Oh look! the Goebbelsian "Big Lie"! I use NEW sources in Every thread... like the OP, and MOST all of my other Links in this thread with FRESH RAW DATA from DC schools (Afro.com), Ann Arbor Schools, Gould Refutation studies, Gould "Evo: Fact and Theory," a First use Sciencedaily study, and MORE. I post Actual current test results/new studies, not Your old Repeated Apologetics studies and old cherry-picked graphics from nowhere. ie, You just posted (unquoted by me) the same 2 HOUR/No-one-watches, 20+ yr old "Graves v Rushton" Boobtube for the 5689th time! There is probably No thread here withOut your posting it at least once.. or thrice... or on Consecutive pages. Or citing Graves TWENTY times in a single thread. "Argument by Repitition" is YOUR Trademark. Graves, Graves, Graves-Rushton, Nisbett, Graves, Jays-letterS-to-Graves, Suzuki-Rushton, Graves, Graves citing his OWN old papers, Graves, Jay's Letter to Graves, Graves 2006 citing Graves 1997, etc, etc, etc, etc, Unprecedented here or anywhere. The usual letters to Race/IQ denier Graves.. and replies/quotes anyone could predict, replete with SAME useLess 10 separate Lines of Graves Address, room, and phone numbers. So oft, I know them by heart now! You should start (have effectively started) a Graves group here. "REPETITION"? Yep they're KILLING Them! DOWN 15% from 1999-2012 WOW! Your other empty and UNbacked prouncements were defeated on page two. This another exceptional one. Yep, it's true There's no Genetics involved, no "75%" from Two sources in the OP, no nothing. We all could be Michelangelo, Michael Jordan, or Albert Einstein with the right parents/Nurture. Just ask anyone on this thread. PS: I know "my painting Gap with Picasso has Narrowed 40% since 1970." I use colors now. `
If "Maths and reading skills found to be 75% Genetic", that explains why gypsies can't read or even write, let alone math something. Same goes for the vast majority of Arabeskos, Africancos and some other darkly-skinned friendos of ours. On the photo, friendly mathematicians, Bulgarian gypsies:
And Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has a 100% effect on IQ over genetics. So does lead and mercury poisoning, lack of iodine, and brain injuries. Heck, even poverty itself can cause an IQ drop. (links supplied on request). On top of that, the gene that controls melanin has no bearing, whatsoever, on IQ, so there is no correlation between skin color and IQ. In fact, there is no known gene that affects the external human morphology of a race that also affects IQ. This means that one cannot judge someone's IQ just by looking at them. The most you can say is that a specific race may have x percent chance of having a particular gene that affects IQ (and even that is debatable, though an argument for a different day), but you cannot say that because a certain individual is of a particular race that you know their IQ. This is actually what we observe. There are intelligent people and stupid people in all races. There are violent people and peaceful people is all races. Since the Constitution tends to give individuals the benefit of the doubt, this whole argument is moot. Besides, it is immoral to judge people by their race, because ultimately we are individuals that may or may not be like the rest of our race. By making a sweeping law that only looks at race, it does a disservice to the individual who is different. Also, it is unwise to assume that because a race has a particular "good" trait, that all individuals of that race has that trait. I mean, would you higher an Asian engineer without looking at their qualifications just because Asians are supposed to be good at math? Would you ignore an African-American candidate who has 10 years experience and a PhD in Engineering from MIT just because of his/her race? So if the whole debate is moot, why is there even a debate?
