Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?

One of the most interesting evolutionary studies was done by Linus Pauling, relating human evolution to vitamin C requirements. The story is simple: in the descent of man through evolution, we came upon a diet containing large amounts of vitamin C, found the gene in ourselves that makes vitamin C from sugar an expensive waste of genetic and biochemical energy, and shut it down. Then, we changed diets again, to one that lacked vitamin C, but haven't awakened our vitamin C making gene yet. Hence, we suffer great health disadvantages, and have over the 10,000 years or so that we have been agricultural, and without much C. Supplying vitamin C, to compensate for this evolutionarily caused problem, is the sensible response.But the evolutionists at the National Academy of Sciences, while declaring that evolution is at the basis of our biological sciences, insists on setting vitamin C requirements for humans at a level that is about one-tenth that required by every other mammal or primate studied. Now, what's that all about?There are other examples of this sort of inconsistency. The theory of evolution insists that population genetical fitness, W, drives all organic progress. But, evolutionists insist that there is some sort of population problem, that can be solved by reproductive restraint, practised mostly by evolutionists. By their own theory, they are naturally selecting themselves out of existence.Or take the way they talk about science. Evolution, they will insist, is the best science, but try to find an evolutionist with some sort of understanding of sophisticated scientific methodology, the law of succession, or Bayes Theorem, for example. They will insist on double-blind experimentation, a technique almost impossible to apply to evolution/creation debates, or research supporting evolutionary thinking.All these inconsistencies are hypocritical. The very things evolutionists advocate form our lives, they themselves turn away from in practical matters. The only exception I know of appeared in evolutionary nazi-ism, where the evolutionists in Hitler's regime encouraged Hitler's final solution and genocide, to create a master race.I hate hypocrisy, and this makes me wonder about the value of evolutionary thinking.Stephen[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 01-22-2004]

Source please. I believe you are mistaken. Only an idiot believes scientific theories are a basis for morality. Horses for courses.

Ah yes, mad as a hatter towards the end. Thought vast quantities of vitamin C would cure cancer. In large quantities, vitamin C is a poison. And his wife (or was it him himself? Can’t be bothered to check) died of cancer nevertheless. Who shut what down? The relevant gene in vit C synthesis is broken by a mutation. Exactly the same mutation that we share with other primates. Please cite sources. Where did this come from? What, actually, are you on about? Looks rather group selectionist to me as it stands. Which means it’s standing on very shaky ground. Who’s this they? Take a look in Nature. Look for the names at the top of the papers and letters. Huh? I fail to see what the monarchy has to do with it. What ‘law’ is this? Since when was science decided by battles of evidence with unarmed opponents? Huh? Be specific. Naturalistic fallacy. Personally, I hate arrogant ignoramuses, and this makes me wonder about the ability of creationists to think. (Please only take that personally if the cap fits.)

quote:

---

setting vitamin C requirements for humans at a level that is about one-tenth that required by every other mammal or primate studied. Now, what's that all about?

---

There are several problems in this quandry...1) What does this have to do with "evolutionists"? I believe in evolution and do not necessarily adhere to every dietary requirement level they post. I have found vitamin C to be a very good way to boost my health, and so take more than the "required" amount. Of course there can be too much as well. I once hit my body's limit and ended up in the doctor's office with a horrible case of hives... my body was so on edge it began attacking itself!2) You say that their requirement is 1/10th that required by other mammal or primates. I am unsure how you derived this figure but I'll assume it is true. Why couldn't it be that the minimum requirement for humans to stave off illness due to vitamin C depravation is 1/10th other mammals or primates? Other than incredulity I saw no argument why this could not be the case.3) Where in creationist literature have you found studies and recommendations based on their studies, which counter the NAS recommendations on vitamin C? For a person that advocates prayer in medicine, it seems odd to knock a low recommendation for vitamin C, and not at the same time marvel at Xian scientists who recommend no medical aid at all... even in times of emergency. To them a "dose" of prayer is all that is needed. I'll wager there are more cases of illness and death resulting from creationist prayer recommendations than scurvy if humans follow NAS requirements.

quote:

---

The theory of evolution insists that population genetical fitness, W, drives all organic progress. But, evolutionists insist that there is some sort of population problem, that can be solved by reproductive restraint, practised mostly by evolutionists. By their own theory, they are naturally selecting themselves out of existence.

