Bones of Contentions.

If I may ...Intelligence is related to brain power which would be a function of interconnectedness: the more interconnections, the more "bits" can be processed in the same time.We have seen this with the development of computers etc., but in brains we have to distinguish between chemical exchanges not involved with thoughts (directly anyway) and those that are.As I understand it, the evidence is that the thought interconnections are all on the surface of the brain, and the more surface area that is available, the more interconnections are possible (though they may not be realized in practice).Thus a larger head could correlate with more surface area, however the variation would not be direct, due to the convolutions of the surface accounting for most of the area and because {of the unknown degree to which} the brain inner mass {expands\contracts} to fill the available void without changing the surface area.Thus variation in head size within a species does not necessarily relate to variation in intelligence between individuals, while variation in surface area should. (and there is some evidence for this, especially for those with low surface areas).Variation between species however {could\should\would} be a different matter, especially if the two were closely related, as on a species average the one with the {larger average} head size would have the opportunity to have a {larger average} surface area (that expands or contracts within the species variation on head size) and thus more {average} available brain power, and this would especially hold true IF the reason for {evolving\selecting} the larger head size is actually selecting for {larger average} surface area: the head is bigger because the selection was for more intelligence and greater surface area.Remember that individuals are selected, not species.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Nope. The driving forces are (1) natural variation within a population due to random mutation, (2) individuals surviving long enough¹ to breed and (3) those individuals being succesful in having offspring.Intelligence may or may not assist in that endeavor. The overwhelming evidence of all life is that even sub-average human intelligence is not needed.The rest of your argument based on this false premise is invalid.The remainder of your argument appears to be based on incredulity and other false premises, and is equally invalid.Enjoy.¹ word added by editThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08*01*2005 09:34 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Let's begin with "neo-Darwinism" -- from Wikipedia: In other words, differences between individuals are selected, with those individuals who survive to reproduce passing on their particular genes to their particular individual offspring.Over time there is an accumulation of non-lethal variations within any population, which are then coupled with new mutations and that lead to new differences between individuals within the populations.But not every individual within a population aquires most (to say nothing of all) of the variations, and it is still the individuals that are selected for {survival\mating} fitness.Fitness does not equal "better" or "superior" because what is fit today can be unfit tommorrow and vice-versa: a drought causes individual birds with heavier beaks to be selected as they can more easily crack the dried seeds to eat. When the drought ends the individual birds with the finer beaks have an easier time getting the seeds from the plants.Selection doesn't discriminate based on species wide traits, but based on individual variations within a population.There is also some argument that the whole concept of "species" is an artificial construct, because we are all part of {LIFE} with some remote common ancestor and the variation that you see is only {minor variations between individuals}ⁿ, where n is just the numbers of generations that the variations are measured over.This aspect is particularly cumbersome when dealing with the past, as a {parent} and {child} are always of the same "species" but you can extend each {modern species\extinct species\etc} back in time to common ancestors with generation after generation of {the same "species"}.Distinctions are arbitrary, and based on an accumulation of differences. One "species" is different from another, because there are enough differences between the {population of individuals} within one group that they can be distinguished from the {population of individuals} within the other group, and not just by us, but by the {population of individuals} of both groups: the differences between the populations is more {noticeable\distinctive\measureable} than the differences within the populations.Selection based on temporary fluctuating, individual fitness cannot, by any definition, be racism.The implication of racism is due, rather, to the poor understanding of evolution as being involved with species as a whole evolving into "better" and "more highly" evolved species that is typical of the creationist view, and not the science itself, and as such devolves into a (poor) strawman argument.Now, I will say some "intellectualist" comments:(1) Creationist Marvin Lubenow is not a "professor" properly speaking, unless he has a doctorate degree in the field he is (supposedly) teaching or "professing" and claiming otherwise is snake-oil selling.(2) A book is not a peer reviewed science paper.(3) Anyone who takes such work from such a source as being equal to the science in peer reviewed papers, has a poor understanding of the rigors of science as opposed to popular fiction, particularly ones published by "vanity" presses.