Ringer

Off the top of my head, lactase in adults. It also wasn't part of the argument, and still wasn't an ad hominem. It wasn't about you, but a statement regarding something you have done. First it has nothing to do with environment and culture, now it does? Again, you are now arguing that it has to do more with culture which completely changes your argument. Source? That's not how science works. You made a claim and it is your responsibility to back it up, not ours to show the opposite is true. You have done next to nothing to show your stance is true and shifting the burden of proof doesn't change that. Many examples have been given for why it could be assumed intelligence and race don't have a special relationship, if you can't look at the evidence already given why give more? Do you know what arbitrarily chosen means? You made a statement that it had no civilizations, then choose another comparison when your position is shown to be wrong. Also, Greece and Rome were fairly advanced for their time, but there's no reason to assume that it is because they were genetically superior. Unless, of course, you want to take the stance Arabic people where genetically more intelligent during medieval times, but it just so happen to coincide with them having large amounts of texts. There has been ample evidence given to show that intelligence probably doesn't have a direct correlation with skin tone, it's not anyone else's fault that you refuse to see them.

I'm in on my honeymoon with my wife and we've been to Paris, Venice, and are now in Florence (next stop Rome). All of these places seem to be safe and interesting. The only problem I've had is the tourists in Paris were pretty rude (though the Parisians were mostly very nice, take that stereotypes!).

I don't think anyone is saying that intelligence is not, in part, heritable. That is not your argument, your argument is that one phenotypic characteristic, melanin concentration in skin, is directly correlated with another, intelligence. As of yet you have not shown that there is a large enough variation in intelligence that cannot just as easily be explained by other factors. You have also ignored the data that brings doubt to your claim, which is even hurting your credibility more than a mistaken argument ever could.

And there's an example of; 1.) The Science Man trying to put me down 2.) Why one should always look things up instead of trusting their memeory

So why is it you refuse to listen to the problems with your idea? I don't think it was ever said they couldn't, only that the Earth obviously is not. Iron ore isn't iron oxide, the oxygen could come from many different places. They wouldn't need to. No one is arguing that pressure happens when gases are contained, only that it doesn't matter because the pressure and heat you describe would be catastrophic. There's a reason science is presented in a certain way. Idea's are wonderful, but they don't amount to anything if they aren't based in what is already known. Even less so when they can't even be shown to be false. As I've said before even if your idea is so beautiful, simple, elegant, and makes so much sense if it doesn't agree with experiments it is wrong. Of course science is for everyone, but to do science you must work under science's guidelines. I can't expect to walk into a kitchen and start pouring poison into the food and then be angry because I get kicked out. Even though anyone can cook, when you do it wrong the result must be thrown out. Just because you don't like that you're doing it wrong doesn't mean we are somehow elitists, it's your fault for not accepting the methodology that is required for science. That's why science is self correcting, science, eventually, calls b.s. on everything, no matter who it comes from. Because it's your idea and you want us to accept it. It's fairly simple to figure out the partial pressures of gases at different temperatures, see how much expansion you expect and then see how much the gas would need to expand to match that, then see how much of a temp increase would be needed. The thing is you haven't shown a good grasp on basic statistics, physics, chemistry, etc. that would be necessary to understand the effects that would be caused by your idea. Strength doesn't matter for melting/freezing temp. If the planet was cooled by rotation your idea, again, would be nullified since the heat is necessary for expansion. The coldness of space would help the vaporization process because boiling points rely on the atmospheric pressure exerted on the liquid. If there is no pressure on the liquid it will become gas, hence why water boils at a lower temp at higher altitudes. Now you make a new thing about the Earth having no atmosphere at all? How so? Find the melting point of the rocks and the temp change needed for the gases to come out and see which one is higher. That seems pretty simple. And we have refuted them with evidence that you have ignored. That's not a problem with science, that's a problem with 'pet theories'. Modern science has done more with the methods you see here than anything thing else. To say our disputing you is a problem with modern science is to say the scientific methodology is bunk. If that's the case you shouldn't be using all these bunk electronic devices. Science is the process of disproof. Yeah science shows things correct every once and a while, but most of the time it shows us how wrong we always are. One person making a discovery isn't science. One person making a discovery and that discovery is still valid after other scientists try to tear it apart, now that's science. It's a world of dashed hopes and broken dreams.

