brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Dave Wilson testaccount2002 at
Fri Nov 1 08:27:26 EST 2002

John Knight wrote:
> "Dave Wilson" <testaccount2002 at> wrote in message
> news:3DBF321D.1020709 at
>>Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>>In article  "John Knight" <jwknight at> writes:
>>><"Dave Wilson" <testaccount2002 at> wrote in message
>>><news:3DBA9B4F.6040104 at
>>><> Cary Kittrell wrote:
>>><> >
>>><> >     Although it is seldom aired in public, there is a sharp debate
>>><> >     among scientists today about almost every aspect of
> evolutionary
>>><> >     theory. The controversy is not over evolution per se, but over
>>><> >     the means by which it happened. The crux of the issue is not
>>><> >     evolution, but teleology
>>><> >
>>><> >
>>><> > <and it's not the other 91% of Americans who are the STUPID ones.
>>><> >
>>><> > Of course, out of the "91%" you claim, 4% had no opinion,
>>><> > so right there we have a typical John Knight non-Jewish LIE --
>>><> > rather like the that plus-or-minus 3% margin of error in the
>>><> > TIMSS which you arbitrarily decided needed to be minused
>>><> > from those poor girls' scores (another non-Jewish LIE)--
>>><> > and another 40% say the believe that "Human beings have
>>><> > developed over millions of years from less advanced forms
>>><> > of life, but God guided the process".  Hardly sounds like
>>><> > Genesis to me.  Sounds more like intelligent Christians.
>>><First of all, you already know that this is an intentionally misleading
>>><question, don't you, cary?
>>>Of course not, my increasingly desperate friend.  Now pay attention,
>>>and you'll find this is VERY simple.  If someone asks you:
>>>    "Human beings have developed over millions of years from
>>>    less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process".
>>>but you think the world is 5000 years old, then you answer NO.
>>>Can you say "oh!"?  I knew that you could.
>>>I doubt that the devout 40% who answered "yes" would appreciate your
>>>trying to rescue your indefensible position by by telling them
>>>how they REALLY meant to respond, if only they weren't dumb as dirt.
>>>I thought you had a higher regard for your 264 million that that.
>>No Cary, I'm sure that John is right again, and none of the 'majority of
>>Christians', who at his alleged 264 million out of the total population
>>of 280 million (pretty good going there, John)  saw any conflict >>between  evolution over the few-thousand-year 
history they all truly >>beleive in and a Bible that makes no mention 
(AFAIK) of *any* species >>evolving over the whole of recorded time from 
creation up to AD0 or >>later.
> Let's take this a step at a time:  two different sources, Infoplease and
> Gallup, report that 86% of the 290 million Americans today (or 249.4
> million) are "members of a church".  Infoplease measures it by reports from
> the churches themselves and Gallup measures it by polling people directly.
> Another 7% of Americans claim to be Christians even though they don't belong
> to a church (kind of like Thomas Jefferson), for a total now of 269.7
> million Christians in the US
> Do you have a better reference than the above?  No?
> THEN SHUT UP and accept it as a FACT.

First, I noticed you snipped the last part of my post (reinstated 
above), presumably because you couldn't respond to it.

First, define 'church' - did that

According to the CIA world factbook, the US population as at July 2002 
was estimated at  280,562,489.
Their (admittedly 1989) figures for religions were
Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10%

I'd assume those percentages to be relatively stable. Even assuming the 
4% 'other' as some form of Christian, that's still leave 12% 
non-christian, or 249 milion christians (88%) in total, assuming the 4% 
are non-christian would give 238 million (84%). Your stated 264 million 
would have meant 94%, which seemed just too high, given how many 
liberals, atheists and jew you seem to be tormented by.

Looking at the Gallup Millenium religious survey, as reported at
"Fifty-six percent [of Americans] are churched -- people who are members 
of a church or have attended services in the previous six months, other 
than for special religious holidays."

Also, the Gallup survey showed the usual negative correlation between 
intelligence and educational level on the one hand, and religious belief 
on the other.

was interesting as well.

> Have you EVER seen ANY species "evolve", much less "speciate", from one
> species to another?  No.  Have you ever met anyone who has?  NO.
> Can you EVER produce one single shred of *scientific* evidence that
> speciation ever did, could, or possibly WILL occur?  NO.

Yes - bucketloads of evidence. Plants that change their chromosome 
numbers by doubling up, and then cease to be interfertile with members 
of what were their species are not uncommon. Nuclear and mitochondrial 
DNA analysis can easily show the connectedness of related species. 
Analysis of geographically isolated populations of insects and higher 
animals (the Hawiian islands are an excellent natural laboratory) can 
show extremely good evidence for evolution of species and adaptation to 
different conditions.

Mutations happen all the time. It is obvious to anyone with a biological 
education that it is entirely possible for a single mutation to result 
in huge push towards speciation (the reduction of fertility between 
members of a species posessing the mutation, and those who do not). Once 
there is relative isolation, there is more chance for subsequent changes 
in one or other branch to enhance the separation to the point where true 
speciation results.

The results of evolution are all around for anyone with open eyes to 
see. That's why the overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution 
as by far the best theory around.

>'s a true testament to the TRUTH, objectivity, and honesty of the
> Holy Bible that 90% did NOT accept this jew nonsense, isn't it?

Your 10%/90% split is wrong. The survey showed that 40% also say they 
believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from 
less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process".

Just calling something 'jewish' because it's beyond your comprehension, 
or doesn't square with your narrow beliefs really doesn't make your 
attempts at argument any better. It just shows up your woeful ignorance 
and bigotry.

>>Honestly, you'd think that even with all that begatting and marrying
>>close relations going on, someone in the bible would have noticed the
>>rapid pace of evolution and asked another character
> Whew.  First of all, in this country, less than 3% of all marriages are
> "interracial marriages".  Second of all, a jew marrying a nigger ain't
> "speciation", "evolution", legal in most countries, nor moral even in the
> jewSA.
> No wonder you "believe in evolution":  you can't even comprehend what it is.
> If you COULD learn what it is, you would not "believe in evolution".

Once again your lack of comprehension of humour shows itself like a 
brighly burning bush. What I said was *despite* all the breeding and 
suchlike going on in the Bible, if evolution (whether purely 
mechanistic, or God-directed) had taken place over anything like the 
supposed biblical timescale for the existence of the Earth, then someone 
around at the time would be likely to have noticed, and mentioned it 
somewhere. They didn't.
Given that you had snipped my earlier comment about evolution in 
biblical timescales in general, not merely among humans, I suppose you 
could be forgiven for your mistaken assumption that I was making any 
reference to interfaith of interracial marriages, or the lack of the same.
I was wondering where your idea that black/jewish marriages are 
generally illegal outside the USA comes from, or what you fear from such 
relationships anyway?

Anyway I must apologise to Cary for entering this thread and possibly 
distracting John from the main question he was asking, so I'll 
restate/rephrase it here

John, A simple question :
Of your 84-94% of Americans who claim to be christians, roughly how many 
of them (% figures please) actually believe in:

a) the creation of every creature in its current form, a 
few-thousand-year-old earth, and *no* evolution?

b) An earth at least millions of years old, and current species arising 
from others by a process of God-guided evolution.

c) An earth at least millions of years old, and current species arising 
from others by a process of nod-God-guided evolution.

d) Other (please specify)

Dave W.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list