I remember an old saying that went, “Never argue with an insane person.” It still holds true.

We are not there yet, nor will we ever be. Quote from John Wayne:“With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikole_Hannah-Jones Ms. Hannah-Jones has a white mother and grew up in mostly white Iowa. She’s one of those insecure, peevish mulattoes who’s always trying to prove their blackness.

The problem isn’t the talking monkey – it’s the organ grinder !

Am I the only one able to make up/down votes?Any reparation check should only be in the form of a one-way ticket out of the country, a small start over stipend, and a forever revocation of US citizenship. Are any listening to the invitation from Ghana?

I’d happily pay 10% of my pre-tax income as reparations forever if it meant I never, ever had to see another jogger again. fWIW.

Pardon me, but… fuck you, Nikole. I don’t owe you a thing. I am not paying nig geld.

It’s ALWAYS just another way to say/get revenge.If these same morons were actual victims of anything they claimed to be victims of, maybe I could begin to understand but this is all basically disphoria.

This is a very real conversation, not just tongue in cheek. Behind the attempted debate are two worldviews: 1) Western Civ and its bedrock philosophy of logic, order, and objectivity, and 2) Marxism and its shifting philosophies of Gramsci and Frankfurt School critical theory and dialectics. As Z-man makes clear, dialogue is impossible with #2 adherents.Worldview #1 thought they could coexist with the #2 mob, because at first they just asked for “toleration.” Then toleration morphed into celebration, which has recently morphed into “worship us.” Now the #1 folk are starting to get it … the #2 mob doesn’t want tribute – the want to wipe us out. Screw the debate … this is war.

Z’s dialogue captures a truth that I try to convey to my normie conservative friends: Non-whites are never going to be satisfied with some sort of good-hearted or high-dollar gesture. They want perpetual tribute, if not eventual conquest. The difficulty of my position is that there is no irrefutable way to prove my prediction. I have family members whom I can see are hoping that their good intentions will finally be recognized and rewarded with an end to racial strife. No one can foretell the future, but I see nothing but endless hatred.

I don’t know man. I support reparations. For 14 trillion of money that doesn’t really exist, we can give blacks 350,000 dollars each. The amount of frivolous purchases and gloating by blacks should be enough to send racial tensions into the stratosphere. If we wait long enough the Hispanics will kill them for us.

Sorry Z-man, I just can’t read the words of these black bitches even if it was fake.I did skim over the article looking for the 22 Trillion dollars spent on the “war on poverty” and “great society” programs. Then there is the black privilege of quotas and set-asides and on and on and on.We have babied these black thugs long enough. It is time to get rid of them. By whatever means necessary.I was educated as forced busing began. I did not experience it as it was “behind me” in grade level. As a teacher I saw up close what having low IQ, violent blacks in a class meant.They owe us!

If there is a redoubt of “White privilege” in the country it is surely its elite educational institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton should be shamed into becoming all-Black universities. They already recognize the principle of discrimination in admissions to rectify past injustice, so there would be no legal objection to mount. They are the authors of the current ideology of racial grievance, so there should be no moral one either. They are wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, so they could give free rides to students for the duration: say, something between a decade and a generation. Exclusive access for blacks to these name-brand degrees would be something of real value, and it would be incumbent upon those who benefited directly to raise up the community as a whole.This approach might have beneficial effects for higher education generally, as talented Non-blacks were dispersed in other schools instead of being concentrated in a distorting way among the Big Three (plus whatever). Other benefits would surely reveal themselves over time. A new set of elite schools would emerge as H, Y, P did their duty to the country by repairing its historic legacies of this and that. It might be an opportunity for a more practical, less radicalized set of schools to take the lead.Meanwhile, sports at the old elite schools would improve vastly.Most of all, the whole scheme would serve them right.

Now hold on there, Hoss. You do NOT speak for ‘White people’ if you give slavery reparations any sort of serious consideration.The logistics alone are impossible to sort out. Are the hordes of recent arrivals from south of the border ‘Whites’? Perhaps we should ask them for their views on what it is that they allegedly ‘owe’ the descendants of our former farm implements.And what about jews? Are they ‘White’ enough to owe dark-skinned types the Danegeld? Last I knew, they were still after their own tribute for certain events that may or may not have happened near the mid-century mark in another land far, far away.Bottom line, black America: I never owned a slave and you never picked cotton. End of lesson. I don’t owe you sh!t.

The old joke is that the best kind of doctor to be is a dermatologist, because your patient never gets totally better and they rarely die (at which point they’re an oncologist’s problem, not yours). So someone like this woman or Coates can best be viewed as…”dermatologists” would be too kind a word, so how about vampires who occasionally notice that the wound is scabbing and needs to be rubbed raw again to get the blood to flow once more? Demographic change of course means that they’re going to have to fight to feast on the incapacitated body of the white victim, and of course even too many symbiotic lamprey discs sucking blood will leave the host dry and bled white. The parasite dies with the host, probably. It certainly won’t be feasting much anymore.

What is it you want us to do…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rw5MosKRm4

This is brilliant. Reminds me of James Howard Kunstler’s argument that the whole point of the new BLM religion is to saddle us with a new kind of original sin but, unlike Christianity, there is no redemption or salvation possible.

Reparations?Atonement?Tribute? Absolutely!Over 600,000 whites died freeing backs from servitude.The ultimate sacrifice was made by whites, for the sole benefit of blacks.We want Reparations, indeed.We want Tribute, not resentment.We want blacks to Atone for their past racially inspired crimes against Whitey, which are completely unjustified.

There are 3 factors imo making race relations unlivable. 1. Power. 2. Ideology. And 3. Fanatics. To some extent these are all basically the same factor.If blacks and whites can coexist in a stable way, without living under the tyranny of envy, we definitely cant in proximity to power that is up for grabs.Power isnt going anywhere, but maybe it wont be up for grabs in the next 10ish years. In the meantime maybe we could eliminate ideologies like the racial marxism which plays on and feeds into natural envy for political ends.Not likely, but even if we did we would still have to deal with fanatic whites. They are so sure of their moral superiority to bad whites they will kill bad whites without remorse, use blacks, and even get blacks killed in the process. Theyve done it througout American history.In fact, they have no problem with it now. Blacks who dont stand with BLM will be threatened and even attacked, including their children. RotC had a video of it just last week.Given we live in the real world, and we cant eliminate power or the liberalism that puts it up for grabs, we cant just eliminate a mind virus like marxism which makes a go for power, and we cant just snap our fingers and make fanatic whites disappear, then that basically leaves separation. Is that even worth considering on a large scale? The good whites are so good, i imagine theyll take anything separate that hasnt been cleansed of its sins as an opportunity to do some “cleansing”. Its why i shake my head when i hear people planning to escape to Poland: It is just delaying the inevitable. May as well stay put and do something to improve the state of things before they get even worse.It would be interesting to see an alternate world where these factors arent a problem, and what is possible there. I suppose thats why Christians have heaven.

I realize that this post was intended as edgy satire and the goal was tp demonstrate the absurdity of trying to negotiate over a nonsensical premise. But the problem is far more serious than just garnering entertainment value. Nickole Hanna-Jones is a parasite, and she would institutionalize parasitism as a life survival strategy. That is not a joke, that is an existential threat for the host. The proper response is not laughter, it is armed defense. Ask a Afrikaner how it ends.

what the nigs fail to comprehend (like so many things) is that they are a parasitical race, and depend on the white race in order to survive. as white influence recedes in an area, the black population will also shrink (generally).

If Whites are going to pay reparations, then we are also entitled to a royalty check very time a person of color flips on a light switch … or turns the ignition key in a car … or boots up a computer … well, you get my drift.

