| To: puroresu; joseph20; bruinbirdman; cowboyway; Tut; JimSEA; DieHard the Hunter; NCLaw441; ...
So as not to be a comment hog, will post multiple responses to multiple freepers in one post (there are bound to be typos):
To: puroresu Response to comment: 101 Natural selection and [Macro]evolution (and Microevolution) are sort of akin to apples and fruit. Natural selection occurs, but Macroevolution did not. However, the idea behind Macroevolution is that natural selection, over a long time, can lead to the creation of new species. Basically, natural selection is a big part of Macroevolution (and Microevolution). If homo sapiens have existed for over a 100,000 years, and humanity has existed for millions of years--and since there is still debate over whether Europeans have some Neanderthal 'blood,' East Asians Peking Man 'blood,' and now maybe Lapita peoples and Australian aborigines Flores Man 'blood,' etc.--there would be plenty of time for groups of men to evolve into more advanced forms, and a varying rates. For instance, Europeans are commonly touted (usually by Europeans or their descendants) as being the result of their ancestors living in a harsh environment in which men were naturally selected to be smart, strong, cunning, and even--according to the ideas of one freeper--to be planners. Women supposedly were bred for looks; since men died off one hunting trips (suppose teamwork skills would be another thing for men), the number of bread (or meat) winners was limited, and the relative glut of women had to compete for a limited pool of men, and hence entered into the world non-brown (or non-very-dark-brown-almost-black) hair and non-brown eyes. Sort of a fanciful idea; if you asked an Afrocentrist to come up with a hypothesis for the evolution of Africans, he would probably come up with similar crazy ideas. From a Creationist view, post-Babel, the ancestors of many Europeans apparently were not a very powerful group. They, during the Ice Age resulting from the Flood, were pushed to the western corner of Eurasia onto a large peninsula up against the polar ice cap and in a land of glaciers, ice, and cold. Their weakness could have come from them being a small group (God could have divided mankind unequally at Babel). More could have died from the elements and harsh conditions. Thus a small and inbreeding population would be more probable to produce the mutations to give non-brown colored eyes and hair. People could have gone sort of 'Hey, that's pretty' and, without getting too detailed, these people could have had comparably more babies. In this post, not going much into the ideas about European men, but while they don't seem stupid on average, then don't seem to be particularly intelligent either; they seem....average. Have seen plenty of stupid and intelligent people from various 'races.'
To: joseph20 Response to comment: 4 "His statement was not a blanket statement. " How was it not? The first, second, and fourth of his quotes in this article are generalized statements made without sufficient qualification. It could be up to you to decide whether you view his third quote in this article to be a generalized statement. Personally wouldn't; just an absurd one, and the result of Macroevolutionary reasoning.
To: bruinbirdman Response to comment: 10 These are Watson's prejudices. A few studies made decades ago and with a limited number of people attempting to test 'race' and intelligence do not constitute fact.
To: cowboyway Response to comment: 18 Few people would consider Appalachians (of European descent) to constitute a distinct race that has undergone tens of millennia of evolution separate of Europeans. While bad, Appalachians are insulted for their culture, not for the genes within them. If you take an Appalachian baby and raise the child in a more 'civilized' part of the country, people generally won't consider that child to be part of a stupid race.
To: Tut Response to comment: 22 So, you basically typing that he's a jerk with bad taste. Got it.
To: joseph20 Response to comment: 27 a). What happened to the labelling of the y axis and the incrementation there? b). That graph doesn't look all that similar to ones which have seen of "The Bell Curve" study, nor does it contain the statistics for Asians and [Latinos].
To: DieHard the Hunter Response to comment: 30 Just to point out, humans and dogs are not very comparable in terms of race. Dog breeds are quite distinct in terms of their genes (and also their appearance). The result of being specifically bred for particular traits over millennia. Humans in contrast have had many factors for choosing [spouses], and have not been put through nearly as rigorous a breeding regimen. Furthermore, humans travel a lot. There's ironic justice that many of the freepers here pronouncing the African 'race,' at least on average, to be less intelligent probably have some African blood themselves.
