brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
Jack B. Nitschke
jnitschke at facstaff.wisc.edu
Mon Jul 22 12:57:00 EST 2002
At 08:46 AM 7/19/2002 +1000, RLW wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, John Knight wrote:
> > "RLW" <zzwindol at uqconnect.net> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.OSF.4.30.0207171219130.13802-100000 at fox.uq.net.au...
> > > If 49% of people believe in 'divinely guided' evolution, then they
> > > not be said to reject evolutionary theory outright, so his 91% figure is
> > > not correct. It's a minor point anyway. Feminazis are not the same as
> > > evolutionists and I doubt either group think humans and blue whales
> > > are identical. All it proves is that John Knight likes to mix and
> > > match his statistics.
> > >
> > > Rowena.
> > >
> > >
> > It's really easy to confuse you with facts, isn't it, Rowena?
> I'm not the confused one.
> > You skipped over a key step, which may be why you arrived at the wrong
> > conclusion.
> > ONLY 9% of those polled responded that they believe in the "theory" of
> > evolution, as defined by the "evolutionists" themselves, and by nobody
> > ONLY 4% said that they had "no opinion", and you cannot include them as
> > "evolutionists", can you?
> No, of course not. But you can't also say that they "reject
>evolutionary theory" or that they believe humans have a unique role on the
> > And the 40% who you conveniently ignored believe "God guided this process",
> > which is exactly the opposite of what "evolutionists" themselves preach
> > the rafters.
> No, Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about God. As your survey
>shows, it is possible to be both an Evolutionist and religious.
> Nevertheless, your original statement was:
>"To feminazis, there's no difference between blue whales and humans,
>because they both "evolved" from the same "common ancestor", so it
>must somehow make sense to them to make such a suggestion."
>THEN you said:
>"to the rest of the normal people in the country, namely the 91% who
>reject this "theory" of evolution..."
>If 40 % of people believe that "Human beings have developed over millions
>of years from LESS ADVANCED FORMS OF LIFE but God guided this process"
>then they almost certainly believe blue whales and humans have a common
>ancestor. Therefore, you used the incorrect statistic (91%) to support
> > The simple fact that the words "developed over millions of
> > years" were thrown in was enough to throw you off, wasn't it?
> > Isn't the original statement correct, as is?: "91%  reject this 'theory'
> > of evolution".
> In the context of what you wrote, no it isn't correct. Yet again you
>are shown to misapply basic statistics, which I have noticed is not a new
>trick for you.
More information about the Neur-sci