---

Again, what do evolutionary theorists have to do with this? I think you are talking about conservation biologists, but I have even heard creationists talking about how our over populating the planet is a sign that the end times are soon.But for sake of argument I'll forget that issue...1) Please cite one reference by a science journal that says evolution suggests that overpopulation can and should be solved by reproductive restraints, particularly "mostly by evolutionists".2) Why would limits on reproduction select us out of existence? We now live longer and healthier lives. We do not need as many births in order to ensure the passing of genes to the next generation. We also have made ourselves less reliant on purely genetic characteristics by using technology (for warmth, food, shelter, defense). It is this fact, coupled with relatively similar birth rates as our ancestors which has created an "overpopulation" problem. We now consume way too many resources much too quickly and could very well "eat" ourselves out of existence ("eat" in the broad sense of "consume"). All that would be necessary is to artificially limit reproduction, so that population growth would reflect what would be seen if we didn't have our advancing technology.If you are uncertain that a species can move in and destroy other populations (and eventually themselves) by overpopulation, then I suggest reading more on the subject.

quote:

---

Evolution, they will insist, is the best science, but try to find an evolutionist with some sort of understanding of sophisticated scientific methodology, the law of succession, or Bayes Theorem, for example. They will insist on double-blind experimentation, a technique almost impossible to apply to evolution/creation debates, or research supporting evolutionary thinking.

---

This is not cool Steve. You cannot simply open another thread and pretend as if you had not lost debates on this very subject area in two other threads. As it stands, it appears you have found many evolutionists with an understanding of sophisticated scientific methodology.If you could not win a debate to support your methodology, perhaps it is you who are lacking understanding of either sophisticated science, or necessary logic.You claim double-blind experiments are "nearly impossible"... this means they are not "impossible". No one said getting at truths would be easy. Experiments can be very complex and time consuming. I shudder to think of the will required by Mendel (a monk by the way), but it eventually revealed a truth which opened up knowledge in genetics and evolution. Could I repeat again that this excruciating work was done by a religious person?In fact, the only advantage I have really heard you mention anywhere is that your Hypothetical-Deductive reasoning method will get truths faster. This seems a big issue with you. Like maybe you feel the need to say you know NOW. But what you have to realize (a post of mine you have yet to answer), is that H-D posits too many truths which must still be widdled down to greater plausibility. That is what Methodological Naturalism does... and does well.Oh yeah, I would also like some real stats on how many creationists have an understanding of the concepts you mentioned, compared to evolutionists.

quote:

---

evolutionary nazi-ism

---

Never heard of it. Are you talking about the "eugenics" program which essentially bastardized the theory of evolution from a descriptor into a cookbook?How is this different from creationists claiming, based on divine revelation, that people of their own race/religion are the only pure people and so must conquer/kill everyone else?

quote:

---

I hate hypocrisy, and this makes me wonder about the value of evolutionary thinking.

---

That's quite a hypocritical statement to make.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

There are other examples of this sort of inconsistency. The theory of evolution insists that population genetical fitness, W, drives all organic progress. But, evolutionists insist that there is some sort of population problem, that can be solved by reproductive restraint, practised mostly by evolutionists. By their own theory, they are naturally selecting themselves out of existence.

