Gunner Q is no monkey

Gunner QFirst the good news:

Our friend Gunner Q claims he is not the spawn of monkeys.

And now even better news:

He wrote a marvelous post about it.

Gunner Q’s post was a great one!

However, I was not as impressed by the comments there.

Feel free to leave better ones here.

18 thoughts on “Gunner Q is no monkey

  1. Derek’s comment saying this:

    “more or less microevolution. I’ve never claimed that evolution can produce new body types (roughly, new species that cross Family boundaries), that is, macroevolution.”

    Is true. Immediately I understood he was mostly talking about microevolution… not the macroevolution Darwin made up. It doesn’t look like the others are familiar with the difference.

    Like

  2. Ok… read Derek’s original piece and it’s a lot more interesting than what it was made out to be.

    Derek says this:
    “”Intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility. Those with low intelligence are breeding more than those with high intelligence. However, the Breeder’s Equation does not account for the magnitude of measured change because the most genetically fit reproduce not only less often, but also later in life (reflecting career-first feminism) Those with low g have a shorter gap between generations, effectively lapping those with high g—intensifying the dysgenic effect.”

    Ok… this is one of the most disheartening trends to me personally, that intelligent people just aren’t having a lot of babies (for sensible reasons unfortunately), while the baby mamas keep popping them out with criminals, etc. It’d be interesting to see when about that trend started increasing, but my guess is it has a lot to do with welfare.

    I think it’s Stefan Molyneux who used to talk on this fairly frequently. He encourages good, moral, and intelligent-enough couples to have as many kids as they can. Those types of couples have a default setting of 2 kids, though, mostly because of how hard it is financially. It takes a huge effort to have more and be able to provide the right kind of environment for them (homeschooling parent preferably, with how awful our schools are now… which means the husband would have to make enough to support all on his own – which is getting harder and harder with each generation). It’s just not set-up to be an easy or good environment for large, Christian families anymore, and intelligent people realize this and often don’t want to make the sacrifices to make it happen anyway. Even Dalrock and his wife only had 2 kids. It takes a huge effort to go against the societal trend, even if you know it’s right.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Should have added, this means the trend of having an increase in our population of people with lower IQs (and no morals, or lack of religion socially speaking) is due to what would be called microevolutionary changes. The tiny changes in a population’s genetic DNA over time that add up to make major changes in generational patterns like IQ or mutations.

    Like

  4. Since I have been super busy, I haven’t been following Derek’s series over at Boxer’s Blog, and I’m not sure entirely what Derek was alleging, but I thought Gunner Q really had a good piece regarding the church in general falling for the God-denying lies of macroevolution, and the “hows” and “whys” of that foolishness. I think what some call microevolution I might just call “adaptation” within the limits of the genetic range. Gunner is right to call evolution religion and not science. It takes an awful lot of blind faith. And as far as science goes, Evolution is a barren theory. It has led us to the invention or discovery of just about nothing, hinting at the fact that there is no truth exposed by it. New truth usually leads to a flurry of new invention and follow-on discoveries.

    Like

  5. …one of the most disheartening trends to me personally, that intelligent people just aren’t having a lot of babies…
    Stephanie, don’t worry too much about all that. God is in control, and I suspect He won’t put up with our wickedness too much longer. Some of the most evil people in history wanted to “fix” those sorts of things, and Derek himself said “It’s simply a falsehood that acknowledging nature/genetics necessitates godless eugenics.”
    My father was a profound genius, he had four kids, and I was the smartest one, but still not half as smart as he. And unfortunately my kids are only just above average. Apparently smart men aren’t choosing to marry those insufferably smart women. A woman’s intelligence isn’t a source of attraction, if she uses it to belittle others, no matter how right she is. Oh well, if the welfare mamas and thugs are popping out most of the kids, as you seem to be concerned, perhaps my slightly above average kids will eventually seem like comparative geniuses. LOL

    If there is any evidence of evolution, it is that it is happening in reverse. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  6. 1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

    Considering all I had going for me, it is a mercy of God that he humbled me and called me.

    Jeremiah 9:23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: 24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

    The upcoming generation of fools may just be the only ones wise enough to simply believe God’s word as it is written. For e.g. If God says women shouldn’t pray without their heads covered, those fools will just cover women’s heads, not being wise enough to twist God’s scriptures with loads of scholarly sounding excuses, like we have. /S
    Perhaps I will just concern myself with working out my faith and leave the evolution of their master-races to others.

