Be a Supporter!

Arguing Evolution

  • 8,748 Views
  • 194 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
VenomKing666
VenomKing666
  • Member since: May. 12, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Artist
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 09:02:46 Reply

At 11/18/11 08:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It's fucking hilarious how there's all these atheist-kiddies running around crying about people not accepting evolution

but then in the next breath they'll call any non-welfare statist economic policy "darwinism", as if evolution suddenly became evil

They don't do that. Please show me atheistic kids doing it. And EVEN if they did, a society based around darwinism would NOT be a pleasent one to live in, but it does not mean evolution isn't true. Also darwinism doesnt always = atheism. Get your shit right and stop strawmanning.

or how they nearly all believe that evolution magically stopped at the neck. That's right, even though two racial groups were seperated for tens of thousands of years

Tens of thousands of yeard? HAHAHAHAHAHA No.

in different environements that favour dfferent characteristics, evolution lead to a difference only in bone density, muscle fibre composition, height weight and body dimensions, skin pigment, blood types, and iris colouring, and just magically stopped at the brain.
Ha! Who's the REAL creationists?

Who says that? It's like you create all these imaginary easy target for yourself to argue with.

SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 09:30:58 Reply

At 11/18/11 09:02 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: They don't do that. Please show me atheistic kids doing it.

They do it all the time. the "free market" is darwinism, their social programs are compassionate and enlightened.

And EVEN if they did, a society based around darwinism would NOT be a pleasent one to live in, but it does not mean evolution isn't true.

I'm not saying its not true, I'm saying that it's hilarious how one minute you're an idiot for not understanding/accepting it, the next minute your political philosophy is awful because it is the embodiment of it.

Also darwinism doesnt always = atheism. Get your shit right and stop strawmanning.

Darwinism is not the description of someone who accepts evolutionary theory, you know. Not that I expect you to know anything about science.

Tens of thousands of yeard? HAHAHAHAHAHA No.

You didn't even understadn the scientific method until a few moments ago. Stop making yourself look like a complete fucking idiot.

Who says that? It's like you create all these imaginary easy target for yourself to argue with.

UM pretty much everyone believes that all races have the same inherent average intelligence. Seriously, literally almost everyone.


BBS Signature
SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 14:10:32 Reply

At 11/18/11 08:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: That's right, even though two racial groups were seperated for tens of thousands of years in different environements

recent genetic mapping indicates we've been doing intensive migrating (even going back to Africa) and interbreeding since we discovered there was more than just Africa.
not to mention that we've only been around as physically modern humans for 200,000 years.
there was also the proto-human/proto-neanderthal split roughly 400,000 years before that, but that still wasn't enough time to make us so different we couldn't mate.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
PrincessLuna
PrincessLuna
  • Member since: Oct. 7, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 14:48:40 Reply

At 11/18/11 08:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It's fucking hilarious how there's all these atheist-kiddies running around crying about people not accepting evolution

but then in the next breath they'll call any non-welfare statist economic policy "darwinism", as if evolution suddenly became evil

Accepting that Evolution is true is simply acknowledging one of the systems of nature. It's no different from acknowledging that male lions eat their cubs, it doesn't mean that I approve of incestal cannibalism.

Accepting Evolution doesn't mean that I align my politic ideals alongside it. Nor does it with pretty much most people in general.


BBS Signature
Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 16:08:58 Reply

At 11/18/11 08:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It's fucking hilarious how there's all these atheist-kiddies running around crying about people not accepting evolution

I don't really see that going on in this thread. I see some people getting frustrated over the scientific ignorance of others, which is understandable.

but then in the next breath they'll call any non-welfare statist economic policy "darwinism", as if evolution suddenly became evil

"Darwinism" is a phrase coined by, and only ever used by creationists like Ben Stein. Nobody except for the scientifically illiterate call people 'Darwinists' or use the phrase 'social darwinism'. Only the biggest idiots on the globe believe that natural selection applies to human social dynamics. Could yo please give an example of somebody in this thread, or for that matter even this forum, who's saying this?

or how they nearly all believe that evolution magically stopped at the neck. That's right, even though two racial groups were seperated for tens of thousands of years in different environements that favour dfferent characteristics, evolution lead to a difference only in bone density, muscle fibre composition, height weight and body dimensions, skin pigment, blood types, and iris colouring, and just magically stopped at the brain.

