Thursday, April 12, 2018

Family Has Terrifying Bigfoot Experience


The Nunnelly family moved into a small farmhouse in Kentucky. They had no idea what they were in store for.

222 comments:

  1. IktomiThursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:50:00 AM PDT
    If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore has to bear a burden of proof.

    joe fit*geraldSaturday, November 1, 2014 at 1:26:00 PM PDT
    The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false.

    ikdummy pushes crap “evidence” and challenges people to disprove it. Then when someone thoroughly debunks the “evidence,” he declares that “logic” precludes anyone one from attacking it because you “can’t prove a negative.”

    Bigfoot science at work. Ha ha ha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSaturday, November 1, 2014 at 1:14:00 PM PDT
      All bigfoot films are proven a hoax by default because there is no confirmed species that matches apart from a human in a costume.

      joe f*tzgeraldSaturday, November 1, 2014 at 1:16:00 PM PDT
      Negative proof fallacy, one regularly expressed by you silly, silly children.
      And since it's unqualified, uneducated, anonymous you verifying them... Got monkey suit?

      AnonymousSaturday, November 1, 2014 at 1:21:00 PM PDT
      The negative proof fallacy is actually an argument against you. Not sure why you keep using it and making yourself look silly.

      joe f*tzgeraldSaturday, November 1, 2014 at 1:26:00 PM PDT
      The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false. It can also happen when one assumes that something is false if it cannot be proven true.
      It's ok... You're learning.
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/redditors-are-jokingly-pointing-out.html?m=0

      Delete
    3. Now, now Stuart... it helps if you provide a little context for your cherry picking. Physical evidence is not a negative, there is no dispute either way as to its existence. If you are critical of said evidence; you bear a burden of proof.

      Don’t spend your life crying about it... Prove it.

      Delete
    4. In your diseased mind (and you wonder why you’re sick all the time), I can’t debunk it because when I do, you can just use the negative proof fallacy. Bigfoot science is immune from criticism. That was the point if you’d bothered to read the comment ikdummy.

      Delete
    5. No, you’ve used an “example” taken utterly out of context; originally in reference to a body as opposed to the readily available evidence. At this point I’m unsure whether you’re being dishonest because you’ve been ripped apart again on another thread, or just being plain stupid... but the evidence you need to debunk remains as it’s not a negative.

      Stop crying... Prove it.

      Delete
    6. And let’s not pretend like you understand science, I had to hold your hand through secondary school level textbook scientific method.

      Delete
    7. Yeah yeah, challenge me to disprove bigfoot snd then when I do, you decksre thst it’s imposdible to disprove bigfoot. Pretty convenient for you.

      Delete
    8. Repeating yourself when you’ve been made to look silly in a comment prior... Just makes you look even sillier. I know you live in this little cyber bubble, but people can/do read.

      Delete
    9. By the way, just two weeks ago you were confronted with your past statements about there being two types of bigfoot and, like a cowardly weasel, you responded:

      IktomiWednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:49:00 AM PDT
      I based that theory on but a few reports. Eyewitnesses make missidentifications regarding key information of an incident.

      But now you’re arguing for two types of bigfoot again!

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.jp/2018/03/where-does-bigfoot-fit-in-food-chain.html?m=1

      Secondly, there are two widely reported types of Sasq'ets being reported in North America; the Patty type and the more Native American type.

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2018/04/questions-about-patterson-film.html?m=1#comment-form

      Has your position “evolved” again? Ha ha ha!


      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. In fact, it was in relation to “shorter armed types” that these days I attenuate to misidentification. From the actual comment section;


      AnonymousWednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:45:00 AM PDT
      Oh no, I know nothing. Only what you tell me:
      “We have two district hairy bipeds described to this day in the US; the ape like with long arms and the human/native faced with limbs in proportion (you do have occasions when both characteristics appear to blend).”
      According to you, they were being “described to this day in the US”! We’re they not being described then? Or were they being described and the witnesses were wrong?

      IktomiWednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:49:00 AM PDT
      I based that theory on but a few reports. Eyewitnesses make missidentifications regarding key information of an incident, they rarely make missidentifications of the actual incident. For example, multiple witnesses to a giant hairy human stepping out into the road may make missidentifications regarding weight, height, whether it had hair on its face... long arms... But not that the giant hairy human stepped out into the road.
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/where-does-bigfoot-fit-in-food-chain.html?m=0

      Delete
    12. All this really proves, is that you are a very angry “cowardly weasel”, who would rather invent the stances of others because when it comes down to it... You’re just crying because you can’t prove anything.

      Would you like a tissue?

      Delete
    13. We both know you’re lying, so I’ll just take that as an admission that you have nothing else to say.

      It is good to know that you no longer think that the negative proof fallacy applies to bigfoot — but that’s about six years of your comments where you copied and pasted that argument over and over that can now be disregarded!

      Six years of your life basically wasted— no wonder you’re sick! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    14. Links to actual comment sections don’t lie. And I don’t think that the negative proof fallacy applies to Bigfoot?

      IktomiWednesday, March 21, 2018 at 12:54:00 PM PDT
      You can’t reference a study to find a specimen. But whilst there's actual evidence for the existence of American hominins, you need to confront that head on. You'd have a far more concrete case by proving there's no evidence whatsoever, than by leaning on the fact there is no modern type specimen whilst no study is being funded. Because there always COULD be a body, in line with a simple negative proof fallacy.
      Common sense dear boy.

      Next?

      Delete
    15. “We have TWO district hairy bipeds described to this day in the US.”

      I don’t see the word “three” anywhere. You can’t lie your way out of this one ikdummy! I wonder if you’re getting sick again. Ha ha ha.

      Delete
    16. Poor memory on my part... The extracts from the exact comment section don’t exactly vilify me. They do however make you look a little unhinged.

      Delete
    17. So “two” now means “three”? Maybe the negative proof fallacy can help you out of this one? Keep the bedpans on standby! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    18. And with that, I think I’ll call it a night.

      Remember Stuey... Don’t cry about it, prove it.

      Delete
    19. Yeah ikdummy, you’d better get some sleep. No amount of lying can change the fact that your arguments constantly change — oh sorry “evolve” — and that they’re totally dependent upon whatever stupid “evidence” you’re defending at the moment.

      Delete
    20. IktomiWednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:46:00 AM PDT

      Back to bed (flu).



      I’d say that you’ve progressed beyond crying at this point. Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    21. Ouch - icktomi got pretty beat up today. Oh well, he will just declare himself the winner.

      Delete
    22. ikdummÿ gave up years ago when he "classified" bigfoot as Homo sapien just to cover himself in the future when he formally gives up. No Homo sapien has a sagittal crest and scientists don't even consider Homo erectus the same species as sapiens, much less a 1000 pound 10 foot tall hairy monster.

      Delete
    23. IktomiWednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:21:00 PM PDT
      And since hair was used to sequence such info, certain info would no doubt be forthcoming with more testing. I've theorised that some type of extant hominin that could quite easily fit Sykes' theory as to a subspecies of homo Sapien, that lived contemporary to anatomically modern humans, may account for what we are seeing in “Bigfoot”. Secondly, there are two widely reported types of Sasq'ets being reported in North America; the Patty type and the more Native American type. Also the “sagittal crest” could quite easily be a misidentification of something that looks much more like this;
      http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1474_3e-Dmanisi.jpg
      ... All of which come under the classification of HOMO erectus. Remember when we learned what HOMO meant? Oh, and Sykes is an expert in human DNA, not bear.
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/questions-about-patterson-film.html?m=0



      Using the same argument, though it was destroyed on a comment section but hours previously... does not make it any less destroyed. Don’t cry... don’t embarrass yourself patting yourself on the back when your efforts at trying to find “changing arguments” fail... Prove it.

      (DCPI)

      Delete
    24. Is bigfoot a Homo erectus or Homo sapien or both? I thought you said all "Homo" bigfoot DNA came back as Homo sapien? Were Patty style bigfoot associated(seen in area) with the "sapien" DNA? Do Patty and NA bigfoot live side by side or in different areas? Are there 'NA bigfoot only' or 'Patty bigfoot only' states?

      Make up your "mind".

      Do you have photographs of the "more Native American type" of bigfoot? What fraction of the 10,000 would you say are the "more Native American type"? What is this (DCPI) that you seem to care about?

      Delete
    25. All Bigfoot DNA as we know it has come back as human/homo Sapien. They might all have the same DNA, still doesn’t take from the fact that there are two widely reported types. I’ve never claimed that Bigfoot are Homo Erectus, only used the morphological diversity in that species to use as an example of how morphological diversity might exist in Bigfoot, in line with what we already know about early/archaic Homo sapiens. Take it away Chris Stringer;

      “If we restrict the use of Homo sapiens in the fossil record to specimens which share a significant number of derived features in the skeleton with extant H. sapiens, the origin of our species would be placed in the African late middle Pleistocene, based on fossils such as Omo Kibish 1, Herto 1 and 2, and the Levantine material from Skhul and Qafzeh. However, genetic data suggest that we and our sister species Homo neanderthalensis shared a last common ancestor in the middle Pleistocene approximately 400–700ka, which is at least 200 000 years earlier than the species origin indicated from the fossils already mentioned. Thus, it is likely that the African fossil record will docu- ment early members of the sapiens lineage showing only some of the derived features of late members of the lineage. On that basis, I argue that human fossils such as those from Jebel Irhoud, Florisbad, Eliye Springs and Omo Kibish 2 do represent early members of the species, but variation across the African later middle Pleistocene/early Middle Stone Age fossils shows that there was not a simple linear progression towards later sapiens morphology, and there was chronological overlap between different ‘archaic’ and ‘modern’ morphs. Even in the late Pleistocene within and outside Africa, we find H. sapiens specimens which are clearly outside the range of Holocene members of the species, showing the complexity of recent human evolution. The impact on species recognition of late Pleistocene gene flow between the lineages of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans is also discussed, and finally, I reconsider the nature of the middle Pleistocene ancestor of these lineages, based on recent morphological and genetic data.“
      http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/371/1698/20150237.full.pdf

      The actual description of the Walla Walla hominin via direct sighting by government employees, is pretty much consistent with what one would expect from any sighting from a far. And I know you embarked on a six week meltdown when your incoherent, ad hoc conspiracy theories got exposed... But I don’t need to “make my mind up”, I merely have to provide the same case I’ve presented all along. Something you have inadvertently helped me out with whilst trying to project your unhinged ways.

      DCPI

      (Don’t cry, prove it).

      Delete
    26. Where are photos of "more Native American type" bigfoot? Have they ever been photographed? If something is indiscernible like the Freeman footage, can you claim it as either type, NA or Patty?

      Delete
    27. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    28. Forensic eyewitness sketches;

      http://www.cryptozoonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bigfoot112308b.jpg

      https://robertlindsay.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/577952_4617357356593_223730928_n.jpg

      PLUS a security camera capture on Buddy Britt’s property that shows what clearly is an almond shaped eye (indicative of Native American) at the 24mins mark here;

      https://youtu.be/eFUXHpelxc0

      Delete
    29. OMG - you are actually presenting the above to bolster your case??? Strangely, I had expected better of you. You think these eyewitness sketches and dubious videos will convince anyone? Really?

      Delete
    30. I do indeed find eyewitness forensic sketches and surveillance camera footage bolster’s my case very much. Especially when size comparisons such as the following are made in the same places that footage was taken;

      http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/fence-climber-bigfoot-dwarfs-mk-davis.html?m=0

      https://sasquatchchronicles.com/topic/mk-davis-video-of-walking-sasquatch/page/4/



      DCPI

      Delete
    31. Now your referencing the work of Bigfoot massacre theorist M.K. Davis? Hahahahahaha!

      Keep going nuttytomi - your just digging yourself deeper.

      Delete
    32. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the “Bigfoot massacre”, but there’s a lot of his work that I do. The size comparison doesn’t lie... maybe you should be thinking about debunking it?

      Ho Ho Ho.