(4) Anyone who can go 80 some odd posts without either being (a) interested (b) able or (c) willing to learn how to use something as simple as quote boxes cannot be expected to be (a) interested (b) able or (c) willing to learn something in the process. The information is there, it is just a question of what you do with it.Enjoy.corrected typoThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08*01*2005 09:38 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Each one of these shows a (rather common) misunderstanding of the basics of evolution and perhaps betrays a desire to have it be a directed process ....But evolution is not a directed process, it is a reactive process, and it reacts to problems with the tools at hand. No tools available, no solution. Only a hammer available, and all problems look like nails. You may be able to {remove\replace} a screw, but the results will not be pretty.The "much more difficult problems" that have been "solved" are post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, and logically false.Evolution did not set out to develop birds that fly. You mean they can pick one that fits the evidence rather than one based on your misconceptions? Can you spell strawman argument?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Evolution can develop a feature by mutation and if it is beneficial it will be continued via survival and reproduction selection success. No mutation can choose to occur in a beneficial direction.They are just different features, some getting different enough to be complex and unusual, but the use of the feature is based on it's pre-existence, rather than the existence of the feature being based on the {usefulness\need} for it.Selecting complex unusual features that have distinctive benefits as evidence of the ability of evolution to generate complex unusual features still misses the point of how the process works. There you go again. The logical fallacy of this comment has already been pointed out. Restating the position does not make it any more correct, nor does it accomplish anything other than to show an unwillingness to learn from your mistakes. You are complaining about not seeing directed mutations when you have already been told that evolution in general and mutations in specific are not directed towards goals.The evidence is that selection has operated on the human birth canal as it has increased in size, based on fossil records. Comparison to other apes also shows a much larger opening than theirs (adjusted for body size).As already pointed out by others, continued development of a larger birth canal involves trade-offs that would reduce the survival capability of the mother.Expecting a given trend to be able to keep on trending also shows a distinct lack of understanding of the package: each feature that is developed involves trade-offs with other features and competition over resources, thus you cannot breed horses that continually run 10% faster than their progenitors. Longer legs? Thinner bones, ones that break when run hard.Any other scheme requires that current evolved features would have to devolve in order to evolve in a different manner (such as a smaller brain at birth, or the marsupial solution). Again this presupposes directed evolution, and it just don't work swing way.Of course humans have used their intelligence to evolve a work-around solution (which is too recent to see if it has opened the gate to further head size increases): the C-section. This also removes all evolutionary pressure from developing larger birth canals, and we may see a reversal of this development to a more "normal" hip anatomically speaking. Again it is too early to tell (as we are comparing decades to millions of years). Another logical fallacy, this one falls under Changing the Subject, specifically the Appeal to Anonymous Authorities. John Ponce appears to be quite fond of this misdirection technique. All it demonstrates is a complete lack of real argument. What he is avoiding is answering the deconstruction of his argument with any kind of substantiation at all. From this we can all easily assume that he has none. Denial does not make evidence go away or change, it just leaves you ignorant of the facts. Show me one (F1E) hominid fossil that is 3 million years old with a brain capacity near that of modern humans (seeing as we seem to be talking about brain capacity). Gosh two fallacious appeals to anonymous authority in one post, a new record? And for the record, pointing out logical fallacies is not an "appeal to intellectual superiority" but pointing out the facts.People of less than average intelligence learn from their mistakes and learn from new information and are fully capable of following logical thought, so it is not "intellectual superiority" that I am appealing to, but minimum average capability and a typical American high school level of education (ie - not much). Another (repeated) unsubstantiated false assertion. All that is required is for elements to be repeated, elements already available. The easiest mutation is one of increasing repetitions. Some people have two to three times as many color receptors in their eyes as other people. Both can see, both can see colors, one sees more vibrant colors and more distinct shades of colors than the other. Increasing brain surface are is no different. It already has. It is just another feature of our intellectual evolution, and we are also the selection process that has resulted in massive increases in capability of the processors.If you mean can one evolve on it's own? Then first you need one that can reproduce and undergo natural selection. But the result would never be an 8088, as ... again ... you are presupposing a directed process. (1) FROM: Themes > Science > Paleontology / Paleozoology > Paleozoology > Fossil Hominids > The Hominid Brain (click)
(2) FROM: Brain size, head size, and intelligence quotient in monozygotic twins. (click)
(3) FROM: Einstein's brain (click)
And finally,(4) FROM: Sizing Up the Brain`(click)