Yes, you do all of that while not understanding or acknowledging that it does nothing to refute my argument. Derideo_Te explained to you that the source in the OP has nothing to do with race nor does your reference to test scores challenge the claim that measured differences in intelligence are 100% caused by differences in environmental conditions which includes cultural and psychological factors. Nisbett a lone refuted this argument. Are you going to pretend that I didn't address your attacks on the credibility of Gould in previous discussions? In the last post I cited a study from 2014 by Amy Hsin addressing the Asian-White IQ gap and the cultural factors that determine Asian academic success that you completely ignored. I have also cited over 40 scholars whose research supports my position and 5 of the world's top scientific organizations in relevant fields that establish scientific consensus is on my side. You have literally no one who has presented research in the past 5 years in an academic debate that supports your position. I showed you that James Watson, who you quoted in your signature had his credibility completely destroyed on this topic. He had the opportunity to defend his position in a documentary where some of the top intelligence researchers and geneticists were interviewed about race and intelligence, admitted he wasn't qualified to speak on the subject and sold his Nobel Prize medal donating SOME of the money to science but nonetheless treating one of the highest honors a scientist can receive like a rare collectible. What kind of man sells an honor that represents the highest achievement of his life? Your hero disgraced himself as a scientist in some of the worst ways imaginable. Cry me a river. Joseph Graves continues to write papers relevant to this subject and oppose proponents of Scientific Racism including signing his name to a letter criticizing Nicholas Wade's book with over 140 of the top populations geneticists and biologists who say he misrepresented their work and getting Charles Murray to duck a debate like a sniveling coward. Who do yo have in your corner who is actually willing to put their reputation on the line and debate a scholar like Graves or ANY world class scientist on this subject in an academic setting? You don't have anyone alive today who will do this! When this is pointed out to you you ignore it or make excuses. I repeat the citation of sources that you have not addressed or refuted. That is the difference and that is MY WHOLE POINT! You don't have new arguments to address, just the same rehashed discredited garbage. Don't act like your citation of the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education wasn't already addressed in past discussions or that other posters haven't pointed out that your high heritability of intelligence arguments have nothing to do with race. You have nothing new to bring to a discussion with me in debate that I have not already seen and addressed. You've ignored plenty of arguments of mine and contradicted yourself like when you said my AncestryDNA results supported you but my reference to a genetic intelligence test not being consistent with my psychometric reference did not. George W. Bush was President from 2000-2008 and Barack Obama had to save America from economic collapse while cleaning up the mess caused by the failed policies of his predecessor's administration. https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/obamas-numbers-july-2016-update/ Under Barack Obama's Presidency: The economy has added more than 10 million jobs, and job openings are at a 15-year high. The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm, but long-term unemployment remains higher than at the start of the Great Recession. The buying power of the average workers weekly paycheck is up 4.4 percent. Corporate profits are running 152 percent higher, and stock prices have soared. The number of immigrants caught trying to enter the U.S. illegally has dropped 53 percent. Federal debt has more than doubled, and annual deficits, after shrinking, are again on the rise. The home ownership rate has dropped by 4 percentage points. The number of Americans on food stamps is up 36 percent. Oil imports are down 53 percent, and wind and solar power have quadrupled. The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by 15.2 million. Blackenterprise.com - Reflecting on Barack Obama’s Accomplishments in Tumultuous Times He clearly helped African-Americans in addition to all Americans including the ungrateful bigots who made up lies in an attempt to destroy his reputation (character assassination). What are Republicans doing to help Black people today? Trump seems to be doing a great job ruining his own reputation while taking credit for the strong economy he inherited from the Obama Administration and having one of the most crooked presidential administrations in the history of American politics. All one needs to do is look at those facts to see how much of an impact government policy has on the environmental conditions of demographic groups which supports my position. Certainly having the artistic talent of Michelangelo, the athletic ability of Michael Jordan and the scientific genius of Albert Einstein would be incredibly hard attributes for any person to possess and attain. But can a person have artistic talent, exceptional athleticism and the intelligence of a scientist? Yes. But more importantly does lacking any or all of these attributes lessen your worth as a human being? Absolutely not. That is why Tim Wise called "race-realism" morally absurd. Your position does nothing to challenge the principles of Egalitarianism. Arguing that we are not biologically the same is meaningless. Very few people are going to grow to be 7 feet tall. So what? If you have blond hair or blue eyes or big breasts or a large penis so what? If you have the intellect of Einstein and you don't do anything of significance with it that's more shameful than having a mental handicap and working within your capacity. If you use your intelligence to do evil instead of good (e.g. become a mad scientist or dictator that created weapons and policies that result in mass destruction and genocide) then you deserve to be judged morally as far worse than anyone with much lower intelligence who commits a crime nowhere near that scale. This idea that your personal obsession and that of all proponents of Scientific Racism is doing something to benefit the world is ridiculous. "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." - Charles Darwin
Good points. I just finished my last post and read yours. Clearly we are on the same page. One point though. That's an argument that we can have today and I HAVE been having with Taxonomy26 recently but he is ducking responding to that research. So here is that information again..... Source: Genome-wide quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive ability using pooled DNA and 500K single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays Genes, Brains and Behavior, 7, 435–446 (2008 ) Taxonomy26 complains that I am drowning him out with loads of data and that this is argument by repetition. But this is a psychological tactic. YOU DUCKED THE RESEARCH TAX! I am posting on topic and not spamming. If you are going to ignore research that refutes your argument you are going to be reminded of that fact. You need to be held accountable for your poor debate etiquette. PSEUDOSCIENCE shows a total indifference to criteria of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments— instead, it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories, faked footprints, blurry photos, and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine modern scientific literature is not cited. Real research is never done. Generally pseudoscientists never present any valid evidence of any kind whatsoever for their claims. One of the most bizarre recent tactics of pseudoscientists is to publish a novel, a work of fiction in which essentially everything is made up by the author— as usual in works of fiction!— but then to turn directly around and treat the completely made-up material as if it were actual, factual and researched. Recent examples of this tactic are The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield (1994), and The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown (2003). This is really having your cake and eating it too, because the authors, when taken to task for gross errors and mis-statements, calmly say, “Can't you read? It's fiction, not non-fiction,” and yet when not taken to task for equally gross errors, sneakily treat them as established facts and build upon them to generate yet more best-selling books. - Rory Coker
More nonsensical pseudoscience from those pushing the odious racist IQ agenda. There is NO credible GENETIC DATA linking race with IQ whatsoever! Furthermore the baseless ASSUMPTION that no one read to my father because he was an "orphan" is patently ludicrous! For starters orphans have parents who died but that does not mean that they did not instill a love of reading in their children prior to dying. It also does not mean that those who care for orphans never read to them either. Public libraries have reading programs in their children's departments. This kind of grasping at straws exposes the DESPERATION of those advocating the debunked "racial IQ" agenda since the SCIENCE is demonstrating that it is utterly FALLACIOUS.