---

the others have thoroughly spanked your pathetically thought out post but I will add my 2 cents. The origin of the (most recent) eugenics movement began with the complete lack of understanding by Francis Galton of Darwin's work. Darwin disagreed with Galton's view of fitness (which was extremely esoteric). It was evolutionists who finally demonstrated that Galton and his kind were completely wrong. Your ignorance of the subject though is somewhat excusable for someone who believes that farts are evidence for demons.

quote:

---

Or take the way they talk about science. Evolution, they will insist, is the best science, but try to find an evolutionist with some sort of understanding of sophisticated scientific methodology, the law of succession, or Bayes Theorem, for example. They will insist on double-blind experimentation, a technique almost impossible to apply to evolution/creation debates, or research supporting evolutionary thinking.

---

Find a creationist with any understanding of scientific methodology. You are a hypocrite Stephen...you needed Mr. Hambre's explanation of methodological naturalism to place your warped and whacky H-D in context...for someone claiming that we are ignorant of science you should be a bit better prepared i.e. not having to rely on an anonymous poster on a message board to clarify your own definition.
Your understanding of evolution is just an example of how pathetically shallow your understanding is of science in general.

quote:

---

All these inconsistencies are hypocritical.

---

Posting strawman arguments and projecting your own faults on others is not only hypocritical it is unethical...maybe one of your demon farts possessed your brain?

quote:

---

The very things evolutionists advocate form our lives, they themselves turn away from in practical matters.

---

Um, what exactly are evolutionists advocating for our lives? I have been an active biologist for the last 14 years and I have not used the ToE, Mendel's laws, Haldane's rule, much less quantum mechanics to advocate how people should live...but the religious nutbag right seem ever ready to tell everyone how they should live..seems you are projecting again.

quote:

---

The only exception I know of appeared in evolutionary nazi-ism, where the evolutionists in Hitler's regime encouraged Hitler's final solution and genocide, to create a master race.

---

Hitler's views on eugenics were a cut and paste job from the British and US eugenics movement and was hardly mentioned in Mein Kampf. In additon, eugenics was opposed by evolutionists and shown to be faulty by evolutionists. You conviently ignore the far greater influence of Christianity on Hitler (who was a catholic) and his concept of the master race...read Mein Kampf sometime...count the number of references to evolution versus God. Not to mention that Hitlers's happy followers were Christians who were perfectly willing and happy to do his bidding.

quote:

---

I hate hypocrisy, and this makes me wonder about the value of evolutionary thinking.

---

I dislike dishonest hypocrites like you..it makes me wonder about your ability to think.

Hi, Stephen!One has to wonder what masochistic impulses are moving you these days. People who visit discussion boards pretending to be something they aren't usually work hard at creating a convincing persona, but you don't seem to be putting any effort at all into this "I'm a scientist" pose.You'd expect someone trying to pose as a scientist to at least have his facts straight so as to build some credibility, but you make one factual mistake after another, one of your more recent being this comment about vitamin C requirements: First, in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences does not set dietary requirements. That is the job of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).Second, the vitamin C requirement for non-human primates is 72-108 mg per kg of diet (see page 18 of Not Found |The National Academies Press, the conversion factor from Interational Units for vitamin C is 139 iu per mg). The FDA sets the MDR (Minimum Daily Requirement) for people at 60 mg. The vitamin C requirement from the above cited paper is not the same thing as an MDR, so equating them directly isn't possible, but the minimum human requirement is only slightly less (assuming a human diet of 1 kg/day) than the primate requirement. This makes you dead wrong to state that we have set the "Vitamin C requirements for humans at a level that is about one-tenth that required by every other mammal or primate studied," at least as far as primates go. On the contrary, the requirements appear to be roughly the same, sort of what you'd expect given common descent.Third, you included all mammals in your statement, and since most mammals aside from the higher primates possess the ability to synthesize vitamin C, you are wrong again.You're wrong so many times one would almost think you're making it up off the top of your head. Or perhaps it's just that you're using Creationist websites as a research source. This brought to mind an image of blindfolded twins feeling their way around a fossil dig.Pardon me for presuming to correct as brilliant a scientist as yourself, but you've obviously confused your prayer experiments, which since they're performed on people must be double-blind, with evolutionary research and investigation, which since it usually doesn't involve people rarely needs to be double blind. If you're digging up or interpreting fossils, double-blind plays no role. If you're experimenting on bacteria, you use a control group and some experimental groups. Double-blind issues don't usually apply to evolutionary research, coming up only when evolutionary research is performed on actual living people, usually because of the placebo effect and the possibility of subjective interpretion by the experimenters. Perhaps you've confused double-blind with the more general scientific requirement of replication? An odd statement coming from someone as deep into a pose, poorly done as it is, as you are. Can we assume you've given up defending the indefensible and advocating the ridiculous in the other threads?--Percy