You always called it a gas, so I was asking why the sudden change in terminology since it changes much of what you have said. It doesn't matter if you knew it in your heart or it's beautiful, it's still wrong. Since the Earth isn't moving towards the sun, it's moving away from it, your idea already disagrees with experimental observation. So why is it if I have 3 papers on a table I can shove them all together without being on the other side of the table? You are talking about two entirely different time scales. To push lava into space I would need a large amount of force over a short time period, for creating mountain ranges I could do it with a little force over a very long time period. Please explain this better because it seems you are saying gravity has some sort of lag time after the explosions energy is expended, which it doesn't, and if it did it would do even less for you saying gravity would hold the world together after the explosion. And you have yet to answer any of the actual questions posted.

So you're right because measurements don't matter? Show, in math form, that the force exerted from result of the explosion is less than the force of gravity. Then think about how gravity doesn't take a long time to act. In fact it acts immediately and at all times, otherwise we could float. The whole glass curving has more to do with the whole hanging it so it won't fall. So we are just taking your word on it then?

His analogy works just as well for liquids as gases. Also, when did it go from gases to liquids in the core? So the other super-continents don't bother you? What do you mean by it needs a a polar opposite? I don't think you know your statistics well enough to say the chances are zero. In fact I know you don't because 1.) Even if they moved in completely random directions there is still a chance of collision 2.) The chances of anything happening that has happened is by definition 1. Let's see the math for that claim that the lava could go into space. It doesn't matter what your opinion or thoughts are nature will do whatever it wants, it doesn't care to make you happy. Nor does it care if you believe the way it works is ugly, personally I think many things in nature are ugly, but that doesn't make them any less true. Your opinion on the matter makes no difference nor is it evidence of you being right. Again you don't understand the statistics being used. Any measurement that overlaps zero when taking into account the error is not significant. Since the measure was .1mm (+/- .2) our range of confidence overlaps with zero. So what you're saying is your model isn't able to make predictions with the accuracy of plate tectonics? Your analogy doesn't work, you are changing the card's shape not it's area. Your premise needs you to show how, with consistent growth, these things can happen instead of the more likely scenario that the world would just blow-up. You still haven't explained why the world wouldn't just explode, how the gas expulsion has yet to reach equilibrium, make an accurate prediction, why expansion hasn't been observed, etc.

Could you cite sources to all these facts you keep describing? Because you haven't given a single source as evidence so you have nothing other than asking us to taking your word on it (and I doubt anyone will).

You misunderstand what evolution does and how it drives things. We don't have to know the end purpose of what we are doing we just need to enjoy it so we keep doing it. We are driven by evolution to do things that cause us to reproduce so sex feels good. But that is not to say there are not ways to get a similar feeling without the end product. To assume anything that does something because it feels good and not for a direct evolutionary benefit is not a product of evolution is fallacious on most accounts. After all, how do you think those things came to feel good if not by evolution. Also, to say that since we have sex and not for reproduction could work just as well with any animal species that masturbates, and there's quite a few that do.

This not be really correct, but the way I understand it is that the momentum gained from light with solar sails is similar to the gravitational effects of dark matter on galaxies, though in reverse. What I mean by that is that even though photons have no mass they still interact with things electromagnetically, the same way dark matter can interact with things with their mass but they have no interaction from EM. Since the momentum exchange is EM driven there would be no need for mass so long as enough energy is there. I think this is almost close to being vaguely right, but I'm not very knowledgeable about this sort of thing.

There's no reason to explain what hasn't been supported. Meaning you haven't shown any evidence that intellectual faculty between races differs in a strongly meaningful way. Your second statement is only, AFAIK, valid in America. If we were using that I would ask you to explain why Asians have a higher intellectual faculty. Also, if it is so strongly affected by genetic make-up by race, why is it that asian children that are transracially adopted have been shown to have lower intellectual faculties, by a fairly large amount, than other Asian children. You would also have to explain why it is that the average IQ of minorities has risen at a much higher rate than the IQ of whites, if it is mostly genetic the increase in average socio-economic status of minorities and stability of status of whites shouldn't coincide as much as they do. That is blatantly wrong. As an example of you completely assumed 'facts' let's take a look at the one easiest to get data on, that blacks are imprisoned more because that are genetically disposed to doing more crimes. I will use a simple sample of blacks being arrested for drugs vs. whites being arrested for drugs. If there were no racial bias to this the difference in use and imprisonment should mirror each other fairly closely. According to This Study white people do more drugs on every account. I want you to take that in for a minute and really think on it. White people are doing more drugs than blacks, and the other minorities as well. Well then, since there isn't a racial bias to arrests or imprisonment white people are getting nailed left and right for drugs, right? Of course not, to really put it in perspective; • SAMHSA reported that in 2002, 24 percent of crack cocaine users were African American and 72 percent were white or Hispanic, yet more than 80 percent of defendants sentenced for crack cocaine offenses were African American. (Source) Read that whole paper if you want to really get into that, but it's a different issue. That point I'm trying to make is that what you are saying is blatantly wrong in almost every aspect. Since there hasn't been a major observable difference in the rates whites and blacks have been put in jail for drugs it shouldn't have anything to do with environment according to you. Obviously this is wrong, as it is with your statement of intelligence.

A crazy guy did drugs and did something crazy. It wasn't really a zombie in any sense of the word, there are, and always have been, people who do crazy stuff similar to this. If you look up zombie attacks you are going to find this stuff because that's what everyone is calling it, but that's only because we have this whole zombie culture thing that people love. Look up cannibal attacks, or something similar, and you will find a ton of stories from all sorts of different times.

But we are not even close to the only animal that uses outside resources to enhance survival in this way. Some use instinct, some work together using pheromones, and some use brains. They all work, saying one is better than the other doesn't really make sense because all of them increase survival. Some organisms survive just as well, if not better, without using this ability as well, so again to assume it is superior doesn't really make sense. Whose to say it will keep evolving the same way though? Bacteria can evolve faster, survive under more extreme conditions, tend to be less specialized, etc. Not to mention without bacteria we wouldn't survive, so bacteria will at least survive as long as we do. Again, bacteria will move with us. Bacteria have been everywhere we have, and many places we probably haven't been. They have our mobility without having to evolve it because they have caused us to be reliant on them. Unless we make technology that takes the place of bacteria, which would be extremely unnecessary, they will be with us wherever we go because we rely on them. The difference is they don't rely on us. Most can survive without us easily enough, but the same can't be said for our survival.

But it doesn't mean we are either. There are a great many things we cannot do that other organisms do regularly. For them they are superior because they do those things better. You can't say you are superior by a single arbitrary measure such as intelligence.

But photosynthetic bacteria were responsible for responsible for one of the biggest changes in the history of the Earth, namely adding loads of O2 instead of CO2 to our atmosphere. Without this we wouldn't even exist. Bacteria, and other organisms, also tend to be responsible for large 'dead zones' in the ocean by making them hypoxic, given we can help out a lot, but so can many other organisms. Also, to photosynthetic organisms, this transfer from CO2 to O2 was pollution that could easily have wiped out life if aerobic respiration didn't come into play. Our brains are a result of millions of years of selection just like the bee's pheromones, which IIRC are responsible for them making hives and working together not instinct. The main point of this is that we very little of what we do is 'special' or superior any more than the things other organisms is 'special' or superior because we cannot do them.

No worries, it happens to the best of us.

I'm not sure why, but this made me all sorts of happy.

There is a difference between natural and artificial selection, but it is still a type of evolutionary force. As an example look at plants that we have been breeding for use in gardens. Some of these live in the wild very well, but we put a different sort of selective pressure on many to fit our view of what a garden should look like. Sexual selection is only one of many different forces that affect the evolution of animals. Organisms that by definition are not affected by sexual selection, asexual organisms, still evolve without that factor. Some animals that rely more on rape than the female choosing a mate also don't undergo the type of sexual selection you describe, although that is a different form of sexual selection. Breeding is just a subset of evolution with artificial selection instead of natural selection.

They don't mean it wasn't evolution. Let's look at what comes right after your quote, "it is probable that the basic mechanisms acting during environmental stress are involved in this adaptation." Man that sounds a lot like evolution talk. What? I have given you lots of links which you have failed to even begin to form an argument against other than starting new threads on the same topics. Please tell me which ones you have read and which you haven't and what is wrong with them.

I don't know how he would make more money since that is the exact opposite of what I said.

Codons can be, and are, changed all the time. This alters functionality, but it's still functional unlike your sentences. This means your analogy is wrong. What in this do you not understand? Side rant: IIRC you came here in your first thread wanting to have reasonable discussions; why do you insist on avoiding them? You jump around making new threads anytime you can't answer a question on the same subjects. All of us are trying to be patient and help you understand why evolution is real, but you seem intent on running away from that.

It was retracted due to fraud, not because he did science. Guy fakes science and endangers public - destroys his career. http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/some-quick-thoughts-and-links-on-andrew-wakefield-the-bmj-autism-vaccines-and-fraud/

Sammy, please, for all of us, read up on how genes work. Read about codons, amino acids, proteins and how they fold, and how those proteins interact. You are arguing something you don't understand and that is the reason nothing in our arguments seems to be refuting what you are saying. All of the answers here have refuted all your points, but since you don't understand why they do you don't think they do. It is extremely easy for new sequences to be added or changed in a genome, as I have given examples of before and another is cross-over events, and people have explained how. TL;DR: Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.