Anoint Farrakhan the official leader of blacks and deride all others such as Nicole as poseurs (this happens to be reality). Negotiate with him the lands where blacks will live separately from whites and the start-up funds necessary. Then wall off their homeland and never allow one of them back into actual America. Those are reparations I and basically all whites, despite their denials, would accept. Most blacks would as well. It is moral and humane to all concerned.

Insane creatures like this black b**** can’t get enough fantasizing about and lecturing Whites on this crap. It dreams of the mirror image of the antebellum south where the darkies own the plantations and wield the whip while Whitey labors in the proverbial cotton fields. One problem though, for sheboons like her, is the bucks are only gonna want the White wimminz. Those like her will soon find themselves laboring away along side of what’s of the White man. Better be careful what you wish for b****.

What do they think affirmative action is? What do they think welfare is? Section 8 and a whole bunch of other programs?How much do we get for forfeiting our cities to them? How about black crime? Where are our reparations? What about all the murdered white people? Do we really expect their relatives to pay the murderer’s relatives and the murderer? Presumably blacks in prison will get a check?They are never willing to look at both sides of the ledger. If the US were a white country we would be running large surpluses every single year. White people are large net payers of taxes while the blacks and browns are large net recipients. Alt-hype and Sean Last did a (simple) breakdown of this.All of this ignores the reality that ALL African Americans are significantly better off because of slavery. NONE of them would even be alive without slavery. But even putting that aside and assuming they would be alive, but in Africa, every last one of them is better off because they live in America.But what happened is that all of these gibs programs have just become the new baseline, the new norm. So let’s say we give all black people a check on an ongoing basis. Let’s say it’s 2k a month. That will become the new normal and new demands of reparations will be made. Slowly the rationale for the (newly) existing checks will change. It will become an anti-poverty check or some other way to disguise the nature of the check. That will become the new baseline from which more reparations will be demanded.The reparations are coming and there will be more after that.

Z, the problem is that blacks and their ((benefactors)) will find someone a bit brighter than Ms. Jones to do the negotiating. Their argument while tautological and stupid will be compelling to enough whites:Z: What exactly do you want?75% Jewish/25% black Mulatto: Well, since all groups are equally capable something only Hitler would disagree with, we can agree that any area – income, net worth, engineering and corporate jobs, etc. – where blacks underperform Whites is proof of White racism in some form.Z: Yes, yes, but what do you want?Mulatto: Patience my good man, I’m getting to that now. We want, no, demand, housing subsidies, income subsidies, government-enforced affirmative action in colleges and corporate America, changes to zoning laws, 401k donations, fair sentencing guidelines, punishments for call the police on an innocent black person and so forth until black metrics in a variety of areas match those of the Whites. When those metric are met and maintained for at least a decade, we can acknowledge that society has managed to contain White racism. We do not acknowledge that Whites are no longer racist, just that society has managed to control their vile behavior, but that racism is always there.That’s what they’re going to say about reparations. They don’t need to give up their leverage. They need to give us absolution.

The foot-stompy demand for reparationses n’sheeeit is a Lil’bow-wowdlerized form of “praxis” – something recently mentioned by McNabb on TDS.In a nutshell, it’s simply a demand for something because I have power and you don’t, usually tarted up with purely rhetorical claims without regard for their reality or justification“Gibs me dat b/c I want dat. F-your reality b/c my reality and if you don’t like it, Ima shank you.”The proper response is “no [hard R] no.”We’re tired of playing Cornell West word-salad-surgery about the destitutions of muh constitutions and the prostitutions of muh absolutions.No, [hard R], no.—–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_(process)#Marxism

That was hilarious. Also saved me the time of reading her column.

How do the progs other pets feel about over the top afrophilia?

Yup. That’s about it.

Typo at end: we have *no* reason to keep paying you.

Blacks have huge rates of mental illness. Even when they are sane, they usually have their monomania — blackness — which is a kind of insanity.

The funny part is, even if America gave these people their own state and all the whites left, it wouldn’t be very long until you saw a repeat of what happened in Zimbabwe. Tens of thousands of white farmers were forced off their lands and many resettled in Australia. Now they’re being asked to come back after the people “in charge” figured out they have no clue how to run the farms.

Z, you wrote a similar column about a year ago and ever since my understanding of “reparations” has been as clear as day. If only other white people would just figure out that they really don’t want one check, they want multiple generations of ransom, this would all get cleared up pretty quickly.

With everything being about race and anti-whiteness these days, sometimes I just want to immerse myself in the outdoors, go camping and hiking to escape the blackety-black. Think again, they’re going after the outdoors…..https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4120&context=uop_etdsThe linked paper might make good subject matter for a Z-cast.

We need to realize that Nicole Hannah-Jones is a figurehead for the elite establishment, which is still white. TheNew York Timesis still considered “The Paper of Record”. Ta-Nehisi Coates advises Sen. Warren with his incredible anti-white working-class hostility. The Ta hasThe Atlantic, another elite establishment publication, as a platform. It was recently reported in theEconomist, which is at the apex of elite publications, that Mary Barra, CEO of GM, “was outraged by the killing of George Floyd, the latest in a long string of deaths of unarmed black American by the police”. Z-Man’s “ruling classes” probably are far more dangerous than the blacks.

This entire thing would collapse like a house of cards without the implicit support of white wahmen. They have become the greatest vector of destruction for western civ imaginable and the (((Architects))) of feminism probably saw that as well.You take a creature that is already of average intelligence (women cluster VERY heavily in the middle intellect vs. men at the outlier edges) and add a dash of herding / social safety and you can get them to do pretty much anything with enough social pressure / gaslighting. And so here we are. A strategy moving forward is to shift attention from blacks which will get youerasedfinancially and in some cases physically and start aggressively attacking white females.I have posited this before but it needs to go into overdrive. Before the White Knights and M’Lady Manginas start crawling out of the woodwork to chastise me I amNOTtalking about /ourgals/ but the reality is for every one woman who is on our side there are probably 9 against particularly if you count the younger demographic.Here are 2 relevant takes on this the first funnily enough is from (((Tablet))) magazine but the hot take is pretty on point why the new ‘fad’ of wokeness has taken off so quickly. There is also the obvious element of spiritual emptiness which is why the cult and religiosity of this movement is so obvious to anyone outside looking in.https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/social-justice-solipsismThe second one is a funny YT video about how to start themuchneeded derision and mockery of white women. It is the one thing they respond to very rapidly other than fear & pain because mockery creates anxiety and anxiety creates fear. So you are getting to one of the primary educational tools in a roundabout manor. The ineffable Sam Hyde has completely captured the absurdity of these BLM marches / social media events being 70% white wahmen (hence why I said they would fall apart in weeks w/o their traitorous endorsement). Very comical:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjz9lJ-2In8Lastly, this book was recommended to me by more than one reader here. Istronglyadvise reading it because it was prescient on so many levels regarding our current situation as the firestorm in the fictional setting starts in Minneapolis and the current trajectory of our society tracks scarily well in this fictional novel that is practically non-fiction at this point, and will be soon if we don’t course correct rapidly. Reparations, riots, and whites under the boot for decades is what the book is about and we are right on track for all of that. Consider it a glimpse into your unaltered future and you can be sure Amazon will memory hole it sooner or later so get it while you still can, hard copy.https://www.amazon.com/Her-Eyes-Doctrine-Ash-Donaldson/dp/107338487X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3QJETFQAC53RN&

Browsing through the internet yesterday I ran across mention of a new negro movement even more radical than Burn Loot Murder. Their demand is for an ethno-state within the borders of the continental U.S. Actually, it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. Something like we gave to the Indian nations, a “reserved” space for them alone. Give it to them along with a permanent UBI, legalized drugs of all description, and something like a giant PX where they can get eberything fo free. The peace dividend to the rest of the nation would far outweigh the cost. JWM

Z nailed it…

The 8 year old black girl killed in atlanta was killed by BLM, at a BLM checkpoint.https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/shooters-wanted-death-girl-atlanta-71624881 Meanwhile in Birdwatching news…Karen charged…

I always have worked off the presumption that blacks will accept nothing less than the 100% elimination of all white people and the confiscation of 100% of their property and monies. Nothing else makes sense otherwise.

Africans were not stolen, they were bought, legally, from the recognized rulers of various West African Nations, some of which actually had diplomatic relations with Great Britain and other European States at the time. I wonder if it is possible to complain to the vendors’ successor States and ask for a refund on the grounds that the “goods” were clearly faulty. If a refund is out of the question maybe return the “goods” descendants and settle for a credit note to be redeemed against other African exports, palm oil or coconuts for example.

Murray Rothbard warned all of us about individualism run amok. “Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. …usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions.” Blacks have to go. But then we must realize that there are very different groups of whites. Often the southern cracker does not really want to be around the German descended. (I have such animals as in-laws)

I’m all for reparations… so long as each one includes a one-way ticket to Wakanda.

The parasite dies without the host. Hence that’s why there never is a final number to put onto the check. As much as it pains blacks (I refuse to use uppercase to describe them), their existence depends on us. They need our tax revenue to keep the gibs train rolling. They need us to continue to fund government agencies and corporations with their diversity hires that create a fake black middle class from whole cloth. This explains their never-ending rage. It’s not slavery (just an excuse) or Jim Crow laws (ditto). They know that if not for white, Western Civilization, they’d be living in extreme poverty in Africa.There’s several things I don’t understand from a rhetorical POV. They are:If Black Lives (truly) Matter, why is it that black-on-black crime and massive rates of abortion are greeted with a shrug?The number of whites who kill people of color is minuscule compared black-on-black and black-on-white violent crime.Why is it that we always here about a “dialogue” when white viewpoints are automatically dismissed as racist since only whites can be racists? That’s a monologue or better yet, a lecture.

Not very realistic dialogue. IRL, the representative for the Black people would have stomped the representative for the white people within the first five exchanges. Then the representative for the Black people would have set the representative for the white people on fire. Then the FBI would arrest the representative of the white people for using an unspecified racial slur.

Oh this is just terrible… a white BLM purple haired grrl, Summer Taylor has been run over, accidentally I’m sure…by one Dawit Kelete, 27, driving a Jag as it were. He fled the scene, BLM protester chased him down, Dawit Kelete of course is a White Raycixx ….Black man. He was described as ‘sullen’ when arrested.Oh horrors it’s worse, the surviving grrrl is getting FB death threats, I can’t imagine from who…https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8494227/PICTURED-Black-man-27-knocked-killed-Black-Lives-Matter-protester.html

Very nice, Z. Very Derbsian.

Nice change up, Z-man! Reminded me of Plato’s Dialogues, but with Socrates interrogating morons instead of bright young Athenian citizens. The Danegeld reference at the end was the best, illustrating John Derbyshire’s “blackety-blackety-black” observation from long ago. Of course Mx. Hanna-Barbera-Jones doesn’t get the Dane analogy, because blacks only think-read-write about blackety-black stuff, and Danes sure ain’t black. The Z-man on black Solipsism; worth reading again:http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=3460

Nailed it! (Of course, I don’t agree to any of the stipulations, but good rhetorical device to highlight the core problem with “reparations.” )As Z-man strongly implies, there is no end to this blackmail. And as Kipling concluded, a long time ago: “We never pay any-one Dane-geld,No matter how trifling the cost;For the end of that game is oppression and shame,And the nation that plays it is lost!” Short version: F’ off, you get nothing from us.

The problem as left out of the above article is the current representatives of White people are content to not demand an answer and allow us to live under guilt for eternity.

I am certain that there are a good number of blacks who will not be happy until they have their very own white slaves. They don’t want reparations, they want superiority. But this all misses the root of the problem, which is the deep pockets which are financing this revolution. They are playing both sides against each other. They see blacks and whites alike as tools to attain their goals.

Manure Gun as crowd control, yes you need a manure truck, and of course normally its used to fertilize fields. I think this is a good retasking. https://westernrifleshooters.us/2020/07/06/crowd-control/

