Ann Is A Mean Angry Woman
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
a population with greater genetic diversity should have a broader bell shaped curve on all measurable attributes - being more well representated at the statistical extremes. The non-african population has very little genetic diverstiy, hence would have a steeper, narrower curve even if that curve were shifted slightly in one direction or the other.
Your argument boils down to this: A = {0, 2, 4} std.dev = 2, avg = 2 B = {3, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1} std.dev = 1.6, avg = 1.86 You are arguing that because A:std.dev > B:std.dev, max(A) > max(B). Demonstrably false. Non sequitur. There are other reasons wrt natural selection why this makes no sense, either - consider - a narrow distribution implies a period of strong selection. If there is strong selection on a positive trait such as intelligence, then under evolutionary theory the "narrower curve" WILL shift to the right. - F
Fisticuffs wrote:
You are arguing that because A:std.dev > B:std.dev, max(A) > max(B).
Thats not what I'm argueing at all. For any given standard deviation, for equal population numbers, there should be more Africans represented than non-Africans except for those in which the non-Africans tend to cluster. Statistically, one would expect more Africans at the statistical human extremes than non-Africans, regardless of where the mean for either group happens to fall. If there aren't than either the entire statistical significance of the bell shaped curve is invalid, or Africans and non-Africans are not members of the same species.
Fisticuffs wrote:
consider - a narrow distribution implies a period of strong selection. If there is strong selection on a positive trait such as intelligence, then under evolutionary theory the "narrower curve" WILL shift to the right.
Which is exactly what I'm arguing for Pete's sake. The pressure on populations migrating into alien environments over the course of 50-100 thousand years, should have been expected to result in a measurable "shift to the right" (or left) for any number of genetic attributes if current evolutionary theory is valid. All I'm adding to that is that both Africans and Non-Africans fall beneath the bell shaped curve for all human attributes, with the greater genetic diversity of Africans producing wider population distributions overlapping the population distributions of non-Africans. EDIT - Plus the narrower distribution of non-Africans is due to an original small population leaving Africa and populating the rest of the world, and not necssarily because of selection per se. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 22:56 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that isn't the point of my "facetious" post. Has the separate evolution of non-African hominids adapting to more alien and challanging environments resulted in some mesurable difference in the intellectual abilities of those seprrate populations? And if not, why not?
Because you presuppose that intellegence is the only factor of "fitness". Why should being more intellegent be an advantage as opposed to say...being more resistant to the diseases in over-crowded and dirty medieval European cities (stock that you are probably largely derived from)? You have noticed that even stupid people manage to reproduce haven't you? When the science doesn't fit your bias you assume it must be the science that is bias. I know I got my book of left-wing conspiracies that we must propagate with my Ph.D. Time to don your tin foil hat again Stan.
Wjousts wrote:
Because you presuppose that intellegence is the only factor of "fitness".
Absurd. Intilligence is demonstrably the attribute most significantly associated with human evolution. One would expect that any evolution of a human population might well include the attribute of intelligence. The only reason to not ask the question is fear of the answer. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Brit wrote:
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution.
I do.
Brit wrote:
Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt.
However, I don't fault those who take issue with the theory. I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe. "The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!" Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda. They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments. There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities between the two groups which could be explained by evolution theory. Yet, the left would never entertain such a heretical assault on one of its own core moral principles - it would just be all racist to even suggest it. So much for science. EDIT - I took out the "advanced" term because it implies that evolution is purposefully directional. The rest of my comment stands. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:12 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Well, Ann says, that evolution is "credible only to those who will find any reason to deny the existence of God." Note the use of the word "only". Heck, she's saying that the Catholic Pope is trying to deny the existence of God. It's just another instance of Coulter's crazy hyperbole.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda.
I've never heard any of my teachers use evolution as a means for an anti-religious agenda. I understand that evolution can be viewed that way, but I've never had any teacher or professor ever make any link between evolution and religion or try to promote atheism with evolution. Most teachers either don't teach evolution (too controversial, or they don't agree with it), or they tapdance around the religious issues. Most will say something along the lines of 'god used evolution as a means to create life.' Many of the schools that do teach evolution will teach it but leave out human evolution - but human evolution has the most potential for an anti-religious agenda. They're doing pretty much the opposite of what you are saying they're doing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments.
