Argumentum ad populum

[sooda]

To help shed light on the role the Arabian Peninsula might have played in the history of modern humans, scientists compared stone artifacts recently excavated from three sites in the Jubbah lake basin in northern Saudi Arabia with items from northeast Africa excavated in the 1960s. Both sets of artifacts were 70,000 to 125,000 years old. Back then, the areas that are now the Arabian and Sahara deserts were far more hospitable places to live than they are now, which could have made it easier for modern humans and related lineages to migrate out of Africa.


"Far from being a desert, the Arabian Peninsula between 130,000 and 75,000 years ago was a patchwork of grasslands and savanna environments, featuring extensive river networks running through the interior," Scerri said.




The northeast African stone tools the researchers analyzed were similar to ones previously found near modern-human skeletons. The scientists found that stone artifacts at two of the three Arabian sites were "extremely similar" to the northeast African stone tools, Scerri told Live Science. At the very least, Scerri said, this finding suggests that there was some level of interaction between the groups in Africa and those in the Arabian Peninsula, and might hint that these Arabian tools were made by modern humans.


Surprisingly, Scerri said, tools from the third Arabian site the researchers analyzed were "completely different." "This shows that there was a number of different tool-making traditions in northern Arabia during this time, often in very close proximity to each other," she said.

Ancient Arabian Stones Hint at How Humans Migrated Out of Africa

 

[nPeace]

Just so.

If you say they needed a smart designer, who do you say designed the smart designer? And who designed the smart designer designer? And who &c &c &c backwards to the Big Bang?

The theory of evolution is an extremely powerful explainer. Why, in your view, is evolution incapable of evolving a biological machine? Not >this<, I hope?

This sounds like you, with your questions. I told you, no magic, so you feel that speculating is welcomed? It's the same as magic, when you have to dream up possibilities.

The limitations of science are well acknowledged by science, but when it comes to the question, What's true in reality? nothing else gets close

Yes the limitations of science are well acknowledged by scientists, but not by most posters on these forums.
I disagree on the last statement.

Your diagram begins with 'Reality - God' What does that mean? That 'Reality' is the same thing as 'God'? If that's right, why don't we just say 'Reality'? If it's not right, what real thing is the word 'God' intended to denote here, and what is its relationship with 'Reality'?

Then you have 'God -> Truth' which would appear to mean 'God implies Truth': but what specifically does God imply here? That a statement by God about Reality is infallibly accurate? But if we take the cosmology of the bible to be statements of the kind you refer to about reality, they're the product of their time. To pick the lowest-hanging fruit, the earth isn't flat, yet that's the only view of it in the bible; it's not immovably fixed at the center of Creation; the sky isn't a hard dome you can walk on, the stars (&c) aren't affixed to it such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth ... And otherwise there are no known statements by God about Reality, are there?

Next,'Truth -> Test / Examine / Experiment -> Find' which I take it means 'Truth implies reasoned enquiry' which means that if you have a statement by 'God' about reality, you can't rely on it, you have to test it. Is that right? It sounds self-contradictory, self-defeating.

We're back to requiring clear definitions again, and since birds, beavers, bees, ants, and so on, build houses, those houses are constructed by something, not someone; and when a bear or a man lives in a cave, that's a house not constructed by anyone. So, not true.
Again, what real thing do you intend to denote by 'God' here?
Funny, I could swear that my wife had objective existence and had something to do with my kids and grandkids. I imagined all that, you say? I politely disagree.

No, completely true. This time read it carefully >here< and let me have specific comments.

It really goes like this... The reality is, God is. Truth must therefore come from God. We, existing beings, must evaluate, investigate, test, experiment with what is the truth, in order to determine it's validity - in other words, that we really found it. That way, we find reality - that God is.

You can't find that reality for me, nor can I find it for you. We find it for ourselves.

There are no birds, or bats, or apes that build houses. People build houses.
One can make their home in a cardboard box, a car, a cave, but it is not a house.
Animals make homes for themselves. They don't make houses.
So the statement is true. "Every house is constructed by someone.
If you need a bit of help understanding this, you can try these youtube videos.

Then you do have definition of God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not? Excellent! Please tell me how we can check whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. And that's a serious question, since it illustrates the very broad implications of what I'm asking.

In its original form, God means "mighty one". It is a title.
One can make a god of anything, by referring to it as having ability to intelligently carry out actions superior to humans, or consider it as the most important thing to them.
So if you believe your keyboard is god, then in your mind you have made it your god. Why would you do that though? Schizophrenia?
In the same way, you can make a baseball bat or tennis racket a weapon, although that was not its purpose.