To: NCLaw441 Response to comment: 33 Here's another question for you (and others out there): Why is the information of that science necessary anyway? So Africans can be euthanized? Or so Europeans can [rule] it over the 'lesser races?' What good would come from the [information] that one 'race' was less intelligent than another, or that one 'race' was more intelligent than another? Answer: Close to zilch. That research should not be censored, but there is almost no need for that research to be carried out in the first place. (you can remove 'almost'). P.S. This is just a *guess*, but suspect that your reason for such research come pretty close to question number 3.
To: JerseyHighlander Response to comment: 37 You might look at the video link which posted in an earlier comment. The things you mention in your comment are not genetic, nor based on race, but based on environmental factors and (sort of recent) ancestral environmental factors.
To: Star Traveler Response to comment: 39 Generally agree with your post, but would add that not only the subculture is to blame, but also the general (yes, the European-descended dominated) society. As you can see in this thread, societal attitudes toward those of African descent being comparatively unintelligent run deep. Do you think that they don't see/read/hear this? If the conditions ancestors lived under are shown conclusively to affect future generations, then many Americans of African descent would have a very strong case for reparations for slavery. Already, even without such epigenetics (still sort of 'gushing' over that show), many Americans of African descent living in single parent households is directly linked to slavery. Slave owners were not beholden to keep families together, and many slave children were separated from their fathers early on--or if the father was European descended, their father disowned them, and even from their mothers when they were older. And that has led all the way to today, where having a single parent family is normal to many Americans of African descent. Note, this does not lessen the blame on Americans of African descent themselves for their failure to form nuclear families, but does give some new blame to those slave owners of long ago. It is similar to domestic violence, which often runs in families. A child who is beaten and who sees a parent beaten is more probable to beat his own children and spouse. A violent childhood does not take away the responsibility the man has to not beat his family, but the beater from the previous generation does deserve some blame.
To: CatoRenasci Response to comment: 45 It could be pointed out, that, in contrast to the rather arbitrary 'races,' there is a genetic distinction between women and men. One has y chromosome, for starters.
To: hershey Response to comment: 48 They both need a civilization boost, not a genome boost. How does Islamic brainwashing alter genomes? (incidentally, it could alter epigenomes).
To: Godebert Response to comment: 49 Not by much. You should try looking at dress, [non-morphological] appearance, demeanor, and later behavior, conversation, attitude, and then personality. Those are much more useful factors than 'race.'
To: sportutegrl; bmwcyle; excalibur1701 Response to comment: 55 "Unfortunately, most blacks vote for Democrats." So do Ashkenazi Jews and Americans of Asian descent.....and around half of Americans of European descent (something that has seemed lost on more than one freeper). The first two groups are supposed to have a higher IQ on average than those of European descent, and the latter the same.
To: Hardastarboard Response to comment: 56 Some people bring up and rely on "The Bell Curve" too much. Wonder why? Maybe because although it's old and tested only a small segment of the American (and other) population(s), it gave an 'answer' they want?
To: driftdiver; joseph20; cowboyway Response to comment: 58 Eurocentric in that many IQ tests test for things which people in Western--and now increasingly Asian--societies consider to be useful skills or traits in the non-physical field. They don't cover all non-physical skills that people can possess. Other people may be far more skilled at three dimensional chess, for instance (to just come up with something). It isn't a secret that there is a big controversy over what constitutes intelligence.
To: puroresu Response to comment: 60 But, why must the Australian fail? He could stand a fair chance of materially succeeding in his new country.
To: Raycpa Response to comment: 69 Percentage-wise? There are more European descendants who vote to the left of the political spectrum than those of African descent. And, again half of the European descended population is not so 'hot' then, either.
To: Shamrock-DW Response to comment: 74 There are plenty of intelligent Africans, many of whom flee Africa for continents with less war, disease, famine, and more money and security.
To: SauronOfMordor Response to comment: 78 Then there's the almost pointlessness of such research.... See the response to NCLaw441's comment.
To: Wonder Warthog Response to comment: 79 And with that statement you demonstrate that you did not thoroughly read the article. Watson's quotes do not mention averages, merely his belief that those of African descent are stupider than those of European descent. *Oddly*, he didn't bring himself to state that those of European descent are more intelligent than those of African descent. Would that have been too prideful?
To: junta Response to comment: 84 Obviously, his not shutting up is a sign that he is not too smart for his britches.
