Friday, December 12, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(158)
-
▼
December
(14)
- Jim Lanthier / Phil Nelson, JFK Show #42
- Dennis Cimino / William Shanley & James Tracy
- Ole Dammegard
- John Stokes / Phil Nelson
- Dennis Cimino
- Jan Irvin
- Jim Fetzer / The New JFK Show #40
- Jim Mariano / William Shanley
- Jim Fetzer / Frank Salter
- Meria Heller / On the road with Dr. Fetzer
- Stew Webb, Preston James, Nick Kollerstrom
- Jim Fetzer
- L.J. Delsa / The New JFK Show #38
- Jim Fetzer
-
▼
December
(14)
It's been awhile since I've read it but I remember your book "Render Unto Darwin" is a wonderful book.
ReplyDeleteWhat were the main textbooks you used in your critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and logic courses, if I may ask?
After the completion of the Human Genome Project, experts were surprised to find that the human genome wasn't larger than for a worm basically. Not even enough genes to code for all the proteins in the human body.
ReplyDeleteThe explanation of course is that gene expression is a combination of genetics, epigenetics and other factors. The genes are mainly blueprints for proteins. Epigenetics on the other hand adds vast amounts of complexity to the gene expressions. And epigenetics can change due to environmental factors. Almost like Lamarckian evolution.
So, to only look at genetic differences is like like looking at what bricks are used in a building while overlooking the overall architecture and design.
Anders, this doesn't respond to Salter.
DeleteGene expression and epigenetics and environmental effects upon genes have nothing at all to say to the question of whether it would be rational to hope to see genotypes like yours persist into the future.
And the only sensible answer to that question is, "Well, duh!"
Delete@Nick My point is that genetics is insignificant when it comes to a person's trait. Epigenetics is inherited but can change quickly, evolutionary speaking. In the near future we will have biotech that will make us change even faster. So I myself intend to persist hundreds of years into the future. :-)
DeleteGenetics accounts for about 80% of adult IQ for instance, so plays a very significant role in the development of some traits. But again, this has nothing to do with Salter.
Delete"biotech that will make us change even faster ... I myself intend to persist hundreds of years into the future" --- If a first distraction doesn't work, try another?
Yeah, right. Puzzle solving IQ determined by genes? So a worm can solve IQ puzzles?
Delete"More humiliating to the dogma of our belief in genetic determinacy is the fact that there is not much difference in the total number of genes found in humans and those found in primitive organisms populating the planet." -- https://www.brucelipton.com/resource/article/the-human-genome-project
Anders,
DeleteFirst, single cell slime molds without a brain or nervous system can solve intelligence tests like mazes.
Second, can you or Lipton point to one, just one, psychometrician who says genes alone determine all of a person's IQ? Or if not a psychometrician dealing with IQ, some other specialist and some other outcome he says is determined by genes alone.
Here's a clue, the genetic determinists we hear so much about don't exist. It's a straw man. Environmental determinists who deny altogether the influence of genes, do exist however.
Third, can you or Lipton quote a single scientist, just one, who says that genetic influence on traits like intelligence or musicality or height, for example, are based on the sheer *number* of genes the organism has in its DNA?
Eg. If humans have c.21,000 protein coding genes, and mice have c.23,000, then a mouse should on average be a little more intelligent, musical and tall than a human. Yes?
That's what Lipton clearly means to suggest and what you, apparently, believe.
Fourth, what does this have to with Salter? Can't you just say, "Well, duh"?
Nick, listen from about 1 hour and 48 minutes where Salter talks about taking genetic data and mapping it to ethnic kinship.
DeleteIt's social and cultural upbringing that causes the ethnic kinship, not genes which are essentially merely blueprints for proteins.
He's talking about the *genetic relatedness* of members of ethnic groups vs. the members of other groups, where ethnic groups were clearly defined by a common ancestry living together and apart from others, not by who supports Manchester United and who supports Liverpool and the subsequent fellow-feeling that follows from that.
DeleteFetzer, Duff, Dean, Webb, the whole gang at Veterans Today are a sack of liars! They are the controlled opposition!!!
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/
VeteransToday CENSORS your comments!!!
ReplyDeleteAnd my name is Jerry Bolduc ... for the record!!
DeleteMr Fetzer, the "masses of smoke" at the Pentagon after all the fires had allegedly been put out there, that you refer to in this show [ at around 10.30] ,were most likely produced by military smoke generators.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that, [you seem to] then doesn't it seem at least possible that the exact same type of smoke generators were deployed at the WTC , and that the complex was in fact totally obscured by that artificially generated smoke, and that therefor the WTC buildings were in fact demolished by conventional means behind that smokescreen, ENTIRELY OFF CAMERA as Simon Shack [and yours truly :-)] has proposed?
