Fossil Said To Be Missing Link Between Sea, Land Creatures

[armjan]

One of the constraints with this issue is that the evidence we have thus far is discrete with little continuity with respect to time. So any assertions are derived inferences using systematic methods. Edited April 15, 2006 by armjan

[Anonymouse]

No, evolutionists don't claim to know the answer for everything since they are scientists.

 

They certainly act like it.

 

As for my importance, no, I simply proposed you to help me since you claim knowing more than I.

 

When did I do that? Please offer evidence. You claim you are a scientist now please establish where I claimed to know more than you.

[Anonymouse]

Evolution is a hypotheses developped by scientists and in concordance with the scientific methodology. It IS falsifiable, unlike your propositions. It makes predictions, and many of those predictions have been observed, AS PREDICTED!!!

 

As for your second paragraph, I see that you haven't stopped with your cheap tricks and intellectual intimidations when you can't confront the message.

 

You have still not answered my question. Why has evolution never been observed which is one of the prerequisites for the scientific method. And why is evolution, a mere theory, asserted after the fact in which there is no way to go back in time to observe any of these things, much less to reproduce these events and occurences. You will find the evolutionists pretty silent.

 

And as far as my "intellectual intimidations", they seem to be working.

[DominO123]

You have still not answered my question. Why has evolution never been observed which is one of the prerequisites for the scientific method. And why is evolution, a mere theory, asserted after the fact in which there is no way to go back in time to observe any of these things, much less to reproduce these events and occurences. You will find the evolutionists pretty silent.

 

And as far as my "intellectual intimidations", they seem to be working.

 

I told you COUTLESS numbers of time that revolution HAS BEEN observed.

 

And this is the reason behind the fact that we have bacterias that resist to Vancomycin hydrochloride. Evolution IS observable, it emits predictions which ARE observales. How come advanced mollusca's have a pair of eyes which are derived from their skins unlike the eyes of the chordata phylum? This is one example of environmentally induced similarities from two different groups which have evolved differently and have organs not from the same origine but having the same role because of environmentally forced adaptation.

 

This new group of animals on the middle of terrrestial and non terrestial have been predicted, a prediction made by evolutionists and now we discover as predicted such an animal.

[DominO123]

They certainly act like it.

When did I do that? Please offer evidence. You claim you are a scientist now please establish where I claimed to know more than you.

 

That some do act like it, doesn't represent the scientific field, or at least doesn't represent what the scientific methodology is. The methodology is not and far from being arrogant like your propositions. You present theories which are not falsifiable, while any scientific hypotheses are falsifiable.

 

As for your second point, you redirected my claim of you being ignorant, which assume that you know more than I. To be able to judge ones ignorance one must be more qualified.

 

On the other hand, I do claim you are ignorant and that you repeatadly contract yourself, question the validity of the scientific methodology, yet request 'demonstrations.' Question evolution, yet uses Rushton's application of the r/K strategy to 'demonstrate' Blacks('Negroid') the supposed 'intellectual inferiority' of Blacks, while the r/K strategy is an evolutionary theory developped by evolutionists.

 

You even claimed knowing statistics more than I, when I have requested you to use the simplest sampling methode in statistic to check something you could even not do it.

 

You rejected astronomy, but yet ignored everything that was know about Earth revolution around the Sun, it's orbital shift.

 

To reject something, the first thing to do is to know the subject, and not pretending to do so. When I reject the Turkish thesis on the Armenian genocide, I know their thesis, I can possbly not reject something that I don't know of. But you've been doing this again and again and have shown no inclination to change.

[Anonymouse]

lol,

 

why have you conventiently put the burden of proof on quebec? Why don't you offer conclusive evidence to suggest your conclusions? b/c you know very well that it is unrealistic/unreasonable to find evidence to prove one way or the other.

 

Dan, just what in tarnation are you stating here? Do you realize the nonsense of what you just stated? You're asking me to bring conclusive evidence? That makes no sense, you're asking me to prove a negative. The burden of prove is rightly on Domino. It's a simple issue of those who assert the alleged fact. Think of it like a courtroom in which the prosecution asserts that Jamal Johnson Jr. III is guilty of murder. The burden of proof is on them to prove the case, not the other way around. It is very reasonable and realistic to expect Domino and the claims of evolution to be held accountable by the same rules.

 

he's asserting A, your asserting (not A)

your asking him to prove A, and coming to the conclusion that since he can't assert it, then it must not be true. Why haven't you conclusively proved your point? lol

 

That's precisely the point. You cannot prove the case for a negative. I have never claimed anything. I have simply asked for evidence. Beyond that, all we have is belief, and based on the lack of evidence I refuse to believe in evolution.

 

for issues such as this, we should come to an agreement to understand the limitations and uncertainties of the conclusions we assert instead of asking others to do something you haven't done yourself.

 

This is nonsense. You should take a philosophy course or watch some Court TV to see where the burden lies.

[Sip]

Sometimes the grandest of all proofs can be carried out through the simplest induction. In order to "see" evolution, instead of asking for the grand demonstration of a single cel evolving into the highest of life forms all at once, maybe one only needs to see the clues in each little step over millions of years.

 

As exemplified by the article that started this thread, now there is another link between purely sea and purely land creatures. Is it "proof of evolution"? I don't know. But is it perhaps a little piece in the induction puzzle going from step to step, maybe!

[Anonymouse]

That some do act like it, doesn't represent the scientific field, or at least doesn't represent what the scientific methodology is. The methodology is not and far from being arrogant like your propositions. You present theories which are not falsifiable, while any scientific hypotheses are falsifiable.

 

Theories are nothing but perspectives! As such, science (evolution) is merely one perspective in a world of many perspectives. It is a choice made on which perspective we subscribe to and believe.

 

As for your second point, you redirected my claim of you being ignorant, which assume that you know more than I. To be able to judge ones ignorance one must be more qualified.

 

This makes no sense. You claimed, that I claimed I know more than you. Now that I ask for evidence, you seem to be having trouble.

 

On the other hand, I do claim you are ignorant and that you repeatadly contract yourself, question the validity of the scientific methodology, yet request 'demonstrations.' Question evolution, yet uses Rushton's application of the r/K strategy to 'demonstrate' Blacks('Negroid') the supposed 'intellectual inferiority' of Blacks, while the r/K strategy is an evolutionary theory developped by evolutionists.