Observable differences in phenotype != large differences in the genotype. Yes, among humans there are variations in bone structure, pigmentation, hair etc. None of those have anything to do with the development of the brain. On top of that, there's the fact that the human race is incredibly homogenous, with interracial couples and mixed race children being extremely common. There are very few areas of human civilization that have not had the genes of foreigners bred into their society, and even entire races have been born this way (like Mexicans for example).There's really no such thing as a 'pure' isolated race anymore, unless you count the handful of African tribes that have never made contact with civilization, in which case you're seriously talking about a few dozen people.

Feel free to continue to misinterpret how evolution by natural selection works Adolf style, but leave the rest of us out of your ideas about racial politics.

Ha! Who's the REAL creationists?

Creationists.


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052

He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 17:46:06 Reply

At 11/18/11 04:08 PM, Famas wrote: I don't really see that going on in this thread. I see some people getting frustrated over the scientific ignorance of others, which is understandable.

Yeah but they act like it's one of the primary problems facing humanity

"Darwinism" is a phrase coined by, and only ever used by creationists like Ben Stein. Nobody except for the scientifically illiterate call people 'Darwinists' or use the phrase 'social darwinism'. Only the biggest idiots on the globe believe that natural selection applies to human social dynamics. Could yo please give an example of somebody in this thread, or for that matter even this forum, who's saying this?

Liberals in general say it all the time. I can't find any recent examples, but I have been called that on this forum for opposing universal healthcare.
And yeah, I was just calling venomking out about the incorrect usage of the word. You don't need to expalin.

Observable differences in phenotype != large differences in the genotype. Yes, among humans there are variations in bone structure, pigmentation, hair etc. None of those have anything to do with the development of the brain.

My point is that all these things are different, and yet people reject out of hand the possibility of there being average differences in intelligence on a racial basis.

I mean, africans have smaller brains than europeans. There isn't a perfect correlation between brain size and intelligence in humans, but there is something of a correlation, enough that it's worth considering the possibility. But these atheist kiddies don't consider it at all.

On top of that, there's the fact that the human race is incredibly homogenous, with interracial couples and mixed race children being extremely common. There are very few areas of human civilization that have not had the genes of foreigners bred into their society, and even entire races have been born this way (like Mexicans for example).There's really no such thing as a 'pure' isolated race anymore, unless you count the handful of African tribes that have never made contact with civilization, in which case you're seriously talking about a few dozen people.

You're making the continuum fallacy.

People of African origin have different average intelligence than people of european origin. There need not be some perfectly pure racial distinctions for race to be a factor in intelligence.

Feel free to continue to misinterpret how evolution by natural selection works

You haven't demonstrated that I've done that at all though. When different populations spend tens of thousands of years in completely different environements, natural selection tends to, you know, cause the populations to become a little different, and to reject apriori the possibility of evolution affecting the brain even slightly is entirely creationist.

Adolf style, but leave the rest of us out of your ideas about racial politics.

Know who else held similar views on race as me? Abaraham Lincoln.

But go ahead, call me a nazi. It really shows you're interested in intelligent debate and that you don't resort to name-calling the second someone disagrees with you.

At 11/18/11 02:10 PM, SolInvictus wrote: there was also the proto-human/proto-neanderthal split roughly 400,000 years before that, but that still wasn't enough time to make us so different we couldn't mate.

Cool, I'm talking about differences in intelligence, not about being different species.

At 11/18/11 02:48 PM, MsRukia wrote: Accepting Evolution doesn't mean that I align my politic ideals alongside it. Nor does it with pretty much most people in general.

So you're saying you understand that evolution is responsible for the human race as it exists today, but that it's worn-out its usefulness and we should do everything to prevent it?


BBS Signature
Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 19:15:50 Reply

At 11/18/11 05:46 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
Yeah but they act like it's one of the primary problems facing humanity

Scientific illiteracy is one of the primary problems facing humanity. We live in an age with the greatest dependance upon technological advancement in human history, yet as a whole we are completely disenchanted with the processes that create and maintain these advancements. This is a volatile combination, and the nuclear arms race is probably one of the greatest examples of the sort of dangers that arise from our state of ignorance. We're like a bunch of six year-olds with firecrackers, and we're bound to blow our fingers off or shoot our eyes out at some point.

Liberals in general say it all the time. I can't find any recent examples, but I have been called that on this forum for opposing universal healthcare.
And yeah, I was just calling venomking out about the incorrect usage of the word. You don't need to expalin.

You're painting with an extremely broad brush. Which liberals say this sort of thing? Even among my most insufferable Che Guevarra praising bleeding heart friends I have never heard the phrase "Darwinism". Inversely, I've heard Conservatives such as Ben Stein, Bill O'reilly, John Boehner, and Michael Savage throw the term around whenever the topic of evolution in public education arises.

My point is that all these things are different, and yet people reject out of hand the possibility of there being average differences in intelligence on a racial basis.

