomas'.

    I am rather annoyed that there is not a broader understanding of the fact that the entire organism is irreducible. Cut a dog in half, and you do not end up with half a dog. You end up with a dead piece of meat. There is no such thing as a partial dog, a pre-dog, a post-dog, or an approximate dog. There are only dogs and non-dogs. The substantial form---which alone makes a dog what it is rather than an indeterminate mass of cytoplasm---is monadic. The issue here is not so much irreducible complexity as it is irreducible simplicity. Organs, organ systems, biochemical pathways and the like, are nothing in themselves. They only acquire significance insofar as they are related to a living creature, the essence of which is point-like and indivisible. Clearly these essences could not have arisen from anything else, nor do they transform into anything else. They are either eternal elements of the logos (i.e. logoi spermatikoi or rationes seminales) or they were created by the First Cause, i.e. God---and as far as the natural reason is concerned, it makes absolutely no difference which one is the case, as indeed the natural reason alone is incapable of distinguishing between the two alternatives or their effects. The doctrine of creation concerns only the revealed faith; the natural reason alone is sufficient to demonstrate that evolution is impossible.

    Complete nonsense, fideist religion format.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Are you the fellow who used to post under "MCPO USN"? You sound alike.
    If you were accurate then, I salute your service.
    Nevertheless, you really ought to cut down on this sort of trolling. What does insulting your interlocutors gain you? Laughs? Seriously, pal, go plant a whoopee cushion if you need to get your kicks this way.
    Why do you keep changing your name? Though I'll admit "Kip Russell" is a good one.

    -(Prefers to remain anonymous)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @utu
    The “just-so stories” are like haggadah which are confabulations that make you look good. Anon in #20 was correct pointing out to the unverifiable stories:

    "If one can produce twenty evolutionary explanations of the same adaptation, with no possibility of verifying any of them, one is writing fiction, not doing science. "

    I tried to reemphasized his point in comments #29 and #156.

    The “just-so stories” are like haggadah which are confabulations that make you look good. Anon in #20 was correct pointing out to the unverifiable stories:

    Next, you’ll be telling us the Just So stories are all true.

    Anon’s comment was nonsensical. When nonsense is posted, those who thrive on nonsense begin to wax eloquent about how accurate and illuminating that particular nonsense is. The nonsense remains nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Evolutionists' hagagdah that confabulates stories how adaptation A evolved from adaptation B is just haggadah, confabulation, just-so story. These stories cannot be verified but still they are told with a straight face by evolutionist story tellers.

    Anon was correct to point this fact out. And you Kip by screaming nonsense, nonsense, nonsense are just having a childish tantrum. You have to grow up and face the world w/o the just-so stories. That's what grownups do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @No_0ne
    Whether anon is correct in his position or not, his meaning in citing "just-so stories" is clear. Perhaps you need to look up the term? Or read the original source for it (Kipling)? Perhaps you should look up "solipsism" while you're at it.

    If other people understand his point (valid or not), it's hardly rational to insist that his language is "nonsensical," simply because you fail to make sense of it.

    Whether anon is correct in his position or not, his meaning in citing “just-so stories” is clear. Perhaps you need to look up the term? Or read the original source for it (Kipling)? Perhaps you should look up “solipsism” while you’re at it.

    Anon is incorrect in his position. His position, in fact, is nonsensical. You are indulging in silly, reactive, solipsistic and ineffective false accusations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Delinquent Snail
    "keep in mind that 4 billion years is a length of time of which the human mind can speak, but not truly comprehend"

    When ever people try to disprove evolution and say its too complex i try to explain how long ONE BILLION YEARS IS. Humans have been around roughly 100000 years. We've been recording our antics for only 10000 years. So 1/10 of the time we have been here, we have developed all our nifty gadgets, gizmos and intellectual property (languages,mathematics,art). In less then 20 thousand years, we went from living in caves to living in space.

    Now, this timeframe (20,000 years) is 1/50 of (only) one million years. We need to go another 999 million years just to hit a billion. That means humans have been making stuff for only 1/50000 of one billion years. And thats just 1 billion. Earth is a few billion years old.

    Its like future generations in 1000 years saying we couldnt have gone from living in caves to living in space in such a tiny time frame.

    No offense, but what you wrote is poetic but meaningless bullshit.

    Here’s some actual science (and math) for you: if a billion monkeys were each typing a billion random letters each second, it would take them
    231, 080, 957, 811, 190, 927, 269, 310, 943, 118, 483, 284, 648, 496, 845, 439, 628, 381, 252, 911, 541, 331, 943, 555, 697, 329, 212, 210, 172, 013, 971, 626, 240, 946, 988, 971, 751, 394, 837, 672, 615, 850, 148, 618, 263, 638, 353, 131, 386, 962, 373, 575, 159, 518, 819, 874, 308, 635, 067, 341, 309, 329, 249, 874, 178, 479, 566, 038, 914, 832, 646, 621, 137, 284, 333, 772, 314, 459, 034, 100, 053, 876, 949, 811, 722, 656, 280, 844, 471, 657, 984, 507, 140, 868, 872, 074, 738, 112, 013, 547, 919, 968, 047, 188, 518, 048, 212, 155, 498, 448, 337, 702, 206, 623, 211, 349, 884, 261, 431, 354, 161, 075, 265, 369, 049, 027, 518, 481, 664, 577, 556, 287, 008, 022, 255, 053, 265, 819, 995, 218, 943, 355, 184, 256, 370, 011, 068, 489, 993, 534, 650, 940, 409, 745, 215, 489, 528, 869, 936, 090, 378, 648, 461, 557, 547, 077, 736, 292, 017, 771, 802, 770, 318, 030, 566, 982, 534, 902, 015, 286, 884, 472, 795, 623, 515, 605, 996, 077, 207, 721, 431, 280, 055, 630, 198, 353, 990, 182, 017, 679, 645, 429, 986, 030, 013, 148, 682, 207, 445, 163, 351, 921, 499, 429, 124, 224, 185, 006, 641, 656, 758, 677, 652, 698, 179, 988, 809, 209, 686, 517, 444, 424, 880, 054, 612, 799, 473, 038, 467, 120, 062, 007, 815, 493, 638, 731, 511, 812, 204, 051, 911, 734, 939, 635, 619, 819, 731, 536, 776, 664, 692, 115, 625, 779, 716, 066, 116, 319, 206, 027, 730, 172, 287, 179, 710, 101, 352, 758, 632, 767, 433, 392, 008, 077, 643, 576, 522, 823, 038, 576, 216, 540, 493, 295, 724, 633, 562, 125, 452, 060, 730, 617, 440, 037, 804, 773, 537, 634, 251, 871, 362, 846, 694, 661, 432, 149, 773, 842, 764, 716, 793, 907, 899, 391, 314, 769, 070, 299, 263, 895, 596, 583, 745, 191, 038, 819, 661, 941, 799, 184, 255, 640, 401, 833, 774, 092, 322, 217, 538, 015, 387, 700, 398, 351, 974, 145, 750, 662, 566, 607, 402, 357, 336, 196, 406, 331, 131, 875, 592, 094, 720, 957, 143, 334, 164, 596, 247, 907, 613, 120, 196, 441, 627, 640, 638, 776, 207, 236, 180, 763, 146, 044, 537, 248, 696, 477, 705, 988, 370, 607, 069, 992, 219, 317, 646, 857, 496, 689, 885, 277, 297, 436, 557, 695, 326, 253, 170, 896, 269, 952, 448, 600, 832, 436, 654, 193, 186, 284, 977, 634, 312, 993, 476, 115, 858, 779, 843, 654, 036, 208, 550, 074, 951, 717, 040, 273, 454, 543, 399, 309, 908, 968, 853, 154, 334, 539, 334, 281, 483, 310, 552, 513, 876, 212, 801, 637, 002, 548, 388, 159, 420, 176, 979, 845, 376, 566, 000
    billion years to randomly generate your post.

    How much more complex is an amoeba compared to your post?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    So its scientific because you use commas? Monkeys randomly typing is a terrible analogy. They cant make Shakespeare, they cant write posts on unz.

    Although, I do appreciate you saying my post was "poetic".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @No_0ne
    Whether anon is correct in his position or not, his meaning in citing "just-so stories" is clear. Perhaps you need to look up the term? Or read the original source for it (Kipling)? Perhaps you should look up "solipsism" while you're at it.

    If other people understand his point (valid or not), it's hardly rational to insist that his language is "nonsensical," simply because you fail to make sense of it.

    The “just-so stories” are like haggadah which are confabulations that make you look good. Anon in #20 was correct pointing out to the unverifiable stories:

    “If one can produce twenty evolutionary explanations of the same adaptation, with no possibility of verifying any of them, one is writing fiction, not doing science. ”

    I tried to reemphasized his point in comments #29 and #156.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    The “just-so stories” are like haggadah which are confabulations that make you look good. Anon in #20 was correct pointing out to the unverifiable stories:
     
    Next, you'll be telling us the Just So stories are all true.

    Anon's comment was nonsensical. When nonsense is posted, those who thrive on nonsense begin to wax eloquent about how accurate and illuminating that particular nonsense is. The nonsense remains nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mulegino1
    No, I'm not a creationist, I'm an essentialist who recognizes that there is variation within phenotypes, but there is no saltation from one type to another; for example, dogs do not turn into seals because they live by the seashore, nor do stingrays turn into flying squirrels due to drought. Nature is not like that whatsoever.

    Transformism is based upon the enlightenment- liberal myth of infinite linear progress. There is no empirical evidence for it whatsoever. A fruit fly remains a fruit fly despite enormous numbers of genetic mutations, just as a dog remains a dog after hundreds of generations of breeding.

    Transformism is, in the simplest terms, the excuse that materialist reductionists proffer in order to eliminate formal and final causality from the causal order - something that may be tenable to those with a positivist world view, but totally unacceptable to those with a metaphysical grounding.

    My God, man! Have I died and gone to heaven? Finally another essentialist on Unz.com, and somebody who understands what metaphysics actually means! Of course, I am also a creationist in the sense that I accept de fide the belief that God created the heavens and the earth, but apart from that my understanding is indistinguishable from Aristotle’s, as was St. Thomas’.

    I am rather annoyed that there is not a broader understanding of the fact that the entire organism is irreducible. Cut a dog in half, and you do not end up with half a dog. You end up with a dead piece of meat. There is no such thing as a partial dog, a pre-dog, a post-dog, or an approximate dog. There are only dogs and non-dogs. The substantial form—which alone makes a dog what it is rather than an indeterminate mass of cytoplasm—is monadic. The issue here is not so much irreducible complexity as it is irreducible simplicity. Organs, organ systems, biochemical pathways and the like, are nothing in themselves. They only acquire significance insofar as they are related to a living creature, the essence of which is point-like and indivisible. Clearly these essences could not have arisen from anything else, nor do they transform into anything else. They are either eternal elements of the logos (i.e. logoi spermatikoi or rationes seminales) or they were created by the First Cause, i.e. God—and as far as the natural reason is concerned, it makes absolutely no difference which one is the case, as indeed the natural reason alone is incapable of distinguishing between the two alternatives or their effects. The doctrine of creation concerns only the revealed faith; the natural reason alone is sufficient to demonstrate that evolution is impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Complete nonsense, fideist religion format.
    , @Mulegino1
    Excellent summation!

    The rank superstition of materialist reductionism must of necessity exclude the vertical causality so evident and manifest in biological organisms; it cannot exclude entirely talk of the formal and the final without sounding ridiculous, so it implies that the latter are fortuitous products of the merely efficient and material, which is a true absurdity and a total inversion of the causal order.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Look at a Swiss watch. Very complicated. Take out a tiny gear, and the whole thing might now work.