If you want to know what is reality, then, as I said, I can't find it for you.
You can use the tools you believe will reveal that to you.

 

[cladking]

Nope, humans with their tools migrated from East Africa across the Red Sea to Arabia 100,000 years ago.

If "humans" existed then why did they act like animals until 40,000 years ago?

 

[blü 2]

@nPeace is a Jehovah's Witness, so the answer to your question is THIS.

Thanks for that.

The link is remarkably frank ─ when choosing between biblical creation and evolution, choose the one that's more emotionally comfortable, not the one that's objectively true.

 

[blü 2]

This sounds like you, with your questions. I told you, no magic, so you feel that speculating is welcomed? It's the same as magic, when you have to dream up possibilities.

But ─ again, alas ─ you didn't answer the question. I ask again: Who designed the designer? Who designed the designer designer? And so on.

And why, in your opinion, are the explanations made available by the theory of evolution inferior to your designers?

I disagree on the last statement.

You say there's a way of addressing the question, What's true in reality? that's superior to science? Then please state it clearly. Please tell me what you're talking about.

The reality is, God is.

What real thing do you intend to denote by the word 'God' here? Or are you only talking about an ideal, an abstraction, a concept with no objective counterpart?

Truth must therefore come from God.

Why? Assuming there's a real being called 'God', why would that being necessarily be truthful? The bible says God tells lies (eg Ezekiel 14:9) and creates evil (eg Isaiah 45:7). The bible says the earth is flat. Is that from God? Your equation doesn't fit what we know.

We, existing beings, must evaluate, investigate, test, experiment with what is the truth, in order to determine it's validity - in other words, that we really found it. That way, we find reality

Yes, that's what science does; but my point was that you said God is Truth on the one hand, and you can't trust what he says, you have to check for yourself, on the other hand. Which is it?

There are no birds, or bats, or apes that build houses. People build houses.

So as I said, it's a matter of definitions: in this particular case, you say, 'house' does not mean a place purposely created for habitation, which includes birds, beavers and bees. Instead, house means a habitation built by a human. It follows that all houses of this kind are built by humans by definition, which unless God is a human rules God out.

So if you believe your keyboard is god, then in your mind you have made it your god. Why would you do that though.]/quote\ So God isn't real, doesn't have objective existence, you say ─ God is anything you want God to be, that is, God is imaginary. I agree with that.

So that clarifies most things ─ though I'm still curious to know why you think evolution can't create a biological engine?

 

[Thief]

we humans are not healthy
not of body
or of mind

Speak for yourself.

have seen the news lately?
any health reports in the form of statistics?

how are you....doing?

 

[Thief]

when choosing between biblical creation and evolution, choose the one that's more emotionally comfortable, not the one that's objectively true.

both …..I choose both
and no emotional motivation needed

 

[Thief]

OK. I think I follow what you are saying based on your belief.

nope.....

God created Man
I do not believe we did this to ourselves

we are not like the rest of the animal kingdom
I do not believe we did that either

the world wants to believe in evolution......SCIENCE!
the world wants to believe Man is different……...SCIENECE!

I agree

 

[blü 2]

both …..I choose both
and no emotional motivation needed

You find conflict stimulating, I take it Enjoy!

 

[nPeace]

But ─ again, alas ─ you didn't answer the question. I ask again: Who designed the designer? Who designed the designer designer? And so on.

And why, in your opinion, are the explanations made available by the theory of evolution inferior to your designers?

I answered your question.
Look at the answer again.
Argument from incredulity
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
Capiche?
You don't? The first cause need no cause. You don't understand how? Argument from incredulity

You gave me no explanation made available by the theory of evolution, and the only ones I know about are the imagined ones.
I told you, no magic is allowed.

You say there's a way of addressing the question, What's true in reality? that's superior to science? Then please state it clearly. Please tell me what you're talking about.

I did that too. I don't feel like constantly doing it, over and over. Can you please listen.

What real thing do you intend to denote by the word 'God' here? Or are you only talking about an ideal, an abstraction, a concept with no objective counterpart?

The one that created all things is God - the first cause.

Why? Assuming there's a real being called 'God', why would that being necessarily be truthful? The bible says God tells lies (eg Ezekiel 14:9) and creates evil (eg Isaiah 45:7). The bible says the earth is flat. Is that from God? Your equation doesn't fit what we know.

The Bible does not say God tells lies. Please quote the translation you are using, because I don't read that in any. (Hebrews 6:18) . . .it is impossible for God to lie. . .
What does it mean by God creates evil?
The Bible does not say the earth is flat.
So no. You are mistaken... apparently.

Yes, that's what science does; but my point was that you said God is Truth on the one hand, and you can't trust what he says, you have to check for yourself, on the other hand. Which is it?

Science does, or we do science?
Everyone does science.
Where did I say, I can't trust God?

So as I said, it's a matter of definitions: in this particular case, you say, 'house' does not mean a place purposely created for habitation, which includes birds, beavers and bees. Instead, house means a habitation built by a human. It follows that all houses of this kind are built by humans by definition, which unless God is a human rules God out.

For sure, I know I did not say, what you claim I said.
What is a house?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I answered your question.
Look at the answer again.
Argument from incredulity
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
Capiche?
You don't? The first cause need no cause. You don't understand how? Argument from incredulity

You gave me no explanation made available by the theory of evolution, and the only ones I know about are the imagined ones.
I told you, no magic is allowed.

Where did he make that argument? You appear to be misrepresenting what atheists say. They do not state that there is no God. They say that they lack a belief in a God because there is no evidence for it and the burden of proof is upon those that make the claim that a God exists. If I claimed that the universe was made by a Pink Pixelated Pixie you would be correct in demanding that I prove it or else you would not take my claims seriously. That is not an argument from incredulity..

I did that too. I don't feel like constantly doing it, over and over. Can you please listen.

Did you? I must have missed it too.

The one that created all things is God - the first cause.

That is a special pleading fallacy. Can you explain why this supposed first cause does not need a creator? If not then you are making the aforementioned logical fallacy. In this case the atheist position is typically "we don't know yet". Perhaps the universe existed forever. Perhaps it arose naturally with no creator. Perhaps there is a creator, but as of yet there is no evidence for one nor reason to believe.

The Bible does not say God tells lies. Please quote the translation you are using, because I don't read that in any. (Hebrews 6:18) . . .it is impossible for God to lie. . .
What does it mean by God creates evil?
The Bible does not say the earth is flat.
So no. You are mistaken... apparently.

Then you are claiming that evolution is a fact. And the Bible may not come out and "say it" but there are verses that refer to a Flat Earth. The "circle of the Earth" is a classic one. If read in context it describes a flat Earth. And there are described actions that can only happen on a Flat Earth. You are now picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally.

 

[nPeace]

Where did he make that argument? You appear to be misrepresenting what atheists say. They do not state that there is no God. They say that they lack a belief in a God because there is no evidence for it and the burden of proof is upon those that make the claim that a God exists. If I claimed that the universe was made by a Pink Pixelated Pixie you would be correct in demanding that I prove it or else you would not take my claims seriously. That is not an argument from incredulity..



Did you? I must have missed it too.



That is a special pleading fallacy. Can you explain why this supposed first cause does not need a creator? If not then you are making the aforementioned logical fallacy. In this case the atheist position is typically "we don't know yet". Perhaps the universe existed forever. Perhaps it arose naturally with no creator. Perhaps there is a creator, but as of yet there is no evidence for one nor reason to believe.



Then you are claiming that evolution is a fact. And the Bible may not come out and "say it" but there are verses that refer to a Flat Earth. The "circle of the Earth" is a classic one. If read in context it describes a flat Earth. And there are described actions that can only happen on a Flat Earth. You are now picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally.

He asked the same question you asked.
You can't understand how the designer does not require a designer.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

Which part of my post am I "claiming that evolution is a fact"?
Seems like you and blü 2 are the ones picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He asked the same question you asked.
You can't understand how the designer does not require a designer.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

Which part of my post am I "claiming that evolution is a fact"?
Seems like you and blü 2 are the ones picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally.

No. It is not. You do not seem to understand. Once again, neither of us are claiming that something did not happen. Do you understand that?

And when you said that God does not lie you claimed that evolution is a fact.

I am sorry to have to say this but it appears that you are having trouble reasoning logically. Which would explain your logical fallacy fail.

 

[nPeace]

No. It is not. You do not seem to understand. Once again, neither of us are claiming that something did not happen. Do you understand that?

And when you said that God does not lie you claimed that evolution is a fact.

I am sorry to have to say this but it appears that you are having trouble reasoning logically. Which would explain your logical fallacy fail.

Are you not claiming that the designer needs a designer? Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you not claiming that the designer needs a designer? Why?

I am claiming that there is no valid reason to believe in a designer. If you want to claim that such a being exists the burden of proof is upon you. Using old refuted arguments does not help your case. I am also pointing out that you made a special pleading fallacy. By the same "logic" that you use to claim that the universe needs a designer then by that logic the designer needs a designer etc. You are creating a Turtles all the Way Down universe.

