Kwanzza video

[OuterLimits]

Muddafukkkin Kuwanzah y'all

http://media.putfile.com/charliebrownkwanza


:lol:

[yaz]

that is one of the funniest things i have ever seen...

"i thought kwanza was about dumpsters and smelly caverns"...

[ElNacho]

i understood...maybe a whole two percent!

[yaz]

"charlie brown, of all the motherfl_lckers, you da motherfl_lckest"

[pwfenton]

Against my better judgement I took a look at this. I think I made it to about the 1/3 mark. Just couldn't take any more. Pretty lame.

When Barbara Billingsly (The Beaver's Mom) in the movie "Airplane" offers to speak "jive" to the black couple... that single gag gets a great laugh. But 20 straight minutes where every sentence contains at least one "mother-f" and one "nigger", over and over and over non-stop is just boring in not at all creative. At best it's just offensive.

[kinkysex]

offensive?

http://www.americanangst.com/dingfries.html

There's offensive. :wink:

Happy Festivus.

p.s. - that scene in airplane is HILARIOUS!

[ElNacho]

it says mostoffensivevideo.com or somethin like that in the beginning and end! you think it WOULDNT be offensive? haha

[AaronfromQC]

Maybe Podcast Alley can put that video on the front page to show everyone they support the Nazi cast. Giggles all around. Everytime I start think Adam Curry has started to do the right thing, there's the nazi to remind me that nope, not quite there.

[yaz]

"you're whack like welfare pimp"

"hear me out or ill slap the black off y'all"

[OuterLimits]

The writing is really exceptional. Every sentence is a joke and anyone who's spent any time in an inner-city knows it's the truth, not the fiction, that makes this film so hilarious.

lmao

[ElNacho]

right, all of us spent time wherever that was you said...

[Kell]

Oh I'm sure she's spent time in the hood.
She know's the myth of the Afican Male and is probably hoping to get a piece of Brown Sugar.
She doth protest too much about what she doesn't like - I think secretly she's hoping for an African American Bi-Sexual Jew to visit her her at night.

Cheers,

[yaz]

Oh I'm sure she's spent time in the hood.
She know's the myth of the Afican Male and is probably hoping to get a piece of Brown Sugar.
She doth protest too much about what she doesn't like - I think secretly she's hoping for an African American Bi-Sexual Jew to visit her her at night.

Cheers,
i agree, im sure she's spent hours in observation of hood interaction...(sarcasm of course...)

[ElNacho]

so that's a female?

i dont believe in her anymore!

[Lizard King]

Yup, cause as we established on a different thread, Satan is female.

Well, from her photo she looks female, unless it is a certain Podcast mogul in drag.

[kickasspodcast]

Oh I'm sure she's spent time in the hood.
She know's the myth of the Afican Male and is probably hoping to get a piece of Brown Sugar.
She doth protest too much about what she doesn't like - I think secretly she's hoping for an African American Bi-Sexual Jew to visit her her at night.

Cheers,

ROFL!

This is sooo true. Its always the self loathers who lash out on specific groups. If you hate gay people. Your kid will be gay. If you hate black people, your daughter will only date black guys. If you are an anti semite. Your son will surely become a talmudic scholar. This is how life works. (imho)

BTW-

Scientist recently find Gene responsible for skin pigmantation, illustrating that all human beings are ~99% genetic matches(and that everyone was once black(like it or not ye self loathing hypocrites)):
http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2005/12/19/features/science/b32ab15002b19410872570db002686a8.txt

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1134774612770&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112101662670

"The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being."

"Recent revelations that all people are more than 99.9 per cent genetically identical has proved that race has almost no biological validity."



Its pretty funny how Goyfire had nothing to respond to this with, pretty much got ownd on the forums (whats new?) and had no rational or even hateful response. Wonder why? One letter of DNA code out of 3.1 billion isn't really worth hating over. Its also not anything you could convince someone else to hate over. But then again you'd have to have at least a 7th grade understanding of Biology to understand what that means, that isn't the kind of scholarship that I would assume of Goyfire. Goyfire lives in chains of hatred, ignorance and a good dose of self loathing. A clear misunderstanding of history and biology that creates a constant state of fear that the Goyfire lives in. This is why there is this constant need to lash out and blame others for the problems of society. This is why (imho)Goyfire is unable to live peacefully and accept the rest of the people in this society. Such isolationism and hatred only stems from fear.

Here is my present to Goyfire: Pity.

Here is my card: If your parents and family had done a better job raising you, and had you been educated to the extent necessary for life, you would not live in chains of fear and ignorance. So here is some pity, because I'm a liberal, we tend to feel bad for lotsa people, enjoy the gift!



Jack

[yaz]

jack, you're a liberal??? hahaha...just kiddin...

dude, don't try to bring up solid evidence, they're just haters, that's what they're gonna be, ignorant people can't understand scientific research and facts...who gives a **** what color people are anyway, as long as they don't act like *****les...