To: BnBlFlag Response to comment: 93 They aren't doing a very good job at suppression, then. That the averages of the 'races' are not the same is not conclusive proof that one 'race' is more intelligent than another. You state that [Latinos] are in between European descendants and African ones. Except for Brazilians, [Latinos] are largely of European and Amerindian descent. Amerindians are supposed to be closely related to northeast Asians. Therefore, genetically, logically, if "The Bell Curve" showed a genetic basis for intelligence, [Latinos] should fall in between Asian descendants and European ones. Since they don't that is just yet another sign that the disparities in IQs (not necessarily intelligence) is not primarily based on genes or 'race.'
To: puroresu Response to comment: 97 If Finns moved to the Outback, do you believe that they would be on their own, with no logistical-type link to Finland? You mention European colonization of Southern Africa. They were supplied and protected by Europe, first the Netherlands, and then the United Kingdom. They were not on their own. They imported their own, already invented, technology and moved on from there. If a Finn moved to the Outback, he would probably be able to pick up aborigine technology, whereas an aborigine in Finland might not as readily pick up cell phone electronics (Nokia is a major part of the Finnish economy), but then again, he might. Neither show a sign of particular intelligence, merely recognition of a technology, and the ability to access it. Posted on 10/17/2007 11:07:08 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail? ) |
Accepting the thrust of your argument that it is difficult to fairly compare dogs (who have been selectively bred) and people (who have not), I rather think that your response goes a long way toward proving my point.
Dog breeds are, in many respects, a “controlled experiment” and, as you have rightly pointed out, their traits and appearances differ widely as a result.
People are an uncontrolled experiment — roughly equivalent to mungrel mutts in the “dog-world”, if that makes any sense. So with people we are definitely not dealing with purebred breeds.
Beyond that, my analogy applies absolutely: it is all in the genes, and the answers lie in the ancestors. You will not get a smart pup from a long line of dumb parents. As with dogs, so with people.
He didn't need to, because to anyone who has even a minor familiarity with the subject knows that is how the data is expressed and what the data shows.
Good grief--the man is a top physical scientist. Do you honestly think that he is ignorant of basic statistics.
And just as an aside-he used neither the words "African" nor the word "European". There are scads of people of caucasoid ancestry that are not "European".
You may well be correct that macroevolution did not occur. I'm an evolution skeptic, in fact. However, natural selection does occur and it occurs whether macroevolutionary theories are true or not. All it would take to create the multiple races we see on earth is natural selection. Evolution wouldn't be required at all.
They had to come from somewhere, didn't they? You could turn to theology and say that God created different races, but if He did so, wouldn't He provide them with the capabilities for surviving in their particular area? If the races are identical and interchangable, why create more than one?
In this post, not going much into the ideas about European men, but while they don't seem stupid on average, then don't seem to be particularly intelligent either; they seem....average.
Average compared to what? If race and IQ aren't in any way connected, your argument is incomprehensible.
Have seen plenty of stupid and intelligent people from various 'races.'
True, but irrelevant. I've seen tall women, too, but if a task required a height of six feet to be performed properly I wouldn't expect nearly as many women to be able to perform it as men.
But, why must the Australian fail? He could stand a fair chance of materially succeeding in his new country.
I didn't say he would fail. An individual Australian might well succeed in Finland. But I wouldn't place any money on the prediction that if Finland was, let's say, 15% Australian, that that 15% would make it into med school in the same proportion as Finns. Are you aware of any place on earth where it is otherwise? Is there a place where blacks are the scientific and intellectual elite, and whites need affirmative action to try to keep up? Is there a place where blacks are 25% of the population and also 25% of the people who get into the top tier university PhD programs based on race blind admissions?
You mention European colonization of Southern Africa. They were supplied and protected by Europe, first the Netherlands, and then the United Kingdom. They were not on their own. They imported their own, already invented, technology and moved on from there. If a Finn moved to the Outback, he would probably be able to pick up aborigine technology, whereas an aborigine in Finland might not as readily pick up cell phone electronics (Nokia is a major part of the Finnish economy), but then again, he might. Neither show a sign of particular intelligence, merely recognition of a technology, and the ability to access it.
And that technology came from where? From back on their home continent where they invented it. The question is, why didn't the native Africans invent steam engines?
You missed the point.