    But it wasn't so complicated to begin with.

    Initially it had fewer and clunkier parts. And it was less accurate.
    But it could work with just few basic parts.

    As it evolved into a far more complicated machine, it became more intricate and delicate.
    Each special part did less but it played a key role in the running of the whole.

    I can make a simple chair with a few sticks and hammer.
    It won't be elegant and comfy, but it will be sturdy.

    If I get some more tools, parts, and skills, I can craft it into a much finer chair. But, the relation among the various components will be more intricate, and the failure of one minor part may affect the whole since everything is tacked on with such care and precision.

    It’s important to keep in mind that mechanical analogies to living organisms are limited in ways that aren’t always obvious. Functional self-assembly results in different constraints than those imposed by the process of designing, then assembling externally from interchangeable parts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    Jeeze, Fred, a twofer-in-one? Are you bored or sumpin'?

    As for evolution, it's the best explanation for the available evidence. If you have a better one -- based on the evidence -- trot it out. Otherwise, do what the Fundies do, and intone stuff like "In the beginning, the earth was without form and void." And, take it from there ... smoke if you got 'em.

    One thing to keep in mind about evolutionary changes that jes' plain, golllll...darn cain't happen jes' lak dat, overnight ... keep in mind that 4 billion years is a length of time of which the human mind can speak, but not truly comprehend.

    As for Trump becoming Hillary ... yep, how 'bout that? Stunned, I am not.

    Oh, yeah .... FIRST!!

    “keep in mind that 4 billion years is a length of time of which the human mind can speak, but not truly comprehend”

    When ever people try to disprove evolution and say its too complex i try to explain how long ONE BILLION YEARS IS. Humans have been around roughly 100000 years. We’ve been recording our antics for only 10000 years. So 1/10 of the time we have been here, we have developed all our nifty gadgets, gizmos and intellectual property (languages,mathematics,art). In less then 20 thousand years, we went from living in caves to living in space.

    Now, this timeframe (20,000 years) is 1/50 of (only) one million years. We need to go another 999 million years just to hit a billion. That means humans have been making stuff for only 1/50000 of one billion years. And thats just 1 billion. Earth is a few billion years old.

    Its like future generations in 1000 years saying we couldnt have gone from living in caves to living in space in such a tiny time frame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    No offense, but what you wrote is poetic but meaningless bullshit.

    Here's some actual science (and math) for you: if a billion monkeys were each typing a billion random letters each second, it would take them
    231, 080, 957, 811, 190, 927, 269, 310, 943, 118, 483, 284, 648, 496, 845, 439, 628, 381, 252, 911, 541, 331, 943, 555, 697, 329, 212, 210, 172, 013, 971, 626, 240, 946, 988, 971, 751, 394, 837, 672, 615, 850, 148, 618, 263, 638, 353, 131, 386, 962, 373, 575, 159, 518, 819, 874, 308, 635, 067, 341, 309, 329, 249, 874, 178, 479, 566, 038, 914, 832, 646, 621, 137, 284, 333, 772, 314, 459, 034, 100, 053, 876, 949, 811, 722, 656, 280, 844, 471, 657, 984, 507, 140, 868, 872, 074, 738, 112, 013, 547, 919, 968, 047, 188, 518, 048, 212, 155, 498, 448, 337, 702, 206, 623, 211, 349, 884, 261, 431, 354, 161, 075, 265, 369, 049, 027, 518, 481, 664, 577, 556, 287, 008, 022, 255, 053, 265, 819, 995, 218, 943, 355, 184, 256, 370, 011, 068, 489, 993, 534, 650, 940, 409, 745, 215, 489, 528, 869, 936, 090, 378, 648, 461, 557, 547, 077, 736, 292, 017, 771, 802, 770, 318, 030, 566, 982, 534, 902, 015, 286, 884, 472, 795, 623, 515, 605, 996, 077, 207, 721, 431, 280, 055, 630, 198, 353, 990, 182, 017, 679, 645, 429, 986, 030, 013, 148, 682, 207, 445, 163, 351, 921, 499, 429, 124, 224, 185, 006, 641, 656, 758, 677, 652, 698, 179, 988, 809, 209, 686, 517, 444, 424, 880, 054, 612, 799, 473, 038, 467, 120, 062, 007, 815, 493, 638, 731, 511, 812, 204, 051, 911, 734, 939, 635, 619, 819, 731, 536, 776, 664, 692, 115, 625, 779, 716, 066, 116, 319, 206, 027, 730, 172, 287, 179, 710, 101, 352, 758, 632, 767, 433, 392, 008, 077, 643, 576, 522, 823, 038, 576, 216, 540, 493, 295, 724, 633, 562, 125, 452, 060, 730, 617, 440, 037, 804, 773, 537, 634, 251, 871, 362, 846, 694, 661, 432, 149, 773, 842, 764, 716, 793, 907, 899, 391, 314, 769, 070, 299, 263, 895, 596, 583, 745, 191, 038, 819, 661, 941, 799, 184, 255, 640, 401, 833, 774, 092, 322, 217, 538, 015, 387, 700, 398, 351, 974, 145, 750, 662, 566, 607, 402, 357, 336, 196, 406, 331, 131, 875, 592, 094, 720, 957, 143, 334, 164, 596, 247, 907, 613, 120, 196, 441, 627, 640, 638, 776, 207, 236, 180, 763, 146, 044, 537, 248, 696, 477, 705, 988, 370, 607, 069, 992, 219, 317, 646, 857, 496, 689, 885, 277, 297, 436, 557, 695, 326, 253, 170, 896, 269, 952, 448, 600, 832, 436, 654, 193, 186, 284, 977, 634, 312, 993, 476, 115, 858, 779, 843, 654, 036, 208, 550, 074, 951, 717, 040, 273, 454, 543, 399, 309, 908, 968, 853, 154, 334, 539, 334, 281, 483, 310, 552, 513, 876, 212, 801, 637, 002, 548, 388, 159, 420, 176, 979, 845, 376, 566, 000
    billion years to randomly generate your post.

    How much more complex is an amoeba compared to your post?

    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    When ever people try to disprove evolution and say its too complex i try to explain how long ONE BILLION YEARS IS.
     
    Oh, yes, per the usual. Humans have no concept of how stupendously long a billion years is, much less 4 billion. There's no point whatsoever in attempting to convince a True Believer of evolution -- or of anything, really, other than something hokey like "the glory of God". They believe pure rot, Snail -- what possibility is there of them coming to understand anything, anything at all, really?

    Just say "Ah, this illustrates the Glory of God. Praised be His Name." They dig that shit -- makes 'em roll over like petting a boxer puppy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    You are incorrect, and Anon is incorrect. You are nonsensical, and Anon was nonsensical.

    Whether anon is correct in his position or not, his meaning in citing “just-so stories” is clear. Perhaps you need to look up the term? Or read the original source for it (Kipling)? Perhaps you should look up “solipsism” while you’re at it.

    If other people understand his point (valid or not), it’s hardly rational to insist that his language is “nonsensical,” simply because you fail to make sense of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The “just-so stories” are like haggadah which are confabulations that make you look good. Anon in #20 was correct pointing out to the unverifiable stories:

    "If one can produce twenty evolutionary explanations of the same adaptation, with no possibility of verifying any of them, one is writing fiction, not doing science. "

    I tried to reemphasized his point in comments #29 and #156.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Whether anon is correct in his position or not, his meaning in citing “just-so stories” is clear. Perhaps you need to look up the term? Or read the original source for it (Kipling)? Perhaps you should look up “solipsism” while you’re at it.
     
    Anon is incorrect in his position. His position, in fact, is nonsensical. You are indulging in silly, reactive, solipsistic and ineffective false accusations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Why people tend to be so nasty with the mistakes (even partial mistakes) of others***

    huh* GOD*

    someone*

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    "Briefly, for those who have had better sense than to entangle themselves in such brambles, irreducible complexity is the observation–if it is an observation–that many things in biology consist of many parts such that if any one part is missing, the whole shebang fails to function."

    Mr. Cabbagehead, you need to stop looking into evolutionary matters. It's like Sam Peckinpah studying pacifism. You just don't have the knack for it.

    I'm no expert on evolution, but it makes sense to me.

    Also, Irreducible Complexity or IC, as you describe it, is fallacious and misconceived.
    Why? Because every part or component of an organism can serve different functions.

    Also, not all organs are of the same vitality. Take a human. If you remove the lungs, it can't take in oxygen, so rest of him will die. If you remove the stomach, he can't eat and will die of hunger. If you remove the heart, he will die immediately. If you remove the testes, he will live but won't reproduce. But if you remove a finger, he will be able to do lots of stuff and survive. If you remove his tooth, he will live too... though he won't chew as well.
    Some organs are vital, some are not.

    Also, similar organs serve different functions in different organisms. Cats and cows have stomachs. But cat stomach digests meat, and cow stomach digests grass.
    So, every component has a wide range of functions. Eyes are better on some organisms than in others. Ears are sharper on others than in others.
    Different races of humans have different skin color, and they work differently in different environments.

    So, the way the carbon stuff works in molecules that make life has a range of options and possibilities. All humans have nearly same DNA but some have variations in DNA that make them digest cow milk. But others don't have this variation and the lack makes them break wind like cows if they drink milk.

    What people forget about evolution is that it calls for some degree of exclusion in order for it to be successful, at least in the way humans arose. Now, extreme exclusion isn't good for evolution. A white-skinned cave fish with no eyes is the product of extreme exclusion in its cold dark environment in the cave. Who wants to be a cave fish?
    But extreme inclusion doesn't allow for the rise of creatures such as apes and dogs and pigs and humans.
    Territorialism did wonders for evolutionary advancement because land animals could exclude themselves from the watery environment of the ocean.

    Ocean is the most inclusive environment. It is the great equalizer. This is why even the smartest marine animals don't have much advantage over the dumb ones. A seal is much more intelligent than a shark, but sharks routinely feed on sharks. Dolphins are much more intelligent than a great white shark or hammerheads, but dolphins often get eaten. Octopus is smarter than an eel, but an eel will often eat octopus. And a giant squid can sometimes kill a whale.

    Unlike land animals who are safe from ocean animals, all animals in the ocean are part of an 'inclusive' environment. Also, because it's difficult to move around in thick water, marine animals have fins than hands and feet. So, they are not able to use tools. Dolphins may be smart, but they can only do so much with fins. In contrast, a chimp can use tools and even hurl an orange at a leopard in Chimp Lives Matter protests.
    Also, fire is impossible in water, so there is no technology of tool-making that allows smart marine animals to rise above the dumb ones like sharks, barracudas, sea snakes, lobsters, and jellyfish.
    On land, because intelligent mammals don't have to worry about sharks and barracudas, they are much safer. And with fire, they can build weapons to vanquish the dumber animals. And because it's easier to move in air than in water, they can build walls and houses, and etc. Try building a pyramid or Great Wall of China under water. Besides, even if a wall was built underwater, the enemies could just swim over it. (This is why air force is such a frightening power of the modern world. No wall defend a nation from air force and missiles.)