      Delete
    33. ^ scientists already did so - easily.

      Delete
    34. Yet you can’t ever reference one.

      Abject failure.

      Don’t worry... you can always just ditch the role-play and express your love for paranormal Bigfoot.

      Delete
    35. Here’s your new hero MK Davis taking apart the fraud Meldrum. Now I’ll watch you attack MK Davis after you just cited him as a great authority. Consistency doesn’t matter, only “evidence” for bigfoot does:

      “The mid-tarsal break for instance. As far as I know, there was only one print in the entire trackway at the Patterson film site that might have been an example of such. Is it scientific to ignore a hundred flat tracks and attribute a previously unknown characteristic to an unrecognized species, based on that one and only track...ignoring the 99 other tracks that might say otherwise. The answer is no. It might be what is going on INSIDE a person that is most resented and compels them to preempt the scientific process that they have trained in for much of their life.”

      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/issciencefair.htm

      Delete
    36. My “new hero MK Davis”? “Taking apart Meldrum”? And now you’ll “watch me attack MK Davis” after I’ve just “cited him as a great authority”?

      (Cringe)

      For starters I don’t have to agree with everything MK, Meldrum, or anyone else I’ve referenced, or any enthusiast you can find to contradict the peer reviewed evidence in your attempts to distance yourself from your ad hoc conspiracy embarrassment. Unfortunately, Meldrum has a catalogue of examples of mid-tarsal breaks in track impressions. And since he’s an authority on bipedal evolution, I think I’m going to side with him on this instance.

      Consistency DOES in fact matter, and there is nothing more consistent than repeatable scientific evidence. Such as three casts showing morphological congruency in mid-tarsal breaks, over three decades before particular replica casts were even made, and before anatomical features like mid-tarsal breaks had any attention drawn to them... aligned with track ways that show that a genuine biological foot has made contact with the ground.

      I’ve got a lot of time for MK, his input into Mike Brookreson’s research area was utterly fascinating.

      Delete
    37. You could have shortened that to just stating that your new hero MK Davis doesn’t trump Dinsdale Award winner Meldrum. And thank you for informing us that his input was “utterly fascinating” instead of just “fascinating” — that added so much more vividness to the description! Dare I say that it made it “utterly vivid”? Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    38. What an utterly boring comment that was.

      Delete
    39. Oh wait, I know you’re still hurting because I called out your baldfaced lie yesterday when you tried to turn the number two into three. You could just say that you really meant “utterly two” which is equal to “three”! See, I’m here to help you! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    40. It pretty much sums things up when you have to conjure that as something to celebrate in this entire comment section.

      No, you’re here to help your depression.

      Don’t cry... Prove it.

      Ciao!

      Delete
    41. "Consistency DOES in fact matter, and there is nothing more consistent than repeatable scientific evidence."

      “The mid-tarsal break for instance. As far as I know, there was only one print in the entire trackway at the Patterson film site that might have been an example of such. Is it scientific to ignore a hundred flat tracks and attribute a previously unknown characteristic to an unrecognized species, based on that one and only track...ignoring the 99 other tracks that might say otherwise."

      How can you speak of consistency when the "evidence" is not consistent. Seems to me you cherry pick your "evidence" to arrive at the conclusions you want. And how can you conclude that a genuine biological foot has made contact with he ground when you have never seen what actually made it? You can ASSUME such but until you put the real foot in the print you absolutely can't be for sure especially when the supposed creature that made it hasn't even been recognized by the scientific community.

      Delete
    42. There is next to no information about the lengthy trackway of Patty, this is why MK himself stated “as far as I know”. And I can you conclude that a genuine biological foot made contact with the sand bar in the instance of Patty because (cough, cough) there’s footage of it. I know that a genuine biological foot made contact with he ground in China, because it’s stated so in Meldrum’s paper (this has been quoted numerous times but you don’t read comments properly, especially those with “sciencey” words, eh?). And nope, again you butcher child’s level scientific method;

      1. Ask a question.
      2. Formulate a hypothesis.
      3. Perform experiment.
      4. Collect data.
      5. Draw conclusions.

      Your idea of how science is conducted, point 5 before 2, is embarrassing. To expect that the actual foot whose impression is being cast needs to be classified prior to the track being used as research to that end, is against the basic process of field research and the scientific method. And that evidence is now peer reviewed, thus recognised by some portion of the scientific community.

      DCPI.

      Delete
  2. I don't have to tell you that sketches aren't photos.

    As for "https://youtu.be/eFUXHpelxc0" at 24:00. LOL Nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never claimed they were, which is why I provided footage as well. And unfortunately, “LOL” never debunked anything.

      DCPI.

      Delete
    2. ^ Get a room already you two !

      LOL

      Delete
    3. He wasn’t to draw out his suffering, I’m only too happy to dish it out.

      Delete
    4. How is the eye in the video "more Native American type"? It does not look like a Native American's eyes. It looks like a horse. Your confirmation biased reasoning is off the charts.

      Delete
    5. Nope! That’s a human eye.

      Nice try.

      Don’t cry.

      Delete
    6. https://cms-assets.tutsplus.com/uploads/users/110/posts/20683/image/eye-shapes.jpg

      Delete
    7. MK Davis Talks Frankly About The Eye In The Lens Video;

      https://youtu.be/Lw-WjaulH3U

      Delete
    8. Nope! You just said that it is a human eye.

      Oh gosh, an eye cart. What definitive proof that its a human eye. Here you go: https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/8/8b/Treat-Horse-Eye-Problems-Step-6-Version-2.jpg/aid130223-v4-728px-Treat-Horse-Eye-Problems-Step-6-Version-2.jpg

      What now, an MKDavis vid? You win. you win! LOL You are asinine.

      Delete
    9. Watch MK’s video, you’ll notice he breaks the eye down, and explains the pupil in the eye constricts when it is hit with the infrared light... you can at that point see the make up of a human eye. Very clear.

      Delete
    10. Oh and Stuey? You’re flogging a dead horse (pun intended)... the subject in that surveillance footage has corroboration in the following “fence jumper” size comparisons;

      http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/fence-climber-bigfoot-dwarfs-mk-davis.html?m=0

      https://sasquatchchronicles.com/topic/mk-davis-video-of-walking-sasquatch/page/4/

      ... something you forgot about whilst scrambling. Not to mention what appears to be clear surveillance footage of a baby primate climbing and shaking a tree, not to mention clear footage of a subject using quadrupedal motion like a gorilla. Britt’s property is quite simply the best source of habituated footage ever documented (and known).

      Delete
    11. MK Davis is a human eye expert for your convenience or laziness? What are his eye expert credentials?

      I'm not saying definitively that it is a guy in a costume or a horse but it look like a 4 legged hoofed animal's eyes.

      Delete
    12. MK Davis is a human eye expert for your convenience or laziness? What are his eye expert credentials?

      You are a silly person, entertaining but silly.

      Delete
    13. One not need to be an eye expert... just own a pair of your own as well as a little common sense.

      Don’t cry about it, you should be used to this routine by now.

      Delete
    14. And just to correct myself... it’s the Sells research area.

      Delete
    15. Sells was an associate of hoaxer Tom Biscardi:

      http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/sells-obit/

      Delete
    16. Size comparisons up top.

      End of debate.

      Delete
    17. Debate over. ikdummy wins.

      There really are giant 10 foot tall hairy 1000 lb native american looking bigfoot roaming the USA. Drawing and a video of a horse prove it. Case closed. Science!

      Delete
    18. There are 10 foot tall hairy 1000 lb Bigfoot... Because there is peer reviewed science for trace evidence left by them. The evidence for some level of them appearing Native in appearance, is down to inummerable reports, forensic drawings and videos like the one up top.

      Don’t cry about it...


      ... debunk it.

      Delete
    19. I can't debunk the tooth fairy. How would I go about proving it false? It would just be my opinion. More credentialed people in different disciplines could say that there is a tooth fairy. People could start providing evidence and saying they see tooth fairies. Mainstream science might not support tooth fairies but there would be evidence for them and I couldn't debunk it because I can't use common sense to debunk things(it's unscientific)...unless:

      IktomiFriday, April 13, 2018 at 11:30:00 PM PDT
      One not need to be an eye expert... just own a pair of your own as well as a little common sense.

      Delete
    20. There is not a single piece of physical evidence for the tooth fairy, let alone 60 years of it. Nobody sees the tooth fairy, let alone whole cultures with them at their core, and three databases of modern reports. Reports that account for people from every credible pillar of modern society. Mainstream science tried tackling the evidence for what is commonly known as Bigfoot, and it couldn’t expalin it away. This is why the evidence is now up to the scientific standard, because it can’t be shown to be bunk. And is in fact impossible to debunk.

      You can’t debunk Bigfoot, because not only are you too stupid and require special pleading (logical fallacy), as well as a whole list of other fallacies... to still not even get close. That must be such a sad ego knock for someone whose whole cyber identity rests on trying to laugh at others. People ten times cleverer than you can’t manage it. What hope have you got?

      Hopeless.

      Oh, and you lifted a quote about the immediate subject matter up top. There are plenty of scientific fields that you could use to tackle and attempt to falsify the evidence I reference head on... Things like anthropology and wildlife biology. Be a good lad and go take your face to the toilet. You lost.

      Delete
    21. It doesn't matter, ikdummy. Evidence could be created for the tooth fairy. People could start saying they see the tooth fairy. Dogman is in the early bigfoot stage. UK bigfoot is in the early US Bigfoot stage, there are sightings and physical evidence will follow. These things take time to build. I'm not saying the tooth fairy will ever become a thing. There has to be an interest.

      You can't debunk Dogman, because not only are you too stupid and require special pleading (logical fallacy), as well as a whole list of other fallacies... to still not even get close.

      You haven't debunked one Dogman sighting, have you? ikdummy, your perpetual Latin debating phrases and juvenile pseudo intellectual "pwning" attempts don't make your 10,000 common sense hairy men any more real. People just like tweaking a nutcase bigfoot believer like you who will reliably defend his bigfoot on demand.

      Delete
    22. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

    23. Stuey... your version of scientific scrutiny is that the evidence for some children’s fantasy figure COULD start to be created, thus Bigfoot is bunk. This is the type of idiot I’m left with here since I’ve destroyed all the psuedosceptics who had the potential for thinking logically. And whats more... is that this is coming from someone who believes Bigfoot are “ghouls and goblins”. You couldn’t even make this stuff up.

      Show me the physical evidence for dogmen and I’ll be happy to look at it. None of that sad effort at a comparison, not one word of it provides me with a scientifically sound reason to not consider scientifically repeatable evidence that actually exists. Myths and childhood fantasies in modern culture exist alongside many legitimate scientific subjects. I can’t debunk dogman, because there is nothing worthy of scientific falsification relating to it.

      No, you’ve been refreshing pages for days on end looking for satisfaction because I’ve made you look like an idiot, just because I felt bothered to, for YEARS now. I’m not particularly clever for doing that, in fact, it’s not a quality I’m proud of, I’ve stooped far too long responding to you. You’re angry because not only can you not get anyone to think you’re “cool” for believing in Skinwalkers, but you’re bitter at people like me who can articulate their reasons for being convinced of Bigfoot based on science. You’re a sad manic depressive that’s going to live out his days, isolated and begging for the attention of people like me online. I can’t even begin to explain to you how much richer my life is compared to that.

      So don’t cry about it, debunk it. Because one of us has the scientific method... the other has conspiracy theories, conjecture, contradictions and circular logic.

      Delete
    24. "This is the type of idiot I’m left with HERE since I’ve destroyed ALL the psuedosceptics who had the potential for thinking logically."

      LOL How does that jibe with your one, single, only anon skeptic who has been posting here for 8 years? Busted.

      Show me the pre-Patterson physical evidence for bigfoot, ikdummy. People created it. When people start creating physical UK bigfoot evidence and credentialed people okay it for you, you'll believe. You are a non-critical thinker who is dying to sound intellectual and scientific debating an imaginary creature into existence. And quit projecting your psychological state on others. Too bad you can't let go.