 

Just what are you babbling about? When did I use Rushton's application of the r/K strategy? I used Rushton's other assertions in my argument and if that happened to fall in an article, that is irrelevant. You're shadow boxing with yourself. And I am to guess by "contract" you mean "contradict". No, I do not contradict myself. And even if we assume we contradict as humans, in a world where there can be no single truth but only perspectives, there can be nothing wrong with contradictions. In fact, I would argue that contradictions are not a defect, but a virtue. Does such a person learn less of truth?

 

You even claimed knowing statistics more than I, when I have requested you to use the simplest sampling methode in statistic to check something you could even not do it.

 

That is untrue. I am still amazed at how much your memory retained all this. I must have hit a quivering nerve to make you so uncomfortable to have you still remember these. However, you are clearly, whether intentional or not, painting an inaccurate picture here. I never claimed I know statistics more than you. Such trivial things I care not about, but it seems you do and it means so much to you. In fact, if you actually pay attention to all the things I say, I never claimed anything really. I haven't claimed to know more anything than you. I have constantly and repeatedly exposed you and your views to criticisms and scrutiny and you can't seem to stand that. Since education and 'knowledge' seems to be the issue with you and your major hang up, I assume your self-esteem rides on these and hence you are so infuriated by me since I damage your self-esteem.

 

To recap on what happened. You claimed statistics is somehow an absolute thing, and I merely pointed out the flaw in that thinking. I then proceeded to state that statistics can be used to prove anything because of its essentially elastic nature.

 

You rejected astronomy, but yet ignored everything that was know about Earth revolution around the Sun, it's orbital shift.

 

To reject something, the first thing to do is to know the subject, and not pretending to do so. When I reject the Turkish thesis on the Armenian genocide, I know their thesis, I can possbly not reject something that I don't know of. But you've been doing this again and again and have shown no inclination to change.

 

When did I reject astronomy? Where is the evidence for this? Furthermore, even if I were to question the underlying and hidden assumptions behind astronomy, how is that rejecting it? It seems to me that you are nothing more than an intellectual quack who loves to agree with himself, and when someone perhaps gives a crack in your edifice of thought and thereby shakes the sticks on which your self-esteem is held on, you don't like it. As all self-absorbed intellectuals are, there is no shortage to what childishness they will hold on to. What defines 'knowing something'? Who sets the parameters and the rules. Is someone who has a basic knowledge of chemistry less qualified in rejecting evolution than someone who spends his life dealing with chemicals and compounds? Who are you? It is typical of the self-absorbed intellectual who raises intellectual Berlin Walls on what is or is not proper views and knowledge or arguments.

 

I have on more than one occasion questioned evolution and asked for certain parts of its larger than life claims to be proven, only to meet your intolerance of those who question your beloved knowledge. I know, I know, you think "who is this punk mouse that can come here and engage in acts of defenestration regarding the science and knowledge I have spent all my life learning, accumulating and studying?" No one wants to admit they have been duped much less have their lifes work and dream erased in a single statement. I understand. It makes you uneasy. But, if you are that intellectual guru as you claim you are, why can you not take a simple mosquito bite from an intellectual nobody such as myself? Why does it disturb you so? If you are on cloud 9, and I make a post, why does it always get your attention? I sense frustration and uneasiness. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/emot-q.gif

Edited April 15, 2006 by Anonymouse

[Sip]

Theories are nothing but perspectives! As such, science (evolution) is merely one perspective in a world of many perspectives. It is a choice made on which perspective we subscribe to and believe.

 

Anon, before this goes any further, do you concede that even though everything may be a "perspective", that some perspectives are more valid than others?

[DominO123]

Theories are nothing but perspectives! As such, science (evolution) is merely one perspective in a world of many perspectives. It is a choice made on which perspective we subscribe to and believe.

 

You claimed in this very same thread: ''I have read enough and have enough understanding of the scientific method to know that evolution contradicts or does not meet the full requirement of the scientific method.'' And now you write: ''Theories are nothing but perspectives! As such, science (evolution) is merely one perspective in a world of many perspectives. It is a choice made on which perspective we subscribe to and believe.''

 

First you claim that you know enough about evolution to know it does not meet the full requirement of the scientific method, and then you go on to say that evolution is a science.

 

This makes no sense. You claimed, that I claimed I know more than you. Now that I ask for evidence, you seem to be having trouble.

 

Well, making sense or not are perspectives afteral.

 

Just what are you babbling about? When did I use Rushton's application of the r/K strategy? I used Rushton's other assertions in my argument and if that happened to fall in an article, that is irrelevant. You're shadow boxing with yourself. And I am to guess by "contract" you mean "contradict". No, I do not contradict myself. And even if we assume we contradict as humans, in a world where there can be no single truth but only perspectives, there can be nothing wrong with contradictions. In fact, I would argue that contradictions are not a defect, but a virtue. Does such a person learn less of truth?

 

Rushton's other assertions as you claim are entirly based on his r/K theory, which he himself admit in his books, and even in his early 'research' when he was after getting measures of penile sizes to correlate them with intelligence among different groupe of people, it was to support his r/K theory. All his work for years is centered around that theory. You can contact him and ask, if you want I will provide his email address. You will see that he will confirm this. As for the second part, what would it change that I bring evidences or not, when not bringing evidences will be as much of a perspective than not bringing anything. So in future I will just fart to answer you, my fart is a perspective too.

 

That is untrue. I am still amazed at how much your memory retained all this. I must have hit a quivering nerve to make you so uncomfortable to have you still remember these. However, you are clearly, whether intentional or not, painting an inaccurate picture here. I never claimed I know statistics more than you. Such trivial things I care not about, but it seems you do and it means so much to you. In fact, if you actually pay attention to all the things I say, I never claimed anything really. I haven't claimed to know more anything than you. I have constantly and repeatedly exposed you and your views to criticisms and scrutiny and you can't seem to stand that. Since education and 'knowledge' seems to be the issue with you and your major hang up, I assume your self-esteem rides on these and hence you are so infuriated by me since I damage your self-esteem.

 

You brought the past to discredit not I, when it wasn't relevent to the discussion. And yes! You claiming knowing statistic, you started debating about 'statistically significant' while you did not have the slightest clue about what is p <0.05 or 0.01, and you accused me of ignorance for bringing it up, just like you did for astronomy, or any other debates. Even Siamanto who was supporting you and praising you ended up stopping to waste his time with your nonesense.

 

As for having exposed me, the only thing you exposed was that you are quite a contradiction.