Reminds me of the fictional dialogue of when Socrates met Darwin:SOCRATES MEETS DARWIN: A STUDY IN QUESTION BEGGING^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Gary Colwell, Ph.D.Cf. The Darwin upheaval. One circle of admirers who said: “Ofcourse”, and another circle [of enemies-R] who said: “Of coursenot”. Why … should a man sayof course'? (The idea was thatof monocellular organisms becoming more and more complicateduntil they became mammals, men, etc.) Did anyone see thisprocess happening? No. Has anyone seen it happening now? No.The evidence of breeding is just a drop in the bucket. But therewere thousands of books in which this was said to be the obvioussolution. People were certain on grounds which were extremelythin. Could not there have been an attitude which said: "I donot know. It is an interesting hypothesis which may eventuallybe well confirmed"? This shows how you can be persuaded of acertain thing. In the end you forget entirely every question ofverification, you are just sure it must have been like that.L. Wittgenstein_Lectures & Conversations on Aesthetics,Psychology and Religious Belief_.The year is 2002. The place is an imaginary after-world fromwhich all aspects of life on earth can be monitored. A giganticparty is underway with all the famous thinkers of history inattendance. Socrates, who is a little more boisterous thanusual, weaves his way among the guests, calling out, "Darwin! ...Darwin! ... Where is that man?!" Eventually Darwin hears hisname being called and answers:D      Socrates! Over here!S      Oh, there you are. Look, I've got to have a talk withyou. The matter is serious. I have been following thedevelopment of evolutionary thinking for over one hundred andthirty-five years and after listening to the experts I stillcannot make head or tail of it.D      What is your problem?S      Well, first of all, I simply do not know what people meanwhen they say things like "man evolved" or "because of evolutionthis or that happened." Now I realize that today even theearthly school children can say the word "evolution" with an airof confidence and understanding. And I also see that the wordappears in all manner of magazines and popular books on biology.But do these people really understand what they confidently talkabout? I mean, it is possible to fit a supposedly technical wordinto an informal conversational sentence without making agrammatical mistake, and still not have a fig of a notion as towhat one means by it. It seems to me that nothing but the vaguestof ideas is being traded in all this talk about evolution.D      You ought to realize, Socrates, that scientific wordshave a way of slipping their moorings in the technicaldisciplines and drifting into the mainstream of everydayconversation. And when they do, not everyone who uses thesewords has a clear understanding of their meanings. Practicallyevery discipline suffers because untrained people use its jargonvacuously, usually because they want to impress their friends.But for every one hundred people who mindlessly parrot ascientific term like "evolution" there is probably at least oneperson who can explain its meaning. Also, you must not assumethat because a technical term comes tripping off the tongues ofindividual discussants in a conversation they do not know whatthe word means. It would be very awkward indeed if a personalways had to explain the underlying concepts of such terms inorder to speak intelligibly. It is precisely because some wordsstand for a whole cluster of concepts that they find theirusefulness as shorthand notation in scientific discourse.S      Well said, Darwin! You are just the man to explain thiswhole business to me. Please tell me then what evolution is.D      You suggested that you are familiar with the literature.Surely you do not want me to start with the basics.S      Yes, I do. Be as simple as you can without sacrificingthe truth, because I must have missed something at a veryrudimentary level.D      The word "evolution" simply means "change"; and thescientific theory of evolution is the theory which states thatorganisms have gradually changed from the most simple forms intothe most complex forms, beginning with unicellular organisms andending with man--at least ending for the time being. Thisgradual change took place during the course of millions of yearsand its basis in fact has been established by the observations ofscience. The best way to ...S      But do not scientists today speak of evolution as a fact?You say it is a theory. Which is it?D      Yes, you can say that it is a fact. The theory is basedupon observed facts and ...S      But is the process of change itself observable? I meanthat change to which, presumably, the word "evolution" refers.D      Yes! Now will you please stop interrupting and let mecontinue?S      I'm sorry. Please continue.D      As I started to say, perhaps the best way to see thischange is by examining some of the more important explanatoryparts of the theory. First, the structural explanations of thetheory of evolution explain the similarities of body structurefound among organisms of widely diverse species living today.For example, although the whale, the bat, the horse and man aremembers of quite diverse species, their appendages exhibit markedsimilarities. The flipper of the whale, the wing of the bat, theleg of the horse, and the arm of man are all structurally alike,even though they are functionally different. Evolution explainsthe presence of these structural similarities by pointing outthat the organisms of these diverse species have an ancestor orancestors in common from which they have descended. Over manyyears of descent from a common ancestry these different organismshave changed; though not enough to erase the structuralsimilarity we still observe today. Descent, with change, from acommon ancestry also accounts for the presence of vestiges inmany different organisms. You must have read that vestiges areremnants of larger and once useful body parts--organs,appendages, etc.--which have atrophied through lack of use as thewhole body of the organism descended and changed. For somereason these original parts did not disappear completely,although their functional contribution to the organismdisappeared. The vermiform appendix in man and the wings offlightless birds are two familiar examples commonly cited.S      All of this sounds disturbingly familiar. You see it isthis business about descent and change that bothers me. I askedyou what evolution is; you said that it is the change oforganisms from one form into another. Further, you said thatthis change can be seen by looking at the structural similaritiesbetween members of diverse species, which presumably illustratethe change in question. But since I have only the vaguest notionas to what this process of change is like, it is hardlyenlightening to point to the perceived structural similaritybetween organisms and to their vestigial organs as evidence ofthis change. In other words, the idea of descent with change iswhat I am asking you to explain; but you have presupposed it withyour reference to similar structures and vestigial organs.Unless I have missed something, this looks like a subtle speciesof question begging.D      Look, the evidence is as clear as the nose on your face.How else can we account for these similarities between lifeforms? Why should these organisms exhibit a similar structureunless in fact they had descended from a common ancestry?S      I can't see the nose on my face very well and neither canI see very well this vaguely conceived change you speak of. Ifyou are going to start asking "why" questions at the very generallevel of structural similarities between organisms can you notexercise your imagination and think of something which hasgreater conceptual definition than "descent, with change, from acommon ancestry?" Of course, I do not know the answer to thisbiological riddle, but I can think of at least one theory whichwill account for such similarities. Perhaps the god which sentme on my philosophical mission to the people of Athens devised agood plan by which to make the species of his creation functionwell. He may have used the same basic structural design in manydiverse species, much the same as automobile manufacturers todayon earth retain the same basic design for different models. Thesame design, with modification, can serve many purposes. Just asyou asked your "why" question, so I can ask mine. "Why should acreator throw away a perfectly useful basic design?"D      You can't be serious! That is a preposterous notion.The scientific community generally rejects such antiquatedthought.S      That may be a true statement about what most scientistsbelieve, but you are not suggesting that truth in science isestablished by counting the beliefs of scientists, are you?D      Even if I were so backward as to entertain thepossibility of such a creation, your theory still would not work.Just because similarities between the structural designs ofautomobiles can be accounted for in terms of a modification ofthe ideas of the inventor or manufacturer, it does notnecessarily follow that the structural similarities betweenorganisms can be accounted for in the same way by referring to acreator of living organisms. Change in complexity and inapparent design can be accounted for in more than one way.S      True enough, but this establishes my point. Just as itdoes not follow necessarily that the developmental changes inautomobiles and the developmental changes in organisms are theresult of essentially the same kind of process, neither does itfollow necessarily that those changes are not the result of thesame kind of process. They both could be the result of creativeplanning. And at this level of observation, where you seem tosee evidence of evolutionary change I merely point out that thereis a good alternative way of explaining the same perceivedphenomenon of structural similarity. But more importantly, myidea of creation gives an intelligible account of what the changeis and how it is to be conceived: namely, a creative change inthe basic plan of the god. Your notion, however, still lacksdefinition; it presupposes that some kind of change occurredwithin nature and among different organisms. You have yet toconceptually identify for me what this change is which presumablyis at the heart of evolutionary theory.D      You might be able to conceive of possible alternatives toevolution but you cannot dismiss the facts which evidenceevolutionary change.S      But that is precisely the point of contention. What isfactual is not changing, at least not to the degree needed totransform one species into another. All the organisms which youclaim have descended from a common ancestry--the whale, the bat,the horse and man--have not changed into different speciesthroughout the thousands of generations of their observedexistence. Furthermore, any of the organisms which you mayimagine to have been their ancestors and which are still livingtoday--some of the reptiles, for example--also have not changedthroughout successive generations of their offspring. The changewhich is supposed to distinguish evolution as an importantscientific fact is precisely what is lacking when we examine it.And speaking of the facts, as your disciples today