You live in the real world with "unmassaged" facts? Tell us again what books you have read on the subject? What books have you read on IQ testing or standardized tests? What books have you read on the relationship between genes and intelligence? What books have you read on cultural anthropology to better understand human societies? What books have you read on human evolution? What books have you read on evolutionary biology? Which scholars have you talked to on this subject? What classes have you taken on this subject? None, right? But you still want me to take you seriously as a debater after you ducked a challenge to debate on a science message board, fled from a debate we were having on this forum and displayed a profound ignorance of basic evolutionary concepts. The article you just provided says that Black test scores are improving but the data still shows that there is a gap between Black and White test scores on average in certain school districts. The point of the article is to address a problem with the school system but you are trying to twist that to make racist arguments about the innate intelligence of Blacks. Your source doesn't support your argument and you haven't presented anything in a debate with me that has challenged my position on the subject of race and intelligence.
IOW, you CANNOT debate the actual facts/numbers which refute your PC Spam/apologetics. My numbers not only show a stunning gap, but an Increasing one. The proficiency level differentials are STUNNING! They could hardly be worse, and hardly have closed the 'half' the 'gap' over the last 4 decades. Only app 20% of DC Blacks... but 80% of Whites, show Math and English Proficiency.. now. Where could they have 'closed' from? No wonder you did Not want to quote them/me/Ouch, as they blast thousands of pages of PC apologetics you've Spammed up. Mindblowing numbers, which make Monkeys out of most of the crapola you've dumped up for a decade+. You only and AGAIN, Fallaciously challenge me for my reading list/"books", BECAUSE/transparently you can't respond... and can't even source-bash in this case, or in others in this thread. My New studies/numbers regularly contradict/refute your apolgetics book claims, which IAC, have always been preposterous. The usual inadequate/nonresponsive clownery, which I bust with every new Academic and genetic study I post... from the OP down through the rest of this/other threads. EDIT: Another Ejay WHIFF below, as Genetic cause and effect demonstrated in my OP, for just one of many. 80/20 proficency is way beyond socio-economic in any case, and miraculously doesn't affect sports performance! (which is 80/20 the other way). It's genetic. +
There's nothing to debate because you can't even interpret your sources properly. That article doesn't say anything about the cause of the differences in scores being genetic. They are simply addressing the problem of test score gaps which they want to reduce because they want all children to have a proper education. But in your sick and twisted mind this somehow supports your theory of genetically determined racial differences in intelligence. This isn't even the same data Nisbett was relying on for his claims about ability tests showing a reduction in the IQ gap. This is what happens when you surf the internet looking to prove a discredited theory instead of doing proper research. You delude yourself in to thinking you know what you're talking about but end up looking incredibly foolish to people who know better. I have already responded to your OP and explained to you multiple times that the high heritability of intelligence has no relevance to the cause of group differences in IQ. You just don't get it. You don't want to understand this research. All you care about is making racist arguments and you're trying to use genetics to prove it. The source you quoted is saying that we need to improve the quality of our education because there is a problem with our school system especially in urban areas. You are trying to twist that to say that there is a problem with the children themselves because they have an inferior evolutionary lineage that makes them genetically defective in intelligence. No one takes this garbage seriously except for racists who want to believe this nonsense. If you were serious you would have read some actual books on genetics, biology, anthropology, psychology etc. as I have and taken this debate to science message boards. The only time I am aware of you doing this is when you came to my thread, got the thread shut down because of flame wars with other posters, started boasting about arguments you made which you say I didn't refute (because I never read them as I'd already left the thread) and when I responded to them you ignored my arguments and ducked a challenge to debate on a better science message board. I've never really paid any attention to you until recently and when I do you flee from the thread when the debate gets too tough for you. You don't have any scientific basis for your genetic arguments and your source does not support your conclusion which means you are distorting the information you are reading to support your racist ideological agenda.