You need to learn the difference between "I don't believe you", as in the case of a Pink Pixelated Pixie that has just as much evidence as your God. And "that being does not exist".

 

[nPeace]

I am claiming that there is no valid reason to believe in a designer. If you want to claim that such a being exists the burden of proof is upon you. Using old refuted arguments does not help your case. I am also pointing out that you made a special pleading fallacy. By the same "logic" that you use to claim that the universe needs a designer then by that logic the designer needs a designer etc. You are creating a Turtles all the Way Down universe.

You need to learn the difference between "I don't believe you", as in the case of a Pink Pixelated Pixie that has just as much evidence as your God. And "that being does not exist".

Why do you believe there is no valid reason to believe in a designer?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

nope.....

God created Man
I do not believe we did this to ourselves

we are not like the rest of the animal kingdom
I do not believe we did that either

the world wants to believe in evolution......SCIENCE!
the world wants to believe Man is different……...SCIENECE!

I agree

Thanks. I think I may be understanding you a little better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you believe there is no valid reason to believe in a designer?

Because no valid reasons have ever been presented. Look at your example. It is based upon a special pleading fallacy.

 

[blü 2]

Capiche?
You don't?

But this all relates to the question why you think evolution is incapable of producing a biological machine.

And to which the argument from incredulity is a very common answer, which is why I mentioned it and hoped you had a better reason than that.

A question which remains central to our discussion ─ and one which I hope you'll now address.

The first cause need no cause. You don't understand how?

The question of beginnings doesn't necessitate a first cause.

I don't mean simply that quantum mechanics postulates utterly countless instances of physical events taking place every second which are uncaused in the classical sense, so are described in statistical terms

I don't mean simply that words like 'self-existent' are incoherent, though of course they are. I don't mean simply that if God existed before creation then creation wasn't ex nihilo, though that would have to be the case, and the question of where God came from would still be at large.

I also mean that if time is a property of mass-energy, if time is within mass-energy rather than mass-energy being within time, in short if time exists because mass-energy exists, then there's no problem with beginnings, and so no need for a first cause.

You gave me no explanation made available by the theory of evolution, and the only ones I know about are the imagined ones.

It's true that we don't yet have a complete description of the path from chemistry to biochemistry to self-replicating cells; however, we've come a lot further than you may suspect, and progress is steady. I expect to live long enough to see it.

Once we have a self-replicating cell, evolution does the rest, and the theory of evolution explains evolution.

A big difference between your view and mine is that science acknowledges that there are questions out there about the origins of life, and is actively working on them. Whereas (if we imagine a real God) no one knows how God created life, or the universe, and no one who thinks [he] did is working on the problem.

I told you, no magic is allowed.

Biochemistry isn't magic. Evolution isn't magic.

But 'Let there be light, and there was light' is magic. Creating the world and the fish, birds, plants, animals and humans in seven days is magic. If not, tell me how it was done.

I did that too. I don't feel like constantly doing it, over and over. Can you please listen.

You said you had a method of answering the question 'What's true in reality?' that's superior to scientific method, and I don't recall your answering that at any point. But rather than just repeat whatever it was you said, give me an example. How does your method approach, say, the questions, What is dark matter? What is dark energy? A simple, clear illustration of the approach will illuminate all.

The one that created all things is God - the first cause.

One: you've yet to tell me how to distinguish my keyboard from God; and yet I suspect my keyboard (as such) wasn't even present at the Big Bang. Two: A first cause is not a requirement (see above).

The Bible does not say God tells lies. Please quote the translation you are using, because I don't read that in any. (Hebrews 6:18) . . .it is impossible for God to lie. . .

In Hebrews 6:18 Paul doesn't claim God can't lie. He stipulates only that there are two things God hasn't lied about.

What does it mean by God creates evil?

I don't speak Hebrew ─ I don't speak any semitic languages ─ but Isaiah 45:7 (to which I referred above) has God saying that he creates what Strong transliterates as ra'. Ra' appears 663 times in the Tanakh, adds Strong, and the KJV (which he's using) renders that as 'evil' on 442 occasions including Isaiah 45:7 (and as 'wicked' and 'wickedness' on another 84).

The Bible does not say the earth is flat.
So no. You are mistaken... apparently.

Of course it says the earth is flat. I gave you chapter and verse. How can the earth have four corners, how can the Tempter show Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth from a high mountain ─ and all the other examples ─ but above all, why would anyone think that the writers in biblical times would have a clue about modern cosmology?

