I wrote a blog/rant on the misuse of Hitler and Nazism as an argument against science. My girlfriend's Jewish best friend went snooping around and found it and was outraged. While I might have used dicey language, by context any reasonable person could tell that I wasn't bashing the Holocaust, but the people who use it to push their agendas.
I think people attach WAY too many emotions to Nazism, so many that it's hard for reasonable people like me to criticize those who use it in argument. Ugh.
@Klazzt Yeah - it's definitely a sensitive subject that conjures up a lot of emotions. I think that's why people like to use Nazis and the Holocaust as propaganda points. A position can be very convincing if someone successfully associates the opposition with Hitler.
@elmore1735 Yeah, once you compare someone to Hitler in order to make a rhetorical point in an argument, you've just lost the argument. Hopefully your coworker will understand why.
Sorry- You have shown the world that you are a liar, a hater, and a bigot- it's right there in black and white for all to see. You admitted to all of it! You have no one to blame but yourself. You failed. Too easy!
I think people shouldn't accept evolution because it's a religion, but if you want throw eugenics into the mix, I think the argument's even more compelling. Without an absolute standard, a "thus sayeth the Lord," there is not such thing as right and wrong. One who believe in evolution/humanism or any flavors in between, have no justification for right and wrong besides their own opinions.
>>See my videos on "Evolution is a Religion" and "The Dangers of Evolution p 4&5" for more details.<<
@creationliberty Since, like all science, evolution explains a natural occurrence (in this case, the family tree-like pattern of diversity) without mention of anything supernatural, I don't see how it could be a religion. Even if it were, why would that make it any less likely to be true?
Evolution does not require you to abandon an absolute religiously based moral code. Even if it did - again - how is this relevant to whether or not it is true?
@EvoBiologist evolution is not original theory... this idea came from gnosticism that say god is an spirit in evolution going from stones, to vegetables, animals, etc
True, many scientists and philosophers before Darwin suggested that organisms change over time. Darwin made the first really clear explanation (though not the first mention) for how this is driven by natural selection of variation in a population.
I'm not familiar with the gnostic teachings you are referring to, but no biologist is claiming that animals evolved from plants. Both evolved from ancient protists.
Darwin was a racist. It was a common thing to be brainwashed into this crap. If anyone has any bullshit in their beliefs, they are discredited immediately. If they believe in any logical fallacies and human emotional mental garbage, they are not to be believed on anything. Don't you know this? This is why you never believe any human being ever. They all have bullshit agendas, like you.
As were most people in the mid 1800's - as was Abraham Lincoln (who shares the same birthday), for that matter. Does this make their accomplishments any less valid?
"If they believe in any logical fallacies and human emotional mental garbage, they are not to be believed on anything. Don't you know this?"
This is why I recommend people look at the evidence themselves as I keep trying to offer you.
You are so brainwashed that you actually think humans came from fish. That shows deep psychological abuse has happened to you. I use my shock therapy to try to get you to think for yourself, which I truely believe is impossible. You have no objective mind at all when it comes to this shit.....Do you? Once you are a believer in shit like this you are no longer credible as a scientist.
@GoodScienceForYou "You are so brainwashed that you actually think humans came from fish."
You are so brainwashed that until yesterday, you thought there were no genes linking humans and fish. In fact, some fish (lobe-finned) are closer genetically to humans than to other types of fish.
How do YOU explain this? Fish fucking humans? I'd like to see how you get a nested hierarchy from THAT.
@EvoBiologist There are no gentic links of humans and fish. You just fantasize that there are. I already told you that finding similar DNA in humans and fish only means that there is a finite very tiny amount of proteans, to make tissue from and if you need to make tissue that contracts and moves bones around, it MUST be similar in DNA. You project belief on all that you see, because you are delusional. You have no clue what real evidence is.
In addition to sharing protein coding genes with fish, we find a pattern of a nested hierarchy within fish in regards to the similarities and differences in these genes. Lobe-finned fish are more similar to humans than to ray-finned fish in regards to these genes. Why do you suppose that is? It obviously can't be explained by interbreeding or muscle movement.
@EvoBiologist You do not know how to look at DNA coding. You have been brainwashed to think that DNA simlarity is equal to some lineage. It does not show this at all. It is simply DNA and the human mind on indoctrination and bullshit makes up the conclusions. Are you really as stupid as you seem?
@GoodScienceForYou "You have been brainwashed to think that DNA simlarity is equal to some lineage."
No, you've been brainwashed to ignore the fact that there is far more than simply genetic similarity here. We're talking about a very specific pattern of similarity and difference - the same pattern observed in modern viral and bacterial lineages as they diverge from each other - a nested hierarchy or family tree. This is a very unlikely pattern that can only be explained by common ancestry.
GSFY - it seems that like many creationists you too have an irony by-pass; you tell EB 'You have no clue what real evidence is ' and yet you haven't shown a single piece of evidence to support any of your half-witted notions. When are you going to tell us which specific DNA sequences or ERV insertion patterns support your laughable human->chimp interbreeding notion rather than the evolutionary explanation? Without supporting evidence we can ignore your assertions as meaningless drivel.
When you got into school, did you have a clue about the emotional abuse they were going to do to you? That is if you don't conform and believe in this bullshit, you can't belong to the "elite" and shit like that? Money and need makes people lay down like bitch dogs to dogma of this relgious bullshit.
Why don't you start thinking about your ideas and how fucked up they are because they are based on deep psychological abuse.
GSFY so you're repeating the same nonsense here as well. When your daft assertions are questioned why do you resort to insults and profanities? Your ill-educated understanding of science is quite laughable, so I guess insults and profanities is all you've got. You clearly have deep-rooted psychological problems and you really should seek treatment.
GSFY What a surprise, more insults and profanities and no evidence you're getting rather predictable. You make up nonsense and lie, and then get upset when called on it. Perhaps you should run back to the haven of your forum where you can delete the comments you don't like, or can't answer. Your ludicrous yoga derived philosophy, and it's a stretch to call it that, is just so funny, but it's quite sad a man of your advanced age actually believes it!
@KrokrX If you are in the driver's seat of your life, and have no emotional need to conform to some bullshit then you can learn all that humans have to offer, and not believe anything until it is proven to you absolutely. You need to be honest with yourself to get free of other people's controls over you. They can convince you that you are smart and good when you are just a dumb conformist who has no balls to seek what is true.
The first thing you need to do is to become honest. If you are not honest that you have been brainwashed into a fucking belief, then you will never excel at anything. You will simply go through life thinking you are correct, when you never study any of the evidence.
@EvoBiologist Broken genes are not evolution. All creatures adapt as the same creatures in order to survive as the same creatures. There is no evidence of any change from a lineage of descendants into some drastic new creature with new morphology. It does not exist. Your brainwashing will never change the facts.
When there is a tremendous amount of vitamin C available to a creature, the need to produce it is retarded and not needed.
@GoodScienceForYou "When there is a tremendous amount of vitamin C available to a creature, the need to produce it is retarded and not needed."
I agree, but why do we see a pattern of mutational buildup in primates of a family tree for GULOP and a completely different set of mutations built up in guinea pigs? The answer is obvious if common descent is true. No other explanation has so far been proposed.
@EvoBiologist Primates are the only ones that had the capacity to interbreed with humans. I have not seen that in any other species that has existed. The "human" traits came from humans. It is a downgrading of the genetics of humans passed down into the primates. This is far more plausible than some magical, mystical religious Evoddelusion bullshit.
@GoodScienceForYou "Primates are the only ones that had the capacity to interbreed with humans."
I've already told you. You can't possibly get a nested hierarchy for all genes by simple interbreeding. You need common descent. If you don't believe me, try modeling it yourself.
The "human" traits are all based on a small # of mutations of primate genes.
"I have not seen that in any other species that has existed."
You've obviously not looked very hard. This pattern exists throughout animals.
@EvoBiologist Keep in mind that the radiometric dating is extremely flawed and most of the data is out of chrononology. Nested hierarchy is a made up belief slogan idea.
It has no scientific validity. You cannot make a single scientific test of this to show it is valid. Give it a try. Show me the use of the scientific method to test this to see if it is something at all. It is nothing but a fantasy belief and has no scientific validity.
@GoodScienceForYou "Nested hierarchy is a made up belief slogan idea... Show me the use of the scientific method to test this to see if it is something at all."
As I just mentioned, it is easy to test a particular nested hierarchy by using a different gene than the one that made it in the first place to see if the patterns are identical. No one debates the existence of this pattern, because it has been obvious since the time of Linnaeus (that's why our system of naming uses such a hierarchy).
Using religious slogans is not science. And all you have done is use religious slogans.
I said: "Show me the use of the scientific method to test this to see if if it is something at all."
All you have stated is conjecture based on delusional beliefs. People make up shit and you just lay down and believe them. Don't you know these people all have dumb ass agendas? There is no such thing as nested hierarchy, except in the minds of the believers. That is why it is a religion.
@GoodScienceForYou "There is no such thing as nested hierarchy, except in the minds of the believers."
I have repeatedly shown you cases of nested hierarchies and challenged you to pick any common gene and try organizing a set of organisms with that gene. Not only will you always end up with a nested hierarchy when you try this, but you will also end up with the same nested hierarchy that you would get from other genes.
Simply stating that it doesn't exist doesn't make it so.
@EvoBiologist I have read pretty much the same stuff you have read and there is no "nested hierarchy" except in the minds of believers. I want you to show me where it exists in the real world?
@EvoBiologist You are under the delusion that we share genes so we must be evolved from or to some creature. This is totally unsupported logic. There are only so many types of proteans, only so many ways to make bone, only so many ways to form brain cells, lung tissue, and such. There is nothing in genetics that ties creatures together except for needing to have billions of base pairs that match exactly and in the same order, even then it is just opinions.
@GoodScienceForYou "You are under the delusion that we share genes so we must be evolved from or to some creature."
You are under the delusion that I'm simply talking about sharing genes. I'm talking about a consistent pattern of a nested hierarchy, which forms by common descent but not by interbreeding or any other proposed method. This is even found in silent mutations in coding genes, broken genes, and viral sequences.
@GoodScienceForYou "Who decides what goes in this chart? Do you understand?"
Anyone can - YOU, for instance. Pick a gene or set of genes, line up this DNA from several organisms with each other so that there are as few differences as possible, then take each gene and count the differences with the others. You'll find when you do this that you will find a pattern of groups within groups within groups where each smaller group has more of the DNA in common, as well as sharing the same differences.
You don't even understand the question? Who the fuck do you trust with your mind? Who the fuck has the right to make up this shit? Why do you allow them to fuck up your mind like this?
It is a religious zeal of belief that makes up those fucking charts. It only comes from delusional beliefs and not from any form of scientific testing or method, because there is no test to see if what they believe is real or not. It is fantasy, bullshit and you are an evotard.
@GoodScienceForYou "It only comes from delusional beliefs and not from any form of scientific testing or method..."
Look, GSFY, if you watch my GULOP video, I show you what a nested hierarchy is and why GULOP, ERVs, and other genes form a nested hierarchy. The reality of it is there. The genes of animals form the same groups within groups within groups in regards to their similarities and differences regardless of where we look. It is predicted by common descent and NO OTHER process proposed.
I know from listening to your videos that you are delusional, in that you believe in things that do not relate to what is in evidence.
There is no such thing as "nested hierarchy". It is a made up "chart" based solely on the belief if those who created it, under the delusion that creatures can violate their foundational genetics.
@GoodScienceForYou "...you are delusional...no such thing as "nested hierarchy""
Look, GSFY, the nested hierarchy may not be obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Linnaeus didn't believe in common ancestry, but he used a nested hierarchy (still used today) to name all organisms. I've explained that anyone can see it by simply arranging organisms by the similarity/dissimilarity of their genes - the pattern is always the same, no matter who does the sorting. Try it.
Nested hierarchy, is a religious idea, that is based faith and belief. It has no logic to it at all.
The psuedo scientists who make this crap up and infict it on humanity are weak and stupid and unable to see what is right in front of thier face. Just like you. You are retarded as any sort of scientist because of your faith and belief based on nothing.
@GoodScienceForYou "Nested hierarchy, is a religious idea, that is based faith and belief. It has no logic to it at all."
I just explained to you that the nested hierarchy of life was noticed by Carl Linnaeus (a man who died nearly 100 years before "Origin of Species" was published), which inspired him to devise our current biological naming system (a nested hierarchy of names).
How can you claim this is based simply on belief? Organisms do fit into nested hierarchies.
Science is NOT "inspired". Religions are "inspired". Making up charts to fit a dumd ass belief is not science. You can only make charts based on real evidence. Evodelusionism has never done that.
That's ridiculous - when Archimedes sat in his bathtub, he was so inspired by the rising water that he ran the streets naked crying "Eureka!" ("I've found it!"). Thus was a method for determining the volume of irregularly shaped solids devised. Archimedes was among the greatest scientists and mathematicians of the ancient world.
And once again, Linnaeus didn't base his naming system on beliefs, but on the observation of a nested hierarchy.
Nested hierarchy is a made up bunch of crap based on human emotional bullshit. It has NO empirical testing..no use of any of the scientific method. It is nothing but opinions from brainwashed religous nut cases, like you.
@GoodScienceForYou "[nested hierarchy] has NO empirical testing..no use of any of the scientific method."
Simply stating it doesn't make it true. I've already explained to you empirical tests and use of the scientific method. If you can't see that, then you are as blind as you claim I am.
@EvoBiologist If "simply stating something doesn't make it true", then why do you believe in the religious bullshit of Evodelusionism? There is no evidence of this on this earth. The only thing that is apparent is that people want to believe in bullshit, and repeat religious slogans (like "nested hierarchy") over and over , with authority, in the ears of weak minded people like you until you are so fucking brainwashed that you think it is real. Religious nut cases like you are everywhere.
When you went to school did you ever think at all about any of this? Did you even have a clue that this was concocted human bullshit?
Do you only get your brainwashing from one place?
You cannot call yourself a scientist if you only use one source for your research. Academia is full of bullshit artists, who make a living perpetuating bullshit. You are gullible and weak minded.
This type of bullshit has been in acedemia and science for thousands of years. It is politically driven and controlled by whomever has the money. They want you to be stupid and conform to the bullshit that helps to make mo money for these corporations who own the univerities. Do you know that just on of the ivy league universities has over $3billion in money from large corporations? They teach what makes for good corporate fodder.
@GoodScienceForYou "It is politically driven and controlled by whomever has the money."
Then why aren't we teaching creationism in public schools? The creationists have the most money and are certainly passionate about it.
I suppose you have changed directions and started on this rhetorical BS because you can't defeat my logical points about the actual scientific evidence.
@GoodScienceForYou "...did you ever think at all about any of this?" Absolutely.
"...concocted human bullshit?" All scientific theories are made up by humans - do you only consider theories made by aliens to have the possibility of being true?
"...if you only use one source for your research." Never have, never will.
@EvoBiologist I want you to show me the scientific experiments that prove nested hierarchy? Have you ever even thought about this? Dumb ass believers construct bull shit charts out of belief, and then have brainwashed you into this ridiculous belief. How about that fucking "tree of life"? If isn't a fucking religious sounding pile of shit, I don't know what it. WTF is the matter with you that you let this shit control you so much?
@GoodScienceForYou "I want you to show me the scientific experiments that prove nested hierarchy?"
I already have - go watch my GULOP video. In it, I have the genetic code for the gene GULOP for several primates lined up for anyone to see and judge for themselves. No matter who does it, if you simply group these sequences according to similarity and difference, you get a nested hierarchy. Not only that, but any gene or complex trait will give you the same pattern.
It is, just and only, genetics; which has nothing in common with evolution and shows not even the slightest suggestion that evolution is real.
It is only HUMANS who project their fucked up beliefs and it is not evidence because it can be refuted by other much more plausible and realistic events and the fact that humans are , most likely, the common ancestor of chimps and primates.
You didn't ask for that. Proof is for math and alcohol. Science works on evidence. What you asked for was an experiment proving a nested hierarchy exists. That's simple.
"humans are , most likely, the common ancestor of chimps and primates."
Once again, you fail to understand that if this were the case, it would not even remotely explain the precise, consistent pattern of similarity and difference among primates.
@EvoBiologist Not one signle PHD of genetics has been able to refute my hypothesis of interbreeding as being far more plausible than some "common ancestor" that has never been found and never will be found. There is nothing in the physical evidence to back this idea of evolution. It is nothing but religious bullshit.
@GoodScienceForYou "Not one signle PHD of genetics has been able to refute my hypothesis of interbreeding as being far more plausible than some "common ancestor" that has never been found and never will be found."
I've already refuted your hypothesis, and I only have a Master's degree in evolution:
It is impossible to get a family tree pattern (a nested hierarchy) by interbreeding. If you think I'm wrong, try it yourself - it is simple to model, especially if you are a genius as you claim.
@EvoBiologist Nested hierarchy is not a scientific premise, because it cannot be tested with any scientific method. That is your huge problem. You just accept what these foolish people teach you as truth or some such shit. It is made up from belief.
You are not able to see that in your present condition of delusional deeply held beliefs.
@GoodScienceForYou "Nested hierarchy is not a scientific premise, because it cannot be tested with any scientific method."
This is just plain wrong. A scientific test requires a prediction. Common descent predicts that in animals, we should see a nested hierarchy when we compare genes or the traits that they code for. No other hypothesis makes this prediction. We then look at the data, and find that this very specific pattern does exist in ALL animals no matter where we look.
@EvoBiologist Who told you prediction is part of this crap? What predictions can you do when you can't even apply math to this shit? I have not seen a single prediction in this shit that was not contrived or forced. Name on prediction and I will teach you that it is not a scientific prediction.
@GoodScienceForYou "What predictions can you do when you can't even apply math to this shit?"
Actually, evolution is by far the most math intensive field of biology. One prediction is that if a phylogenetic tree is constructed from one gene, an identical one will be made based on another gene. The more genes show the same pattern, the higher degree of statistical support that that particular tree is real. Interbreeding of separate species (or any other hypothesis) doesn't predict this at all.
@EvoBiologist You are so wrapped up in this shit that you defend with the same crap that was brainwashed into your head. Not one single original thought has come from you. Try standing back from yourself and ask; "How did I get to believe this is real?"
Give it a shot. Go back and unscrew yourself from this delusional bull shit. It is not that difficult to dismiss all the premises of this shit.
Just because someone else came up with it doesn't make it any less likely to be true. I can make up all sorts of things that are likely false - so what?
@EvoBiologist You are simply brainwashed and are not a scientist. You are a pseudo scientist. You don't even understand the simplest parts of science. A belief in something that has no evidence is a religious delusion.
@GoodScienceForYou "There is evidence of extinction, and genetic stability of the foundational nature of any particular creature that never shows any evolution."
So we've established that interbreeding can't make a nested hierarchy, so how do YOU explain it?
@EvoBiologist I am going to ask you to prove "Nested Hierachy" with physical proof, acutal evidence. You can't because it is a made up idea used as part of a religion and pawned off as science. You are gullible and unable to be objective about any of this because you are emotionally driven and not rationally driven to find objective truth.
@GoodScienceForYou "I am going to ask you to prove "Nested Hierachy" with physical proof, acutal evidence."
I already have. Once again, my GULOP video takes the sequences of actual genes and lines them up side by side. I take you step by step through the comparison of similarity and difference in the DNA. The pattern is a nested hierarchy. Feel free to double check me and count the letters for yourself - anyone can do it. The pattern of similarity and difference is always the same.