1. You're lying. You have always paid great attention/obsessed over me and any other who posts race difference. It's your life's work: mb race posting. And I'm your worst nightmare. A knowledgable, non-White-Supremacist, Fact and Science poster. Arguing consistently for Evolution (oft against creationists) in this and other threads. Evolution which didn't stop 200K years ago. Ergo, unlike the others you can't just dismiss. 2. Ejay won't call you a Racist if you say blacks are better athletes. He's a pick-and-choose, self-interested accuser, not an equal opportunity one. 3. I Never "flee" from a thread, but I do leave you/others flailing/looking weak. Sometimes having to make two in a row in frustration. Proof of the pudding. I do that everywhere. As an adult, I'm not willing to last-word endlessly.. your practice. So that in this string and others, I leave you Flailing with Dishonest deflections like my "Reading list, letters, Videos"! Or, ie, demanding we debate on another forum that You feel is more PC/where race difference is frowned on, or can't even be discussed. IOW, you need help. You can't do one-on-one. You want to "flee". You're also frustrated when confronted by anything that you can't spam up Lying 'House Scientist' Graves with. ie, just above, and as Usual, you had NO response to real facts/numbers, so Disingenuously and goofily demanded my Books/reading list AGAIN! You're a One trick pony/Drone: Graves (lol) "refutes" Rushton, otherwise you are nonconversant. So it's bye for now. Not to be confused with "fleeing", as it was you who needed DEFLECTION for the second through-FIFTH time, demanding my Reading list, etc, instead of being able to tackle the issue/numbers at hand. However, whenever relevant numbers and studies come up, I will continue posting them here. Read em and weep. +
1) I have never given you much attention. You are the one obsessed with me. You have followed me on to threads on other message boards and made entire threads to argue with me (including this one). You are obviously a narcissist and suffering from delusions of grandeur if you think you are my worst nightmare as a debater. You're not a good debater. You write in a bizarre and annoying style that other posters have called you out on, rant mindlessly, hurl childish insults and display ignorance of the most basic concepts relevant to the subject being discussed all while citing sources that don't even support your position. You should be grateful that I give you any attention at all given your inability to have a civil and rational conversation. 2) I have corrected your claim that Blacks are better athletes several times. You racists like to use that as a basis for making claims that are clearly racist and not supported by science. 3) Yes, you do flee from debate. You're just lying about it. You are the one who quoted me to continue this debate and now after a few exchanges you are done again? That's because you're running away! You can call it whatever you want. I don't need the last word in debate and I don't care who has the last word. If you try to debate me I will debate you and I won't be the one fleeing after a brief exchange. I only leave the debate when there is nothing left to discuss and I have better things to do and that usually comes after several pages of heated debate not 4 or 5 posts. You are a hit-and-run debater. Why don't you take a break from posting for awhile and read some actual books on the subject? Also stop complaining about me asking you for a reading list. Educate yourself. I've provided posters with my reading list of books I've read, owned and plan to read. If you are serious about debating a scientific topic or any other intellectual topic and you claim to have a good understanding of what you are talking about then it's perfectly fair and productive to compare sources and share reading material. That reading material can not only help people interested find good information it shows people the quality of the sources you're getting your information from. You're ashamed to share this info because you haven't read anything noteworthy! Nothing! Your sources are strictly confined to internet websites and you foolishly misinterpret and distort the information in the links you quote because you don't understand the research.
The data shows that while Blacks test scores went up White test scores went up higher showing that improvement in education isn't improving test scores between groups at the same rate. How does the actual source interpret the data? https://afro.com/despite-rising-test-scores-black-students-still-face-achievement-gap/ The mayor noted that there were score increases in every ward and credited the professional development programs and changes in the curriculum that have occurred over the past few years. English Language Arts (ELA) and math scores overall increased four and two percent, respectively. Black students increased their ELA scores by 2.7 percent and math at 1.2 percent. Despite the gains, African Americans still lag behind Whites, who had increases of 7.7 percent in ELA and 4.5 percent in math. In summary, 22 percent of Blacks showed proficiency in ELA compared with 82 percent of Whites while in math, African Americans 18.6 percent showed proficiency while Whites posted 75.7 percent. D.C. Schools Chancellor Antwan Wilson, who attended the Watkins event with Bowser, said “We must do more to increase the scores of Black students.” Bowser agreed with Wilson, saying that “we are now focused on closing gaps.” So the actual source is saying that better schooling is increasing test scores but they want to see Black test scores increase to the point where they reduce gaps which obviously means that the schools aren't doing a good enough job. To twist that in to saying that the Black students are really just stupid and can't compete with Whites due to differences in innate intelligence is a deliberate misinterpretation of the actual research, which has nothing to do with racial differences in IQ, in order to promote racism. The actual article is saying that improving schools improve grades we just need a better school curriculum for disenfranchised groups like Blacks. Fixing our education system has been a major concern for years. This is what happens when you get all of your information from links on the internet instead of doing real research on the topic. Your and Taxonomy26's theory is based on discredited researchers trying to rationalize a racist ideology but at the very least you could cite sources that actually support your position if you're going to defend a claim. Taxonomy26 has shown over and over again that he doesn't know how to do that and rejects reasonable advice on improving his debate skills when it is offered.
