Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Can you define "neurologically ill"?

I did become an athelete for many years, whilst have higher education.

This refutes any culturally assumptions that you are appealing too.

Furthermore, I will also appeal to authority to refute such 'standards'.

Albert Einstein is suggested to be autistic, having 11 times more glyial cell density than that of the 'average' human.

Be it savants, intellectually gifted, aspergers syndrome, all have 'overexcitabilies'.

None are neurologically typical.

These "ill" individuals are the 'pioneers' of science and philosophy, there would be no discoveries without such 'compulsive' individuals.

Also,

Are you suggesting that evolution is an "ill" concept?

Are you certain that human cognitive faculties are NOT subject to evolution?

Darwin suggested:
But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

Unfortunately, he comes across as an obnoxious asshole, and that takes away from any contribution he might make about philosophy or science.

Your experience with similar character types helps you to somewhat overcome his snide postings to tell everyone how intelligent he is. He turns me off.

What doesn't apart from getting all your own way?

Well, yes.

However, I may also interpret you as the "obnoxious asshole" that is accusing other individuals of being an "obnoxious asshole".

ci. does not understand that argument Ano. If he did it would render his speechless.

You're free to call me anything you wish; the readers will decide on their own.

Are you appealing to the consensus?

Why not argue how you feel, excluding such constraints?

I take it for granted that my intelligence is lower than that of the bulk of A2Kers. They address me as if that is the case and W.C. said "Never smarten up a chump". He should, according to anti-IDer logic, have said "chimp".

Thank you ci. I take it that your gracious permission includes us all.

You're a relative of the semantic repercussion. And a full-blown, flat-out, gone all the way and OTT one at that.

Come on, spendi. You can do much better than that? LOL

I like the phrase because it reminded me of Joyce's first paragraph in Finnegans Wake--

Ill give you my pistachio theory about human evolution in the short and medium term. Are we subjected to environmental pressures that result in morphological changes?
I think weve learned to control environment in most cases . However, several populations already show differences in their genetic makeup (I mentioned STR;s or short tandem repeat alleles). These are inserts that occur in population members and result after several generations have settled in an particular area so that the genes become fixed and selected "For". As the population grows but remains somewhat isolated, mutations and STRs may be fixed and result in some presently unknown attribute. Adaptive radiation and adaptive isolation occur in a few populations of humans like Innuits, Maories, and ASAHerpas. The Innuit have already shown some morphological differences due to adaption to cold living. The Sheraps also have adapted to high elevation living with increased ling capacities . These show up on Hox and INs genes. (One has a component of lung capacity and the other has an expression for glucose metabolism and ATP reaction) In all aspects they are not subspeces but are variants of H sapiens sapiens.

What we could look like in 100000 or 1000000 yers is an interesting question and Ive heard several opinions from colleagues who work closer to the area than I. Will we have these huge heads? like the guy played by a young David Macallum in an episode of "Outer Limits" called the "Sixth Finger". I have no idea but am willing to speculate like anyone else.

INternal population pressures can also insert themselves at any time. OOPS sorry, gotta go. Ill finish this thought later

Ah! but it is. It is more than a snitch. It's a wipeout.

Evolution is connected in the mind of the evolutionist with progress. And this connection enables man to see himself as the latest thing in the scale of the progress and the evolutionist to see himself as the latest thing in man who should be rewarded for bringing man such wonderful news. Which is a straight-up, bare-assed disingenuity.

But evolution is not necessarily progress. That is gets "better" is simply a subjective view which flatters the self to suck up such solipsistic **** slurpily. Intemperately.

And such a view causes us to display with pride all the things that place us at the top of the evolutionary heap, composed of worm **** mainly, when if we are actually at the bottom, the pits of the earth, then we should hide them from view. Those aspects, for example, of where the Seven Deadly Sins are not only ignored and condemned but actually wallowed in.

The Seven Deadly Sins cannot be set aside because some idiot priest put his hand up a lad's pant leg.

Besides, as I have told you before, describing the what, where and when does nothing to explain the how the why and the whence. And it breaks down more and more the nearer we go to the simplest creatures using "simplest" colloquially. Why don't you answer this point? It has been put to you often enough and despite not answering it you press on with your ridiculous statements.

It is illogical scientifically for a description to pass as an explanation.

You wrote,

It is progress; humans live longer, because of improved medical/health care, and lifestyle changes. It's not "subjective view," it's reality.

Understanding disease and its prevention and cure is progress. Understanding the change in the flu virus allows us to create anti-virus medication for its prevention.

But "discoveries" is used there as that which the 'pioneers' of science and philosophy have found. That you need to be "ill" to be considered capable of science assuming you have no confusion between science and technology.

And it is unfalsifiable because it is always possible to say that the person doing science was ill in some mysterious way. The fact of the science proving the illness.

One might discover things by finding them. As babies do. I think deliberately placing items chosen by adults in the range of babies distorts their discovery of the reality. (see This Be The Verse by Philip Larkin.) I have no normative loading on "distorts".

You mean the tortoise is our superior? The trees? You have trees over a thousand years old.

And the virus is capable of creating anti-anti-virus medication for itself.

I asked the question earlier. Is Science the Head Coach of Viral International? No answers. As usual.

You're thinking of what you are living. An evolutionist doesn't do that. Your medical services would go "POP!" if the computer system locks up. A "crash" being a bit like the big-end knocking.

And people living longer might be the very last straw.

It's not the living longer that may be the last straw; it's the increase in the human population that will present the biggest challenge.

(historical and projected)
Year Total world population
(mid-year figures) Ten-year growth
rate (%)
1950 2,556,000,053 18.9%
1960 3,039,451,023 22.0
1970 3,706,618,163 20.2
1980 4,453,831,714 18.5
1990 5,278,639,789 15.2
2000 6,082,966,429 12.6
20101 6,848,932,929 10.7
20201 7,584,821,144 8.7
20301 8,246,619,341 7.3
20401 8,850,045,889 5.6
20501 9,346,399,468 —


Read more: Total Population of the World by Decade, 1950–2050 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html#ixzz1mOvEEdB7