Because unless you have accurately plotted and lab analyzed data that can support this, there's no reason for anybody to accept it by word of mouth? That's a pretty reasonable position to have.

I mean, africans have smaller brains than europeans. There isn't a perfect correlation between brain size and intelligence in humans, but there is something of a correlation, enough that it's worth considering the possibility. But these atheist kiddies don't consider it at all.

First of all, source this information please. Searching for this claim doesn't exactly yield anything. On top of that, it wouldn't even be relevant to the conversation of intelligence if it were true, because the neanderthal had a higher brain mass than homo-sapien sapiens.

You're starting to approach a rather offensive level of ignorance in your posting, man. I hope you're trolling, I don't want to assume that there are actual neo-nazi advocates on this board.

You're making the continuum fallacy.

Nice try, but in the realm of something like biology you need to actually punctuate your claims with substantial evidence if you want people to accept the validity of your claims. I'm not saying "There is no possible way that there is variance in intelligence between peoples of different genetic makeup" I'm stating "Your claims that entire races of human beings are intellectually superior/inferior to others requires evidence and supportive data". There's a difference between those two statements.

People of African origin have different average intelligence than people of european origin. There need not be some perfectly pure racial distinctions for race to be a factor in intelligence.

Do you have even the remotest idea how genetically diverse the population of Africa is? Which African population are you talking about? Egyptians? Nigerians? Syrians? Somalians? Once again, source this claim before you run the risk of continuing to make completely unfounded and racist remarks.

You haven't demonstrated that I've done that at all though.

The above paragraphs beg to differ with you.

When different populations spend tens of thousands of years in completely different environements, natural selection tends to, you know, cause the populations to become a little different, and to reject apriori the possibility of evolution affecting the brain even slightly is entirely creationist.

Too bad human civilization hasn't worked this way since the dawn of the first sea fairing nations, and as I already pointed out with the Mestizos, humanity is remarkably homogenous with almost no isolated populations on the globe that do not mate with people of other genetic makeups, spare a very small handful of African tribes that are secluded and make no contact with the rest of civilization. Which population are you talking about, again? Which group of people can you point to who are genetically isolated from the rest of the world?

Know who else held similar views on race as me? Abaraham Lincoln.

Lincoln got his dome rocked shortly after Origin of Species was published. Not exactly somebody I would expect to have cutting edge ideas on human genetic diversity. Don't make pleas to authority like this. Your attitude is starting to get offensive.

But go ahead, call me a nazi. It really shows you're interested in intelligent debate and that you don't resort to name-calling the second someone disagrees with you.

It's not name calling to point out that the flaws in your interpretation of Darwin's theories are verbatim the same ideas Hitler had about racial superiority. And you really don't get to play the moral high horse card here given what you're posting, especially if you're going to be a hypocrite by throwing around "atheist kiddies" and "fucking liberals" as insults . Nor should you try to claim that I'm not interested in intelligent exchange over a given matter when I just spent the better part of this thread in doing so.

Cool, I'm talking about differences in intelligence, not about being different species.

His point is still addressing your claims, you know.

So you're saying you understand that evolution is responsible for the human race as it exists today, but that it's worn-out its usefulness and we should do everything to prevent it?

This is it. Right in this sentence you are advocating "social Darwinism. Stop, it's offensive. It's not even funny under the pretext of trolling, and it's making you look like a huge idiot. You're shitting all over this thread and complicating what is already a rather scientifically ignorant discussion.


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052

He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 20:12:03 Reply

At 11/18/11 05:46 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Cool, I'm talking about differences in intelligence, not about being different species.

we're going to have to start clearing things up; your comment argued for genetic origins of intellectual differences, meaning rates of speciation or species change are relevant (hence the neanderthal subspecies reference).
intelligence is also another issue as it could refer to cognition or such measurements as IQ tests, the former is common to all humans in equal measures (barring disorders) while the other is not present in the same level with all peoples. asking how this could be (as everything seems to point towards us being effectively the same) provides a few possibilities outside the scope of genetics, those being test bias (IQ intends to measure intelligence with regards to a Western system of perception and understanding) or socio-cultural influences (if your means of existence do not incorporate or reflect on those of the West then it is highly unlikely you'll be taught much that will help you on an IQ test).
but of course if your point is one about social evolution and its shaping of intelligence/understanding, then yes, neanderthals were irrelevant.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 21:46:20 Reply

At 11/18/11 07:15 PM, Famas wrote: Scientific illiteracy is one of the primary problems facing humanity.