Nuclear War also has 100% effect over genes. So what? No one has ever claimed that Melanin controls IQ Of course, this claim shows you have No idea of what Race is Scientifically. Color is just one of a SET of discernible features (Stature, Color, Skeletal, Hormonal/Medical, Hair Texture, etc) that make up race. Even if a Pygmy was an albino he would not be confused with a Caucasian due to many differences. And sub-Saharans and Australian Aboriginals are both COLLOQUIALLY 'Black', but very different Races. Your problem is you don't know what race means except for the nightly News Black/White/Cop. And while melanin has nothing chemical to do with IQ (of course), there is a relationship. Equatorial people are darker because they have spent Tens of thousands of years more time as walk-out-the-hut Hunter gatherers, and did not develop agriculture (10x-100x the calories) and more technical societies that ie, Winter (food storage, shelter, etc) and trade provided/demanded. So there IS a correlation between Skin Color and IQ based on geographic evolution, not melanin itself. HARK! (and "Your welcome" for this/My incite you would never have known or figured out) http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/validity-of-national-skin-color-iq.php and IQ and Skin Color: The Old World Reexamined and the New World By Templer, Donald I. https://www.questia.com/library/jou...d-skin-color-the-old-world-reexamined-and-the What Constitutiuon? No one is arguing denying anyone rights based on Race. And Race doesn't mean you prejudge some Individual based on it. It could be Barak Obama or some White Retard. BUT. Races have Significantly different Average IQ's and this has HUGE implications for society and Life outcome. ie Ashkenazi Jews 110-115 NE Asians - -- -- -- 106 White/Euro - - - - - 100 American 'Black' - - 85 (avg 75% sub-Saharan, 25% white) sub-Saharan - - - - - 70 16% of Whites Fail the Military Entrance Exam ASVAB (app IQ 82), while 40% of 'Blacks' do. What happens to that 40%? So IQ is also a significant factor in Crime. Stats highly indicative there too. I'll spare you the ugly numbers. So these are huge issues. One of the most important being instead of seeing that life outcomes are based on IQ and logical.... Many people say the cause is "Racism". It warps/Angers the whole society just because we can't understand and say the truth. So you have guilty liberals self-flagellating (and blaming everyone else too) for what is NOT Racism. That's right. Unequal life outcomes are based on unequal IQs. People of different Races with similar IQs do similarly well! It's just High IQ is much rarer in some groups, and 120+ers sparse in an Average ie, 85 Group. Under 2% While for ie, the top of my chart, perhaps 40% are 120 or more. The difference in our understandings is GAPING. You know 'race' only as skin color/colloquialism And re a Previous answer and for the Record, THAT IS TWO MORE NEW LINKS FOR ME AS WELL. NOT "REPETITIVE." As opposed to mostly/almost exclusively Repeats from the accuser. And let me add... NO one else has the understanding of Evolution/Human Evolution I do, and No one else could come close to writing this post. Hopefully some will learn from it. `
Simple problems with your argument: 1) You admit that certain environmental factors can 100% have an effect over genes. So why can't the environmental differences we've mentioned be 100% the cause of group differences in IQ?! You haven't explained why and that is why your argument fails. 2) You are conflating correlation and causation (False Cause Fallacy). Just because you can show that skin color and IQ have a strong correlation and skin color and intelligence are under the control of selective forces that does not mean that evolutionary forces are the cause of the differences between national IQ groups or socially-defined races. Your argument would not work at all if you were to say that lighter skin correlates with intelligence and compared Northeast Asians (darker skin) to Europeans (lighter skin). Never mind the fact that research shows that the Asian-White IQ gap is caused by cultural rather than genetic differences. 3) Your evolutionary arguments are based on pseudoscientific just-so stories. Henry Harpending is another proponent of Scientific Racism and Rushton supporter whose book The 10,000 Year Explosion has been refuted by the scientific consensus of other biologists, anthropologists, archeologists and geneticists. Cliff notes: 1. There are adaptive traits all human populations have in common (ex. salinity, iron content and blood pressure and other biochemical and physiological features). 2. Human intelligence has adaptive value. 3. Modern humans evolved from Homo Erectus based on mandibular evidence. 4. Based on Archeological evidence human populations during the Pleistocene Epoch shared hunting strategies. 5. Modern humans evolved articular speech which distinguishes them from the Apes and all human populations share the evolutionary trademarks of this development (ex. Broca's area). 6. Human brain size attained modern levels and ceased to expand during the Middle Stone Age. 7. All human children learn language during the same age span and each group is capable of learning other languages. 8. Differences in human life ways around the world arose so recently from the perspective of evolutionary history that there has been no time for any differential adaptive response to have occurred. You have not presented any new arguments or evidence that was not already addressed. Predictably you will continue to promote these discredited arguments until you realize the futility of arguing and flee only to return again with the same nonsense that was refuted before without making any progression in the quality of your sources and ignoring evidence that challenges your position. PSEUDOSCIENCE does not progress. There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic there is no progress made, no new information uncovered; new theories are not forthcoming; old concepts are never modified or discarded in light of new discoveries, since there are no new discoveries for pseudoscience. The older the idea, the more respect is given it. ESP experiments started at about the same time as research into the nature of electromagnetic radiation. They're still guessing cards in the ESP labs and yet applications of electromagnetism have completely revolutionized the world, time and time again, since the 1880s. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public— so that the public will swallow the total misrepresentations of the phenomena that the pseudoscientist wants to make. Classic examples: firewalking, Kirlian and orb photography, “psychic motors.”- Rory Coker