LOL. My link said EXACTLY what I said it did, and I quoted Every bit you did! WTF! How Dishonest. You just LIED about, and minimized what was in it. You and Thanos are really doing great job ruining other races' opinions, not raising them. The Gap INCREASED, and did so pretty dramatically in favor of whites... even at this point in history, with Black Mayors and Educators in DC for Decades. Because some Black Educator is "wanting schools to do better/focus," doesn't make it the real issue/reason, and there is NO information which justifies that take, especially since you et al, claim the gap had already closed by half in the last 40 years. Is math different in black vernac? Dollars, Grams, Ounces? How in hell did they just lose ANOTHER relative 5% in so short a time! Yep, it's the school's fault! And of course, the Math/English Proficiency has an ASTONISHING gap (app 80%/20%) despite YOUR claim of "40 years" of closing gaps. So you need to discount those Leftist apologetics sources/old books, which Clearly are/were WRONG based on these numbers. +
The sources you are referring to from Nisbett and the one in your link are not addressing the same data. Your link addresses the percentage of Blacks and Whites proficient on certain tests and acknowledges an increase in the test scores of both groups but at different rates which widens the gap in test scores. This has literally nothing to do with racial differences in IQ. That is just your interpretation because you are not scientifically literate and you're unable to interpret research correctly.
The data doesn't represent national group averages in IQ score and clearly shows that test scores are rising for Blacks and Whites. They are simply rising at different rates. This data doesn't support your claim of a genetic component to racial differences in IQ and suggesting otherwise is wishful thinking on your part. I didn't make up any lies. You simply don't have the ability to provide credible research that supports your position.
It has to do with racial differences in test scores, and showsthe gap increased for that area during the most recent period.
The article shows that test scores improved for both Blacks and Whites but the gap widened because they rose at different rates. This doesn't indicate that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ which is wishful thinking on the part of Taxonomy26.
It Does indicate it. It just doesn't 'prove' it. 100 years of IQ/Achievement tests, oft adjusted for socio-economic, etc, is overwhelming evidence the gap is Genetic. As are the intermediate results/smaller gaps between mixed race 'coloreds'/American Blacks v Whites than those of full sub-Saharan blacks to those of whites. As do the results of Asians v whites. It doesn't "prove it' yet, but it absolutley/overwhelmingly points towards it. We can't "prove" cigarette smoking causes lung cancer either, but this statistical truth was accepted as such without mechanism, and over less time, as it's not as hot of a potato. And IQ genes/sequences have just started to be found. We've had Tens of Thousands of rooms full of Black people (in all countries/conditions) consistently test worse than White and Asian people in the same rooms or different ones. And after 30 years of "closing the gap", the gap remains constant. In fact, the results in Black-lead Washington DC's Public school system, worsening from an already draconian G-A-P in proficiency. "..English Language Arts (ELA) and math scores Overall increased four and two percent, respectively. Black students increased their ELA scores by 2.7% and math at 1.2%. Despite the gains, African Americans still lag behind Whites, who had increases of 7.7% in ELA and 4.5% in math. In summary, 22% of Blacks showed proficiency in ELA compared with 82% of Whites, while in Math, African Americans 18.6% showed proficiency while Whites posted 75.7%.".." Stupendous, and much wider than even a hereditarian would have predicted. You'd have to have a 50-60% starvation level to get results like those were it not genetic. +
It doesn't confirm your argument, and doesn't disconfirm the opposing view. It does, in fact, support the opposing view since the results follow the opposing viewpoint's expectation.