 

[tas8831]

...So it's irrelevant that there are no two identical things in the universe!

Completely. What does that have to do with you not being able to provide any evidence for your claim that behavior is the cause of speciation to the exclusion of all else?

Here you are trying to understand "Transformation of Species" when there are no two identical things.

Wow, great insights... Irrelevant gibberish, but great...

You're trying to show one plus one equals two despite the fact that in reality two different things like a male and female create most life. One plus one equals three in the real world and you're still trying to reduce reality to equations.

Is this your new way of trying to hide the fact that there is no evidence for your moronic assertions?

You claim - with exactly zero evidence - that the production of a new species is "sudden" (less than 2 generations, even!) and is all due to behavior (don't try to deny you claimed this over and over - that would be yet another lie).

I know that evidence indicates that speciation is produced by reproduction isolation caused by one of SEVERAL means, and while behavior can certainly play a role, ultimately this isolation is genetic/physical. Any behaviors that contribute are the results of physical (and ultimately genetic) changes. You do not know this because you never bothered to learn anything about it.
This is a common affliction among the self-taught - they do not realize how much they are missing.

It is like how usfan made a major argument about humans being different from other apes because only humans had the "eve gene", and specifically human females. He ranted and raved and condescended for weeks about this, all because in his self-taught ignorance, he did not realize that "eve gene" was just a simplistic depiction of the entire mitochondrial genome, and he had confused the fact that mitochondria are inherited primarily from the female and interpreted that to mean that only females had it.

Get it?

This is, in effect, what you have been doing on speech/neuroscience, speciation, and even basic evolutionary biology. You read on some creationist website that "survival of the fittest" means "might makes right", and concluded that this is the cause of all manner of oppression in the world. You never stopped to consider the possibility that creationists are BIASED and are themselves typically quite ignorant re: evolution, and they might not have presented a fair case. Because in evolutionary biology, "survival of the fittest" does NOT mean "might makes right", and you even got the genesis of that phrase quite wrong. Little matter - you refuse to correct your ignorance because to do so would disrupt the story you made up in your head.

How can you understand life if you don't know why grasshoppers fall in love and create a new generation, a new species, or a hurricane in Indiana?

How can you understand evolution when you misrepresent its tenets and refuse to correct your false ideas?

Why do you bloviate on irrelevant nonsense when it would be quite easy to support your fantasies by just providing some evidence for once?

Do you really think you are fooling anybody but yourself?

Your world doesn't exist as you model it and understand it but you're still so sure that you and science have the answers.

Your world doesn't exist as you pretend to model it and understand it but you're still so sure that you and your folk science has the answers.

No number of laymen and no number of Peers can invent reality. Reality exists outside of our beliefs and perceptions.

Cool slogans.

But still no documentation or evidence for any of your dopey claims.

"Species" is a taxonomic word. It is a reductionist word. It is a word that is only possible in the mind and in the mind of people who think reality is what science, priests, or "humanity" says it is.

Thanks for admitting that you never bothered to look up the word.

Ancient people didn't have reductionist words or words for "thought, "belief", "assumption", nor other taxonomic words. Ancient people spoke in theory and we speak in our beliefs derived from the ruins of Ancient Language. We and each of our Peers speak a confused language that doesn't require any relationship whatsoever to reality.

Who cares about these fake "Ancient people" that exist in your fantasies?

THIS IS TODAY. This is real life, not your sad fantasy.

Your claims about TODAY are bogus gibberish, and your neuroses/psychoses prevent you from understanding this.

Present EVIDENCE for your assertions or just shut up about things you are clueless about.

cladking:

The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" but in your and Graham Hancock's dopey fantasies. Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.

cladking:

Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.


And lastly, here you are claiming that you never wrote what you had written repeatedly, all in a failed attempt at saving face once you realized you have no actual evidence for your counterfactual assertions:


You wrote, foolishly:


"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."


Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."



What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."


Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."


Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"


Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...


Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."


Argumentum ad populum

"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."




Weird, I mean, you just deleted all of that from your reply in that thread, as if it never happened - as if you never actually claimed that you never did what I documented you doing 7 times. And keep in mind - there were more, these were just the most obvious ones. I find such refusals to acknowledge and own up to such obvious fibs indicative of far-reaching character flaws. But that is just in my experience dealing with religious fanatics and the like.




You've not once provided evidence, so you are just trying to assert-away your false claims.


You are just boring now. I'll probably take a break from documenting your 'scientific' fraud and egregious, laughable errors. it is pretty tiresome.



Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.