It's a regression into the "science" of Nazi Germany to attack the intelligence of sub-Saharan Africans with this nonsense, and is probably done for a fundamentally similar reason - a desire to attack a selected racially defined out group in favor of one's own. It's very sad that some people feel a need to do this and can't just get along with their fellow humans.
Ah yes... the "no one else has the understanding I do" argument. I'm always wary of that one. It is what I hear from conspiracy theorists all the time, but maybe you are really a evolutionary biologist. If so, I wish you would hang out in the creationist threads and shut their arguments down. I would also like to know what race is "scientifically". But what I'm really curious about, is the point to all this. IF all that you say is true, what does it prove? What do we do with this information? Is it to make people of those races feel bad about themselves? Make ourselves feel better? You have said that "No one is arguing denying anyone rights based on Race", so what is the whole point?
That's funny but obviously not true (Appeal to False Authority). You cannot self-appoint yourself the most knowledgeable poster on human evolution and expect anyone to take you seriously. You have no credibility on the subject. Unlike you I not only cite sources from experts on human evolution I have actually emailed them, had conversations with them which I have posted (with permission) and read their books. For example Mikemikev boasted (without evidence) that he was a student of John Maynard Smith and that his views on the origins of humans were consistent with those of Chris Stringer who told him so via email. I actually contacted Stringer, shared my email conversation with him and bought both of his books that he recommended. I made a whole thread sharing my response. Politicalforum - The Geographical Origins of Modern Humans Stringer is one of the foremost experts on human evolution. Mikemikev tried to take on Joseph Graves on human evolution who agreed to respond stating that he knew John Maynard Smith who would have agreed with him. On another message board a poster named Zed tried to debate me on r/K selection theory and cited a paper he found on Wikipedia claiming that it legitimized the theory and refuted Graves. I emailed Graves about it who said the claim was ridiculous. He called Zed a racist fool and pointed out that the co-author David Reznick was a colleague of his. I emailed Reznick and asked him about him about r/K selection theory, the work of Graves and Rushton's work. Reznick was kind enough to not only respond, read the paper by Graves critiquing Rushton but also read one of Rushton's papers and provide notes showing all of the errors. That is how you establish credibility on a topic. Not with outlandish boasts about how much you know but demonstrating what you know. If you are a professional scholar, at least went to college to study these subjects or read the books and papers of the leading experts in the field you then present that work, display an understanding of the material AND address all rebuttals to your arguments. I not only read books and papers on the subject and cited them I actually gave their word to you establishing that I understood their work and asked them questions that were directly relevant to the subject being discussed. I even invited a scholar to the board who posted and discussed his book on this topic: Politicalforum.com - The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea Your delusions of grandeur do not impress anyone and you will have to do better in debate than "I know more" and I'm right "because I said so." PSEUDOSCIENCE appeals to false authority, to emotion, to sentiment, or to distrust of established fact. A high school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology— though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields! A show business celebrity swears it’s true, so it must be. A physicist says psychic Smoori Mellar couldn’t possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common: “If it makes you feel good, it must be true.” “In your heart, you know it’s right.” “Follow your bliss!” “Use your intuition!” Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies: “There’s plenty of evidence for flying saucers but the government keeps it secret.” They almost always argue from irrelevancies: “Scientists don’t know everything!”— but perhaps we weren’t talking about everything, maybe we were discussing the evidence for the tooth fairy and Santa Claus! - Rory Coker
