12 posts • joined 22 Oct 2007
Goes to show Evolutionism is taught like a Religion in the States
The response from the high pirests, er, professional public educators, goes to show that evolution is taught like religion in the US!
I'm a firm believer in Evolutionism. Yet, it's quite obviously to me that many in the public education field have no clue as to why Evolutionism is a better explanation for the wide world around us. They do not understand the dynamic probablistic system analysis behind Evolutionism at all! They profess belief in Evolutionism because that's how they had been taught, and their professional job and privilege hinges upon it!
That's the reason why so many kids graduating from public schools are easily converted to born-again fundamentalism . . . they'd embrace Creationism just as easily as how they had been crammed with Evolutionism, with none of the probablistic logic and mathematical basis that make Evolutionism a much stronger case!
Kids should indeed be taught both theories, and proper math, i.e. probabilistic systems, and see for themselves that a Divine Designer is quite unnecessary for a well-adapted speies to emerge after a few generations of probabilistic mutation and selection. That will also clue them in to why the public school system as we have today doesn't work and how it weeds out motivated instructors and become a haven for paper pushing tax wasters that function as wardens for kids. We can't have that now, can we?!
Now the Seals are endangered
Due to the growing polar arctic ice, polar bear cubs are no longer getting the annual Darwin Award Drowning contest. Polar bear population is exploding . . . consequently seals are endangered. It's all your fault . . . somehow!
Yes, the useful idiots (of the big government) are the only people in the world happy to pay taxes. How many different times do you have to collect taxes in the name of roads and schools? The roads are paid by gasoline excise tax, and the public schools are paid by property tax. FD and PD? by the property tax and income tax.
BTW, higher taxes always mean worse roads, worse schools, worse FD and worse PD . . . because higher tax revenue enable more boondongle pet projects started, the funding of which will take money from the regular maintenance of roads, schools, FD and PD in the inevitable lean years. Politicians know very well that the useful idiots will support tax hike when roads, schools, FD and PD break . . . so they budget for boondongle pet projects first. Higher tax rate also impede commerce.
"We have the option of growing our own food without inconveniencing to the rest of the Earth's biosphere beyond usurpation of resources by our fields, farms and fish ponds."
And somehow you think the pollution caused by our fields, farms and fish ponds are less than taking minke whales and their food, the shrimps from the wild. Go take a look at the dead zone at the mouth of Mississippi.
"explain to me why, at 6'4", 105kg and considerable knowledge of martial arts, I shouldn't just assert myself, kick the shit out of random strangers on the street who happen to be scrawnier than me, and live off the cash I find in their wallets?"
'cuz I have a gun and know how to use it; you might find yourself dead with a hole in your head before your finish swaggering about your martial arts skills. The bare risk of the random stranger mark, or someone else passingby, might have the means to knock you off is enough to outweight the unpredictable gain of how much money is in the pocket of the intended victim.
Glad to hear that you are all for eating farm raised tigers . . . yes, there are farms that raise tigers. . . currently they are raised for tourism.
None of the contentions about whales being rare, hard to breed or slow to kill apply to Minke whales. Sure, bald eagles are endangered and probably should be targetted for hunting, but that doesn't justify blind bird worshippers getting in the way of sparrow shooting.
BTW, the term "idiot" was a direct quote from your earlier post.
re: I, for one
You, for one, are a wannabe terrorist.
Since you are so up on your international law, do you happen to know that sinking another country's ship through sabotage is act of war? There is no international law banning all whale hunting. Some species are endangered, but minke whale certainly is not. There are millions of minke whales in the world. Sure, Bald Eagles are endandgered, but shall we ban all bird hunting and all bird eating, including chickens?
As for exocets reference, well, that just goes to show your wannabe terrorist couch-pirate credentials.
Gavin, Whales != a species
Since when did all whales become one species? Minke whales endangered? Since when? There are millions of minke whales alive in the world today. What you are saying is like, since Bald Eagles are endangered, let's ban all bird hunting or ban all bird eating. Goes to show just how ignorant the green-priates and enviro-nazis are.
Not sure why you even bring up the COD issue, unless you are advocating the hunting of Harp Seal. Sure, WWF (a private organization) puts COD on its endangered list; let's not forget, WWF was founded as a private slush fund for racists to funnel money to support apartheid.
You are exactly right, it's all about money. The green-pirates and enviro-nazis are doing it for fund raising. It's interesting to track the flow of money and hence the real purpose of those anti-humanity organizations after the useful idiots (the clueless foot soldiers) are paid.
So, you are all for eating farm raised tigers, eh?
Priates have been tossed overboard
AC, are Canadians on average taller than Americans (US)? Would any difference between the two population averages be significant compared to the difference between two random Canadians or two random Americans? Would it be a meaningful statement then to say Canadians are taller than Americans, or vice versa? given such huge overlap between the two bell curves?
Significant differences in the mental faculties between different species of genus homo would have historically resulted in the elimination of one species by the other, a la neanderthals vs. cromagnons, in a relatively short time span. The mere fact that neither black nor white population was wiped out by the other in the hundreds of thousands years of history and conflict before the advent of modern humanitarianism would suggest that neither population held a huge edge over the other.