[Lizard King]

again....

AMEN BROTHA! PREACH IT!

[Kell]

I can't wait until the next podcast expo to meet you Jack & Yaz -
You too El Nacho.

You are all smart, funny , & real.

Hey Goyfire I'm putting a bow on the present Jack is giving you -
I rubbed it somewhere special too.

Cheers,

[OuterLimits]

For the benefit of people, other than Jack, that are really interested:
As the Human Genome Project progressed over the last decade, many on the Left felt the heat of renewed interest in racial differences—they could not be so easily dismissed once we could look inside the genetic code. As a result they have renewed their efforts to deny that racial differences exist in any form other than simply the color of one's skin or the shape of one's lips. However, the denial of racial differences has been based on the specious premise that race is defined by distinct boundaries—a premise that no one but a scientific illiterate could entertain.

As Jon Entine wrote in "Why Race Matters in Sports" on his website: "In truth, while technically correct, such assertions are scientifically meaningless and provide absolutely no support for the popular myth that 'race has no biological reality.' There is zero genetic difference between a wolf and a cocker spaniel. If one really believes that such genetic similarity means that there is no hard-wired functional difference between a wolf and a hand-licking spaniel, then I invite that person to adopt a wolf as a house pet for the children. Such differences are grounded in gene sequences and proteins and are activated by obscure environmental triggers. All the training in the world is not likely to turn an Inuit Eskimo, programmed to be short and stout, into a NBA center or an American (black or white) into a great marathoner: nature sets limits." (Also see Entine, 2000)

Anyone familiar with the principles of evolution must recognize that racial differences come about simply because different people evolved under different ecologies—both physical and social environments. When this occurs, we must expect differences in the average number of gene expressions (allele frequencies) between any two population groups. These differences include average expressions in behavior, intelligence, and medical responses to treatment, as well as physical differences.

As Arthur Jensen describes it (Jensen, 1998), when it comes to studying differences between races there are lumpers and splitters. That is, there are no clear racial boundaries. Splitters could theoretically divide the human species into individual races down to identical twins. Lumpers tend to define races into much larger groups like Blacks, Whites and Asians. Cavalli-Sforza divides all humans into separate population groups (races) that "were in the area of study in A.D. 1492" before the great migrations. That is, wherever he could find a group of people today that could trace their ancestry to a people who lived in 1492, they are defined as a race for the purposes of studying genetic differences. He excludes "Samaritans, Jews, Gypsies, and several others" because they are landless people and need "special study." (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994)

Still, the Left has held rigidly to the notion that racial differences do not exist, but now they face a new challenge from medicine. Racial genetic differences are now being used to better understand how to treat people for illness, especially giving different medicines to different races—because they have different genes "on average." This is exactly the same assertion made to account for differences in wealth and income between races—because they have different genes "on average" that causes differences in life's outcomes—like intelligence and conscientiousness. Now, if medical treatment leads to the ineluctable conclusion that racial differences are real, the radical egalitarian agenda of the Left no longer has the charge of "scientific racism" to hurl at genetic studies.

The journal SCIENCE, put out by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has summarized the dilemma quite nicely in an article written by Constance Holden entitled "Race and Medicine," in the October 24, 2003 issue. The AAAS has been a left leaning organization; its past presidents included the radical Marxist Stephen J. Gould and the (duped) cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead. It treads on the racial difference issues very gently. So it comes with some surprise that they have begun to address the quandary of facing up to racial differences in the drive to help heal the sick.

Holden writes, "Mention race and medicine in a group of scientists, and you are likely to provoke a range of heated opinions on whether it is useful, or even ethical, to consider how people of different ancestry respond to disease and treatments. No one disputes that some diseases strike disproportionately in some racial or ethnic groups—thalassemia in people whose ancestors came from the Mediterranean area, sickle cell anemia in people of African origins, for example. Less clear-cut than these single gene disorders but the subject of increasing research—is the medical significance of a host of more subtle gene variants that appear in differing frequencies in various populations and that seem to influence a multitude of conditions. So far, few candidate genes have been spotted, and the evidence is largely circumstantial. Some scientists dismiss the data as too preliminary, or the differences as insignificant. They worry that emphasizing biological differences in how people of different racial and ethnic groups respond to disease and treatments could unfairly stigmatize some patients and lead to inferior health care. Yet many scientists see exploration of differences among ancestral groups as a way to learn more about complex diseases and ultimately improve treatment for some groups of patients."

Notice how the Left yet again tries to claim that understanding racial differences in medical care needs will "lead to inferior health care." The problem is, they never explain why or how this could come about. We at least need some prospective scenario as to how being able to better treat people, will lead to just the reverse! Again, they are attempting to put the genetic genie back in the bottle so that they can continue to use racism as a tribal weapon against all Whites and especially White males. We are the ones who would be responsible of course for making sure that the oppressed would get "inferior health care." That's right; the same White males who have invented effective medicines against AIDS, and have also contributed millions if not billions of dollars to help fight the disease that primarily inflicts "oppressed peoples."