@GoodScienceForYou Whether my GULOP video is original or not, it is an airtight argument for common ancestry - one that you (and everyone else) have not come remotely close to defeating. You say it is bullshit, but you can't even make a coherent argument against it.
@EvoBiologist You are too brainwashed to even understand my arguments. That is sad! Your belief in this shit makes you have no credibility. Belief destroys all objectivity. When you have been indoctrinated and you allowed this shit to control your mind, you cannot get past your dumb beliefs enought to understand what I teach. How sad and pathetic you are to be in such a condition of mind.
@GoodScienceForYou "You are too brainwashed to even understand my arguments. That is sad!"
No. I understood your argument about interbreeding of humans and chimps perfectly well. What's sad is that you don't see how it is impossible to get the pattern observed through this method. Unfortunately, you are so married to the idea that evolution is wrong that you can't wrap your brain around the evidence and argument I have presented. You've missed the point.
@EvoBiologist "Unfortunately, you are so married to the idea that evolution is wrong that you can't wrap your brain around the evidence and argument I have presented."
I have an IQ of over 180 or at least was tested in 1992 with that. I never allow any logical fallacies to be in control of my mind. That is how I got this smart. You are a fucking evotard who believe in magical causes. What a fucking waste of a human mind.
GSFY - as for your repeated claim to have an 'IQ over 180', you've provided no evidence to support this claim, let alone 'absolute evidence' that you insist on for evolution, and your comments certainly don't indicate even an average intelligence. You have difficulty forming a coherent argument, and lapse into insults and profanities when asked to support your assertions. Perhaps you should run back to the security of your brain dead forum where you can play demi-god to your heart's content.
@GoodScienceForYou "I never allow any logical fallacies to be in control of my mind."
That's funny, because I have rarely seen so many logical fallacies from one individual. You are particularly fond of argumentum ad hominem. Your videos, website, and posts here are mostly about how Darwin, biologists in general, and me in particular are flawed in some way and therefore everything we say is false. This is argumentum ad hominem at its finest. Debate the point, not the person, dumb ass.
@EvoBiologist When some idiot repeats two hypotheses and one is lame and the other only suggests evodelusion, that is not science its design to produce morons like you. If you want to be a pawn of other people's human emotional garbage, that is your choice. I only seek what is real; you don't. The reality is you never look beyond your dumb ass belief. There are at least 20 more hypothesizes that are more logical than yours.
@EvoBiologist Why don't you go and read my long and well presented "paper" on this where every part that you somehow missed is explained. evolutionforum(dot)info
Open your fucking brain up to what I teach, because I make you look like a moron to the people who read my websites.
When someone wants to indoctrinate you they teach you what evidence is and how to interpret it. If you allow that you are gulllible and easy to brainwash by mass hysteria.
These assholes tell people that absolute evidence is not possible, when it is everywhere. How the heck can you trust people like that?
@GoodScienceForYou "These assholes tell people that absolute evidence is not possible, when it is everywhere."
Please provide one example of a scientific theory supported by "absolute evidence". Last time I requested this, you spouted off a few examples of technology and observations, but no theories (aka explanations of why we observe what we observe).
GSFY - as you keep asking for 'absolute evidence' perhaps you could show some for your claimed IQ or 'over 180', or your claim for humans interbreeding with apes to produce chimps, or your claim that 'Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds', or that you've 'been a scientist for over 45 years'? That way I could see what you consider to be 'absolute evidence' and then offer something of similar ilk.
GSFY - oh, and don't forget that the 'absolute evidence' you offer must be 'Only verifiable physical evidence with no other plausibilities are allowed', to use your own definition. And again, to use your own words 'If you can't answer this question, then you are not sane'.
@GoodScienceForYou "Only verifiable physical evidence with no other plausibilities are allowed!"
Not that such evidence is necessary, but I'm still waiting for an alternate plausible explanation for GULOP other than common ancestry. Your interbreeding hypothesis (and all others so far proposed) falls far short of explaining the genetic pattern observed.
What creationists never point is that Hitler was actually inspired by de Gobineau as well as Martin Luther. Eugenics resembles artificial selection, not evolution. Great vid BTW.
On Eugenics, in seeking to eliminate negative traits, one may inadvertently eliminate positive traits. Also traits that are detrimental in some situations may be beneficial in others, and traits that are initially detrimental can mutate and become beneficial.
For instance the eyes of nearsighted individuals often adapt more quickly to the dark. A mutation of a gene that causes nearsightedness has resulted in an emergent population of tetrachromatic women as well, who can see some ultraviolent
It's funny because Hitler got the idea for his 'final solution' by studying United States history and American Eugenics, not by studying Charles Darwin.
Superbo! You need to edit your videos more. I'm talking letters and a black background. Take a page out of thunderf00t's book. It will make you seem more mysterious. As a powerful voice you can be a symbol, something superhuman.
Personally, I think Hitler had his own religion that borrowed some from Christianity, Nordic myths (as you mentioned), and other sources. The problem is that he wasn't an atheist, and many people use the false claim that he was an atheist to try to suggest that all of the worst tyrants were atheist.
Regardless, this is irrelevant to evolution.
"A cousin's Darvin was an Eugenics."
I don't understand what you're trying to say here - the English grammar is off, but much better than my Romanian.
Why is it relevant that Darwin's cousin supported eugenics? The United Methodist Church supported eugenics, as well as many other random people - Darwin himself did not. So what?
Regardless, evolution through natural selection is a description of how natural populations act, NOT a prescription on how human societies should organize social policy.
Rape is also common in nature - does that fact mean that governments should make rape legal, or worse, force people to rape?
I don't think really any vision follows from any science.
Libertarians like to say that economics is a science, but no other science has an ideology with it. And you certainly can't say that a field "Proves" your ideas about politics.
Eugenics doesn't follow from evolution. The choice to view things one way is subjective, and the idea to then apply that subjective view is subjective again
It's about "natural" selection. And even natural selection doesn't require death, just reproduction
NOTHING is 100% sure. However, I'd bet anything that human evolution occurred, and I'm no gambler.
"Truth" isn't something that can ever be "known" about anything. The best we can do is use a method like science that has a great track record of getting closer to the truth.
Cool shirt. I want a Darwin shirt. I have a Darwin doll and I bought one of his books.
Hitler is an argument I never use against evolution. I've had people use it against me. I've heard that Darwin quote before. The only time I heard it in full was here and a podcast by Scientific American.
People have used evolution for racist reasons but the theory of evolution is not to blame for those fools.
This failed argument about Theory of Evolution leads to racism has debunked . Evolution itself debunks the white race superiority . Maybe there were some people used the theory to justify their racism but this has nothing to do with the reality of the Theory , those people didn't understand it very well or they just used it to justify their works . The origin of racism back to the 15th century when Christians considered the white race is closer to the god .
Hi Marcus. I feel your anger. I totally understand. You've articulated exactly what I've encountered at my church. Many creationists demonize the theory of evolution as being responsible for genocide, racism, abortion, pornography, divorce and homosexuality. I've personally been labeled as buying a pernicious lie. I'm with you brother. Keep up the good work. Tom
As for RACISM. Let's get this strait once and for all. There's a difference betwen RACIAL opinions and RACIST opinions. Stupid liberals don't understand this and shout "you racist" on anyone that has a raciallll opinion. If we would think like them, we wouldn't be able/aloud to talk about ANYTHING RELATING TO RACE ! and there are plenty of things that relate to race: aggresion, intelect, etc.
Do you have a study to point to to back up these claims about "intelect" [sic] and "aggresion" [sic]? In order to actually test racial as opposed to cultural differences, it would have to involve adopted children, and preferably twins adopted by different families at birth. As far as I'm aware, all such studies indicate that there are no significant racial differences in either of these traits.
The belief that a race is intellectually inferior is by definition a racist viewpoint - look it up.
And now that I look I see you are a Christian evobiologist...so I apologize for that too. And you're right, a lot of christians do believe in evolution.
I'm not a Christian, but an agnostic atheist. I'm still not interested in converting anyone.
I am offended by the assumption that my belief in the intellectual equality of the races is based on "blindness for the sake of political correctness". I never assumed that your assertions to the contrary were based on any sort of ideology. My assertions are based on the controlled studies I mentioned. I'm not above being insulting to people's sensibilities - I am after all an evo biologist.
I apologize for starting up with the insults, but being called a racist pissed me off, and blindness for the sake of political correctness pisses me off. Lets just leave it alone at that, and just agree to disagree.
I forgive you for the insults. I wasn't trying to insult you, and I didn't call you a racist. I only said that you showed racism (it's like the difference between lying and being a liar). According to Webster's, racism is, "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". By definition, the belief that a race is intellectually inferior (regardless of whether it is true) is racism.
How many years did it take to change the savage wolf-dog into a poodle through speeding up the evolution process? A few thousand years? Not even? But evolution didnt happen to human beings and all human beings are the same, because thats the way we want it to be and thats what they told me at treehugger U.
The difference between dog and human evolution is major: much longer generation time, no artificial selection, control of nature nullifying much of natural selection. Intelligence is pretty important in any environment. There are no studies that have controlled for socioeconomic status and culture that show differences in intelligence, and several such studies showing no significant difference. When I asked you for evidence, you cited "The Bell Curve", which controls neither of these things.
I would assume that living in filth would (like IQ) have a lot to do with socioeconomic status. I don't know much about aborigines, but it tends to be that very poor people live in these sorts of conditions. Take one and raise them from an infant in a well-to-do highly educated household, and they could be brilliant and successful, and would likely not live in filth.
Even in larger more powerful nations, many people still live in "filth". Take India, for example, with so many poor. Many of the same people who might live in filth in India, if they move to the US, we can see with proper nutrition, intellectual stimulation, and time and opportunity to learn, you find southasians have IQs an average of close to one standard deviation above the rest of the US population and lower welfare rates.
