monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

http://fbnewscycle.com/here-is-the-trump-interview-the-media-deep-state-hopes-youll-never-see/

That's something your species is developmentally incapable of understanding. Perhaps ome species of which you are the common ancestor, will. Keep working on them opposable thums

http://fbnewscycle.com/here-is-the-trump-interview-the-media-deep-state-hopes-youll-never-see/

About 11:00 or thereabouts in the video, President Trump talks about de-moKKKer-Rats and the media who he refers to as fools for their questions related to the meeting with President Putin of Russia.

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:





The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

Aside from every other sort of argument against evolution, there is a question of the Ganymede Hypothesis and what THAT does to evolution... It has been demonstrated that our living world was originally in two disconnected parts: a bright Northern cosmos inhabited by humans, dolphins, and other creatures with relatively tiny, bright-world adapted eyes; and then a very darkish sort of a cosmos INSIDE the plasma sheath/heliosphere of one of the dwarf stars, inhabited by hominids, dinosaurs, bush babies, lemurs, tarsiers, and the creatures with huge, dark-world adapted eyes.

There is no way to believe that either of those living worlds was descended or otherwise derived from the other; and yet both involve the very same RNA/DNA information code and the same macro characteristics for large animals, spinal chord, four limbs, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, teeth, fur/feathers.....

An evolutionist would now have to explain how all of that evolved via random events, twice, exactly the same way. I mean, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't...

Neanderthals and other hominids (like formerman) have been viewed as primitive humans rather than as advanced apes because of the size of their brains, the Neanderthal brain actually being larger than ours. Nonetheless, the Neanderthal brain was dominated by the area of the brain associated with vision and that, in combination with the huge dark world eyes (eyes sockets much larger than ours) basically tells us that the Neanderthal brain was largely the neurological equivalent of the circuitry for a military night vision system.

You see the dark world eyes in Danny Vendramini's reconstructions, the Neanderthal was a fabulously bug eyed kind of creature.









Danny Vendramini's reconstructions don't look much like reconstructions which you are probably more used to seeing. Vendramini's reconstructions actually match up with everything which we actually know about the Neanderthal, while other reconstructions paint the Neanderthal as a kind of a poster child for kum-bay-ah pseudo-religion.

Neanderthal DNA is generally described as roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee. Ask yourself what you would expect something like that to look like.

All those fabulous renderings probably mean Vendramini hd a drinking problem which supported a great imagination not unlike that of Charles L. Dodgson(except vendramini probably had trouble with the math).
Great art, terribly dum science

The most notable error with the "apeman" rendering is that Neanderthals spine was not inserted as shown by vendramini. The skull was atop the frame just like any human. Nobody pays any attention to that cartoonish thinking , like your "dilemma" bullshit

You have lost that ability for reasons you would never admit. You stay where you are. It is not my loss. And I am not offended I am disappointed.

The following is what we actually know about the Neanderthal:

• Neanderthal DNA was roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee. That eliminates any possibility of humans being descended from Neanderthals via any process resembling evolution.
• His skull was a very good match for an ape's profile, and a bad match for one of ours.
• No Neanderthal needles (Cro Magnon needles are common); a creature with a 6" ice-age fur coat simply doesn't require needles...
• Footprints more apelike than human.
• Rib cages were conical as are those of primates (to make room for the gigantic upper body musculature); our rib cages are cylindrical.
• Eye sockets and nasal areas much larger than ours.
• Placement of noses and eyes on faces much different (higher) than for humans.
• We know that the mindset of the Neanderthal was similar to that of an African lion. He viewed the living world as neatly divided into two categories: his own family group and meat. Even other Neanderthal families were on the menu, and they find the remains of Neanderthal groups with clear butchering marks made by flint knives.
• We know (Rob Gargett) that if you put the skulls of a human, a Neanderthal, and lion together, the two which have much of anything in common are the Neanderthal and the lion.
• We know that Neanderthal population dynamics were similar to those of other predators, and that there were never more than around 10,000 – 15,000 Neanderthals alive on the planet at any one time.
• We know that the Neanderthal could adapt to an omnivorous diet when it was available but that, in the setting of the European ice age, he was for all intents and purposes a pure carnivore.
• We know that Neanderthals were not giants... a tall one might go 5-10 or 6'. But a male Neanderthal could easily have stood 5-9 and weighed 300 pounds with no extra weight on him.


Every bit of that matches Danny Vendramini's reconstructions.

vendramini is a cartoonist producer of short comedic films. He has not one bit of scientific training. hes more like you. HOWEVER, since Ive never met him I cnt say that hes a complete asshole or merely a Stephen King of paleoanthropology. Other writers of science fiction (yes vendramini 's **** 's science fiction not science) whereas Guys like Michael Chricton at least had MDs or PhD's and lots of experience in their fields. vendramini came from a film background.

a point that needs making is that Danny boy has employed an artist who, apparently, had used the old Alley opp version of Neanderthals, hulking brutish etc.
Im guessing that since moern paleoanthropology has done some real study and evaluated fossils of the H neanderthalenses(of which we have over 150 today, the variability of the skulls is such that, like any human group, we see many locale features and ranges of things like teeth bridges, "beetlebrowness" etc.

The one thing that vendraminis artist got DEAD WRONG was that none of the full skeletons are as chimpanzee necked as vendramini poses it.
As far as the suprmelanin, perhaps several groups were darker . However, I think gungasnale is merely trying to "spit in the eye" of "PC" ness rather than really giving a rodents patoot about science.

Sorry, Im sure youd rather talk about the red headed Neanderthal that occupies the oval Office. (PS, several H n fossil burials show red hair on the pate)

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-03/exposed-naked-truth-about-robert-mueller

People from a German background have Neanderthal in their genes. Think Wally knows that?

Someone want to field this question?

https://lidblog.com/carter-page-fisa-warrent/

I've been in Neanderthal a couple of times.

Check your DNA. I would be willing to bet you a small trace of Neanderthal unless you are from some sort of master race, and we know that is not the case..

there's a change in the air
TPM

TPM

If things shift on Trump in a substantive way, we'll see that evolve on Fox.

Hate to burst the bubble A2K does not reflect real life.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/302829/