are wont todo, the evidence you adduce in support of this vaguely conceivednotion of change is highly suspect. In reference to your ownexample, I have noticed over the years that as the knowledge ofanimal physiology has increased, the number of vestigial organsso-called has dwindled drastically. Earlier in the history ofevolutionary theory some biologists writing on the topic listedmore than one hundred and eighty of these rudimentary structures.The human body alone became a veritable museum of evolutionaryremnants. But today I see that most textbooks which treat thesubject at all list only about six vestigial organs, with ofcourse the vermiform appendix in man still being given the mostprominent place. Unfortunately, the category of "chief vestigialorgan" has itself become vestigial; because immunologists now donot think that the appendix is a useless remnant. The role ofthe appendix in human immunology is well established.D      So, what are you ultimately saying Socrates: that with afew examples like those you can overturn the scientific theory ofevolution? I suppose the next thing you will tell me is that theentire fossil record is also not a fact! What do you propose wedo with the countless fossils laid down in the strata of theearth's crust in such a fashion that only the most obtuseobserver could fail to get their message?S      I have always been slow to understand popular concepts.Will you please tell me what that unmistakable message is thatyou get from the earth?D      Come now, my friend! You must know that fossils havebeen laid down in the earth's strata in a clearly discerniblepattern. The pattern I refer to--as I think you already know--isthe gradual and progressive change in complexity of the lifeforms which have been fossilized. Beginning with very simpleorganisms fossilized in the Cambrian layers, you can see, as youmove up through successive layers, a graduated complexity in theforms of life, until you reach the most complex organisms in themost recent layers at the top. The unmistakable message is thatsimple organisms have progressively changed or evolved intohighly complex organisms.S      You asked me what I proposed to do with the fossilrecord. I do not propose to do anything with it except seriouslytry to give it the most sensible interpretation, and I must saythat your interpretation does not strike me as the most sensibleone. Your traditional account of the fossil record manifests thesame weaknesses as your so-called structural explanations.First, the alleged facts upon which you construct your theory ofevolutionary progression--whatever that is precisely--are notnearly so factual once you look carefully at them. Second, givenan account of the facts as they really are, there is a betteralternative explanation than evolution: as I said, a creativechange in the basic plan of the god.You claim that the fossils evidence a gradual progressive changein the complexity of life forms, beginning with simple organismsin the bottom layers and ending with complex organisms in the toplayers. But unfortunately the evidence cannot be made to conformto such a simple account. In actual fact the change one observesis neither gradual, nor progressive, nor does it begin withsimple organisms.Whatever you wish to say about those life forms at the bottom ofthe evolutionary ladder, organisms such as sponges and protozoa,you ought not to say that they are simple. Contrary to publicopinion the story of evolution does not begin with simpleorganisms, but with very complex ones. Even single-celledorganisms exhibit a degree of complexity which is awe-inspiring.It seems to me that accounting for the composition, structure andsophisticated functions of such allegedly primitive organisms isa major problem for the theory of evolution. As well, among theoldest fossils one can find evidence of prehistoric animals whichseem to have been at least as complex as modern animals; perhapsmore so.  Therefore, because the organisms whose remains arefound in the deepest strata are not "simple" in any ordinarysense of the term, and because the remains of highly complexanimals are found where they should not be found if evolution istrue, it is a misrepresentation of the facts to simply say thatthe change which fossils exhibit begins with simple organisms orthat it always progresses from simple organisms to complex ones.But worse still, the changes from one organism to another whichthe fossils are supposed to exhibit cannot consistently be calledgradual. Within many important sections of the geological columnwhere you find a succession of fossils, from less complex in thebottom layers to more complex in the top layers, the successionis not gradual! At many junctures within these sections thereare tremendously large jumps in the complexity of organisms, withno trace of a series of graduated intermediate forms to accountfor the alleged evolutionary change. Doesn't evolution herebecome a kind of "god of the gaps?" Where, for example, are allthe intermediate forms between birds and reptiles? I can see noway that such leaps in complexity can be accounted for by atheory which relies so heavily upon the "long - long - ago - over- a - long - long - time" theme in its scenario. Even onehundred million years of sedimentary deposition cannot begin toaccount for the colossal jumps in the complexity of these lifeforms. Is evolution consistent with its own canons? Don't yousee ...D      Now hold on just a minute! You talk so simplistically,as though evolutionary development were a simple linearprogression laid out like beads on a string. You will do muchbetter if you think of it as a progression, using the model of atree. Granted, several of the branches are missing, which weshall probably be able to draw in some day, but the main outlineis there. Evolution has been a very complex process which we donot completely understand, but I am confident that eventually weshall understand it and thereby clear up the major problems thatremain.S      I wondered when you were going to use that old ploy. Youappeal to scientific ignorance of the workings of this allegedlycomplex evolutionary process, but at the same time assert theexistence of that process by emphasizing its inscrutability--whenall the while the very existence of the process itself isprecisely what is in question! It is in question because thereis neither a clear referent for the phrase "evolutionary change"nor unambiguous evidence to support the evolutionary ideas ofchange even supposing the referent for "change" were clearlygiven. How is it that although you do not have the requisitefossil evidence to support evolutionary theory you still knowthat evolution occurred? And how does its occurrence gainexistential status in the deep recess of your ignorance? Myresponse to your claim that there is so much about the workingsof evolution that we don't understand, is: how do you know thatit is evolution that has been working?D      Obviously because we can see clearly the broad outlinesof its work.S      You are still begging the question. The vital evidenceyou need to support the claim that it is evolution's work whichis broadly outlined, and not the work of some other force, ismissing. Do you not see that by the same kind of reasoning youcould say that a few different colored dots on a canvas are,without further evidence, the broad outlines of a Rembrandt?There is no disanalogy here because, contrary to popular belief,it is not in fact the case that just a few branches are missingfrom the tree of evolution--whole sections of the main trunk aremissing! The onus is not upon me to see how much I can exercisemy imagination by filling the blanks; the onus is upon you toprovide evidence which will support such an imaginative theory.It is your responsibility to produce the important missingpieces: not mine to trail after your flights of imagination.D      Socrates, I now think I see your problem. You fail tomake a distinction between the results of evolutionary change andthe process of change itself. Obviously we cannot observe thechange which modified all those species in the past; but we caninfer the existence of such a change from the fossil remains.S      Be careful now. You are wandering in a circle. We havealready discussed the gappy fossil record. Let us not wanderback to the fossil remains and what we are supposed to be able toinfer from them; for we have seen large problems along that path.You seem not to be grasping the main point of my criticism. Whenyou say "results of evolutionary change," notice: you assumethat the "change" has taken place; when in fact it is preciselythis change that I am asking you to substantiate. What youdesire to call the "results" of change I have argued are reallythe deficient beginnings of your case for evolution. Logicallyyou cannot call these weak beginnings "the results."Furthermore, it is not only that the fossil record is lacking inevidence--it presents contradictory evidence. Not only are manyfossils missing which should be present; there are many fossilspresent where they should be missing.Let me illustrate the point. Suppose that an earthling walksinto his dining room in the morning and sees a beautiful vase ona table. Later that afternoon he returns to the dining room, butthis time he sees the vase smashed in pieces on the floor. Therehas been a change all right, but the "how" of that change may notat all be clear. Was it the cat, an earth tremor, a human hand,gravity, the wind, or something else? Unless he has moreevidence than just the memory of the unbroken vase in themorning, together with the spectacle of smashed pieces in theafternoon, it is presumptuous of him to single out any one ofthose agents as being responsible for the destruction. Notice,however, that he can bridge the gap between his remembrance ofthe vase intact and his perception of the broken pieces beforehim, by using his imagination. But if all that he uses to bridgethe gap is his imagination, then the change which he proposes--for example, the movement of the cat's tail against the vase--ismerely a conceptual change, with no basis in fact. He needs morethan a jumping imagination to account for change in the worldaround him.The need for evidence of a specific kind of change is much moreacute in the case of evolution; because there you want to arguenot only that a change took place in nature itself, but thatsimpler organisms changed into more complex organisms, by chance.Unlike the change in the vase, the notion of evolutionary changeis counter-intuitive; it is especially important to fill in thegaps with something more than the imagination.I am not denying, for example, that reptiles are different frommammals. And there is of course a conceptual change which onemust make in moving from his thoughts about fossils of reptilesto his thoughts about fossils of mammals. But unless one hassomething more to offer than the catch phrase "because ofevolutionary change," his ideas remain groundless. The "how" ofevolutionary change is not, as many scientists seem to think, anon-essential extra to be filled in at some later date. It isthe very heart of this putative process. If the "how" ofevolutionary theory cannot be identified and coherentlydescribed, and if clear non-contradictory evidence at the crucialpoints cannot be