No, it does not support the opposing view because the data gives no implication whatsoever to the cause of the test score gap. If you're saying that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ, if that is your claim, this data doesn't support that view as there are alternative explanations such as an environmental cause involving multiple variables. I didn't say it confirms my position. I'm not the one who cited the article so it's not my source and it's irrelevant to the points I have made regarding race and intelligence.
Notice, as so often of late, he answers you, but can't answer my meatier, more elaborated/backed post. And also of late, but not in this instance, just drops my name in responses to you/others, because he can't. He's grateful you even replied so he can last-word the string, if not deal with it. Me? I always go for the strongest opposing post on an issue. My post above remains unrefuted/untouched. Even quoting my facts/reason is a positional disaster/loser for him. (but he's gonna have to fake one now, only because of this post) +
You're not saying anything of substance and you don't understand the research you are quoting. I have already exposed the fact that you don't understand basic evolutionary concepts and when this was pointed out you deliberately ignored the point in order to pretend that you still had an argument when anyone who knows any better recognizes that you have been beaten and your credibility as a serious debater has been completely destroyed. I've already explained to you why your genetic interpretation of this research doesn't hold but you are still making the claim. How much more time should anyone really waste on a debater who lies, ignores arguments, hurls childish insults and displays an inability to understand the research they've cited or the rebuttals and counter sources of their opponents? If you had the courage to take this debate to a science message board more posters would point out your logical fallacies and ignorance just as they did Rayznack and Mikemikev but because of your cowardice you are ducking because you know you would get further exposed. Beating up on a punching bag gets boring after awhile. I have debated White Supremacists 30-to-1 and possibly more on their message boards, spoken to professional scholars by email, read books recommended to me by those scholars and taken the debate to message boards with a more scientifically literate community and audience. You're simply not worth my time. I'm being generous by replying to you after our last debate where you boasted about a post on a closed thread and ignored my response to it then fled from the debate when I replied to you as well as my demolition of the arguments of George Gill. Debating someone one-one-one when you ignore arguments and flee is very easy to do as is responding to threads where scholars (such as Robert Sussman) haven't posted in for an entire year then declare victory. Your style of debate is very dishonest. How much time do you think someone should waste on you when you refuse to have an honest discussion? You're simply not worthy my time and energy and I'm being very kind to even bother explaining that to you.
IOW, you Still have no answer to the post/posts. Zero. Now, still lost, you try condescension. Doesn't work up hill. As usual, Nothing could be further from the truth/a Bigger Lie. Actually, and unlike you, I came to this corner of the debate because OF evolution. Unlike you, who are pure Race-poster/warrior. (Black /White/cop) ... I post regularly in the science section on Evolution (here and elsewhere) and have a much better perspective on what constitutes race/subspecies. ie, effectively ending a 725 post creatonist's thread a few days ago with: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/origins-the-evidence.512854/page-37#post-1068024486 And have many posts and OPs on the topic here. Early Homo? Anatomical Vestiges? Never seen YOU there! Race to me is just a continuation of believing/demonstrating evolution is true. Arguing against [Evangelical] Creationists on one side, and [Liberal] creationists on the other. You don't even rate the latter, rather you are a self-interested denier in the basest, most salacious corner of the debate. Just interested in the/your American Black vs white. With Seemingly no interest in ie, the Asian IQ differential, and about which whites aren't freaking out/screaming 'racist.' As I said, and you've just now Confirmed/admitted, you're just Frustrated because you can't debate me without leftist/liberal-creationist help. I posted on sciforums many years ago and it was outrageously biased. There were three threads on race, including one on what was then the recent Watson statement. (2007) ALL 3 threads were deleted by the moderator 'SAM'. Can you imagine? The Watson controversy being zapped from a 'sci' board? And two New strings were opened by her, one titled "Low IQ racists" in their place. I