The Pseudoscience of J. Philippe Rushton

Try graphing data on IQ vs. racial brain volume and get back to us, then.

The trend-line is almost perfectly consistent with the expected results that IQ is a function of brain volume.

I also note your absurd comparison between homo sapiens and neanderthals, greater genetic distance, while rejecting racial comparisons and brain volume could be made.

In other words, such an example can't tell you anything.

 

Is calling someone a Jew supposed to be some kind of a counter argument? We know that you're a racist and an anti-semite. You don't have to constantly remind us. But do keep at it as you only discredit yourself with such antics.

You still haven't refuted the argument. Dismissing it based on greater genetic distance is absurd. Neanderthal and modern humans were similar enough to interbreed. It's not like we're talking about comparing humans to dolphins.

 

No, I demonstrated he's a liar, and he is a Communist Jew. Then when this lying Communist Jew asserts something against 100 surgeons without backing it up, it has all the authority of a fart joke.

- - - Updated - - -

Did they "control the variables" when measuring Neanderthal cranial capacity? Did they "control the variables" when measuring dolphin cranial capacity?

 

When did you establish that he was a liar or a communist or a Jew? Which post?

Your facetious remark doesn't discredit the research I quoted. Bigger brains do not equal greater intelligence and the archeological record supports this contention as do modern world examples of smaller brained people having equally high of intelligence as larger brained people.

 

So your argument against established scientific consensus using IQ tests and MRI are comparisons between two separate sub-species using extremely subjective criteria and inability to correct for any variables about which you were previously rattling?

Btw, how would smaller brained people having higher IQ than some larger brained people be used as evidence that, on average, larger brained people have higher IQ than smaller brained people?

 

I see you're not very logical.

You've previously rejected inter-racial brain volume and IQ comparisons because brain volume and IQ data is supposedly intra-racially based.

Now you're comparing homo sapien and neanderthal brain volume and intelligence while failing to realize neanderthal and homo sapien are more genetically distant than Europeans and West-African.

In other words, if you reject inter-racial IQ differences based off brain volume, then you cannot make inter-sub-species IQ differences based off brain volume.

How difficult is this to understand?

 

How difficult is it for you to understand that the Neanderthal example completely undercuts your argument?

 

Note here's EJ making the "stupid Neanderthal" point over a year ago. Note how, as always, he "forgets" here to copy paste in the contrary material presented to him and only copy pastes in one side of the debate, the side his side come up with before being pwned.

http://www.mootsf.com/index.php?/to...ables-in-race-evolution-and-behavior/?p=53458

 

And where did I get "pwned" in that thread?

 

You claimed that Neanderthals were intellectually inferior referencing Graves and I referenced scholars writing in Nature in 2010 expressing otherwise, and also that Neanderthals larger brains were so due to having to control a larger body and for vision. Why did you leave that out? Why not copy paste in all sides of the issue? Are you biased?

 

Also isn't it odd that South Chinese have larger crania and higher IQs than North South Asian Indians despite being on the same latitude?

 

There's some debate about the intelligence of Neanderthal but it's pretty clear that modern humans replaced them. There has to be reasoning for that and lower intelligence is the most widely accepted explanation. You can't be serious about me pasting your arguments along with mine. You're being ridiculous.

 

No it isn't.

In fact you are wrong and I would present all sides of the issue. That's because the truth is important to me. You are admitting you cherry pick sources which match your POV and ignore refutations and counter-points? That's just biased lying.

 

I'm not cherry-picking sources you're just trying to drag in arguments from old debates on other message boards to get acknowledgement for your view points. Of course we've gone over a lot of this stuff already so you're going to find me quoting stuff I've already quoted elsewhere but that doesn't mean that I'm selectively citing anything.

 

So over a year ago you copy paste Graves (who is published in post-modern sociology journals) making a claim. I copy paste in several scholars countering that claim from Nature. You copy paste Graves again and ignore Nature. Why? Are you looking to present the issue honestly to readers or to misinform them because of some political bias?

 

Unless you're arguing Neanderthals are as or less genetically distant from homo sapiens as Whites and Blacks from each other, how is your comparison undercutting my argument?

This is basic logic you're failing here.

 

Surely not. I couldn't imagine your example being true, or Northern Europeans having smaller crania than East Asians despite living in colder weather at a higher latitude.

Nothing about racial differences and brain volume, no sirree bob; it's all about latitude, not race.

 

Before or after you cherry-picked one study supposedly finding, after adjusting for height (since when were African-Americans shorter than White-Americans???), Blacks had larger crania/brain volume than Whites, out of literally dozens cumulatively measuring 10's of thousands of skulls/heads and brains unanimously contradicting Tobias' adjustment?

 

The genetic distance between these populations is irrelevant. Both modern human and archaic human populations descend from early hominids so they share a common evolutionary history and were so genetically similar they could interbreed. If Rushton's evolutionary theory of harsh winter environments creating a selection pressure for greater intelligence were correct then Neanderthal having much larger skulls than modern humans would be much more intelligent.

Incidentally we don't even have to look at the Neanderthal as an example. The Ona people of Tierra del Fuego were adapted to a cold climate and had larger heads than most human populations yet they lived under impoverished conditions.

Stop exaggerating. We're talking about less than 50 studies here. Tens of thousands of skulls/heads and brains have not been measured by these studies. I don't know the exact count but based on what I've read it isn't that high.

 

Why are you repeating yourself? You have no evidence Neanderthals weren't intelligent.

 

They probably weren't as intelligent as modern humans and they certainly weren't geniuses going by modern human standards.

Their material culture provides no evidence of genius.

 

It's great you have come to terms with that. What about Neanderthals?

 

I'm talking about Neanderthals. By the way why haven't you replied to this thread?

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/374443-geographical-origins-modern-humans.html

 

I'll give points...to who won the war. Actually an argument could be made that the Germans would have done much better....if they had NOT been racists like mikemike.

All that manpower and time and energy they wasted enacting the Holocaust could have been used on the Western or Eastern fronts instead.

It was their very hatred that was the greatest weapon against them.

But regardless, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers pushed them out of power in Europe....and now they must cower and hide in the shadows, HIDING their real beliefs with code-words.....or if they come clean, they are a few rednecks in Wyoming talking "Aryan Revolution" while cooking up meth.

Either way....a controllable but small nuisance.

 

Maybe if they had been even worse racists like the Jews who started it but just lied and pretended to be "egalitarians".