Orton's Arm Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 So now you're saying that there's no consensus because liberal politicians censor the higher number, and you're right because you haven't been censored.Wait...so now you're saying that environmental factors are caused by genetics? So environment has no effect, because ultimately it's genetic? Your post is neither fish nor fowl. It's too unfunny to be humor, and too stupid to be serious discourse. Are you honestly unable to grasp the fact that systematic differences in people's cellular microenvironments (if they exist at all) might be caused by something other than the difference between drinking green tea and drinking pop? Or that the research conclusions scientists report might be influenced by the political views of those who grant or deny research funds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Enough of the petty battles. Can we all just agree that Boston as a whole should subject to Darwinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Your post is neither fish nor fowl. It's too unfunny to be humor, and too stupid to be serious discourse. Are you honestly unable to grasp the fact that systematic differences in people's cellular microenvironments (if they exist at all) might be caused by something other than the difference between drinking green tea and drinking pop? Or that the research conclusions scientists report might be influenced by the political views of those who grant or deny research funds? Are you honestly unable to grasp the fact that you just called environmental factors non-environmental? Or that you presume an unproven postulate to justify an otherwise unjustifiable bias? What am I saying? Of course you're unable to grasp that. Look, monkey-brain...if you're saying that an environment is actually determined by genetics, then it's a genetic expression. At the risk of oversimplifying, genetics is about innate properties, environment is outside influence. You're trying to say that an outside influence can be an innate property. I understand why you're trying to say that - it's because you're a !@#$ing moron who can't understand that, if genetics affects the microenvironment of a cell, it's a GENETIC effect, not an ENVIRONMENTAL effect, because it's due to GENETICS and not ENVIRONMENT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 Are you honestly unable to grasp the fact that you just called environmental factors non-environmental? Or that you presume an unproven postulate to justify an otherwise unjustifiable bias? What am I saying? Of course you're unable to grasp that. Look, monkey-brain...if you're saying that an environment is actually determined by genetics, then it's a genetic expression. At the risk of oversimplifying, genetics is about innate properties, environment is outside influence. You're trying to say that an outside influence can be an innate property. I understand why you're trying to say that - it's because you're a !@#$ing moron who can't understand that, if genetics affects the microenvironment of a cell, it's a GENETIC effect, not an ENVIRONMENTAL effect, because it's due to GENETICS and not ENVIRONMENT. It's you who has been making unproven assumptions about how differences in people's cellular microenvironments are driven by nutrition or by other macroenvironmental factors. I've merely responded that a) you have presented no evidence that such is the case, and b) evidence indicates that shared environmental factors such as nutrition don't help determine differences in adult-level intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 It's you who has been making unproven assumptions about how differences in people's cellular microenvironments are driven by nutrition or by other macroenvironmental factors. I've merely responded that a) you have presented no evidence that such is the case, and b) evidence indicates that shared environmental factors such as nutrition don't help determine differences in adult-level intelligence. You're accusing someone else of making unproven assumptions? Hell, I'm not making ANY assumptions. I'm just pointing out your idiocy in insisting that environment isn't always environment...so keep digging. It's entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 You're accusing someone else of making unproven assumptions? Hell, I'm not making ANY assumptions. I'm just pointing out your idiocy in insisting that environment isn't always environment...so keep digging. It's entertaining. Okay, you win. Systematic differences in cellular microenvironments--assuming they exist--must be caused by macroenvironmental differences, because they both involve the word "environment." The idea such hypothetical differences could even possibly be caused by genetics is too stupid for words. Is the above an accurate summary of your latest fact-free argument, or have you managed to produce additional stupidity I'm unaware of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts