okay, this has at least to be responded to by the supporters of twin-studies results https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/05/28/twin-studies-adoption-studies-and-fallacious-reasoning/ … (cc. @Outsideness)
-
-
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @Outsideness
We've spent more than enough effort responding to these kind of arbitrary & excessive hurdles. If youre not yet sold on the consilience in this field, just relax & wait for the GWAS validate everything.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @AngloRemnant @Outsideness
could you point to those responses? I sense his argument isn't as strong as it seems, but don't really know how or where.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @AngloRemnant
That site (and linked twitter account) is not serious. It specializes entirely in blowing smoke.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
How am I not serious?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In exactly the same way intelligent design is not serious. Sophistry in the service of smoke (in accordance with an agenda you no doubt understand better than I do).
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
What "agenda" do I push? Enlighten me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Race__Realist @Outsideness and
Address the arguments and leave your appeals to motivation (which are false) at the door.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you want to be taken seriously, pick a fight with someone honest and competent like
@JayMan471 and we'll all watch.2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @cyborg_nomade and
Hahaha. Jayman? Honestly and competent? Please. What are your thoughts, jayman?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Trying to convince him you're worth arguing with would help persuade people you're not just a creationist crank.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.