FSTDT

One of the ironies of the crackpot theory of "Evolution" TM, is that the deceitful dogma itself is always "evolving." Since the 1860's inception of Darwinian doctrine, mad scientists have bickered endlessly about how "Evolution" TM actually played out, never questioning the basic foundational assumption that life spontaneously, with neither reason nor guidance, emerged from non-life in the first place.

From Darwin's Origin of the ~~Specious~~ Species to the present day, the case for "Evolution" TM must, by necessity, rely upon the classic logical fallacies that are so evident to philosophers; yet completely invisible to arrogant "theoretical scientists" emotionally attached to a dogma disguised as "science." This idiotic article by renown "science journalist" and author Nicholas Wade is no different.

Haz Mat suits and goggle on. Into the "Primordial Soup" (or is it "deep sea vents" now?) we "wade" (corny pun intended).

"Shhhh, Mr. Wade. You must never tell anyone about the Anti-New York Times."

Wade: A surprisingly specific genetic portrait of the ancestor of all living things has been generated by scientists who say that the likeness sheds considerable light on the mystery of how life first emerged on Earth.

Rebuttal: Notice how it is already assumed, without evidence, that "all living things" have a common ancestor. (fallacy of assumed truth)

Wade: This venerable ancestor was a single-cell, bacterium-like organism. But it has a grand name, or at least an acronym. It is known as Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, and is estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, before you school us dumb plebes about Luca's birthplace, please prove to us that Luca even existed; and then prove how Luca "evolved" into other species; which in turned "evolved" and "evolved" millions of times into all current life forms. And by "proof," we mean observational evidence -- the very definition of the Scientific Method.

Wade: The new finding sharpens the debate between those who believe life began in some extreme environment, such as in deep sea vents or the flanks of volcanoes, and others who favor more normal settings, such as the “warm little pond” proposed by Darwin.

Rebuttal: Whatever happened to the "Primordial Soup" TM theory?

You see, these erudite eggheads love to "debate" endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever demonstrating that there were actually any angels dancing on the pin, at all!

"Luca! We have you surrounded. Come out of that sea vent with your flagella up. And don't try any of that binary fission business"

They found little Luca in the deep sea, not the Primordial Soup as had once been theorized.

Wade: The nature of the earliest ancestor of all living things has long been uncertain because the three great domains of life (bacteria, plants, animals) seemed to have no common point of origin.

Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, has it ever occurred to you and your sci-fi cult that the reason why the various domains "seem to have no common point of origin" is because maybe, just maybe, they do not have a "common point of origin?"

Wade: Specialists have recently come to believe that the bacteria and archaea were the two earliest domains, with the eukaryotes emerging later. That opened the way for a group of evolutionary biologists, ... to try to discern the nature of the organism from which the domains emerged.

Translation: The high-priests of "Evolution" TM have just concocted a new theory to explain away the gaping holes in the previous theories.

Wade: Their starting point was the known protein-coding genes of bacteria and archaea. Some six million such genes have accumulated over the last 20 years in DNA databanks as scientists with the new decoding machines have deposited gene sequences from thousands of microbes.

Rebuttal: "DNA decoding machines" were used to sniff out little Luca --- (palm to face, deep sigh, shaking head)

Wade: Genes that do the same thing in a human and a mouse are generally related by common descent from an ancestral gene in the first mammal.

Rebuttal: The belief in the "common descent" between a human and a mouse is based on the fallacious prior assumption that we all came from Luca. It can just as easily be argued that DNA similarities between Mickey Mouse and Mickey Mantle are due to both of them having been designed by the same Creative Force which Tesla, Edison, Einstein (puke) all believed to exist. Hence, genetic similarities between the two Mickeys can be explained as cross-associations / basic templates of the same life-transmitting Creative Force which animates the universe.

Will the wonders of modern "science" ever cease?! The new Super Duper Decoding Machine not only links Mickey Mantle to the rodent family; it traced the birth of Luca to a deep sea vent!

Wade: By comparing their sequence of DNA letters, genes can be arranged in evolutionary family trees, a property that enabled Dr. Martin and his colleagues to assign the six million genes to a much smaller number of gene families.

Rebuttal: One can arrange and categorize the various "families" of automobiles (trucks, sports cars, SUV's, luxury cars, go-carts etcp) into a "tree" with many branches. Would their common component similarities therefore "prove" that Ferraris blindly "evolved" from school-buses?