still have the archive of the controversy. THAT'S the kind of help/Obliteration you need. You don't want to/CAN'T debate me, you want Shout-down or banning. And there's more at that board I may post. Your problem is that I'm Not a White Supremacist, and instead come at this/came to this scientifically. You need a 'Nazi' for an opponent, and Leftists for mods/other posters. A cast of thousands. Otherwise.. Yo porked. You're full of it. You respond to the much easier replies, like rayznacks .. because they ARE easier. So of course, STILL no reply to my post above directly quoting/refuting you. Your above post just another attempt to Bury the truth. Like your previous two Graphic Hand Grenades/Burial attempts. Now you were just cornered/forced by me into a 'reply', but which is Still nonresponsive to my #64. Pure obfuscation dishonestly transparently/defensively claiming/Big-Lying 'superior knowledge.' You know NOTHING except what you can spam up from Uncle Joe Graves, who Lies about what constitutes Race. And without the plethora of anti-Rushton fodder to spam up, you got NO game at all. Pathetic 'logic,' fallacious 'challenges,' grenading/boobtubing discussion, burying opponents with pages of huge Unca Joe excerpts, demanding discussion go elsewhere, defensive dismissal... you got em all. Pure deflection. Pure lost. Pure mismatch. +
The study is now fully published. The abstract shows that the genetic factor is greater with these children with higher socioeconomic status, while environmental influences on literacy were greater with children from poor families. This means that rich parents generally have higher IQs, resulting in higher SES. Probably some controversial parts of the original study was retracted in the peer-review process and the final product looks more benign and academic.
Yes. Hardly news. High IQ correlates with higher income/SES. And since IQ is 75% Heritable... It's a vicious cycle/inheritance... of Genes. With the less usual circumstance/mutation/line occasionally breaking thru to the up or down side.
If you're not saying anything of substance then there is no point responding to you. You want me to respond to you when you are constantly ignoring my posts. You are a hit-and-run debater who doesn't debate honestly or fairly. So you say, but then you exposed your ignorance of basic evolutionary concepts in this post. We also don't have 'mechanism' on much of the rest of the Same Topic, Evolution/Speciation, but it's a Fact! - Taxonomy26 This quote by you is not something that anyone who has passed high school biology would ever say. You said it because you don't really understand the subject of evolution. How many books have you read on the topic? Zero. My main focus on the board has been combating racism but that doesn't mean I've never discussed scientific topics outside of talking about Scientific Racism. I will review your posts in that thread when I have time however my personal experience with you is that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to topics such as human evolution, evolutionary biology and speciation. I've already proven that in the post above. You also ignored over 5 posts of mine in that conversation so it will come as no surprise if you ignore my points again. You don't have much familiarity with my post history outside of this board as I have directly addressed the Asian-White IQ gap elsewhere and asked White Supremacists what their thoughts on it are. Exhibit A: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=65831 The poll indicates that there was a near 50/50 split on whether the Asian-White IQ gap has any cultural significance and if you read the responses yourself you will see that the racist posters generally aren't interested in the gap, some believe it doesn't even exist and others say it's not noteworthy enough to claim that Asians have any significant advantages over Whites with only a few acknowledging that there is a genetic component to the gap which leads to Asians having better societies or being intellectually superior to Whites. In other words it doesn't matter to them because their (and your) obsession is with the Black-White IQ gap. Most of you only acknowledge the Asian-White IQ gap to claim that you are not White Supremacists and your position is strictly objective without a racist ideological agenda which is an obvious lie. I even saw a White Nationalist conference where David Duke asked Rushton if Whites could still build superior societies because despite having slightly lower IQs they had more ambition and drive due to higher testosterone. Rushton accepted this as plausible. So White Supremacists can still look at this data and find ways to deny Asian superiority or claim White superiority. There's simply no reason to take these scholars seriously as they are academic racists and supporters like you are racists pretending to be interested this research because of the scientific pursuit of truth. In