 

To recap on what happened. You claimed statistics is somehow an absolute thing, and I merely pointed out the flaw in that thinking. I then proceeded to state that statistics can be used to prove anything because of its essentially elastic nature.

 

You are lying, what you did was to use statistic to prove your point, while I answered back saying that you have no clue of what were talking about. You were the one presenting Rushton table with coritical neurons, you used those numbers, and when I injected cortical density into the picture and the non-significance after the correction you claimed I had no clue of what I was talking about. And then, when I had gone to expose that you were simply wrong in your assertions you questioned the validity of statistics, the same statistics you were using to prove your point. Science only works for you it support your assertions, when it doesn't you reject its validity.

 

When did I reject astronomy? Where is the evidence for this? Furthermore, even if I were to question the underlying and hidden assumptions behind astronomy, how is that rejecting it? It seems to me that you are nothing more than an intellectual quack who loves to agree with himself, and when someone perhaps gives a crack in your edifice of thought and thereby shakes the sticks on which your self-esteem is held on, you don't like it. As all self-absorbed intellectuals are, there is no shortage to what childishness they will hold on to. What defines 'knowing something'? Who sets the parameters and the rules. Is someone who has a basic knowledge of chemistry less qualified in rejecting evolution than someone who spends his life dealing with chemicals and compounds? Who are you? It is typical of the self-absorbed intellectual who raises intellectual Berlin Walls on what is or is not proper views and knowledge or arguments.

 

Oh damn, the same crap it's like you have already a set of prewritten answers copy-pasting them. You recycled the same crap against your friend (I mean, your ex friend) Siamanto, remember? You rejected Astronomy in this very same forum, you claimed that physicists and astronomers were not more qualified or credible than some psychotic ancient text 'decyphrer' when I started exposing that man lack of knowledge of the solar system you rejected the validity of astronomy. Shall I refresh your memory?

 

I have on more than one occasion questioned evolution and asked for certain parts of its larger than life claims to be proven, only to meet your intolerance of those who question your beloved knowledge. I know, I know, you think "who is this punk mouse that can come here and engage in acts of defenestration regarding the science and knowledge I have spent all my life learning, accumulating and studying?" No one wants to admit they have been duped much less have their lifes work and dream erased in a single statement. I understand. It makes you uneasy. But, if you are that intellectual guru as you claim you are, why can you not take a simple mosquito bite from an intellectual nobody such as myself? Why does it disturb you so? If you are on cloud 9, and I make a post, why does it always get your attention? I sense frustration and uneasiness.

 

You can not request proof, when you reject the validity of proofs, fopr the rest, I fart, it is as much of a perspective as what you wrote.

Edited April 15, 2006 by QueBeceR

[Sip]

for the rest, I fart, it is as much of a perspective as what you wrote.

 

http://s93725736.onlinehome.us/forum/images/smilies/fart.gif

 

Ok God Damnit freedom of speech stops at farting in public. I draw the line

[armjan]

hey stan,

what really matters is that you feel comfortable with what makes sense to you.

 

as for now, i need to go to UFC 59 and meet rachel.

Edited April 15, 2006 by armjan

[Yervant1]

http://s93725736.onlinehome.us/forum/images/smilies/fart.gif

 

Ok God Damnit freedom of speech stops at farting in public. I draw the line

This debate reminded me of my university years where debates took place, face to face. We did not have the benefits of the computers and did not have the safety of distance, so we were lot more careful what we said and did.

I think debates will be more civil if debaters thought that the debater is right there in their face.

[Anonymouse]

Theories are nothing but perspectives! As such, science (evolution) is merely one perspective in a world of many perspectives. It is a choice made on which perspective we subscribe to and believe.

 

You claimed in this very same thread: ''I have read enough and have enough understanding of the scientific method to know that evolution contradicts or does not meet the full requirement of the scientific method.'' And now you write: ''Theories are nothing but perspectives! As such, science (evolution) is merely one perspective in a world of many perspectives. It is a choice made on which perspective we subscribe to and believe.''

 

First you claim that you know enough about evolution to know it does not meet the full requirement of the scientific method, and then you go on to say that evolution is a science.

 

I never claimed evolution is science. I merely put it in parantheses so you would know what I am referring to since evolution seems to encompass the whole of science these days. You have nothing here as usual.

 

This makes no sense. You claimed, that I claimed I know more than you. Now that I ask for evidence, you seem to be having trouble.

 

Well, making sense or not are perspectives afteral.

 

At least you didn't deny not making sense. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/emot-q.gif

 

Just what are you babbling about? When did I use Rushton's application of the r/K strategy? I used Rushton's other assertions in my argument and if that happened to fall in an article, that is irrelevant. You're shadow boxing with yourself. And I am to guess by "contract" you mean "contradict". No, I do not contradict myself. And even if we assume we contradict as humans, in a world where there can be no single truth but only perspectives, there can be nothing wrong with contradictions. In fact, I would argue that contradictions are not a defect, but a virtue. Does such a person learn less of truth?

 

Rushton's other assertions as you claim are entirly based on his r/K theory, which he himself admit in his books, and even in his early 'research' when he was after getting measures of penile sizes to correlate them with intelligence among different groupe of people, it was to support his r/K theory. All his work for years is centered around that theory. You can contact him and ask, if you want I will provide his email address. You will see that he will confirm this. As for the second part, what would it change that I bring evidences or not, when not bringing evidences will be as much of a perspective than not bringing anything. So in future I will just fart to answer you, my fart is a perspective too.

 

Actually, that is untrue. The differences he observed among whites, blacks and Asians namely that Asians are higher in IQ than whites who are higher in turn than blacks are self-evident. Another area that is self-evident is that blacks are more disproportionately involved in crime and that is due to higher levels of testosterone, which as he explained are the reasons why younger people are more violent and aggressive than older people and why men are more aggressive and violent than women and which in turn why blacks are more violent and aggressive.

 

Furthermore, that one cites Rushton's work as evidence of racial differences does not mean that somehow one supports evolution. That is merely a guess, a conjecture as to how we got those differences. It is purely conjecture that the differences in races are a result of evolution and tracing that to the supposed "African Eve" (Oh the horror! The scientists just used a Bible reference).