given in support of the theory, then, to speakof "evolutionary change" as a distinctive occurrence withinnature is to speak vacuously.D      You keep harping on this business of change, as thoughevolution had been discovered yesterday. You said that you havebeen reading the literature. Have you not read anything aboutnatural selection and genetic variation?S      Yes, I have - and you would have done as well if you hadread Mendel instead of leaving him alone on your library shelf -he is, after all, the father of your theory, is he not? Butnever mind, like the rest of evolutionary theory, I cannot makehead or tail of natural selection and genetic variation. Now, Iwill stop harping if you change your tune.D      Speaking of "old ploys," that one of playing the dummy iswearing rather thin. I remember your tricks. Let me guess: nowyou want me to give you a basic lesson in the mechanics ofevolutionary change?S      Yes indeed I do! And let me assure you that my ignoranceis not feigned--I really do not understand all this business.That is why I have come to you, the expert.D      Well, when I first conceived of the theory of evolution Iaccepted the Lamarckian assumption that hereditary changes areproduced by the environment. In order to adapt to a particularenvironmental niche for which it was not viably suited, anorganism acquired the characteristics necessary for survival.The environment, so to speak, urged upon the organism theacquisition of these characteristics--or, so we thought. Inaddition, I also thought that, corresponding to this change inthe organism's characteristics, hereditary changes were somehowproduced, such that the newly acquired characteristics could betransmitted to succeeding generations. All of this of course wasbefore the advent of genetics. It is now believed by those whostill accept my basic evolutionary model that the mechanisms ofchange are different. Neo-Darwinians hold that hereditarychanges are the result of gene mutations. Simply stated, insteadof saying that the environment produces adaptive changes whichare hereditary, it is now said that hereditary changes makeadaptation possible. Changes in the genetic makeup of anorganism alter that organism in such a manner as to prepare itfor an environmental niche into which it can emigrate. Thisgenetic preparation is sometimes called preadaptation. Let megive you a simple illustration. It is often discovered that theinhabitants of caves are blind and possess highly developedtactile sense organs. According to my old view, the darknessforced the would-be cave inhabitants to give up using their eyesand acquire an acute sense of touch. The revised Neo-Darwinianview says that this is putting the cart before the horse.Actually, the would-be inhabitants must be equipped to survivebefore they emigrate to the caves. That is, they are preadaptedby a genetic mutation which results in a heightened tactilesensitivity.S      Please forgive another simple-minded question, but whywould anyone think in the first place that organisms adapt totheir environments, either in the manner you first proposed or inthe manner proposed by your followers today?D      Well, obviously, because of the compatibility whichexists between organisms and their environments. It must surelybe evident even to your critical mind how well organisms andtheir environments fit together: the environment being suitableto accommodate the organism and the organism being fit to existin its environment. This harmonious state of affairs can beobserved everywhere on earth.S      But have these adaptations of new organisms to newenvironments ever been observed? I do not mean just thosechanges in parts of an organism such as tails getting longer orfur changing color, etc., as a result of cross-breeding withinthe same species. These confined changes were observed and wellknown to everyone hundreds of years before the word "evolution"gained any currency. I mean, has anyone ever scientificallyobserved a radical change in an organism at the specific or evensub-specific level, such that the radically new organism couldfit into a radically new environment? Or, has anyone evenobserved an organism like the bat losing its sight, then gaininga heightened sense of touch and hearing, and then emigrating to aradically new environment like a cave where it continued to liveand reproduce offspring similarly adapted?D      Of course not. Natural selection at the level you areasking about cannot be directly observed. It is a very complexprocess which has taken a great deal of time.S      But would you not agree that adaptation at that level hasgot to be established before evolution may be called anexplanatory scientific theory about how organisms have radicallychanged?D      Certainly the changes must have been radical but the ...S      Well, if small changes such as the variations in the sizeof an appendage, or in the color of some body part, cannotprovide the evidence needed for the appearance of these radicallynew organisms, upon what basis do you argue that such large scalechanges have occurred which enable an organisms to adapt to aradically new environment?D      I have already told you: upon the basis of theharmonious interaction of organisms with their environment. Theorganisms must have changed dramatically in order to fit into newenvironmental niches.S      Let me understand what you are saying. You say thatorganisms and their environments fit together?D      Yes, that's right.S      And they fit together because the organism adapts to itsenvironment?D      Correct.S      And when I ask you how you know that the organism doesadapt to a radically new environment you say, because theorganism and its environment fit together.D      Yes, that's my position.S      Don't you see that you're arguing in a circle? You jumpfrom the observed harmony in nature to the mysterious conclusionthat organisms change dramatically and then adapt to a radicallynew environment, providing no other factual support for thisgrand inductive inference than the obvious facts about harmonywith which you started. It seems that evolutionists use thenotion of "fitness" both as a starting observation and as aconcluding explanation. The only facts involved in your case fornatural selection are those which are obvious and agreeable toeveryone before any inferences are drawn. As a description ofthe way organisms and their environments are suited to oneanother, part of your account is unobjectionable; but as aputative explanation of how organisms have come into being,natural selection really does not provide an answer. At best wemay learn how some existing organisms survive a radicalenvironmental change--such as black moths in sooty trees--but nothow they radically change in surviving. I repeat my formercriticism of putative "evolutionary change": the change that youneed to demonstrate is precisely what you assume throughout yourwhole account. And, if you are going to take such liberty withinductive inference you should not object to an alternativeinference of no greater breadth which is drawn from the sameobservations about natural harmony. Why not infer that thedelicate balance of nature everywhere observed is the work of agod who ...D      You might have gotten away with that kind of argument inyour time, or even one hundred years ago, but not now. I thinkthat I have already made it plain that the idea of geneticvariation forms an integral part of evolutionary theory as it istaught today. No one any longer speaks about natural selectionwithout saying or implying that genetic variations form anintegral part of the evolutionary process.S      Well then, are you now admitting that the main supportfor the belief in evolutionary change is found in genetics? Ishould soon very much like to get to the foundation of this wholematter.D      Yes, you could say that. The evidence for change you soeagerly seek is found in the fact of gene mutations.S      But is there really any scientific evidence--I mean soliddata; not fanciful theorizing--which shows that a mutant form ofan organism can change it into anything like what is needed toreproduce a new species?D      Come now, you must surely have read about the mutantforms in plants, animals, and insects. Are you not familiar withthe fruitfly experiments? Countless mutants of the Drosophilahave been observed and written up in the literature.S      It seems that you are not the only one who thinks he isnot being heard. I have just asked a question the thrust ofwhich you seem to be completely ignoring. The weakness of thegenetic explanation for evolution lies precisely in the allegedevidence you advance in support of it. Even if the highlyimprobable occurred, that is, even if a thousand of such mutantsoccurred in one and the same fruitfly, you would still not havean organism whose total change represented anything like a newspecies actually found in nature. And what is important here ofcourse is that such a large scale change never has been observed.D      I do not know what literature you have been reading, buta mutation which can change an antenna into a leg is quite apowerful piece of evidence for the mechanism of evolutionarychange.S      That is a very misleading description my friend. Whatyou are suggesting is the origination of a new complex structure,a leg, is really just the switching of an already geneticallyencoded structure to a new location, the place of the antenna,where it then develops. What is worse, however, is that thissort of aberrant switching is disadvantageous to the fly, evenif, hypothetically speaking, one could say that some new geneticmaterial were being added to the blueprint of the fly, whichdefinitely is not the case. If you are going to gain anydistance with the genetic argument you will have to show that anorganism can create new genetic material which increasesradically the complexity of the structure or function of theorganism, thus enabling it to adapt to a radically newenvironment. If, for instance, we have evolved from protozoa,where did the genes for a nervous system, bones, etc. come from?There is a huge gap here which needs to be filled.D      Even so, the small genetic changes that we do observeprovide us with a good working idea of how large scale changes inorganisms could have occurred and thus produced radically neworganisms.S      Has anyone ever observed these grand genetic changeswhich you imagine could have been the impetus for evolutionaryadvancement?D      No, of course not, but just because they have not beenobserved, it does not mean that they did not occur! You have notshown that such changes could not have happened.S      No it does not--but neither does it mean that they didoccur. But, since you are the one advancing the theory, the onusis yours to establish its truth. It is not my responsibility tosatisfy your impossible request, to show that some imaginedevents, such as large scale genetic changes which, as purelyimagined events, are not logically impossible, could not occur.That kind of demonstration cannot be provided in any world, letalong be provided in evolutionary theory. Nor is it ever areasonable request that it should be provided. How, for example,would you ever demonstrate that a creator could not possiblyexist? You must base your case for evolution on positiveavailable