    Evolutionary advancement happened on land because evolution meant more effective exclusion of dangerous species. In the ocean, dolphins must co-exist with sharks. Wherever dolphins can go, sharks can go. The exceptions are the deep sea creatures, but they are rare and ugly as hell. And of course, some marine species can only in tropical climes while some live in cold climes. But more than on land, marine animals swim all around and migrate all over the places like birds.
    Land animals have a better chance of seeking out exclusive communities that keep out invasive species through distance, land obstacles, ocean obstacles, or artificial defenses. If baboons fear leopards, they can spend much of their time up the tree. While leopards are good tree climbers, monkeys and baboons are better at it and can climb higher since they are lighter.

    And we see the rise of different races due to exclusion. Imagine if there was no land, and imagine if all humans were marine creatures. Then, the Negrolphins would have swum to the lands of Eurolphins and Asialphins and other human-dolphines. Wild negrolphins would have messed up all the world. (It's a good thing humans never developed wings like the flying monkeys in WIZARD OF OZ because flying Negroes would have messed up all five continents.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SESI19h4wDo

    But because of land masses, it was difficult for blacks in Africa to venture into other land masses, especially as they weren't very technological and brainy in creating means of transport. Their technology amounted to chucking spears at hippos and banging on bongo drums and women shaking their booties and men ogling them.
    Also, the other races built much better technology to fend off invaders.

    If all humans as dolphin-like creatures had to live underwater, they would be under threat from the stronger and more aggressive Negrolphins. And they would be defenseless since it is difficult to create weapons and defenses underwater. Also, visibility is poor underwater, and human dolphins would have to communicate through sonar, but that might favor Negroes cuz they got a better sense of beat and rhythm. They be sonaring one another like, 'there be a pack of white dolphins there, and we's gonna fishmob them and whup their ass'. It's like how Negroes use twitter and facebook to organize urban mayhem.

    We know land creatures will perish if the world was covered with water. They would all drown. But even if they didn't drown, many would perish just the same. Suppose the world is filled with water, BUT every former-land creature is equipped with gills or blowholes(like whales got). So, all bears, tigers, humans, rats, cats, dogs, monkeys, apes, gophers, rabbits, horses, and etc. can live in water. But that wouldn't be good enough.
    They would lose the exclusionary advantage in the underwater inclusive environment. They would all be attacked by sharks and killer whales, and there would be nothing they could do about it.
    Also, marine apes would have no means to run from marine leopards since the latter could swim to top of trees that are under water. And gated communities would be useless for marine whites because marine negroes will just swim over the fence. And forget about calling the police since technology won't work under water. (We do have underwater technology but all were created on land.) The sea is the great equalizer. Shark is equal to the dolphin, the moral eel is equal to the sea lion.

    Globalism is like turning the world into one giant ocean of PC, Pop Culture, and massive migration.

    In the past, White Europe had no PC, no toxic Pop culture, and no mass migration into its lands. Whites were proud to be whites and happy to fend off Mongols, Muslims, and other invaders. And they looked upon Negroes as 'savages'. And there was no Pop Culture telling white boys and girls to abandon their identity and pride in worship of holy homo anus and big Negro dong. And there was no EU 'human rights' rules that renders white nations defenseless against foreign invasion. Thanks to those crazy laws, EU must aid and abet the non-West in the invasion. So, if a bunch of Muslims trample into EU, Europeans must provide them with food, shelter, clothing, kisses, and even women. And if Africans come into European waters, EU must tug the boat to EU and let the Negroes run wild and free and hump every white women in sight who are infected with Jungle Fever thanks to Pop Culture that promotes rappers and black athletes. It's like the entire world is submerged under the power, rules, and 'values' of the Glob Ocean. I mean even Japan has a black woman as beauty queen and black runners as Olympic athletes. Thanks to GLOB oceanism, the Negro sharkdom is taking over the world. When we consider the African population is projected to reach 5 billion in just several decades, that is a lot of Negro sharks and Negrolphins swimming and taking over everything. Thanks to cheap air travel and thanks to Negromania in so many parts of the world(and PC that forbids nations from saying NO to the NEGRO), the world can turn into Afrocean or NegrOcean.

    Such will be bad for human evolution as we've known it so far. Human evolution along different races was made possible by exclusion that kept some races safe from other races. But the sheer invasiveness of the Glob Ocean reduces those defenses and subjects all races to the Negro sharks and Negroctupus. White evolution happened cuz whites could say NO to the Negro.

    Of course, the elites don't worry since they have an ark that keep them above water. We can just hope that their titanic hits the ice and sinks.

    “Mr. Cabbagehead . . .”

    I think Mr Cruciferous Vegetablehead here as proven the Finite Monkey Theorem: leave one monkey alone with a typewriter and he’ll type a lengthy load of nonsense.

    “I’m no expert on evolution . . .”

    Now there’s a tease that’s going to entice me to read your War And Peace-length epic on evolution.

    “. . . but it makes sense to me.”

    You should have saved yourself some time and stopped right there, because it’s just as valuable as the rest of what you wrote.

    “Also, not all organs are of the same vitality. . . . But if you remove a finger . . . If you remove his tooth . . . Some organs are vital, some are not.”

    Absolutely correct! Not all organs are of the same vitality, especially when they’re not organs at all, but are constituent parts of organ systems.

    You might want to sit down for this Mr Cruciferous Vegetablehead: not one single person has read, or will read, the entirety of what you posted here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Prez elect Trump,
    *I will rebuild our military. It will be so strong, and so powerful, and so great. It will be so powerful and so great that we’ll never have to use it. Nobody’s going to mess with us, folks. Nobody.*

    Ian Fleming’s law of probability predicted
    as much !
    Q.E.D.
    hehehehe

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Pierrej
    You're suggesting specific genes/alleles can't be lost?

    Yeah whatever, mate. I'll have to defer to your expertise on this one. lol

    You’re suggesting specific genes/alleles can’t be lost?

    Classic, pure, Darwinian evolutionary theory. To the letter.

    Feel free to chase exceptions. The model remains the model, and you remain a kvetching sore loser.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Reed is confused about evolution because he puts the cart in front of the horse.

    There is no purpose or design in evolution. It is a process that works in a certain way.. and depending on environmental factors, the process stumbles into ways around it. That's about it. In this mutations are the key, and they happen. They happen cuz they happen, period. It is possible because chemistry allows it. Law of Nature.

    Problem with Reed is he looks at the finished product and wonders why the processes led to this. He is looking for purpose, design, meaning.
    There is none.
    It was all an 'accident'. There is an elemental process to evolution via DNA and stuff. Its goal is to replicate and reproduce. Under normal conditions, the life form just multiplies and multiplies. But there may be changes in the environment. If the changes are hostile, the organism will die and go extinct. BUT, if a mutation happens in the DNA that allows the organism to weather the new environment, there you have change and evolution. Mutations are chemically possible, and that is the key to evolution. If hydrogen atoms can 'evolve' into more complex atoms, then DNA can mutate into new codes.

    Imagine a population of men with penises hanging low. Suppose they have no problem going about their business and reproducing. But suppose an invasive species of gremlins arrive and start biting off the penises of the men. Now, the guys are in trouble. Many of them have their penises eaten by these nasty creatures. Most will not survive since they will be 'dic*less'. And that will be the end of humanity. That will be that, end of story.

    But suppose a mutation occurs in one guy whereupon his penis is not between his legs but near his belly button. Due to its elevation, it is more difficult for gremlins to bite it off. So, he still has his willy and impregnates a bunch of women, and some of the offsprings have penises near the belly button too.

    So, over time, all the men have penises around the belly button. Their dongs are safe from the fangs of the gremlins. So, the gremlins begin to starve and die since they can no longer eat human puds. Their food supply is beyond reach. But then, suppose mutation happens among gremlins too. While most gremlins die of starvation, suppose a few gremlins are born with extra-jumping ability. So, they can jump high enough to bite off the penises near the belly button. And suppose these gremlins that gorge on the dongs multiply, and over time, most gremlins can jump high enough to gorge on penises.
    Humanity is once again endangered as gremlins begin to feed on all these dongs. But then, another mutation happens among mankind where the penis is around the chest. And these humans survive and have lots of kids, and over time, the humanity grows in number because the chest-level penises cannot be eaten by the gremlins who can only jump to belly button level.
    So, the gremlins are about to die of starvation once again, but a mutation happens among a few gremlins who can jump to chest level, and these can feed on the chest-level dongs.
    Humanity is once again in trouble as these high-jumping gremlins multiply and start biting off the chest-level penises.
    But then, suppose another mutation happens where the penis sprouts on the top of the head. While most humans are dying off due to their inability to reproduce after gremlins bite off their chest level dongs, the human with the dong-head can reproduce because no gremlin can jump high enough to reach for the penis on the top of his head.

    This is how evolution works. But Reed is too much of a butthead to think like a dong-head which would supply him with the answers.

    You haven’t read enough of Reed’s columns to understand the question he’s asking. What he’s asking is how this happened by accident. Are you familiar with his example of metamorphosis in insects? What are the intermediate steps that lead from a life cycle with no metamorphosis to a life cycle with one?

    Walk him back through each and every step of how the processes he mentioned came into being, step by step.

    If you’re unable to do so, that’s exactly the problem he is pointing out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    Good lord, man, you certainly just did demonstrate your utter ignorance of evolutionary genetics. That was classic, pure as the driven snow Darwinian theory. You are ignorant beyond belief.

    You’re suggesting specific genes/alleles can’t be lost?

    Yeah whatever, mate. I’ll have to defer to your expertise on this one. lol

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    You’re suggesting specific genes/alleles can’t be lost?
     
    Classic, pure, Darwinian evolutionary theory. To the letter.

    Feel free to chase exceptions. The model remains the model, and you remain a kvetching sore loser.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill
    Great comment. Provoked by something upthread, I went and read the wikipedia article on Microevolution. The "Use in Creationism" section is hilarious. It features a discussion of creationism with the word "kind" kept in scare quotes throughout. Then, turning to a discussion of orthodox biology, we get the word "species" with nary a scare quote in sight.

    Biologists have the most fascinating relationships with ontology and teleology. I mean, you can't talk about the heart without mentioning that it's for pumping blood. You can't talk about cats without, like, noticing that they are different from amoebae. But their official ideology requires that they deny that hearts are for pumping blood or that cats are different from amoebae. Or, really that there is any such thing as cats, strictly speaking.

    And the hysterics! "Hearts are for pumping blood" See, there, I said it! So, we can say it! nyah, nyah nyah. Of course we believe in cats! Look we made a taxonomy!!1!!! LOL.

    Very good points. Orthodox biologists must make a huge leap of blind faith in some mysterious power of matter to organize itself in order to exclude teleological considerations from their study of organisms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith

    That is, most of the time, a given metabolic reaction might be vital to the survival of a particular genotype, but somewhere out in the network there exist other genotypes that get along just fine without it.
     
    Reminds me of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem I.

    The book was rather confusing by my way of thinking, but the analogy that the reviewer used is brilliant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Hey utu,

    Quite interesting - thanks! I knew Darwin married his cousin, but did not know this topic was one of his motivators for his research.

    Peace.

    Quite interesting – thanks! I knew Darwin married his cousin, but did not know this topic was one of his motivators for his research.

    It wasn’t. Don’t fall prey to silly stuff like that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Pierrej

    Thus, the genes producing smaller habilis are preserved, while genes producing larger habilis retreat to their minimal expression (the genes for larger habilis are not lost; they recede).
     
    Oh god.. this is simply hilarious, dude! Thanks for the laugh, mate. Please, do tell me more about your expertise in genetics! I'd love to hear all about it!

    Good lord, man, you certainly just did demonstrate your utter ignorance of evolutionary genetics. That was classic, pure as the driven snow Darwinian theory. You are ignorant beyond belief.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pierrej
    You're suggesting specific genes/alleles can't be lost?