In summary, looking at the state of a land or population today can't be correct in determining if one group tends to be biologically superior.
Lands and peoples that today contain large populations of poor, a millenia ago, may have had advanced societies.
Regardless, I don't know a supremacist board online today who talks about race in purely scientific terms. There are always hateful anti-scientific sentiments expressed and the desire to slander, ever present with those who tout ____ supremacy
Yes, exactly. Once you factor out culture, nutrition, education level, parental education level, all of the races have been found to do equally well on IQ tests. Supremacists always seem to be ignorant of these controlled studies, or dismiss them, relying instead on their own prejudices based on the behavior of a few poverty stricken members of the race that they have encountered.
One last thing. I guarantee a scandinavian from Oslo differs from a pygmy in Africa genetically far more than a Timber wolf from Alaska does from one in Minnesota. Dont hand us that baloney that humans are all the same genetically.
I don't know much about the genetic diversity of Timber wolves, but I do know that as far as an average wild species, humans have VERY low genetic diversity. It has been speculated that humans went through a population bottleneck in the fairly recent past that we have not yet recovered from.
This isn't about politics. That's just what the data shows. If you know of any studies that have shown something different, I'd love to read them.
An evobiologist arguing that all races have the same intelligence. Pffft. Figures, thats modern America for you. You dont need 60000 years to get wildy differing gene pools...COME ON! Quit seeing just what you want to see.
60,000 years is only about 3,000 generations. Some of the most closely related fruitfly species have been diverging for 100s of thousands of years, and their generation time is only a week or so. We're talking about a difference of a factor of 1,000.
"The Bell Curve" was debunked decades ago by MANY different sources. One of the main problems with it is that it doesn't factor out cultural influences like the psychology studies I mentioned do. Whenever you compare IQ scores of individuals raised in similar environments, all IQ differences attributed to race disappear. It isn't surprising that people raised in households where their parents have a poor educational background tend to have low IQ, and it's the same for all races.
Of course the Bell Curve was debunked! You hippy leftists had to debunk it because it doesnt fit in to what you want to believe. I think its hilarious scientists like you can be so smart and yet so able to delude yourselves. You're just as bad as the people debunking evolution...you believe what you want to believe. Im done...nothing personal. Nice meeting you.
Of course it was debunked because it failed under true scrutiny. The environment a person is raised in has A WHOLE LOT to do with their intelligence. The Bell Curve failed to take this into account and in no way controlled for the effects of environment. It was a terribly designed study that was published in a book instead of a peer-reviewed journal. I'm sorry, but you can't use bad science to justify your racism. There's just no real support for it. All controlled studies show otherwise.
I love it. Now youre the one battling against evolution and calling me a racist for believing in it. You're like Mr. Van Driessen from Beavis and Butthead. Why are so many tall skinny nearsighted soft talking low testosterone dweebs so often hippys? Evolution! OK...believe what you want to believe...but..think about this "scientist"...if there WAS a test you observed which proved races had different intelligence, you would refuse to believe it because you wouldnt want to.
First, I'm not battling against evolution. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with whether or not one thinks that different races have equal potential for a high IQ or not. I pointed out why "The Bell Curve" is a flawed study and explained that all controlled studies show no difference in IQ. Science has to be done in a controlled fashion or it is meaningless.
Second, if you did show me a test that found that races are not equal, and it was better designed than other studies, I'd accept it.
...the funny thing is, the opposite is not true. YOU refuse to accept that as far as IQ potential, the races are not significantly different despite numerous controlled studies that prove this point. Instead, you rely on "The Bell Curve", which did not do anything to factor out the many environmental influences on IQ. Since it has been shown that IQ is highly dependent on environment and that minority races tend to be poorer and less educated on average, OF COURSE it found IQ/race differences.
These same "skinny nearsighted solf-talking low-testosterone hippt leftist dweebs are developing cures to your granny's dementia, curing cancer, and extending lives worldwide, Ace. What have YOU accomplished?
I stopped being offended by those sorts of comments back in high school. I'm not quite so granola and PC as Mr. Van Driessen, but I can appreciate the humor in the comparison - I'm chuckling just remembering the scene you're referring to.
None of that changes the fact that you have no controlled studies to back up your claims about race based differences in intelligence, while there are several studies using adopted children showing no difference.
That machismo angle works for you, huh? Next time you get sick just be TOUGH, don't go to the doctor, don't take OTC drugs to feel better, just COWBOY UP, Ace! Tell me- have you been divorced? What's your pant size? Ride to live, live to ride, right? My guess is you're relegated to Fatboys now. Am I getting warm here? On your congestive heart failure deathbed you'll lose that macho tone, and realize too late your priorities were all fucked up....good luck with that, Slick.
You forgot to answer my question, BTW- what have YOU accomplished in your 40 years of drinking beer, riding hogs, and cracking crank whores? A beer belly and at least one divorce, is my guess. Getting warm here, am I? How's that factory job working out for you, buddy? OUCH.....I'm like a PSYCHIC, huh? I smell regret mixed with envy. And a pinch of bacon cheeseburger....Dweebs, INDEED. Did your first wife hold your racist views, too, or were your constant rants part of the reason she left?
Ha! I Must have hit a nerve. Keep meowing pencil neck. And I dont have to be a racist to see the obvious...that evolution also affected human beings. You dorks are hypocrits.
If your question is "How close is my stereotyped assessment of you?"...Obviously you figured out I belong to an MC. Well...I do love beer and motorcycles, Im 6'4", 240 and could stand to lose about 10 to be ripped, working on that...never been married, 1 kid, live with a girl, as a matter of fact do ride a fatboy. Got a degree in history, but I do work in a factory yes. Not embarassed about it, or anything. The stereotype holds true for a lot of us though...kind of cracked me up.
Didnt you guys learn at Treehugger U that stereotyping is hurtful? Hehe. I tell you what...you guys think you are doing the world a favor by trying to get good christians to doubt their faith by convincing them evolution is true? You just want attention and to try to look smart. If you were good people you wouldn't discourage good people from their beliefs.
I'm not interested in getting Christians to doubt their faith. I'm genuinely interested in teaching people to understand science. That's what I do for a career. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution. People can believe pretty much whatever they want, but they should also accept the reality revealed by science.
Evolution has affected human beings, but not enough in 60,000 yrs to create significant differences in intelligence between races. Intelligence is important in any climate.
Let's see here- you left 2 comments, they were easily refuted, and you devolved into insults....all within the span of like 4 posts. CONGRATULATIONS- your inability to debate with actual substance has been laid bare.You destroyed your own credibility, and you did it faster than I've ever seen any fundie do it. I only chimed in to get your hackles up, 'cause apparently that's easy to do with racists...your only option with EB was to insult him, because you were outclassed. Made this easy! I LIKEY
What was your question? Oh...as far as easily refuting my argument...BS, intelligence is GENETIC, thats been proven for a long time. 60,000 years is plenty of time for human beings, through selective breeding, to speed up the evolution process. Theres a lot of difference between fruitflies and human beings. I wasnt the first person who devolved to insults...he called me a racist. Believing that evolution effected human beings doesnt make me a racist.
I agree that "believing that evolution effected human beings" does not make you racist, and I apologize for calling you that.....so long as I was wrong, you know? Ever see a black man's calves? Puny, at best. Asians are short, Greeks have big noses.There are differences, for sure, and thinking that these differences also include cognitive ability is not racism, and my suggesting just that was wrong.Your comment had nothing to do with superiority and inferiority, and I see that now.I was wrong.
I wrote a blog/rant on the misuse of Hitler and Nazism as an argument against science. My girlfriend's Jewish best friend went snooping around and found it and was outraged. While I might have used dicey language, by context any reasonable person could tell that I wasn't bashing the Holocaust, but the people who use it to push their agendas.
I think people attach WAY too many emotions to Nazism, so many that it's hard for reasonable people like me to criticize those who use it in argument. Ugh.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt Yeah - it's definitely a sensitive subject that conjures up a lot of emotions. I think that's why people like to use Nazis and the Holocaust as propaganda points. A position can be very convincing if someone successfully associates the opposition with Hitler.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
I'm going to have to remember the term "argument ad hitlerum" for discussions with a coworker.
elmore1735 1 year ago
@elmore1735 Yeah, once you compare someone to Hitler in order to make a rhetorical point in an argument, you've just lost the argument. Hopefully your coworker will understand why.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry- You have shown the world that you are a liar, a hater, and a bigot- it's right there in black and white for all to see. You admitted to all of it! You have no one to blame but yourself. You failed. Too easy!
moonlightbateman 1 year ago
I think people shouldn't accept evolution because it's a religion, but if you want throw eugenics into the mix, I think the argument's even more compelling. Without an absolute standard, a "thus sayeth the Lord," there is not such thing as right and wrong. One who believe in evolution/humanism or any flavors in between, have no justification for right and wrong besides their own opinions.
>>See my videos on "Evolution is a Religion" and "The Dangers of Evolution p 4&5" for more details.<<
creationliberty 1 year ago
@creationliberty Since, like all science, evolution explains a natural occurrence (in this case, the family tree-like pattern of diversity) without mention of anything supernatural, I don't see how it could be a religion. Even if it were, why would that make it any less likely to be true?
Evolution does not require you to abandon an absolute religiously based moral code. Even if it did - again - how is this relevant to whether or not it is true?
On another note, is beating your slaves okay?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist evolution is not original theory... this idea came from gnosticism that say god is an spirit in evolution going from stones, to vegetables, animals, etc
011nathi 1 year ago
@011nathi "evolution is not original theory"
True, many scientists and philosophers before Darwin suggested that organisms change over time. Darwin made the first really clear explanation (though not the first mention) for how this is driven by natural selection of variation in a population.