    Now, I’m not in any way talking about anybody I know, but, when I see folks who are into White supremacy, and are so proud to be a part of such a smart and elite race, well, it is always the dumbest and least elite of our race that are proudest just to be a part of the race. And oddly enough they most think their genetics need to be preserved. While I’d far far rather see my line die out with my children than that any of mine should ever go down to the pit.

    Like

  7. It’s disheartening because these babies are often abused, etc. and go on to become really messed up. Not that God can’t redeem people, but it just changes a societies direction when so many are born into fatherless homes, etc… it’s the tragedy that we’re seeing today in how it affects children who then grow up and become adults.

    Like

  8. “Oh well, if the welfare mamas and thugs are popping out most of the kids, as you seem to be concerned, perhaps my slightly above average kids will eventually seem like comparative geniuses. LOL”

    ^Well the Bible says, “The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.” Psalm 19:7

    As long as they fear the Lord, and actually obey Him, they should be fine.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. “…for sensible reasons unfortunately…”

    I don’t agree. The highly intelligent are uniquely qualified to raise larger families, but they do exactly the opposite. What is often really meant by “sensible reasons” is that children are viewed as inconvenient and a hindrance to preferred lifestyle choices. It’s just another form of selfish, career-first feminism. If the poor can manage it, how much more can everyone else?

    It is not sensible to view children as getting in the way of jobs, TVs, cars, dinners in restaurants, new clothes, social status, romance, etc. We deferred having kids for 7 years after getting married and I have no illusions as to the reason why. They were all ‘sensible’ reasons, and nearly all of them selfish. We could have made it work earlier if we had wanted to.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. “I don’t agree. The highly intelligent are uniquely qualified to raise larger families, but they do exactly the opposite. What is often really meant by “sensible reasons” is that children are viewed as inconvenient and a hindrance to preferred lifestyle choices. It’s just another form of selfish, career-first feminism. If the poor can manage it, how much more can everyone else?”

    I just finished writing an email venting about this. I have to be careful, because I find myself thinking they really are incredibly selfish and limiting their fertility out of pure selfishness and the desire to avoid sacrifice, at all costs. But at the same time, I really can see some valid reasons for why one would want to only focus their money, time and energy on 1 or 2 children. It’s so complicated.

    Like

  11. Welcome Derek Ramsey,
    It is an honor to have you here, my Anabaptist brother. Well, actually I’m only half Mennonite by blood, and I am not really onboard with all of Pacifism, I think there is a time to fight, but I’m glad you chose to visit, especially since Gunner Q’s post was started in response to some posting of yours. And perhaps much of what Gunner Q was arguing against is not actually your position. However he made a great post, even if you got used as a strawman for Christians believing anywhere from some to all of Charles Darwin’s ideas, including the many now discredited ones. Feel free to clarify and contend, or discuss other topics as well. I think I agree with you mostly with regard to people censoring their blogs, and so far I haven’t felt the need to censor anybody that the WordPress spam-filter didn’t first catch. While I do think I would censor certain things like excessive unnecessary obscenities, porn, credible threats, and really over-the-top trolling, and Etc. I see you as a highly intelligent man who does his own thinking and arrives at his own unique conclusions. So I appreciate your unique perspective as a stimulus to stretch and exercise my own thinking. Again I’d like to welcome you and say that it is an honor to have you here.

    Like

  12. @Sharkly

    Like you I am also ~50% Anabaptist by lineage, excluding the fact that my imported father became an Anabaptist minister himself, but I’m 100% ethnic Anabaptist. I’m descended from a number of the men mentioned here and my wife is descended (again, ~50%) from a different branch of Mennonites.

    As for Darwin, there is no question that some form of microevolution is true. The line between microevolution and macroevolution is not well defined (assuming there is one). I’m generally skeptical of most macroevolutionary claims, because the evidence is highly lacking and there is a lot of counter-evidence.

    I have written and ‘debated’ on the subject of DNA as proof of God. It is my conjecture (shared with John Lennox) that there were two special acts of creation: life itself and man. That said, unlike many of my Christian brothers, I don’t have any problem in principle with God using evolution in both micro and macro ways. This doesn’t conflict with the Bible in any way. So ultimately I’ll follow the evidence where it leads.