I explained that in my last post, and showed you were 100% uninformed about the word and how it's usage. It's really very bad, quite intentional, but nonetheless I will explain/elaborate again. I have explained race here Dozens of times. You're not just UNread on the topic outside this board, you haven't read any of my posts in the section. (see, ie, my "Graves Lies" thread below for more defs, as Graves also does not know what it is!) (My Unanswered Last post is good) http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-here-regularly.541670/page-2#post-1069656522 Here's another reference of many I have posted and could cite. His CREDENTIALS as well as the article on human Race is included. His name is Jerry Coyne, and he is perhaps the Country's Foremost Expert on Evolution, Genetics, and Author of the Standard Text 'Speciation.' He says there are Human Races. "Pseudo"? Really? This is WAY beyond the Black College house scientist Ejay posts. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...cientific-idea.391430/page-14#post-1066212230 I already took plenty of time explaining that. If you can't comprehend because you're an infuriated politico, I can't help that. But Basically and again, I indulge/attempt. 1. The many/disproportionate Low IQers in some groups are a huge problem for society. (just as the gifted members in others are those who advance humanity and our standard of living/quality of life) 2. A*******gain, and most Importantly... Because of the Wrong-Headed Pseudoscientific idea that all groups are Identical intellectually, it is proffered/accepted that any difference in Outcome must be "RACISM." So Society is bent all out of shape blaming itself/or accusing others, for what is really as NATURAL a difference as who (90%) plays in the NBA, wins sprints, or Marathons. Yes, all those 'oppressed' members of one 'deprived' group are so "starved" they can't think/Test straight (99%), but can run 26 Miles faster/jump higher than anyone. Me, I'll go with ALL the actual test results of decades (and weekly: read back in this thread), and Occam's Razor/Only Razor for the way the Country/s, Continents, and World look. Or you can make up 10,000 Excuses including "Racism." . ` `
1) Nope. Our potential is entirely dependent upon early synaptic stimulation, not genetics. 2) Cognitively impaired/injured individuals are not the subject of this debate.
It's actually far more than just that. The elephant in the room is the desire for outcomes to be 'not my fault'. There is an enormous amount of self-interest in taking this position.
Your citation of Coyne is no different than the Dawkins argument (e.g. the Racial Naturalism vs. Scientific Racism argument). Even if you could show that there were biological races that would do nothing to prove that there were genetically determined differentials in intelligence between races. The argument between Graves and like-minded scientists is a semantic dispute. Since they define race differently they come to different conclusions. The argument of Dawkins and Coyne could be used to claim that any morphological difference that was distinguishable with a high degree of certainty was informative. Under the population model we could identify Chinese and Japanese or Irish and Swedes as different races. What really matters for this debate is the degree of genetic divergence that exists between human populations and whether or not it can account for average differentials in IQ score or any other measure of intelligence. The genetic research from genome-wide association studies that I posted shows conclusively that your argument is wrong. You did not respond to this research and I have addressed your argument in multiple threads. Making the same argument across different threads while ignoring invalidating evidence does nothing to help your case. "All children" would include those that are cognitively impaired so I just wanted to address that since that is an argument out there (e.g. James Watson feels that babies with Down's Syndrome have no future and should be aborted and so should homosexuals if we can find the genes and a mother doesn't want an LGBT child). Otherwise I think we are on the same page. Genetic research does indicate that intelligence runs in families but a statement like that shouldn't be taken to claim that your potential is severely limited. You can have a pair of identical twins growing up in the same household have very different life experiences depending on the choices they make. Same genes, same home environment, different life outcomes. That alone shows you that genes do not determine potential or life outcomes. Example - A pair of identical twin brothers; one born straight and the other gay despite the fact that genetic research shows that there is a genetic component to homosexuality): Given the recent political discussions on this subject I think the research above is very important. Consider the stated opinions of two Presidential Candidates on whether or not people are born gay: Ben Carson thinks that homosexuality is a choice because people go to prison and "become" gay. Herman Cain asks to be shown the science behind the claim that people are born gay. What if Cain had been presented with the research above, put on the spot and Piers Morgan had said, "Look at this evidence from Genome-Wide Association Studies. There's your scientific evidence that people are born gay." What would Ben Carson say to that evidence? People in prison who engage in homosexual behavior who identified as straight before they went in there often do so because they want a sexual release. They can fantasize about having sex with a woman while raping a man or having consensual sex and imaging it is a woman. Some of them were gay or bisexual before they want to prison and some of them are horny psychopaths who were rapists before they went to prison (probably why they are in prison) and since they don't have access to women choose to rape men. You can't get any better evidence of this mindset than asking prisoners themselves: People like this are not "born" gay so much as they are mentally disturbed in the same way that pedophiles, zoophiles and necrophiliacs are sick and disturbed. You can engage in any type of sexual behavior