Wade: Genes are adapted to an organism’s environment.

Rebuttal: Wrong again, Mr, Wade! The gene pool is not "adaptable." What happens sometimes is that environmental changes will favor one existing genetic trait over another. Hence, those specimens without the trait are at a disadvantage while those with it will prosper and produce offspring. This might explain why one group of finches has a beak like this while another group of finches has a beak like that. But it damn sure cannot explain how Marylyn Monroe and a putrid maggot have the same 1 millionth grandmother!

Wade: So Dr. Martin hoped that by pinpointing the genes likely to have been present in Luca, he would also get a glimpse of where and how Luca lived.

Rebuttal: "Likely to have been present in Luca" --- that's called conjecture, not science.

Wade: “I was flabbergasted at the result, I couldn’t believe it,” he said.

Rebuttal: We can't either.

Wade: The 355 genes pointed quite precisely to an organism that lived in the conditions found in deep sea vents, the gassy, metal-laden, intensely hot plumes caused by seawater interacting with magma erupting through the ocean floor.

Rebuttal: Cheese and crackers! We can't even find lost civilizations from a few thousand years ago and this academic ass-clown found little Luca in a deep sea vent?

Wade: Deep sea vents are surrounded by exotic life-forms and, with their extreme chemistry, have long seemed places where life might have originated.

Rebuttal: "Seemed" -- "might have." Save the speculative words for Star Trek or Jurassic Park, not the Science Section of a newspaper that so many people actually place trust in.

1- Mr. Spock of Star Trek says: "Evolution is not logical."

2- Some evolutionists now believe that T-Rex "evolved" into a bird.

Wade: The 355 genes ascribable to Luca include some that metabolize hydrogen as a source of energy as well as a gene for an enzyme called reverse gyrase, found only in microbes that live at extremely high temperatures...

Rebuttal: So, some of the genes "ascribed to" (speculative) this ancestral organism called Luca (never proved to have existed), are found in microbes that live at high temperature. Therefore, Mickey Mantle and Mickey Mouse, Marilyn and the maggot do all have a common ancestor after all. Brilliant! (palm to face, deep sigh, shaking head)

Wade: The finding has “significantly advanced our understanding of what Luca did for a living,” James O. McInerney of the University of Manchester wrote in a commentary, and provides “a very intriguing insight into life four billion years ago.”

Rebuttal: How does one even begin to respond to this madness?

Wade: Dr. Martin... argues that Luca is very close to the origin of life itself. The organism is missing so many genes necessary for life that it must still have been relying on chemical components from its environment. Hence it was only “half alive,” he writes.

Rebuttal: In other words, the "Luca-was-born-in-a-sea-vent" theory has so many holes that it requires another band-aid theory to keep it viable --- the "half alive" theory.

Wade: The fact that Luca depended on hydrogen and metals favors a deep sea vent environment for the origin of life, Dr. Martin concludes, rather than the land environment posited in a leading rival theory proposed by the chemist John Sutherland of the University of Cambridge in England.

Rebuttal: Wade, with his "Luca-was-born-in-a-sea-vent" theory, is seeking to dethrone Sutherland and his "Luca-was-born-on-land" theory as the crackpot theorist of the year. This heated competition among psychos has always been a comical feature of "theoretical science."

Wade: Luca and the origin of life are “events separated by a vast distance of evolutionary innovation,” said Jack Szostak of Massachusetts General Hospital, who has studied how the first cell membranes might have evolved.

Rebuttal: This crackpot believes in cellular life before Luca --- which means that there was another great great great grandma Luca long before "sea vent" Luca was born.

Wade: Dr. Sutherland too gave little credence to the argument that Luca might lie in some gray transition zone between nonlife and life just because it depended on its environment for some essential components. “It’s like saying I’m half alive because I depend on my local supermarket.”

Rebuttal: The lunatic Sutherland is dismissing the lunatic Martin. Just another day at the asylum of modern academia. Let the "academic debate" begin!

Wade: Dr. Sutherland and others have no quarrel with Luca’s being traced back to deep sea vents. But that does not mean life originated there, they say. Life could have originated anywhere and later been confined to a deep sea environment because of some catastrophic event like the Late Heavy Bombardment, which occurred 4 billion to 3.8 billion years ago.

