Answering SPACKlick
Loading...
Loading...
11:00
How could creationism not be dishonest?by AronRa126,817 views- 10:08
Four Facts ana Fib - Explainedby AronRa32,355 views
- 8:12
An atheist reads the whole bible Pt. 5 Numbersby SPACKlick1,291 views
- 2:08
AETV Aron Ra & Matt Dillahunty on Debating Creationists & Ray Comfortby BathTubNZ9,375 views
- 9:09
AronRa Q&A on Darwin Day (1 of 3)by AronRa27,641 views
- 15:00
AronERRataby AronRa35,143 views
- 9:59
2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationismby AronRa271,741 views
- 9:13
Having to repeat myselfby AronRa78,082 views
- 10:57
15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Pt 1by AronRa132,367 views
- 5:05
The Ultimate Question on the Magic Sandwich Showby AronRa26,326 views
- 0:47
csbair and TheTruePooka on the Magic Sandwichby AronRa13,468 views
- 9:59
The Evolution of Morality (1-5)by AronRa41,735 views
- 9:33
Philosophizing symbologyby AronRa40,709 views
- 7:00
An atheist reads the whole bible Pt. 2 Genesis 31 - Exodus 10by SPACKlick971 views
- 10:24
Pinecone Theory - AronRa, Tfoot, DonEx, AW and DPR Spank TruthfulChristian Live on BlogTV 1by OGjimbo7,034 views
- 6:37
Ida met the challenge tooby AronRa42,582 views
- 6:09
No mosque at Ground Zeroby patcondell5,969,653 views
- 4:46
Stop the execution of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani (Free to Mirror]by AronRa32,402 views
- 10:58
An Archaeological Moment in Timeby AronRa155,117 views
Im not too sure on what you meant on the Bhagavad Gita part. Are you suggesting that the creation account of the Bhagavad Gita more accurately fits the available evidence we have?
bigredphenom 5 months ago
Thank gawd for AronRa!
sonykroket 8 months ago
check out menvall blog
Joeses15 11 months ago
These specific vaguely specific vagueries show that this is not something Nature showed, but instead is a half baked model with projections.
Most importantly, it would seem to be that we can know that studies in Biology do not , and are not actually required, to ascertain that a group meets the imagined standardized thresholds for "effective population", before calling it a "population".
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@AronRa said: "Nature gave the English words setting these requirements ?"
Nature didn't limit the expression of these requirements only to a single human language. Such acknowledgment can be paraphrased in many tongues."
The paraphrasing you did reflects "effective pop.". , your "successfully reproducing pop."
However at least 3 parameters have been shown to exist, for effective pop., though not agreed upon as to specifics...
...Variance, Inbreeding, and Allele Loss.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
However, I found this to be more in depth and correct, and certainly not confirmation of what Aron Ra said previously
" At least three different effective population sizes have been identified in literature: the inbreeding effective size, the variance effective size, and the effective size for random loss of alleles (L.Laikre & N.Ryman, Effects of intraspecific biodiversity from harvesting and enhancing natural populations, AMBIO 25(8), 1996)."
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@Demonyk1 yes, that's about the size of it. it's a meaningless term as most often used.
pointyhead1 1 year ago