Pretty sure the poor brown people in the middle east would rather a creationist US president than the current one who belives in evolution and, you know, bombs them and stuff.

We live in an age with the greatest dependance upon technological advancement in human history, yet as a whole we are completely disenchanted with the processes that create and maintain these advancements.

???

It also means we're inventing and producing more technology than any time in history, so I'm pretty sure creationists are, surprise surprise, pretty harmless. Oh, and there are less creationists now than any point in history.

This is a volatile combination, and the nuclear arms race is probably one of the greatest examples of the sort of dangers that arise from our state of ignorance. We're like a bunch of six year-olds with firecrackers, and we're bound to blow our fingers off or shoot our eyes out at some point.

What the fuck? Are you saying people doubt the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons or something? Seriously, this is fucking retarded. It has nothing to do with 'scientific ignorance' an everything to do with nation-states.

You're painting with an extremely broad brush. Which liberals say this sort of thing? Even among my most insufferable Che Guevarra praising bleeding heart friends I have never heard the phrase "Darwinism".

Well, I have. You see, without universal healthcare, the weak die off and so it's like evolution. I see it all the time, though I've heard people like Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann use it.

Because unless you have accurately plotted and lab analyzed data that can support this, there's no reason for anybody to accept it by word of mouth? That's a pretty reasonable position to have.

Um no, the reasonsable position is "Well I haven't looked at the evidence, so while I guess it's possible but I can't know either way". The usual atheist-kiddie position is "No! No! You're wrong! You're a nazi racist!" (see: your last post).

First of all, source this information please. Searching for this claim doesn't exactly yield anything. On top of that, it wouldn't even be relevant to the conversation of intelligence if it were true, because the neanderthal had a higher brain mass than homo-sapien sapiens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomet ry#Race_and_brain_size

The correlation between brain size and intelligence ranges from approximately 0.3 to 0.6

Further, East Asians have larger brains than Africans, and have a much higher average intelligence. This doesn't prove anything, but it does suggest that there are grounds for belief in race influencing intelligence.

You're starting to approach a rather offensive level of ignorance in your posting, man.

Why? I didn't even claim that there are inherent racial IQ differences. I'm merely saying that "evolution advocates" dogmaticly deny the possibility, despite priding themselves on being "rational" and "critical thinkers".

I hope you're trolling, I don't want to assume that there are actual neo-nazi advocates on this board.

Given that I'm an anti-statist (i.e. that I literally want to abolish the government entirely), your views are far more akin to National Socialism. Sorry.

Nice try, but in the realm of something like biology you need to actually punctuate your claims with substantial evidence if you want people to accept the validity of your claims.

That literally had nothing to do with what I just said. You're essentially saying that race doesn't exist, which is stupid. Not least, because there are observable phenotypic differences in people of African origins to those of European origins. But I'm guessing that it's all some coincidence, right?

I'm not saying "There is no possible way that there is variance in intelligence between peoples of different genetic makeup" I'm stating "Your claims that entire races of human beings are intellectually superior/inferior to others requires evidence and supportive data". There's a difference between those two statements.

Firstly, Africans/people of african origin are demonstrably less intelligent than Europeans and East Asians. The only thing that is really disputed is the causes of these differences, and whether genetics plays a role in it at all.

Second, my whole point wasn't that it is gentic, just that these "critical thinking" assholes dismiss the possibility in a way that reminds me of creationist arguments.

Do you have even the remotest idea how genetically diverse the population of Africa is? Which African population are you talking about? Egyptians? Nigerians? Syrians? Somalians? Once again, source this claim before you run the risk of continuing to make completely unfounded and racist remarks.

Um for fuck's sakes its absolutely undeniably true that African nations, particularly Sub-saharan Africa, have lower average IQ's than European and particularly east asian countries.

Which population are you talking about, again? Which group of people can you point to who are genetically isolated from the rest of the world?

The vast majority of people reproduce with people of the same ethnicity as them. How many european half-breeds are in Africa as a percantage of population? Fuck all, I'd be willing to bet. Also, the traits from people of African origin tend to be more dominant than those from Europeans, meaning that half-breeds are more likely to display African-esque traits (i.e. athe offspring of a European that breeds with an african that has a lower IQ than than them will have a lower Iq than the european parent) and so the effects of racial inter-breeding is diminished.

Lincoln got his dome rocked shortly after Origin of Species was published. Not exactly somebody I would expect to have cutting edge ideas on human genetic diversity. Don't make pleas to authority like this. Your attitude is starting to get offensive.

Oh that's fine, call me a nazi though. Lmao

Anyway, evolutionary theory actually supports racial differences far more than creationism, because creationism supposes that god created everyone and so there is no reason to expect them to have been created unequally.

