Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

[Bodhi]

@thatdamnjay

@Scion.

Cool??

 

[_Jay_]

Appreciate the consideration, but I'd be too inconsistent in following the thread/argument, so I'll have to pass..

 

[Bodhi]

No problem. Thanks anyway.

 

[bambu]

Janklow caught a bad one on page 9 & is responsible for the meme below......

I would like to hear from some of the people that post around here, but not in this thread.....

However, I don't really care who you pick.......

My body of work speaks for itself........

HOTEP.....

 

[bambu]

I guess now you can go back and theorize on seshat's headdress. Have fun.

@Oceanic.....

Be patient.....

I will go back to schooling your ass shortly...........

 

[Bodhi]

You mean you will go back to receiving this big ass L.

But good for you. Take some time off to rethink your shit.

 

[bambu]

Nigga please.....

If no one will step up to decide this shit.......

We can take it to the debate shits in the SL and I will give it to your monkey ass out-in-the-open under all the lights..........

 

[Bodhi]

You're a funny character.

 

[Bodhi]

Now run along and play with your my little egyptian dolls.

 

[Bodhi]

Be patient.....

I will go back to schooling your ass shortly...........

sounds a lot like what this brother said:

I gotta special wonton soup for you nigga... just you wait.... lol

..and he ain't been back yet.

 

[bambu]

what books would you recommend, G?

@Oceanic.....

Be patient.....

I will go back to schooling your ass shortly...........

 

[Bodhi]

LOL... you taking my words out of context like I forgot I said em. I was asking you about egyptian history, which you know a lot about. Unfortunately, you're ignorant when it comes to other things like evolution so like I said, back to the drawing board for ya. Rethink your shit and then come back with a better argument.

 

[bambu]

Tough talk from a nigga with no argument.......

You weren't so tough when you tried to defend your weak ass position.........

Well whatever man fuck it if you want to take that, I'll give that one to you.

Anyway,

What I had meant to had said was.....

Ol'

HEAD ASS NIGGA....

 

[Bodhi]

Tough talk from a nigga with no argument.......

BOL.. What are you talking about? My arguments have made short work out of your creationist b.s. That's why you're leaving now to come back later.

You weren't so tough when you tried to defend your weak ass position.........

I was calling out your position, you claiming that drosophila is a species. You were wrong. Drosophila is a genus. I made a mistake on the other first half but ultimately, that post put you in your place, as have my others. Now stop wasting time and go clean up your arguments so you can come back and represent for the little boys and girls on the concrete floors

 

[Bodhi]

HOTEP

 

[bambu]

I made a mistake on the other first half but.......

What I meant to say was.......

I was calling out your position, you claiming that drosophila is a species. You were wrong. Drosophila is a genus.

I never said Drosophila was not a genus......

In biological nomenclature, a type species is the species to which the name of a genus is permanently linked; it is the species that contains the biological type specimen(s) of the taxon......

Therefore all fruit fly species are named Drosophila.......

bambu wrote: »

Exhibit C.....

SPECIES / SPECIMEN

Drosophila melanogaster

Drosophila funebris

Drosophila busckii

Drosophila confertidentata

or......

D. linearidentata

D. neobusckii

Ect....

The type species permanently attaches a genus to its formal name (its generic name) by providing just one species within that genus to which the genus is permanently linked (i.e. the genus must include that species if it is to bear the name). The species name in turn is fixed, in theory, to a type specimen.

I know you like

Nigga take your L and stop trying to make shit up.......

Fix yourself up playboy, you out here all flabby and sick

 

[whar]

Stupid nigga....

wolf: species: canis lupus

domestic dog: species: Canis lupus: subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris

Drosophila mojavensis species: Drosophila

Drosophila arizonae species: Drosophila

In both examples there is only one species........

Smart/Dumb nigga......

In the first example there is one species. In the second there is two. Mojavensis and arizonae are two different species within the Genus Drosophilia.

 

[Bodhi]

THREAD SUMMARY

The experiment began with two sub-species, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae.......

But...But.. I meant to say...

mojavensis: species: Drosophila

arizonae: species: Drosophila

Drosophila mojavensis species: Drosophila

Drosophila arizonae species: Drosophila

In both examples there is only one species........

Umm.. Uhh.. But....

I never said Drosophila was not a genus......

 

[Bodhi]

you claimed that goose bumps were a "relic"....

Which has since been established as nonsense......

Vestigiality does not necessarily imply that the structure, or organ, is completely useless. The point of vestigiality is that the structure, or organ, has lost a purpose. What is the reason for this loss? Evolution, of course.

Opponents of evolution always raise the same argument when vestigial traits are cited as evidence for evolution. "The features are not useless," they say. "They are either useful for something, or we haven't yet discovered what they're for." They claim, in other words, that a trait can't be vestigial if it still has a function, or a function yet to be found.

But this rejoinder misses the point. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that vestigial characters have no function.
http://jerrycoyne.uchicago.edu/excerpt.html

Darwin says

An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.

An organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose.

Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges_functional

Uhhh... I'll be back

 

[Bodhi]

all humans are one species.

That's not what your European counterparts think.........

"Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles

Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,

Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To

deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and

White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social

organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ."

You're quoting from a book that has been highly criticized by (black and white) experts of their fields. I've told you this before.

Rushton has been criticised for his use of r/K selection theory to explain alleged differences between his identified "races". Evolutionary Biologist Joseph L. Graves (2002) notes that the theory had long lacked support and had been invalidated before Rushton's book was written. According to Graves, Rushton's claim (still present in the third edition and without any acknowledgement of counter-evidence), that r- and K-life history theory was 'a basic principle of modern evolutionary theory' "supports my view that Rushton does not understand life history theory. Thus he employs it incorrectly and through this error his work serves racist ideological agendas."[11]

Psychologist David P. Barash notes that r- and K-selection may have some validity when considering the so-called demographic transition, whereby economic development characteristically leads to reduced family size and other K traits. "But this is a pan-human phenomenon, a flexible, adaptive response to changed environmental conditions of lowered mortality and greater pay-off attendant upon concentrating parental investment in a smaller number of offspring [...] Rushton wields r- and K-selection as a Procrustean bed, doing what he can to make the available data fit[...]. Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book."[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior#r.2FK_theory_as_an_explanation_for_the_data

Race, Evolution, and Behavior has been cited as an example of the Pioneer Fund's activities in promoting "Scientific racism". Valencia notes that many of the supportive comments for the book come from Pioneer grantees like Rushton himself, and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer.[7] The book is cited by psychologist William H. Tucker as an example of the Pioneer Fund's continued role "to subsidize the creation and distribution of literature to support racial superiority and racial purity." The mass distribution of the abridged third edition he described as part of a "public relations effort", and "the latest attempt to convince the nation of 'the completely different nature' of blacks and whites." He notes that bulk rates were offered "for distribution to media figures, especially columnists who write on race issues".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

Uhhh....