Mr. Jack,We have this exchange: Levine, M. 1986. New Concepts in the biology and biochemistry of ascorbic acid. New England Journal of Medicine 314: 892-902.This source summarizes biosynthetic rates of ascorbate for various mammals under various conditions.Meanwhile, I believe the Subcommittee on Laboratory Animal Nutrition of the National Research Council recommends that most primates be fed 1.75 to 3.5 grams of ascorbate per day, compared to the less than 100 mg recommended for humans (all adjusted to a 70 kg body weight).I may be mistaken in my understanding that the National Research Council and the NAS are accountable to one another in some way.You later comment, So, why are you bringing the curious word "morality" into the discussion? Sorry, I don't get the point here, either.

Response to Darwinsterrier,You comment, re Linus Pauling, Now, the mistakes here are actually understandable, the way the media and critics publically defamed Pauling. Of course, Pauling never claimed that vitamin C would cure cancer. He only acknowledged the consistent findings of compassionate and open-minded cancer doctors that massive doses of vitamin C usually resulted in terminal cancer patients living longer, and in much greater comfort. And despised those cancer centers, like the Mayo Clinic, who claimed to replicate (unsuccessfully) these results, but used a protocol different from that published and doomed to failure. All the while trying to hide this fact, and pretend that their replication was honest science, which it wasn't. So, Mayo kept on getting lots of dollars, and their patients a miserable death. At least it was relatively quick.But, no, in large quantities, vitamin C will cause diarrhea. Dr. Cathcart occasionally gives patients 100 grams of vitamin C per day, for colds. That's 1000 times the MDR.Finally, Pauling didn't start taking vitamin C until he was in his sixties, I believe, and commented that this late start would greatly limit his capacity to benefit from the stuff. Hence, he only lived to 94, scientifically productive until months before he died. Saner, I might add, than any of his critics. I don't know what happened with his wife, but I've been married, and wouldn't be surprized to learn that his wife refused to follow his lead re taking vitamins.Ok, mis- or dis- information corrected, we can get to my point, which is that evolutionists are ugly people. But, Darwinsderrier, no terrier, sorry, at least you aren't that hypocritical, since you call yourself a dog, saving me the trouble. To call someone like Pauling "mad as a hatter." is, however, a good example of contemptible scientific debate. (It's called an ad hominem. Not that you'll have any idea of what that means.)re our inability to make vitamin C, This we don't know. Creationists argue that the Creator, in making primates, saw that they didn't need the gene to make vitamin C, and somehow biologically engineered its shut down. Evolutionists believe that the gene was zapped by a chemical or physical mutagen in some early primate, who got along so well without it, that it out-survived and out-reproduced all the other early primates around at the time. In either case, the primates then didn't need the gene because the food they were eating had plenty vitamin C. See previous post. Evolutionists attacking creationists. (re evolutionists who know something about scientific methodology.)I see little evidence that these people have carefully examined scientific philosophy and methodology. See what I mean? You evolutionists, for all your claims about being real scientists, don't even know what this philosophical basis for inference is. But, I'm not going to explain it for a while, to see if any evolutionists following this debate can do so. The theory of evolution, is a theory of an unobserved historical process. The process is supposedly ongoing, and if we assume that history repeats itself, if we can find present day events that follow the process, we have evidence supporting our notion that similar sorts of things took place in the past, and got us where we are. But, we have to show that present day events are not driven by a Creator. This putative Creator has their own agenda, if He is really out there, and to show that current changes in species are evolving, and not an act of creation, we have to control, in some way, the hypothetical Creator. This, hypothetically, we are allowed to do through prayer. So, studies of, say bacterial adaptation in chemostats, need to be done with and without prayer. If there is no difference in the changes observed, we have evidence supporting natural as opposed to artificial selection. But, when these studies are done, there is a difference. (See references summarized by Dr. Larry Dossey.) A continuation of the long-standing tradition of evolutionists to hate and attack people, not evil actions. Humanity continues to find hope in the fact that evolutionary thinking appears to castrate those who adopt it, so that they don't reproduce very well, and we don't have to put up with their thinking forever.I believe that, if you change your mind and way of thinking, you will have a clearer conscience, greater peace, and more joy. Just a suggestion.Stephen