      Delete
    25. Sorry Stuey, I know you’re trying to project your paranoia on others (one minute I’m American, the next Welsh, the next I’m an admin, the next I’m “Russian” LOL)... but plenty of anons have come and gone. It’s too easy to recognise your drivel a mile off, as do most. It’s a sure sign of someone who isn’t very clever, that they have such a lack of awareness that they believe everyone else is just as stupid. And you’re not clever enough to hide your hate, the same topics across sockpuppets, your lies, your pathological need for attention, etc.

      “No one can writer better than their level of skill, an individual can write at a lower level of their ability but not higher.”
      http://www.britishgraphology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-anonymous-letter-writer.pdf

      You know next to nothing about this subject, and considering how long you’ve been obsessed with it; you’re an idiot. And you now want me to show you the pre-Patty physical evidence? Here’s some;
      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/wallace_comparison.htm

      You’ll notice that link in particular was intentional, and it blows apart Wallace’s fakes as the main casts sourced before 1967. Don’t cry about it, prove how people created those tracks. I’ve researched the viewpoints and claims of your theory group better and way before you did. I still know arguments you haven’t even stumbled across yet, and could destroy them even if you did. Nothing I can say alone will bring this creature into existence, I know it feels like that Stuey (Freudian slip), but it’s the evidence far more experienced people than me have found that I subsequently reference, that actually does it. To verify being convinced of said evidence, I had to answer all the questions. None of it stands against the evidence I reference...

      Don’t like it?

      DCPI.

      Delete
  3. LOL, ikdummy, maybe you can get a degree in knowledge of imaginary men. You have so much knowledge of something that doesn't exist and also has a stigma of low-class lunacy attached to it.

    Your mantra has been that you're arguing with one troll all along but "This is the type of idiot I’m left with HERE since I’ve destroyed ALL the psuedosceptics". I guess you're the idiot that you're left here with. Is there not one sacred ikdummy mantra that you haven't 180'd out of? Now you're an inconsistent idiot with fake knowledge of fake hairy men. I'm sure the Welsh marvel at your one track bigfoot "knowledge" base. Did you used to live in Ireland?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not important.

      You show how narcissistic, isolated, lacking in self-esteem and desperate for attention you are by talking about yourself all the time.

      Stop crying about it... imaginary men should be easy to debunk. Chop, chop!

      Delete
    2. Nope! I am important but not because a bigfoot role player like you posted multiple exchanges and even deleted and retyped posts to reshape comments to try to impress me.

      Your ad hominem attack is meaningless.

      Imaginary men have been debunked thoroughly. Prove them real. Chop, Chop!

      Delete
    3. Impress you?!!!!

      PWAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

      Stop talking about yourself, you pathetic soul. Look at this comment section, and the million others where you’ve failed to debunk peer reviewed science (for example). That’s solid data for something with the exact same anatomy as “Bigfoot”, proven to be leaving its physical sign on two continents. I’m almost ready to call it a day because my case is pretty much sealed.

      Stop crying... Debunk it. It’s your obsessions, your burden.

      Delete
    4. And can you imagine that Stuey? Can you imagine I left this place now in satisfaction that the data is now solid enough for absolutely no one to challenge? Because that’s the idea I’m toying with... leaving you to wallow in your own depression without a single person who’s left to help you self-medicate. There is no challenge here any more, expert to feed your personality disorder.

      You need to get a hold of yourself, stop your crying and hurry up and debunk it. Because as it stands, you’re not important enough to keep me around.

      Tick, tock...

      Delete
    5. You live in a fantasy world, ikdummy. You think your posts are pivotal in debating bigfoot into reality.

      What you don't understand is that I have no interest in delving deep in to your fantasy creature narrative. That is a waste of time. You know about false, fantasy things which have no application in the real world except for story telling.

      You have my permission to leave this blog, ikdummÿ.

      Delete
    6. It’s the physical evidence that’s been peer reviewed that brings this creature into reality. It’s just so lovely to read you worm repeatedly after demanding it for so long.

      : )

      Fanstasies don’t leave 60 years of physical evidence. Fantasies don’t leave the best scientific minds reeling for excuses to explain that away. And fantasies don’t make psychopaths devote eight years of their life to crying like a little girl because nobody found their skinwalker-squatch “cool”.

      STOP CRYING, DEBUNK BIGFOOT.

      Delete
  4. Your credentialed fantasy bigfoot role players have never sourced a body and never will.

    It must be easier for your "mind" to lump every anonymous poster together as the same person. LOL

    STOP CRYING, PROVE BIGFOOT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They’ve also never had a funded professional expedition to point to, to achieve that.

      “Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.”

      And though I didn’t prove anything, the evidence that’s now peer reviewed proves that a creature with the exact same anatomy as “Bigfoot” is leaving its trace on two continents.

      Stop talking about yourself, ya sad ****, stop crying... Debunk it. Your mental state depends upon it.

      Delete
    2. Is ikdummÿ really that neurotic that he'll continue to post on an old thread that no will read in order to defend his imaginary men? Can you not see how insane you are?

      You even admit that you didn't prove anything but still want me to debunk something that isn't real.

      Delete
    3. I’ve quite clearly got you so emotionally invested and I’m somehow insane for maintaining this thread? Stop crying Stuey... Your logical fallacies don’t relegate a hominin that has scientific evidence behind to mere “imaginary men”. And I’m merely not taking credit for the references I use, the existence of “Bigfoot” has pretty much been proven by the evidence that’s now peer reviewed. It’s only the requirement of “extraordinary proof” left to find that convinces a mainstream that isn’t even aware of that peer reviewed evidence.

      And an argument from ignorance fallacy doesn’t materialise an expedition to produce that extraordinary evidence... ya dumb *****.

      DCPI.

      Delete
    4. ikdummy, you are an loony child trying to argue an imaginary creature into existence by typing Latin debating terms.

      Can you not see that?

      And bigfoot has NOT been "pretty much been proven". If two credentialed people say faked footprints are real, it doesn't make an army of 10 foot tall hairy men materialize. Science isn't about abandoning common sense, sprinkling in Latin terms, and declaring something false as real to fill some psychological need.

      Delete
    5. “... tyying to argue an imaginary creature into existence...”

      Yeah, it didn’t debunk Bigfoot the first ten times around. It didn’t debunk “two credentialed people” either. When are you going to get a hold of yourself and this 8 year tantum? Stop crying, debunk Bigfoot. Stating that prints are fake because they are fake is circular logic. Another logical fallacy. And please don’t pretend like you understand science, I’ve had to hold your hand through secondary school level textbook scientific method.

      Stop crying... Debunk Bigfoot.

      Delete
    6. Nothing to debunk. There is no such ""pretty much been proven" bigfoot. I'm not going to waste time on every BS "evidence" that bigfooters come up with and either are mainstream scientists. Mainstream scientists use common sense and so do I. I conserve energy when not necessary. I'm not going to delve into every nuance of something that doesn't even exist.

      Now, if you want to talk about real species like Naledi and debate whether they actually buried their dead or if they interbred with modern populations, that's interesting to me. But your fantasy stuff is just for laughs and very unstimulating intellectually. Why would I delve in to it?

      Delete
    7. Oh and Stuey? Bigfoot HAS pretty much been proven, even before the peer review, purely based on that common sense that you think you’re wielding. You see, common sense would dictate that if something is seen by tens of thousands of people and leaves physical evidence that can’t be debunked everywhere, it exists.

      DCPI

      Delete
    8. “I'm not going to waste time on every BS "evidence"“

      No... you’ve spent nearly eight years trying it, and it must have hurt to realise in the end that you weren’t clever after all, you were just that dedicated to driving human beings away from a blog so you couldn’t get your drivel destroyed. You are not only too stupid to “waste any more of your time”, but you know it’s utterly hopeless, and the evidence stands. It’s so lovely knowing someone like you is so utterly hopeless. Mainstream scientists absorb the work of pioneering researchers... Your mainstream (that you don’t even understand) have never explained the evidence away. How’s it feel to know that you rest on the ideas of people who can’t help you? Who can’t think for you?

      And you didn’t even know about Homo Naledi until I used it to provide an example of primitive hominids maintaining their dead. Oh... and please tell me all about how they may have “interbred with modern populations”?

      I can’t wait to read this.

      (LOL)

      Delete
    9. You're making things up. 8 years, you came up with H. naledi???

      ikdummy, you do realize that naledi coexisted with Homo sapiens and that Homo sapiens are what modern humans are? You do realize that modern humans have interbred with other species before?

      Delete
    10. Please Stuey.. tell me all about Homo Naledi and how it “interbred with modern populations”... tell me all about it... I’m all ears.

      Delete
    11. “In 2017, however, the fossils were dated to between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago, long after much larger-brained and more modern-looking hominins had appeared.“

      So since they lived contemporary to modern humans, I guess this blows apart your years’ old assertion that...

      AnonymousThursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:09:00 PM PDT
      According to pygmy mutations in thier mito DNA. Thier race dates back to 180,000,BFP!!
      THE OLDEST FOSSELS OF Cro-Magnon date back no more than
      45-55,000 yrs BFP...
      In future post "Joe F" you
      need to DEFINE Archaic HSS vs
      Archaic HUMAN,,,BIG DIFFERENCE.!!!
      DR.B Sykes

      Delete
    12. BS. That's not my post on August 18, 2016.

      I said MAY have interbred, not interbred. You are already twisting my words, ikdummy. Why don't you listen to the foremost naledi expert in his own words:

      At 1:02:58 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mBIFFstNSo

      Also, they believe they can extract DNA from naledi to compare to modern humans but haven't done so yet.

      Delete
    13. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Got ya! I’ve got another gazillion posts from you in the dossier harping on about the Khoisan and Pygmy peoples being the oldest Homo sapiens, in an effort to try and challenge Sykes’ 200,000 year old subspecies Homo Sapien theory. And now it went to make out like you know all about hominids living contemporary to archaic Homo sapiens?

      Pretty funny stuff.

      Goodnight Stuey!

      Delete
    14. Address the video, not your fantasy "all anons the same" BS. I don't know about the context of the anon post or even care. They may be accurate. I don't know but it has nothing to do with my discussion on Naledi.

      You're not addressing Naledi possibly breeding with Homo Sapiens as explained by the foremost Naledi expert. Instead, you are going into your "all anons the same" dossier psychosis.

      You said: "Oh... and please tell me all about how they may have “interbred with modern populations”? "

      And I answered you and even had the world's foremost Naledi expert answer you. You flipped out into 'all anons the same person" psychosis and then decided to go to sleep early.

      Delete
    15. I had/have nothing to contest about Naledi. I knew more about that hominid before you’d even heard of it. I just wanted to bait you & show how full of **** you are, especially when in your F-AC sockpuppet mode.

      You make it easy.

      Adios!

      Delete
    16. That's nonsense, ikdummy. You became angry when I suggested Naledi may have mated with Homo sapiens. If I didn't back up my opinion with the foremost Naledi expert you'd still be sarcastically attacking me.

      Sarcastic idiot ikdummy was shutdown:

      "Please Stuey.. tell me all about Homo Naledi and how it “interbred with modern populations”... tell me all about it... I’m all ears."

      You're damn right you NOW "have nothing to contest about Naledi", b1tch! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! At least you admit it.

      Delete
    17. ikdummy, aren't you the genius who said all current populations have the exact same IQs but now acknowledges all current populations have different cranial capacities due to uncommon ancestors and isolated evolution? Surely, if Homo floresiensis survived to the current time, it would not magically have the exact same IQ as all other Homo populations, were other Homo populations actually all the same in the first place. You're the guy that believes only hair, eye, and skin color evolve and that the brain stays the same across populations.

      You freaked out when I suggested Naledi may have mixed with Homo sapien Africans but I and John Hawks schooled your non-scientific, virtue-signaling, bigfoot-believing a$$. Schooled.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    19. Angry? PWAAAAHHH!!! What’s to be angry about Naledi potentially interbreeding with Homo sapiens? How does that have an bearing on anything I’ve ever claimed? The fact that they lived contemporary to Homo sapiens at a length of time I’ve aserted Homo sapiens were around? Ha ha!! Stuey, I know you’ve got little to be satisfied about, but come on... think before patting yourself on the back.