It's not name calling to point out that the flaws in your interpretation of Darwin's theories are verbatim the same ideas Hitler had about racial superiority.

Why not compare me to Lincoln then, huh? Huh?

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abaraham Lincoln

And you really don't get to play the moral high horse card here given what you're posting, especially if you're going to be a hypocrite by throwing around "atheist kiddies" and "fucking liberals" as insults .

Hmm, yeah calling people "atheist kiddies" is exactly as bad as comparing me to a mass murdering dictator for believing in a particualr sceitnific theory. Get fucked.


BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-18 21:56:49 Reply

At 11/18/11 08:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote: your comment argued for genetic origins of intellectual differences,

No it didn't, it argued for not dismissing a priori the possibility of genetic intellectual differences, like msot racial egalitarians do.

provides a few possibilities outside the scope of genetics, those being test bias (IQ intends to measure intelligence with regards to a Western system of perception and understanding) or socio-cultural influences (if your means of existence do not incorporate or reflect on those of the West then it is highly unlikely you'll be taught much that will help you on an IQ test).

Ah, may bad. I should have made it clear I was talking about people of African/European/East Asian origin within America, for example. I wasn't clear, and to make things worse famas' post lead me to talk about diffrent countries which further makes things unclear.

Racial IQ differences are lower within America than when compared on the basis of nation, but they are still statistically significant and cannot be explained by the cultural and educational phenomena you mentioned.

And famas, the link for correlation between brain size and intelligence didn't wotk for some reason.


BBS Signature
SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-19 01:28:22 Reply

At 11/18/11 09:56 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No it didn't, it argued for not dismissing a priori the possibility of genetic intellectual differences, like msot racial egalitarians do.

ya, it just clicked i'm throwing arbitrary amount of time around with regards to what could be a tiny genetic differences. sorry about that, i think i just like trying to bring up neanderthal sex. on the bright side, the fact that ancient Asians and Europeans bred with neanderthals would be an example for your argument of such a source of difference.

Ah, may bad. I should have made it clear I was talking about people of African/European/East Asian origin within America, for example. I wasn't clear, and to make things worse famas' post lead me to talk about diffrent countries which further makes things unclear.

Racial IQ differences are lower within America than when compared on the basis of nation, but they are still statistically significant and cannot be explained by the cultural and educational phenomena you mentioned.

in an American setting it does make more sense, but the problem is i have little knowledge about the context. from what i've learned about Canadian/Montreal's ethnic communities is that some degree of correlation is more evident, but the issue is that the establishments around these communities and their size is rather exceptional when compared to other cities/countries.

but thats not to say intelligence statistics for the US & Canada aren't similar... i'll look into it soon enough.

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
PrincessLuna
PrincessLuna
  • Member since: Oct. 7, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-19 04:12:35 Reply

Seeing that SadisticMonkey has thrown out the the word "magic" a few times then it means that we must get a bit more in depth with Evolution for him.

The issue here is that Evolution is as much a fact as the Theory of Gravity, Mathematics Theory, Cell Theory and pretty anything that is actually accepted as a fact. But the overwhelming issue is that you can't prove God actually exists, you're the one with the extraordinary claim, so it is your job to provide an extraordinary evidence.

I can assure you that the Theory for Evolution is very much a well proven theory. And before you say "Just a Theory" Here is the definition of what scientific theory is, cited from the Oxford Dictionary itself:

"A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

This in terms essentially makes it a fact in the sense of how much irrefutable evidence there is behind it. It is common knowledge that us Homo sapiens evolved from primitive apes, and share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Bonobos. In fact we are one of the African Great Apes. We know this not only because of a comprehensive fossil record, which shows our ancestors but also because via the Human and Chimpanzee Genome we can see a direct correlation between our DNA and that of a Chimpanzees, with only some minor differences. The Genome actually shows the evolutionary path of pretty much all life, just take a look for yourself; it's honestly incredible.

Please do not believe any horrifically appalling, shallow, pedantic, foolish propaganda about Evolution, like that rubbish you spewed about the racial implications of the theory. It's just an acceptance of reality as I stated before, so if you want me to digress further upon that then see my previous post. I recommend that you look outside of your creationist views and really start seeing with your own eyes. Here are some videos that show some of the evidence in a nice and easy format:

Richard Dawkins: Why are there still Chimpanzees?
http://youtu.be/wh0F4FBLJRE

Richard Dawkins: Comparing the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes
http://youtu.be/WBEtw7esmvg

Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils!
http://youtu.be/o92x6AvxCFg

Richard Dawkins: Diatoms: The Evolution of a New Species
http://youtu.be/EUozZo8nOpY

'Why Evolution Is True Lecture' by Jerry Coyne
http://youtu.be/w1m4mATYoig

This is only the tip of the iceberg, don't you worry. If you are curious enough to ask questions about this task with a positive interest of actually learning it, then I have plenty of resources for you. And this includes videos, books, journals and more.