I'm not familiar with the gnostic teachings you are referring to, but no biologist is claiming that animals evolved from plants. Both evolved from ancient protists.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
If anyone tells you that Hitler's anti-Semitism came from Darwin, tell them to look up Leuger and the Christian Social party in Vienna.
xander55577 1 year ago
Darwin was a racist. It was a common thing to be brainwashed into this crap. If anyone has any bullshit in their beliefs, they are discredited immediately. If they believe in any logical fallacies and human emotional mental garbage, they are not to be believed on anything. Don't you know this? This is why you never believe any human being ever. They all have bullshit agendas, like you.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Darwin was a racist."
As were most people in the mid 1800's - as was Abraham Lincoln (who shares the same birthday), for that matter. Does this make their accomplishments any less valid?
"If they believe in any logical fallacies and human emotional mental garbage, they are not to be believed on anything. Don't you know this?"
This is why I recommend people look at the evidence themselves as I keep trying to offer you.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
You are so brainwashed that you actually think humans came from fish. That shows deep psychological abuse has happened to you. I use my shock therapy to try to get you to think for yourself, which I truely believe is impossible. You have no objective mind at all when it comes to this shit.....Do you? Once you are a believer in shit like this you are no longer credible as a scientist.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "You are so brainwashed that you actually think humans came from fish."
You are so brainwashed that until yesterday, you thought there were no genes linking humans and fish. In fact, some fish (lobe-finned) are closer genetically to humans than to other types of fish.
How do YOU explain this? Fish fucking humans? I'd like to see how you get a nested hierarchy from THAT.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist There are no gentic links of humans and fish. You just fantasize that there are. I already told you that finding similar DNA in humans and fish only means that there is a finite very tiny amount of proteans, to make tissue from and if you need to make tissue that contracts and moves bones around, it MUST be similar in DNA. You project belief on all that you see, because you are delusional. You have no clue what real evidence is.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "There are no gentic links of humans and fish."
In addition to sharing protein coding genes with fish, we find a pattern of a nested hierarchy within fish in regards to the similarities and differences in these genes. Lobe-finned fish are more similar to humans than to ray-finned fish in regards to these genes. Why do you suppose that is? It obviously can't be explained by interbreeding or muscle movement.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You do not know how to look at DNA coding. You have been brainwashed to think that DNA simlarity is equal to some lineage. It does not show this at all. It is simply DNA and the human mind on indoctrination and bullshit makes up the conclusions. Are you really as stupid as you seem?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "You have been brainwashed to think that DNA simlarity is equal to some lineage."
No, you've been brainwashed to ignore the fact that there is far more than simply genetic similarity here. We're talking about a very specific pattern of similarity and difference - the same pattern observed in modern viral and bacterial lineages as they diverge from each other - a nested hierarchy or family tree. This is a very unlikely pattern that can only be explained by common ancestry.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
GSFY - it seems that like many creationists you too have an irony by-pass; you tell EB 'You have no clue what real evidence is ' and yet you haven't shown a single piece of evidence to support any of your half-witted notions. When are you going to tell us which specific DNA sequences or ERV insertion patterns support your laughable human->chimp interbreeding notion rather than the evolutionary explanation? Without supporting evidence we can ignore your assertions as meaningless drivel.
KrokrX 1 year ago
When you got into school, did you have a clue about the emotional abuse they were going to do to you? That is if you don't conform and believe in this bullshit, you can't belong to the "elite" and shit like that? Money and need makes people lay down like bitch dogs to dogma of this relgious bullshit.
Why don't you start thinking about your ideas and how fucked up they are because they are based on deep psychological abuse.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY so you're repeating the same nonsense here as well. When your daft assertions are questioned why do you resort to insults and profanities? Your ill-educated understanding of science is quite laughable, so I guess insults and profanities is all you've got. You clearly have deep-rooted psychological problems and you really should seek treatment.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX Fuck you! Evotard; bullshit artist.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY What a surprise, more insults and profanities and no evidence you're getting rather predictable. You make up nonsense and lie, and then get upset when called on it. Perhaps you should run back to the haven of your forum where you can delete the comments you don't like, or can't answer. Your ludicrous yoga derived philosophy, and it's a stretch to call it that, is just so funny, but it's quite sad a man of your advanced age actually believes it!
KrokrX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KrokrX If you are in the driver's seat of your life, and have no emotional need to conform to some bullshit then you can learn all that humans have to offer, and not believe anything until it is proven to you absolutely. You need to be honest with yourself to get free of other people's controls over you. They can convince you that you are smart and good when you are just a dumb conformist who has no balls to seek what is true.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
There is one problem with you. Your religion is Evodelusionism, which has no basis in science. There is no evidence for evolution.
There is evidence of extinction, and genetic stability of the foundational nature of any particular creature that never shows any evolution.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
The first thing you need to do is to become honest. If you are not honest that you have been brainwashed into a fucking belief, then you will never excel at anything. You will simply go through life thinking you are correct, when you never study any of the evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
How do you explain the nested hierarchical pattern of ERVs and broken genes like GULOP? You still haven't given a single alternative explanation.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Broken genes are not evolution. All creatures adapt as the same creatures in order to survive as the same creatures. There is no evidence of any change from a lineage of descendants into some drastic new creature with new morphology. It does not exist. Your brainwashing will never change the facts.
When there is a tremendous amount of vitamin C available to a creature, the need to produce it is retarded and not needed.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "When there is a tremendous amount of vitamin C available to a creature, the need to produce it is retarded and not needed."
I agree, but why do we see a pattern of mutational buildup in primates of a family tree for GULOP and a completely different set of mutations built up in guinea pigs? The answer is obvious if common descent is true. No other explanation has so far been proposed.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Primates are the only ones that had the capacity to interbreed with humans. I have not seen that in any other species that has existed. The "human" traits came from humans. It is a downgrading of the genetics of humans passed down into the primates. This is far more plausible than some magical, mystical religious Evoddelusion bullshit.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Primates are the only ones that had the capacity to interbreed with humans."
I've already told you. You can't possibly get a nested hierarchy for all genes by simple interbreeding. You need common descent. If you don't believe me, try modeling it yourself.
The "human" traits are all based on a small # of mutations of primate genes.
"I have not seen that in any other species that has existed."
You've obviously not looked very hard. This pattern exists throughout animals.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Keep in mind that the radiometric dating is extremely flawed and most of the data is out of chrononology. Nested hierarchy is a made up belief slogan idea.
It has no scientific validity. You cannot make a single scientific test of this to show it is valid. Give it a try. Show me the use of the scientific method to test this to see if it is something at all. It is nothing but a fantasy belief and has no scientific validity.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Nested hierarchy is a made up belief slogan idea... Show me the use of the scientific method to test this to see if it is something at all."
As I just mentioned, it is easy to test a particular nested hierarchy by using a different gene than the one that made it in the first place to see if the patterns are identical. No one debates the existence of this pattern, because it has been obvious since the time of Linnaeus (that's why our system of naming uses such a hierarchy).
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
Using religious slogans is not science. And all you have done is use religious slogans.
I said: "Show me the use of the scientific method to test this to see if if it is something at all."
All you have stated is conjecture based on delusional beliefs. People make up shit and you just lay down and believe them. Don't you know these people all have dumb ass agendas? There is no such thing as nested hierarchy, except in the minds of the believers. That is why it is a religion.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "There is no such thing as nested hierarchy, except in the minds of the believers."
I have repeatedly shown you cases of nested hierarchies and challenged you to pick any common gene and try organizing a set of organisms with that gene. Not only will you always end up with a nested hierarchy when you try this, but you will also end up with the same nested hierarchy that you would get from other genes.
Simply stating that it doesn't exist doesn't make it so.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist I have read pretty much the same stuff you have read and there is no "nested hierarchy" except in the minds of believers. I want you to show me where it exists in the real world?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You are under the delusion that we share genes so we must be evolved from or to some creature. This is totally unsupported logic. There are only so many types of proteans, only so many ways to make bone, only so many ways to form brain cells, lung tissue, and such. There is nothing in genetics that ties creatures together except for needing to have billions of base pairs that match exactly and in the same order, even then it is just opinions.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "You are under the delusion that we share genes so we must be evolved from or to some creature."
You are under the delusion that I'm simply talking about sharing genes. I'm talking about a consistent pattern of a nested hierarchy, which forms by common descent but not by interbreeding or any other proposed method. This is even found in silent mutations in coding genes, broken genes, and viral sequences.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
Who decides what goes in this chart? Do you understand?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Who decides what goes in this chart? Do you understand?"
Anyone can - YOU, for instance. Pick a gene or set of genes, line up this DNA from several organisms with each other so that there are as few differences as possible, then take each gene and count the differences with the others. You'll find when you do this that you will find a pattern of groups within groups within groups where each smaller group has more of the DNA in common, as well as sharing the same differences.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
You don't even understand the question? Who the fuck do you trust with your mind? Who the fuck has the right to make up this shit? Why do you allow them to fuck up your mind like this?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
It is a religious zeal of belief that makes up those fucking charts. It only comes from delusional beliefs and not from any form of scientific testing or method, because there is no test to see if what they believe is real or not. It is fantasy, bullshit and you are an evotard.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "It only comes from delusional beliefs and not from any form of scientific testing or method..."
Look, GSFY, if you watch my GULOP video, I show you what a nested hierarchy is and why GULOP, ERVs, and other genes form a nested hierarchy. The reality of it is there. The genes of animals form the same groups within groups within groups in regards to their similarities and differences regardless of where we look. It is predicted by common descent and NO OTHER process proposed.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
I know from listening to your videos that you are delusional, in that you believe in things that do not relate to what is in evidence.