      AC Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 2:05:00 AM PST
      One thing modern science knows as fact, is that pygmys are the orignal HSS.dated at 160,000 ybp..
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/tools-found-of-unknown-species-of-human.html?m=0

      No Stue, you’re angry... it’s ok, I would be too. Years of assertions and harassment about Homo sapiens not being around longer than 160-180,000 years, and you go and reference a hominid like Naledi who lived contemporary to us between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago. Funny as heck. And what’s this?? IQ’s?! Homo floresiensis?? Jeez, what a blithering mess... I have no idea what you’re talking about, do you even know what you’re talking about? I seem to remember you butchering a study about African IQ in relation to their poverty in favour of your eugenics, but I don’t remember anything else. Don’t be angry that I got you to fact check about some anthropology. At least you’re learning.

      No, no... the pleasure’s all mine.

      : p

      Delete
    20. ikdummy: "What’s to be angry about Naledi potentially interbreeding with Homo sapiens?"

      You tell me. You flipped out and sarcastically wanted me to provide evidence suggesting thatsapien/naledi hybrids could be a possibility.

      You're posting quotes other people said and attributing them to me. Quotes which I am not even reviewing or delving into to find their context. I didn't type them. They are not mine. They may be accurate but I don't care about some other conversation.

      You have claimed that all modern populations share the same IQ and cranial capacity. Is this what you still believe or not?

      Delete
    21. (Creased)

      You cannot think of, or even invent one single reason why you suddenly u-turning and substantiating what I’ve asserted for years (that Homo sapiens have been around far longer than what you have claimed, in respect of Sykes theories), because there is no logical reason for me to be angry. You got baited into backtracking and that’s it. And here’s your little reminder of where I’ve proven you’re “AC Collins”;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/strange-cases-of-missing-people.html?m=0

      I have never published a comment about people’s cranial capacity. And even if I have, it’s never been in the context of what you’re blithering about now. Stop crying like a little girl, and publish a quote from me if that’s the case. If it’s not bad enough that you’re claiming you backtracking is to my detriment, you’re now inventing arguments. Take a break Stuey... I’m genuinely off to bed. I’ll check on your meltdowns in the morning.

      Delete
    22. ikdummy, I did not type what you attributed to me. I'm not saying that I disagree with it. I read the quote you posted a few posted back. I didn't type it. You want me to defend something that I never typed. If I typed it I would take the interest to defend or argue it. It wasn't me. I'm not U-turning, I never said it. He may be right if I took the time to read it and look up his points but I'm not going to.

      ikdummy, different modern populations have different cranial capacities and across those populations there are corresponding IQ differences that relate smaller brains to lower IQ scores, in general. Yes, it is possible for a 1400 cc brained man within a population to have a lower IQ than a 1200 cc brained woman within a population but, in general, a population with a larger crainial capacity will also have a higher IQ. For example, Ashkenazis have higher IQs and larger brains than Australian aborigines. Further example, Homo floresiensis had a 380 cc brain, so I'm assuming they had lower IQs than all modern humans.

      Delete
    23. Do you know how much Richard Lynn has been decimated online and in the scientific community?

      “But the steady creep of extreme views from the fringes of academia to the everyday should worry us all. Academic freedom is an honourable ideal, and one worth defending, because we trust that the system works. Through careful checks and peer review, only the most reliable, well-evidenced ideas, and most trustworthy researchers, should pass through. But in practice the system does fail. Poor papers do get published, weak research can pass through the net, and people’s prejudices can sometimes taint the process. This is what those at the disreputable edges of academia are counting on. The scientific community needs to be more vigilant. The system broke down over eugenics research in the early 20th century, with catastrophic consequences. We have to ensure this never happens again.“
      https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/22/eugenics-racism-mainstream-science

      “Richard Lynn (born 20 February 1930) is an English psychologist and author. He is a former professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Ulster, having had the title withdrawn by the university in 2018, and assistant editor of the journal Mankind Quarterly, which has been described as a "white supremacist journal".
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

      I thought you were “safeguarding the world against dangerous pseudoscience”, F-AC?

      Delete
    24. Getting a scared virtue signaler to admit to genetic differences among populations is eugenics???

      Poor ikdummÿ.

      Delete
    25. You’ll also notice that first Guardian link is in direct reference to Lynn.

      Delete
    26. You have no idea what eugenics is if noticing actual real genetic differences in populations is your definition of eugenics. H.f. having a smaller brain than H.s. is eugenics to you?

      Everything is fantasy with you. I can't even get you outside the topic of bigfoot without a fantasy perspective from you.

      Delete
    27. Don’t take it from me... Take it from any number of internet sources. You’re a racist. Racists naturally gravitate to what they interpret as justifying their backward ideologies.

      Delete
    28. Nope! Internet sources view your Bigfoot designations of Native Americans and a Russian black woman as racist.

      Recognizing genetic differences in populations is something that is healthy and is abnormal to deny.

      BTW Jordan Peterson says F. U., ikdummy!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MJUhDQKJcY

      Delete
    29. ikdummy wants to throw away the whole field of Psychology:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM

      Delete
    30. Yet you can’t find one internet source that can confirm that Zana’s skull morphology is sub-Saharan circa 1850.

      You can publish all the Jordan Peterson you like... Your main source for this junk is Richard Lynn, as you’ve been told before, and he’s regarded as a pseudoscientific racist, who even publishes his work in a journal considered to be white supremicist.

      Delete
    31. And I can promise you that even if I could be bothered to watch those videos, they wouldn’t go anywhere near to verifying your “Africans have lower IQ” racist drivel.

      Delete
    32. Funny that I've never heard of Richard Lynn or went to your earlier link or ever will.

      IQ results are IQ results. Running away from testing data doesn't change that.

      Your racist heart is hung up on making a black woman the Russian Bigfoot, isn't it ikdummy? You need that as much as you need bigfoot to be real.

      Delete
    33. Suuuuuuuuuure you didn’t Stuey. If one simply cut & pastes your comment at at 2:49pm PDT into a search engine, you come across the same rubbish attributed to that eugenics freak. IQ results can indeed be simple IQ results. But claiming that Africans have lower IQ’s, when in fact they’re just poorer, is racism. Which is what you’ve tried to justify since the last time we did this little dance.

      Oh and Stuey? Stop crying and find me a skull with Khwit’s archaic features from Africa OR The Caucuses circa 1850. Should be easy since loads of these “slaves” were running around the Caucuses, eh? It’s typical of someone who loves his eugenics to cherry pick pseudoscientific cranial capacity one minute, and ignore the most painfully of basic of physical anthropology the next. What a mess.

      See ya in the morning Stuey!

      Delete
    34. LOL The only way to hear about population/IQ correlations is through a philosopher ikdummy follows, otherwise no one else would be able to read IQ distributions across populations???

      You believe in imaginary monster men and concoct within that imaginary belief an imaginary Russian monster that you say is a black woman. You have to go a loooooooooooooooong fantasy route to arrive at your brand of racism, ikdummy, yet you ignore mainstream IQ scores by countries because all populations MUST have the exact same IQ in ikdummyland or ikdummy feels racist. Nutcase.

      Delete
    35. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    36. There are many ways to read about “population/IQ correlations”, but when they’re twisted by eugenics as opposed to social and economic issues; then there in lies the problem. Which is what YOU did the first time around. You read a study on racial IQ from countries in relation to their social and economic status and you interpreted it to fit your ideologies.

      An entire community described Zana as a “Bigfoot” 100 years before any pop culture or powers of suggestion were circulating. A skull that even amateurs like me can use basic physical anthropology to determine its archaic nature, and in fact, has actual anthropologists who are far more qualified doing the same... is not down to my imagination or mere belief. These are facts which require no real route other than picking up a book, or looking online. Every race of human being on the planet is capable of being a doctor, not every race of human on the planet has the resources to do so. Stop crying, if you’re going to prove a point use a source that does that, not paint you in a racist light. And no amount of sources about psychology and IQ distances you from your original premise because I remember it, and even have links to it.

      Delete
  5. Quit reading your eugenics propaganda philosopher and listen to the Jordan Peterson videos. There is a balanced way to understand that H. habilis, H. erectus, H. floresiensis all had varying cranial capacities and likely IQs and that there still is variation among modern populations on AVERAGE. It's not that scary. You'll survive. Get over your knee-jerk panic.

    For a guy who believes a portion of his fantasy "bigfoot" population is Native American as evidenced by a picture of a horse's eye which you claim looks Native American as well as your claim that the fantasy Russian "Bigfoot" was a Black woman, you sure do virtue signal about race a lot.

    Your racism is based on a fantasy creature. You could have followed any narrative you wanted but you chose to belittle Blacks and Native Americans. You are a racist Joe F.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Differences in brain size within a species, such as humans, are relatively small, making it difficult to tease out the effects of brain size and the effects of other factors. For instance, the difference in intelligence between an individual with, say, a brain that's 1,100 grams and one that's 1,400 grams (which could be found in humans) is confounded by other variables, including differences in density of neurons, other structural brain differences and socio-cultural factors.
      Take genius Albert Einstein, who's brain was not significantly bigger than the average human's. Rather, some scientists have found, his ability to grasp mind-boggling concepts and make seemingly impossible mental leaps may have come down to connections. Turns out, his noggin was likely highly integrated so that several paths would have connected distant regions to one another.
      If brain size had anything to do with innovation and creativity, some scientists expected to see a link between the so-called Mind's Big Bang (the emergence of bone tools and cave paintings that occurred between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago) and the emergence of modern-size human brains. Not the case.”
      https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/32142-are-big-brains-smarter.html

      Do you honestly know a single thing you’re f’n babbling about? And as a a theory for some level of “Bigfoot” appearing Native American, I have innumerable reports to draw upon, forensic eyewitness sketches, and a piece of security camera footage of a human eye that has racial consistency to Native Americans, that in turn has footage of corroborating subjects in the same vicinity reaching impossible height ranges. For Zana being a “Bigfoot”, I not only can draw upon an entire community that reported her appearance and behaviour 100 years before any pop culture, but I can point to her son’s archaic skull morphology that doesn’t fit with any anthropological example of African person from the mid-19th century. The following is a very simple comparison between Khwit’s skull (left) compared to that of an average human;

      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/b1/9f/f4b19fd9e1817ffaa029f81812b10bcd.jpg

      If I’m racist racist, stop crying and go find an African skull like that. Racist.

      Delete
    2. Nothing you cut and paste has to do with variations among different populations on average. Do you really believe Ashkenazi Jews have the same IQs as Australian aborigines except Aborigines are just poorer and can't afford an education?????????? Take about blind virtue signaling.

      Everything Bigfoot is made up. You can take the narrative anywhere. You chose to deride Blacks and Native Americans and say they are bigfoot. Get out of here with your phony bigfoot "evidence". You know it's all fake. Stop it already!

      Delete
    3. Actually... what I cut & paste just blew your eugenics out of the water.

      Stop crying, find a skull or debunk Bigfoot.

      Laters!

      Delete
    4. YOUR eugenics, ikdummy. You study that type of thing but, like usual, you can't process information.

      You believe in 10,000 10 foot tall 1000 lb hairy men perpetually hiding in US woods but refuse to believe in average brain variations among different populations. Do you at least believe that there are average skin and hair color variations in different populations or do certain populations need funding to achieve different skin/hair tones?

      Delete
    5. ikdummy: "Eugenics is acknowledgement of genetic variation between populations."

      Idiot!

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Differing brain size in human populations, although be it minute, is acknowledged. Whether it effects intelligence has little to no scientific backing. Fact.

      Physical evidence that would indicate 7-8 foot tall hairy men perpetually hiding in US woods has corroborating scientific data that is backed by the scientific standard of repeatable evidence. Fact.