This is from only 4 of the first 6 hits on "brain surface area intelligence" on google, with one of the others being a repeat of (2) above. In other words, the evidence is readily available for those who truly want to discover it.Let me summarize it for you:(1) There is massive fossil evidence of a progressive increase in brain size in hominids, particularly in areas devoted to abstract thought and to speech (abstract representation).(2) When brains that are genetically identical but which have some variation in size, surface area, etc, are compared there is no relationship to IQ. Note that this genetic similarity means that one twin does not have more interconnections than the other even though there are differences in size, surface area, etc. And there are differences between sets of twins, but there is no measure of interconnectedness in the study.(3) Greater interconnectedness, rather than any significant difference in size or surface area distinguishes Einstein's brain from those of other men.(4) The human brain has 3 to 4 times the surface area for interconnections than our closest relative, the chimpanzee (which, btw, some consider to be part of the Homo family, another living hominid).If you need more, I suggest you spend the time to research the topic. No I don't need to "surmise" any criteria, as human evolution is no different than the evolution of any species, where random mutation causes change over time while {survival\sexual} selection filters out those changes that do not survive to breed. No, it is the assumed platform for more mutations and selection to operate from. Given enough time and pressure to select new features this may result in new species. But if the {eco-nitch\environment} is static there would be pressure to select for stasis rather than for change without need. This is why we have "living fossils" - even though they are distinctly different from their ancient ancestors they are also recognizably similar (sharks, alligators, coelacanths, etc). My relative transitional mutated grandfathers and grandmothers, great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, etc, have also died out. It's a sad fact of human life that each person only lasts so long.But their (and our distant relatives) trace is in the gene pool of humans today.We share somewhere between 95% and 98% of the genes with chimpanzees, and the DNA from Neanderthals shows more similarities than that (although they are also a little orthogonal to a direct line between the two, as a branch would be expected to be). All humans share around 99% of their genes What’s left out? Evolutionary theory says that species that don't survive to breed go extinct, and humans are no different than other species.Again you make mistakes based on false premises: we are different, not "advanced" and there is no measure of "success" versus "failure" because the process is not directed or oriented towards goals. Careful, your incredulity is showing. There is no need to quote mutated transitional hominids, as we are all transitional mutated hominids, it is an ongoing process (and please note the logical howler of branches that went extinct being transitional).All this shows is that intelligence is not necessarily a guaranteed benefit for either survival or ability to reproduce, as noted before: You obviously missed this point last time. Let me clarify it: the overwhelming vast majority of all species alive today (to say nothing of all the species that have gone extinct after surviving much longer than humans have so far managed) have significantly less intelligence than a human moron. LOL. What we have here is a complete misunderstanding of the very basic elements of evolution.There is no single "fully mutated" species on the face of the earth. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Null set. Every individual is a transitional stage between {what was} and {what will be}. Now your racism is showing ()... just to make sure that this is still on topic for this thread...Again you are projecting your need for a directed process onto one that isn't. There is no such thing as "sub-human" (unless you think being human is significantly superior, and the jury is still out on that, imho). Failure to survive long enough to breed is all that is needed for any species to go extinct, which includes the overwhelming majority of all the species that have ever lived. Again, why would you expect any difference because hominids were involved? Your repeating yourself and ignoring the evidence, not surprising given your exhibited poor understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. Let me repeat:Failure to survive long enough to breed is all that is needed for any species to go extinct, which includes the overwhelming majority of all the species that have ever lived.And you do see "a multitude of various living intermediate forms for hundreds of other mammals" -- in fact you see nothing but "a multitude of various living intermediate forms" for all forms of life, human included: it is called individual variation. Another fallacious appeal to anonymous authority: care to try for the tri-vecta? Notice that this is your only answer to the evidence of your logical fallacies being pointed out, and you have again failed to even try to substantiate your position. Most of your argument is either an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity, neither of which is valid.I hope you have a good time waving to your fantasy phantom peanut gallery, but I'll take real evidence and plant my feet on a planet that revolves around the sun, thanks.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'll give it the attention it deserves when I see a more complete response promised here. A quick perusal showed it to be one logical howler after another, a house of cards built on false premises, that renders your conclusions invalid.In formulating your next response you may want to try making one simple logically argument and not running off on tangents based on conclusions based on false premises.Try keeping it short and see if you can make a valid point before proceeding. Just a suggestion. ROFLOL. Entertainment rather. Your argument is invalidated, and you want to pretent that it isn't; you do this by "leaving it up" to some imaginary group of people to decide (the logically false "appeal to anonymouse authority"). This is called "shuck and jive" dancing.As compared to the anxiety on your part of actually having to make a logically valid answer or to actually substantiate your challenged assertions.Enjoy.