Rebuttal: The Late Heavy Bombardment? What the heck was that?

Wade: This was a rain of meteorites that crashed into Earth with such force that the oceans were boiled off into an incandescent mist.

Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, can you cite for us the observational evidence for this "rain of meteorites" and the "boiling off" of the oceans?

Wade: Life is so complex it seems to need many millions of years to evolve.

Rebuttal: Circular logic! It goes like this:

"Life takes 'million of years' to 'evolve' --- We cannot observe this because it played out over 'millions of years.' "

Once upon a time, the meteors rained, the oceans boiled, and out popped little Luca -- with his millions of complex DNA codes, cell wall, cell membrane, cell plasma and flagella already intact.

Wade: Dr. Sutherland, working from basic principles of chemistry, has found that ultraviolet light from the sun is an essential energy source to get the right reactions underway, and therefore that land-based pools, not the ocean, are the most likely environment in which life began.

Translation:

Sutherland: "Luca came from a land pool, you idiot!"
Martin: "Nonsense, fool! Luca came from a deep sea vent!"
Sutherland: "Land pool!"
Martin: "Sea vent!"
Sutherland: "Your momma wears combat boots!"
Martin: "Your momma so ugly, the strip club paid her to keep her clothes on!"

Wade: "We didn’t set out with a preferred scenario; we deduced the scenario from the chemistry,” Sutherland said, chiding Dr. Martin for not having done any chemical simulations to support the deep sea vent scenario.

Rebuttal: You tell him, Dr. Sutherland! The absence of chemical simulations means that Dr. Martin's theory has no merit.

Say, Dr. Sutherland, can you tell us about your "chemical simulations" that prove that life came from non-life, formed in a land pool and then evolved and evolved and evolved? Just sayin'.

Wade: Dr. Martin’s portrait of Luca “is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the actual origin of life,” Dr. Sutherland said.

Rebuttal: So, Dr. Sutherland is saying that Dr. Martin is an even nuttier mad scientist than he is? --- OK. We'll accept that.

How a Young Black Man Became a Race Realist

I am a 21-year-old black man. I am an atheist, a registered Republican, and a member of Mensa. Already a minority within a minority within a minority, I have yet another idiosyncrasy that puts me in an even more unusual category: I am a race realist. I believe that consistently observed racial disparities in societal outcomes are largely rooted in genetic differences, primarily differences in average levels of intelligence.

High school

This was the first time race predominated in the social climate. I started to notice people self-segregating along racial lines. But most confusingly, black students who did not conform to stereotypes were considered “Oreos:” black on the outside, but white on the inside. I remember the following comments:

“You’re so quiet. Do you consider yourself black?” This from a white classmate, genuinely confused as to why I bucked the general black trend of rambunctious and loud behavior.

A white classmate says something racially offensive in my presence and another asks, “Why would you say that with a black person standing by us?” Answer: “It’s fine; he’s white at heart!”

An Asian classmate: “You’re an embarrassment to your race.”

A group of black students are listing black classmates whom they think act white, and include me: “Yes, he’s white on the inside. He has no accent and hangs out with too many white boys.” (The person who said that flunked out at the end of the school year. He enrolled in a predominately black high school and went to an HBCU. Two months ago, as of this writing, he was killed in a black-on-black crime. There were no protests or riots carried for him, since his death could not be made to look like black victimhood. He got nothing but a few people on Facebook posting his obituary. Maybe he should have acted more “white.”)

I not only saw blacks accuse other blacks of “acting white,” but, even more often, I saw whites accuse their black friends of “acting white.” My Asian friend — of whom I was quite fond — would often say that he didn’t consider me black. I found this extremely puzzling. To me, “acting white” meant being an Uncle Tom — someone who is intentionally betraying his race and cares more about the approval of whites than of other blacks. Being called an “Uncle Tom” is definitely not a compliment. In fact, it is one of the harshest insults for a black person.

The self-hating black person is derided in black culture, as in Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks and Clayton Bigsby from the Dave Chappelle Show. Many blacks would rather associate with a murderer than with an Uncle Tom. This is not mere hyperbole. The black community eagerly embraces thugs and criminals who destroy their neighborhoods while it ostracizes its most principled members — educated and conservative blacks.