 

That is untrue. I am still amazed at how much your memory retained all this. I must have hit a quivering nerve to make you so uncomfortable to have you still remember these. However, you are clearly, whether intentional or not, painting an inaccurate picture here. I never claimed I know statistics more than you. Such trivial things I care not about, but it seems you do and it means so much to you. In fact, if you actually pay attention to all the things I say, I never claimed anything really. I haven't claimed to know more anything than you. I have constantly and repeatedly exposed you and your views to criticisms and scrutiny and you can't seem to stand that. Since education and 'knowledge' seems to be the issue with you and your major hang up, I assume your self-esteem rides on these and hence you are so infuriated by me since I damage your self-esteem.

 

You brought the past to discredit not I, when it wasn't relevent to the discussion. And yes! You claiming knowing statistic, you started debating about 'statistically significant' while you did not have the slightest clue about what is p <0.05 or 0.01, and you accused me of ignorance for bringing it up, just like you did for astronomy, or any other debates. Even Siamanto who was supporting you and praising you ended up stopping to waste his time with your nonesense.

 

I brought the past? When did I do that? Actually, you did that in your numerous references to the past. And so this is what the noble Domino resorts to. As everyone can see, to this pseud-intellectual quack, how others perceive him on the internet is very important! It is important that he is perceived as competent and able to hold on to arguments even though he is extremely threatened and infuriated by my posts. In fact, you are so infuriated and perturbed that you had to derail a whole thread about these latest alleged 'missing links' and make the thread entirely about me and how I upset you as if I stole your pacifier.

 

As for having exposed me, the only thing you exposed was that you are quite a contradiction.

 

To recap on what happened. You claimed statistics is somehow an absolute thing, and I merely pointed out the flaw in that thinking. I then proceeded to state that statistics can be used to prove anything because of its essentially elastic nature.

 

You are lying, what you did was to use statistic to prove your point, while I answered back saying that you have no clue of what were talking about. You were the one presenting Rushton table with coritical neurons, you used those numbers, and when I injected cortical density into the picture and the non-significance after the correction you claimed I had no clue of what I was talking about. And then, when I had gone to expose that you were simply wrong in your assertions you questioned the validity of statistics, the same statistics you were using to prove your point. Science only works for you it support your assertions, when it doesn't you reject its validity.

 

Am I lying or are you the one lying? I say you lie, you say I lie. What does that prove? It proves nothing so I will not go down that pointless road which I see you have already taken. You know why? Because you are desperate to be validated and be "right". That is a reflection of a mediocre mind and someone who has very little self-worth to himself and must seek these sort of internet validations. Suffice to say, you did not like me criticizing your use of statistics and from then you whined and complained about how I know nothing.

 

When did I reject astronomy? Where is the evidence for this? Furthermore, even if I were to question the underlying and hidden assumptions behind astronomy, how is that rejecting it? It seems to me that you are nothing more than an intellectual quack who loves to agree with himself, and when someone perhaps gives a crack in your edifice of thought and thereby shakes the sticks on which your self-esteem is held on, you don't like it. As all self-absorbed intellectuals are, there is no shortage to what childishness they will hold on to. What defines 'knowing something'? Who sets the parameters and the rules. Is someone who has a basic knowledge of chemistry less qualified in rejecting evolution than someone who spends his life dealing with chemicals and compounds? Who are you? It is typical of the self-absorbed intellectual who raises intellectual Berlin Walls on what is or is not proper views and knowledge or arguments.

 

Oh damn, the same crap it's like you have already a set of prewritten answers copy-pasting them. You recycled the same crap against your friend (I mean, your ex friend) Siamanto, remember? You rejected Astronomy in this very same forum, you claimed that physicists and astronomers were not more qualified or credible than some psychotic ancient text 'decyphrer' when I started exposing that man lack of knowledge of the solar system you rejected the validity of astronomy. Shall I refresh your memory?

 

Well, if you think I have a set of pre-written answers, you must be pretty stupid to keep replying then, huh?

 

I have on more than one occasion questioned evolution and asked for certain parts of its larger than life claims to be proven, only to meet your intolerance of those who question your beloved knowledge. I know, I know, you think "who is this punk mouse that can come here and engage in acts of defenestration regarding the science and knowledge I have spent all my life learning, accumulating and studying?" No one wants to admit they have been duped much less have their lifes work and dream erased in a single statement. I understand. It makes you uneasy. But, if you are that intellectual guru as you claim you are, why can you not take a simple mosquito bite from an intellectual nobody such as myself? Why does it disturb you so? If you are on cloud 9, and I make a post, why does it always get your attention? I sense frustration and uneasiness.

 

You can not request proof, when you reject the validity of proofs, fopr the rest, I fart, it is as much of a perspective as what you wrote.

 

That is untrue. I have asked evidence for evolution remaining true to the scientific method, namely the repeatability and observation which seems to be lacking. No one has rejected the validity of proofs, but I guess that's the answer you muster when you have nothing much to offer.

[DominO123]

I never claimed evolution is science. I merely put it in parantheses so you would know what I am referring to since evolution seems to encompass the whole of science these days. You have nothing here as usual.

 

Science has a particular definition, that you like or not. Unlike your falacies, it is falsifiable, yet you haven't been able to falsify evolution.

 

At least you didn't deny not making sense.

 

Had you had basic comprehention skills you would have understood my point. I was answering to your request to provide evidences that you claimed knowing more than I, and this after that I have presented a rational conclusion of your claim that I was ignorant. But you reject rationalism, thosefor I answered you in kind.

 

Actually, that is untrue. The differences he observed among whites, blacks and Asians namely that Asians are higher in IQ than whites who are higher in turn than blacks are self-evident. Another area that is self-evident is that blacks are more disproportionately involved in crime and that is due to higher levels of testosterone, which as he explained are the reasons why younger people are more violent and aggressive than older people and why men are more aggressive and violent than women and which in turn why blacks are more violent and aggressive.

 

As usual, you have no clue of what you are talking about, the differences of IQ Rushton support is directly derived from the adaptation of the r/K strategy to humanity (which he calls 'human history'). His arguments are based on that point, the differenciation in the testosterone level is on his r/K strategy adaptation, without the r/K there is no Rushton hypotheses, no IQ genetic basis, no testosterone differences. The r/K is an evolutionary theory which BTW Rushton a psychologist(not a biologist)misinterprate, the r strategy and K strategy can't stand alone without evolutionary biology.

 

Furthermore, that one cites Rushton's work as evidence of racial differences does not mean that somehow one supports evolution. That is merely a guess, a conjecture as to how we got those differences. It is purely conjecture that the differences in races are a result of evolution and tracing that to the supposed "African Eve" (Oh the horror! The scientists just used a Bible reference).