Already have. The evidence is in another post (Message 124), and you may have missed it due to the length needed to deal with the multiple logical problems. To summarize again: the reason the nazis were wrong was because the assumed only one correlation applied: size.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Three (make that) Four points:(1) the "capacity to develop expertise" is still a part of intelligence, even if it is not measured by the (very) flawed measure of IQ. IQ also does not measure ability for art or music or any non-verbal means of expression. IQ is a poor measure of overall intelligence. Note that it is completely incapable of measuring non-human intelligence, and this should be a clue to it's limitations.(2) "normal" IQ is not very intelligent as humans go, and this is due in part to "normal" being set as the overall average IQ and it is a skewed pattern: you can't get much below 50 and still be functional, but there are several people with IQ's over 200. You can do the math: how many 50's does it take to average with 200 to get 100?(3) Homo erectus already had a large brain compared to previous hominids and compared to common apes today:FROM: Homo erectus (click) - the first hit from google on "homo erectus brain size" - gives: (bold mine for emPHAsis).The paper does not provide the actual brain size being discussed so we don't know which Homo erectus classification was used for the comparison.(4) The paper also states " but there is a problem: evidence ... shows that there exist individuals with psychometrically normal IQ but Homo-erectus-sized brains" but does not discuss the average IQ of people in this group of people with smaller brain measurements, so you could well be comparing genius Homo erectus types with average Homo sapien types.And we are, after all, talking about walking, talking, tool using Hominds here, and not even the first ones:FROM: Homo erectus (click) - the first hit from google on "homo erectus tool" - gives: So we are also already dealing with an intelligent hominid compared to earlier hominids and to modern apes.If he had been talking about Australopithicus afarensis sized brains you might have a point.Enjoy.{{fixed typo and added by edit}}
ps -- this thread is supposed to be about rampant racism and not about the correlation of brain size to intelligence. As such your telling jar "Sorry Jar, we’re discussing bones and brains here. Take it to another thread." is rather hypocritical, no?This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*05*2005 07:35 PMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 08*05*2005 07:38 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thanks, but that is why I specified interconnectedness rather than raw area, but do note that raw area, like raw size provides opportunity for more interconnectedness, (especially in closely related species and "all else being equal" caveats).When neuron interconnections are maximized for a given area, and area is maximized within a given volume, what development could further increase brain power?Note that the evolutionary drive would be for greater intelligence (if it was benefical to survival or reproduction) and not directly for brain size. Thus more neurons to increase interconnections for a given area, more convolutions to increase area within a given volume, and more volume all come in to play. I would also expect the development of more neurons and more area to be "easier" to accomplish by selection for intelligence. And I would also expect a range of selected "solutions" to be existant within the populations - some with more area, some with more neuron density, some with larger heads - because the selection would be for intelligence by whatever means.Also, there appears to be some correlation with small sized brains and loss of intellectual capabilities in some humans, as noted in Message 124 (which I would put down to loss of opportunity for normal interconnectedness due to reduced volume): Other comments in the article were: And they also discuss the (rough) correlation of raw size, surface area and intelligence. The article at the bottom talks about some mice with increased cortical area by genetic manipulation, and it will be interesting to see further research in this area.Enjoyps -- You may have to pick "Sizing Up the Brain" from this link:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021116/
if the one above doesn't work.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This is now twice that John Ponce has attacked me by inference in responses to other posts rather than respond to my posts.Note that he has not been able to refute a single point I have made, nor has he shown a single argument of mine to be logically invalid (as he has asserted in his ad hominum attack in Message 149) and is resorting instead to this cowards move.Again this, like his fallacious appeals to anonymous authority, just proves that he has no substantiation for his position and is just looking for ways to repeat it after it has been refuted.This is just more "shuck and jive" rather than honest debate.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