that you want. Whether it be with a child, an animal, a dead body or an inanimate object. While there may be a genetic component to neurological disorders that can contribute to mental illness a lot of these strange behaviors are due to psychological disturbance and children growing in to adults choosing to engage in sick behavior that is socially unacceptable and criminal. Genes and their relationship to phenotype (ex. Sexual Orientation/Behavior and intelligence/personality) are complex. Bigots tend to deny that certain characteristics or behaviors have a genetic component because they don't like them and they want to believe that certain characteristics and behaviors do have a genetic component because it justifies their bigotry. Take a look at the list of pseudoscientific racial theories on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience Racial theories Scientific racism – claim that scientific evidence shows the inferiority or superiority of certain races.[233][234] Aryanism – the claim that there is a distinct "Aryan race" which is superior to other putative races,[235] was an important tenet of Nazism, and "the basis of the German government policy of exterminating Jews, Gypsies, and other 'non-Aryans.'"[236] Drapetomania – a supposed mental illness described by American physician Samuel A. Cartwright in 1851 that caused black slaves to flee captivity. Melanin theory – belief founded in the distortion of known physical properties of melanin, a natural polymer, that posits the inherent superiority of dark-skinned people and the essential inhumanity and inferiority of light-skinned people.[237][238] Among the pseudoscientific racial theories you have Drapetomania, the theory that Blacks who wanted to escape slavery in pursuit of freedom were mentally ill! Apparently the desire for dignity and the ability to make their own choices in life outside of working for someone else for free while being beaten, humiliated, raped, maimed and possibly murdered was a sign of mental illness in the sick minds of some slave owners and physicians who wanted to justify racism. Another racist "scientific" term they invented in the 19th Century was n*ggerology (a pseudoscientific version of "Typical N*gger Behavior"). Anyone can claim anything and with the right funding and effort claim that their propaganda is science. We should absolutely study human genetics but not misuse that research in ways to harm society. Using genetic research to claim you have a scientific basis for teaching elementary school children (for example) that they can't grow up to be anything they want to be is deplorable. As Suzuki said science can be used in sinister ways to harm society. Dr. Graves himself said in his book that because he grew up poor he and all of the black children in his elementary school were placed in classes with a remedial education for kids that were developmentally challenged because they weren't expected to excel academically and only upgraded to higher classes by the 3rd grade when a teacher discovered his exceptional reading ability. Now he is recognized as one of the top scientists in the world within his field and has shut down the greatest proponents of Scientific Racism including James Watson when he gave an interview on Anderson Cooper 360 (I saw it years ago, I would like to get the footage). Just as genetic research should not be misused to justify killing unborn fetuses because of traits you find socially unacceptable, used to create ethnic bioweapons (whether such a thing is possible or not), deadly viruses that could wipe out all of humanity, genetically engineered pests that could devastate the ecosystem, cloning farms where humans could be grown and used for spare parts we should not entertain pseudoscientific racist ideology. We should learn from the mistakes that led to human atrocities such as the Holocaust committed by the Nazis or the sterilization programs of American eugenicists. Just the belief in this racist garbage is making society more racist.
Once again we have a classic example of an OUT OF CONTEXT misquotation by those who nefariously promote their "racial IQ" agenda with demeaning intent. Let's take a look at what Dr Coyne ACTUALLY said and the CONTEXT in which he said it. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/ The Pseudoscience of those promoting the mendacious "racial IQ" bovine excrement ALWAYS fails miserably to survive even a modicum of genuine scientific scrutiny.
Indeed Coyne is not on Taxonomy26's side of the "Race & IQ Debate." He knows this. He overemphasizes the importance of scientists holding the position that there are biological races in order to proclaim that races are real (Racial Naturalism) and therefore genetic differences between races account for IQ Differences (Scientific Racism). He knows that the credibility of racial hereditarians has been destroyed. Most of them have died off (e.g. Rushton, Jensen and Shockley) had their reputations tarnished (e.g. Richard Lynn and James Watson) or have so little significance that their opinions on the subject are confined to a few scientific papers, blogs and internet interviews but NEVER in an academic setting where their views can be questioned and challenged (e.g. Linda Gottfredson, Henry Harpending and Charles Murray). You never see them debate opponents of their position because they know that their work doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. In that blog entry Coyne made the following points: 1) Human Genetic Variation Exists. 2) Racial Classification is Arbitrary. 3) Morphological Variation Exists Between Human Populations. 4) Genetic Distance Between Human Populations is observable by genetic analysis. 5) The genetic distance that does exist isn't significant. 6) Some populations have a genetic predisposition to certain diseases. 