There is no such thing as "nested hierarchy". It is a made up "chart" based solely on the belief if those who created it, under the delusion that creatures can violate their foundational genetics.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "...you are delusional...no such thing as "nested hierarchy""
Look, GSFY, the nested hierarchy may not be obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Linnaeus didn't believe in common ancestry, but he used a nested hierarchy (still used today) to name all organisms. I've explained that anyone can see it by simply arranging organisms by the similarity/dissimilarity of their genes - the pattern is always the same, no matter who does the sorting. Try it.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
Nested hierarchy, is a religious idea, that is based faith and belief. It has no logic to it at all.
The psuedo scientists who make this crap up and infict it on humanity are weak and stupid and unable to see what is right in front of thier face. Just like you. You are retarded as any sort of scientist because of your faith and belief based on nothing.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Nested hierarchy, is a religious idea, that is based faith and belief. It has no logic to it at all."
I just explained to you that the nested hierarchy of life was noticed by Carl Linnaeus (a man who died nearly 100 years before "Origin of Species" was published), which inspired him to devise our current biological naming system (a nested hierarchy of names).
How can you claim this is based simply on belief? Organisms do fit into nested hierarchies.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
Science is NOT "inspired". Religions are "inspired". Making up charts to fit a dumd ass belief is not science. You can only make charts based on real evidence. Evodelusionism has never done that.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou " Science is NOT "inspired"."
That's ridiculous - when Archimedes sat in his bathtub, he was so inspired by the rising water that he ran the streets naked crying "Eureka!" ("I've found it!"). Thus was a method for determining the volume of irregularly shaped solids devised. Archimedes was among the greatest scientists and mathematicians of the ancient world.
And once again, Linnaeus didn't base his naming system on beliefs, but on the observation of a nested hierarchy.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
Nested hierarchy is a made up bunch of crap based on human emotional bullshit. It has NO empirical testing..no use of any of the scientific method. It is nothing but opinions from brainwashed religous nut cases, like you.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "[nested hierarchy] has NO empirical testing..no use of any of the scientific method."
Simply stating it doesn't make it true. I've already explained to you empirical tests and use of the scientific method. If you can't see that, then you are as blind as you claim I am.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist If "simply stating something doesn't make it true", then why do you believe in the religious bullshit of Evodelusionism? There is no evidence of this on this earth. The only thing that is apparent is that people want to believe in bullshit, and repeat religious slogans (like "nested hierarchy") over and over , with authority, in the ears of weak minded people like you until you are so fucking brainwashed that you think it is real. Religious nut cases like you are everywhere.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "There is no evidence of this on this earth."
There is plenty of evidence, but you're to biased now to even notice it when someone shoves it in your face.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
When you went to school did you ever think at all about any of this? Did you even have a clue that this was concocted human bullshit?
Do you only get your brainwashing from one place?
You cannot call yourself a scientist if you only use one source for your research. Academia is full of bullshit artists, who make a living perpetuating bullshit. You are gullible and weak minded.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This type of bullshit has been in acedemia and science for thousands of years. It is politically driven and controlled by whomever has the money. They want you to be stupid and conform to the bullshit that helps to make mo money for these corporations who own the univerities. Do you know that just on of the ivy league universities has over $3billion in money from large corporations? They teach what makes for good corporate fodder.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "It is politically driven and controlled by whomever has the money."
Then why aren't we teaching creationism in public schools? The creationists have the most money and are certainly passionate about it.
I suppose you have changed directions and started on this rhetorical BS because you can't defeat my logical points about the actual scientific evidence.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "...did you ever think at all about any of this?" Absolutely.
"...concocted human bullshit?" All scientific theories are made up by humans - do you only consider theories made by aliens to have the possibility of being true?
"...if you only use one source for your research." Never have, never will.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist I want you to show me the scientific experiments that prove nested hierarchy? Have you ever even thought about this? Dumb ass believers construct bull shit charts out of belief, and then have brainwashed you into this ridiculous belief. How about that fucking "tree of life"? If isn't a fucking religious sounding pile of shit, I don't know what it. WTF is the matter with you that you let this shit control you so much?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "I want you to show me the scientific experiments that prove nested hierarchy?"
I already have - go watch my GULOP video. In it, I have the genetic code for the gene GULOP for several primates lined up for anyone to see and judge for themselves. No matter who does it, if you simply group these sequences according to similarity and difference, you get a nested hierarchy. Not only that, but any gene or complex trait will give you the same pattern.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
That is not a scientific test to show evolution.
It is, just and only, genetics; which has nothing in common with evolution and shows not even the slightest suggestion that evolution is real.
It is only HUMANS who project their fucked up beliefs and it is not evidence because it can be refuted by other much more plausible and realistic events and the fact that humans are , most likely, the common ancestor of chimps and primates.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "That is not a scientific test to show evolution."
You didn't ask for that. Proof is for math and alcohol. Science works on evidence. What you asked for was an experiment proving a nested hierarchy exists. That's simple.
"humans are , most likely, the common ancestor of chimps and primates."
Once again, you fail to understand that if this were the case, it would not even remotely explain the precise, consistent pattern of similarity and difference among primates.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
Why did you allow these fucking morons to control you mind? Why are you not able to see what I see? Why are you so fucking stupid?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Not one signle PHD of genetics has been able to refute my hypothesis of interbreeding as being far more plausible than some "common ancestor" that has never been found and never will be found. There is nothing in the physical evidence to back this idea of evolution. It is nothing but religious bullshit.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Not one signle PHD of genetics has been able to refute my hypothesis of interbreeding as being far more plausible than some "common ancestor" that has never been found and never will be found."
I've already refuted your hypothesis, and I only have a Master's degree in evolution:
It is impossible to get a family tree pattern (a nested hierarchy) by interbreeding. If you think I'm wrong, try it yourself - it is simple to model, especially if you are a genius as you claim.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Nested hierarchy is not a scientific premise, because it cannot be tested with any scientific method. That is your huge problem. You just accept what these foolish people teach you as truth or some such shit. It is made up from belief.
You are not able to see that in your present condition of delusional deeply held beliefs.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Nested hierarchy is not a scientific premise, because it cannot be tested with any scientific method."
This is just plain wrong. A scientific test requires a prediction. Common descent predicts that in animals, we should see a nested hierarchy when we compare genes or the traits that they code for. No other hypothesis makes this prediction. We then look at the data, and find that this very specific pattern does exist in ALL animals no matter where we look.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Who told you prediction is part of this crap? What predictions can you do when you can't even apply math to this shit? I have not seen a single prediction in this shit that was not contrived or forced. Name on prediction and I will teach you that it is not a scientific prediction.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "What predictions can you do when you can't even apply math to this shit?"
Actually, evolution is by far the most math intensive field of biology. One prediction is that if a phylogenetic tree is constructed from one gene, an identical one will be made based on another gene. The more genes show the same pattern, the higher degree of statistical support that that particular tree is real. Interbreeding of separate species (or any other hypothesis) doesn't predict this at all.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You are so wrapped up in this shit that you defend with the same crap that was brainwashed into your head. Not one single original thought has come from you. Try standing back from yourself and ask; "How did I get to believe this is real?"
Give it a shot. Go back and unscrew yourself from this delusional bull shit. It is not that difficult to dismiss all the premises of this shit.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Not one single original thought has come from you."
Just because someone else came up with it doesn't make it any less likely to be true. I can make up all sorts of things that are likely false - so what?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You are simply brainwashed and are not a scientist. You are a pseudo scientist. You don't even understand the simplest parts of science. A belief in something that has no evidence is a religious delusion.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou " A belief in something that has no evidence is a religious delusion."
The belief that evolution has no evidence is a religious delusion.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "There is evidence of extinction, and genetic stability of the foundational nature of any particular creature that never shows any evolution."
So we've established that interbreeding can't make a nested hierarchy, so how do YOU explain it?
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist I am going to ask you to prove "Nested Hierachy" with physical proof, acutal evidence. You can't because it is a made up idea used as part of a religion and pawned off as science. You are gullible and unable to be objective about any of this because you are emotionally driven and not rationally driven to find objective truth.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "I am going to ask you to prove "Nested Hierachy" with physical proof, acutal evidence."
I already have. Once again, my GULOP video takes the sequences of actual genes and lines them up side by side. I take you step by step through the comparison of similarity and difference in the DNA. The pattern is a nested hierarchy. Feel free to double check me and count the letters for yourself - anyone can do it. The pattern of similarity and difference is always the same.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You GULOP video is just repeated Evotard bullshit. You don't have an original thought.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Whether my GULOP video is original or not, it is an airtight argument for common ancestry - one that you (and everyone else) have not come remotely close to defeating. You say it is bullshit, but you can't even make a coherent argument against it.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist You are too brainwashed to even understand my arguments. That is sad! Your belief in this shit makes you have no credibility. Belief destroys all objectivity. When you have been indoctrinated and you allowed this shit to control your mind, you cannot get past your dumb beliefs enought to understand what I teach. How sad and pathetic you are to be in such a condition of mind.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "You are too brainwashed to even understand my arguments. That is sad!"
No. I understood your argument about interbreeding of humans and chimps perfectly well. What's sad is that you don't see how it is impossible to get the pattern observed through this method. Unfortunately, you are so married to the idea that evolution is wrong that you can't wrap your brain around the evidence and argument I have presented. You've missed the point.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist "Unfortunately, you are so married to the idea that evolution is wrong that you can't wrap your brain around the evidence and argument I have presented."
I have an IQ of over 180 or at least was tested in 1992 with that. I never allow any logical fallacies to be in control of my mind. That is how I got this smart. You are a fucking evotard who believe in magical causes. What a fucking waste of a human mind.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - as for your repeated claim to have an 'IQ over 180', you've provided no evidence to support this claim, let alone 'absolute evidence' that you insist on for evolution, and your comments certainly don't indicate even an average intelligence. You have difficulty forming a coherent argument, and lapse into insults and profanities when asked to support your assertions. Perhaps you should run back to the security of your brain dead forum where you can play demi-god to your heart's content.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "I never allow any logical fallacies to be in control of my mind."