To which I responded: I am responding to Message 122 now seeing as the response promised in Message 126 does not seem to be forthcoming. (Note that I like to consolidate responses to any one individual rather than try to create multiple diversions of the topic). And you accuse me of ego. LOL. Let's see how worthy your response is. This is in response to the posted Wikipedia article on the definition of Neo-Darwinism and does not address the article at all. The comment is a non-sequitur (another logical fallacy), no big surprise.The obvious answers are "some" and "enough" -- these kinds of mutations are observed all the time: replications of gene sequences are one of the most common form of mutations and one of the easiest to cause. The exact numbers are irrelevant, for all that is needed is a selection for marginally increased intelligence in each generation.Does John deny that any such mutations have occurred? If he does deny this then he is ignoring the evidence, and if he does not deny this then this argument is invalid by his own admission. As already noted several times, this is a process that occurred by incremental steps over millions of years, as is shown by the fossil evidence. If that is not a "slow gradual process" then John is using a different definition for one or more of those words than is normally used. Or he is willfully ignoring the evidence. You have been asked several times to substantiate your claim, repeated here, of massive numbers of mutations being needed. Until this is done, repeated claims like this are just more argument from incredulity (another logical fallacy).This comment also shows continued (willful?) ignorance of the functioning of natural selection.Each mutation survives (or not) within the host population based on the survival and reproductive selection of the host individuals.Does John deny that the hominid ancestor(s) that first developed the pointed stick was better equipped to survive and ensure the survival of {his\her} offspring?Once again John implies some mysterious directed active mechanism to "cut off the genetic viability" of other individuals being caused by the successful mutations. There is no mechanism that suddenly and mysteriously renders "other allegedly healthy non-mutated contemporary hominid creatures" impotent or that kills them off. The only mechanisms are survival (or not) and reproduction (or not). That is what natural selection means.Each generation carries the gene pool of the individuals from the previous generation that survived and reproduced. Period. Pure argument from incredulity (logical fallacy) and already invalidated in previous posts as well as above. Repeating fallacious arguments does not make them any more valid. Now we have (dishonest) misrepresentation. What I said was: In other words, the evidence is that all the other species currently in existence do not need to have the level of intelligence displayed by Homo sapiens sapiens in order to survive and reproduce, or that "intelligence is not a necessary criteria for {any species'} survival" for the only "necessary criteria" are survival and reproduction.Intelligence may enhance the ability of an individual to survive, but it may not guarantee it or that the survivor will be selected for reproduction (the "nerd" factor).We also do not have any direct evidence of the intelligence of all the species that have gone extinct, and it is possible that some of them had more brain power than humans. Jurassic Park's hollywoodized Velociraptors are a possibility. No amount of raw brain power would enable a species to survive a meteor impact (such as occurred 65 myr ago). We may not survive the excesses of our own behavior, and that would be a direct intellectual failure. No, those that survived and reproduced happened to have increased intelligence. That means that it is a feature that was selected, whether by survival or by reproduction is not certain. It does not mean that increased intelligence guarantees {survival\reproductive} success.There is a fair bit of evidence that the development of the human brain was due at least in part to run-away sexual selection, related to communication and creativity in mating song and dance etc. Notice that even today natural leaders, poets, dancers, artists and musicians are considered more {romantic\desirable} mates than scientists. I've been known to wander about halls ... but the fact is that I have repeatedly discussed how the various mechanism apply and work and interact, and this should be evidence of actively and logically wondering how they work.This is an ad hominum attack and another logical fallacy, btw, as you are addressing {me} and not the points that I raised. Edited to correct your errors and add omissionsOh yes, your #1 was incorrect (invalidating any conclusion), #2 is pure argument from incredulity (and wrong, also invalidating any conclusion), #3 is also incorrect (invalidating any conclusions - btw, there is no "pure" species) and #4 does not logically follow from the precepts erroneously presented, there is nothing "necessary" about natural selection.This is not a proper logical construction and thus fails as a logical argument even without the erroneous precepts. So wrong it doesn't bear repeating the errors already addressed. As noted in other posts, you should keep your arguments brief so you don't keep repeating erroneous