Evolution doesn't say anything about who should be more "advanced". It could very well be the case that Africans are more "advanced" than the rest of the human race. And while you could argue that evolution somehow plays a role in racial differences in standardized tests, the Left raises the questions of the validity of standardized tests (I don't believe they're on the right track here) or the cultural and socioeconomic factors that play a role in intellectual development (which does have some interesting information). In short, you have to accept a genetic basis for racial differences before you can inject evolution as one of the possible causal mechanisms. If you question the genetic basis and raise questions of culture and socioeconomics, then you aren't in a position to say anything linking evolution and racial differences. Hence, the evolutiona
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
You are arguing that because A:std.dev > B:std.dev, max(A) > max(B).
Thats not what I'm argueing at all. For any given standard deviation, for equal population numbers, there should be more Africans represented than non-Africans except for those in which the non-Africans tend to cluster. Statistically, one would expect more Africans at the statistical human extremes than non-Africans, regardless of where the mean for either group happens to fall. If there aren't than either the entire statistical significance of the bell shaped curve is invalid, or Africans and non-Africans are not members of the same species.
Fisticuffs wrote:
consider - a narrow distribution implies a period of strong selection. If there is strong selection on a positive trait such as intelligence, then under evolutionary theory the "narrower curve" WILL shift to the right.
Which is exactly what I'm arguing for Pete's sake. The pressure on populations migrating into alien environments over the course of 50-100 thousand years, should have been expected to result in a measurable "shift to the right" (or left) for any number of genetic attributes if current evolutionary theory is valid. All I'm adding to that is that both Africans and Non-Africans fall beneath the bell shaped curve for all human attributes, with the greater genetic diversity of Africans producing wider population distributions overlapping the population distributions of non-Africans. EDIT - Plus the narrower distribution of non-Africans is due to an original small population leaving Africa and populating the rest of the world, and not necssarily because of selection per se. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 22:56 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats not what I'm argueing at all. For any given standard deviation, for equal population numbers, there should be more Africans represented than non-Africans except for those in which the non-Africans tend to cluster. Statistically, one would expect more Africans at the statistical human extremes than non-Africans, regardless of where the mean for either group happens to fall. If there aren't than either the entire statistical significance of the bell shaped curve is invalid, or Africans and non-Africans are not members of the same species.
So what constitutes clustering? You could basically define any degree of deviation that is LESS than what the population with maximum deviation has as clustering. {0, 2, 2, 4} {1.1, 3, 3, 4.9} Is that clustered? The first group has a bigger deviation, right? Who has the smartest people? Well, okay, so they're clustered. And hey, the mean doesn't matter, right? Well then: {0, 2, 2, 4} {1+x, 3, 3, 5-x} where x is whatever value is necessary to avoid clustering. The first group has a bigger deviation, right? Who has the smartest people? Also, how many more additional criteria are you going to add onto your original statment? So far we have: The alleles for intelligence obey a Gaussian distribution (can't assume that), there can't be any clustering (but that's what selection does), the distribution of alleles for intelligence are representative of the population's overall genetic diversity (can't assume that), and that your measure of intelligence is predominantly determined by genetics (but since you haven't defined "intelligence," it probably doesn't matter). :) Let's review: In fact, the greater genetic diversity that exists among Africans should mean that the most intelligent people on the planet would be African, even if the other populations had some small greater average intelligence. NON-SEQUITUR
Stan Shannon wrote:
The pressure on populations migrating into alien environments over the course of 50-100 thousand years, should have been expected to result in a measurable "shift to the right" (or left) for any number of genetic attributes if current evolutionary theory is valid.
There was.
Stan Shannon wrote:
EDIT - Plus the narrower distribution of non-Africans is due to an original small population leaving
-
Who is Ann Coulter anyways?
Christian version of Osama laden but with different touch
-
Ann gives me a woody...then again, I sometimes get turned on by foul mouthed, toothless hookers!
“Profanity is the attempt of a lazy and feeble mind to express itself forcefully”
-
So, why isn't that information taught in public schools to support evolutionary theory?
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
you probably shouldn't throw stones at others' intellectual capacity.
I didn't see anyone throwing stones. Besides, I might very well be part Jewish (Edit- of course it is also possible that I might be part African). "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 21:33 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Sorry Stan. We looked top to bottom and honestly no part of you has any chance of being called African. :P
“Profanity is the attempt of a lazy and feeble mind to express itself forcefully”
-
Sorry Stan. We looked top to bottom and honestly no part of you has any chance of being called African. :P
“Profanity is the attempt of a lazy and feeble mind to express itself forcefully”
-
Brit wrote:
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution.
I do.
Brit wrote:
Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt.
However, I don't fault those who take issue with the theory. I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe. "The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!" Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda. They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments. There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities between the two groups which could be explained by evolution theory. Yet, the left would never entertain such a heretical assault on one of its own core moral principles - it would just be all racist to even suggest it. So much for science. EDIT - I took out the "advanced" term because it implies that evolution is purposefully directional. The rest of my comment stands. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:12 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
yet another means of beating Christianity into submission
I hope I am wrong about this but since you said that it seems like an opportunity to achieve clarity. That statement is referring to the left not wanting the government to create legislation that erodes freedoms based on Christian morality principles yes? I mean that is what you mean by "beating Christianity into submission", right? Or is it something else?
"Just about every question you've asked over the last 3-4 days has been "urgent". Perhaps a little planning would be helpful?"
Colin Angus Mackay in the C# forumled mike
-
Who is Ann Coulter anyways?
Saddam in a frock (although I don't think the moustache shows) The tigress is here :-D
-
Brit wrote:
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution.
I do.
Brit wrote:
Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt.
However, I don't fault those who take issue with the theory. I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe. "The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!" Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda. They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments. There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities between the two groups which could be explained by evolution theory. Yet, the left would never entertain such a heretical assault on one of its own core moral principles - it would just be all racist to even suggest it. So much for science. EDIT - I took out the "advanced" term because it implies that evolution is purposefully directional. The rest of my comment stands. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:12 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments
It's the opposite. The tigress is here :-D
-
What does that have to do with what i said? MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
Ann gives me a woody...then again, I sometimes get turned on by foul mouthed, toothless hookers!
“Profanity is the attempt of a lazy and feeble mind to express itself forcefully”
Jerry Hammond wrote:
Ann gives me a woody...then again, I sometimes get turned on by foul mouthed, toothless hookers!
:laugh::laugh: Priceless.
-
Saddam in a frock (although I don't think the moustache shows) The tigress is here :-D
Hm. She seems like an delusional anorexic passive-aggressive with identity and gender issues. In other words, she's a bloody mental mess. I watched a video clip of her on some talk show (post below) and she is absolutely incoherent. Nothing that manages to escape her big (constantly running) mouth makes any sense. I can't believe anybody listens to the rubbish she emits. What a tart.
-
The left's worst nightmare - an opinionated, unapologetic conservative bitch. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left's worst nightmare - an opinionated, unapologetic conservative bitch.
I don't know. I fail to see why she is the champion of the right. She babbles incoherent nonsense the majority of the time. In my opinion, you'd do best to muzzle her in order to further your cause. She is clearly uneducated despite what her bio reads. Her arguments aren't even logical or coherent. When someone (an interviewer) challenges her ideas, she dodges and weaves and pulls the passive-aggressive shit. It's easy to write a book filled with nonsense. It's much more difficult to defend it in person. Just another loud-mouthed tart making money off of suckers who buy into her perverted cult of personality.
-
Christian version of Osama laden but with different touch
Adnan, for once we agree. :)
-
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
What does that have to do with what i said
So you do have a crush then? You are a warped litle boy arent you. Nunc est bibendum -- modified at 6:43 Thursday 8th June, 2006
fat_boy wrote:
So you do have a crush then?
It's that whole "Mrs. Robinson" thing. ;)
-
Wjousts wrote:
Because you presuppose that intellegence is the only factor of "fitness".
Absurd. Intilligence is demonstrably the attribute most significantly associated with human evolution. One would expect that any evolution of a human population might well include the attribute of intelligence. The only reason to not ask the question is fear of the answer. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Absurd. Intilligence is demonstrably the attribute most significantly associated with human evolution.
Then demonstrate it! Have you every been to a trailer park? Do you want to explain how uneducated people somehow keep managing to reproduce?
-
Since you are talking about racial equality, i thought i would throw this in. So far this year in little rock (a city that i live relatively close to), there have been 33 homicides, and every single one of them has been in the black/mexican part of town. That is clearly just because whites are prejudice against them, right? :rolleyes: MOΛΩN ΛABE
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
So far this year in little rock (a city that i live relatively close to), there have been 33 homicides, and every single one of them has been in the black/mexican part of town. That is clearly just because whites are prejudice against them, right?
No, it's because a group of idiots back in the early 1900s decided to make certain plants and chemicals illegal. Blacks, Mexicans, whites, Asians and others have been fighting turf wars over illegal drug profits ever since.
-
So, why isn't that information taught in public schools to support evolutionary theory?
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
you probably shouldn't throw stones at others' intellectual capacity.
I didn't see anyone throwing stones. Besides, I might very well be part Jewish (Edit- of course it is also possible that I might be part African). "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 21:33 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, why isn't that information taught in public schools to support evolutionary theory?
It was back in my public school. But that was in Michigan, a blue state. Things are different in your part of the world.