 

If one was to define your state of mind, the word 'contradiction' would be a good resume. Rushton's work IS the adaptation of the evolutionary theory on humans, without evolutionary biology Rushton's book would be junk, it actually is already because he misinterprate and misuses the r/K theory, which alone is already controversial (in studies 50% of the times it predicted the contrary of what was observed).

 

I brought the past? When did I do that? Actually, you did that in your numerous references to the past. And so this is what the noble Fadix resorts to. As everyone can see, to this pseud-intellectual quack, how others perceive him on the internet is very important! It is important that he is perceived as competent and able to hold on to arguments even though he is extremely threatened and infuriated by my posts. In fact, you are so infuriated and perturbed that you had to derail a whole thread about these latest alleged 'missing links' and make the thread entirely about me and how I upset you as if I stole your pacifier.

 

The only times I have used the past, it was very relevant to the subject at hand, on the other hand, you have used intimidation by resorting to cheap tricks in your answer to Stormy's post because you could not answer to the message she convayed, and you resorted to such mud throwing again in answering me. As for how people percieve me, I could care less, it is not as if I am posting with my real name, or as if I could not just change an alias to preserve some good perception of me by others. For years, when changing alias I have myself admitted myself to be the same person and even after harsh discussions, it takes an amount of exagerated self confidence and arrogance from your part to think that you of all people would be the one changing that.

 

Am I lying or are you the one lying? I say you lie, you say I lie. What does that prove? It proves nothing so I will not go down that pointless road which I see you have already taken. You know why? Because you are desperate to be validated and be "right". That is a reflection of a mediocre mind and someone who has very little self-worth to himself and must seek these sort of internet validations. Suffice to say, you did not like me criticizing your use of statistics and from then you whined and complained about how I know nothing.

 

Your lack of knowledge was and is an observation, I could not help it. You first started with your theory of alien insiminating life on Earth and presented some weirdo's theory on another solar planet with it's slow revolution which allegedly astronomers didn't knew the existance of. You showed your total lack of knowledge there, and that I was the one that called you an ignorant doesn't change the fact that you really had no clue of what you were talking about. You then provided Rushtons table (human history aka r/K table), which included the cortical neurons estimates with the cranial capacity. I simply brought the density value in the equation, and this resulted with you calling me an ignorant. True, you know nothing, at least during every discussions we had, even those in which I had a limited amount of knowledge, more I scratched the surface more it became apparent that you didn't knew much of what you were talking about. Your embelished long posts were simply empty. I could not help it, that's that. It is not like if I accuse everyone of that, where have I claimed Azat to be ignorant, Sip to be ignorant, in fact, in the majority of times when I debate with someone I do not resolt to this. On the other hand, you were able to turn everyone with whom you discussed with against you. EVEN SIAMANTO!!! That's really unbelievable.

 

So yes! You are lying, you did use the cortical neurons statistic to support your point, when I have used those statistics myself, you turned against the value of statistics. When science support your claims, it is OK! When it doesn't it becomes a perspective like any others.

 

Well, if you think I have a set of pre-written answers, you must be pretty stupid to keep replying then, huh?

 

True, but then, I have not claimed to be intelligent either. It is amazing that after the countless numbers of times I decide ignoring you, I finally ended up answering.

 

That is untrue. I have asked evidence for evolution remaining true to the scientific method, namely the repeatability and observation which seems to be lacking. No one has rejected the validity of proofs, but I guess that's the answer you muster when you have nothing much to offer.

 

I already have provided one very obvious with the most powerful antobiotic we have and bacterial resistance to it. Now provide another hypotheses that could explain it.

Edited April 16, 2006 by QueBeceR

[Anonymouse]

I never claimed evolution is science. I merely put it in parantheses so you would know what I am referring to since evolution seems to encompass the whole of science these days. You have nothing here as usual.

 

Science has a particular definition, that you like or not. Unlike your falacies, it is falsifiable, yet you haven't been able to falsify evolution.

 

Karl Popper said in order for something to be a valid theory and good science it must be falsifiable. Evolution is not falsiable, that's the point! Thank you for making my point for me.

 

At least you didn't deny not making sense.

 

Had you had basic comprehention skills you would have understood my point. I was answering to your request to provide evidences that you claimed knowing more than I, and this after that I have presented a rational conclusion of your claim that I was ignorant. But you reject rationalism, thosefor I answered you in kind.

 

I reject rationalism, not rationality. There is a difference between the two which you obviously cannot comprehend. You speak of comprehension skills yet here you display the least of it.

 

Actually, that is untrue. The differences he observed among whites, blacks and Asians namely that Asians are higher in IQ than whites who are higher in turn than blacks are self-evident. Another area that is self-evident is that blacks are more disproportionately involved in crime and that is due to higher levels of testosterone, which as he explained are the reasons why younger people are more violent and aggressive than older people and why men are more aggressive and violent than women and which in turn why blacks are more violent and aggressive.

 

As usual, you have no clue of what you are talking about, the differences of IQ Rushton support is directly derived from the adaptation of the r/K strategy to humanity (which he calls 'human history'). His arguments are based on that point, the differenciation in the testosterone level is on his r/K strategy adaptation, without the r/K there is no Rushton hypotheses, no IQ genetic basis, no testosterone differences. The r/K is an evolutionary theory which BTW Rushton a psychologist(not a biologist)misinterprate, the r strategy and K strategy can't stand alone without evolutionary biology.

 

Furthermore, that one cites Rushton's work as evidence of racial differences does not mean that somehow one supports evolution. That is merely a guess, a conjecture as to how we got those differences. It is purely conjecture that the differences in races are a result of evolution and tracing that to the supposed "African Eve" (Oh the horror! The scientists just used a Bible reference).[/b]

 

If one was to define your state of mind, the word 'contradiction' would be a good resume. Rushton's work IS the adaptation of the evolutionary theory on humans, without evolutionary biology Rushton's book would be junk, it actually is already because he misinterprate and misuses the r/K theory, which alone is already controversial (in studies 50% of the times it predicted the contrary of what was observed).