assertions, especially ones as baldly wrong as this, unless your only purpose is to just keep repeating unfounded, unsubstantiated, blatantly erroneous positions in the hope that others will sooner or later ignore them. Except that the evidence is all around you. You are different from every other individual human on the planet. Even if you were born a genetic twin there were slight differences in fetal development, subsequent nutrition and experiencing of mutations. You have evolved from your parents. This is more than sufficient to explain the diversity of humans across the globe. Once again the same argument from incredulity as presented previously, with the same logical error and the same totally unsubstantiated assertion (I've deleted the totally bogus part, as it is addressed above).Prove that it needs to be more than, say, 200 (just for fun), eh? You've been asked to substantiate this claim several times now, and it is past time to "put up or shut up" on it. Repeating it without substantiation is just more dishonest debate shuck and jive. Note that in these last two quotes John Ponce has misrepresented my position by inserting "mistakes in DNA replication" for "differences between individuals" and "an accumulation of non-lethal variations within any population" and that this is just more dishonesty on his part.This is also the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.Heavier beaks in some individuals compared to others is nothing more than the result of "an accumulation of non-lethal variations within any population" in the size and strength of the beaks. This is what causes "natural variation" within a species. Some of those variations are caused by "errors in DNA replication" and some by errors in recombination and some by environmental factors during the development of the individual (and which are not genetic, nor inherited).John goes on to make a totally invalid (self contradictory) statement: LOL.The reason that they had the "darker colors from pre-existing DNA code" was because of the pre-existing mutations in the pre-existing DNA code - the mutations were already in the population; otherwise there would have been no color variations for this famous example of natural selection (even admitted as such by ICR in an article that they have since deleted):FROM: No webpage found at provided URL: (click)
I suggest you think things through much more thoroughly before admonishing me to think.The point being discussed is natural selection. Both of these instances are examples of natural selection operating on populations with variations due to pre-existing mutations.And so is the "example" posted next: A perfect example of a selection mechanism changing the frequency of alleles within a population.And the fact remains that those original 1% would have existed because of the pre-existing genetic mutations that resulted in the existence blue eyes in the population before the selection process was implemented.You are obviously confused here about the cause and effect mechanisms, the process of mutation and the timing of mutations and natural selection in the process of evolution. Back to repeating false assertions again. This is the, what, third time you have made this totally unsubstantiated "Mega" mutation claim, and it still carries no validity until it is substantiated: none, zero, zilch, nada, null set.It is also (a) argument from incredulity and (b) argument from ignorance, both logical fallacies.As for your lack of evidence, your expectations are obviously way out of whack with reality: how do you judge the intellectual capability of humans 200 years ago with sufficient accuracy to show any kind of trend that would be significant given the overall time of existence of even just Homo sapiens at 160,000 years (minimum, according to current fossil information) ... that's 0.125% of the span of time in which there has been little enough change in the fossils for them to be classified as the same species.Meanwhile you totally ignore the copious fossil evidence of nothing but increase in cranial capacity for 3 million years. And this is the third repetition of this previously falsified totally erroneous concept that has nothing to do with evolution, but everything to do with your misunderstanding of the science, evidence and theories.And who said our gene pool is homogenous? There is obviously a large degree of variability within the human population, or need you be reminded that the original topic is racism?I think you are mistaking humans sharing 99% of their genetic code when this same degree of sharing would exist for other species, while near cousing species share 95-98% of their genetic code (as we do with chimpanzees). Individual select others of the same species for reproduction or there would be no offspring, and the result is a high degree of homogeneity within the gene pool of any species. Unsubstantiated assertion repetition #4. Evidence ignored again. Unsubstantiated assertion repetition #5. Who said they have stopped? Are you the exact same as your parents? Are your kids carbon copies of you? Profound willful ignorance coupled with denial does not make an argument valid. We do. Absolutely false. Every individual is a transitional, and there have been several instances observed