That's funny, because I have rarely seen so many logical fallacies from one individual. You are particularly fond of argumentum ad hominem. Your videos, website, and posts here are mostly about how Darwin, biologists in general, and me in particular are flawed in some way and therefore everything we say is false. This is argumentum ad hominem at its finest. Debate the point, not the person, dumb ass.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist When some idiot repeats two hypotheses and one is lame and the other only suggests evodelusion, that is not science its design to produce morons like you. If you want to be a pawn of other people's human emotional garbage, that is your choice. I only seek what is real; you don't. The reality is you never look beyond your dumb ass belief. There are at least 20 more hypothesizes that are more logical than yours.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@EvoBiologist Why don't you go and read my long and well presented "paper" on this where every part that you somehow missed is explained. evolutionforum(dot)info
Open your fucking brain up to what I teach, because I make you look like a moron to the people who read my websites.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
GSFY - you're so funny!! Your website is a joke; some of your gems for general amusement:-
-I don't have much ego at all.
-I have been a scientist for over 45 years
-I don't need any evidence
-I take in the evidence and make clean and pure logical conclusions
-God=Truth
-Falsification was put in to science to allow pet theories to hang around and be tested
-It[evolution] is actually a religion that was started some 600 years before Christ.
and the ever popular 'you are banned' !!!
KrokrX 1 year ago
@KrokrX Events that seem highly improbable in isolation become highly probable when large numbers of observations are considered.
Never underestimate someone's ability to lie to themself.
The human mind is extremely susceptible to hallucination.
Where is your absolute evidence for evolution? No, opinions allowed!
Only verifiable physical evidence with no other plausibilities are allowed!
If you can't answer this question, then you are not sane if you think evolution is real.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
When someone wants to indoctrinate you they teach you what evidence is and how to interpret it. If you allow that you are gulllible and easy to brainwash by mass hysteria.
These assholes tell people that absolute evidence is not possible, when it is everywhere. How the heck can you trust people like that?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "These assholes tell people that absolute evidence is not possible, when it is everywhere."
Please provide one example of a scientific theory supported by "absolute evidence". Last time I requested this, you spouted off a few examples of technology and observations, but no theories (aka explanations of why we observe what we observe).
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
GSFY - as you keep asking for 'absolute evidence' perhaps you could show some for your claimed IQ or 'over 180', or your claim for humans interbreeding with apes to produce chimps, or your claim that 'Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds', or that you've 'been a scientist for over 45 years'? That way I could see what you consider to be 'absolute evidence' and then offer something of similar ilk.
KrokrX 1 year ago
GSFY - oh, and don't forget that the 'absolute evidence' you offer must be 'Only verifiable physical evidence with no other plausibilities are allowed', to use your own definition. And again, to use your own words 'If you can't answer this question, then you are not sane'.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Only verifiable physical evidence with no other plausibilities are allowed!"
Not that such evidence is necessary, but I'm still waiting for an alternate plausible explanation for GULOP other than common ancestry. Your interbreeding hypothesis (and all others so far proposed) falls far short of explaining the genetic pattern observed.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
GSFY - I'd encourage everyone to visit your website/forum, it makes such entertaining reading; a few more GSFY gems:-
-It is not my fault that I was born this way, with this curse of intelligence.
-I have spent my life removing all bullshit from my life. It is called Yoga or learning to find the truth.
-I am sane
-I never make any errors in my statements.
-Diamond are no longer carbon, they are diamonds.
KrokrX 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "...read my long and well presented "paper"..."
Where on your site can I find this "paper"? I'd be happy to examine your ideas and give you some feedback.
EvoBiologist 1 year ago
What creationists never point is that Hitler was actually inspired by de Gobineau as well as Martin Luther. Eugenics resembles artificial selection, not evolution. Great vid BTW.
JonathanTheAlchemist 2 years ago
On Eugenics, in seeking to eliminate negative traits, one may inadvertently eliminate positive traits. Also traits that are detrimental in some situations may be beneficial in others, and traits that are initially detrimental can mutate and become beneficial.
For instance the eyes of nearsighted individuals often adapt more quickly to the dark. A mutation of a gene that causes nearsightedness has resulted in an emergent population of tetrachromatic women as well, who can see some ultraviolent
Atheistx82 2 years ago
Interesting, I hadn't heard about tetrachromatic women before. You are absolutely right about the side effects of eliminating genetic diversity.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
It's funny because Hitler got the idea for his 'final solution' by studying United States history and American Eugenics, not by studying Charles Darwin.
Atheistx82 2 years ago
Superbo! You need to edit your videos more. I'm talking letters and a black background. Take a page out of thunderf00t's book. It will make you seem more mysterious. As a powerful voice you can be a symbol, something superhuman.
dandorfan 2 years ago
And what's the problem?
Atheist make an amazing effort,to make, Hitler, a"good Christian".
A cousin's Darvin was an Eugenics.
About Hitler, he took the idea from Nordic myths
VyckRo 2 years ago
Personally, I think Hitler had his own religion that borrowed some from Christianity, Nordic myths (as you mentioned), and other sources. The problem is that he wasn't an atheist, and many people use the false claim that he was an atheist to try to suggest that all of the worst tyrants were atheist.
Regardless, this is irrelevant to evolution.
"A cousin's Darvin was an Eugenics."
I don't understand what you're trying to say here - the English grammar is off, but much better than my Romanian.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
sory,
A cousin of Charles Darwin , was involved in the Eugenics story.
I hope now is a little better (my grammar)
VyckRo 2 years ago
Why is it relevant that Darwin's cousin supported eugenics? The United Methodist Church supported eugenics, as well as many other random people - Darwin himself did not. So what?
Regardless, evolution through natural selection is a description of how natural populations act, NOT a prescription on how human societies should organize social policy.
Rape is also common in nature - does that fact mean that governments should make rape legal, or worse, force people to rape?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I don't think really any vision follows from any science.
Libertarians like to say that economics is a science, but no other science has an ideology with it. And you certainly can't say that a field "Proves" your ideas about politics.
Eugenics doesn't follow from evolution. The choice to view things one way is subjective, and the idea to then apply that subjective view is subjective again
It's about "natural" selection. And even natural selection doesn't require death, just reproduction
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 2 years ago
Thanks. When I saw the shirt, I had to have one.
By the way, if you'd like to see some solid irrefutable evidence of human evolution, check out my GULOP video.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
did you find it online? if so could you link me to it? i want that shirt lol
frankiep1222 2 years ago
oh you already said where u got it lol, another great video.
frankiep1222 2 years ago
NOTHING is 100% sure. However, I'd bet anything that human evolution occurred, and I'm no gambler.
"Truth" isn't something that can ever be "known" about anything. The best we can do is use a method like science that has a great track record of getting closer to the truth.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Cool shirt. I want a Darwin shirt. I have a Darwin doll and I bought one of his books.
Hitler is an argument I never use against evolution. I've had people use it against me. I've heard that Darwin quote before. The only time I heard it in full was here and a podcast by Scientific American.
People have used evolution for racist reasons but the theory of evolution is not to blame for those fools.
AngelicSnowGirl 2 years ago
Thanks. Origin of Species is still an excellent read.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Holy Shit! Where did you get that shirt?
snugsaltynutz 2 years ago
zazzle(dot)com
had to have one when I saw it
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Oh yeah. I'm getting one right now.
snugsaltynutz 2 years ago
Errr sorry to spam... Just wanted to add that I love your videos. Keep them coming. Evolution is like crack to me.
snugsaltynutz 2 years ago
Expelled is the stupidest movie I have ever seen.
falcoperegrinus82 2 years ago
I think I'm with you on that one.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
This failed argument about Theory of Evolution leads to racism has debunked . Evolution itself debunks the white race superiority . Maybe there were some people used the theory to justify their racism but this has nothing to do with the reality of the Theory , those people didn't understand it very well or they just used it to justify their works . The origin of racism back to the 15th century when Christians considered the white race is closer to the god .
CDTOE 2 years ago
Hi Marcus. I feel your anger. I totally understand. You've articulated exactly what I've encountered at my church. Many creationists demonize the theory of evolution as being responsible for genocide, racism, abortion, pornography, divorce and homosexuality. I've personally been labeled as buying a pernicious lie. I'm with you brother. Keep up the good work. Tom
NeoPsiTom 2 years ago
Thanks Tom. I appreciate the sympathy, and it's always good to hear from people who experience some of the same issues.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
As for RACISM. Let's get this strait once and for all. There's a difference betwen RACIAL opinions and RACIST opinions. Stupid liberals don't understand this and shout "you racist" on anyone that has a raciallll opinion. If we would think like them, we wouldn't be able/aloud to talk about ANYTHING RELATING TO RACE ! and there are plenty of things that relate to race: aggresion, intelect, etc.
shugubatz 2 years ago
Do you have a study to point to to back up these claims about "intelect" [sic] and "aggresion" [sic]? In order to actually test racial as opposed to cultural differences, it would have to involve adopted children, and preferably twins adopted by different families at birth. As far as I'm aware, all such studies indicate that there are no significant racial differences in either of these traits.
The belief that a race is intellectually inferior is by definition a racist viewpoint - look it up.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I don't believe in intellectual or phisical equality of the races.
The average caucasian I.Q. is higher than the average negroid I.Q. It's as simple as that. Political corectness is BULLSHIT. Afirmative action IDEM.
shugubatz 2 years ago
lol, you always have a very civil tone, even when speaking about such frustrating situations as those.
TechnoFilesJHE 2 years ago
And now that I look I see you are a Christian evobiologist...so I apologize for that too. And you're right, a lot of christians do believe in evolution.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
I'm not a Christian, but an agnostic atheist. I'm still not interested in converting anyone.
