Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
So whether it is solely temperment, raw intellectual capacity or both, the idea that intelligence is , at least partly , based on genetics is rather obvious.

I agree, intelligence is at least partly based on genetics.

Then Watson's statement:

Dr Watson wrote:

There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

is fully consistent with evolutionary principle, is it not?

That statement all by itself (removed from the context of his whole comment) is reasonably accurate.

Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities" ("Intellectual Capacities being poorly defined).

Now, what was your point with all this?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
So whether it is solely temperment, raw intellectual capacity or both, the idea that intelligence is , at least partly , based on genetics is rather obvious.

I agree, intelligence is at least partly based on genetics.

Then Watson's statement:

Dr Watson wrote:

There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

is fully consistent with evolutionary principle, is it not?

That statement all by itself (removed from the context of his whole comment) is reasonably accurate.

Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities" ("Intellectual Capacities being poorly defined).

Now, what was your point with all this?

What matters it which trait we are talking about?

We could be talking about ANY trait.

Are you saying that NO evolution has taken place within any populations of homo sapiens because not enough time has passed?

You want to make a special case of the trait(s) required for intellectual capacity , but on what basis?

0 Replies

Well real,

Since you think evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics why are you pretending there is science that supports evolution?

This is your typical attempt at obfuscation. You suddenly ask questions as if you believed evolution happens and someone else's statement violates the science.

0 Replies

Parados, Im afraid that youve outed RL. Its been his consistent MO . The late Timberland brought it up to him in an oblique fashion last year and I believe RL went silent for a few days.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

What matters it which trait we are talking about?

We could be talking about ANY trait.

Are you saying that NO evolution has taken place within any populations of homo sapiens because not enough time has passed?

You want to make a special case of the trait(s) required for intellectual capacity , but on what basis?

Did you even read what he said? Or do you just have your responses prepared beforehand. He said

Quote:

Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities" ("Intellectual Capacities being poorly defined).

Does that really sound like he says that NO evolution has taken place?

And where does he make the claim that IQ or intelligence should be treated seperatly?

And where is this EVIDENCE that you claim there to be that supports this claim.

And I have a question for you.....

IF you believe Dr. Watson's science to be true (which you seem to since you're holding our feet to the fire over it) then how do you think it happened? Did God make some races on Earth have a lower IQ than others?

If you don't believe in Dr. Watson's theory, and you don't believe in his basic hypothesis, THEN WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Parados, Im afraid that youve outed RL. Its been his consistent MO . The late Timberland brought it up to him in an oblique fashion last year and I believe RL went silent for a few days.

I wouldn't want him to go silent...I just wish he'd make his point more clearly so it would be easier to prove wrong. As it stands I doubt anyone here but Real Lie even understands the point he's trying to make.

His post are chock full of lies, misstatements, half-truths, and those are just the one's he picks and chooses from to reply to. The other posts, the ones that really would leave him stumped, he just ignores.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Are you saying that NO evolution has taken place within any populations of homo sapiens because not enough time has passed?

When the variation (of any trait) between individuals within a population, exceeds (and overlaps) the variation between populations, then the trait in question can not be associated with a particular population.

It takes more than just time to make something evolve, it takes selection interacting with variation to result in a changed distribution of alleles in a population. Variation and Selection happen to take time.

Watson was taking a very general statement about evolution and using it to make invalid assumptions about specific things. This is remarkably similar to your entire argument style, as I think everyone on these threads will quickly recognize. You are very much like him in this way.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

You suddenly ask questions as if you believed evolution happens and someone else's statement violates the science.

Why should I not expect those professing their belief in evolution to be consistent?

Since you have consistently misquoted and mischaracterized my position, I'm not surprised by this statement of yours either.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

I just wish he'd make his point more clearly so it would be easier to prove wrong.

'I'm not sure what RL is saying, but I just KNOW he is wrong.'

Laughing

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Are you saying that NO evolution has taken place within any populations of homo sapiens because not enough time has passed?

When the variation (of any trait) between individuals within a population, exceeds (and overlaps) the variation between populations, then the trait in question can not be associated with a particular population.

It takes more than just time to make something evolve, it takes selection interacting with variation to result in a changed distribution of alleles in a population. Variation and Selection happen to take time.

Watson was taking a very general statement about evolution and using it to make invalid assumptions about specific things. This is remarkably similar to your entire argument style, as I think everyone on these threads will quickly recognize. You are very much like him in this way.

I'm talking about your statement, ros.