    Yeah whatever, mate. I'll have to defer to your expertise on this one. lol
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy
    A combination of Reed's buffoonery and Kip Russell's uncouth inanity, generating a conversation ending in total imbecility.

    You’re trying too hard, Can-Can. Ya gotta let it develop, like, naturally, ya know? Don’t act wounded — that’s unbecoming of the intellectualized “Renaissance Man” persona you affect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    One can think of one connection between Charles Darwin and Jews. It is that Darwin family practiced endogamy which was also pretty common among Jews. One would have to do a research how this connects to the widely spread fantasies among some British protestant sects of being the descendants of the lost tribe of Hebrews. Whether the endogamy they practiced was tied to some eugenics beliefs or Old Testament ideas I do not know, but certainly this aspect of Darwin background could shed some light on whether his theory of evolution was borrowing templates from their beliefs about social cast system and the concepts of the survival of the fittest in society. These concepts preceded his theory of evolution and some were pretty common in England.

    INCEST AND INFLUENCE: The Private Life of Bourgeois England.
    http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/all-in-the-family

    "Persistent intermarriage between members of Darwin’s family and the Wedgwood clan effectively intertwined two bourgeois dynasties of the English Midlands. A plethora of biographical studies of the great evolutionist and the ongoing publication of his correspondence have revealed the particularities of this complex family network in great detail, with the result that more is perhaps known about Darwin’s extended family than that of any comparable figure (with the obvious exception of royalty). In Incest and Influence, an illuminating study of the significance of cousin marriages for the 19th-century English bourgeoisie, Adam Kuper therefore uses Darwin as an exemplar of a more general tendency."

    "In the Victorian upper middle classes, more than 1 marriage in 10 was between first or second cousins. A similar number of marriages were between brothers- and sisters-in-law, meaning that about 1 person in 5 married within the family circle. This emphasis on endogamy was an effective means for bourgeois families like the Darwin-Wedgwoods to sustain beneficial domestic connections and to safeguard the property and riches accrued from the nascent industrial economy. Great intermarried families therefore came to dominate trades such as ceramics (the Wedgwood family’s pottery was world famous) and banking (the largest bank in the world, the House of Rothschild, was a family firm, and many Quaker banking families, including the Barclays and the Gurneys, intermarried and eventually merged their banks)."

    "Unlike other scions of such families, Darwin took a keen interest in the scientific aspects of interbreeding and heredity. Throughout his career he remained acutely concerned as to “whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man,” as he put it in the conclusion to the Descent of Man in 1871. Darwin thus plays a further part in Incest and Influence as one of the foremost proponents (along with his cousin Francis Galton) of a more empirical approach to questions of heredity."

    Hey utu,

    Quite interesting – thanks! I knew Darwin married his cousin, but did not know this topic was one of his motivators for his research.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Quite interesting – thanks! I knew Darwin married his cousin, but did not know this topic was one of his motivators for his research.
     
    It wasn't. Don't fall prey to silly stuff like that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • A combination of Reed’s buffoonery and Kip Russell’s uncouth inanity, generating a conversation ending in total imbecility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    You're trying too hard, Can-Can. Ya gotta let it develop, like, naturally, ya know? Don't act wounded -- that's unbecoming of the intellectualized "Renaissance Man" persona you affect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Heresy, Fred. You gotta take these things on faith. What we call “scientism.”
    You’re thinking, which they call “overthinking.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith

    Okay, but how about after 100 million generations? Will a dog remain a dog?
     
    Wittgenstein proved that a dog is always a dog. You're up against the varsity on this one, Petey.

    Wittgenstein proved that a dog is always a dog

    Without Witt ”prove” that a dog is always a dog you would believe the otherwise* ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    LOL. I have at least one degree in it. How about you?

    RR suggests that smaller habilis adapted (active verb) to the environment. That is misleading. Smaller habilis are better adapted to the environment, and experience more reproductive success. Thus, the genes producing smaller habilis are preserved, while genes producing larger habilis retreat to their minimal expression (the genes for larger habilis are not lost; they recede).

    RR makes it sound like larger habilis moved into the environment, saw the situation looked tough, and decided "We're gonna get smaller."

    Incorrect.

    Thus, the genes producing smaller habilis are preserved, while genes producing larger habilis retreat to their minimal expression (the genes for larger habilis are not lost; they recede).

    Oh god.. this is simply hilarious, dude! Thanks for the laugh, mate. Please, do tell me more about your expertise in genetics! I’d love to hear all about it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Good lord, man, you certainly just did demonstrate your utter ignorance of evolutionary genetics. That was classic, pure as the driven snow Darwinian theory. You are ignorant beyond belief.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith

    The long schlong tribe could also learn to tie their penises around their torsos and only untie them when needed to do the deed. Tribe members too lazy to tie them or who tied them poorly would be mostly weeded out from the gene pool by the pesky gremlins.
     
    Why, you incalculably ignorant doofuss, I oughta gift you with 2000 words of intensely relevant IQ research right here and now! In fact, consider it done! Look out below, because once I'm done googling the absolute hell out of "bogus IQ bullshit", I and my millions of rilly, rilly, intelligent and loquacious big-vocab friends will bomb you right off the Internet!

    Other retarded emotionally disturbed…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith

    Okay, but how about after 100 million generations? Will a dog remain a dog?
     
    Wittgenstein proved that a dog is always a dog. You're up against the varsity on this one, Petey.

    Johnny boy? Is that you again? jeez… dude.

    Once again, unless you’re autistic, it should be completely obvious what my point is. I take it for granted that the obvious can go unsaid, but perhaps that’s expecting too much with you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bill
    Great comment. Provoked by something upthread, I went and read the wikipedia article on Microevolution. The "Use in Creationism" section is hilarious. It features a discussion of creationism with the word "kind" kept in scare quotes throughout. Then, turning to a discussion of orthodox biology, we get the word "species" with nary a scare quote in sight.

    Biologists have the most fascinating relationships with ontology and teleology. I mean, you can't talk about the heart without mentioning that it's for pumping blood. You can't talk about cats without, like, noticing that they are different from amoebae. But their official ideology requires that they deny that hearts are for pumping blood or that cats are different from amoebae. Or, really that there is any such thing as cats, strictly speaking.

    And the hysterics! "Hearts are for pumping blood" See, there, I said it! So, we can say it! nyah, nyah nyah. Of course we believe in cats! Look we made a taxonomy!!1!!! LOL.

    I went and read the wikipedia article on Microevolution. The “Use in Creationism” section is hilarious. It features a discussion of creationism with the word “kind” kept in scare quotes throughout. Then, turning to a discussion of orthodox biology, we get the word “species” with nary a scare quote in sight.

    How is “kind” being defined here? It’s easier to facilitate scientific debates when the terminology being used is well-defined and agreed to by both sides. If you ask several creationists what a “kind” is, you’ll get several different responses, usually ranging from subspecies to class. For the purpose of biological classification, “kind” doesn’t strike me as being a particularly useful term. Of course, the term “species” isn’t without a few grey areas of its own, but it is at least more precise than “kind” is. Plus, most people already have a good grasp of how a species is defined, anyway.

    Your gripe about biologists being ideologically driven seems quite unfounded, in my opinion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Pierrej

    just as a dog remains a dog after hundreds of generations of breeding.
     
    Okay, but how about after 100 million generations? Will a dog remain a dog?

    Okay, but how about after 100 million generations? Will a dog remain a dog?

    Wittgenstein proved that a dog is always a dog. You’re up against the varsity on this one, Petey.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pierrej
    Johnny boy? Is that you again? jeez... dude.

    Once again, unless you're autistic, it should be completely obvious what my point is. I take it for granted that the obvious can go unsaid, but perhaps that's expecting too much with you?
    , @Santoculto

    Wittgenstein proved that a dog is always a dog
     
    Without Witt ''prove'' that a dog is always a dog you would believe the otherwise* ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mulegino1
    No, I'm not a creationist, I'm an essentialist who recognizes that there is variation within phenotypes, but there is no saltation from one type to another; for example, dogs do not turn into seals because they live by the seashore, nor do stingrays turn into flying squirrels due to drought. Nature is not like that whatsoever.

    Transformism is based upon the enlightenment- liberal myth of infinite linear progress. There is no empirical evidence for it whatsoever. A fruit fly remains a fruit fly despite enormous numbers of genetic mutations, just as a dog remains a dog after hundreds of generations of breeding.

    Transformism is, in the simplest terms, the excuse that materialist reductionists proffer in order to eliminate formal and final causality from the causal order - something that may be tenable to those with a positivist world view, but totally unacceptable to those with a metaphysical grounding.

    just as a dog remains a dog after hundreds of generations of breeding.

    Okay, but how about after 100 million generations? Will a dog remain a dog?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Okay, but how about after 100 million generations? Will a dog remain a dog?
     
    Wittgenstein proved that a dog is always a dog. You're up against the varsity on this one, Petey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @Anon
    Up til now, we and rest of organisms had no clue how life and evolution worked.

    Humans learned of the evolutionary process only recently in human history.

    Until then, evolution was happening without us knowing.

    Now comes the exciting and scary part as we figure out the code of the DNA. We can modify genes in so many ways.

    Human organism will make the transition from the slow mutative model to the fast modificative model. What might have taken 1000s of yrs by mutation can happen instantly in a laboratory, and already stuff like this has been done to plants with GMO crops.

    Francis Fukuyama wrote about End of History, but we are now facing End of Humanity, and its Panglossian prophet is the sci-fi Ayn-Randian Micho Kaku who ought to be called Much Cuckoo.

    Fuku's End of History was overly optimistic about the end of ideology and the beginning of the liberal democratization of all of humanity in due time.
    Kaku's End of Humanity scenario would have us leaving our humanness in the dust to become sci-fi god folks.

    Neither Fuku or Kaku has any need for nation, culture, or identity. In Fuku's happy future, we are all cosmopolitan consumers.
    In Kaku's happy future, we are cosmic deities powered by super-technology. Our power will be so vast that the notion of humanity will become quaint and boring. We will travel through the stars like the guy in Olaf Stapledon's STAR MAKER.

    But to get there, Kaku proposes the Ayn Randian model. Since this future will only be created by geniuses and visionaries of super-high intelligence and imagination, most of us don't qualify. We are dummies. So, what are we good for? Well, in order for science and technology to advance, they need money, and the best way to make money is to sell us dummies consumer products that give us fun. So, we dummies are to toil like ants and consume gadgets that we don't even know how they work. And since we are dumb, we use these gadgets to listen to listen to dumb music, watch dumb movies and shows, and other hedonstic pleasures. So, even though we are dummies, the fact is we will work like drones and pay money to buy those things, and that means companies that specialize in technology will have more money with which to advance technology even more. And it also means there will be more tax revenues for government that can fund all sorts of scientific and space projects.

    If we dummies work and consume, then great wealth will accrue in the hands of very smart and visionary people who will create the future. And this will mean gene-modification to create future humans with super-duper intelligence that will make Einstein look dumb by comparison. And it will mean Star Trek-like technology to beam us all through the galaxies. And of course, once that day arrives, there will no longer be any need for dummies like us. And culture, history, ethnicity, and etc will seem to quaint and boring when god folks can travel through the stars and be like the extraterrestrial beings in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Indeed, even already so much of humanity have no use for culture and history; such are seen as relics of the past when people were trapped in local cultures and lacked means of travel and communication.