reality you are racist ideologues. I already defeated you in debate recently. I even pointed out specific posts that you ignored over the course of the debate. You never responded to them and then you fled. Anyone can review the debate for themselves: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-with-solutions.510580/page-9#post-1067830763 There are 5 posts listed in that post alone which you ignored and after I demolished your reference to Gill you ran away. How many posts are you going to make before you run away from this debate and then claim I'm only interested in the last word? No, I have debated you one-on-one already. You keep losing, fleeing and then denying your defeat only to come back and do the same thing over again. Show it to me. Also what was your screenname on the board? If you can't debate on a science message board there is no reason to take you seriously. If you are worried about the number of opponents that will be against you (which should tell you something about how fringe your position is among scientifically literate posters) then invite some debate partners. I don't care how many you invite. You can also choose a science message board for me to debate you after you have gone to Sciforum. But you won't do that because you're a coward. You can't claim I've rigged the debate in my favor under these conditions and remember that I have debated on racist message boards where I was grossly outnumbered and how to do with posting under their rules, with their moderators and I still whooped those Nazis. So there's no reason why you can't accept this challenge. If you can't even choose an alternative science message board to debate on then that tells everyone all they need to know about your credibility on this subject. All you do is write long screeds repeating the same gibberish which is why I don't bother with you as much and when I do give you detailed responses you ignore the posts! I just provided a link earlier where you ignored 5 posts of mine in a single thread. You simply aren't being a serious debate and I am being generous in responding to you just to prove a point. We'll see how long it takes you to flee and making excuses for your defeat by claiming I am forcing you to give me the last word. You didn't refute anything. Your source does not prove that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. You don't have credible sources that support your argument. In our last debate I listed 40 scholars that I cited in that thread a lone who support my arguments. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-with-solutions.510580/page-6#post-1067820258 The idea that I only rely on the research of Joseph Graves is a lie. I have provided email conversations between myself and other scholars besides Graves including Scott MacEachern, Richard Nisbett, James Flynn, Eric Turkheimer, Alan Goodman, Robert Sussman, Shomarka Keita, Chris Stringer and David Reznick. You haven't had conversations with any scholars that you can share. Here is a list of some books I have read and own related to the topic: 1) The Mismeasure of Man (Revised & Expanded) by Stephen Jay Gould 2) The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium (Biological Theories of Race at the Millenium) by Joseph L. Graves 3) The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America by Joseph L. Graves 4) Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count by Richard E. Nisbett 5) African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity by Chris Stringer 6) Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth by Chris Stringer 7) The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea by Robert Sussman Here is a list of books I am planning to read soon: 1) Biological Anthropology (3rd Edition) by Craig Stanford John S. Allen and Susan C. Antón 2) The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology Is Rewriting Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease, and Inheritance by Nessa Carey 3) Decoding Racial Ideology in Genomics by Johnny E. Williams 4) Mechanisms of Life History Evolution: The Genetics and Physiology of Life History Traits and Trade-Offs by Thomas Flatt and Andreas Heyland 5) Straightening the Bell Curve: How Stereotypes about Black Masculinity Drive Research on Race and Intelligence by Constance Hilliard Your reading list by your own admission is zero. I have plenty of studies and articles saved on my computer that support my position as well, some of which I got through a University computer at the library or directly from some of the scholars I've emailed which aren't available for free on the internet. I'd wager that I've read many more papers than you have. You're simply out of your league. Oh we can keep the debate here as we did before but we all know what the result is going to be....AGAIN. You will flee, make excuses for running away and then deny your defeat just as you did last time and the time before that.
WHIFF # 3 to my post #64. Really? Me, Gould, and Darwin, don't understand Evolution I guess! I've cited Gould 50-100 times in the last few years of posting on Evolution. Excerpts from this excellent piece specifically, in app Half of those. Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould StephenJayGould.org 1994 Now here I see http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html ""...Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the Mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the Mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations..." As I said, I know Evolution, and came by race through it. You, OTOH, know NOTHING about Evo, and instead have an indoctrination in Race Denial Theology. How embarrassing for you AGAIN. Un*******believable how little you know about the subject you post on, outside of your salacious little Black/white/cop world. LOL You're not qualified to "Review my posts," You know NOTHING about Evo. See above and below. :^) You can't "demolish" Gill. He (and other Biological and Forensic Anthropologists) use Race every day in his/their jobs, and in actual Legal cases. As I said/Busted you on previous: "while your denying the sun comes up, he's got a Tan!" Too bad for you we are on This board and you keep getting your butt kicked. I explained above why you need a different forum: you need help: Shout-downs/banning. The science boards you recommend are college freshman boards. Be glad to find a real one besides a few good blogs/websites. The classic Goebellsian 'Big Lie'. You cut and paste the same articles multiple times on every msg board. PLASTERING up the same Graves crap. NO One has ever droned up more of the same garbage propaganda from the SAME source as you have in an attempt to bury/shout down opponents. Often posting the SAME articles/boobtubes on Consecutive pages. "Rushton Refuted", Suzuki/Rushton, etc. Garbage junior high material. While I use New and legitimate sources in EVERY string, and even in the respective portions of this one. What a Hypocritical accusation you made. Science doesn't deal in "proofs", it deals in theories affirmed over time by supporting/noncontradictory Evidence. And that Evdience is what I post/have posted. It mounts consistently year over year Again, You show Complete Ignorance of Science in General, as well as being busted on Evolution above. (and Disingenuity or clownery in every False challenge/assertion) What a ROUT! Cont'd
cont'd/part 2 As I said/showed above, I cite Gould much more than you, and with much more width. Because of your Confirmation Bias reading list, you read his only **** up! And I'm going to use it to make an important point. His political "Mismeasure of Man" was in fact HIS "Mismeasurement" in service of his Leftist politics. I was personally scandalized at his dishonesty/cheating in service of PC. Two studies show that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crani..._races_and_19th-20th_century_scientific_ideas "...Stephen Jay Gould, an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science, studied these craniometric works in The Mismeasure of Man (1981) and claimed Samuel Morton had fudged data and "overpacked" the skulls with filler in order to justify his preconceived notions on racial differences. A subsequent study by the anthropologist John Michael found Morton's original data to be more accurate than Gould describes, concluding that "[c]ontrary to Gould's interpretation... Morton's research was conducted with integrity." In 2011, physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, published a study that concluded that almost every detail of Gould’s analysis was wrong and that “Morton did not manipulate his data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould.” They identified and remeasured half of the skulls used in Morton’s reports, finding that in only 2% of cases did Morton’s measurements differ significantly from their own and that these errors either were random or gave a larger than accurate volume to African skulls, the reverse of the bias that Dr. Gould imputed to Morton. The 2011 study cited above: The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias Jason E. Lewis, David DeGusta, Marc R. Meyer, Janet M. Monge, Alan E. Mann, Ralph L. Holloway PLOS - Published: June 7, 2011 The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias Our results resolve this historical controversy, demonstrating that Morton did NOT Manipulate data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould. In fact, the Morton case provides an example of how the scientific method can shield results from cultural biases. ! So Gould's famous 'Mismeasure of Man' was a case of HIS Liberal/Left/PC Bias, and willingness to Cheat to achieve a result. Scandalous, especially to a scholar and fan like me, but alas still cited widely like so many other PC Old Wive's tales. So Morton had it right for race/skull size/volume. We now have a (not all) basis for Race difference in IQ. Skull size/volume being one of those few Genetic differences that have been shown a factor in IQ so far. And Morton was Not alone. There are more studies showing the same hierarchy. Rushton, Ho et al, and Beals et al. That, in addition to the two above affirming Morton, is 5 or 6 confirming skull size difference between races. I've destroyed you again. Worse than ever. Unlike me, You know NOTHING about Evolution/Most of Gould's work, you're admittedly only indoctrinated/concerned with the narrow theology of race-denial. This 'debate' is precisely what one would expect between a True Science/Evo poster like Me, and a Nightly News 'black/white/cop'/admitted Racism-concerned warrior like you. +