I am offended by the assumption that my belief in the intellectual equality of the races is based on "blindness for the sake of political correctness". I never assumed that your assertions to the contrary were based on any sort of ideology. My assertions are based on the controlled studies I mentioned. I'm not above being insulting to people's sensibilities - I am after all an evo biologist.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I apologize for starting up with the insults, but being called a racist pissed me off, and blindness for the sake of political correctness pisses me off. Lets just leave it alone at that, and just agree to disagree.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
I forgive you for the insults. I wasn't trying to insult you, and I didn't call you a racist. I only said that you showed racism (it's like the difference between lying and being a liar). According to Webster's, racism is, "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". By definition, the belief that a race is intellectually inferior (regardless of whether it is true) is racism.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
How many years did it take to change the savage wolf-dog into a poodle through speeding up the evolution process? A few thousand years? Not even? But evolution didnt happen to human beings and all human beings are the same, because thats the way we want it to be and thats what they told me at treehugger U.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
The difference between dog and human evolution is major: much longer generation time, no artificial selection, control of nature nullifying much of natural selection. Intelligence is pretty important in any environment. There are no studies that have controlled for socioeconomic status and culture that show differences in intelligence, and several such studies showing no significant difference. When I asked you for evidence, you cited "The Bell Curve", which controls neither of these things.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Great video. And love the shirt. Subscribed.
saken 2 years ago
Thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!!!!
yellowkrux 2 years ago
You're welcome...
X 4
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
If all the races have the same intelligence, why do aborigines live in filth? Cultural choice?
BigBadassR 2 years ago
I would assume that living in filth would (like IQ) have a lot to do with socioeconomic status. I don't know much about aborigines, but it tends to be that very poor people live in these sorts of conditions. Take one and raise them from an infant in a well-to-do highly educated household, and they could be brilliant and successful, and would likely not live in filth.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Even in larger more powerful nations, many people still live in "filth". Take India, for example, with so many poor. Many of the same people who might live in filth in India, if they move to the US, we can see with proper nutrition, intellectual stimulation, and time and opportunity to learn, you find southasians have IQs an average of close to one standard deviation above the rest of the US population and lower welfare rates.
Kurushimus 2 years ago
In summary, looking at the state of a land or population today can't be correct in determining if one group tends to be biologically superior.
Lands and peoples that today contain large populations of poor, a millenia ago, may have had advanced societies.
Regardless, I don't know a supremacist board online today who talks about race in purely scientific terms. There are always hateful anti-scientific sentiments expressed and the desire to slander, ever present with those who tout ____ supremacy
Kurushimus 2 years ago
Yes, exactly. Once you factor out culture, nutrition, education level, parental education level, all of the races have been found to do equally well on IQ tests. Supremacists always seem to be ignorant of these controlled studies, or dismiss them, relying instead on their own prejudices based on the behavior of a few poverty stricken members of the race that they have encountered.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Comment removed
Kurushimus 2 years ago
One last thing. I guarantee a scandinavian from Oslo differs from a pygmy in Africa genetically far more than a Timber wolf from Alaska does from one in Minnesota. Dont hand us that baloney that humans are all the same genetically.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
I don't know much about the genetic diversity of Timber wolves, but I do know that as far as an average wild species, humans have VERY low genetic diversity. It has been speculated that humans went through a population bottleneck in the fairly recent past that we have not yet recovered from.
This isn't about politics. That's just what the data shows. If you know of any studies that have shown something different, I'd love to read them.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Try "The Bell Curve". Any test suggesting that all the races have equal intelligence is contrived.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
An evobiologist arguing that all races have the same intelligence. Pffft. Figures, thats modern America for you. You dont need 60000 years to get wildy differing gene pools...COME ON! Quit seeing just what you want to see.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
60,000 years is only about 3,000 generations. Some of the most closely related fruitfly species have been diverging for 100s of thousands of years, and their generation time is only a week or so. We're talking about a difference of a factor of 1,000.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"The Bell Curve" was debunked decades ago by MANY different sources. One of the main problems with it is that it doesn't factor out cultural influences like the psychology studies I mentioned do. Whenever you compare IQ scores of individuals raised in similar environments, all IQ differences attributed to race disappear. It isn't surprising that people raised in households where their parents have a poor educational background tend to have low IQ, and it's the same for all races.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Of course the Bell Curve was debunked! You hippy leftists had to debunk it because it doesnt fit in to what you want to believe. I think its hilarious scientists like you can be so smart and yet so able to delude yourselves. You're just as bad as the people debunking evolution...you believe what you want to believe. Im done...nothing personal. Nice meeting you.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
Of course it was debunked because it failed under true scrutiny. The environment a person is raised in has A WHOLE LOT to do with their intelligence. The Bell Curve failed to take this into account and in no way controlled for the effects of environment. It was a terribly designed study that was published in a book instead of a peer-reviewed journal. I'm sorry, but you can't use bad science to justify your racism. There's just no real support for it. All controlled studies show otherwise.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I love it. Now youre the one battling against evolution and calling me a racist for believing in it. You're like Mr. Van Driessen from Beavis and Butthead. Why are so many tall skinny nearsighted soft talking low testosterone dweebs so often hippys? Evolution! OK...believe what you want to believe...but..think about this "scientist"...if there WAS a test you observed which proved races had different intelligence, you would refuse to believe it because you wouldnt want to.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
First, I'm not battling against evolution. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with whether or not one thinks that different races have equal potential for a high IQ or not. I pointed out why "The Bell Curve" is a flawed study and explained that all controlled studies show no difference in IQ. Science has to be done in a controlled fashion or it is meaningless.
Second, if you did show me a test that found that races are not equal, and it was better designed than other studies, I'd accept it.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
...the funny thing is, the opposite is not true. YOU refuse to accept that as far as IQ potential, the races are not significantly different despite numerous controlled studies that prove this point. Instead, you rely on "The Bell Curve", which did not do anything to factor out the many environmental influences on IQ. Since it has been shown that IQ is highly dependent on environment and that minority races tend to be poorer and less educated on average, OF COURSE it found IQ/race differences.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
These same "skinny nearsighted solf-talking low-testosterone hippt leftist dweebs are developing cures to your granny's dementia, curing cancer, and extending lives worldwide, Ace. What have YOU accomplished?
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Doesnt change the fact that they're dweebs. For his next video, I want to see him strum "Lesbian Seagulls" on the guitar.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
I stopped being offended by those sorts of comments back in high school. I'm not quite so granola and PC as Mr. Van Driessen, but I can appreciate the humor in the comparison - I'm chuckling just remembering the scene you're referring to.
None of that changes the fact that you have no controlled studies to back up your claims about race based differences in intelligence, while there are several studies using adopted children showing no difference.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
That machismo angle works for you, huh? Next time you get sick just be TOUGH, don't go to the doctor, don't take OTC drugs to feel better, just COWBOY UP, Ace! Tell me- have you been divorced? What's your pant size? Ride to live, live to ride, right? My guess is you're relegated to Fatboys now. Am I getting warm here? On your congestive heart failure deathbed you'll lose that macho tone, and realize too late your priorities were all fucked up....good luck with that, Slick.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
You forgot to answer my question, BTW- what have YOU accomplished in your 40 years of drinking beer, riding hogs, and cracking crank whores? A beer belly and at least one divorce, is my guess. Getting warm here, am I? How's that factory job working out for you, buddy? OUCH.....I'm like a PSYCHIC, huh? I smell regret mixed with envy. And a pinch of bacon cheeseburger....Dweebs, INDEED. Did your first wife hold your racist views, too, or were your constant rants part of the reason she left?
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Ha! I Must have hit a nerve. Keep meowing pencil neck. And I dont have to be a racist to see the obvious...that evolution also affected human beings. You dorks are hypocrits.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
You still have not answered my question, buddy.....
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
If your question is "How close is my stereotyped assessment of you?"...Obviously you figured out I belong to an MC. Well...I do love beer and motorcycles, Im 6'4", 240 and could stand to lose about 10 to be ripped, working on that...never been married, 1 kid, live with a girl, as a matter of fact do ride a fatboy. Got a degree in history, but I do work in a factory yes. Not embarassed about it, or anything. The stereotype holds true for a lot of us though...kind of cracked me up.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
Didnt you guys learn at Treehugger U that stereotyping is hurtful? Hehe. I tell you what...you guys think you are doing the world a favor by trying to get good christians to doubt their faith by convincing them evolution is true? You just want attention and to try to look smart. If you were good people you wouldn't discourage good people from their beliefs.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
I'm not interested in getting Christians to doubt their faith. I'm genuinely interested in teaching people to understand science. That's what I do for a career. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution. People can believe pretty much whatever they want, but they should also accept the reality revealed by science.
Evolution has affected human beings, but not enough in 60,000 yrs to create significant differences in intelligence between races. Intelligence is important in any climate.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Let's see here- you left 2 comments, they were easily refuted, and you devolved into insults....all within the span of like 4 posts. CONGRATULATIONS- your inability to debate with actual substance has been laid bare.You destroyed your own credibility, and you did it faster than I've ever seen any fundie do it. I only chimed in to get your hackles up, 'cause apparently that's easy to do with racists...your only option with EB was to insult him, because you were outclassed. Made this easy! I LIKEY
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
What was your question? Oh...as far as easily refuting my argument...BS, intelligence is GENETIC, thats been proven for a long time. 60,000 years is plenty of time for human beings, through selective breeding, to speed up the evolution process. Theres a lot of difference between fruitflies and human beings. I wasnt the first person who devolved to insults...he called me a racist. Believing that evolution effected human beings doesnt make me a racist.
BigBadassR 2 years ago
I agree that "believing that evolution effected human beings" does not make you racist, and I apologize for calling you that.....so long as I was wrong, you know? Ever see a black man's calves? Puny, at best. Asians are short, Greeks have big noses.There are differences, for sure, and thinking that these differences also include cognitive ability is not racism, and my suggesting just that was wrong.Your comment had nothing to do with superiority and inferiority, and I see that now.I was wrong.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago