Banned from Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board, so Jokodo should give his remaining comments directly here

20 Jul

This morning at 3.15 am I tried to log into my ‘Shantanu’ Account at Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board to see if Jokodo had left any further messages for the consideration of problems relating to the hypothesis of a full bifurcated dispersal of human beings from Homo ergaster to modern day humans across the world, but was shown a message that I have been banned from the website, and that the ban will never be lifted. Thus, unless Jokodo decides to give any criticism of other aspects of the hypothesis in the sequence of problems that I must address in this blogsite, any residual views that he has since thought of over what he stated yesterday (as copy-pasted in the comments section of my 19 July post), or his explanation of those comments, directly in this blogsite by following official WordPress procedures (and preferably in the next 24 hours as originally agreed), I will have to assume that his criticisms were totally fatuous in nature as he made no attempt to address my explanation as given to ‘Someone’ in the ‘Comments thread’ of my 13 July post.


One Response to “Banned from Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board, so Jokodo should give his remaining comments directly here”

  1. Jokodo July 20, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    Fatuous? There isn’t really any substance to your “explanation” given to “Someone”, nothing there to address. Just more handwaving. The basic issue still is that in order to claim that effect X (the difference between extant human populations) is to large to be explained by cause Y (relative seperation lasting 50,000 years), you have to give us an expected effect size for Y and compare it to the measured size of X. If they are within each other’s range, Y is sufficient to explain X and your entire edifice crumbles down.

    Alas, you’re not even trying. You’re spending the length of your explanation on hand-waving about how we (or you – for some of the stuff we do actually have pretty good data, try google sometime) don’t know enough to even give a rough estimate of Y’s expected effect size. Well, if this is so, you still have no basis to claim that X requires anything other than Y to explain it.

    Apart from hand-waving, there are some seriously fallacious arguments and claims, and some sections that look more like the result of feeding a random text-generator with biological vocabulary than anything else.

    “Further, would you not need to give me the ‘science’ behind what might have driven the population into a massive extinction event to put your hypothesis on a sounder footing?” – 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. Exactly what would be so spectacular about homo erectus being one of them?

    “How can this be quantified in terms of the time taken for a particular gene to come into existence to the point of gene-expression and for another gene to disappear from existence?” – What? You believe that the main source of differences between different populations is one gene disappearing and another one emerging from scratch? Breaking news: The main source of genetic variation is one and the same genes being slightly modified.

    “Such to-ing and fro-ing of gene development is the actual physical biological evolution that matters as giving rise to speciation-pressure, and the relationship between this definition of the genotype and the phenotype needs to be established by science, if it is possible.” – Word generator? Seriously, is this supposed to mean anything?

    “On individual traits of importance, we know that hairlessness in humans from that of apes has evolved over millions of years,” – no we don’t. That’s an upper limit, nothing more. Our ancestors could have lost their hair relatively swiftly at any time during the last 6 million years. Evolution isn’t goal directed, so a continuous gradual change in one direction is rather unlikely.

    “Unfortunately, the science of random mutations, the natural selections of multiple traits and genetic drift working in a unpredictable manner simultaneously does not lend itself to determining the precise length of time over which a population develops.” – actually it does – precisely because of its random nature. Check up on that probability theory I’ve been telling you, will you?

    “Phenotypical differences in the natural environment are the result of changes in actual genes, which may be a stronger indicator of genetic differences than the DNA-sequence analyses data.” Huh? How are you going to determine “changes in actual genes” if not by DNA-sequencing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: