No, reddy, I asked you how you explain the fact that New Zealand has had the exact opposite of apartheid regarding Maori and Pakeha throughout its history. Given your assumptions, how do you explain this fact? Kinda stuffs you up, eh?

As to evolution, I asked you another simple question, one not requiring anything more than a one or a few sentences, which I shall repeat again:

WHAT PURPOSE OR FUNCTION DID PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SEXUAL ORGANS SERVE?

As to dealing with religious people, well, everybody's religious -- yep, even you. It's never a question of whether one's religious or not but rather of how self-consciously religious one is. Evolution is a religion -- albeit a whacky one -- just like any other. Everyone has a basic framework of assumptions concerning metaphysics, epistemology and ethics that he holds on faith. Everyone. Everybody's religious.

So, I don't know what it is with you Alabamans and answering questions ... but here's to hopin'.

I was aware of Germany, Anomie. But I think you can appreciate that with only 350 words, we all have to make some generalisations which are essentially correct, but may have exceptions.

In the past fifty years, European countries have been swamped by a tidal wave of immigrants, some of whom actively hate the people of the country to whom they aspire to be citizens. That this has been achieved with so little bloodshed so far, is a credit to the ideals of tolerance which has been conditioned into the minds of European people. And, as I said to Katsuhiro, this outcome was almost certainly a product of European colonialism, where colonial powers in particular eventually came to the realisation that native people’s were not to be despised, and that some of their cultural values had much to recommend them.

But Germany came very late to the colonial era because it was not even a recognisable single entity before 1866. As a state which was composed of dozens of tiny Teutonic principalities, it went a bit overboard in defining what it was to be “German”, and it had little tolerance for any other culture except it’s own.

It is a bit difficult trying to explain the very extreme anti Semitism of the Germans towards the Jews in 350 words. But very briefly, when things are good, everybody might get on OK. But when things are bad, people do not think of other people outside of their own group as anything but rivals for scarce resources. And things in Germany got very bad.

The Jews made the mistake of maintaining a separate cultural identity, with it’s own dietary requirements, language, alphabet, and in some cases even dress. Because the Jews greatly value education, they are usually very successful people with their own financial networks. They were therefore seen to be not suffering anywhere near as much as the German people and as such were resented as non Germans. They were therefore regarded as a hostile state within a state, who’s only concern was with the welfare of their own people.

Don't you think that is just a tad bit off topic Brazuca? And since you clearly don't understand how evolution works, is there much sense in trying to use it as an argument against the existence of races as biologically significant & distinct groups, especially when science already shows this?

"WHAT PURPOSE OR FUNCTION DID PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SEXUAL ORGANS SERVE?"
As with everything else, to facilitate reproduction; but unlike other features it would have done so in a direct manner.

Davo wrote about me,"I reckon he is a university dux with his hair neatly parted on the side"
LOL! You crack me up. You’d be surprised how similar we would be if we met.
Hello Redneck! I love your posts. You'd make an interesting case study.

Davo, it's called mature entry. I left school at 15, and ended up realising I'd made a mistake. Higher education doesn't hurt (much). Give it a go. You'd be exposed to a wider range of ideas than autodidacts get - and don't take this as slagging off autodidacts - I learned more facts on my own than I ever did getting the three degrees. It's just that studying undirected, you go for the things you find sympathetic. Balance is actually quite good.

Hullo, Rainier. Just like Brazuka, you think I have the capacity to respond to everyone. I would remind you that I am fielding a number of balls here and I can not catch them all. I prefer to respond to those people who appear to have a degree of objectivity on this subject, because I think I can reach them. Those who express passionate views, to the extent of even suggesting that I am a “coward” if I do not agree to meet them face to face, I am very unlikely to respond to.

I do not know what question you are demanding that I answer. If you are asking whether I will meet you face to face, the answer is “no.” I have no wish to meet people who are very passionate in their opinions and who may not have much emotional control over themselves. I can answer whether I have read “Mein Kamph”, the answer is “No.”

It appears as if Katsuhiro-san has left the arena, and I can not be bothered responding to Brazuka anymore because I wish to discuss this topic, not theology. The argument for Evolution was won convincingly by the scientific community more than one hundred years ago, and fencing with the Flat Earth Society is a pointless exercise. So, I have a couple of balls less to field, and this gives you an opening.

But could you direct your arguments and questions to me, not the audience? And please, do not put forward the opinion that your view on this subject is obviously right, and unless I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your view wrong, then I am obviously wrong. I may only be a humble redneck but I am smart enough not to fall for that little todge