    In summary, microevolution is a useful concept, macroevolution is unproven, the origin of life is a complete scientific unknown, and science is no threat to God—indeed it proves God—no matter what it discovers.

    I don’t agree with Gunner Q and others that acknowledging evolution as possibly true is wrong. I maintain that this is a genetic fallacy.

    “I see you as a highly intelligent man who does his own thinking and arrives at his own unique conclusions.”

    As part of my research, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is a mark of our ancestry. We Anabaptists have had to be intelligent and independent, because so many of our ancestors had to choose between life and death to stand up for their beliefs.

    Like

  13. “It’d be interesting to see when about that trend started increasing, but my guess is it has a lot to do with welfare.”

    Adam Perkins (“The Welfare Trait”, 2015) studied this. Of the possible combinations of numbers of parents, it was only the 2-parent group on welfare that is correlated with above-average fertility. So it’s not single mothers (or fathers) on welfare, it’s married couples on welfare. Accordingly, it is likely not strongly associated with crime. WARNING: This may not properly account for differences between native and immigrant populations.

    Like

  14. Derek Ramsey said: I don’t agree with Gunner Q and others that acknowledging evolution as possibly true is wrong. I maintain that this is a genetic fallacy.

    I think the danger is that you use the word “Evolution” when what you actually believe in is just a few processes of what you then call “microevolution” and you also contend that you fully believe that all science validates God. The danger is that not everybody is as smart as you are, and not everybody understands exactly what processes of “microevolution” you believe to be in operation and how their operation may be compatible with God’s word. Many less scientifically minded people may just pick up that “you believe in Evolution” and then assume that your intelligent and well cogitated opinion is that the Bible has “deceived” us regarding God’s having spoken creation into existence. And that God formed Adam in his image fully before ever forming Eve from the flesh and bone of Adam.
    I may acknowledge some of the same “micro” processes, but I’d do my darnedest not to call them “Evolution” so as not to confuse folks who associate that term with “Molecules to Man” macroevolution. My Mennonite father often said that “some of our ancestors may have swung by their necks, but never by their tails.” I would avoid using the term “evolution” for your creation beliefs, and use another term like epigenetic-adaptability or whatever specifically applies to the process you are addressing. “Evolution” also carries the connotation that the process happens without any divine guidance or ordinance. Thus the necessity of the term “theistic evolution” for when God is included as a factor. That’s just something you might consider in order not to confuse us more simple minded folks who aren’t going to be fully cognizant of the specifics of all your beliefs.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Four times the bible speaks of: “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.”
    That exact phrase is repeatedly given in: Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9.
    In light of what “science” is discovering with relation to epigenetics and even microchimerism, does anybody have any thoughts?
    My wife’s family is highly prone to type 2 (adult onset) diabetes. Might this be due to epigenetic adaptations as a result of gluttony or a lack of fasting by their forefathers? The National Institute of Health has found that fasting may reverse type 2 diabetes. That’s just something to ponder.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

    Like

  16. @Sharkly

    I appreciate your feedback (and that of Gunner Q as well). It is good advice and I would be a fool to ignore it. At minimum, I will keep it in consideration as I write.

    “In light of what “science” is discovering with relation to epigenetics and even microchimerism, does anybody have any thoughts?”

    Whenever I ponder this question, I always seem to come to the same conclusion. Whether it be genetic or epigenetic, I see no reason why God couldn’t use that in this way. In the same way, God can use fires and floods as punishments and he can push a hurricane away from hitting the mainland because a group of Christians prayed while atheists mocked them. But it is not for me to say what God’s plan is and who is being punished or rewarded. I only roll with it.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Derek Ramsey,
    That is interesting information(to another Mennonite) about your ancestors. Mine came over later after being chased around Europe for a while longer. As best as I can tell some of them originated from in the Alsace near the Strasbourg Entzheim International Airport.


    My Mennonite ancestors created their own land in the Dutch low country, taking it from the ocean, when they were not allowed to buy land in Holland by the native Dutch. Then they moved to the Vistula delta in East Prussia before coming to settle on the prairie here in the USA.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s