All Black People Descended From Africa #2

What a mess. I have to give kudos to Nferyn for debating for so long and in a thread so full of misinformation.


You didn't.



No, he was pointing out the many assertions you've made in this thread - many of which weren't "proved beyond reasonable doubt" and rarely had anything more than your utterances going for them.



So, what do we do about the the different, independent lines of evidence for evolution?



What exactly do you mean? Scientists from different cultures, societies, philosophical stances, and reasoning skills do take part in the general peer-review process.


I doubt any Russian biologist thinks that. Sure the average paranoid joe may think that, but, as this thread has shown, ridiculous happens.


So it has nothing to do with evidence?

Hiya! I don't know, did you?

Kag,

I meant exactly what I said. All of those people who judge, own and produce have the same base line reasoning. Any other day I think you would be arguing me down, if I tried to say that a Nigerian scientist doesn't have the same base line reasoning of all the other scientists who work for say "The Journal of Medicine".  Of course they all got the same baseline reasoning, it's built into the system.  In Europe they learn about evolution. In Africa they learn about evolution. In Japan they learn about evolution. Why? Their educational systems were built upon what Europeans believed about science and education and evolution.


"Didn't Huxley produce a rationalization of the ideological justification of dog-eat-dog capitalism that is known to history as Social Darwinism?" (I just stole this question from someone.)



Don't be naive. Need I begin to list the numerous hoax's that scientists have played over the years in their attempts to make themselves famous for being the first to find the missing link, to finally prove Darwin? National Geographic just had that big bird dinosaur disaster they had to apologize for.

I really wanted to continue this discussion in a civil manner, but unfortunately you think that the louder you proclaim something, the more weight it carries, even though you have no solid data to back up your claims.  Ninetofive, I can only conclude that you are truly (self)delusional

What, exactly, do you mean by "base line reasoning"? I ask because I doubt many get taught about evolution before they've had some kind of basic and primary reasoning skills. By the way, I don't think it matters where the educational system may have originated from (whether real or imagined), because in many cases the educational system does "evolve". In any case, according to some Black supremacists, the educational system predates Europe.


I don't know. What does that have to with the misconceptions of a less than average Russian?


Yes, please do list the number of hoaxes that have been perpetrated by scientists prove the theory of evolution, etc. You can also explain the big bird dinosaur disaster and how it was perpetrated by scientists and who discovered the fraud.



*Yawn* Empty and bland rhetoric counts for little in a debate that hinges on evidence. I read page 10 and after wiping my breakfast off the computer screen due to a burst of laughter (lol, clockwise), I realised Nferyn had already responded to your inane post.

Actually, prior to this concession, you stated that it was the main cause of mutations.

beneficial mutations: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
detrimental mutations: do I really need to sum up a catalogue of genetic disorders among humans?
Please stop talking out of the place where the sun is less likely to shine on and bring some data to support your claims. Those vacuous assertions are really getting tiring

Sadly enough you don't seem to be kidding. You think that some kind of implied correlation equals causation and on top of that a premeditated coherent intentional malicious framework. You have the mindset of a conspiracy theorist. Do not ascribe to malice what can be more easily ascribed to incompetence.

1. mutations happen
2. mutations are chance events without a premeditated outcome (mutations are not intentional)
3. mutations that provide a benefit within a specific ecology will result in higher reproductive success of the carriers of that mutation
4. consequently those alleles will be more prevalent in the population as time passes
5. this is a change in allele frequency in a population over time
6. a change in allele frequency in a population over time IS evolution
How exactly does that process not apply to man?
What process or mechanism prevents these incremental changes to lead to speciation over time where there is reproductive isolation of the different populations within one specie?

As I already pointed out above, mutations inevitably lead to evolution. You can deny that the sky is blue until your face takes on the same colour, but that doesn't change the observable fact that evolution occurs.

Without reproductive isolation, speciation cannot occur (if that is what you mean by evolution). Anyway, mutations are permanent in the individuals that carry them. They cannot spread the alternative alleles, they do not carry the genetic information for the alternative, non mutated alleles.

Possible, I haven't conducted any research on that issue. I guess you have the research data (by you or somebody else) to back up your claim. Please do not forget to indicate, in detail, the methods used to obtain the raw data and the statistical methods used to aggregate that data.

And all the people with sufficient insight in the scientific method, something you are sorely lacking, I'm affraid.

How and why are they incoherent?

Where's the bias in my thought process? Am I biased because I don't accept your assertions at face value?

Is this logic according to NINETOFIVE? It's a large number, thus, by necessity, it must be more than 90%
It might be 90%, but in the absence of supporting data, the only thing any one of us can say is that we don't know. Anecdote does not replace statistically significant data.

Why?

No it isn't. You just make claims without backing them up

And how does that analogy apply? Again you're adding no substance whatsoever to your argument, but you rather introduce a few more slurs against my argumentation.
Show me, instead of declaring it, how the recent African orgin thesis of homo sapiens fits into the history of scientific abuse. Were is the abuse present? Where does it discredit  non westerners? How exactly does your proposed pattern apply?