      Delete
    8. Oh and Stuey? One last time... be a brave boy and open the link now;

      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/b1/9f/f4b19fd9e1817ffaa029f81812b10bcd.jpg

      Delete
    9. ikdummy: "Chinese can sprint as fast as Africans, they're just poorer and need to be educated on sprinting".

      ikdummy:"Poodles are as smart as German Shepherds, Poodles are just from poorer regions and need more education."

      Suuuuuuure, ikdummy, there is no science to IQ tests and the psychiatric field. See second Peterson video.... Not even entertaining your bigfoot BS anymore, ikdummy.

      Delete
    10. The physical attributes of some races compared to others, has nothing whatsoever to do with your original premise of brain size relevant to IQ. You are wandering around aimlessly.

      Science on IQ and the psychiatric field has nothing whatsoever to do with your original premise of brain size relevant to IQ. You are wandering around aimlessly.

      You’re not addressing “Bigfoot”, because you’re out of ideas. Hence the wandering around aimlessly.

      Delete
    11. Brain size across populations on AVERAGE, ikdummy. Exceptions, of course, I already posted above that a 1400 cc man could have a lower IQ than a 1200cc brained woman. Just like an individual African can be a slower sprinter than an individual Chinese person. You HAVE to feign ignorance not to understand averages.

      Brain size IS relevant to intelligence on average. Do you suggest that smaller brained Homo habilis was not on average less intelligent than Homo Erectus??? Do you suggest that smaller brained Homo floresiensis was the exact same intelligence on average as modern humans??? Why do you think these species get upgraded in the first place??? Nothing to do with brain size, huh ikdummy???

      Brain size was precisely what make us Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens("be wise"), where have you been, ikdumy?

      Delete
    12. Who gives a **** if earlier hominids had a lesser brain mass or IQ than modern humans? That doesn’t substantiate your argument that some races of modern humans have less IQ’s than others, and is essentially comparing some races to primitive hominids; racism.

      Delete
    13. Scientists care that earlier hominids had a lesser brain mass or IQ than modern humans.

      That's not MY argument that that some races of modern humans have less IQ’s than others, that is FACT. I didn't create IQ tests or administer them or publish them in mainstream science journals. And what do you have against "primitive" hominids, ikdummy? Are they inferior to you? Why? Does smaller brain or IQ mean inferior to you?

      You are not only comparing blacks and Native Americans to bigfoot, you are CALLING THEM bigfoot.

      Delete
    14. “Scientists care that earlier hominids had a lesser brain mass or IQ than modern humans.”

      Maybe you’re not getting me, Stuey... You’re not only stating the obvious, but it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to anything that’s been published by you in this entire comment section. Plus, it doesn’t prove that skull variation in the same species equates to greater IQ... so it’s doubly pointless. So even though you might be trying to put words in my mouth & trying to look clever... you’re still wandering aimlessly.

      There is no scientific consensus that some races have higher IQ’s than others, outside of socio-economic factors. And no, you butchered a very easy to read study about exactly that, to suit your eugenics ideologies.

      AND AGAIN... And as a a theory for some level of “Bigfoot” appearing Native American, I have innumerable reports to draw upon, forensic eyewitness sketches, and a piece of security camera footage of a human eye that has racial consistency to Native Americans, that in turn has footage of corroborating subjects in the same vicinity reaching impossible height ranges. For Zana being a “Bigfoot”, I not only can draw upon an entire community that reported her appearance and behaviour 100 years before any pop culture, but I can point to her son’s archaic skull morphology that doesn’t fit with any anthropological example of African person from the mid-19th century. The following is a very simple comparison between Khwit’s skull (left) compared to that of an average human;
      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/b1/9f/f4b19fd9e1817ffaa029f81812b10bcd.jpg

      If I’m comparing blacks and Native Americans to Bigfoot, stop crying, prove it.

      See ya tomorrow!

      Delete
    15. Brain size variations BETWEEN isolated POPULATIONS within a species likely affect IQ, NOT skull variation in the same species equates to greater IQ. You are missing a distinction. Talk about putting words in one's mouth.

      There is scientific consensus that IQ tests were given to different populations and the results were published and there were diverse results by region. That is irrefutable. You may believe IQ tests do not have merit but there ARE things called IQ tests, they have been administered in diverse regions, and some regions ON AVERAGE score lower. Sorry. If you don't believe IQ tests measure intelligence, just state that. Don't lie and say that all populations on average score the same on IQ tests. That's not true.

      Delete
    16. “Plus, it doesn’t prove that skull variation in the same species equates to greater IQ...”

      My bad, I meant to type “brain”. And don’t take that as another “apology”, admitting to a typo doesn’t amount to anything of the sort... especially since you still haven’t substantiated any of your drivel. You never know, if one day you actually do deliver, you might get one. But we know your return for 8 years only too well, eh?

      “There is scientific consensus that IQ tests were given to different populations and the results were published and there were diverse results by region.”
      ... Yes, and they were due to socio-economic factors. You even proved this point with the very first ever link you used.

      Night, sweetheart!

      Delete
    17. No, no, no ikdummy, I wasn't referring to brain vs skull. I knew what you meant. Reread this with "brain size" filling in for "skull variation" or vice versa. It doesn't matter if you understand that I'm referring to brain size. Read it like this

      Brain size variations BETWEEN isolated POPULATIONS within a species likely affect IQ, NOT brain size in the same species equates to greater IQ. You are missing a distinction. Talk about putting words in one's mouth.

      "BETWEEN isolated POPULATIONS within a species likely affect IQ," VERSUS in the same species equates to greater IQ....call it brain size or skull variation, I knew you meant brain variation...reread the other words, I wasn't correcting you on brain vs skull. No, ikdummy, they take into consideration socioeconomic factors. IQ tests are very sophisticated. They're not out to frame people on a bad day.

      Delete
    18. Christ, mere word play! What’s the difference? To claim that IQ is affected by brain size is to claim one “population” is going to have a better IQ than another?! And yeah, they take socio-economic factors into account, alright.

      Delete
  6. For ikdummy's slow brain. By "upgraded" I mean Homo habilis evolved into the smarter Homo erectus and Homo erectus evolved into the smarter Homo sapien. Instead of calling them all Homo habilis, scientists "upgraded" the name each time significant evolutionary characteristics(largely brain related) necessitated updated nomenclature for clarity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An analysis of a complete 1.8-million-year-old hominid skull found at the archaeological site of Dmanisi in Georgia suggests the earliest Homo species – Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and so forth – actually belonged to the same species. The differences between these Dmanisi fossils are no more pronounced than those between five modern humans or five chimpanzees,” said Dr David Lordkipanidze from the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi, a lead author of a paper in the journal Science and co-author of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Traditionally, researchers have used variation among Homo fossils to define different species. But in light of these new findings, Dr Lordkipanidze and his colleagues suggest that early, diverse Homo fossils, with their origins in Africa, actually represent variation among members of a single, evolving lineage – most appropriately, Homo erectus.

      “Had the braincase and the face of Skull 5 been found as separate fossils at different sites in Africa, they might have been attributed to different species,” said Dr Christoph Zollikofer from the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Zurich, Switzerland, a co-author of the Science paper. That’s because Skull 5 unites some key features, like the tiny braincase and large face, which had not been observed together in an early Homo fossil until now. Given their diverse physical traits, the fossils associated with Skull 5 at Dmanisi can be compared to various Homo fossils, including those found in Africa, dating back to about 2.4 million years ago, as well as others unearthed in Asia and Europe, which are dated between 1.8 and 1.2 million years ago.

      “The Dmanisi finds look quite different from one another, so it’s tempting to publish them as different species,” Dr Zollikofer said. “Yet we know that these individuals came from the same location and the same geological time, so they could, in principle, represent a single population of a single species.” The fossils from Dmanisi represent ancient human ancestors from the early Pleistocene epoch, soon after early Homo diverged from Australopithecus and dispersed from Africa. The braincase of Skull 5 is only about 33.3 cubic inches (546 cubic cm), however, which suggests that this early Homo had a small brain despite his modern human-like limb proportions and body size. “Thanks to the relatively large Dmanisi sample, we see a lot of variation. But the amount of variation does not exceed that found in modern populations of our own species, nor in chimps and bonobos,” Dr Zollikofer said.


      http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-dmanisi-human-skull-georgia-01474.html

      Delete
    2. I’ll spell it out for you...

      My point is, your “upgrades” didn’t happen over the hominids you listed prior to modern humans... they were very likely all part of the same species. And I’m saying that these “upgrades” were no different to variation we see in our own species, where there’s no evidence that brain size reflects IQ.

      Delete
    3. Scientists are constantly revising/reclassifying species. That does NOT change the fact that the human brain evolved over time and that all populations did NOT magically arrive at the exact same intelligence or IQ ON AVERAGE in modern times. At least you acknowledge that modern braincase sizes do vary between populations. You are stubborn to admit IQ tests have merit because you think lower IQs mean inferiority and you don't want to seem racist although you DO believe blacks and Native Americans are bigfoot.

      Delete
    4. “Scientists are constantly revising/reclassifying species. That does NOT change the fact that the human brain evolved over time and that all populations did NOT magically arrive at the exact same intelligence or IQ ON AVERAGE in modern times.“
      ... And care to point out where in this comment section I’ve disputed that? How does stating the obvious about the evolution of the human brain substantiate that brain mass in modern humans equates to IQ?

      “At least you acknowledge that modern braincase sizes do vary between populations.”
      ... Again, stating the obvious about variation (however minute in Homo sapiens), does not substantiate brain mass equating to IQ. Oh... and I still don’t see you providing me with an example of African OR Caucassion skull from the 1850’s for Khwit.

      Laters!

      Delete
    5. I am saying that not only do brain sizes vary between populations vary, so do IQs.

      You agree in brain size variations between populations but are hung up on IQ variation even though it is irrefutable that tests were given and results were published.

      You do not believe that a 500 cc brained human ancestor was lesser IQ'd than a modern human with a 1400 cc brain???? Oh, you do! What is that giant leap in logic based on????? Brain size maybe???? ikdummy, 1/6th additional (200cc) braincase in a modern 1400 cc population over a modern 1200 cc average population just MAY have some impact on intelligence???????????

      Delete
    6. “Differences in brain size within a species, such as humans, are relatively small, making it difficult to tease out the effects of brain size and the effects of other factors. For instance, the difference in intelligence between an individual with, say, a brain that's 1,100 grams and one that's 1,400 grams (which could be found in humans) is confounded by other variables, including differences in density of neurons, other structural brain differences and socio-cultural factors.“
      https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/32142-are-big-brains-smarter.html

      Delete
    7. Between different isolated populations, ikdummy. Over and over again I have said that different-sized brains among individuals do not automatically equate to smarter.

      Do you believe that the isolated population known as Australian aborigines that were separated by 50,000 years and have IQs a couple standard deviations lower than Ashkenazi Jews just need to take more classes and have better meals? Then why do Ashkenazi Jews have 1 standard deviation higher IQs than other whites in general? You seem to want everyone to be the same intelligence-wise by population no matter what. Asians have higher IQs than whites on average. Does than mean I am racist against whites?