Holmes,You ask, My question about evolutionists was only posed because I have some hope that evolutionists may want to change their minds, to improve their behavior. I have much less hope for creationists, although many more creationists do take vitamin C, in my experience. The Xian scientists are Xian enough, but not scientists, and far deeper hypocrites than the evolutionists. They go about prayer the same way the NAS goes about vitamin C, operating at some pathetic minimalist standard. But, I think that the Spindrift group has a Xian Scientist foundation, and has done some pretty neat experiments. Interesting question! I have actually gotten the "evolutionist" agenda from Ehrlich's books, not any of his writings in journals. In population genetics, two factors have to be in operation for a population to persist. First, W must be greater than 1, or in time the population will go extinct. Second, if W in genotype A is higher than W in genotype B, A will eventually drive B to extinction. Now, in wildly varying populations, we have to see what happens during population growth and during population decline. Now, W is less than one in many evolutionary countries. And, these countries have the agenda of a stable population world-wide, dooming themselves to exinction. The creationist sub-populations (Amish, home-schoolers) have much higher values of W. Thus, the evolutionists are sink populations, the creationists, source populations. Is there a genetic difference, that can explain the phenotypic difference? The evolutionists normally believe that every heritable phenotypic trait has a genetic basis, although in humans they allow for something called cultural evolution to amplify such differences. Creationists, of course, believe that genetic differences between evolutionists and creationists are not relevant--it's all a matter of choice, and training. My point is, to be consistent and not hypocritical, the evolutionists ought to be alarmed at their poor reproductive history. If they are right, they are doomed. I thought I won those debates! But, I began in this forum calling for independent judges to decide who won or lost, arguing that agreement of this matter would never be found otherwise. Actually, of course, I don't regard these as debates at all. Until they are properly refereed, and a clear set of rules established, and, frankly, until I see that all the debaters have coaches, someone who can correct them, or take them out of the game if they misbehave, all we can do here is provide information, and help others understand something. Let's see you explain the law of succession to darwinsterrier. I alone of the two of us appears to have grasped that MN, a general set of rules for scientific thinking, contains H-D, a specific set of rules. It's like there is a mountain. MN says climb the mountain. H-D says, take this road up the mountain. H-D is saying what MN is saying, but it gives some actual directions. Also, it turns out that the road up the mountain will cross ridges, going downhill for short periods in order to get to a gentle slope. In short, I know, now, everything that you know, but you still have failed to learn what I know. Maybe I am wrong about this. All you have to do to correct me is explain how Bayes Theorem justifies MN.You keep forgetting, by the way, that creationists are worse than evolutionists, in my opinion. As Jehovah put it, "I would that you be hot or cold. Because you are neither hot or cold, but are luke-warm, I vomit you out of My mouth." You'll have to explain the logic of this.Stephen