of speciation and natural selection. Profound willful ignorance coupled with denial does not make an argument any more valid when repeated.Immunity to new diseases is another example of the ongoing process. Another misrepresentation and a totally false argument. You are comparing the actions of {deluded\misinformed\ignorant} people to the actual mechanism of natural selection. They are not the same.Natural selection is based on temporary fluctuating, individual fitness that only applies at the time involved. Tomorrow different story. Logical fallacy already documented, totally invalid and completely irrelevant to the argument. The continued use of such logical fallacies when they have already been pointed out displays either (1) an inability to learn from mistakes or (2) an unwillingness to learn. Not what I said, another dishonest misrepresentation. The use of the terms "better" and "more highly" as applied to evolved species is a strawman argument. Totally irrelevant to the argument. This is totally orthogonal to previous arguments and can only be introduced to try to obscure the fact that you are not answering the points raised nor substantiating your assertions before moving on to new ones.Also known as a non-sequitur logical fallacy. WHOOOOOSH ... there go those moving goalposts again. You just introduced that topic and now it is the focus?Nope. And what part of {{{a Master's degree (from any institution) is not a doctorate}}} don't you understand? This totally avoids the issue raised. That this was already known means that you are just repeating invalid information rather than addressing the point. (1) How so? What is your basis for this claim?(2) How does this in any way justify misrepresenting Lubenow as a professor? Neither were peer reviewed. So? The science of evolution is not based on "the book of Darwin" but on the evidence that has been substantiated since the book was published, evidence that has validated parts of the book and invalidated other parts. Theories have been added that were not part of the book, because the science is based on the peer reviewed evidence, the scientific replication of results and the intense scrutiny of critics of each new concept.I doubt "Bones of Contention" will hold up anywhere near as well, particularly as it seems to be based on false premises from the start. You're wandering again.How is that eugenics when it is possible to be severely disabled due to {chemical\environmental\nutritional} factors that have nothing to do with genetics? Irrelevant. There have been many theories and discoveries made outside of peer reviewed process, but they are not validated as science until the process is involved. This has to do with verification of results, repetition by others.It is part of science whether you like it or not. Of course it would. If evolution were based solely on Darwin's book it would not be science. Conflicts and black eyes are only temporary, mostly due to human arrogance and ego and not to science. You keep trying, but this is still a logically invalid argument. I have now waded through this post and shown that, indeed it is one logical howler after another, a string of invalid arguments and totally unsubstantiated assertions that amount to nothing more than twaddle "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Given that John has not demonstrated a single logical fallacy of mine, but has instead engaged in multiple repeated fallacies, unsubstantiated wild assertions and failed arguments this comment is a laughable attempt at self-aggrandizement. Trying to find that "gallery" John? The point you fail to realize is that when your argument is logically invalid it does not matter what people think of it. If the argument is false it cannot be resurrected by voting on it. It is like saying:(1) two plus three is five
(2) two plus two is seven
therefore five times seven is twenty.Or like deciding that pi should equal 3.0 I could suggest some classes in logic at the local college. You might try exercising brevity so you don't go so far overboard with invalid conclusions based on wrong information.You might try actually substantiating assertions you have made.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It is logically impossible for descendants of one branch to be related to species on another branch.All humans share in the common gene pool back to their respective common ancestors, whether immediate or distant.Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor that was neither human nor one of the african ape species.Your post is gibberish at best.Enjoy.

and he's elevated himself to lubenow exhaulted status, no ... my mistake, he puts himself first ....LOL.

Prove it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

LOL. This from one who fails to substantiate a single claim, makes logically fallacious argument after logically fallacious argument, repeats ones that have been shown to be logically fallacious before and tries to ignore the fact that almost all of his arguments have been refuted and that the remaining points are irrelevant. As has been done for your posts? As has been done to others of jcrawfords posts?How many times does it take?(hint: Once should be enough)Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}