    This is why Kaku has such contempt for cultures, nations, and etc. In his proto-godhead view of future, that is child's play. Sure, he calls for tolerance for all cultures, but he really means the End of all cultures since no culture can exist if it is forced to be tolerant of everything. PC tolerance turns everything into interchangeable blandness, a New Age opiate where homomania is on the same pedestal as Christianity and Judaism.
    Because Kaku has no interest in culture, history, or philosophy as the source of core identity, he thinks the ONLY culture that has any value is pop culture. Not because he has respect for dumb TV shows, rap music, Hollywood, MTV, junk food, and etc. I highly doubt if Kaku spends his days watching dumb sitcoms or listening to some ghetto fool yapping about his guns and dong. It's because trash culture is most effective at motivating people to become mindless drones and consumers who will allow companies and governments to generate the wealth to create the great future.
    Not many people can be motivated to work hard to go see a Robert Bresson film, but many people can be motivated to work hard to watch the latest TRANSFORMERS.

    If all things go 'right' according to Kaku, we will achieve the technology that will turns us into god-folks like in Japanese mythology where men and gods live side by side. Japanese Emperors were seen as gods or divine figures.

    This is why Kaku has no love for high culture, history, heritage, religion, and identity. People who care about such things recoil from the culture of hedonism and consumption. They see it as shallow, stupid, and moronic. Now, Kaku himself surely knows how stupid rap music, Hollywood movies, TV shows, and etc are. But, his ilk understand that the fans of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus are more likely to be manic consumers than people devoted to religion or into the films of Andrei Tarkovsky.
    For the future to happen, most people must work like drones and consume. Consumption of hedonism is the most potent incentive for work.

    So, Kaku the jerk says if you oppose globalism and mass consumerism, you are a 'terrorist'. A terrorist obstructing the Project that will mankind into godkind. To get there, the geniuses need the money and funding, and that can only come from profits and taxation of masses of morons who work and work and work to consume consume consume.

    But people like Kaku probably believe the moronic masses will eventually be elevated too.
    If geniuses and visionaries with ample profits and funding find a way to genetically modify every embryo to possess genius IQ, then all the babies of the moronic masses will be geniuses. But to get to that point, the morons in the present must work and consume, work and consume.

    We will go from evolution to accelution, or accelerated evolution.

    For people with a sense of culture and history, this is a scary thought. It is really the End of Humanity as the Dawn of Deity awaits... the world of Star Child in 2001.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhPSGLqvv0

    Humans learned of the evolutionary process only recently in human history.
    Until then, evolution was happening without us knowing.
    Now comes the exciting and scary part as we figure out the code of the DNA. We can modify genes in so many ways.

    Are you trying to contract a PBS special?

    Nobody cares, Priss. The important, and scary, thing is that plain ordinary beer is $10 a six-pack.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @KenH
    That's one way of putting things, but I agree. The long schlong tribe could also learn to tie their penises around their torsos and only untie them when needed to do the deed. Tribe members too lazy to tie them or who tied them poorly would be mostly weeded out from the gene pool by the pesky gremlins. Or, certain tribe members with higher intelligence could develop special weapons and tactics to combat the gremlins, thus allowing the tribe to survive with minimal losses. But if that problem solving intelligence is not present then the tribe perishes.

    The long schlong tribe could also learn to tie their penises around their torsos and only untie them when needed to do the deed. Tribe members too lazy to tie them or who tied them poorly would be mostly weeded out from the gene pool by the pesky gremlins.

    Why, you incalculably ignorant doofuss, I oughta gift you with 2000 words of intensely relevant IQ research right here and now! In fact, consider it done! Look out below, because once I’m done googling the absolute hell out of “bogus IQ bullshit”, I and my millions of rilly, rilly, intelligent and loquacious big-vocab friends will bomb you right off the Internet!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Other retarded emotionally disturbed...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @utu
    One can think of one connection between Charles Darwin and Jews. It is that Darwin family practiced endogamy which was also pretty common among Jews. One would have to do a research how this connects to the widely spread fantasies among some British protestant sects of being the descendants of the lost tribe of Hebrews. Whether the endogamy they practiced was tied to some eugenics beliefs or Old Testament ideas I do not know, but certainly this aspect of Darwin background could shed some light on whether his theory of evolution was borrowing templates from their beliefs about social cast system and the concepts of the survival of the fittest in society. These concepts preceded his theory of evolution and some were pretty common in England.

    INCEST AND INFLUENCE: The Private Life of Bourgeois England.
    http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/all-in-the-family

    "Persistent intermarriage between members of Darwin’s family and the Wedgwood clan effectively intertwined two bourgeois dynasties of the English Midlands. A plethora of biographical studies of the great evolutionist and the ongoing publication of his correspondence have revealed the particularities of this complex family network in great detail, with the result that more is perhaps known about Darwin’s extended family than that of any comparable figure (with the obvious exception of royalty). In Incest and Influence, an illuminating study of the significance of cousin marriages for the 19th-century English bourgeoisie, Adam Kuper therefore uses Darwin as an exemplar of a more general tendency."

    "In the Victorian upper middle classes, more than 1 marriage in 10 was between first or second cousins. A similar number of marriages were between brothers- and sisters-in-law, meaning that about 1 person in 5 married within the family circle. This emphasis on endogamy was an effective means for bourgeois families like the Darwin-Wedgwoods to sustain beneficial domestic connections and to safeguard the property and riches accrued from the nascent industrial economy. Great intermarried families therefore came to dominate trades such as ceramics (the Wedgwood family’s pottery was world famous) and banking (the largest bank in the world, the House of Rothschild, was a family firm, and many Quaker banking families, including the Barclays and the Gurneys, intermarried and eventually merged their banks)."

    "Unlike other scions of such families, Darwin took a keen interest in the scientific aspects of interbreeding and heredity. Throughout his career he remained acutely concerned as to “whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man,” as he put it in the conclusion to the Descent of Man in 1871. Darwin thus plays a further part in Incest and Influence as one of the foremost proponents (along with his cousin Francis Galton) of a more empirical approach to questions of heredity."

    One can think of one connection between Charles Darwin and Jews. It is that Darwin family practiced endogamy which was also pretty common among Jews.

    Well, there you have it — proof positive. Although, I gotta admit, that’s one of the biggest “Huh? So what?” comments I’ve seen.

    Why does it take you 300 words to say what an organized mind can express in 50?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @anonymous coward

    keep in mind that 4 billion years is a length of time of which the human mind can speak, but not truly comprehend.
     
    Really? You didn't take math or statistics in school? Forgive me if I don't take what you say seriously.

    Really? You didn’t take math or statistics in school? Forgive me if I don’t take what you say seriously.

    Gaaah-lee, you undiscovered genius, you. How did you know I minored in Stat?

    You do not have the faintest concept of how long 4 billion years is, Jake. You’ve been imprisoned in your defective mind for only what? 13 years? LOL. Cya.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Reed is confused about evolution because he puts the cart in front of the horse.

    There is no purpose or design in evolution. It is a process that works in a certain way.. and depending on environmental factors, the process stumbles into ways around it. That's about it. In this mutations are the key, and they happen. They happen cuz they happen, period. It is possible because chemistry allows it. Law of Nature.

    Problem with Reed is he looks at the finished product and wonders why the processes led to this. He is looking for purpose, design, meaning.
    There is none.
    It was all an 'accident'. There is an elemental process to evolution via DNA and stuff. Its goal is to replicate and reproduce. Under normal conditions, the life form just multiplies and multiplies. But there may be changes in the environment. If the changes are hostile, the organism will die and go extinct. BUT, if a mutation happens in the DNA that allows the organism to weather the new environment, there you have change and evolution. Mutations are chemically possible, and that is the key to evolution. If hydrogen atoms can 'evolve' into more complex atoms, then DNA can mutate into new codes.

    Imagine a population of men with penises hanging low. Suppose they have no problem going about their business and reproducing. But suppose an invasive species of gremlins arrive and start biting off the penises of the men. Now, the guys are in trouble. Many of them have their penises eaten by these nasty creatures. Most will not survive since they will be 'dic*less'. And that will be the end of humanity. That will be that, end of story.

    But suppose a mutation occurs in one guy whereupon his penis is not between his legs but near his belly button. Due to its elevation, it is more difficult for gremlins to bite it off. So, he still has his willy and impregnates a bunch of women, and some of the offsprings have penises near the belly button too.

    So, over time, all the men have penises around the belly button. Their dongs are safe from the fangs of the gremlins. So, the gremlins begin to starve and die since they can no longer eat human puds. Their food supply is beyond reach. But then, suppose mutation happens among gremlins too. While most gremlins die of starvation, suppose a few gremlins are born with extra-jumping ability. So, they can jump high enough to bite off the penises near the belly button. And suppose these gremlins that gorge on the dongs multiply, and over time, most gremlins can jump high enough to gorge on penises.
    Humanity is once again endangered as gremlins begin to feed on all these dongs. But then, another mutation happens among mankind where the penis is around the chest. And these humans survive and have lots of kids, and over time, the humanity grows in number because the chest-level penises cannot be eaten by the gremlins who can only jump to belly button level.
    So, the gremlins are about to die of starvation once again, but a mutation happens among a few gremlins who can jump to chest level, and these can feed on the chest-level dongs.
    Humanity is once again in trouble as these high-jumping gremlins multiply and start biting off the chest-level penises.
    But then, suppose another mutation happens where the penis sprouts on the top of the head. While most humans are dying off due to their inability to reproduce after gremlins bite off their chest level dongs, the human with the dong-head can reproduce because no gremlin can jump high enough to reach for the penis on the top of his head.

    This is how evolution works. But Reed is too much of a butthead to think like a dong-head which would supply him with the answers.

    That’s one way of putting things, but I agree. The long schlong tribe could also learn to tie their penises around their torsos and only untie them when needed to do the deed. Tribe members too lazy to tie them or who tied them poorly would be mostly weeded out from the gene pool by the pesky gremlins. Or, certain tribe members with higher intelligence could develop special weapons and tactics to combat the gremlins, thus allowing the tribe to survive with minimal losses. But if that problem solving intelligence is not present then the tribe perishes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    The long schlong tribe could also learn to tie their penises around their torsos and only untie them when needed to do the deed. Tribe members too lazy to tie them or who tied them poorly would be mostly weeded out from the gene pool by the pesky gremlins.
     
    Why, you incalculably ignorant doofuss, I oughta gift you with 2000 words of intensely relevant IQ research right here and now! In fact, consider it done! Look out below, because once I'm done googling the absolute hell out of "bogus IQ bullshit", I and my millions of rilly, rilly, intelligent and loquacious big-vocab friends will bomb you right off the Internet!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    Let the tar brew for awhile, and it will lead to the Bushes, Clinton, and Bushes... and roaches and rats.

    I can’t speak for the origins of various pols. James Carville claimed Dubya was a space alien, for instance — and it takes one to know one.

    But if authentic science is about observation, then extending the brew time on sludge doesn’t really add any sort of organization to the sludge. My observation as a used-to-be farmer is that when lightning strikes the ground in the rice field, it kills everything in a ten-foot radius, sterilizing the soil for a year or so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    Jeeze, Fred, a twofer-in-one? Are you bored or sumpin'?

    As for evolution, it's the best explanation for the available evidence. If you have a better one -- based on the evidence -- trot it out. Otherwise, do what the Fundies do, and intone stuff like "In the beginning, the earth was without form and void." And, take it from there ... smoke if you got 'em.

    One thing to keep in mind about evolutionary changes that jes' plain, golllll...darn cain't happen jes' lak dat, overnight ... keep in mind that 4 billion years is a length of time of which the human mind can speak, but not truly comprehend.