Are "biosynthetic rates of ascorbate" the same thing as recommended daily intake? Anyway, your source doesn't appear to be on the Internet. Please post a copy somewhere on the net and provide a link, or type the relevant passages into a message, particularly the part you mention above, so that we may see if you're making a correct interpretation.In an odd coincidence, your words here: Are echoed almost word for word by Gary Wade in his web article VITAMIN C STORY: IT’S PAST USE AND ITS CURRENT ACTIVE SUPPRESSION: Amazing similarity, don't you think? And he even references the same paper by M. Levine that you do, another amazing coincidence!By the way, this extract from an editorial titled New insights into the physiology and pharmacology of vitamin C coauthored by the very Mark Levine whose paper you and Wade cited appeared much more recently in a 2001 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal says: In other words, the very same Mark Levine that you claim wrote an article back in 1986 advocating ultra-high vitamin C doses says here that the human body makes little use of the additional oral vitamin C in doses above 500 mg. It's a different story for introvenously administered vitamin C, but this is discussed primarily in a cancer-fighting, not nutritional, context, and that's not what we're talking about anyway.So let's sum up here. You've provided a reference to an article unavailable to anyone without access to a university medical library, claimed it says things that the author himself doesn't seem to believe in his other writings, and established that you and Gary Wade use very similar syntax and references. Quite a record for so brilliant a scientist! Do you know Wirth personally, or are you guys just simpatico?--Percy

Reply to MammuthusYou note, Interesting observation. Actually, whenever I ran into someone who claimed to be a MNist, they consistently argued that MN would not and could not deal with spiritual truth, because spiritual reality was non-electromagnetic in "nature." I thought that a silly reservation, and never looked further into the (I thought cowardly) philosophical underpinnings of MN. Then I realized that, duh, all these people were behaving hypocritically, that the MN they claimed to follow actually did allow the study of spiritual truth, as long as that truth could be shown to influence electro-magnetic reality. Our measurables. I admit, I should have gotten to this point quicker, when I saw how upset MN scientists got over prayer experiments. They knew, and know, that if these prayer experiments are validated, they have to either renounce MN, or face the truth about spiritual reality.It's like evolutionists, taking creationists' reports of what the Bible says, or what it means to follow Yeshua, when they, the creationists, are so patently hypocritical.I'm not a creationist, by the way. I am a truthist. I find the creation hypothesis much more scientifically plausible than the evolution hypothesis. But, to attach an -ist to a title, in my personal practise, means that I am practically dogmatic about it. I am, for all practical purposes, dogmatic about the existence or reality of truth. But, creation or evolution are just ideas, whose plausibility needs to be assessed. Well, not just ideas, since the implications of both influence how I am to decently try to respond to God, and my fellow man. Because the creationist hypothesis is so well confirmed scientifically, and no strong inference test of evolution confirms it, that I know of, I consider it indecent to not honor the rights of the hypothetical creator. Of course, believing in evolution is a good rationalization for not stealing from Jehovah, and otherwise ignoring His rights to be respected.As I noted in my reply to Holmes, that evolutionists attack people, instead of ideas, confirms my major point. I do think that, if you start changeing the way you think, and get more serious about loving the truth, you'll get a clearer conscience, more peace of mind, and greater joy.Stephen

What is "electro-magnetic reality"?

Percy,You note, I'm only trying to convince other true scientists, who of course are only impressed by the data. Which, of course, make my claim to be a scientist highly plausible. Only the rationalizations, unsupported declarations, and expressions of wishful thinking are there to counter the claim, all of which sound good to the easily deluded. I stand corrected. Please change the word "setting" in my post to recommending. My required was that for optimal health, the natural condition, not the level required to prevent scurvy. See my post to Mr. Jack. The rate at which most mammals synthesize vitamin C reflects true nutritional optimal use, if we suppose that these mammals only use precious carbohydrates to make vitamin C when that C would be good for them. All that have been studied make between 10 and 100 times more C per Kg than the MDR. And, as Pauling noted, wild primates and primitive, cave-man, humans, consume in their diet about the same amount. Wonder why the evolutionists haven't been interested in the prayer studies on bacterial fitness. My point is, the fossil evidence doesn't discriminate between artificial selection, and creation using artificial selection, and natural selection. So, why gather it? If evolutionists were really scientists, they would know about strong inference, and would set up there studies using it. They would know how to make predictions and how Bayesian logic requires confirmation of those predictions to be interpreted. Evolutionist say that creationists need to use good scientific methods, but then continually try to make way too much out of straw man data. Hypocrisy! I have won all the debates in the other threads, so why go on? You calling those positions "indefensible" while I was defending them, and calling what I was advocating "ridiculous" proves that I won. What else can you say, to keep the truth out of your mind?But change your mind. That's what humans do. Join us in happy living.Stephen