The article also explains that yes, it would be nice if we could just take an individual's genes, assess their particular genome, and leave race out of it. But that procedure will not be available for decades. For now, race serves as a beneficial proxy for genetic patterns that respond differently to treatments. Different races have different patterns of gene frequencies, and race serves as the best first guess how a patient will respond to differing treatments. This is the same as using age or gender when treating patients—humans vary on multiple levels and over time.

Holden addresses Richard Lewontin's old canard, "The chief argument against the notion that biological race can be medically meaningful is that there are far more genetic differences among individuals than there are between different ancestral groups. Neil Risch of Stanford University says that comparison is misleading, however. He and others argue that if 30% of one population can't metabolize a certain drug, compared with 10% of another population, the between-group variability is low because most people in both groups lack this metabolism polymorphism. Nonetheless, this variation is significant when it comes to estimating the probability of response to treatment, he says. Geneticist David Goldstein of University College in London agrees: 'If you say on average the difference between West Africans and Europeans is slight, that does not rule out a great many variants that influence how people respond to drugs.'"

"Joel Buxbaum, who studies the molecular basis of disease at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, is persuaded as well. 'A call to ignore [race] in diagnosis and treatment is a call to ignore biology,' he says. 'Research in the last 35 years has uncovered significant differences among racial and ethnic groups in their rate of drug metabolism, in clinical responses to drugs, and in drug side effects.'"

"The most definitive evidence is on different levels of certain drug-metabolizing enzymes found in whites, blacks, and Asians. Some of these differences are quite dramatic; for example, Genaissance Pharmaceuticals in New Haven, Connecticut, has found a mutation of a major metabolism-controlling enzyme that occurs in 30% to 40% of Asians and less than 5% of members of other groups. Such findings help explain what many doctors have long observed—that many people of East Asian ancestry need smaller than average doses of a variety of heart, pain, and psychotropic drugs."

If different races can vary so much in response to health due to their different ecological history, we would expect differences in other areas as well including intelligence, behavior, ethnocentrism, stature, etc. There are no constraints on genetic variation in averages between racial groups, and that is exactly what Jensenists have proposed to explain racial and gender differences in intelligence and other cognitive characteristics; it is the default hypothesis because it is biologically the most likely—whether breeds of dogs or human races—differences are to be expected.

Even the government is getting involved; "Increasing awareness of possible genetic contributions to ethnic differences is reflected in a recommendation issued last January by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Calling for more scrutiny of subpopulations, FDA wants drug testers to use racial divisions specified by the Census Bureau 'to ensure consistency in evaluating potential differences in drug response.'"

Note however how naïve the FDA is about "racial divisions." The Census Bureau does not use race alone in counting heads, they also use ethnicity/language. Maybe, with a renewed interest in racial differences we can start to look at races in a more rational way. As it now stands, the Census Bureau's racial/ethnic classification system is without a scientific foundation, and will not lend itself to what the FDA is calling for: Hispanics for example are not a racial category; Semites are now lumped in with Caucasians; and East Asians and South Asians are lumped together as Asians, even though they are genetically quite different. To use racial differences, along with racial mixing, they must for the first time address race scientifically and not politically as has been done in the past.

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/race.htm

What is Tay-Sachs Disease?

THE CLASSICAL FORM OF TAY-SACHS disease (TSD) is a fatal, recessive genetic disorder in children that causes progressive destruction of the central nervous system.

When a person has Tay-Sachs disease, harmful quantities of a fatty substance called ganglioside GM2 accumulate in the nerve cells in the brain. Infants with Tay-Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first few months of life. Then, as nerve cells become distended with fatty material, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs. The child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in.

Tay-Sachs is named after Warren Tay (1843-1927) and Bernard Sachs (1858-1944). Warren Tay was a British ophthalmologist who in 1881 described a patient with a cherry-red spot on the retina of the eye. Bernard Sachs was a New York neurologist whose work several years later provided the first description of the cellular changes in Tay-Sachs disease. Sachs also recognized the familial nature of the disorder, and, by observing numerous cases, he noted that most babies with Tay-Sachs disease were of eastern European Jewish origin.

http://www.mamashealth.com/tay.asp

Merry Christmas !!!

:lol:

[yaz]

there is too much to read in there...

[ElNacho]

aye

[Kell]

Gods forbid that we are all not cookie cut outs of each other.

We should all be the same - look the same, smile the same, think the same. I think they made a movie about it, I think it took place in Stepford.

Outer Limits - You are a pathetic sad person, who by your logic should not be allowed to speak. Only the white male has any say or authority by your logic. You are a worthless piece of crap by your own rules. Women are as worthless and un-useful as African Americans, Latinos, Jews, or gays. Does your male superior know you are out of your kennel?

