So hey, anyone object to unbanning me?

spike

New Member
Re: Do you hear that buzzin' from the KK basement?

Um, not really. Bias is hard wired into us as a species survival adaptation. Humans, like many social animals, depend on the group to survive. A human alone is food. but if the group grows too large, we loose our importance within it ... and possibly the ability to find a mate and breed. We're hard wired to segregate into groups with close similarities.

I don't know about that. Someone being so hung up on race seems bizarre to me. Logically it would be one of the least important grouping.

Anyway, how do we get in touch with fury?
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
Do you own any Nazi paraphernalia?

If someone called you a NeoNazi instead of a Nazi would that make it more accurate?
There's another one of your "No I didn't's".


1274829742673.jpg
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Twitter would be your best bet. But he's really reluctant to make changes here since he's not here in person to judge it's merits himself.
 

spike

New Member
Twitter would be your best bet. But he's really reluctant to make changes here since he's not here in person to judge it's merits himself.

Twitter really? What is he @fury or something?

Really, how do we get this taken care of? Seems like more than 6 months is getting ridiculous.
 

spike

New Member
Re: Do you hear that buzzin' from the KK basement?

I'd say your political comrades have already sparked enough fury in this nation.

Nah, you're political comrades sparked enough fury. That's why they were voted out in the last couple of elections.

Enter the TeaParty, its Pucker time babay!

The Tea Party has become a joke. They used to be interesting back when Ron Paul started it but not any more.

attachment.php
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Re: Do you hear that buzzin' from the KK basement?

Um, not really. Bias is hard wired into us as a species survival adaptation. Humans, like many social animals, depend on the group to survive. A human alone is food. but if the group grows too large, we loose our importance within it ... and possibly the ability to find a mate and breed. We're hard wired to segregate into groups with close similarities.

and now bish will come along and tell me I'm wrong again.

DO I really have to? You're mostly right..up until you get to the 'importance within it' bit. The larger a group gets, the more important individual work gets...in order to maintain an over abundance of food, in order to free time for other activities like tool-making, invention, etc..specialization. Which (if good) leads to better ways of getting food faster/easier etc .. on a nice circle which leads to bigger populations etc...

Racism is a throwback to the times where different villages/families/groups competed and went to 'war' against each other for resources. It's also partially related to protecting family... but mostly, it's fear of the unknown.

They're different looking, you don't know how they act or react so you either avoid them or kill them off. The cure for racism? Get to know people who don't look like you..so you can understand them and not fear them. From there, our inate co-operation thinking (which you started with) kicks in.

Not to mention :banana2:
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
evolution happens?
got an example?

(I guess I should have also highlighted "the" theory...) Darwin's thing you know
 

2minkey

bootlicker
Micro evolution happens, not macro evolution.

what do you even mean by micro vs. macro evolution? are you talking gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, or are you just opposed to any kind of "big" evolution, like monkey to man without the hand of g-d gettin' all bound up in that shit?
 

2minkey

bootlicker
oh, rusty me. i looked it up. yep, it's obviously about defending a creationist standpoint for you. game over. :grim:
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
They stuck him here with good reason.

Letting commie boy outta the KK
would be de-evolution fer sure!


14cfbb8.png
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
what do you even mean by micro vs. macro evolution? are you talking gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, or are you just opposed to any kind of "big" evolution, like monkey to man without the hand of g-d gettin' all bound up in that shit?

oh, rusty me. i looked it up. yep, it's obviously about defending a creationist standpoint for you. game over. :grim:

In order for macro evolution to no longer be a theory there would have to be a bona fide transitional fossil. There should be tons of them. There is not one. What have been thought of as one turned out to be either a hoax or just an example of specie variation.

Not to mention, the Cambrian explosion (Darwin admitted this objection can be made against his theory of evolution, in the macro sense I believe) and the plenty of evidence of man and dinosaur co-existing.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
In order for macro evolution to no longer be a theory there would have to be a bona fide transitional fossil. There should be tons of them. There is not one. What have been thought of as one turned out to be either a hoax or just an example of specie variation.