Saying that we don't fully understand the mechanism of evolution and saying that we don't have mechanism (what YOU said) or don't know the mechanism are not the same thing. Once again you've failed. Says the clown who can't list any books he has read on the subject. I did demolish Gill with counter sources showing that the mainstream opinion of Biological Anthropologists is not consistent with his position and that his defense of the concept of race amounts to little more than having a financial motive. Forensic Anthropologists feel the need to defend the concept of race because it is important for the success of their careers while most scientists in relevant fields have discarded it. My credible sources showed that to be the case. How did our last debate go again? Oh yeah you fled after getting your butt kicked. Do you have any evidence that the bulk of posters on Sciforum are college freshmen or that their knowledge is limited to that? Your insults don't qualify as evidence. Just because they banned you (did you even post there? Where is your proof?) doesn't give you the right to lie about the education level or knowledge of the board. You have a weird obsession with talking about Graves vs. Rushton. In my last post I listed 40 scholars I cited in one thread a lone with multiple sources. I just listed multiple books I've read and scholars I have emailed. All of this can be verified. I even showed you that I addressed the Asian-White IQ gap in previous discussions. Your knowledge of my post history is limited and in reality all you can do is complain about me citing Graves vs. Rushton. When I come at you with new material as I did in our last debate you tucked your tail and ran away. Using a new source and using one that actually supports your position are not the same thing. Given the vastness of information on the internet that's not hard to do. Try extrapolating an argument from a credible source that actually supports your position for a change. The source you posted which we have been debating doesn't support your conclusion. I find it interesting that you squabble over trivial things such as "proof" vs. "evidence" but avoided sharing your screen name on Sciforum or the debates you saved on there. Where else have you posted on the subject of evolution or science in general that you can actually share? We know you haven't read any books on the subject. We know you haven't spoken to any scholars. We know your knowledge is limited to internet links but you mentioned this post history and haven't provided it beyond what you've written on this board. The only science message board I'm aware of you posting on is the one where you got my thread closed for flaming other posters. We've already had this discussion. I provided you with information showing that I've read that study, had an email conversation with the lead author, Jason Lewis and provided an article from a scholar who refuted him and defended the core arguments of Gould. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-with-solutions.510580/page-5#post-1067816850 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-with-solutions.510580/page-5#post-1067818167 These are among the many posts in that thread which you ignored. If your knowledge of Gould's work is so great why can't you respond to my arguments? I like how you complain about me bringing up Rushton....and then quote Rushton! However I already addressed Rushton, Ho et a. and Beals et al. in the other thread and you ignored all of those counter arguments! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-with-solutions.510580/page-5#post-1067816868 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-with-solutions.510580/page-5#post-1067818167 You're repeating yourself and then bragging about making arguments I've already refuted. You can pretend that the counter arguments aren't there or aren't worth your time to respond to but anyone can review those threads and see that I refuted your arguments point by point with credible sources. Just because you live in fantasy land doesn't mean that everyone else has to play a long with your nonsense. I find your delusions of grandeur and complete lack of self-reflection amusing which is why I even bother responding to your foolishness. How can you possibly compare yourself to me as a more knowledgeable poster on the subject of evolution when I have shared with you and the board books I have read about human evolution, scholars I have spoken to by email and countered you point by point on topics you already avoided responding to before? You're claiming victory and boasting about being a "True Science/Evo poster" when: 1. You can't list any books you've read on the subject. 2. You can't list any scholars you've spoken to by email. 3. You're repeating arguments you were already refuted on before. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Now of course this is not a real definition but in your case you are committing a logical fallacy that is consistent with this idea. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/49/Argument-by-Repetition Description: Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence. Logical Form: X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true... etc. You claiming over and over and over again that you are more knowledgeable on the subject of evolution despite all of the evidence to the contrary does not make it so. You are an advocate of Scientific Racism, a discredited theory that is not taken seriously by mainstream academia and I don't care how many creationists you argue against on a political message board you're not going to be able to debate on my level until you wise up and start reading some good information while extrapolating an argument from sources that actually support your position. You're actually worse than a creationist. I have no respect for a racist ideologue pretending to be passionate about science. Go read some actual books, contact some credible scholars and learn how to debate. You've lost yet another debate to me and you will continue to do so until you display some actual intelligence and debate sensibly which I don't think you're capable of.