Claude, white Russians, East Asians and Jews all rank very high in the IQ tests. Yet, the Soviet Union, communist east asia, and even Israel of the mid-20th century all had to live off massive foreign aid and food import. Perhaps socialism and propensity for the government to meddle in people's personal affairs had something to do with the economic failures? Government-sponsored Eugenics, as advocated by Watson and his friends, are among the most intrusive big government policies that one can possibly imagine.
Why didn't Africa conquer Europe
Ross, I take it that you meant why sub-sahara Africa did not conquer Europe . . . since folks in North Africa came pretty close to conquering Europe, at least twice: Hannibal (now, try to make an argument that he was not intelligent :-) in 200+BC nearly crushing the Roman Republic, Moorish Caliphate in 800AD occupying Spain and southern France. Both were very close-run things that could have turned history as we know it quite differently.
Now, assuming you ment sub-sahara Africa . . . well, the most obvious answer was that the Sahara Desert got in the way. The Europeans did not conquer subsahara Africa until the 19th century. Even at the end of 19th century . . . that's merely 100 years ago, out of a human history of at least 5000 years, the Italian army was still defeated by the Ethiopian army.
Sub-sahara Africans were exploited by slavers long before the Europeans came along. North African Arabs were big on the slave abduction trade . . . in a process not unlike the (southern) Romans used to do to Northern Europeans north of the Danube-Rhine line . . . yes, blond-hair blue-eyed "Germans" used to be targetted for slavery by the relatively dark-skinned Romans. I doubt either of us would suggest that the Germans were less intelligent. The Romans were simply better organized, thanks to mediterrenean free trade, and a superior transportation technology called boats, that transported grain from Egypt and the Black Sea to feed armies on the German frontier. It was easier for Romans to get grain from modern day Ukraine than it was for the German tribes to do the same; that's how import mediterrenean boat-based trade was.
In terms of pre-industrial civlization development, Sub-sahara Africa suffered from a major handicap compared to Europe, middleast and Asia: the latter had steppe horses that were relatively easily tamed (not to mention much smaller in the wild before domestication about 3-5000 years ago), whereas the zebra, wildebeast and African bison are much more ferocious and dangerous animals. Draft animals made farming and communication a lot more efficient than having to pull the plough and carry everything on the men and women's backs/heads. That, in pre-industrial economy, meant higher population density in urban area: higher land productivity and food import from trade allow cities to emerge. Cities and the market place further accelearated economic development. Europe was quite a miserable place in the dark ages, after Rome fell and before the re-emergence of cities in the 10th centry. Now think of a place where there was no horse, very little inland trade, hence hardly any cities at all except for the coastal settlements where boats could move things around. BTW, Africa also had much much less coast line than Europe, despite the continent itself being several times bigger.
Before trade and city building was a factor in human history, it seems that if the dominant theory of human origin being from East Africa is correct, the ancestors of Blacks were much more successful hunters than ancestors of Whites and Asians . . . hunters of fellow human beings using nothing more than sticks and stones: since it was the ancestors of Blacks who threw out the ancestors of Whites and Asians from Africa. It must have been a tremendously dangerous undertaking to trek out of Africa to escape the pursuit of the "dominant race," the Black chiefs who held onto the home range.
Selection in the recent past? Sampling bias?
If IQ score can change as much as 15pts in one generation, shouldn't we be looking at influences in the recent past instead of factors going back thousands of generations such as race? Finding skin tone to be somewhat correlated to intelligence and wealth among Africans in North America shouldn't really be a huge suprise: how hard must have it been for an African American to attract a cacasian mate in a segregated or semi-segregated society not so long ago? The dude/dudette must have been an over-achiever, and his/her mate must also have had enough intelligence and independent thinking to take the courageous step out of the prevailing prejudices that were all around. Then there's the issue of "crossing-over": after a few generations, the skin tone gets so light that the person register their kids as "whites" in the next population survey, for obvius social advantages for the kids in a society that is still occasionally (or some may even argue not so infrequently) plagued prejudice. Just like water evaporation, after the most active molecules jumps out, what happens to the temperature (i.e. average speed of Brownian Motion) of the remaining water sitting in the pan? Based on these two factors alone, do we really believe the observed data is the result of racial heritage or simply social/mating selection in the recent past? Thousands of years ago in Africa, black skin tone had mating advantage; only the blackest of them all could make it as chiefs. Was that positive proof that black skin meant greater organizational skills?
Speaking as an Asian myself, I don't believe for a moment that the average IQ of asians the world over is at the top of the heap, so to speak. Someone ought to do some research in the interior of asia, not just the coastal regions that are in contact with the outside world, or worse yet, the Asian population in the West, whose parents or grandparents had the skills and determination to make it through the arduous immigration process imposed by the West in the last 100 years. It's that water evaporation analogy again. The evaporated molecules obviously have higher average velocity. I'd hazard to guess that something similar, or even more extreme, happened to the Ashkenazi Jewish population in the West. Surviving pogroms and Holocaust at 1-to-10 odds probably required some serious brain power. It's all part and parcel of recent demographic history (in human genetic terms), not racial characteristic established thousands of years ago per se.
BTW, one can not talk about the "average" without talking about co-variance (i.e. how wide the bell curve is). It's like comparing the "average" price of chicken or beef to the "average" price of fruits. Which part of chicken? Which cut of beef? and which fruit? What time of the year? and in which country/market?
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200000 ton CHUNKY CRUMBLE ENIGMA
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad