I am trying to untangle your twisted thinking. How does Rushton’s data not support his claims? 
I’m not saying they don’t. I honestly haven’t heard of the man. That’s not my point. That’s…that’s the opposite of the point, goddamit ! Just because his data supports his claims doesn’t mean his claims are correct, sound or valid. Got that ? Remember: old movies are not penguins.
But you, on the other hand, have repeatedly responded to criticism of your conclusions, far-fetched theories, leaps of logic and complete ass-pulls by re-iterating your ground facts over and over, ad nauseam. As if the latter was a refutation of the former. So did brazil84 just now, when he responded to tomndebb’s claim that the scientific community had torn Rushton’s theories (such as his purported going from average penis size to irresponsibility, one would guess absolutely at random) to shreds by trying to prove his empirical data is still used, or the methodology to obtain it undisputed.
BTW, because I missed your post earlier: thanks, Damuri Ashaji, for your precisions and clarifications re: the Imperial exam. Fascinating stuff - I should really get to know Chinese history better. Would you have any recommendations for accessible books on the subject ?
You clearly know nothing about population genetics. This is the equivalent of saying “the sky is obviously yellow, not blue!” This is one of the most fundamental and obvious underlying facts in the field. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.
As I have repeatedly said, I am arguing that it is an irrelevant and fallacious argument.
Good hell. This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen.
Oh, and yet again, I note that you’re completely ignoring the vast majority of the arguments I have posted. Not surprising, actually. If these feeble attempts are the best you can do…
Man, I had missed that beauty. Good Lord.
I suppose failure to understand the concept of “inertia”, and that large things have more of it than small things, makes it easier to cling to a notion (perception necessarily indicates reality) that implies that the planets revolved around the Earth in 1412 and revolve around the Sun in 2012.
Kind of like the way the United States Army can get halfway around the world faster than a personal traveling alone can. Oh, wait, it doesn’t work that way at all…
I don’t have time to read all the insults directed against me. If this is all you can do, I did not miss anything.
If I am mistaken in my assertion that a large gene pool evolves faster than a small gene pool, why have animals in isolated areas of the world like Australia evolved less rapidly than in places like Asia?
Placental mammals never reached Australia until the ancestors of the Aborigines did about 50,000 years ago, and the later dingos did about 5,000 years ago. The entry of modern humans caused mass extinctions. Later the dingos caused the extinction of the marsupial wolf. The marsupial wolf occupied the same ecological niche as the dingo, and could not compete with the dingo.
Although the marsupial wolf was very distantly related to the placental wolf, it looked surprisingly wolf like, as you can see from this video:
Well, your time might be precious but if you’re going to be starting threads about genetics I would strenuously advise you to take the time and pick up Baby’s First Book On Evolution one of these days. The fundamental errors you’re making in the statements **Smeghead **quoted would make a high-schooler roll their eyes in disbelief, nevermind a biologist like his self.
If you seriously do not see why “one solitary gene spreads this fast, therefore an entire collection of interconnected genes should spread exponentially faster” is such a wall-bonkingly idiotic assertion… Well, actually, do keep saying it every time you open one of these threads. It’ll let people know exactly how much they should pay attention to what else you have to say.
They haven’t. They’ve, on average, evolved at pretty much the same rate. They evolved differently, is all. Placentals aren’t any faster evolved than marsupials, and saying so displays a blistering ignorance of evolution.
Also, Galapagos finches, for fuck’s sake.
…the same thing happened everywhere modern humans went - North America, for one…yet that place teamed with placentals.
Cite? No, really.
The notion of “evolution speed” is a tenuous one itself (so, please define the way you’re using it - generation turnaround? chromosomal changes (how are you measuring this)? number of distinct species?). Also, you’ve given no evidence that this is the case in Australia. It seems you think it’s self-evident, when it’s certainly not.
Also, this is a digression from the main point. You still trying to use a single (mistaken) data point (Australia) to prove your larger point about evolution in small populations.
How about showing it in general instead of using one-off examples?
Bu-bu-but the placental wolf caused the extinction of the marsupial wolf so that means he’s more evolved and thus intrinsically superior ! :smack: (we need an “I am saying a really stupid thing” smiley)
By that logic the Nazis were intrinsically superior to Ashkenazim in Europe …:eek: but that’s not possible - Ashkenazim are the most superior humans ever:confused:!
Well, not superior, just, ya know, better. 
this is demonstrably false. the more success people have, the fewer children they tend to have (disregarding a terribly small amount of, say, royals).
Um, excuse me ? You are very much mistaken, sir. Do you see any Nazis around ? There you go. Clearly the Jew gene is more evolved than the Nazi one.
I’m genuinely unclear as to how you think that these facts you mention lead to your conclusion. You seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that because marsupials never evolved into placentals that they’re somehow “behind” or “slower” at evolving. There is, of course, no end goal in evolution, and modern marsupials and modern placentals are equally evolved, despite the fact that the marsupial lifestyle arose first. Modern Australian marsupials are just as evolved as the placentals found elsewhere - they just went in a different direction.
The fact that one species was driven to extinction by another species (and, for the record, the reality was far more complicated than that) does not allow us to draw grand conclusions about speeds of evolution…
Actually, I’m going to just stop here instead of trying to explain further. I’ve been thinking about this thread lately, and you have made it crystal clear that:
(A) You know absolutely nothing about population genetics, evolution, or even genetics in general. Well, perhaps not “absolutely nothing”. I’d estimate you have a roughly high-school level of education on the subjects. Not honors high school, just general. Your understanding is shallow, riddled with mistakes, and in many places just simply wrong. This conclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with your views on race. It is based on the embarrassingly, wildly inaccurate statements you’ve made about simple, basic underlying facts upon which our understanding of evolutionary processes are based.
(B) You are absolutely determined to resist the acquisition of any new facts or understanding. You have decided to completely shut your mind to any and all data that do not fit and support your preconceived prejudices.
Therefore, I have decided that it is completely pointless to continue to attempt to engage with you. I may continue to correct your egregiously incorrect representations of biological science for the sake of anyone more impressionable who may be reading, but as far as argument is concerned, I wash my hands of you. You may continue to wallow in your own ignorance without molestation from me.
Also, we’re having a baby tomorrow, so I’m going to have more important stuff to do for a while than come bang my head against the brick wall of racist ignorance.
Black, white, Jew, or Oriental?
(Seriously: congratulations!)
It just occurred to me that if I were to answer Black, it might make NDD’s head explode.