evidence--unless of course you decide to give yourideas, as they now stand, a more suitable title: "a poeticvision" or "a secular faith" or something similar. I am afraidthat you have not yet felt how heavy the burden of proof is whichrests upon your shoulders.D      And you seem to have something against speculation inscience. In fact, you misrepresent the scientific process.Listen, it would be ridiculous for scientists to formulate onlytheories for which there was already confirming evidence. Surelyit is not necessary to present the confirming evidence forpossible advantageous macromutations before I theorize that theyhave occurred?S      I have nothing at all against speculation, in science oranywhere else. I only wish that you--and especially yourfollowers--would call it exactly that, instead of makinggrandiose claims about the evidence for evolution. You giveeverybody the impression that evolution is firmly grounded onfacts. You claim that genetics has the answer to the questionsof change which I have just been pursuing. And yet when thetruth is told, either, the changes which can actually be observedare small, not radical, and most often disadvantageous to anorganism, thus providing no relevant evidence for the large scalechanges required by evolution; or, the changes are large but non-existent, purely products of your imagination, having no basis infact. So, in either case the foundational support for the claimthat evolution has occurred has yet to be established.D      I grant you that the theory may have some weaknesses ineach of its various explanatory parts, but when the explanationsare taken altogether, I think you will have to admit, theypresent a very convincing account.S      That's like saying that although one leaky bucket willnot hold water, ten leaky buckets will.D      It depends on how far you want to carry the water!S      Yes, and how big the holes are! But to carry theprogressive development of life forms all the way fromnoncellular organisms to man? That is a very long way, myfriend. You began by discussing structural similarities andvestigial organs. When I pointed out that your account not onlycontained factual mistakes but also presumed withoutjustification the answer to my basic question of evolutionarychange, you directed our discussion to the fossil record and thesupposedly unmistakable pattern which is exhibited there. When Ipointed out further factual errors and emphasized again yourpersistence in assuming without warrant the very change inquestion, you then led us into a discussion of what areapparently the dual pillars of evolutionary theory, naturalselection and genetic variation. And now after I have once againpointed out that even in the genetic account radical change isbeing assumed, not evidenced, you still want to go back over thiswhole business and say that somehow all the missing supports foryour theory are able to make it stand. Is not that an odd kindof argument?D      How else can we account for the existence of complex lifeforms?S      Goodness gracious! You are surely not suggesting that abad theory is better than none at all? Has it never occurred toyou to say, "I do not know"? You ought to read Wittgenstein.D      But no intellectually respectable scientist today coulddoubt it!S      That is the problem with you people. You hold yourtheories with such religious fervour that you cannot detachyourself from them long enough to ask a few basic questions.D      And the problem with philosophers is that they are alwayspreoccupied with semantics. Clever word play, that's all!S      I have never pretended that philosophy is anything butthe art of asking uncomfortable questions about fundamentalassumptions. Say what you like against philosophers, but thatwill not remove the serious criticisms which hound your theory.D      Do you realize what you're suggesting? Are you asking meto believe that all of these venerable men of science aremisguided because they do not have any clear idea of evolutionarychange? One should not dignify the suggestion with a response.S      I do not know this, but let me tell you what I think isthe main reason for the perpetuation of this conceptualconfusion. The pseudo-explanatory force of evolutionary theoryderives its psychological power from the fact thatanthropomorphic terms within its narrative are readily understoodin non-scientific speech contexts.D      What in thunder does that mean!?S      Consider the fanciful character of the stories that arespun around the fossil remains. We read about vertebrates wholeft their aquatic environment and developed limbs by a happyaccident. And with their newly developed limbs these amphibianslearned to linger about the drying pools. In the story of thedescent from the trees we read of men-like, tree-borne primateswho became earth-borne creatures. They assumed an erect posture,lengthened and strengthened their lower limbs; and the latterbecame organs of the mind. A more anthropomorphic story would bedifficult to write. It is hardly a step at all to imagine agroup of turtles getting together for a conference to make plansfor an exploring expedition. Of course if these action verbs andnouns are read anthropomorphically then the conclusion towardswhich the evolutionary argument moves is assumed at the outset.Presumably the lower forms of life somehow developed into thecomplex form called man. Therefore, in the beginning they didnot possess, even at the amphibian stage, the motivation andability to direct their destinies, as man is able to do. Tosmuggle into the language of explanation the suggestion that theydid is to gain a psychological support for the central thesis ofevolution which needs to be established legitimately by non-semantical means.This dramatic-scientific story of evolution is conceived sogenerally that it can accommodate almost any idea, which in factit does. Not only does it deposit in its store the scientificjargon of "fossils," "strata," etc., but it also incorporateswith ease the anthropomorphic language of epic poetry. Thescientist learns to speak in one breath of "carbon dating,""developing limbs" and "happy accidents." His narrativeexplanation admixes science and saga, with a strong emphasis uponthe latter. And the anthropomorphic action terms find readyacceptance in the minds of readers because their minds areaccustomed to using such terms daily in ordinary sensiblecontexts. For example, "the development of limbs" is thought toconvey something intelligible because "the development ofmuscles" or "the development of talent" are perfectly sensible.It is this practice of semantical borrowing which makes popularbooks on evolution so saleable. People see beautifully coloredcharts and read in the captions below all about the saga ofevolution. Even the children can repeat with confidence thestory of "amphibians developing limbs" and "reptiles taking toflight." And all of this is done with an air of clearunderstanding, as if evolution were really being explained.D      Socrates, I am afraid that you have now stepped out ontoa very long limb from which, sadly, there is no return. Don'tyou realize that no scientist in his senses would claim thatthese narrative accounts explain how evolution occurred? Theyserve merely as an heuristic device, that's all.S      Are you saying that these accounts are used only forteaching purposes and are not intended as explanations of theevolutionary process?D      Yes, that's right.S      That leads me to ask two questions. If the narrativesare meant to be taken only as a kind of grand mnemonic, thenought not the writers of these accounts say so unequivocally, tomake clear the metaphorical nature of their language? For itcertainly seems that they intend for the narratives to be takenas explanations. My second question, however, leads me to doubtyour easy interpretation of these narratives. In order for thestory of evolution to represent the truth it must surely be basedupon a knowledge of the mechanisms for evolutionary development--otherwise there is no guarantee that the story corresponds to theactual developmental process which it merely wants to picture.But if that is the case, what are these known mechanisms ofprogressive radical change in the development of organisms?D      Natural selection and genetic variation, of course!S      But you're arguing in a circle again. We have alreadyseen that there is nothing in genetics which can account for theradical changes required by your theory. And now you want tobase the epic, "protozoa to man," on this foundationless support.You know, Darwin, the longer I talk with you the more questions Ihave. Could it be that the theory of evolution is not only aquestion-begging argument, but something even more problematic?Is it even empirically significant? I mean to ask, does the keyphrase "evolutionary change" have an empirical referent?If one tries to discover how evolution works he is told that thecausal factors involved are not observable, not repeatable, notsimple, and not agreeable to all scientists. And if one wants tosee this negative qualification on a grand scale he need onlylook at the history of the subject. When Lamarckism andDarwinism failed, evolution succeeded. When Vitalism andFinalism failed, evolution still succeeded.[1] Even though Neo-Lamarckians and Neo-Darwinians have been at loggerheads aboutcrucial matters, evolution supposedly stands above the confusionand contradictions.[2] What is this change called "evolution"which survives all the vicissitudes of its vague andcontradictory explanations? How does this alleged process, whichcannot be repeated or observed or even specified, and whosesupporting explanations of natural selection and geneticvariation crumble beneath the weight of logical-empiricalanalysis, differ from no process at all?D      Enough! I do not want to hear any more of this nonsense.What you are saying is silly! Be gone!Socrates calmly turned and walked away, and as he cleared a pathamong the guests he was heard muttering to himself, "I wonder ifFreud is here. Perhaps he can help me understand what Darwinsaid."ENDNOTES[1]    "A theory may be described asvitalistic’ if it purportsto give a systematic explanation of evolution in terms of someunique non-natural agency” such as “thelife force',elanvital’, entelechy, etc.” (Goudge, p. 80)“Just as vitalism is not necessarily finalistic, so finalism isnot necessarily vitalistic. For the core of finalism is thecontention that a necessary condition of evolution consists ofits orientation towards an ultimate goal.” The goal may bereached by “mechanically determined processes.” (Goudge, p. 81)[2]    Neo-Lamarkism holds “…that the effects of use anddisuse [of parts of an organism], together with otherenvironmentally induced changes, can become fixed in thehereditary equipment of species…” (Goudge, pp. 85,86)Neo-Darwinism, simply stated, is Darwinism without the Lamarkianassumption that hereditary changes are produced by theenvironment, and with the assumption that heredity changes stemfrom genetic variation in the organism. A complete account wouldbe much more complicated than this and would reveal that Neo-Darwinians differ significantly in their evolutionary viewsaccording to the theory of mechanism for genetic variation andnatural selection which they hold.