Also the Bible or any other holy book cannot be considered evidence, it's like me writing on a napkin that my God is the right God because it is written here right on this napkin. To prove that God exists you must use scientific method.
"Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

Intelligent Design does not use Scientific Method at all.

Arguing Evolution


BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-19 05:39:55 Reply

Wow you're a massive fucking cunt who as precisely ZERO reading comprehension whatsoever.

The only thing I described as "magic" was the way evolution supposedly works in the narrative constructed by racial egalitarians, who acceptthat evolutions caused differences between different racial groups in basically every part of the body, except for, quite conveniently, the brain.


BBS Signature
PrincessLuna
PrincessLuna
  • Member since: Oct. 7, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-19 05:51:20 Reply

At 11/19/11 05:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Wow you're a massive fucking cunt who as precisely ZERO reading comprehension whatsoever.

The only thing I described as "magic" was the way evolution supposedly works in the narrative constructed by racial egalitarians, who acceptthat evolutions caused differences between different racial groups in basically every part of the body, except for, quite conveniently, the brain.

I was more so addressing your general ignorance of the theory, as another user has digressed upon the matter already.


BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-19 06:14:14 Reply

At 11/19/11 05:51 AM, MsRukia wrote: I was more so addressing your general ignorance of the theory, as another user has digressed upon the matter already.

Except...I literally know about every single thing you posted, and none of it contradicts the race/genes influencing intelligence.


BBS Signature
The-universe
The-universe
  • Member since: Apr. 6, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-19 08:05:00 Reply

Does anyone have any articles on biological explanations to race?

This debate is becoming intriguing.


It's not the lack of crimes that values your morality but your capacity for contrition.

Click this and one day I'll be worth bazillions.

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-19 11:16:45 Reply

At 11/19/11 05:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: ...who acceptthat evolutions caused differences between different racial groups in basically every part of the body, except for, quite conveniently, the brain.

but lets not overstate the nature of these differences. (unless there are some i don't know about?)


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
AKACCMIOF
AKACCMIOF
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-19 15:50:12 Reply

This thread became dead to me the moment SadisticMonkey confused the idea that evolution is what happened and not intelligent design (in biology) and that complete evolution by natural selection is preferable to any compassionate alternatives that we can put in place (in economics). Darwin himself said "nature is red in tooth and claw", and while I recognise that evolution by natural selection is what caused us to arrive at our current physiological state, that doesn't make leaving it to nature so it eventually gets better (no matter how many people get hurt in the process) the solution to all mankind's problems.

The corpse rotted when he started calling everyone retarded and cunts and calling people out on Godwin's law (despite having brought it on himself by starting on the slippery slope of eugenics).


Best be knowin, MoonBurn be postin'.
Download my EP for free RIGHT NOW

BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-19 20:23:30 Reply

At 11/19/11 03:50 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote: This thread became dead to me the moment SadisticMonkey confused the idea that evolution is what happened and not intelligent design (in biology)

????

Never mentioned intelligent design

The corpse rotted when he started calling everyone retarded and cunts

Well they are given their utter lack of reading comprehension.

(despite having brought it on himself by starting on the slippery slope of eugenics).

I never mentioned anything that could be remotely considered as supporting "eugenics". By your logic, it is impossible to even suggest there may be inherent intellectual differences between the races without being a nazi, and so I would be entirely right you call you a retarded cunt.

In any case, the 'anti-racists' like yourself are far more the eugenicists, given that I'm sure that you, or at least others like you, support all sorts of special privliges to be extended to non-whites by the government to alter the social/economic outcomes of people on the basis of race.

I'm an anti-statist, and so I don't even believe a state should exist, let alone engage in race-based discrimination.

At 11/19/11 08:05 AM, The-universe wrote: Does anyone have any articles on biological explanations to race?

This debate is becoming intriguing.

It's realllly long, but look in the vdeo description for specific parts if you don't want to sit through the whole thing.

At 11/19/11 11:16 AM, SolInvictus wrote: but lets not overstate the nature of these differences. (unless there are some i don't know about?)

Well I'm not contending different races are sub-speciecs or something.

The fact is, men of african origin on avergae have significantly greater muscle mass, bone density, height and weight, and different muscle fibre composition, blood types and so on compared to men of east asian origin, and this manifests itself in dramatically different atheltic abilites, and diffrent rates of non-infectous dieseases.