    As for Trump becoming Hillary ... yep, how 'bout that? Stunned, I am not.

    Oh, yeah .... FIRST!!

    keep in mind that 4 billion years is a length of time of which the human mind can speak, but not truly comprehend.

    Really? You didn’t take math or statistics in school? Forgive me if I don’t take what you say seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Really? You didn’t take math or statistics in school? Forgive me if I don’t take what you say seriously.
     
    Gaaah-lee, you undiscovered genius, you. How did you know I minored in Stat?

    You do not have the faintest concept of how long 4 billion years is, Jake. You've been imprisoned in your defective mind for only what? 13 years? LOL. Cya.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    "Briefly, for those who have had better sense than to entangle themselves in such brambles, irreducible complexity is the observation–if it is an observation–that many things in biology consist of many parts such that if any one part is missing, the whole shebang fails to function."

    Mr. Cabbagehead, you need to stop looking into evolutionary matters. It's like Sam Peckinpah studying pacifism. You just don't have the knack for it.

    I'm no expert on evolution, but it makes sense to me.

    Also, Irreducible Complexity or IC, as you describe it, is fallacious and misconceived.
    Why? Because every part or component of an organism can serve different functions.

    Also, not all organs are of the same vitality. Take a human. If you remove the lungs, it can't take in oxygen, so rest of him will die. If you remove the stomach, he can't eat and will die of hunger. If you remove the heart, he will die immediately. If you remove the testes, he will live but won't reproduce. But if you remove a finger, he will be able to do lots of stuff and survive. If you remove his tooth, he will live too... though he won't chew as well.
    Some organs are vital, some are not.

    Also, similar organs serve different functions in different organisms. Cats and cows have stomachs. But cat stomach digests meat, and cow stomach digests grass.
    So, every component has a wide range of functions. Eyes are better on some organisms than in others. Ears are sharper on others than in others.
    Different races of humans have different skin color, and they work differently in different environments.

    So, the way the carbon stuff works in molecules that make life has a range of options and possibilities. All humans have nearly same DNA but some have variations in DNA that make them digest cow milk. But others don't have this variation and the lack makes them break wind like cows if they drink milk.

    What people forget about evolution is that it calls for some degree of exclusion in order for it to be successful, at least in the way humans arose. Now, extreme exclusion isn't good for evolution. A white-skinned cave fish with no eyes is the product of extreme exclusion in its cold dark environment in the cave. Who wants to be a cave fish?
    But extreme inclusion doesn't allow for the rise of creatures such as apes and dogs and pigs and humans.
    Territorialism did wonders for evolutionary advancement because land animals could exclude themselves from the watery environment of the ocean.

    Ocean is the most inclusive environment. It is the great equalizer. This is why even the smartest marine animals don't have much advantage over the dumb ones. A seal is much more intelligent than a shark, but sharks routinely feed on sharks. Dolphins are much more intelligent than a great white shark or hammerheads, but dolphins often get eaten. Octopus is smarter than an eel, but an eel will often eat octopus. And a giant squid can sometimes kill a whale.

    Unlike land animals who are safe from ocean animals, all animals in the ocean are part of an 'inclusive' environment. Also, because it's difficult to move around in thick water, marine animals have fins than hands and feet. So, they are not able to use tools. Dolphins may be smart, but they can only do so much with fins. In contrast, a chimp can use tools and even hurl an orange at a leopard in Chimp Lives Matter protests.
    Also, fire is impossible in water, so there is no technology of tool-making that allows smart marine animals to rise above the dumb ones like sharks, barracudas, sea snakes, lobsters, and jellyfish.
    On land, because intelligent mammals don't have to worry about sharks and barracudas, they are much safer. And with fire, they can build weapons to vanquish the dumber animals. And because it's easier to move in air than in water, they can build walls and houses, and etc. Try building a pyramid or Great Wall of China under water. Besides, even if a wall was built underwater, the enemies could just swim over it. (This is why air force is such a frightening power of the modern world. No wall defend a nation from air force and missiles.)

    Evolutionary advancement happened on land because evolution meant more effective exclusion of dangerous species. In the ocean, dolphins must co-exist with sharks. Wherever dolphins can go, sharks can go. The exceptions are the deep sea creatures, but they are rare and ugly as hell. And of course, some marine species can only in tropical climes while some live in cold climes. But more than on land, marine animals swim all around and migrate all over the places like birds.
    Land animals have a better chance of seeking out exclusive communities that keep out invasive species through distance, land obstacles, ocean obstacles, or artificial defenses. If baboons fear leopards, they can spend much of their time up the tree. While leopards are good tree climbers, monkeys and baboons are better at it and can climb higher since they are lighter.

    And we see the rise of different races due to exclusion. Imagine if there was no land, and imagine if all humans were marine creatures. Then, the Negrolphins would have swum to the lands of Eurolphins and Asialphins and other human-dolphines. Wild negrolphins would have messed up all the world. (It's a good thing humans never developed wings like the flying monkeys in WIZARD OF OZ because flying Negroes would have messed up all five continents.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SESI19h4wDo

    But because of land masses, it was difficult for blacks in Africa to venture into other land masses, especially as they weren't very technological and brainy in creating means of transport. Their technology amounted to chucking spears at hippos and banging on bongo drums and women shaking their booties and men ogling them.
    Also, the other races built much better technology to fend off invaders.

    If all humans as dolphin-like creatures had to live underwater, they would be under threat from the stronger and more aggressive Negrolphins. And they would be defenseless since it is difficult to create weapons and defenses underwater. Also, visibility is poor underwater, and human dolphins would have to communicate through sonar, but that might favor Negroes cuz they got a better sense of beat and rhythm. They be sonaring one another like, 'there be a pack of white dolphins there, and we's gonna fishmob them and whup their ass'. It's like how Negroes use twitter and facebook to organize urban mayhem.

    We know land creatures will perish if the world was covered with water. They would all drown. But even if they didn't drown, many would perish just the same. Suppose the world is filled with water, BUT every former-land creature is equipped with gills or blowholes(like whales got). So, all bears, tigers, humans, rats, cats, dogs, monkeys, apes, gophers, rabbits, horses, and etc. can live in water. But that wouldn't be good enough.
    They would lose the exclusionary advantage in the underwater inclusive environment. They would all be attacked by sharks and killer whales, and there would be nothing they could do about it.
    Also, marine apes would have no means to run from marine leopards since the latter could swim to top of trees that are under water. And gated communities would be useless for marine whites because marine negroes will just swim over the fence. And forget about calling the police since technology won't work under water. (We do have underwater technology but all were created on land.) The sea is the great equalizer. Shark is equal to the dolphin, the moral eel is equal to the sea lion.

    Globalism is like turning the world into one giant ocean of PC, Pop Culture, and massive migration.

    In the past, White Europe had no PC, no toxic Pop culture, and no mass migration into its lands. Whites were proud to be whites and happy to fend off Mongols, Muslims, and other invaders. And they looked upon Negroes as 'savages'. And there was no Pop Culture telling white boys and girls to abandon their identity and pride in worship of holy homo anus and big Negro dong. And there was no EU 'human rights' rules that renders white nations defenseless against foreign invasion. Thanks to those crazy laws, EU must aid and abet the non-West in the invasion. So, if a bunch of Muslims trample into EU, Europeans must provide them with food, shelter, clothing, kisses, and even women. And if Africans come into European waters, EU must tug the boat to EU and let the Negroes run wild and free and hump every white women in sight who are infected with Jungle Fever thanks to Pop Culture that promotes rappers and black athletes. It's like the entire world is submerged under the power, rules, and 'values' of the Glob Ocean. I mean even Japan has a black woman as beauty queen and black runners as Olympic athletes. Thanks to GLOB oceanism, the Negro sharkdom is taking over the world. When we consider the African population is projected to reach 5 billion in just several decades, that is a lot of Negro sharks and Negrolphins swimming and taking over everything. Thanks to cheap air travel and thanks to Negromania in so many parts of the world(and PC that forbids nations from saying NO to the NEGRO), the world can turn into Afrocean or NegrOcean.

    Such will be bad for human evolution as we've known it so far. Human evolution along different races was made possible by exclusion that kept some races safe from other races. But the sheer invasiveness of the Glob Ocean reduces those defenses and subjects all races to the Negro sharks and Negroctupus. White evolution happened cuz whites could say NO to the Negro.

    Of course, the elites don't worry since they have an ark that keep them above water. We can just hope that their titanic hits the ice and sinks.

    Christ you suffer from Paranoid Schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder Andrea/Anon/Priss Factory/Dominique Francon Society – seriously get psychiatric help why on earth would someone on a blog without lots of members post under multiple names.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    What is your IQ dude?

    13

    Specially for stupid people.

    And ”’your” IQ**

    Correcting the inbreeding-factor of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith

    Decreased energy on Flores is one reason WHY the smaller erectus or habilis got selected for. THAT was the main driver in the decrease in brain size and stature.
     
    No shit? A decrease in size as a product of reduced calories is not an evolutionary factor, i.e. a product of genetic mutation. With more food, they’ll get bigger. The true evolution-selected mutation will not.

    A decrease in size as a product of reduced calories is not an evolutionary factor, i.e. a product of genetic mutation

    why not*

    In the long term…

    The true evolution-selected mutation will not.

    By now it’s conjecture, it was already proved*

    The reduction of brain and stature size look quite logic in the first view, but it’s a correlation and among populations without well developed self-awareness the environment will play a dominant factor.

    Maybe many or even most of ”true evolution” start like that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Hey KR,

    Yeah, you gotta excuse Rehmat there. He seems to think there's a Jewish conspiracy behind everything. Of course that does mean (like in roulette) he gets it right once in a while. I've tried to give him some advice on his approach - you know, just stick to and argue the point - but to no avail.

    I don't personally think Darwin was Jewish, but looking at how I phrased it, I can see how one can conclude that.


    Peace.

    One can think of one connection between Charles Darwin and Jews. It is that Darwin family practiced endogamy which was also pretty common among Jews. One would have to do a research how this connects to the widely spread fantasies among some British protestant sects of being the descendants of the lost tribe of Hebrews. Whether the endogamy they practiced was tied to some eugenics beliefs or Old Testament ideas I do not know, but certainly this aspect of Darwin background could shed some light on whether his theory of evolution was borrowing templates from their beliefs about social cast system and the concepts of the survival of the fittest in society. These concepts preceded his theory of evolution and some were pretty common in England.

    INCEST AND INFLUENCE: The Private Life of Bourgeois England.

    http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/all-in-the-family

    “Persistent intermarriage between members of Darwin’s family and the Wedgwood clan effectively intertwined two bourgeois dynasties of the English Midlands. A plethora of biographical studies of the great evolutionist and the ongoing publication of his correspondence have revealed the particularities of this complex family network in great detail, with the result that more is perhaps known about Darwin’s extended family than that of any comparable figure (with the obvious exception of royalty). In Incest and Influence, an illuminating study of the significance of cousin marriages for the 19th-century English bourgeoisie, Adam Kuper therefore uses Darwin as an exemplar of a more general tendency.”

    “In the Victorian upper middle classes, more than 1 marriage in 10 was between first or second cousins. A similar number of marriages were between brothers- and sisters-in-law, meaning that about 1 person in 5 married within the family circle. This emphasis on endogamy was an effective means for bourgeois families like the Darwin-Wedgwoods to sustain beneficial domestic connections and to safeguard the property and riches accrued from the nascent industrial economy. Great intermarried families therefore came to dominate trades such as ceramics (the Wedgwood family’s pottery was world famous) and banking (the largest bank in the world, the House of Rothschild, was a family firm, and many Quaker banking families, including the Barclays and the Gurneys, intermarried and eventually merged their banks).”

