Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Jd JDay123 at BellSouth.net
Mon Oct 21 16:13:36 EST 2002


Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote: 

>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>>Why they keep on insisting that men sprang from mud via apes
>
>If you ever get that story correct, you will surprise me.
>
>>and simultaneously reject the notion that human evolution isn't subject
>>to gene dominance rules as are other critters
>
>Of course human beings are subject to dominant/recessive rules.  But
>dominant/recessive rules have relatively little to do with evolution
>and NOTHING to do with superiority (dominant genes can be harmful or
>helpful, or somewhere in between).
>
>>(which would lead eventually to a new and improved species)
>
>No.
>
>>is puzzeling.  To them
>>there simply can never be a higher human form other than the one
>>which currently occupies the earth.
>
>I'm sure there could, though we might not consider it to be human.
>More importantly, we cannot predict ANYTHING about what traits it
>would have (though skin color is almost certainly NOT an important
>factor).
>  
>>The logical conclusion to that argument is that evolution is static
>>when it comes to humans,
>
>Humans are probably MORE static than other species because we have
>spread worldwide, adapt our environment to fit us (therefore reducing
>the long term evolutionary events of a changing environment), and
>interbreed with little regard to geography (thereby preventing
>geographical isolation, which is a significant factor in more rapid
>evolutionary changes).

Sure Bob.  They also felt nice and comfy in the days of Noah.

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of
the Son of man.  They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they
were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
and the flood came, and destroyed them all. - Jesus

>>which means that the argument of "one race,
>>forever" contridicts the science of "liberals" themselves.  

>Race has NOTHING to do with evolution, since there is no biological
>reality to race.

>>If the ToE is in fact true, a new human species will eventually
>>evolve,

>Yes.  But not likely in less than a few hundred thousand years or so,
>by which time all of modern politics will be both obsolete and
>forgotten.

How do you know whether or not there is already an advanced race
somewhere out there in the universe, since by your way of thinking
evolution could have possible put men there long ago?

>>I wonder what would happen if, say 90% of the white population
>>started wearing tee shirts with "NAAWP" in large letters on the
>>front?
>
>89% of the white population would wonder where the letter came from,
>since most of us aren't racists like you and the nincompoop.
>
>lojbab

I think your racism is against white christian conservatives who
adhere to the Word of God and reject evolution.

Jd





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list