      Delete
    8. “The Jews: A Study of Race and Environment
      By Maurice Fishberg

      One of the methods of determining the volume of the brain case, and approximately the weight of the brain, is the determination of the cranial capacity. Very few direct measurements of this kind have been taken, because only few Jewish skulls have found their way into anthropological museums, where they could be studied carefully. But from the few studies of this character that have been made, it appears that the Jews are somewhat at a disadvantage. Lombroso’s studies of the Jews in Turin, Italy, which were made in an indirect fashion, showed that the Jews have a smaller cranial capacity than the Catholics of that city.2 Weinberg collected measurements of seventeen Jewish skulls in various museums of Europe, which were made properly, and are not approximations. The average cranial capacity was 1421 c.cm., which is about thirty to forty c.cm. below the average cranial capacity of the population of Europe. Of course the small number of skulls thus measured is not sufficient to draw positive conclusions.
      As to the weight of the brain, there are also very few observations on record. The author knows only of twentythree Jewish brains reported by Giltchenko,3 four by Weisbach,4 and three by Weinberg.5 The average weight of these brains, as calculated by Weinberg, was 1320.4 gm. Since the average weight of the brain of the European is 1350 gms., the brain of Jews is rather lighter by 30gms. , or nearly one ounce. Considering that the Jews are shorter of stature than the average Europeans, it would be expected that their brain should also be smaller. But, as Weinberg points out, the average for Germans was found to be 8.22 gm. of brain tissue for each centimetre of stature, while for the Jews it is only 8.05 gms. This shows the Jewish brain lighter not only absolutely, but also relatively.”
      https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/05/29/jewish-brain-size/

      Delete
    9. Genetic explanations

      Assuming that today there is a statistical difference in intelligence between Ashkenazi Jews and other ethnic groups, there still remains the question of how much of the difference is caused by genetic factors.

      "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence"

      "Natural History of Intelligence", a 2005 paper by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending, put forth the conjecture that the unique conditions under which Ashkenazi Jews lived in medieval Europe selected for high verbal and mathematical intelligence but not spatial intelligence. Their paper has four main premises:
      Today's Ashkenazi Jews have a higher average mathematical and verbal IQ and an unusual cognitive profile compared to other ethnic groups, including Sephardi and Oriental Jews.
      From roughly 800 to 1650 CE, Ashkenazi Jews in Europe were a mostly isolated genetic group. When Ashkenazi Jews married non-Jews, they usually left the Jewish community; few non-Jews married into the Jewish community.
      During the same period, laws barred Ashkenazi Jews from working most jobs, including farming and crafts, and forced them into finance, management, and international trade. Wealthy Jews had several more children per family than poor Jews. So, genes for cognitive traits such as verbal and mathematical talent, which make a person successful in the few fields where Jews could work, were favored; genes for irrelevant traits, such as spatio-visual abilities, were supported by less selective pressure than in the general population.
      Today's Ashkenazi Jews suffer from a number of congenital diseases and mutations at higher rates than most other ethnic groups; these include Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's disease, Bloom's syndrome, and Fanconi anemia, and mutations at BRCA1 and BRCA2. These mutations' effects cluster in only a few metabolic pathways, suggesting that they arise from selective pressure rather than genetic drift. One cluster of these diseases affects sphingolipid storage, a secondary effect of which is increased growth of axons and dendrites. At least one of the diseases in this cluster, torsion dystonia, has been found to correlate with high IQ. Another cluster disrupts DNA repair, an extremely dangerous sort of mutation which is lethal in homozygotes. The authors speculate that these mutations give a cognitive benefit to heterozygotes by reducing inhibitions to neural growth, a benefit that would not outweigh its high costs except in an environment where it was strongly rewarded.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

      Delete
    10. “Cultural explanations

      Another type of explanation for higher intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews is differences in culture which tend to promote cultivation of intellectual talents.
      For example, after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jewish culture replaced its emphasis on ritual with an emphasis on study and scholarship. Unlike the surrounding cultures, most Jews, even farmers, were taught to read and write in childhood. Talmudic scholarship became a leading key to social status. The Talmudic tradition may have made the Jews well suited for financial and managerial occupations at a time when these occupations provided new opportunities.
      The emphasis on scholarship came before the Jews turned from agriculture to urban occupations. This suggests that premise #3 of Cochran et al. may have the causal direction backward: mastery of written language enabled Jews to thrive in finance and international trade rather than the other way around. Similar cultural traditions continue to the present day, possibly providing a non-genetic explanation for contemporary Ashkenazi Jews' high IQs and prevalence in intellectual fields.

      Other proposed cultural explanations:

      Talmudic scholarship was so respected in European Ashkenazi Jewish ghetto society that outstanding (though often poor) scholars were highly sought after as husbands for the daughters of even the wealthiest merchants, who could afford to support the married couples. A father who made it possible for the groom to devote himself to Talmud study was performing a Mitzvah. This attitude provided selection pressure in favor of intellectual aptitude, and enhanced social mobility.
      Ashkenazi Jews (as well as other ethnic Jews) were marginalized by pogroms and discrimination, and therefore had to put more effort to survive and be outstanding.
      The rise of Islamic civilization created demand for educated professionals with intellectual skills. According to Eckstein and Botticini, between 750 and 900 AD, nearly all the Jews in Mesopotamia and Persia left farming and moved to the big cities of the Abbasid Caliphate, where they specialized in jobs more lucrative than farming. Jews had a clear advantage in these professions as a result of centuries of literacy.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

      Delete
    11. You just cut and pasted genetic explanations why Jews have higher IQs which you previously denied because you said there is no variation between populations intelligence-wise. Then you cut and pasted cultural factors which no one argued against. You do however understand that the populations create their culture and that a culture that stresses education may be a more intelligent population to begin with?

      Go ahead and be a guy that believes in bigfoot and believes Australian aborigines have the same genetic intelligence as Jews and the Chinese. Funny how millions of years of evolution produced isolated populations with differences in every way but intelligence in order to make a guy in Wales feel less racist.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. Damn straight I did.

      Genetic factors do not automatically equate to brain size. Cultural factors are massively relevant, because again, they are outside of anything you’ve maintained. A culture that “stresses education” equates to socio-economic factors and no, I disagree that “a culture that stresses education may be a more intelligent population to begin with”, due to the very example I referenced up top. Notably the difference between Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Oriental Jews.

      And I’d have no problem believing brain size across races results in higher/lower IQ, but the evidence simply doesn’t exist. And since this is coming from someone with your ideological tack record, I’m definitely not going to entertain it.

      Oh... And Bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    14. You're hung up on brain size. For the millionth time, individual minor differences in brain size does NOT automatically determine intelligence.

      LOL Why are you referencing differences between Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Oriental Jews if not switching back to genetics? You clearly previously cut and pasted that Ashkenazi were a ISOLATED population that developed a higher intelligence. You're playing a shell game like you do with bigfoot. Cultural vs Genetic. I say both. You mention both to suit you but you believe that there are no genetic brain variations between populations except for Ashkenazi Jews apparently, because you pasted information backing that up.

      This discussion is about populations, not race, and it is about averages. I've never referenced studies suggesting causation of lower IQs among modern populations due to brain size. There is a correlation, however. And you do agree that historical populations of Homo with 500 cc brain averages were, without a shadow of a doubt, less intelligent than modern humans. You do agree that at some point in Homo lineage there was a correlation and causation relating brain size to intelligence? You just don't believe that a 200cc difference between modern populations on average can explain IQ differences because no one has done a study yet.

      Delete
    15. I’ve not denied I’ve switched to genetics, and in fact, I did so to demonstrate how loony your angles are. The purpose of comparing Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Oriental Jews is to highlight that one of them have had far more unique socio-economic factors than the others whilst IQ isn’t the same across all three groups, whereas it SHOULD be if your argument was to ring true. And stop it with the “cultural & genetic”, “isolated population” backtracking (which I will accept as a total capitulation);

      “ikdummy, different modern populations have different cranial capacities and across those populations there are corresponding IQ differences that relate smaller brains to lower IQ scores, in general.”

      There is no evidence that genetics has any bearing on brain size, and that brain size is indicative of higher/lower IQ. And it is about “race”, Stuey. For example here interpreted the source as, “ALL the lowest IQ countries are in Africa according to non-political, non-racial organizations.” When in fact, the link states that differences in national income are correlated with differences in the average national IQ. Link here to the exact comment section full of “ikdummy’s”;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/youre-on-bigfoots-turf-now.html?m=0

      Delete
    16. What??? Ashkenazis have higher IQs than Sephardi and Oriental Jews but you say they should all have the same IQs if genetics come into play??? You do realize there were different Jewish tribes outside Israel that were separated geographically??? ikdummy, I never said there weren't cultural factors effecting intelligence and "isolated populations" can mean Sub-Saharan Africa or Europe vs Asia, in a broad sense. You've already capitulated. You already admit to brain size differences between modern populations, you're just waiting for a study relating correlation to causation then..."And I’d have no problem believing brain size across races results in higher/lower IQ." <---which is YOUR quote relating to my previous sentence.

      There is no evidence that genetics has any bearing on brain size because you have seen no studies on brain structure/size as it relates to intelligence. Studies will exist on different populations in the near future with the newer imaging and DNA techniques. You make it about race, ikdummy. You think my agenda is that Asian MUST have the highest average IQs or that they test the highest? Asians directly from Asian countries that speak zero English take complicated computer courses in English or whatever, with all the new-to-them English,German, or whatever symbols and alphabet, instead of their own symbols, and STILL get A grades. YES, there are cultural factors, ikdummy. They don't explain everything.

      Of course the lowest IQ countries have lower national incomes. You think lower IQ nations would have higher national incomes????????????????? It is a correlation, you are just waiting for a study to spell out a causation.
      """"There is no evidence that genetics has any bearing on brain size, and that brain size is indicative of higher/lower IQ.""""" C'mon ikdummy, you need a study to tell you that a 600cc average Homo brain population would be less intelligent than a 1400cc Human brain population. You are helpless to think unless a study comes out? You must need a study to get out of bed in the morning.

      Delete
    17. All Jewish groups are genetically affiliated, regardless of being separated geographically... You can’t have it both ways; one minute these traits are predetermined by racial affiliation. The next it doesn’t matter if they’re racially affiliated because of geographical divide? Which one is it? They should have the same intelligence if your eugenics was to apply... they don’t. But what they do have are unique socio-economic factors aligned with the scientific consensus on brain size and IQ.

      I’ve capitulated? I’ve published a reference TWICE that substantiates that a brain that's 1,100 grams and one that's 1,400 grams has things like density of neurons, other structural brain differences to consider as well as socio-cultural-economic factors. None of this corroborates with your insane premise that modern populations have different cranial capacities corresponding with IQ differences that relate smaller brains to lower IQ scores.

      “There is no evidence that genetics has any bearing on brain size because you have seen no studies on brain structure/size as it relates to intelligence. Studies will exist on different populations in the near future with the newer imaging and DNA techniques.”
      PWAAAAAAAAHHH! So Stuey, who misinterprets basic IQ articles is suddenly an authoritative figure in predicting future DNA studies? And no, YOU made it about race. The link I pasted proves so. Everything else in the next two paragraphs amounts to capitulation given the stances you’ve maintained in the past.

      Delete
    18. Y-DNA of Oriental Jews

      Lucotte et al. 2003 study found that (Oriental, Sephardic, Ashkenazic Jews and Lebanese and Palestinians), "seem to be similar in their Y-haplotype patterns, both with regard to the haplotype distributions and the ancestral haplotype VIII frequencies." The authors stated in their findings that these results confirm similarities in the Y-haplotype frequencies of this Near-Eastern populations, sharing a common geographic origin."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Y-DNA_of_Sephardi_Jews

      Delete
    19. All HUMAN groups are genetically affiliated as well... regardless of being separated geographically... , ikdummy. They also have genetic variations. Ashkenazi are genetically affiliated to other Jewish groups but also genetic variations to them. The variations between Ashkenazi and other Jews is NOT, however, 3 standard deviations like Ashkenazi vs sub-Saharan African countries but may account for some intelligence differences between Jewish groups.

      Your still referring to a study about individuals and not populations. Who are you trying to convince that a 1,100 grams and one that's 1,400 grams has things like density of neurons.....? I'm talking about averages between populations that societal/economic factors do not account for. YES or NO, Do you believe that Australian Aborigines have the same genetic intelligence as Ashkenazi Jews??

      YES or NO Would a population of prehistoric 600cc brained Homo, on average, have the same intelligence on average as modern human populations? If NO, then why?

      Delete
    20. Were you typing hard before reading my last comment? The point is, near-eastern populations share a common geographic origin... which is easy to sort out for via DNA. It also means that they all should have the consistency to corroborate what you’re asserting, and they don’t.