East Asian men have larger brains than men of African origin, and they also have dramatically greater average IQ. However, the mere possibility that a causal relationship exists between the the two is downright dismissed by atheist kiddies.


BBS Signature
VenomKing666
VenomKing666
  • Member since: May. 12, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Artist
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-20 03:24:08 Reply

At 11/19/11 08:23 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
The fact is, men of african origin on avergae have significantly greater muscle mass, bone density, height and weight, and different muscle fibre composition, blood types and so on compared to men of east asian origin, and this manifests itself in dramatically different atheltic abilites, and diffrent rates of non-infectous dieseases.

East Asian men have larger brains than men of African origin, and they also have dramatically greater average IQ. However, the mere possibility that a causal relationship exists between the the two is downright dismissed by atheist kiddies.

First of all bunching athaists in the same group is incredibely uneducated on your part, especially on the subject of evolution and how it may or may not affect race, want to know why? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REJECTING THE IDEA OF A GOD!

Now to the topic on the matter, using the term "race" as anything else than location, and assume skills, intelligence, behavior and temperament are genetic and heritable would be innacurate as there is no scientific basis to this, it's been 50 years now since scientists stopped using "race" in those terms.

There are differences however, it would be silly to deny it. It is not influenced by biology but social constructs like culture, social context, history, geography etc. Hence why anthropologists now talk about "populations" or "ethnicity" and not race.

SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-20 06:10:07 Reply

At 11/20/11 03:24 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: First of all bunching athaists in the same group is incredibely uneducated on your part, especially on the subject of evolution and how it may or may not affect race, want to know why? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REJECTING THE IDEA OF A GOD!

I know, but atheists tend to be liberals, and liberals tend to be emphatically "anti-racist".

Now to the topic on the matter, using the term "race" as anything else than location, and assume skills, intelligence, behavior and temperament are genetic and heritable would be innacurate as there is no scientific basis to this,

Watch the video above before you say dumb crap like this.

it's been 50 years now since scientists stopped using "race" in those terms.

That's just incorrect.

There are differences however, it would be silly to deny it. It is not influenced by biology but social constructs like culture, social context, history, geography etc. Hence why anthropologists now talk about "populations" or "ethnicity" and not race.

So men of african origin are better at running than europeans because they exercise more?


BBS Signature
AKACCMIOF
AKACCMIOF
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-20 15:51:51 Reply

At 11/19/11 08:23 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Never mentioned intelligent design

Just because evolution took place, it doesn't logically follow its the solution to economic trouble, nor does it make "atheist-kiddies" (who must love being pigeon holed) hypocrites or inconsistent when they say there's a better way to solve these troubles than through a total free market economy with zero regulation.

Playing at pedantry doesn't become you.

Well they are given their utter lack of reading comprehension.

Neither does arrogance.

I never mentioned anything that could be remotely considered as supporting "eugenics". By your logic, it is impossible to even suggest there may be inherent intellectual differences between the races without being a nazi, and so I would be entirely right you call you a retarded cunt.

No, I never said that and nor did anyone else. Your politics are far from Hitler's, but your assertion that there are inherent intellectual differences between the races died at the end of his era, so they're a call back to that train of thought. No one called you a nazi, just likened the way you uphold the outdated and discredited banner of some being of better birth than others (THAT is the meaning of eugenics, the study of essential, insurmountable differences between the races) to the assumption that birthed the intolerance and hatred of one man (Adolf).

In any case, the 'anti-racists' like yourself are far more the eugenicists, given that I'm sure that you, or at least others like you, support all sorts of special privliges to be extended to non-whites by the government to alter the social/economic outcomes of people on the basis of race.

Oh, you know me all too well, you. Never mind that I actually DONT. I'm sure you're going to go ahead and make some more unfalsifiable hypotheses about me though, so I might as well not spend too much time addressing that one.

I'm an anti-statist, and so I don't even believe a state should exist, let alone engage in race-based discrimination.

No-one said you did. We just called you racist, which your assertions are, by definition that they concern perceived significant differences between the races. Differences in IQ (something that can be learnt) do not equal differences in cognitive ability, nor do average differences taken from such a diverse group of individuals represent ANY of them particularly well. The average person has one boob and one testicle, but how many people do you know like that?

In cognitive psychology and neurology and biology the idea of an individual's IQ being the result of his race was thrown out long ago. This wasn't because the scientific community are bleeding hearts or "atheist kiddies", its because it was disproven many a time. The only group that still really holds any truth to to this idea of any significant influence is the Pioneer Fund, which are listed by many as a hate group commissioning reports to find differences.