[Lizard King]

Maybe I've got too much time on my hands, and I am a fast reader, but I got through it. I rarely read Outer Limits' posts, because they are rubbish. What I found interesting in this one, is that it's simply talking about racial differences, both genetic and physiological.
My question is, so what? So, there are racial differences other than skin color.
I'm stunned. I never knew that an Inuit Eskimo might look different, and have different capabilities than a Kenyan.
This news is stunning to me. Is that anything like how families have certain genetic tendancies?
Personally, I think the variations between races and cultures is a GOOD thing. Different body types and capabilities lend themselves to different skills and apptitudes.
I don't want to live in a world of sameness that imagines itself to be perfection, any more than I want to live in a town that is peopled with only plumbers, or only librarians. Our differences as a people, as a global community, are what makes the world work.
Outer Limits, until you can see this, you are no different than the other radicals, such as the Taliban, who you hate.

[docsnavely]

'A call to ignore [race] in diagnosis and treatment is a call to ignore biology,'

you are an idiot. i've said it once, and i've just said it again.....

no one ignores "race" in diagnosis. we do it everyday. treatment on the other hand has absolutely nothing to do with race.....

you don't treat a white diabetic different than a black diabetic. you don't treat a black person with CHF any different than a white person with CHF.....

our anatomy (unlike what you would like to believe) is no different amongst the hundreds of different ethnic backgrounds that make up the country which you live in.


and i must say, there were no hard facts in any of the rhetoric you just gave. do you ever have anything substantial to back up your pathetic purpose? if not, then just shut the **** up.

[kickasspodcast]

and i must say, there were no hard facts in any of the rhetoric you just gave. do you ever have anything substantial to back up your pathetic purpose? if not, then just shut the f*ck up.


Bingo. Completely without substance is the Goyfire.

I don't think the Goyfire even knows that the Human Genome Project was completed in 03'. The articles it linked too were both written years before that completion. I have no idea why it (goyfire) would link to that article, it doesn't say anything specific or in rebuke of the new study showing that 1 letter out of 3+ billion leads to skin color. I would love to see the goyfire try to divide and conquer based on 1/3,100,000,000th of DNA code. Good call josh, STFU Goyfire, you redneck cum dumpster. Nice nazi link you post in your signature too, too bad PCA won't enforce their own rules. :roll:


:)

Jack
"Burning down Valhalla for Peace!"

[OuterLimits]

What I found interesting in this [article], is that it's simply talking about racial differences, both genetic and physiological.
My question is, so what? So, there are racial differences other than skin color.
I'm stunned. I never knew that an Inuit Eskimo might look different, and have different capabilities than a Kenyan.
This news is stunning to me. Is that anything like how families have certain genetic tendancies?
When did 'stating the obvious' become a revolutionary act? Ever since kapos like Jack hijacked our public discourse with their 'politically correct' frames; 'overcoming' realities [eg crime statistics, biology, history, etc.] with 'attitude adjustment'... People like Jack aren't interested in the truth. They know that race exists. They are simply playing the political correct game and trying to win 'brownie' points in the process. Do they actually think humanity would be better off as a mud melange? I don't think so. I think they are pulling my leg. I think they have an agenda: An agenda that doesn't coincide with my best interests.
Personally, I think the variations between races and cultures is a GOOD thing. Different body types and capabilities lend themselves to different skills and apptitudes. I don't want to live in a world of sameness that imagines itself to be perfection, any more than I want to live in a town that is peopled with only plumbers, or only librarians. Our differences as a people, as a global community, are what makes the world work. Well, you are half way there. We are only a couple of steps down the road of logical causation. Who are the libr-arians and who are the plumbers in your analogy I wonder?

Cheers,
:lol:

[Lizard King]

Revolutionary Act? Who's trying to do that? I'm not even sure who you are referring to, there, but I know that's not what I was trying for.

And as far as stating the obvious, it seems like everything I say to you is stating the obvious. To me, the fact that all races are human being, and equals on this world, is an obvious fact.
"Mud Melange". What a crock of ****. Do you actually KNOW anything about genetics? I'm far from an expert, but I know enough to understand that I have no desire to be some inbred, pure-preed.
Predjudice is based in fear. I am not afraid. I am comfortable and confident in who I am, and I enjoy a world filled with cultural differences and the beauties all races have to offer, and the often greater beauties mixing those races can bring.
And you wonder who is the plumber and who is the librarian. Sure, I'll answer you honestly. I pictured a prim, maidenly older white woman as the librarian. And I pictured an overweight, less than clean guy with his pants riding low in back as the plumber. Also white.

[docsnavely]

again, no facts stated, just bullshit......

[monkey_one]

Abstract

Evidence continues to mount contradicting the evolutionist's claim that man and ape share a common ancestry. Over the last 20 years, studies have shown that the human mutation rate is inexplicably too high1,2. A recent study published in Nature has solidified this3. These rates are simply too high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing (a position very consistent with a recent creation of man). Most evolutionists ignore this problem, and those who do attempt to address it leave us with just-so stories void of any supporting evidence.

Exposing the cards

Let's first consider the recent Eyre-Walker & Keightley article in Nature magazine3. By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation. They acknowledge that this seems too high, but quickly invoke something called "synergistic epistasis" as a just-so explanation (I'll address this later).

What is not adequately conveyed to the reader is just how bad this problem is for evolution. It is related to the renowned geneticist J.B.S. Haldane's reproductive cost problem that Walter Remine so eloquently elucidated in "The Biotic Message"4. What we will determine is how many offspring are needed to produce one that does not receive a new harmful mutation during the reproduction process. This is important since evolution requires "beneficial" mutations to build up such that new features and organs can arise (I say "beneficial" loosely, since there are no known examples where a mutation added information to the genome, though there are some that under certain circumstances can provide a temporary or superficial advantage to a species5). If over time harmful mutations outpace "beneficial" ones to fixation, evolution from molecules-to-man surely cannot occur. This would be like expecting to get rich despite consistently spending more money than you make.

So, to determine the reproductive impact, let

p = probability an individual's genome does not receive a new defect this generation

A female is required to produce two offspring, one to replace herself and her mate. So, she needs to produce at least 2/p to pay this cost and maintain the population. Let B represent the birth threshold:

B = 2/p

The probability p of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U6. Therefore, making the substitution,

B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female!

What pray tell does this mean? What are the authors failing to make crystal clear? It says that females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium! A rate less than 10 means certain genetic deterioration over time, because even the evolutionist's magic wand of natural selection cannot help (in fact Eyre-Walker & Keightley had already factored in natural selection when they arrived at a rate of 1.6)

Now consider that extremely favorable assumptions for evolution were used in the Eyre-Walker & Keightley article. If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1, which they admit is "remarkably high" (even this may be a favorable assumption, considering Maynard Smith estimates the genic area to be between 9 - 27%7).

Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3, we get:

B = 2e^3 = 40 births before we get one offspring that escapes a new defect!

The evolutionist's just-so explanation

So are we to believe that upward evolution can overcome what is obviously an insurmountable reproductive barrier? Let's check the evolutionist's explanation and see if it holds water. Crow acknowledges that given these mutation rates and a conventional elimination of mutations, a species with limited reproductive capacity will face "inevitable extinction."8 He then adds: "a way out is for mutations to be eliminated in bunches". This is sometimes called truncation selection, a completely speculative process that you will have a very difficult time finding in any college text book on genetics or biology. One possible reason you won't find this in the text books is because there is absolutely no evidence to support that it occurs in nature.

This brings us back to Eyre-Walker & Keightley's invocation of "synergistic epistasis", which is really a co-star in the "truncation selection" story (the terms are virtually synonymous). This process basically says that each new harmful mutation interacts with prior harmful mutations such that fitness is decreased more than it would have if the new mutation were acting by itself. This allows organisms to push below a fitness threshold where they can more readily be recognized by selection and eliminated from the population. Thus, harmful mutations are eliminated "in bunches". Here again we have pure speculation with no real, tangible evidence to support it.

For the sake of argument, even if synergistic epistasis/truncation selection occurs to sufficiently mitigate the deterioration problem, you still need beneficial mutation fixation to outpace harmful mutation fixation in the eventual survivors. This is unfathomable considering that 40 conceptions are needed just to get an offspring without one of these incremental deteriorating steps. You simply cannot evolve new organs and features when negative hits are outpacing positive ones with such force.

Crow concludes by stating that the high mutation rate helps explain the advantage of sex to evolution. Sure, sex will certainly slow the propagation of harmful mutations (a conservation property completely consistent with a creationist viewpoint). But Crow is forgetting the other side of the coin, that sex will also slow the propagation of beneficial mutations! Recombination has long been considered a paradox among evolutionists9, since it greatly hinders the spread of those crucial "beneficial" mutations needed to make a man out of a monkey. Right out of the gate the mutation must overcome the 50% recombination barrier. Sex is especially a problem in small populations due to the affect of genetic drift (punctuationists claim that the spawning ground of large-scale evolution occurs in small populations). Regardless, sex certainly doesn't solve, let alone address the reproductive cost problem discussed above.


High rate supports recent creation of man

If the deleterious mutation rate is indeed as high as 3 per individual, not only would it thwart the evolutionary scenario of chimp/man common ancestry, it would clearly argue for a recent creation of man. To illustrate this, let's start with a simple model where we will assume heterozygosity10 throughout the generations (this essentially means no inbreeding), using the rate of 3 harmful mutations per individual. Each generation, offspring will inherit on average 3 harmful mutations from the parents (half of 3 from the mother, half of 3 from the father), plus 3 new mutations during the reproduction process. The number of mutations in each offspring after x generations is U * x, where U is the mutation rate. Using the standard population genetics assumption of 25 years per generation, there are 240 generations in 6000 years. So, 3 * 240 = 720 mutations per individual after 6000 years. This isn't too severe considering the size of the active genome, where we have an estimated 80,000 genes, averaging about 1500 base pairs per gene. So 720 mutations spread over the genome amounts to about one mutation per 111 genes11. However, if we use the evolutionist's estimated time since the split between ape and man of 6 million years, we get 720,000 bad mutations, or about 9 mutations per gene!12 We would more resemble a snail than a human! (it should probably come as no surprise that some evolutionists actually posit that apes de-evolved from humans!13)

Note that more than 50% of these mutations will be recessive, and therefore not expressed. However, as we introduce inbreeding and homozygous fixation of genes into this model, the numbers will obviously get worse. Fixed dominant genes won't have to contend with a good copy on the other chromosome, and recessive genes will have a chance to express themselves (one in four if both parents have the defect). If we take all this into consideration, the evolutionary timescale numbers get exponentially worse compared to a trivial decline in the recent creation numbers.

Mitochondrial-DNA rates offer some collaboration. Consider this article from the journal Science:

"Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events. ...Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."14

The evolutionary squeeze

The evolutionists are in a squeeze, and it's devastating. We have seen from the analysis above that it is implausible for evolution to occur at such a high deleterious mutation rate. But what if you lower the rate? Well, then all kinds of new problems pop up for the evolutionist! A slower rate means a smaller portion dedicated for those rare "beneficial" mutations, so there will be fewer substitutions of new traits over time. Consider that population geneticists typically estimate that only 1 in 50 beneficial mutations have a chance to even reach fixation15. This problem is aggravated by the fact that a cost must be incurred to spread any new trait through the population (those without the trait must eventually die off). The famous geneticist J.B.S. Haldane showed that under favorable assumptions only one new, beneficial substitution could be completely substituted in a population every 300 generations. So in 10 million years, twice the time since the alleged chimp/human split from a common ancestor, only 1667 beneficial substitutions could occur.16 That's only a 0.001% difference between human and chimp genomes. The entire number of substitution differences between man & chimp, ranging from harmful to neutral to beneficial, is estimated to be between 1-3%, or 30-90 million substitutions. Surely 1667 is not enough to make a man out of a hairy, armpit-scratchin, dung throwin' ancestor! Evolutionists need to add about another 1000 trillion years to their cake mix just to get an ape with manners!

Some evolutionists try to "fix" this problem by lowering the amount of functional genome. But as this is lowered, they remove space for new genes that are absolutely essential for their theory. Evolutionists who are aware of the information problem try to solve it by claiming that beneficial random mutations to duplicated genes, under the guidance of natural selection, is what gets upward evolution rolling. But a smaller functional genome obviously means less chance for a duplicated gene to be mutated (all this assuming increased information by random mutation can even occur, which information theory says it can't). Some evolutionists dispute this small of a functional genome. As mentioned earlier, Maynard Smith estimates it to be between 9-27%7. If further evidence expands the functional genome toward 10%, then the mutation rate/reproductive cost problem gets much worse, requiring evolutionists to "fruitfully multiply", and now, if they want a self-fulfilling theory!

Conclusion

The high mutation rate from the Eyre-Walker & Keightley study was determined under the assumption of common ancestry between chimps and man. Since the rate is clearly too high, there are only two realistic explanations:

1) there is a mistake in their data or analysis (doubtful), or
2) the base assumption that man and chimp share a common ancestor is flawed (most likely).

The problem of high mutation rates and its cost on reproduction goes away if comparison between simian and man DNA is not used to determine the mutation rate. Remove the flawed assumption that simian and man share a common ancestor, and the problem is solved!

The concepts of "synergistic epistasis" and "truncation selection" would never be brought up if it were not for the high mutation rate problem. These stories were invented to attempt to lessen a clearly serious problem for the modern evolutionary theory. Moreover, even if such forces were at work in nature, they would at best only serve to keep the genetic load in check (that is, slow or bring deterioration to a standstill). What's lost in all this wild speculation by the evolutionists regarding a high deleterious mutation rate is the fate of beneficial mutations, the mechanism that is supposed to bring about new organs and improved functions over time. In the long run you must have more beneficial mutations accumulating than harmful ones for molecules-to-man evolution to be true. The above analysis shows just how implausible this is. You can't save pennies and spend dollars and expect to get rich.

Finally, a double-edged sword shows that while high rates of mutation cause harmful mutations to overwhelm any beneficial ones, lower rates slow evolution to a crawl. But regardless of the rate of mutation, what we've learned from information theory is that information can only originate from an information Giver. Random mutations occur, and without new information being fed into an organism by an information Giver, these random changes will certainly cause the organism to slowly deteriorate over time. Other studies showing high mutation rates that do not rely on man/chimp ancestry confirm that deterioration may indeed be occurring.


Addendum

Dr. James Crow, whom I cited in the article, graciously commented on the article soon after I wrote it. Via personal email he replied "Yours is a serious letter and it deserves a serious answer". He acknowledged it was a "serious problem" for the theory, but not "fatal" (for the record, he made it clear he still believes evolution has overwhelming evidence from other sources). He presented "quasi-truncation selection" as a possible "partial solution" to the problem.

Other vindication for my article comes from a paper in the science journal Genetics published 5 months after I wrote this article. They write

"For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size." [emphasis mine]

They also acknowledge that this number is probably an underestimate!

"This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher." [emphasis mine]

Their ultimate explanation is the same used by Eyre-Walker, Keightley, Crow, et al, truncation selection. Again, there is NO evidence to support that such strict truncation selection occurs in nature, and even if it did would not solve the problem. The Genetics authors admit that truncation selection "seems unrealistic", but submit this view simply because the alternative explanation is unacceptable to them - that men and apes do not share a common ancestor.

3/22/2002 - Yet more support comes from the recent article in Genetics titled '"Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome" (Justin C. Fay,* Gerald J. Wyckoff* ,1 and Chung-I Wu*. Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001.). This article was unwittingly brought to my attention by evolutionist Dr Scott Page (see our debate on this matter). The authors of the Genetics article write:

"The genomic deleterious mutation rate is likely much larger given our estimate that 80% of amino acid mutations are deleterious and given that it does not include deleterious mutations in noncoding regions, which may be quite common. [emphasis mine]."

Using their estimates, the required offspring number rises to at least 60 offspring per breeding couple! (for explanation, see my opening comments in my debate with Dr Page.)



* Article updated 12/09/2001 to improve the explanation of synergistic epistasis, and to add 'Addendum' section.
* Article updated 3/2/2002 to better emphasize in the conclusion the flawed assumption of man/chimp ancestry as the reason for the high mutation rate.

1. A. S. Kondrashov, Contamination of the genomes by very slightly deleterious mutations. Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor Biol 1995 Aug 21;175(4):583-94. Abstract

2. J. Crow, The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997 Aug 5;94(16):8380-6.

3. Eyre-Walker & Keightley, High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids, Nature 397, 344 - 347 (1999) Abstract

4. W. Remine, The Biotic Message, St. Paul Science, 1993, p. 228-229

5. L. Spetner, Not by Chance, The Judaica Press, 1998, p. 138 (particularly all of Chapter 5)

6. This equation is a derivation of the Poisson Distribution where the probability of no events is calculated.

7. Maynard Smith, Evolutionary Genetics, Oxford University Press, p. 204

8. J. Crow, The odds of losing at genetic roulette, Nature 397, p 293 - 294. (1999)

9. See Walter Remine's The Biotic Message, page 196-200 for a full list of evolutionist=s comments on the paradox of sex (recombination) to evolution.

10 - Heterozygous means there is another version of the gene (presumably a good copy, for this model) on its peer-chromosome.

11 - mutations per gene = (120 mil base pairs / 720) / 1500. Base pair number is based on 3% typically cited on the internet.

12 - Years since split = 6 mil, generation time = 25 years, mutation rate = 3 per generation, giving (6*10^6 / 25) * 3 = 720,000. Mutations per gene = (120 mil / 720000) / 1500 = .11

13 - D. Gish, Evolution: the Fossils STILL say NO!, 1995, p. 308-310

14 - A. Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 - 29.

15. This assumes a favorable selection advantage of 1%. See Maynard Smith, p. 161-162

16 - For a great discussion of Haldane's Dilemma, see Walter Remine's "The Biotic Message", St. Paul Science, 1993, p. 208-236. Some of this is discussed here..
A pocket-sized device which can harness fusion, the energy source of the Sun, with the help of crystals no bigger than a sugar cube has been developed by scientists. The "pocket fusion" device, described today in the journal Nature, raises new possibilities in fields as diverse as space propulsion, medical diagnostics, cancer treatment and the hunt for concealed weapons. Now Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski, a professor from Glasgow, and Prof Seth Putterman of the University of California, Los Angeles describe a breathtakingly simple way to fuse atoms with the help of a crystal. They fused atoms of deuterium - heavy hydrogen - using a pyroelectric crystal to generate a beam of charged particles - deuterium ions - to bombard a deuterium target. "We are getting about 1,000 neutrons a second," said Mr Naranjo. "The amazing thing is that we are heating a crystal to 25C and getting this very large fusion signal with no external power supplies.
Advise on how to flush a British Toilet

1. In a decisive and authoritative manner, press down on the "toilet flush handle" applying a downward force in a manner to achieve a constant velocity such that the action is completed in .5 to .6 seconds. (To fast or slow can be the difference in achieving a successful flush of a British toilet - and using a constant velocity is not an option).