Not to mention, the Cambrian explosion (Darwin admitted this objection can be made against his theory of evolution, in the macro sense I believe) and the plenty of evidence of man and dinosaur co-existing.

hoax? what, piltdown man? dude there's a fucking shitload of intermediate forms between monkey and man. i got one hot and sexy a. afarensis to offer you for a buck fifty. she ain't cute, but she got the right plumbing.

afarensis.jpg
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
hoax? what, piltdown man?

That was one of them.

dude there's a fucking shitload of intermediate forms between monkey and man. i got one hot and sexy a. afarensis to offer you for a buck fifty. she ain't cute, but she got the right plumbing.

afarensis.jpg

The field of paleoanthropology and the evolution of man is more fraught with controversy among its proponents than probably any other field of evolutionary studies. The majority of paleoanthropologists believe that Australopithecus afarensis is on the main evolutionary line (or very close to it) heading toward modern humans.

Three Israeli scientists have reported in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science1 that Au. afarensis may not be our ancestor at all. It all hinges on the jaw of these creatures (pardon the pun). Alas, Au. afarensis has a lower jaw bone (mandible) that closely resembles that of a gorilla—not that of a human or even a chimp. The scientists conclude that this “cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”

This should not come as a huge surprise, since even Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,” conceded that its V-shaped mandible was very ape-like, and certainly nothing like that of a human.2

The part of the mandible that sweeps up from the angle of the jaw and hinges with the skull is known as the “ramus.” In all primates, the superior end of the ramus ends in two processes: the more anterior coronoid process (which attaches to the temporalis, a chewing muscle), and the posterior condylar process (which articulates with a shallow socket in the base of the skull). The two processes are separated by an indentation of the ramus known as the “mandibular notch.”

The shape of the ramus is species-specific among certain groups of primates. The human ramus is similar to that of a chimp and orangutan, as well as that of several other primates, while that of Au. afarensis is similar to gorillas. In the case of humans and many other primates, the coronoid process of the ramus is relatively slender (particularly at its tip), shorter in height than the condylar process, and the two processes are separated by a deep mandibular notch. The mandibular ramus of Au. afarensis, however, is similar to the gorilla in that the coronoid process is broad out to its tip and is separated from the condylar process with a shallow mandibular notch.

The authors focus on the presumed evolutionary implications of the shape of the coronoid process, but its shape tells us less about evolution than about the function of this bony process. Gorillas have massive temporalis muscles giving them a very powerful chewing force. The strong pulling force of this large muscle on the coronoid process to which it is attached results in a massive development of this bony attachment. One must assume that Au. afarensis also had a large temporalis muscle and engaged in some heavy chewing.

Much is made of the similarity of mandibular ramus of the human and chimp because it supports the purported close evolutionary relationship of humans and chimps. But this is not compelling because many other more distantly “related” primates also have a mandibular ramus similar to humans.

Of interest is the observation that the mandibular ramus of Au. afarensis closely resembles that of the primate fossil Au. boisei as well as that of the gorilla. Although Au. boisei is not currently considered to be an ancestor of man, it once was considered to be ancestral under a different name.

Louis Leakey first made his reputation with the discovery of “Zinjanthropus,” commonly known as “East Africa Man” or “Nutcracker Man.” In the 60s and 70s, many school children memorized the names of this ape as a “known ancestor” of man. Zinjanthropus is essentially the same primate later known as Au. boisei. None of these robust australopithecines are now considered to be ancestral to man.

So it appears that Au. afarensis (“Lucy”) joins Au. boisei as a non-ancestor of man. One wonders what they will now do with the Laetoli footprints that are generally believed by evolutionists to have been made by Au. afarensis and also serve as compelling proof that “Lucy” walked upright and was a human ancestor.

We may be certain that the human evolution scenario will continue to change regularly; only the confidence that man did evolve from apes will go unchanged. As the evolutionist Michael Lemonick said in an article in Timemagazine3 titled “How Man Began”: “The only certainty in this data-poor, imagination-rich, endlessly fascinating field is that there are plenty of surprises left to come.” The question is if there is any real empirical science left to come in this data-poor, imagination-rich field of evolutionary speculation.


Source
 
Top