Even more confusing, I noticed that the more intelligent blacks would be particularly prone to accusations of “acting white.” All my life I had believed that trying to come across as an intelligent and civilized person, working hard, speaking standard English, assimilating into American society, not playing the race card, and not acting like a minstrel show character were characteristics of intelligence — not traits associated with any particular race. That ghetto blacks would accuse others of “acting white” I could, to some degree, understand. After all, the more academically oriented blacks did tend to associate more readily with white people than with other blacks, who tended to be ignorant. But what was truly mind-boggling to me was how whites and Asians could accuse blacks — even their own friends — of “acting white.” Why did they mock their black friends for doing what they were supposed to do? Why were intelligent and civilized blacks so often called race traitors by both blacks and whites?

Like an idiot, I succumbed to this pressure. I came to view hard work and academic success as “white” activities. I began to take school and life less seriously, approaching it with a half-hearted attitude, as if giving it my all would be “white,” and antithetical to the very core of my identity. I tried to the greatest extent possible to distance myself from my white classmates — not a good idea at a school that is 90 percent white.

I ended up graduating nowhere near the top of my class but still got into an elite college due to affirmative action and good test scores. I felt a bit guilty for gaming the system, but I felt I experienced discrimination — because of the “acting white” comments — and affirmative action was my way of getting back at an unfair system. (The same college also gave offers of admission to two other blacks from my high school. Their level of achievement was, obviously, high by black standards but also nowhere near the level that would have been required of a white or Asian.)

College

In college it soon became clear that I was woefully mismatched. I began to doubt whether I was smart enough to work at such an elite level. Perhaps the problem was me, not society.

Other black students were constantly on the watch for imaginary racism. They felt so self-entitled they drew up a document intended to force the school to accept more students and hire more professors from underrepresented races.

I doubted my abilities to such a great degree that I decided to get my IQ tested. My FSIQ (full scale IQ) was 141 — 99.7th percentile!

image

I have included my hand in the photo to confirm that I am black.

Acting white

For years I was convinced that the major cause of black social pathology was this “acting white” accusation and the phenomenon of having to “prove” one’s blackness. It had certainly had a great effect on my life and impacted other high-IQ blacks around me. However, one day I came across a brilliant article by Steve Sailer addressing this topic.

He made the incisive point that doing well in school would not be considered “acting white” if blacks and whites had the same average IQ. That was my turning point. I realized that this was not a discrimination issue at all or even evidence of racial bias. What my white and Asian classmates meant when they accused blacks of “acting white” was not to call them “Uncle Tom” or “race traitor,” but something more along the lines of “you act more like a stereotypical white person than a stereotypical black person.” Factor in the differing average IQs, and it’s no wonder why the more intelligent blacks are often accused of “acting white.”

Of course high-IQ blacks will tend to associate more with a group that has an average IQ of 100 than a group with an average IQ of 85. This “acting white” phenomenon is exactly what one would expect when groups differing as significantly in intelligence as do black and whites co-exist: Behavior that is associated with intelligence becomes associated with whiteness.

I am now amused by how difficult it is to separate behavior that is stereotypically black from behavior that is generally associated with low IQ: making poor life decisions, failing in school, getting in trouble with the law, being loud and obnoxious, speaking poorly, promoting destructive and ignorant behavior, etc. Conversely, it is difficult to distinguish behavior that is “white” from behavior that reflects high IQ: being polite and civilized, showing emotional restraint, working hard, speaking articulately, being educated, being goal-oriented, listening to classical music, etc. It’s as though everyone subconsciously picks up on the IQ differences even if they don’t explicitly realize that what they’re noticing is different levels of intelligence.

I continued to study the question. I found that that other black members of Mensa are commonly told they are “acting white.” This pattern holds true throughout the world. High-achieving blacks in Britain hear the same thing. Successful Brazilian blacks are called the complimentary term “black with a white soul.”

I learned that literally everywhere in the world where blacks are found in large numbers, they exhibit lower rates of educational success and higher rates of criminality than other races. It’s no mystery why blacks who buck these trends are seen as different from other blacks.

I got my own DNA tested. I found out that I am 25 percent European — which is to be expected among American blacks. More interestingly, I learned that I was in the 96th percentile for Neanderthal ancestry among African-Americans. I find it amusing that I’ve so often had my blackness questioned; I’m unusually high in genetic material that is completely absent from pure Africans.

Compelling quotations

Here are a few observations by blacks that have stuck in my mind.