Another bold assertion without a shred of evidence. What does the Out of Africa thesis say that consolidates European beliefs on Africans? There is nothing of that sort.

Fighting the fight for rationalism against overwhelming odds. 

Thank you too.It's going pretty well, all things considered. Hope the same on your end.

I 've really taken time to go through all 925 posts on this evolution issue, I 've never come across any of this information's on the internet,  it again confirms the fact that I think the guy is a genius [a conclusion I came to after reading one of his threads about Global warming], most of the of the things he said in his argument are quite logical, I wish there would be more Nigerians like him,  925 is truly intelligent,  for example this two quotes alone below discredits the evolution theory.






please 925, there are some things I read on your global warming thread that are not there any more, did you delete them , if so why?.

Good to hear. Yeah, things aren't too bad here; can't complain.



Sarcasm? I like it.

Kag,


Okay you agree to my main point.

And you have given the standard excuses for evolution fraud, hoax's and errors.




So I guess this argument is over with. Have a good day.

I have never been taught an 'evolution pyramid' or even an evolutionary ladder. I wonder which schoolbooks mention an evolution pyramid. It's simply incorrect. I would be surprised if this wasn't another straw man put forth by creationists.

This is a fallacious argument, an argument from adverse consequences. It's not because a specific idea has negative consequences that it is false. More to the point, the abuse of evolutionary theory for socio-political ends is based on a misunderstanding of the theory. It's idiotic to fault the TOE for the appropriation and abuse others have made of it By that token Christianity school long have been banned.
Just as a sidenote, a lot of the most influential evolutionary biologists were self avowed socialists or communist(e.g. John-Maynard Smith, Stephen jay Gould, R. Lewontin)

It has very little to do with excuses. Science is a human activity and all human activities are subject to human drives and emotions, especially in the competitive context of the scientific enterprise. Some people go for fame and take some short cuts. Those frauds are uncovered eventually though.
The main thing to understand is that all science is tentative and has built in corrective mechanisms (e.g. the peer review process) to counter these frauds. If you know how many papers are published every month, it is amazing that so few frauds are actually committed.

Now, concerning your specific claims of fraud:
Even though the experiments were on the sloppy side, the main findings were correct and were confirmed by follow up research: industrial pollution caused the melanic variety of peppered moths to vastly increase their proportion within the population. There was nothing wrong with the conclusions.
see: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

I would doubt that. Piltdown man has always been suspect within the scientific community. Nobody thought about obvious fraud though

This is incorrect. The skull was composed of a human upper skull and a orang utang jaw. Nobody claimed it was a missing link, except maybe for the creationist that wanted to abuse this fraud to discredit the whole of the scientific field.

There was never a scientist that conclusively identified the tooth as hominid, these are all folk stories. It was never ever used in court at all. Calling this a fraud is simply dishonest

Because it's a theory that explains a process that involves the genetic change of a population over time . It makes about as much sense as blaming the Big Bang theory for Black holes, or the theory of relativity for a murder that involves pushing someone off a cliff. Incidentally, I notice you didn't comment on the fact that you misrepresented Huxley.


Interesting point, but I think you've made the mistake of lumping issues that have sprung out of people generally misunderstanding the theory of evolution with those that are the direct result of applying the theory of evolution. For example, ideas like Social Darwinism (which predates the theory of evolution) are often borne from misconceptions like believing that an individuals economic status has a bearing on evolution.


I think the message is more of misconceptions of a theory shouldn't be blamed on the theory as a whole.

Quote

I doubt Darwin said anything of the sort. Remember, abstract concepts like the monetary wealth of an individual would have had little to do with Darwin's theory. I also disagree that a theory can't be neutral (neutral in the sense that it makes no attempts to influence ethics). It's the people that can influence its application.


Out of curiousity, what was your question?

I have a Jewish friend who talks about the same racial evolution pyramid in Israel.

Of course Russia itself is another pyramid. Something like 80 percent of those Russia ruled over during the USSR were Asians. Yet, you see the rulers were white.

In India right now it is the same way: The Blacks are at the bottom providing all the farm labor in slave conditions and India is celebrated as an economic success since 1960 when they became self-suffient in feeding themselves. They do not tell you whose back their feeding success is built on.

What does that have to do with the theory of evolution? In which schools do they teach such idiocies?

What are you babbling about? There is no evolution pyramid. I don't understand what you're implying here.

What does that have to do with the theory of evolution?

We were really discussing in a very civilized manner and both were enjoying it, until the so called Kag appeared from no where spewing crap, would have to deal with your posts some time probably not today though, but Nferyn to be honest there was nothing abusive on condescending in what I said, I simply wanted you to agree that you lost the argument or at least agree that the facts I presented to you got you thinking, but the funny thing is that most of the things that apparently got you thinking, you chose not to talk about or answer, infact in a nut shell you avoid the points that discredit your argument , don't look righteous to me, and one thing the so called Kag does not know is the fact that NINETOFIVE and Nferyn are arguing does not automatically make them enemy, if there wasn't mutual understanding we wouldn't have gotten the argument to this extent in the first, so Nferyn don't allow her to influence the argument negatively, each an every one can present their argument without resulting to mudslinging as she l