2. Hold down "toilet flush handle" for approximately four (4) seconds.

3. The toilet should flush on the 2nd to 3rd second.

4. Be proud of your achievement in the skilled use of British sanitational hardware!

5. Don't hide your sense of increased self worth. Your ability and dexterity in flushing a British toilet means you are right up there in the gene pool. Feel free to mention your success in operating complex "high-technology" British machinery to friends, colleagues and passing strangers.

6. Buy a "I know how to flush a British toilet" T-shirt to impress your friends and family back home.
ryptosporidium parasites cause infection in humans and other vertebrates, including mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish. More than 20 species of Cryptosporidium have been reported, of which six are considered valid species on the basis of oocyst morphologic features and site of infection (1,2). Cryptosporidium parvum, the species that infects humans and most mammals, has a monoxenous life cycle in which all stages of asexual and sexual development occur within one host. The parasite generates large numbers of viable oocysts in feces. Cross-infection studies in various mammalian systems have indicated zoonotic transmission to humans (1,3). C. parvum has caused waterborne outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis and (in AIDS patients) life-threatening diarrhea for which no effective treatment exists (4). A waterborne outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1993 affected more than 400,000 people (5).

Molecular characterization techniques used to detect intraspecific variations in C. parvum include isozyme profiles (6); random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analyses (7); nucleotide sequence studies of the 18S rRNA (8,9) and DHFR gene (10); and polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) analysis of the undefined repetitive sequence (11), polythreonine motifs, and oocyst wall protein (12,13). Two distinct genotypes of C. parvum parasites have been detected in humans.

In a previous article, we identified several mutations in the gene thrombospondin-related anonymous protein 2 of C. parvum (TRAP-C2) that differentiate between anthroponotic and zoonotic infection in humans (14). Our objective in the present study was to develop a simple, rapid protocol that can be used as a diagnostic tool to differentiate between the two genotypes of C. parvum and elucidate the transmission of infection in humans. We analyzed 92 C. parvum isolates from humans, calves, deer, dogs, and monkeys and found that this new PCR/RFLP method based on the TRAP-C2 gene sequence can be used as a molecular marker to differentiate between the two genotypes of C. parvum.


there proof we came from space monkeys

[Dr Kindred]

Here is my Report (http://www.radioadd.org/podcasts/_report_monkey_genotype%2020051230%200055.mp3)

[monkey_one]

Cough oh excuse me

[kickasspodcast]

I thought i'd pluck out the 3 practices of the common Goyfire.


1:Ever since kapos like Jack hijacked our public discourse with their 'politically correct' frames; 'overcoming' realities [eg crime statistics, biology, history, etc.] with 'attitude adjustment'... 2:People like Jack aren't interested in the truth. They know that race exists.
1: Blaming me for hijacking public discourse: All of these racist pigs blame everyone else for what they don't like. 1st thing they do is blame other people for all their problems. Blame the Jews, Blame the Blacks, now call me a Kapos (wtf is that btw) and Blame Me.

2: They lie, saying I'm not interested in the truth: I'm really interested, that's why I read scientific studies on the Human Genome Project and look at the evidence. I'm not swayed by random social injustices

And finally
3: Do they actually think humanity would be better off as a mud melange?

3: They offend. Having lost the ability to make any argument, the appeal to the other sewer rats that might latch on this sort of derrogatory statement. One that is a great offense and in violation of this community's established rules. But to answer the question: We already are a melange of races.

I wish the Goyfire was smart enough to understand global particle distribution and how unavoidably connected all life is.


Keep trying-

Jack

"Burning down Valhalla for Peace!"

[spartacusroosevelt]

Do they actually think humanity would be better off as a mud melange?

D a m n straight.

Then we could figure out a different arbitrary and subjective reason to hate each other.

[crybabyemokids]

this is me posting on a thread i know absolutely nothing about.

thank you el nacho for teaching me this art.

and yes, THIS is postwhoring for you etomorrow.

[etomorrow]

this is me posting on a thread i know absolutely nothing about.

thank you el nacho for teaching me this art.

and yes, THIS is postwhoring for you etomorrow.

and this is somehow a change for you? you do this constantly.

[crybabyemokids]

got any evidence to back your story?
Since you say constantly I would need at least 5 such cases, with quotes as to where I've posted in a thread I know nothing about.

And don't say that you're not bothered to do so, that would mean I auto-win.

thanks,
Lots of love,
Jay

[Lizard King]

Ha Ha! What a dick.

[etomorrow]

got any evidence to back your story?
Since you say constantly I would need at least 5 such cases, with quotes as to where I've posted in a thread I know nothing about.

And don't say that you're not bothered to do so, that would mean I auto-win.

thanks,
Lots of love,
Jay

auto win? what are you, 17? wait...

more than 5 on the first page:
http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/search.php?search_author=crybabyemokids

[crybabyemokids]

;_;

[OuterLimits]

Do they actually think humanity would be better off as a mud melange?

D a m n straight.

Then we could figure out a different arbitrary and subjective reason to hate each other.

Can you say sensayo?

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/coffee/images/sp1.gif

*gulp* / *burp*