“Most of the people who were popular in my high school are either dead or in jail.” — my aunt

“This area was so nice when white people lived here.” — my grandmother, driving through a black ghetto

“I have been called ‘white’ my entire life. It’s a shame that just because I didn’t get high, skip class, and steal from the corner store I was thought of as a lame individual.” — a female cousin

“It’s not too often we get a young brother like you here. You’re proper. Most of the young black men I know besides you are thugs.” — a middle-aged black man I met during a summer internship

“N*ggers are terrible.” — my father, who often comes into contact with ghetto blacks in his line of work

“If it’s stupid, they like it.” — my grandmother, referring to young black people

“Why do we always have to come up with dumb shit?” — my extremely militant and pro-black uncle, lamenting black people’s proclivity for ignorance

It’s IQ, not racism

I now have no doubt about race realism. All the lines of evidence, from history to life experience, point to the same conclusion. All the usual excuses for black dysfunction are epiphenomenal and stem from the basic fact of lower average black IQ. Others viewed us as inferior because we never developed the wheel, a written language, a calendar, a mechanical device, or a two-story building. Slavery happened because whites (and Arabs before them) were able to enslave blacks; they had better technology and capitalized on the lack of black cohesion. Historians estimate that 90 percent of the slaves shipped to the New World were first enslaved by other Africans. (This is also consistent with Phil Rushton’s application of r/K theory; Africans have always shown low in-group preference.) All the usual explanations for black failure melt away once the fact of lower IQ is acknowledged. Anti-intellectual culture, poverty, bad schools, single-parent families, lack of role models, you name it — they are exactly what you would expect in a population with a lower average level of intelligence.

I certainly have learned much more about how the world actually works from great men like Phil Rushton, Richard Lynn, Steve Sailer, and Jared Taylor than I have ever learned from hucksters like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton. One might find race realism to be a depressing worldview; of course no one wants to believe that his race is much less intelligent on average than other races. But I truly believe that if you evaluate the evidence from an unbiased perspective and use logic rather than emotion, you cannot come to any other conclusion.

Furthermore, a worldview that takes into account human biodiversity is certainly more realistic and even hopeful than eternally yearning for whites suddenly to “wake up to racism” or voluntarily renounce their thirst for destroying “black bodies” — something Ta-Nehisi Coates thinks comes naturally to them. It is more hopeful than waiting for blacks around the world to stop creating “cultures of incompetence,” for which they seem to have quite a knack. It is more hopeful than waiting 250 years for the achievement gap to close or 228 years for the black-white wealth gap to close.

I now know what would theoretically be needed to close these gaps: a higher black IQ. I am free of any resentment against whites, for no matter how bad slavery, Jim Crow, or any other misdeed that whites are frequently made to feel guilty for, blacks around the world are infinitely better off than they would have been if whites had simply left them alone to live in mud huts and tote spears in Africa.

I feel empowered, for I now know that there is no impenetrable wall of white racism holding me back. In the words of the founder of logic, Aristotle, “The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think.” If admitting the truth makes me an “Uncle Tom,” so be it.

As for my uncle’s question, “Why do we always have to come up with dumb shit?”, applying Occam’s razor will yield an elegant and parsimonious answer.

useful idiots

pthor14 #fundie reddit.com

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

Anna Diehl #fundie 924jeremiah.wordpress.com

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

various commenters #fundie breitbart.com

seekerofwisdom23 #sexist reddit.com

Gary D. Barnett #conspiracy #wingnut lewrockwell.com

Buster Himen #fundie erasingus.com

various commenters #fundie reddit.com

High Priest Hooded Cobra 666 #fundie josministries.prophpbb.com

J. D. Pendry #fundie jdpendry.com

BlkPillPres #fundie incels.is

David J. Stewart #fundie davidjstewart.blogspot.com

Brussell Sprout #conspiracy brussellsprout.blogspot.co.uk

various TERFs #sexist#homophobia reddit.com

GayLubeOil #sexist reddit.com

Moprollems #fundie reddit.com

various commenters #fundie breitbart.com

Steve McMahon #fundie returnofkings.com

Krešimir Bagarić #fundie #psycho #homophobia index.hr

shawntheimmortal942 #wingnut deviantart.com

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

pastoredsmith #fundie disqus.com

Marc #fundie #homophobia patheos.com

Robert Smith #racist amren.com