DFTT, my friend. DFTT.
Actually, it took him a lot longer than it took me to realize what you were about.
Based on what, exactly? My writing the letters “IQ” once in passing, among other traits that might be inheritable, and then never again? That’s some keen detective work.
Meanwhile, I was quizzed closely as to my peculiar interest in the trait of “height,” which I needed to explain as another mere example of a trait that evolution-deniers might deem valid, but you and @RitterSport choose to focus instead on those two terrible letters “IQ” as the dead giveaway of my real fascistic agenda there? And now you’re patting yourself on your back because you drew this erroneous conclusion first?
It’s so unreasonable of them. And you have been nothing but unfailingly polite too.
Nah. 'Twas this bit:
please tell me about any controlled studies of inheritable characteristics in humans that would support Darwinian theories of evolution, even on a provisional scale
Oh, it’s just so unfair to be tarred as a “scientific racist” just because one uses “scientific racist” terms.
Wasn’t all that hard, though.
I’m not seeing the scientific racism flags that y’all are. But I do think the question is not gonna help: as I said in that thread, what you’re asking for evidence for isn’t what Creationists deny. It’s a little weird that you keep asking for that evidence, if your purpose is to refute Creationists.
It’s amazing how self-congratulatory you can be while being 100% wrong. Let’s see how long you can maintain this nonsense.
I’ve been accused for decades, sometimes accurately, for being needlessly rude and obnoxiously left-wing, but this is the first time I can recall I’ve been smeared with being a polite rightwinger.
In your selected example, I’ve explained several times in that thread that I am looking for examples of ways I could refute ignorant, right-wing, creationist evolution-deniers, so you pick my example of a belief system I am hoping to argue against as your evidence of my retrograde views? And the more you get presented with this explanation, the deeper the hole you keep digging for yourself? And congratulating yourself on the brilliance of your digging?
Is it? I’m hoping to find the most succinct, clearest, least refutable, most obvious bit of evidence, and I’ve been presented with several different bits, some of which seem stronger than others. I’m just trying to sort them out, and ameliorate my own ignorance along the way. I don’t see what’s particularly weird about that, other than to those presuming malice or Naziism in my inquiry and seeking evidence of their mistaken presumtion.
I’m also seeing absolutely no signs of “scientific” racism. It’s a weird thread, but I like to see actual racism before throwing out accusations
Eh. I saw a couple minor caution flags but no red flags. And with the explanations, the presence of those flags makes perfect sense - there is a scientific racist involved, just not the OP.
On the balance, that particular thread wouldn’t have tripped any alarms for me but there have been similar threads derail rather quickly in the past. Those usually start the same way - reasonable-ish sounding thesis that gradually (or rapidly) turned into a flaming pile with ever increasing demands for evidence and ever increasing use of questionable or outright racist statements.
This is not helped, of course, by some needing almost explicit “hang 'em from the nearest tree” racism to catch on (and some even then try to play devil’s advocate).
So, I understand the caution but it seems not to have been needed in this case, except by proxy as the OP appears to be trying to find evidence and arguments to use on a scientific racist. And that does explain why it pinged any radars at all - the flags are there because there is one involved, albeit indirectly.
Well, yes. As I said, you’re looking for evidence of something that Creationists agree exists, in order to refute a Creationist.
Look, I deny that astrology is effective. To show me that I’m wrong, you could come onto these boards asking for evidence that there are stars and planets. But that would be weird, because I don’t deny that stars and planets exist.
You’re doing essentially the same thing.
Arguing by a rather strained analogy, IMO, isn’t really making a case for me being a neo-Nazi in disguise. I’m perfectly happy to be shown mistaken in my speculation that a smidge of denier-refuting evidence is available, and that my goal of effectively supplying deniers with clear and currently available evidence of human evolution is impossible. That’s basically what I’m asking: what’s the best evidence? If the answer is “There is none,” then I’ll accept that.
As LHOD was actually defending you against such accusations, you aren’t really making a good case for your reading comprehension.
There is little direct evidence of macro-evolution in humans, and none that creationist would accept.
And for why people would suspect you are, there is quite a pattern of people coming on here, claiming to be looking for ways of refuting their interlocutors, but rejecting and arguing against anything brought up as not something that would be convincing the them. It often unravels and becomes apparent that there are no interlocutors, and that the arguments are in fact, coming from the poster themselves.
Not saying that’s what you are doing, just saying that you are following that exact pattern.
Good grief, dude. Again:
If I wanted to make that case, I would make it. But I think it’s a wrong case. I just think that, in addition to not asking for scientific racism evidence, you’re also not asking for evidence that’s relevant to what you actually want.
The best evidence is going to depend on the particular nutjob you’re talking to–but it’s almost certainly not going to be evidence of minor changes within a species such as humanity. If you want evidence to refute creationists, you need to be asking for evidence of macroevolution, not microevolution. For example, ask for evidence of Neanderthal genes in modern humans.
I’m not doing a very effective job of arguing, am I? I mean, I keep on thanking people and accepting their refutations, and conceding how little I understand about evolution, and praising those arguments, such as the one about adapting to low oxygen levels after living for several generations at great altitudes, that offer some possibilities. You’d almost think this website is offended by the idea of someone trying to fight his own ignorance, wouldn’t you?
I agree, you are not making accusations about me making pro-Nazi arguments. But you are arguing by a rather strained analogy and then concluding that I am doing “essentially the same thing.” Why not state clearly what you think it is I’m doing? Then I won’t need to figure out the point-by-point similarities between what I’m saying and whatever you’re trying to say about the stars and planets?
Typical Capricorn.
Considering all the good faith effort that has gone into trying to answer your question, I’d say a very firm no.
But, the way you keep misrepresenting others, especially with that shitty line, I’m starting to doubt good faith on your part.
I apologize to anyone I’ve misrepresented, though I am unaware, outside of your general accusation, of having done so.
Neither do I, and I’m very familiar with the subject unfortunately. When I was a Wikipedia admin, it was a frequent problem there. I’ve seen people try to promote it in sneaky ways and blatant ways. This doesn’t seem like it.
However…
Same here.
When LHOD said…
He wasn’t talking about you arguing scientific racism. You asshat, he said what your argument was like. He just you had a nonsensical thread and why.
You’re either a troll or an idiot.