 

One can always cite something to support his argument without necessarily accepting the entire views of whatever it is they brought in for support. I often quote and use Nietzschean references that does not mean I entirely agree with Nietzsche. But I believe this is an important point in our discussion and reflects how our minds work. It is the same situation. That I use Rushton to support my views on racial differences does not mean I accept his assertion of evolution. You in your dogmatic mind, cannot make these distinctions. For you, the dogmatic intellectual, it is either an all-or-nothing deal. Hence why you couldn't see the distinction between rationalism and rationality. Dogma presupposes rationalism, for it is the conceit of rationality. It is the belief that only through rationalism you can find answers in your warped mind. This is a chief point of showing me how your mind works and processes things. Hence why, there is no contradiction and hence why you are trying too hard to make one for the sake of having an argument. And even if there is a contradiction, I welcome it, for in your dogmatic haze you fail to realize that the world is full of contradictions. Me, you, everything is a contradiction. It is the natural result of the will and conflict ideas and forces and the disorder that is life. In a world of many perspectives, I am aware of all the contradictions I have ever made and those you have made as well but will never admit. Contradictions are not a defect, but a virtue. And as I said, does such a person learn less of truth? From your dogmatic prism of rationalism, from that perspective which you are captured by, I suppose not, but from another perspective, it is different.

 

 

I brought the past? When did I do that? Actually, you did that in your numerous references to the past. And so this is what the noble Domino resorts to. As everyone can see, to this pseud-intellectual quack, how others perceive him on the internet is very important! It is important that he is perceived as competent and able to hold on to arguments even though he is extremely threatened and infuriated by my posts. In fact, you are so infuriated and perturbed that you had to derail a whole thread about these latest alleged 'missing links' and make the thread entirely about me and how I upset you as if I stole your pacifier.

 

The only times I have used the past, it was very relevant to the subject at hand, on the other hand, you have used intimidation by resorting to cheap tricks in your answer to Stormy's post because you could not answer to the message she convayed, and you resorted to such mud throwing again in answering me. As for how people percieve me, I could care less, it is not as if I am posting with my real name, or as if I could not just change an alias to preserve some good perception of me by others. For years, when changing alias I have myself admitted myself to be the same person and even after harsh discussions, it takes an amount of exagerated self confidence and arrogance from your part to think that you of all people would be the one changing that.

 

What message did "Stormy"possibly convey that I could not answer? I mud throw because I can and she was worth the mud thrown. And as far as I perceive you, if you could care less then why respond? It's "I couldn't care less". Relax Domino the Quebecer, I am not making fun of you for changing names, I am just pointing it out for no purpose really. Why are you getting so defensive?

 

Am I lying or are you the one lying? I say you lie, you say I lie. What does that prove? It proves nothing so I will not go down that pointless road which I see you have already taken. You know why? Because you are desperate to be validated and be "right". That is a reflection of a mediocre mind and someone who has very little self-worth to himself and must seek these sort of internet validations. Suffice to say, you did not like me criticizing your use of statistics and from then you whined and complained about how I know nothing.

 

Your lack of knowledge was and is an observation, I could not help it. You first started with your theory of alien insiminating life on Earth and presented some weirdo's theory on another solar planet with it's slow revolution which allegedly astronomers didn't knew the existance of. You showed your total lack of knowledge there, and that I was the one that called you an ignorant doesn't change the fact that you really had no clue of what you were talking about. You then provided Rushtons table (human history aka r/K table), which included the cortical neurons estimates with the cranial capacity. I simply brought the density value in the equation, and this resulted with you calling me an ignorant. True, you know nothing, at least during every discussions we had, even those in which I had a limited amount of knowledge, more I scratched the surface more it became apparent that you didn't knew much of what you were talking about. Your embelished long posts were simply empty. I could not help it, that's that. It is not like if I accuse everyone of that, where have I claimed Azat to be ignorant, Sip to be ignorant, in fact, in the majority of times when I debate with someone I do not resolt to this. On the other hand, you were able to turn everyone with whom you discussed with against you. EVEN SIAMANTO!!! That's really unbelievable.

 

This is very amusing and entertaining to see how seriously and personally you take the internet, and me. It is so important for you to project all your failures and insecurites on the opposing side who disagrees as evidenced by the above. It's important that you respond and reply to every post and revalidate yourself by replying and essentially saying "You're the ignorant one, you're the liar, you're the loser". It's not even so much as those who disagree. People like the ones mentioned may disagree with you from time to time but never question your entire "knowledge" and "world view" and throw it out the window as I do. That I do is why you hate me so and I like it. And if I managed to turn everyone against me (another unproven assertion for who is "everyone"?), the more power to me. What can I say, I like to be disliked. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/emot-q.gif

 

And it's also amusing how you keep tabs on me in another forum arguing with Siamanto. It sure lets me know that you take this internet and me way too seriously for your own good.

 

So yes! You are lying, you did use the cortical neurons statistic to support your point, when I have used those statistics myself, you turned against the value of statistics. When science support your claims, it is OK! When it doesn't it becomes a perspective like any others.

 

So yes! Quebeber asserts I am a liar and it's so important for him that I be a liar! What are you talking about? I never used "cortical neuron" statistics to support anything. I have repeatedly however shown that your dogmatic faith in statistics as an absolute measure of things is unfounded, to which you are still angry about. You were the one that got outraged that I even made the suggestion that statistics can be used to prove and disprove anything. Anyone can essentially get statistics to support their argument.

 

Well, if you think I have a set of pre-written answers, you must be pretty stupid to keep replying then, huh?

 

True, but then, I have not claimed to be intelligent either. It is amazing that after the countless numbers of times I decide ignoring you, I finally ended up answering.

 

Yes you did. And why is that? Could it be because I really annoy you, infuriate you and scare you?

 

That is untrue. I have asked evidence for evolution remaining true to the scientific method, namely the repeatability and observation which seems to be lacking. No one has rejected the validity of proofs, but I guess that's the answer you muster when you have nothing much to offer.

 

I already have provided one very obvious with the most powerful antobiotic we have and bacterial resistance to it. Now provide another hypotheses that could explain it.

 

Bacteria, moths, etc., these have all been thoroughly debunked. Morever, these are "microevolutionary" changes, nothing more and nothing less. Confusing adaptation and the elasticity of language as "big change" does not make it so. I wanted some macroeconomic proof, namely the repeatability and observation of these millions and millions of years.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Anonymouse

[DominO123]

Karl Popper said in order for something to be a valid theory and good science it must be falsifiable. Evolution is not falsiable, that's the point! Thank you for making my point for me.

 

Anonymous up to his old tricks, recycling what the other says to use it against him. You'll make Nietzsche proud of, with your new level of 'active' nihilism.

 

I reject rationalism, not rationality. There is a difference between the two which you obviously cannot comprehend. You speak of comprehension skills yet here you display the least of it.