      I repeat, there is no evidence that genetics within the same human species has any bearing on brain size, and that brain size is indicative of higher/lower IQ.

      And I’m not entirely sure why you’re STILL asking me stupidly obvious questions about more primitive Homo species in our lineage when it was answered f’n days ago.

      Delete
    21. ALL humans share a common geographic origin at some point in history which can be sorted out via DNA, some earlier of later than others. What else is new? The genetic differences between Jewish groups are minor compared to Askenazi vs Sub-Saharan. As humans in general, Ashkenazi and other Jewish groups are very similar. There is still variation between the isolated Jewish groups that is noteworthy.

      I don't know why you can't answer the "stupidly obvious questions"? Can you give an honest Yes or No to both questions without qualifications...and then a followup "why" on question 2?

      1. YES or NO, Do you believe that Australian Aborigines have the same genetic intelligence as Ashkenazi Jews??

      2. YES or NO Would a population of prehistoric 600cc brained Homo, on average, have the same intelligence on average as modern human populations? If NO, then why?

      Delete
    22. I’ve answered your questions, played your word play games and I’m totally satisfied you’ve lost.

      Ciao!!

      Delete
    23. Question 1: Yes or No?

      Question 2: Yes or No and Why?

      1: I think you're afraid to admit that genetic brain differences between populations can account for IQ differences.

      2: I think you're afraid to admit that brain size between populations, on average, may affect intelligence. Why you've argued against this for 3 days, I can only guess.

      Delete
    24. Take a look over this comment section Stuey, there’s not one point you’ve made that hasn’t resulted in your backside being handed to you.

      Have you ever been right about anything?

      Delete
    25. ikdummy believes in bigfoot.

      ikdummy believe that the species Homo sapiens has no variation in brain evolution or intelligence between isolated populations. To ikdummy, Australian aborigines share the same genetic intelligence with Ashkenazi Jews.

      ikdummy believes that populations with smaller brains, on average, are not less intelligent than populations with larger brains. Homo erectus had the same intelligence as Homo sapiens to ikdummy. Erectus just needed funding and better schools.

      The sad thing is, while ikdummy actually believes in bigfoot, the other two items ikdummy doesn't actually believe but must deny reality out of fear that his government will knock on his door. Virtue signaling over truth, so practices ikdummy. Knock, knock, ikdummy.

      Delete
    26. But Homo sapiens and Homo erectus are not the same species.

      Are you serious?

      Who you talking to Stuey?

      Delete
    27. Who said they are, ikdummy?

      Delete
    28. You’ve been harping on about “populations” of the same f’n species...

      “ikdummy believes that populations with smaller brains, on average, are not less intelligent than populations with larger brains. Homo erectus had the same intelligence as Homo sapiens to ikdummy. Erectus just needed funding and better schools.”

      I know both trolling and looking to save face, but seriously... do you honestly have the first clue what you’re on about?

      Delete
    29. ikdummy, if you don't believe a 16%(1200 vs 1400cc) average larger brain in a modern species population could mean greater intelligence, why would you believe a 16 or higher percent larger brain in Homo species in general could mean greater intelligence? Something with the designation Erectus, a different species, allows you to speculate on a intelligence based on brain size but modern humans you are not allowed to???

      What if scientists eventually classify/broaden Erectus as Sapien? Will you then admit that, on average, lower cc skulls may have been less intelligent or will you then be compelled to say that a 900cc average population skull, for example, would have the exact same IQ'd brain as a 1400 cc average population brain because you'd fear being label a bigot against something classified as a Homo Sapien?

      What is the cc brain size average a population would have to have before you'd admit there could be intelligence differences? Would a 400 cc average population from several million years ago be safe to speculate on intelligence-wise???

      Delete
    30. “you don't believe a 16%(1200 vs 1400cc) average larger brain in a modern species population could mean greater intelligence”

      That’s correct. Because there’s evidence that smaller brains have higher IQ than those with larger ones. That’s scientific fact. You blithering idiot. Homo Erectus as we know it, is one of the very first in our lineage, and actually spent the most amount of time of any in that lineage, without developing anything more than stone tools. Common sense says (cringe), it didn’t have the same f’n IQ as us, you twat.

      Delete
    31. 16% difference average for *****POPULATIONS**** ikdummy. There you go with your shell game.

      For the TRILLIONTH time, I KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS WITH SMALLER BRAINS HAVE HAVE HIGHER IQs THAN SOME INDIVIDUAL LARGER BRAINS!!!! OBVIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!

      Modern Australian aborigines and some African tribes didn't develop anything beyond stone tools either, ikdummy. They are Homo sapien but is it conceivable that they don't have the EXACT same IQ as Asians on average even allowing for "cultural differences"???????????

      If you are not trolling me, what on EARTH could you POSSIBLY be paid to do for a living???????

      Delete
    32. “For the TRILLIONTH time, I KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS WITH SMALLER BRAINS HAVE HAVE HIGHER IQs THAN SOME INDIVIDUAL LARGER BRAINS!!!! OBVIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!”
      ... Good. Study it. How can you agree with something, then maintain a contrary stance that has no scientific backing?

      “Modern Australian aborigines and some African tribes didn't develop anything beyond stone tools either, ikdummy.“
      ... And that would be due to socio-economic and GENUINE cultural factors. We can go round and around about this until next week if you like?

      Delete
    33. I know you are trolling me now.
      With your logic, Homo erectus not having anything beyond stone tools was due to socio-economic and GENUINE cultural factors. You're even sillier with real anthropology than with your bigfoot beliefs.



      Delete
    34. So you’re comparing modern Africans and Aborigines to cavemen? Well done, racist jackass... Let’s see how long we can drag this out for, at this point it’s all for the dossier anyhow.

      Delete
    35. I used to scream at the TV (figuratively) when anthropologists used to say that Neanderthal couldn't mix with modern humans and, if they could, the offspring couldn't reproduce. Now, anthropologists all know that that's BS.

      You seem to need an official edict for something to be true. For you, a Neanderthal could mix with humans ONLY the moment a scientist declares it to be true. As soon as a study provides incontrovertible evidence that there are brain/intelligence differences that affect IQ between populations it becomes true for you. Your brain is on hold until that time, worker bee.

      You have a very slavish, uncreative, minutia delving, missing-the-big-picture, mind that probably suits you in whatever work routine you do every day.

      Delete
    36. What is wrong with cavemen, ikdummy? How is comparing extant populations to modern populations racist?

      If the ancient Welsh had a culture closer to African tribes or Australian aborigines, it made them bad? Explain how that works?

      You are in over your head. You could have exited without smearing Africans, aborigines, and prehistoric humans.

      Delete
    37. “I used to scream at the TV (figuratively) when anthropologists used to say that Neanderthal couldn't mix with modern humans...”

      PWAAAAAAHHHH!!!! HA HA HA HAAAAAA!!!!!! Are you role-playing the groundbreaking genius with anthropological foresight now?! Ha ha ha ha!!! Stuey, sometimes, you crack me up man. You didn’t even know that Neanderthals were an archaic human (comment section easily referenced with the links I have)... so how can you now claim to have had the foresight to scream at anthropologists about their ancient interbreeding habits with us? Please Stuey, it’s me. I’m very accustomed to your blunders.

      And here in lies a major contradiction in logical thinking on your part. You repeatedly use an argument from ignorance fallacy about there being no proof/Bigfoot body even though an adequate study hasn’t even occurred yet, and there’s already reliable scientific evidence for its existence. Yet you can then claim that a study on the alleged correlation between brain size and IQ across races will magically happen one day and that when that happens, you’ll be vindicated, regardless of scientific evidence to the contrary? You’re a mess on so many levels, it’s breathtaking.

      Comparing African tribes and aborigines to primitive cavemen is racist. You’re f’n crazy man.

      Delete
    38. It's racist because it's racist. Excellent ikdummy. Every population was primitive and lived in caves if available at some point in their history. How are primitive tribes today or in the past bad or negative to be compared to? Please explain?

      LOL You stoop to picking other people's anonymous quotes to represent me. More ikdummy desperation.

      Absolutely, ikdummy, the proof will easily come in your lifetime unlike your bigfoot evidence. Then you'll agree but only because a study allowed you to have that thought.

      Desperate ikdummy is calling someone a racist and using false attribution quotes. You must have seen that a lot in the liberal media. You're a little behind. That's working less and less. Lying and name calling isn't an argument.

      Delete
    39. You’re a f’n loon. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Homo sapiens living in caves at some point all over the planet, does not equate to a moral comparison of African tribes and aborigines to hominids 1.8 million years ago. To do that, is racist. But I’m stating the obvious, of course.

      SUUUUUUUUUURE it wasn’t you Stuey, ha ha ha!! You don’t have an audience here, and you and me both know damn straight that you published those comments. That’s good enough for me. How’s this, there is scientific evidence against your brain size/IQ drivel... and there’s scientific evidence for the existence of “Bigfoot”.

      Science; actually try it some day instead of role-playing someone who has.

      Delete
    40. Here we go Stuey!

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-teddy-roosevelt-bigfoot-story.html?m=0

      I found it. The link to where you didn’t even know what “Homo” meant, with respect to Neanderthals, arguing that they weren’t human. And you expect me to believe that you scrutinised anthropologists for failing to see how they could interbreed with anatomically modern humans? You’ll also notice your “>>” that you like to use for quotations.

      Oh dear.

      Delete
    41. Where did I say that Australian Aboriginal or African tribes were on any development level comparable to the earliest Homo erectus at 1.8 million years ago, ikdummy? H. e. span a timeframe a lot more recent than that and I will venture to say that scientists may meld H.e. and H.s. into one species or H.e into "sub" species at some point. What most people refer to as "cavemen" were Homo sapien or H. s. Neanderthal anyway.

      Nope! Posting someone else's post as mine is desperation. It shows the level you operate at. I never click on your lying attributions. Lies and name calling. Got anything else?

      Delete
    42. AnonymousWednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:40:00 PM PDT
      With your logic, Homo erectus not having anything beyond stone tools was due to socio-economic and GENUINE cultural factors. You're even sillier with real anthropology than with your bigfoot beliefs.

      AnonymousWednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:26:00 PM PDT
      What is wrong with cavemen, ikdummy? How is comparing extant populations to modern populations racist?

      “Cavemen” appears to be whatever you need them to be from one comment to the next. And tell me Stuey, how might they bunch Erectus in with homo Sapien if they can’t get DNA from their fossils? Or is that something you’re going to pretend to know all about now as well? And the below links prove you’re the same person that uses “>>” as quotation marks, Stuey;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/the-glagg-saga.html

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/bigfoot-truth-told.html

      Delete
    43. How do you know that H.e. DNA will never obtained?

      How do you know that already mapped Denisovan are not Homo erectus related?

      Yes, caveman is a broad term. It is whatever you need it to be as well.

      Ignoring your blatant falsehoods. Who are you lying to, ikdummy? I know what I didn't post.

      Delete
    44. BTW, you're the one that brought up the term "caveman" relating to modern Africans and Aborigines. You even did it Cathy Newman-style. ;)


      IktomiWednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:57:00 PM PDT
      So you’re comparing modern Africans and Aborigines to cavemen?

      Delete
    45. (**** me)

      Because basic anthropology states that Homo Erectus fossils are too old to extract DNA from. This is painfully, painfully basic stuff.

      “Cavemen” was a figure of speech. I could have used “hominid”, YOU compared these people to hominids. Just like a typical uneducated racist.

      Delete
    46. Sorry, ikdummy, Homo erectus temporal range: 1.9–0.14 Ma, That's as recent as 140,000 years ago. Scientists have sequenced older:

      https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38521/title/Oldest-Hominin-DNA-Ever-Sequenced/

      Using a thigh bone from the cave, Matthias Meyer from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has sequenced the almost complete mitochondrial genome of one of Sima de los Huesos’ inhabitants, who likely lived around 400,000 years ago. That is at least four times older than the previous record-holder—a small 100,000-year-old stretch of Neanderthal DNA.

      Painfully basic, huh?