7) Natural Selection and Genetic Drift Accounts for Observed Differences. 8. Whether or not human genetic variation can explain IQ differentials between groups is unknown and should not be commented on with conclusive results. 9) Even if there were mental differences they would not justify racism. 10) The cause of observed morphological differences is more interesting. In other words he isn't saying much on the subject that hasn't already been addressed in this and previous discussions.The only major differences Graves would have with him are whether or not we can say that there are identifiable biological races (e.g. Dispute over Populations vs. Biological Race and definition of sub-species) and whether or not we can answer the question of if there are genetically determined differentials in intelligence (e.g. Coyne says he doesn't know and Graves says no and provides evidence). The biomedical issues have been addressed by Graves in detail. When Taxonomy26 can show me videos like those by scientists who are willing to put their reputation on the line and debate in an academic setting he can take a step towards be taking seriously as a debating instead of being routinely shutdown and dismissed. PSEUDOSCIENCE relies heavily on subjective validation. Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To pseudoscience this means jello cures headaches. To science this means nothing, since no experiment was done. Many things were going on when Joe Blow’s headache went away— the moon was full, a bird flew overhead, the window was open, Joe had on his red shirt, etc.— and his headache would have gone away eventually in any case, no matter what. Modine Flark reads her newspaper horoscope and says there must be something to astrology because the horoscope describes her perfectly. But when we read it we see it is a perfectly generally true statement that describes just about every human who has ever lived, and has nothing to do with Modine or her birth-stars. These are examples of subjective validation, one of the main foundations of popular support for pseudoscience. Essentially all of medical quackery (aka “alternative medicine”) relies on subjective validation entirely for its continued existence. A controlled experiment to study the effectiveness of a headache remedy, for example, would put a large number— thousands or tens of thousands— of people suffering from headaches in identical circumstances, except for the presence or absence of the remedy it is desired to test, and compare the results… which would then have some chance of being meaningful. Subjective validation renders such studies meaningless unless they follow a so-called Double-Blind protocol, which insures that no one involved in the study knows what the results “should be.” That is, no one in the study should know until final results have been tabulated which patients took the remedy to be tested, and which patients took an identical-appearing placebo, known to have no effect on headaches. - Rory Coker
Sorry, I'm kind of new on this thread so forgive me for my questions. I didn't realize it was going to cause this kind of reaction. Plus I'm not good at text walls, so I will just concentrate on the "what's the point" comments. 1. So many/disproportionate Low IQers in some groups are a huge problem for society. So what do we do about it? Right now, those with low IQ's are considered disabled and have certain protections under the law. Are you saying we should give those races special protections? 2.I'm a little confused by this section. I'm trying to find out what your whole point of this tread is, but you jump between pseudoscience, racism, athletics and Occam's Razor. None of it is really coherent.
One of the disparaging comments often made by those pushing the "racial IQ" falsehood is that there were no civilizations in Africa and that all of the modern technological advances were made elsewhere in the world. This fallacy originates from a lack of knowledge of the various ancient civilizations in Africa and the rarity of stone artifacts on the continent. However when we examine the stone artifacts that do exist in Africa we come up with irrefutable data that indicates advanced knowledge of our natural world. Stonehenge in the UK is estimated to be up to 10,000 years old. The equivalent of Stonehenge in Southern Africa is estimated to be between 75,000 and 160,000 years old! https://www.ancient-origins.net/anc...-calendar-oldest-megalithic-site-world-003160 The need for being able to track the seasons has been linked to both religions and farming. While it is speculation to attribute either to these particular artifacts the alignments are irrefutable and the age dating indicates that technological advances are not restricted to any single "racial IQ" as the OP would want us to erroneously believe. Whomever built these artifacts, and there are several of them, were obviously sufficiently advanced in both their thinking and their intelligence to have developed language, mathematics and pattern recognition to the point where it was important enough to invest in the labor to make a large and complex tool of this type. Furthermore given what we know of genetics today it is not unreasonable to conjecture that the gene pool then was still small enough that humanity at this point in time was still a single "race" which means that all of what might be deemed to be "races" today have probably originated from this source. But even if this particular ancient gene pool was not part of our modern gene pool it is still an indication that the POTENTIAL for this level of intelligence exists in our genes. Please note that I am generalizing and not making a claim about any specific gene relating to intelligence but rather that our combined genetic make up includes the range of possible levels of intelligence from low to high.
"You're not good at text walls"? You made a one-line post quoting/Celebrating Ejay's #108, which Was a "Text Wall", much longer than the first link I cited/suggested you read. (not to mention his TWO 5 Youtube posts I'm sure you watched. Right?) So I suggest you're just very Partisan, and not interested in contrary opinions on the subject matter. You don't even want to know what Race is before forming an opinion. No one's rights should be infringed and no one should be "prejudged" based on race. I'd also like a Nickel for every time I said "You never know who you're shaking hands with"... And specifically mentioned in this thread that it might be "Barak Obama or Some White Retard". And I've seen your line/inference before.. that anyone pointing out Relative advantages or disadvantages of different groups is suggesting Eugenics or Genocide. No, sorry, that's really a poor smear try. And I'm figuring that's because you're not interested in the subject. (or any science one) Scientists/Biologists spend HUGE amounts of time looking for, studying, and dividing other Species into subspecies, and debating their differences. So It's really me who has the better question. Why shouldn't we discuss our own? What is more interesting than discussing our own genetics? It might explain much about our own societies/abilities/medical issues/evolution/etc. At this stage of my personal evolution, (and evolution studies) I can't think of any more interesting topics than human Genetics and Evolution. The Human Genome my be the most important Topic of this century. I think it will prove to be. This may be painstaking merely because you lack sufficient topical curiosity or don't realize it's importance. If so, no one is forcing you to post here. But there's a Revolution going on in many Genetic fields. ` `
That's good research. There are a lot of good documentaries you can watch on human evolutionary and papers written about African archeology that compliment research on African history and civilizations. Cliff notes: 1. There are adaptive traits all human populations have in common (ex. salinity, iron content and blood pressure and other biochemical and physiological features). 2. Human intelligence has adaptive value. 3. Modern humans evolved from Homo Erectus based on mandibular evidence. 4. Based on Archeological evidence human populations during the Pleistocene Epoch shared hunting strategies. 5. Modern humans evolved articular speech which distinguishes them from the Apes and all human populations share the evolutionary trademarks of this development (ex. Broca's area). 6. Human brain size attained modern levels and ceased to expand during the Middle Stone Age. 7. All human children learn language during the same age span and each group is capable of learning other languages. 8. Differences in human life ways around the world arose so recently from the perspective of evolutionary history that there has been no time for any differential adaptive response to have occurred. "I also wanted to to make it clear that _no_ reputable archaeologist would find anything interesting about trying to compare different parts of the world in the ways in which Rushton et al do. One could as easily say using that approach that the area my ancestors came from, western Scotland, was filled with mentally deficient people, as there's no evidence of complex societies there until very late in comparison with other areas. But I think that we Scotsmen have done pretty well, in general." - Scott MacEachern There are a lot of sites all over Africa where ruins of ancient civilizations, kingdoms and settlements are being excavated and researched including Nile Valley Civilization (Egypt and Nubia). Jabrosky recently showed me an interesting article on Ancient Egyptian genomes.
LOFL I did a quick search and couldn't find any Real Credible links, but did find a debunking. What a scoop you made! An earthshattering discovery that didn't set alarm bells off for TWO posters! A Monstrous find Tens of thousands of years before anything else. For me, it was "Whoa"/WTF! This really shows how YOUR poitics has made you vulnerable/gullible to Preposterous conspiracy! Your post mindblowing BAD/Illogical/the usual Mere Cheerleading for this and many Other pro-black PSEUDOSCIENCE posts/claims here. Ejay Loved it too! No disbelief when for any Person of knowledge ALARMS would be going off. I knew immediately it had to be BS. Partly because OF Race and IQ. BTW... When Marco Polo Came upon China in Pre-colonial Times he fould, Silk, Ceramics, Gunpowder, Written Language, a Civil Service system, astronomical records, etc Meanwwhile despite your BOGUS Link.. 98% of Africans lived the same way in 1900 as they did 50,000 years ago Hunter Gatherers in Huts. Many still. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3s5olw/what_happened_to_adams_calendar/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - We're way beyond LOFL and into DESPERATE Gullible Conspiracy theory. This will FOREVER be a marker of the "quaility" of some posters and 'knowledge.' Oh! the daily Charge of "Pseudoscience" against ME/Others. This was so obviously BOGUS. How could you ever claim to know/charge "Pseudoscience" again? OMFG! `
Your "source" is a Reddit BLOGGER that goes by the name of "Penguins Soccer 2"? His hyperbolic rantings and strawman fallacies are mildly amusing and carry no weight whatsoever but given that is all you have I can understand your desperation. These is ALWAYS a question when it comes to dating ancient sites using only the visible stones themselves which is WHY I gave the date range that was CURRENTLY being used. The mere fact that the Adams Calendar has only recently been discovered and not yet had a full scientific investigation does not negate that it exists. Regardless as to WHEN it was built what actually matters is that it is MAN MADE! Speaking of man made there is the oldest know human drawing found in Southern Africa. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...s-art-hashtag-ochre-south-africa-archaeology/ The Blombos cave contains the oldest known modern human artifacts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...tion-discoveries-from-south-africa-158522696/ That there has not yet been the time and/or the scientific resources to fully excavate and research all of these sites does not alter the fact that they exist. Yes, there will ALWAYS be naysayers, especially amongst those promoting the bovine excrement of "scientific racism", because these artifacts expose their fallacies. However the sheer volume of the discoveries to date is building momentum that indicates that Africa was not what it is being disingenuously depicted by those with a nefarious agenda.
You posted the most Outrageous conspiracy Garbage EVER posted in the section as Reality. It didn't occur to you this was Crap. Pseudoscience extraordinaire. You figure you can Google your way through debate with me. This was the best example ever of why that can't be done. Bye. `