    “Unlike other scions of such families, Darwin took a keen interest in the scientific aspects of interbreeding and heredity. Throughout his career he remained acutely concerned as to “whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man,” as he put it in the conclusion to the Descent of Man in 1871. Darwin thus plays a further part in Incest and Influence as one of the foremost proponents (along with his cousin Francis Galton) of a more empirical approach to questions of heredity.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    One can think of one connection between Charles Darwin and Jews. It is that Darwin family practiced endogamy which was also pretty common among Jews.
     
    Well, there you have it -- proof positive. Although, I gotta admit, that's one of the biggest "Huh? So what?" comments I've seen.

    Why does it take you 300 words to say what an organized mind can express in 50?

    , @Talha
    Hey utu,

    Quite interesting - thanks! I knew Darwin married his cousin, but did not know this topic was one of his motivators for his research.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Up til now, we and rest of organisms had no clue how life and evolution worked.

    Humans learned of the evolutionary process only recently in human history.

    Until then, evolution was happening without us knowing.

    Now comes the exciting and scary part as we figure out the code of the DNA. We can modify genes in so many ways.

    Human organism will make the transition from the slow mutative model to the fast modificative model. What might have taken 1000s of yrs by mutation can happen instantly in a laboratory, and already stuff like this has been done to plants with GMO crops.

    Francis Fukuyama wrote about End of History, but we are now facing End of Humanity, and its Panglossian prophet is the sci-fi Ayn-Randian Micho Kaku who ought to be called Much Cuckoo.

    [MORE]

    Fuku’s End of History was overly optimistic about the end of ideology and the beginning of the liberal democratization of all of humanity in due time.
    Kaku’s End of Humanity scenario would have us leaving our humanness in the dust to become sci-fi god folks.

    Neither Fuku or Kaku has any need for nation, culture, or identity. In Fuku’s happy future, we are all cosmopolitan consumers.
    In Kaku’s happy future, we are cosmic deities powered by super-technology. Our power will be so vast that the notion of humanity will become quaint and boring. We will travel through the stars like the guy in Olaf Stapledon’s STAR MAKER.

    But to get there, Kaku proposes the Ayn Randian model. Since this future will only be created by geniuses and visionaries of super-high intelligence and imagination, most of us don’t qualify. We are dummies. So, what are we good for? Well, in order for science and technology to advance, they need money, and the best way to make money is to sell us dummies consumer products that give us fun. So, we dummies are to toil like ants and consume gadgets that we don’t even know how they work. And since we are dumb, we use these gadgets to listen to listen to dumb music, watch dumb movies and shows, and other hedonstic pleasures. So, even though we are dummies, the fact is we will work like drones and pay money to buy those things, and that means companies that specialize in technology will have more money with which to advance technology even more. And it also means there will be more tax revenues for government that can fund all sorts of scientific and space projects.

    If we dummies work and consume, then great wealth will accrue in the hands of very smart and visionary people who will create the future. And this will mean gene-modification to create future humans with super-duper intelligence that will make Einstein look dumb by comparison. And it will mean Star Trek-like technology to beam us all through the galaxies. And of course, once that day arrives, there will no longer be any need for dummies like us. And culture, history, ethnicity, and etc will seem to quaint and boring when god folks can travel through the stars and be like the extraterrestrial beings in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Indeed, even already so much of humanity have no use for culture and history; such are seen as relics of the past when people were trapped in local cultures and lacked means of travel and communication.

    This is why Kaku has such contempt for cultures, nations, and etc. In his proto-godhead view of future, that is child’s play. Sure, he calls for tolerance for all cultures, but he really means the End of all cultures since no culture can exist if it is forced to be tolerant of everything. PC tolerance turns everything into interchangeable blandness, a New Age opiate where homomania is on the same pedestal as Christianity and Judaism.
    Because Kaku has no interest in culture, history, or philosophy as the source of core identity, he thinks the ONLY culture that has any value is pop culture. Not because he has respect for dumb TV shows, rap music, Hollywood, MTV, junk food, and etc. I highly doubt if Kaku spends his days watching dumb sitcoms or listening to some ghetto fool yapping about his guns and dong. It’s because trash culture is most effective at motivating people to become mindless drones and consumers who will allow companies and governments to generate the wealth to create the great future.
    Not many people can be motivated to work hard to go see a Robert Bresson film, but many people can be motivated to work hard to watch the latest TRANSFORMERS.

    If all things go ‘right’ according to Kaku, we will achieve the technology that will turns us into god-folks like in Japanese mythology where men and gods live side by side. Japanese Emperors were seen as gods or divine figures.

    This is why Kaku has no love for high culture, history, heritage, religion, and identity. People who care about such things recoil from the culture of hedonism and consumption. They see it as shallow, stupid, and moronic. Now, Kaku himself surely knows how stupid rap music, Hollywood movies, TV shows, and etc are. But, his ilk understand that the fans of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus are more likely to be manic consumers than people devoted to religion or into the films of Andrei Tarkovsky.
    For the future to happen, most people must work like drones and consume. Consumption of hedonism is the most potent incentive for work.

    So, Kaku the jerk says if you oppose globalism and mass consumerism, you are a ‘terrorist’. A terrorist obstructing the Project that will mankind into godkind. To get there, the geniuses need the money and funding, and that can only come from profits and taxation of masses of morons who work and work and work to consume consume consume.

    But people like Kaku probably believe the moronic masses will eventually be elevated too.
    If geniuses and visionaries with ample profits and funding find a way to genetically modify every embryo to possess genius IQ, then all the babies of the moronic masses will be geniuses. But to get to that point, the morons in the present must work and consume, work and consume.

    We will go from evolution to accelution, or accelerated evolution.

    For people with a sense of culture and history, this is a scary thought. It is really the End of Humanity as the Dawn of Deity awaits… the world of Star Child in 2001.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Humans learned of the evolutionary process only recently in human history.
    Until then, evolution was happening without us knowing.
    Now comes the exciting and scary part as we figure out the code of the DNA. We can modify genes in so many ways.
     
    Are you trying to contract a PBS special?

    Nobody cares, Priss. The important, and scary, thing is that plain ordinary beer is $10 a six-pack.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith

    I don’t personally think Darwin was Jewish, but looking at how I phrased it, I can see how one can conclude that.
     
    I assumed you didn't. I should have noted Rehmat as the originator of that false trail -- I've had him Ignored for a long time. There's quite a bit of jew-fear in the American working classes. In some circumstances, it may even be justifiable, although I'm inclined to believe that evil tends to dwell wherever there's a lot of money, irrespective of religion.

    I’m inclined to believe that evil tends to dwell wherever there’s a lot of money, irrespective of religion

    Yup, that and power.

    “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
    –Chapterhouse: Dune

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @the cruncher
    Fred, evolution can /overshoot/ and then throw away some unnecessary stuff. Like the highest crown roofs on medieval cathedrals - did workers build those pieces of wall like an igloo? No, they used scaffolding, extra support, but when the roof was done the scaffolding wasn't necessary anymore and was discarded. So with evolution - an organ might find a new use and some aspects are overkill for it, and the creature then loses the old-use aspects.

    “evolution can /overshoot/”

    ??? Overshoot what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    Why the great majority of comedians in the US and Canada are Jewish?

    “Why the great majority of comedians in the US and Canada are Jewish?”

    Higher average verbal IQ.

    What does that have to do with my comment?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @KenH
    Still waiting for Fred to propose a theory more plausible than evolution. Apparently, scant evidence of a bearded deity high in the sky scratching his chin and deciding the fate of all living things on a whim or if they displease the self styled chosen people is much more believable.

    Regarding Trump, he has no power until he takes office on January 20th but some things he's done on the heels of the election do give me pause. For instance, on 60 Minutes he said the proposed wall may have to be a "fence in some places" but didn't go into detail. The quick and quiet removal of the proposed Muslim ban from his website within 1-2 days after the election, with no explanation, was a pretty greasy move. Now it appears that there are no planned reductions from Muslim nations, only a registry in which their names will be added. Big deal. I'm sure a registry has would be Muslim terrorists quaking in their manjammies.

    He did reiterate that deportations of the estimated three million criminal illegal aliens will commence immediately, but I'll believe it when I see it. A federal judge who thinks he's god may attempt to block even though he/she would have no legal grounds to do so.

    Reed is confused about evolution because he puts the cart in front of the horse.

    There is no purpose or design in evolution. It is a process that works in a certain way.. and depending on environmental factors, the process stumbles into ways around it. That’s about it. In this mutations are the key, and they happen. They happen cuz they happen, period. It is possible because chemistry allows it. Law of Nature.

    Problem with Reed is he looks at the finished product and wonders why the processes led to this. He is looking for purpose, design, meaning.
    There is none.
    It was all an ‘accident’. There is an elemental process to evolution via DNA and stuff. Its goal is to replicate and reproduce. Under normal conditions, the life form just multiplies and multiplies. But there may be changes in the environment. If the changes are hostile, the organism will die and go extinct. BUT, if a mutation happens in the DNA that allows the organism to weather the new environment, there you have change and evolution. Mutations are chemically possible, and that is the key to evolution. If hydrogen atoms can ‘evolve’ into more complex atoms, then DNA can mutate into new codes.

    Imagine a population of men with penises hanging low. Suppose they have no problem going about their business and reproducing. But suppose an invasive species of gremlins arrive and start biting off the penises of the men. Now, the guys are in trouble. Many of them have their penises eaten by these nasty creatures. Most will not survive since they will be ‘dic*less’. And that will be the end of humanity. That will be that, end of story.

    But suppose a mutation occurs in one guy whereupon his penis is not between his legs but near his belly button. Due to its elevation, it is more difficult for gremlins to bite it off. So, he still has his willy and impregnates a bunch of women, and some of the offsprings have penises near the belly button too.

    So, over time, all the men have penises around the belly button. Their dongs are safe from the fangs of the gremlins. So, the gremlins begin to starve and die since they can no longer eat human puds. Their food supply is beyond reach. But then, suppose mutation happens among gremlins too. While most gremlins die of starvation, suppose a few gremlins are born with extra-jumping ability. So, they can jump high enough to bite off the penises near the belly button. And suppose these gremlins that gorge on the dongs multiply, and over time, most gremlins can jump high enough to gorge on penises.
    Humanity is once again endangered as gremlins begin to feed on all these dongs. But then, another mutation happens among mankind where the penis is around the chest. And these humans survive and have lots of kids, and over time, the humanity grows in number because the chest-level penises cannot be eaten by the gremlins who can only jump to belly button level.
    So, the gremlins are about to die of starvation once again, but a mutation happens among a few gremlins who can jump to chest level, and these can feed on the chest-level dongs.
    Humanity is once again in trouble as these high-jumping gremlins multiply and start biting off the chest-level penises.
    But then, suppose another mutation happens where the penis sprouts on the top of the head. While most humans are dying off due to their inability to reproduce after gremlins bite off their chest level dongs, the human with the dong-head can reproduce because no gremlin can jump high enough to reach for the penis on the top of his head.