      Delete
    47. In case you try to delete post:

      IktomiWednesday, April 25, 2018 at 8:52:00 PM PDT
      (**** me)

      Because basic anthropology states that Homo Erectus fossils are too old to extract DNA from. This is painfully, painfully basic stuff.

      “Cavemen” was a figure of speech. I could have used “hominid”, YOU compared these people to hominids. Just like a typical uneducated racist.

      Delete
    48. ikdummy: “Cavemen” was a figure of speech. I could have used “hominid”, YOU compared these people to hominids. Just like a typical uneducated racist.


      Hominid: a primate of a family ( Hominidae ) that includes humans and their fossil ancestors and also (in recent systems) at least some of the great apes.

      Looks like hominids includes humans. Looks like you lose again, ikdummy.

      Delete
    49. (Sigh)

      It is generally hard to get DNA from fossils so old, thus you have to go by morphology. Homo Erectus was a different species because of its morphology. No DNA has ever been extracted from Homo Erectus fossils, and this is because the fossils they’ve tried sequencing have no DNA to sequence. This is fact. Homo Erectus is classified as separate species because they were morphologically different enough from our own species. Just because the oldest DNA is from 400,000 years, and because some theorise that they lived contemporary to Homo Sapiens, doesn’t magically make Homo Erectus DNA, and doesn’t magically make them the same species as us... you blithering twit.

      “Scientists have thrown doubt on a key theory of human evolution after discovering an ancestor of modern man may have become extinct earlier than previously thought. Homo erectus was widely considered to be a direct ancestor of our own species Homo sapiens. The two were believed to have once co-existed alongside each other - until now. Homo erectus migrated out of Africa around 1.8million years ago. By around 500,000 years ago it had vanished from Africa and much of Asia and was, until now, thought to have survived in Indonesia until as recently as 35,000 years ago. Early modern humans reached the region about 40,000 years ago, and so were believed to have co-existed with their ancestors. The new research suggests this assumption was wrong - and Homo erectus disappeared long before the arrival of Homo sapiens in Asia. New excavations and dating analysis indicate that Homo erectus was extinct by at least 143,000 years ago, and perhaps more than 550,000 years ago. If this is the case, it challenges the widely accepted 'Out of Africa' hypothesis which holds that modern humans became fully evolved in Africa before emigrating to other parts of the world. The model predicts an overlap between Homo sapiens and older species they replaced outside Africa. The late survival of Homo erectus in Indonesia had previously been held up as evidence supporting the theory.”
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2009746/Modern-mans-ancestor-Homo-erectus-extinct-108-000-years-earlier-previously-thought.html

      Christ on a f’n bike... Nobody has argued that a hominids can’t be human. Hominids/hominins are generally what is used to describe archaic peoples. Referring to African tribes people and aborigines as hominids is still f’n racist because they’re not primitive in appearance. You stupid uneducated racist.

      Delete
    50. ikdummy: "Because basic anthropology states that Homo Erectus fossils are too old to extract DNA from. This is painfully, painfully basic stuff."

      WRONG. Homo Erectus fossils are NOT too old to extract DNA from. There just hasn't been any extracted yet and there are more H.e. bones to uncover This is painfully, painfully basic stuff, HUH? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! Totally owned. 400,000 year old Homo fossils were sequenced. Scientists on the Naledi team believe they can extract DNA from 220,000 year old Homo Naledi and technology keeps getting better, forward-thinker-ikdummy LOL. Painfully, painfully basic, ikdummy???? Want to bet that they'll never sequence erectus? I bet it will happen and you'll live to see it.

      ikdummy: "YOU compared these people to hominids. Just like a typical uneducated racist."

      AND...? You and I are hominids. If people are "compared" to humans, how is that racist? You've earned your dumb for the year, ikdummy.

      Delete
    51. Ok then Stuey, let’s try this... (Sigh).

      Despite having Homo Erectus fossils, where’s the DNA?

      Even though there are Homo Erectus fossils, why isn’t there any DNA?

      So why aren’t we still called hominids to this day? What differentiates us as anatomically modern humans, to hominids?

      It’s like I’m exchanging with an f’n ten year old.

      Delete
    52. The virtue signalling is STRONG on you ikdummy S-T-R-O-N-G.

      ikdummy: Referring to African tribes people and aborigines as hominids is still f’n racist because they’re not primitive in appearance.

      Who mentioned primitive appearance? This discussion was about IQ and brain size differences between Homo populations, modern and prehistoric. You're stepping in it right and left, ikdummy. I told you that you were in over your head. ;) What is wrong with a "primitive appearance", ikdummy, anyway? What constitutes a "primitive appearance"? Did Welsh ancestors have a "primitive appearance" that you should be ashamed of? How's you night going, ikdummy?

      Delete
    53. We still ARE called hominids to this day, fool. You and I are hominids. Anatomically modern humans are included in the definition.

      Are you too stupid to understand that at one point ZERO Neanderthal DNA was sequenced and then later it was? The same thing goes for Homo erectus. None has currently been sequenced and at some point some will be. Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't, ikdummy.

      You're coming off as more stupid than usual this morning.

      Delete
    54. ikdummy, have they found every Homo erectus bone they ever will?

      I hope you say "no". They will eventually find Homo erectus bones they can sequence. Homo fossils are not limited to what has been found so far. There are newly discovered fossils all the time. Not only that but testing techniques will improve.

      Delete
    55. There might be a million sources online where the words “hominid” or “hominin” are used with reference to extinct primates. And it doesn’t matter what word play you try and strap on me, you clown, I only ever used such terminology because you compared African tribes people and aborigines to Homo Erectus. Homo Erectus has classic hominid-like futures, and is regarded as primitive. You compared those two races to hominids.

      Again...

      AnonymousWednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:40:00 PM PDT
      With your logic, Homo erectus not having anything beyond stone tools was due to socio-economic and GENUINE cultural factors. You're even sillier with real anthropology than with your bigfoot beliefs.

      It’s in black and white, ****head. No Neanderthal DNA being sequenced at one point, and then later to be the case, doesn’t matter. There are circumstances for DNA to preserved. For example, the oldest genome recovered was doubly impressive since these bones were not preserved through permafrost. None of this makes Homo Erectus DNA materialise and suddenly proves that they were the same species as us. Nobody said it might not happen... I said that you by the current standards of anthropology, based on morphology, they are a separate species. And given the fact that Neanderthal are less primitive and could mate with us all the same, they were STILL a separate species. Do you see how embarrassing your drivel is now?

      How’s my night going? I’ve got reason at times to be up all night. It’s just as well since as soon as I’m done here I’m gonna go embarrass you wife some of the pearlers you’ve published here.

      : p

      Delete
    56. ikdummy: "I only ever used such terminology because you compared African tribes people and aborigines to Homo Erectus."

      Where did I do that? I said that H. erectus likely had lower IQs and I based that on their lower average brain size.

      Neanderthal is taxonomically known as Homo neanderthalensis OR Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and there is a push to exclusively consider them within the Sapien species.

      Fossil discoveries and DNA tech are ongoing. Your idiotic quote:*****ikdummy: "Because basic anthropology states that Homo Erectus fossils are too old to extract DNA from. This is painfully, painfully basic stuff." ******
      Your idiotic quote is indefensible considering older than 140,000 year old Homo DNA has been sequenced and new H. e will be discovered. Got to go for now. You've been entertaining.

      Delete
    57. AnonymousWednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:26:00 PM PDT
      What is wrong with cavemen, ikdummy? How is comparing extant populations to modern populations racist?

      Again, your admission in black and white. Neanderthals are on the genus homo, they are not the same species as Homo sapiens. You’re making me cringe, I can’t imagine what you’d do to an anthropologist who’d stoop so low as to read your jokes. Again, it doesn’t matter that older fossils were sequenced for DNA, the f’n DNA in every Erectus fossil wasn’t there to extract, for reasons that the substrate it was in didn’t preserve it, as the fossil was too old.

      No, trust me... the pleasure’s all mine. I have some of the funniest things in a while to reference in this comment section.

      Ha!!

      You take care now, genius.

      Delete
    58. Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis are separate species due to separation in time and location from each other, whilst they are morphologically and genetically different within their genus, and only able to interbreed because they share a common ancestor.

      “It’s become popular to claim H. neandertalensis should be H. sapiens neandertalensis, a sub-species of Sapiens. This is rarely found in core area research and surfaces most often in popular media. The sub-species notion comes from superficial genetic arguments and biological taxonomy, hijacking the narrow taxon space of non-biological paleoarchaeology which is concerned with identifying bones by location, physicality, context and age.”

      Should I go on? And look how far you’ve come with all this babbling...

      AnonymousThursday, August 18, 2016 at 8:09:00 PM PDT
      According to pygmy mutations in thier mito DNA. Thier race dates back to 180,000,BFP!!
      THE OLDEST FOSSELS OF Cro-Magnon date back no more than
      45-55,000 yrs BFP...
      In future post "Joe F" you
      need to DEFINE Archaic HSS vs
      Archaic HUMAN,,,BIG DIFFERENCE.!!!
      DR.B Sykes

      Or is it that I helped you to actually look at some anthropology and learn something?

      Delete
    59. (Not that you’ve learned a lot, LOL!)

      Delete
    60. Desperate ikdummy LIES and post other's quotes as mine and cries racist to virtue signal and silence others while at the same time ikdummy declare the Russian bigfoot a black woman and the US bigfoot as Native Americans. Fictional oafish characters that could be anything but ikdummy makes one a black woman.

      "Ever since the discovery of the Neanderthal fossils, expert opinion has been divided as to whether Neanderthals should be considered a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis) or a subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) relative to modern humans. Pääbo (2014) described such "taxonomic wars" as unresolveable in principle, "since there is no definition of species perfectly describing the case." The question depends on the definition of Homo sapiens as a chronospecies, which has also been in flux throughout the 20th century. Authorities preferring classification of Neanderthals as subspecies have introduced the subspecies name Homo sapiens sapiens for the anatomically modern Cro Magnon population which lived in Europe at the same time as Neanderthals, while authorities preferring classification as separate species use Homo sapiens as equivalent to "anatomically modern humans". "

      Looks like ikdummy stayed up all night lying and virtue signaling instead of admitting that increased brain size in Homo over the course of thousands of years resulted in a corresponding increase in intelligence and that modern populations brains did not all evolve in the exact same way.

      Delete
    61. Anthropology agrees that there is enough physical and genetic evidence to keep the distinct species designation, such as anatomy;
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc

      ... As well as divergent child development patterns;
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170921141215.htm

      ... And genetic confirmation of last common ancestor that was 500,000 years ago;
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4166928/

      ... The last common ancestor was a distinct species of archaic human predating both Neandertals and Sapiens. They are all human, that’s what the “Homo” is for. Simple, actual science. Not pop culture which is what you’re resorted to. But it’s good that you’re starting to think for a little more I guess.

      For Zana being a “Bigfoot”, I not only can draw upon an entire community that reported her appearance and behaviour 100 years before any pop culture, but I can point to her son’s archaic skull morphology that doesn’t fit with any anthropological example of African person from the mid-19th century. The following is a very simple comparison between Khwit’s skull (left) compared to that of an average human;
      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/b1/9f/f4b19fd9e1817ffaa029f81812b10bcd.jpg

      Stop deflecting and embarrassing yourself more by basic anthropology and find yourself an equivalent skull. No amount of posting the words “virtue signalling” distances you from being a racist. I’ve got PLENTY of evidence of you boasting of being a “proud racist”, behind anonimaty. Racist. I hate to break it an ignorant **** like you, but most people were brought up with virtues, not it mention morals and manners and not raised by tramps. Basic inherent lessons to guide us how to treat one another and to distance us from scum. Maybe you were never taught the real value of “virtue”, Stuey? It’s not a bad thing... by the way.

      Delete
    62. Oh... And increased brain size in the genus Homo over of many tens of thousands of years equated to increased intelligence because of different species across that genus evolving.

      Pick up a f’n book.

      Delete