 

BS, you rejected mathematical principles, there isen't much left of rationality after you have cut and questioned every bit of it. Talking of comprehention...

 

One can always cite something to support his argument without necessarily accepting the entire views of whatever it is they brought in for support. I often quote and use Nietzschean references that does not mean I entirely agree with Nietzsche. But I believe this is an important point in our discussion and reflects how our minds work. It is the same situation. That I use Rushton to support my views on racial differences does not mean I accept his assertion of evolution. You in your dogmatic mind, cannot make these distinctions. For you, the dogmatic intellectual, it is either an all-or-nothing deal. Hence why you couldn't see the distinction between rationalism and rationality. Dogma presupposes rationalism, for it is the conceit of rationality. It is the belief that only through rationalism you can find answers in your warped mind. This is a chief point of showing me how your mind works and processes things. Hence why, there is no contradiction and hence why you are trying too hard to make one for the sake of having an argument. And even if there is a contradiction, I welcome it, for in your dogmatic haze you fail to realize that the world is full of contradictions. Me, you, everything is a contradiction. It is the natural result of the will and conflict ideas and forces and the disorder that is life. In a world of many perspectives, I am aware of all the contradictions I have ever made and those you have made as well but will never admit. Contradictions are not a defect, but a virtue. And as I said, does such a person learn less of truth? From your dogmatic prism of rationalism, from that perspective which you are captured by, I suppose not, but from another perspective, it is different.

 

A conclusion is worthless without the arguments, here is what you reject, and here is where your distinction between rationalism and rationality is BS, since you reject the value of the excercise of rationality, and without this excerise rationality is worthless. In either cases you reject rationality, because you reject the validity of its application. And this is how Rushtons example is another evidence of your 'virtue' (contradiction). Without Rushtons arguments neither his thesis, his conclusion is worthless and without much value. You can not radomnly choose what to believe and select whomevers part of conclusions and build a reality out if it, and pretend that this has as much sense as anything else. And this is exactly what you are pretending, and this pretention is a rejection of rationality, and then, to make matters works, you make of your wrong(even if it was contradiction, it still is not wrong) a right, either ways, that you are wrong or right in your book you can't be wrong.

 

What message did "Stormy"possibly convey that I could not answer? I mud throw because I can and she was worth the mud thrown. And as far as I perceive you, if you could care less then why respond? It's "I couldn't care less". Relax Fadix the Quebecer, I am not making fun of you for changing names, I am just pointing it out for no purpose really. Why are you getting so defensive?

 

Thanks for admitting your mud throwing.

 

This is very amusing and entertaining to see how seriously and personally you take the internet, and me. It is so important for you to project all your failures and insecurites on the opposing side who disagrees as evidenced by the above. It's important that you respond and reply to every post and revalidate yourself by replying and essentially saying "You're the ignorant one, you're the liar, you're the loser". It's not even so much as those who disagree. People like the ones mentioned may disagree with you from time to time but never question your entire "knowledge" and "world view" and throw it out the window as I do. That I do is why you hate me so and I like it. And if I managed to turn everyone against me (another unproven assertion for who is "everyone"?), the more power to me. What can I say, I like to be disliked.

 

And the revency? Oh I forgot, relevency is a perspective.

 

And it's also amusing how you keep tabs on me in another forum arguing with Siamanto. It sure lets me know that you take this internet and me way too seriously for your own good.

 

Don't flater yourself, I was reading that thread because of its subject not you.

 

So yes! Quebeber asserts I am a liar and it's so important for him that I be a liar! What are you talking about? I never used "cortical neuron" statistics to support anything. I have repeatedly however shown that your dogmatic faith in statistics as an absolute measure of things is unfounded, to which you are still angry about. You were the one that got outraged that I even made the suggestion that statistics can be used to prove and disprove anything. Anyone can essentially get statistics to support their argument.

 

Actually, you are lying again. Youy are recycling from my posts what I have written to then pretend it's comming from you. As for cortical neurons, since you had no clue of what you were talking about, it isen't amazing that you had no clue of what you wer copypasting.

 

Yes you did. And why is that? Could it be because I really annoy you, infuriate you and scare you?

 

Where?

 

Bacteria, moths, etc., these have all been thoroughly debunked. Morever, these are "microevolutionary" changes, nothing more and nothing less. Confusing adaptation and the elasticity of language as "big change" does not make it so. I wanted some macroeconomic proof, namely the repeatability and observation of these millions and millions of years.

 

Microevolutionary, is evolutionary. Again you are simply taking away the evidences from it, to claim to ignore every valid evidences. This is not how it works.

[Anonymouse]

Karl Popper said in order for something to be a valid theory and good science it must be falsifiable. Evolution is not falsiable, that's the point! Thank you for making my point for me.

 

Anonymous up to his old tricks, recycling what the other says to use it against him. You'll make Nietzsche proud of, with your new level of 'active' nihilism.

 

Nietzsche was not a nihilist.

 

I reject rationalism, not rationality. There is a difference between the two which you obviously cannot comprehend. You speak of comprehension skills yet here you display the least of it.

 

BS, you rejected mathematical principles, there isen't much left of rationality after you have cut and questioned every bit of it. Talking of comprehention...

 

So now when something doesn't go your way you say BS. How is this any different when you accuse me of sporting something when it helps me and not sporting it when it doesn't? So poor little Domino doesn't like rationalism questioned. And you have yet to comprehend the difference between rationality and rationalism. Rationalism involves getting angry and appealing to all sorts of nonsense to help prove your case. Rationality is the opposite.

 

One can always cite something to support his argument without necessarily accepting the entire views of whatever it is they brought in for support. I often quote and use Nietzschean references that does not mean I entirely agree with Nietzsche. But I believe this is an important point in our discussion and reflects how our minds work. It is the same situation. That I use Rushton to support my views on racial differences does not mean I accept his assertion of evolution. You in your dogmatic mind, cannot make these distinctions. For you, the dogmatic intellectual, it is either an all-or-nothing deal. Hence why you couldn't see the distinction between rationalism and rationality. Dogma presupposes rationalism, for it is the conceit of rationality. It is the belief that only through rationalism you can find answers in your warped mind. This is a chief point of showing me how your mind works and processes things. Hence why, there is no contradiction and hence why you are trying too hard to make one for the sake of having an argument. And even if there is a contradiction, I welcome it, for in your dogmatic haze you fail to realize that the world is full of contradictions. Me, you, everything is a contradiction. It is the natural result of the will and conflict ideas and forces and the disorder that is life. In a world of many perspectives, I am aware of all the contradictions I have ever made and those you have made as well but will never admit. Contradictions are not a defect, but a virtue. And as I said, does such a person learn less of truth? From your dogmatic prism of rationalism, from that perspective which you are captured by, I suppose not, but from another perspective, it is different.

 

A conclusion is worthless without the arguments, here is what you reject, and here is where your distinction between rationalism and rationality is BS, since you reject the value of the excercise of rationality, and without this excerise rationality is worthless. In either cases you reject rationality, because you reject the validity of its application. And this is how Rushtons example is another evidence of your 'virtue' (contradiction). Without Rushtons arguments neither his thesis, his conclusion is worthless and without much value. You can not radomnly choose what to believe and select whomevers part of conclusions and build a reality out if it, and pretend that this has as much sense as anything else. And this is exactly what you are pretending, and this pretention is a rejection of rationality, and then, to make matters works, you make of your wrong(even if it was contradiction, it still is not wrong) a right, either ways, that you are wrong or right in your book you can't be wrong.

 

I have never rejected the exercise of rationality. I suggest you support your assertions. I have time and again rejected rationalism, that somehow there is no truth except through rationalism, and anything that doesn't conform to your model is "irrational" and therefore, 'wrong'. Rationalism is still a perspective. The rest of your hodge podge I couldn't understand so I won't waste my time replying pretending that I understand.

 

What message did "Stormy"possibly convey that I could not answer? I mud throw because I can and she was worth the mud thrown. And as far as I perceive you, if you could care less then why respond? It's "I couldn't care less". Relax Domino the Quebecer, I am not making fun of you for changing names, I am just pointing it out for no purpose really. Why are you getting so defensive?

 

Thanks for admitting your mud throwing.

 

Do you hate it that I was "mud throwing" at your internet crush?

 

This is very amusing and entertaining to see how seriously and personally you take the internet, and me. It is so important for you to project all your failures and insecurites on the opposing side who disagrees as evidenced by the above. It's important that you respond and reply to every post and revalidate yourself by replying and essentially saying "You're the ignorant one, you're the liar, you're the loser". It's not even so much as those who disagree. People like the ones mentioned may disagree with you from time to time but never question your entire "knowledge" and "world view" and throw it out the window as I do. That I do is why you hate me so and I like it. And if I managed to turn everyone against me (another unproven assertion for who is "everyone"?), the more power to me. What can I say, I like to be disliked.

 

And the revency? Oh I forgot, relevency is a perspective.

 

It's good that you did not deny anything I stated, but at least you shined through with an attempt at having a sense of humor about it. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/emot-q.gif

 

 

And it's also amusing how you keep tabs on me in another forum arguing with Siamanto. It sure lets me know that you take this internet and me way too seriously for your own good.

 

Don't flater yourself, I was reading that thread because of its subject not you.

 

Suuuure.

 

So yes! Quebeber asserts I am a liar and it's so important for him that I be a liar! What are you talking about? I never used "cortical neuron" statistics to support anything. I have repeatedly however shown that your dogmatic faith in statistics as an absolute measure of things is unfounded, to which you are still angry about. You were the one that got outraged that I even made the suggestion that statistics can be used to prove and disprove anything. Anyone can essentially get statistics to support their argument.

 

Actually, you are lying again. Youy are recycling from my posts what I have written to then pretend it's comming from you. As for cortical neurons, since you had no clue of what you were talking about, it isen't amazing that you had no clue of what you wer copypasting.

 

Well, what do you know, with each reply your point becomes more muddled and incoherent and essentially even more worthless. Do you realize the futility of what you do? Actually, you're the one lying. You are lying about the fact that you tried to use statistics and pass it off as an absolute truth. When I questioned you you did not like it as you do not like it now, and you tried to evade and dodge the issue. Oh noes! We are accusing each other of lying! How cute! How lame too!

 

Yes you did. And why is that? Could it be because I really annoy you, infuriate you and scare you?

 

Where?

 

Here.

 

Bacteria, moths, etc., these have all been thoroughly debunked. Morever, these are "microevolutionary" changes, nothing more and nothing less. Confusing adaptation and the elasticity of language as "big change" does not make it so. I wanted some macroeconomic proof, namely the repeatability and observation of these millions and millions of years.

 

Microevolutionary, is evolutionary. Again you are simply taking away the evidences from it, to claim to ignore every valid evidences. This is not how it works.

 

A noble effort but ultimately worthless. No one has ever denied microevolutionary changes. The question is, what is the point? They mean nothing except that, micro, adaptional, minor, etc. The rest requires a leap of faith and which you obviously cannot validate.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Anonymouse

[DominO123]

After this trash under, I guess nothing is left to answer to. I rest my case...

 

Nietzsche was not a nihilist.

So now when something doesn't go your way you say BS. How is this any different when you accuse me of sporting something when it helps me and not sporting it when it doesn't? So poor little Fadix doesn't like rationalism questioned. And you have yet to comprehend the difference between rationality and rationalism. Rationalism involves getting angry and appealing to all sorts of nonsense to help prove your case. Rationality is the opposite.

I have never rejected the exercise of rationality. I suggest you support your assertions. I have time and again rejected rationalism, that somehow there is no truth except through rationalism, and anything that doesn't conform to your model is "irrational" and therefore, 'wrong'. Rationalism is still a perspective. The rest of your hodge podge I couldn't understand so I won't waste my time replying pretending that I understand.

Do you hate it that I was "mud throwing" at your internet crush?

It's good that you did not deny anything I stated, but at least you shined through with an attempt at having a sense of humor about it. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/emot-q.gif

Suuuure.

Well, what do you know, with each reply your point becomes more muddled and incoherent and essentially even more worthless. Do you realize the futility of what you do? Actually, you're the one lying. You are lying about the fact that you tried to use statistics and pass it off as an absolute truth. When I questioned you you did not like it as you do not like it now, and you tried to evade and dodge the issue. Oh noes! We are accusing each other of lying! How cute! How lame too!

Here.

A noble effort but ultimately worthless. No one has ever denied microevolutionary changes. The question is, what is the point? They mean nothing except that, micro, adaptional, minor, etc. The rest requires a leap of faith and which you obviously cannot validate.

[Vera]

Question evolution, yet uses Rushton's application of the r/K strategy to 'demonstrate' Blacks('Negroid') the supposed 'intellectual inferiority' of Blacks

 

Can someone please post a link to that thread?