    This is how evolution works. But Reed is too much of a butthead to think like a dong-head which would supply him with the answers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    That's one way of putting things, but I agree. The long schlong tribe could also learn to tie their penises around their torsos and only untie them when needed to do the deed. Tribe members too lazy to tie them or who tied them poorly would be mostly weeded out from the gene pool by the pesky gremlins. Or, certain tribe members with higher intelligence could develop special weapons and tactics to combat the gremlins, thus allowing the tribe to survive with minimal losses. But if that problem solving intelligence is not present then the tribe perishes.
    , @Vendetta
    You haven't read enough of Reed's columns to understand the question he's asking. What he's asking is how this happened by accident. Are you familiar with his example of metamorphosis in insects? What are the intermediate steps that lead from a life cycle with no metamorphosis to a life cycle with one?

    Walk him back through each and every step of how the processes he mentioned came into being, step by step.

    If you're unable to do so, that's exactly the problem he is pointing out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "Kip Russell"] says:
    @Talha
    Hey KR,

    Yeah, you gotta excuse Rehmat there. He seems to think there's a Jewish conspiracy behind everything. Of course that does mean (like in roulette) he gets it right once in a while. I've tried to give him some advice on his approach - you know, just stick to and argue the point - but to no avail.

    I don't personally think Darwin was Jewish, but looking at how I phrased it, I can see how one can conclude that.


    Peace.

    I don’t personally think Darwin was Jewish, but looking at how I phrased it, I can see how one can conclude that.

    I assumed you didn’t. I should have noted Rehmat as the originator of that false trail — I’ve had him Ignored for a long time. There’s quite a bit of jew-fear in the American working classes. In some circumstances, it may even be justifiable, although I’m inclined to believe that evil tends to dwell wherever there’s a lot of money, irrespective of religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    I’m inclined to believe that evil tends to dwell wherever there’s a lot of money, irrespective of religion
     
    Yup, that and power.

    "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."
    --Chapterhouse: Dune

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    You’re one of those people who can’t bear the thought of being wrong.
     
    I don't acknowledge error in the face of fatuous arguments of now significance whatever. That's true.

    But if you had any idea of what you are talking about you would have noted that on several occasions on this site I have thanked others for a correction where I have been shown to be mistaken. Now that is something you might consider emulating.

    You might consider not being an asshole. There’s all sorts of opportunity out there for you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    What offensive poppycock!

    Darwin’s family tradition was Unitarian, his baptism and boarding school were Church of England. He died an avowed agnostic.

    Hey KR,

    Yeah, you gotta excuse Rehmat there. He seems to think there’s a Jewish conspiracy behind everything. Of course that does mean (like in roulette) he gets it right once in a while. I’ve tried to give him some advice on his approach – you know, just stick to and argue the point – but to no avail.

    I don’t personally think Darwin was Jewish, but looking at how I phrased it, I can see how one can conclude that.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I don’t personally think Darwin was Jewish, but looking at how I phrased it, I can see how one can conclude that.
     
    I assumed you didn't. I should have noted Rehmat as the originator of that false trail -- I've had him Ignored for a long time. There's quite a bit of jew-fear in the American working classes. In some circumstances, it may even be justifiable, although I'm inclined to believe that evil tends to dwell wherever there's a lot of money, irrespective of religion.
    , @utu
    One can think of one connection between Charles Darwin and Jews. It is that Darwin family practiced endogamy which was also pretty common among Jews. One would have to do a research how this connects to the widely spread fantasies among some British protestant sects of being the descendants of the lost tribe of Hebrews. Whether the endogamy they practiced was tied to some eugenics beliefs or Old Testament ideas I do not know, but certainly this aspect of Darwin background could shed some light on whether his theory of evolution was borrowing templates from their beliefs about social cast system and the concepts of the survival of the fittest in society. These concepts preceded his theory of evolution and some were pretty common in England.

    INCEST AND INFLUENCE: The Private Life of Bourgeois England.
    http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/all-in-the-family

    "Persistent intermarriage between members of Darwin’s family and the Wedgwood clan effectively intertwined two bourgeois dynasties of the English Midlands. A plethora of biographical studies of the great evolutionist and the ongoing publication of his correspondence have revealed the particularities of this complex family network in great detail, with the result that more is perhaps known about Darwin’s extended family than that of any comparable figure (with the obvious exception of royalty). In Incest and Influence, an illuminating study of the significance of cousin marriages for the 19th-century English bourgeoisie, Adam Kuper therefore uses Darwin as an exemplar of a more general tendency."

    "In the Victorian upper middle classes, more than 1 marriage in 10 was between first or second cousins. A similar number of marriages were between brothers- and sisters-in-law, meaning that about 1 person in 5 married within the family circle. This emphasis on endogamy was an effective means for bourgeois families like the Darwin-Wedgwoods to sustain beneficial domestic connections and to safeguard the property and riches accrued from the nascent industrial economy. Great intermarried families therefore came to dominate trades such as ceramics (the Wedgwood family’s pottery was world famous) and banking (the largest bank in the world, the House of Rothschild, was a family firm, and many Quaker banking families, including the Barclays and the Gurneys, intermarried and eventually merged their banks)."

    "Unlike other scions of such families, Darwin took a keen interest in the scientific aspects of interbreeding and heredity. Throughout his career he remained acutely concerned as to “whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man,” as he put it in the conclusion to the Descent of Man in 1871. Darwin thus plays a further part in Incest and Influence as one of the foremost proponents (along with his cousin Francis Galton) of a more empirical approach to questions of heredity."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Fred, evolution can /overshoot/ and then throw away some unnecessary stuff. Like the highest crown roofs on medieval cathedrals – did workers build those pieces of wall like an igloo? No, they used scaffolding, extra support, but when the roof was done the scaffolding wasn’t necessary anymore and was discarded. So with evolution – an organ might find a new use and some aspects are overkill for it, and the creature then loses the old-use aspects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "evolution can /overshoot/"

    ??? Overshoot what?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Bro, you're making my point for me. It's the conduct that counts not what womb gives birth to you.

    Pointing out Darwin was Jewish makes little difference - there were Jewish Sahabah. If you want to discount his assumptions do so - there's plenty to criticize, but whether he was Jewish or not makes little difference to the discourse.

    Wa Salaam.

    What offensive poppycock!

    Darwin’s family tradition was Unitarian, his baptism and boarding school were Church of England. He died an avowed agnostic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey KR,

    Yeah, you gotta excuse Rehmat there. He seems to think there's a Jewish conspiracy behind everything. Of course that does mean (like in roulette) he gets it right once in a while. I've tried to give him some advice on his approach - you know, just stick to and argue the point - but to no avail.

    I don't personally think Darwin was Jewish, but looking at how I phrased it, I can see how one can conclude that.


    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @John Jeremiah Smith
    LOL. You are getting funnier, I'll grant you that. You're one of those people who can't bear the thought of being wrong. It's okay, man, I understand. There should be a "Handicap" emoji for you guys.

    You’re one of those people who can’t bear the thought of being wrong.

    I don’t acknowledge error in the face of fatuous arguments of now significance whatever. That’s true.

    But if you had any idea of what you are talking about you would have noted that on several occasions on this site I have thanked others for a correction where I have been shown to be mistaken. Now that is something you might consider emulating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    You might consider not being an asshole. There's all sorts of opportunity out there for you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon
    "For obvious reasons it doesn’t explain the origin of life"

    The problem is we tend to differentiate life and non-life.

    Actually, all things are alive with energy and chemistry.

    Life is merely a process of patternizing this energy and chemistry toward reproduction.

    Just like, under certain conditions, fire is inevitable, life is inevitable under certain conditions.

    Why? It's just part of chemical law.

    There is something inherent in carbon that catches fire if put under intense heat. Happens all the time. Friction causes heat and will light a match every time.

    Likewise, there is something in carbon that turns it into proto-DNA if you strike it with electricity and rain. It's just a part of the carbon chemistry.

    So, if we just see 'life' as a chemical process of carbon, there is no secret to how and why it works the way it does.

    Take carbon and electricity, and you got the goopy stuff that turns into 'life'.

    Watch the video. Even a Hindu can do it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2xly_5Ei3U

    A very perceptive comment, this:

    “The problem is we tend to differentiate life and non-life.

    Actually, all things are alive with energy and chemistry.”

    In other words, The Infinite Universe is alive with energy, chemistry and biology,
    without beginning or end, without any limits restraining the evolution of It’s
    force field into all possible forms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Here’s the explanation Fred’s been looking for. “Alien intelligence inhabits every corner of the universe in the form of dark matter,” says Columbia University astrophysicist.

    It explains everything. Every few million years this alien intelligence that encompasses the whole universe comes down to earth and plants a new bunch of fossils to suggest that organisms have undergone evolutionary change, all just to fool that dunderhead, Darwin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    Did you read the name of the source that claimed Charles Darwin was Jewish or you just jumped to conclusion in order to apologize for Islam?

    Did you know the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had married two young Yahud widows?

    Did you know it was a Yahud woman at Khyber who poisoned the Prophet Muhammad (pbhu)?

    Do you know it was chief rabbi of Yasrib (Medinah) who advised the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to expel two Yahudi tribes from the area for their breaking a military pact with Muslims?

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/03/14/untold-a-history-of-the-wives-of-prophet-muhammad/

    Bro, you’re making my point for me. It’s the conduct that counts not what womb gives birth to you.

    Pointing out Darwin was Jewish makes little difference – there were Jewish Sahabah. If you want to discount his assumptions do so – there’s plenty to criticize, but whether he was Jewish or not makes little difference to the discourse.

    Wa Salaam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    What offensive poppycock!

    Darwin’s family tradition was Unitarian, his baptism and boarding school were Church of England. He died an avowed agnostic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto

    The great majority of believers in Darwin theory are atheists who hate all religions.
     
    in other words, SMART PEOPLE, ;)

    at least based on this perticularitet...

    ''Believers on Darwin theory''

    What is your IQ dude?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    13

    Specially for stupid people.

    And '''your'' IQ**

    Correcting the inbreeding-factor of course.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Salaam Rehmat,

    Even if he was, you know there's nothing wrong with being born a Jew or from any other tribe/race:

    On one occasion, the Prophet's wife Hafsah scolded her co-wife Safiyyah (ra) [who was of the Jewish tribe of Bani Nadir] by calling her “the daughter of a Jew”. So she started to cry.

    The Prophet (pbuh) then came in and asked her why she was crying. She said: “Hafsah called me the daughter of a Jew.”

    To this the Prophet (pbuh) replied: “Verily, you are the daughter of a prophet*, your uncle was also a prophet, and you are the wife of a prophet, so what does she have over you to boast about?”

    He then turned to Hafsah (ra) and said: “Fear Allah, O Hafsah.” [related in Tirmidhi]

    Criticize any theory on its lack of merits, but there is no reason to dismiss one simply if it's formulated by a Jew or other.

    Peace.

    *Meaning in lineage.

    Did you read the name of the source that claimed Charles Darwin was Jewish or you just jumped to conclusion in order to apologize for Islam?

    Did you know the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had married two young Yahud widows?

    Did you know it was a Yahud woman at Khyber who poisoned the Prophet Muhammad (pbhu)?

    Do you know it was chief rabbi of Yasrib (Medinah) who advised the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to expel two Yahudi tribes from the area for their breaking a military pact with Muslims?

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/03/14/untold-a-history-of-the-wives-of-prophet-muhammad/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Bro, you're making my point for me. It's the conduct that counts not what womb gives birth to you.

    Pointing out Darwin was Jewish makes little difference - there were Jewish Sahabah. If you want to discount his assumptions do so - there's plenty to criticize, but whether he was Jewish or not makes little difference to the discourse.

    Wa Salaam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.