[…] ZMan does a wicked-fine parody his own self. […]

This piece is worth a read.https://eatonrapidsjoe.blogspot.com/2020/07/a-classic-post-2006-from-xavier-thoughts.html If they continue to move among us, or if you have to move among them.

The whole BLM thing is like a leaderless mob running around with no accountability. The most interesting thing right now would be to find someone who doesn’t really represent the movement and nominate them as ‘the one running this thing’ and ‘the only one who can save black America’. The movement would collapse within weeks due to infighting and the leadership would have to be protected by violence. It is like an abandoned ship smashing into the pier. Make some moron it’s captain and it will sink.

Yesterday, Stone Mt, Georgia. Joggers demand separation and formation of black ethno-state. Apparently Chicago is no longer sufficient, this guy wants Texas.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B02QTMu0Hf4

Zero suspension of disbelief since the black representative’s lines were written in grammatically correct sentences. How does she not know what “presumably” means, but uses the word “ostensibly” herself?I’m just nitpicking, though. It was a good read and creatively presented.

Well, since this crap is never getting fixed, how are we going to find a way around it? I have no freaking idea.Then again, I’m 67 years old and I won’t be around that much loger. But for young people, the day will come when they will have to start thinking outside the box. How will they thwart the system, at least for themselves. Our people will have to get cunning, ruthless and determined. otherwise forget it, we’re done.

RIP Charlie Daniels

I am told by a source I trust that careful analysis of the images reveal that many of the “weapons” carried by the Bleck Panther Militia in Georgia are Airsoft toy guns.

Will they be allowed to come in and take over my house and live there? Beware, it’s already happened, certain zip codes in Florida iirc were occupied in just such a way in the aftermath of the housing bubble when a lot of properties became vacant. The vibrancy was eventually evicted but it took some effort against their bullshit claims.What happens when they start toclaimreparations on their own in just such a way? Ofay, don’t leave your house unattended for even two minutes if you’re smart. It might be just like that Simpsons episode where the carnies moved in. Wouldn’t be laughing then.

Great essay! If I’ve learnt nothing else from Z’s writings, it is this: that the Radical cannot be appeased. No matter how many inches you give, he will continue demanding miles. A corollary: Why bother to even negotiate with such an unreasonable foe? You are just wasting your time and any resources you would yield. The claim for “Slavery Reparations” is as unpayable as the Bible’s bloodguilt on the Jews for crucifying Jesus (Matt. 27:25): “His blood be on us and on our children.” This verse has been used for centuries for Christians to persecute Jews.*I’ll lay good money you never were taughtthatin your church, were you? But my point is this: wouldn’t demanding today’s Jew pay for something a few ancestors maybe did two millennia ago be just as illogical as a Black demanding that today’s White pay for something some Whites did a century or four ago?Some embellishments: First agree with a Black activist that descendants are due reparations for Slavery, Jim Crow, etc. But then ask: Were former slave owners compensated for the sudden loss of property Of course they weren’t. But aren’t they entitled to it? Yes, slavery was evil and all that, but that’s beside the point. Until 1860, it waslegal. That is even in the bill of rights…taking without compensation. Just because you don’t approve of the type of property a person has, doesn’t make you any less of a thief if you steal it from him.Which is greater, the compensation due the estates (and thus heirs) of Slave-holders or claims of the suddenly (in the eyes of the law) property turned into free man beings? Why not just call it a wash?Even if we agreed in principle to reparations, significant impediments main. Not the least is the probable illegality of it. The Constitution prohibits “after the fact” laws.*I don’t know if that would apply, but wouldn’t effectively penalizing the present generation for the sins of distant ancestors apply? And, even if that weren’t an obstacle, consider the difficulties of proving who is a proper descendant of a freed slave. Or do we just accept the claim of any dark-skinned person to a large sum of money? That runs afoul of the concept of equal protection under the laws, doesn’t it? And the ultimate problem: what would Blacks do with the money if they got it? They would blow it foolishly, almost guaranteed. Sudden riches are the ruin of many, perhaps the majority, of people who receive it. But Blacks have shown an unequalled ability to bring quicker ruin upon themselves than any other group. There’s no reason to expect that they would do any differently if they got, say a million dollar check.Even if it were paid out like a settlement over the lifetime of a claimant, they would still waste it. And there’s another argument: why are only Blacks alive today? Aren’t their children equally entitled to a pay-out?So it seems that, even if a monetary amount and pay-out were agreed upon, there would still be dissatisfaction, and clamor for more, more, more free stuff!Unrelated bits of news on the racism front:Are Woke protesters/barbarians overly zealous in choosing targets? Yes and no. For instance, they are toppling monuments oo abolitionists. Didn’t they fight to end slavery? Indeed they did. But a lot of them also wanted to send the freed Negroes back to Africa. Hence, Liberia. I wish that every Black that was arrested and convicted of relatively minor crimes could have, as an alternative punishment, a mandatory sightseeing trip to the country of his ancestors, to see how they really live over there. The cost would probably be comparable to what a year or two in jail costs, and might do wonders to open his eyes to how good American Blacks have it, compared to the mother land.A recent example of how capitalism continues to exploit blacks. Despite its liberal bias, I use Firefox and the included Pocket propaganda service 🙂Here’s a recent piece:https://www.propublica.org/article/how-dollar-stores-became-magnets-for-crime-and-killing?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GBNow, you don’t have to read the article. But the gist of it is: Dollar General (type) stores prey upon poor urban Blacks. They don’t pay well. They attract crime, from the relatively innocuous (shoplifting) to the violent armed robbery and sometimes murder. All this you understand, is the store’s fault. They should hire armed guards! I’ll give the Woke author credit for at least in passing mentioning that grocery stores, indeed all stores, have long gone from these neighborhoods. The article doesn’t seem to mention WHY the stores are long gone, or that teenage boys deal drugs and sometimes shoot each other, or load up the old 9mm and find the nearest cash register when they need some folding green. You see, it’s all the evil capitalist corporation’s fault for locating the stores where there’s poverty. Am I missing something, or is the store being blamed for all the miseries of the area it tries to do business in?On an anecdotal note, I frequently shot at a Dollar General nearby. I live in a not-wealthy area, but one that has relatively few Blacks. Violent crime does happen but at a fraction of the urban shitholes. The Circle-K a mile closer to the highway was robbed by two Blacks at 02:00 AM a few months back, but they were probably from out of town.*I believe these are both related issues. The idea that descendants were responsiblie for the debts of ancestors is ancient, as shown in the Matthew quote. But basically the idea went out of fashion with Feudalism. Unfortunately, the issue is not so easily dismissed in the case of genetics…

Since you can’t down vote me, here’s some off topic bragging: Derb opened his Friday podcast with a recording of mine.