You said that there hadn't been sufficient time for differences in intellectual capacity to arise among the various populations of homo sapiens.

rosborne979 wrote:

Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities"

So, it would follow that there hadn't been sufficient time for differences in ANY trait to arise among the various populations of homo sapiens.

Is that what we see? NO.

So, why are you attempting to make intellectual capacity a 'special case'?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
You suddenly ask questions as if you believed evolution happens and someone else's statement violates the science.

Why should I not expect those professing their belief in evolution to be consistent?

Since you have consistently misquoted and mischaracterized my position, I'm not surprised by this statement of yours either.

I have misquoted you?
Please provide us with one example where I misquoted you.

You continue to accuse me of this but every time you bring something up I find your specific quotes and post them and then you drop your argument and run to another subject. I thought "christians" were supposed to be honest and truthful. You are not either. Not only do you ignore science, it seems you ignore religion as well. I suggest you go read the 10 commandments.

Did you or did you not say that a meteor hitting the earth would leave a chunk of rock several miles high?
Did you or did you not say that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Did you or did you not refuse to address the mathematical proof that shows that evolution does NOT violate the 2nd law?
Did you or did you not claim that the clay and rock figures could ONLY be dinosaurs but when I showed the picture of one of them and a salamander you accused me of being selective in which picture I picked even though it was one of 3 pictures your website highlighted?

Now, tell me where I have misquoted you or have mischaracterized your position. If you want to accuse me of doing so you better be able to back it up. You don't do anything but run away every time you get cornered. You make Peter look like he never denied anything. In order for you to claim I mischaracterized your position you will also need to accurately and clearly state your opinion or point us to a post of yours that does state your position. I can't mischaracterize your position if you don't have one, can I?

So give us your position and a post where I misstated your position and claimed it was yours.

0 Replies

parados,

You claim that I've made these position statements, and then you claim that you don't know my position because I haven't told you.

Quote:

In order for you to claim I mischaracterized your position you will also need to accurately and clearly state your opinion or point us to a post of yours that does state your position. I can't mischaracterize your position if you don't have one, can I?

Which is it?

You seem confused, parados.

0 Replies

I'm not confused real life.. you are the one that made this statement..

Quote:

Since you have consistently misquoted and mischaracterized my position, I'm not surprised by this statement of yours either.

You accused me of something. Support your accusation or apologize for bearing false witness.

Changing the subject by pretending I am confused is NOT supporting your statement. It is running from your statement. Please inform everyone here where I mischaracterized your position. That means you have to state your position and quote where I mischaracterized it. You won't do it because you can't. We all know you can't. You know you can't.

If I have "consistently" done what you said then it should be easy for you to find one example.

You, real life, are the one that claimed you had a position to mischaracterize. Pretending I am the one that said that doesn't change your statement. If you don't have a position then I could NOT mischaracterize it so your statement would be a false allegation. If you DO have a position then it should be easy for you to state your position and point to where I mischaracterized your position. But we all know you won't support your statement. Instead you will attempt to run away from your lie.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
I just wish he'd make his point more clearly so it would be easier to prove wrong.

'I'm not sure what RL is saying, but I just KNOW he is wrong.'

Laugh all you want, that is not what I said. You are LYING again. That will be 50 lashings according to the OT.

I said you'd be easier to PROVE wrong. I never said you were always wrong.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I'm not confused real life ........

You, real life, are the one that claimed you had a position to mischaracterize.

ooo, my sides........

ouch....

Laughing

0 Replies

One of the signs of psychosis is laughing when confronted with reality.

0 Replies

Are you a doctor, wande?

Or do just play one on the internet? Cool

Sorry if my having a good time has unsettled you. Smile

You can't tell me that a statement like 'you are the one who said you had a position....' isn't funny.

0 Replies

I was making a random observation, RL. I hope you didn't take it personally. Smile

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
I'm not confused real life ........

You, real life, are the one that claimed you had a position to mischaracterize.

ooo, my sides........

ouch....

Yes, it does make your statement rather hilarious.

Quote:

you have consistently misquoted and mischaracterized my position

So does this mean we are to assume you have no position of merit on anything since you can't point to any position I have mischaracterized?

I will be happy to accept that if it is what you meant. I am sure most others will be happy to accept it as well. If not, please provide your instance of me mischaracterizing one of your positions.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Are you a doctor, wande?

Or do just play one on the internet?

Sorry if my having a good time has unsettled you.

You can't tell me that a statement like 'you are the one who said you had a position....' isn't funny.

Yes, it is rather funny when you claim you have a position but then can't explain what that position is.

Sad - but funny.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know