Leevan

I download them from my pc. It's a source problem, I guess. There seems to be several hundred missing podcasts on itunes.

Thanks! Oh! Also, I noticed that Volume 5 had a 'Warning' on it. Like it's adult content, or there's a bunch of naughty language. So, I'm looking forward to sexy poems and maybe a gangsta rap or two from Stefan.

I listen to older podcasts while I'm at work. I've been downloading them from iTunes. I (think) I listened to all the available podcasts for Volumes 1-3; however, when I went to begin downloading the first few podcasts of Volume 4, I discovered that about 300 podcasts were missing. Like, it jumped from around 890 to 1200ish. It's labeled 890ish to 1500ish. It looks like the first half of the pofcasts aren't there. This appears to be the case for Volume 5 as well. (I don't know about anything beyond that.) Anyway, if I'm not navigating iTunes correctly, let me know. I just wanted to note this for the tech crew at FDR just in case.

I listen to older podcasts while I'm at work. I'm in the middle of Volume 3 (itunes). It sounds as if Stefan was, once upon a time, pretty active here. I can imagine why he no longer is. Many of the podcasts involve him discussing disputes and altercations that took place here. Dealing with people and their web courage to that extent had to be pretty taxing. I don't blame him for not posting anymore. (If it were me, I'd make up a secret avatar and post/comment that way. SO BEWARE. He could be anyone. O.O)

I don't question evolution, I question its (possible) orchestration. Anyway, it seems that those who question the differences among the races are questioning evolution. People, races evolved differently, and we are now different. Like the birds Darwin noted. Some of them had longer beaks, and thus were more capable in X. Some were a certain color pattern for the purposes of Y.

I've found that the idea of rough sex is a lot more appealing than the actual act. Depending on what you're doing, it turns out to be awkward or painful most of the time. (This is, however, from a homosexual perspective. Perhaps the vagina is more receptive and derives more pleasure from a battering.)

Why care what a/the group thinks of you?

I wouldn't give much consideration to a bully's comments or actions. Why do you care what she thinks or says?

There are a vast variety of physical differences among the races. Skin color, bone density, height, body/bone structure, fertility, muscle makeup, etc. are all determined at birth by the genes. (Obviously, one's development will affect his state of being at any given time; but, if you're arguing that children are infinitly malleable, I just don't see how that is supportable.) If IQ/intellectual adaptability is 40-80% based on genetics, as my sources noted, it stands to reason that absent a state humanity might utilize race/appearance as a qualifier/disqualifier to expedite decision making. *And I just want to clarify that it is potential that I'm discussing. One race might have more potential achieving X. That doesn't mean another race can't achieve X. It just means that the potential is varied, and the lines can be roughly identified by race.*

I don't know to what I'm supposed to respond. My point was and is that people begin their lives physically different, and the differences appear to trend along racial lines. These differences enable or hinder individuals to succeed or fail in a myriad of avenues, which would likely result in intellectual and physical tiers within society if allowed. (Sort of like how professional sports are dominated by Africans whhile there is a significant number of East Asians in hard science professions--only much more pronounced.) And given that traits aren't specifically allocated to each individual of each race, I'd imagine that, absent a state, there would be a significant amount of racial profiling job applicants, renters, credit/loan seekers.

The theory is that genetics make certain tasks easier for some and more difficult for others. People aren't playdoe at birth.

You should read the books that I cited, and let me know what you think. -- Same goes for everyone else.

It seems to be the result of physical differences. Literally, brain sizes differ. East Asians tend to have larger, heavier brains; even their hips tend to be wider to accomodate larger baby heads. If evolution is the cause, adaptation won't be as quick as a few generations.

Whoa, dude. You don't need to bite his head off. He doesn't seem to know all the facts. You get more flies with honey, etc.

Recently I read Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray along with Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton. The books examine the evidence of physical, historical and empirical differences among the races. IQ has been found to be largely hereditary, brain sizes vary among the races along with bone density and structure. Muscle composition differs, hair texture varies, testosterone levels, etc. etc. To assume that inherited physical factors don't play a role in success or failure for an individual in modern society is almost ridiculous. It appears that some people are simply fit or unfit for aspects of the norm. With this in mind, how would society look absent a state? Even in an era of peaceful parenting, maturity, freedom and independence? It appears as if the results may skew towards not just the individuals that are more intellectually capable but races overall. And while it's not impossible for a member of a race to exemplify qualities that are not common to his background, society, might be more prone to bypass him (racial profiling--time is limited).

Thanks, everyone, for your input. It seems to be a more complicated subject than most people realize, which is why I question/ed the knee-jerk reactions via the proponents of the theory.

The fact that fossils aren't commonplace doesn't assuage my concerns. Yes, evolution is logical, and it seems to be a fit answer; but, when I'm asked to base my certainty on (essentially) faith, I cringe. This is slightly off topic--but not completely: The book Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton is a fascinating read. The author examines the physical differences among Asians, Whites, and Blacks. (He does have pretty legit cred.) If you look into it, I'd go for the unabridged version. That one has all the citations, etc.

I haven’t researched the subject thoroughly. From what I’ve come across, I’ve observed that there is a significant shortage of transitional fossils. If you have a reference that cites otherwise, I would be grateful. As for the Cambrian explosion, it is believed to have lasted ten million years. So, that gene you mentioned must be one hell of a gene. For it to come about when it did, and have such far reaching consequences so quickly is what causes me to question the possibility of *something* unknown.

The lack of transitional fossils for example. Given that evolution, according to Darwin, is/was a continual process, it follows that the fossil record should have no shortage of transitional forms. And again, the Cambrian explosion doesn't really fit in with the theory. The transitions from spineless creatures to...everything in the Cambrian era seems to be relatively short. With the lack of transitional fossils, it almost looks as if it switched from one to another.

I understand what evolution is and how the theory plays out. I'm just concerned by the gaps in evidence and the leaps of faith that it requires.

Well, the initial author that caused me to question evolution was Ann Coulter in 'Godless'. (The latter half of the book evaluates the theory of evolution. The book itself is a critique of leftists.) I looked into her points, and they seem logical and coherent.

The fossil records make it look like the party both stopped and started for a massive amount of species at specific, (relatively) short time spans. Extinction, ok, I get that. Meteor goes boom; everything dies. But what about the emergence part? How can that happen so quickly? The possibilities are endless with evolution, and that's the problem. More time would be needed, it seems, to orchestrate historic and current lifeforms.

I've recently read a couple of books that were critical of evolution, and it has caused me to review my understanding of life and its creation. Obviously, there is no question that plants and animals adapt, the strongest/smartest survive, beneficial traits are passed from generation to generation, etc. But to change from one animal to another, even over time, requires an incredible and almost unbelievable amount of mutations. One has no trouble believing that anything can happen with enough time, but the fossil records indicate that the time frame for the debut of species' is relatively short. For such changes to occur so quickly and in concert (cambrian explosion), makes me wonder 'how' and 'why'. I don't think there is a god, but the way it looks, to me, is almost as if life was pre-programed or guided. Could evolution and life in general have had a helping hand? Or, at least, is 'evolution' a faulty theory?

Welcome! What is your son's name?

I've seen Youtube videos on the board, but I can't figure out how they are posted. Please tell me it's not as simple as clicking one of the above buttons.