Enquiring minds want to know !
Regards onebornfree.
Has anyone from NY or NJ come forward to say that they saw the towers totally surrounded by smoke that day and that the familiar footage looks nothing like what they witnessed? There must be tens of thousands of silent, baffled witnesses if you're correct.
DeleteAccepting that no-planers like Fetzer (and myself) have a difficult question to answer, "Why / how would they only fake part of the footage?" Why wouldn't we assume the towers were destroyed in a fashion that looks at least similar to the prepared footage, to prevent the predictable stampede of witnesses who would say, 'That's not what I saw'?
***
Last time I engaged with you guys on this topic I appreciated the link to the speeding-up birds you provided. Give us some good examples of anomalous tower / collapse footage, please ...
Jerry said: "VeteransToday CENSORS your comments!!!"
ReplyDeleteSorry to break it to you, jerry, but you have no right to free speech on privately owned property, whether it is VT, here, or somewhere else privately owned, no more than I can have a right to free speech in your home [if you own it] , or you in mine.
So you are basically getting worked up over nothing, like most others here who make irrelevant arguments about their supposed "right" to free speech here or somewhere else.
FYI: The 1st amendment specifically prohibited the federal government from interfering/censoring with private speech, either on it own property, or elsewhere, and applied to no one else.
Of course, the bill of rights is no longer in effect, as you probably are aware........ :-)
Regards, onebornfree.
J.Fetzer says :" Hollywood special effects".
ReplyDeleteToo funny.
Your plagiarism here [from Simon Shack's research], and hypocrisy is both "epic", and blatant, Mr Fetzer.
So you now admit that "Hollywood special effects" were used during 9/11, but somehow, not at "Ground Zero" itself, oh no ! - somehow only at the Pentagon ? !
They faked photos and smoke at the Pentagon, but nowhere else- ha ha ha!
Get a life- You really are too much.
As someone else here often says : "ho,ho,ho!"
No regards, onebornfree.
If the listener manages to get past all of the "expert" to "expert" bs pontification in the second half of the show, what it all boils down to is a discussion between two drooling at the mouth apologists for the welfare state [i.e hard core statists] who on the one hand moan/complain about the government [not enough welfare vs too much welfare; not enough immigration vs. too much immigration blah blah blah], who at the exact same time, out of the other side of their mouths, justify the state's very existence [simply by never questioning the assumption of the necessity of its/their existence -it is an unstated assumption, in other words] .
ReplyDelete'Fact is, all governments are 100% criminal enterprises, nothing more, nothing less, funded via direct theft [ie taxes] and/or counterfeiting/monetary debasement [central banks].
Governments can give us nothing they have not taken directly from someone else, unless, of course, they just fabricate it out of thin air [eg money] , and that is all just fine and dandy with Fetzer and guest.
Government- operated welfare and similar is a scam, just as all government programs [including their immigration policies] are a scam, just as all governments , past, present and future, are/always will be, criminal scams.
See : "Government = The Most Dangerous Religion":
http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2014/09/government-most-dangerous-religion.html
regards, onebornfree
Nick Dean said : "Last time I engaged with you guys on this topic I appreciated the link to the speeding-up birds you provided. Give us some good examples of anomalous tower / collapse footage, please ..."
ReplyDeleteTry this: "9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage ":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/09/911-scamsthe-faked-live-cnn-wtc1.html
Important question for you: if you believe that the bird flocks were faked, why would you believe that any part of the same footage from the same source, for example a tower collapse sequence, was genuine? [if that is what you mean to imply].
See: "Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All""
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2014/08/fake-911-bird-flocks-false-in-one-false.html
Regards, onebornfree
Regarding the Pentagon fake smoke etc. mentioned by Mr Fetzer, the fact of the matter is that ALL of the "live" MSM footage of the post-strike scenes at the Pentagon is 100% fake; that is, it also, just like all of the MSM imagery supposedly broadcast live from Manhattan that day, was 100% prefabricated CGI imagery.
ReplyDeleteSee: "Fake Pentagon Smoke":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okMXOgrVb7I&feature=youtu.be
NB, you need to watch that short [1.5 mins] video very closely, a couple of times at least, to be able to understand what is wrong with the smoke being seen in it.
Regards, onebornfree.