You are a creationist Steve. You are even a Xian creationist. If you want to subclassify yourself as a True Xian Creationist, that's fine. I'll refer to you as TXC specifically, rather than lump you in with the mainstream Xian Creationists.

quote:

---

My question about evolutionists was only posed because I have some hope that evolutionists may want to change their minds, to improve their behavior.

---

Did you read my post? I use vitamin C. I have friends (evos) that use vitamin C. There is a limit (and let me tell you it can cause more than diahrea) but it is useful in boosting the immune system.So why are you lumping all evos together? You seem to have no problem defining yourself as different from other creationists, yet this cannot be true for evos?I have yet to see you explain how the TOE has anything to do with vitamin C, other than trying to determine why we do not make it in our own bodies.

quote:

---

They go about prayer the same way the NAS goes about vitamin C, operating at some pathetic minimalist standard.

---

Once again, throw out the data that stands against you.

quote:

---

Interesting question!

---

I found your answer more enlightening. Why didn't you? The TOE says nothing about missions, and no evolutionist has a mandate to think of our current population as an emergency under the TOE. Concerns of overpopulation are related to conservation biology and if an evolutionist wants to support that cause that is their personal opinion and cause. [quote]Thus, the evolutionists are sink populations, the creationists, source populations.{/quoteAre you seriously saying that belief in evo/creo are related to genetics? Nowhere do evos say such a thing. Belief systems are not a phenotype. And what are you talking about saying evos believe phenotypes can be amplified by culture?All of this shows a serious lack of knowledge regarding evolution and genetics.

quote:

---

I thought I won those debates!

---

You said I changed your mind... and you also eventually realized that H-D was a subset of MN, which I was saying from just about the beginning.You have also left points unchallenged.How did you win?By the way there is a refereed area of this site called the Great Debate. I'm sure you'd find many people willing to face you there.

quote:

---

Let's see you explain the law of succession to darwinsterrier.

---

I never said everyone knew everything. As it stands I am waiting for you to explain evolutionary theory correctly to me.

quote:

---

I alone of the two of us appears to have grasped that MN, a general set of rules for scientific thinking, contains H-D, a specific set of rules.

---

Well, to you alone this might be apparent. However I was pretty well implying that H-D was a subset (essentially it is a precursor) to MN. Even after your "revelation" (by going to MrH's thread) I stated I understood this.You have yet to challenge my criticism that H-D is a shotgun approach, that while indicating many paths are possible up the mountain, not all will be correct (or the best). As exploration parties try the different paths, eventually they'll need MN to decide between all their contrary experiences.

quote:

---

In short, I know, now, everything that you know, but you still have failed to learn what I know. Maybe I am wrong about this. All you have to do to correct me is explain how Bayes Theorem justifies MN.

---

That first statement is easy to make. But let me address the last point. We do not live in Bayes Theorem. We live in reality, and that includes many varied experiences and experimental results. What YOU need to do is explain to ME, how the reality of differential results justifies H-D to make conclusions/judgements rather than MN.And of course you still have to explain how occam's razor supports your animal-human-demon-darkmatter-religion theory, rather than the human-makes-mistake model.

quote:

---

You'll have to explain the logic of this.

---

So what you are saying is that you don't know everything I do? I'll tell you what. Why don't you ask your God what was meant and get back to me with what he said.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You calling those positions "indefensible" while I was defending them, and calling what I was advocating "ridiculous" proves that I won. What else can you say, to keep the truth out of your mind?

---

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)