In any case, the most critical studies you can cite find the SD on black IQ scores between 1-1.1, meaning that the differences in the scores on an individual basis put around a fifth above the white average anywho, which would make the Pearson's r value way below the 0.8 that is generally accepted as the rule of thumb for a significant positive correlation.

Any debates that weren't settled in the 20th Century?


Best be knowin, MoonBurn be postin'.
Download my EP for free RIGHT NOW

BBS Signature
AKACCMIOF
AKACCMIOF
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-20 15:57:32 Reply

After posting, realised many might not totally grasp the semantics of my penultimate paragraph: in any empirical psychological research the pearson's product-moment correlation coefficiant has to be above 0.95 for a conclusive cause-effect relationship to be suggested, and a 0.8 is generally seen as something that might prompt further study. With anything lower than that, you haven't really got a hope at suggesting a causal link, you're probably looking at two factors connected through several other correlations (such as race- socio economic position and socio economic position - IQ).

So you haven't really got a leg to stand on, scientifically speaking.


Best be knowin, MoonBurn be postin'.
Download my EP for free RIGHT NOW

BBS Signature
VenomKing666
VenomKing666
  • Member since: May. 12, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Artist
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-20 19:03:22 Reply

At 11/20/11 06:10 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I know, but atheists tend to be liberals, and liberals tend to be emphatically "anti-racist".

And it's a bad thing to be anti-racist?
I think what you meant is that they would tend to be biased against a theory that would support one race being superior to another. Which is not always true, and while different cultures are different there is no evidence showing they exist for genetic reasons.

Watch the video above before you say dumb crap like this.

I'm sorry I do not have the time to watch a 3 hours video just to argue against a 3 hours video, if you want me to then just summarize the important point and the evidence supporting them.

That's just incorrect.

Nah, it's pretty correct.
Link 1
Link 2

So men of african origin are better at running than europeans because they exercise more?

First of all, some africans are shit at running, and yes some of them perform especially well because of various factors. I would assume the diet and they way of living which is probably less sedentary.

Now you might find it hard to believe that culture and the way of life can make a population such good runners. here I would mention the Taharumara. These fuckers are badass runners.

SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-21 06:25:07 Reply

At 11/20/11 03:51 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote: Just because evolution took place, it doesn't logically follow its the solution to economic trouble, nor does it make "atheist-kiddies" (who must love being pigeon holed)

It's actually quite a homogenous group. They're the sort of people, like in this thread, who think people not believing in evolution is some disastorous tragedy, who are emphatically "anti-racist", thinks all republicans are stupid and/or evil, and so on. This doesn't include all atheists.

hypocrites or inconsistent when they say there's a better way to solve these troubles than through a total free market economy with zero regulation.

When the state's economic programs encourage people who make unfit parents (see: ghettos, London) the consequences are bad, in the same way going back in time to help less fit individuals survive/reproduce and protect them selection pressures.

Neither does arrogance.

That doesn't make sense. "They are retarded given neither their arrogance."

No, I never said that and nor did anyone else. Your politics are far from Hitler's, but your assertion that there are inherent intellectual differences between the races died at the end of his era, so they're a call back to that train of thought.

So? It also agreed with Abraham Lincoln, but surprise surprise you just HAPPEN to liken me to the mas-murderer.

No one called you a nazi,

Sigh...read the damn thread before you say retarded shit like this.

Famas: "I hope you're trolling, I don't want to assume that there are actual neo-nazi advocates on this board."

(THAT is the meaning of eugenics, the study of essential, insurmountable differences between the races)

Wrong again retard.
Dictionary.com: "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). "

to the assumption that birthed the intolerance and hatred of one man (Adolf).

So? There are plenty of black supremicists in the world. Hitler just happened to be in a position of power to do what the black supremicists would have done too, I don't see why this make's Hitler's "intolerance" particuarly evil.
And in any case, the only remotely palusible conclusion to draw from my posts would be that I'm an Asian-Supremicist, something which hitler was very much not.

Oh, you know me all too well, you. Never mind that I actually DONT. I'm sure you're going to go ahead and make some more unfalsifiable hypotheses about me though, so I might as well not spend too much time addressing that one.

"Or at least people like you." <<<

People who are strongly "anti-racist" want policies like welfare and affirmative action to be based on race, and these people are often evolution advocates.

No-one said you did.

You called me a eugenicist. Additionally, saying that you don't believe I support state-based racial discrimination makes your comparisons of me to Hitler all the more retatrded.

Differences in IQ (something that can be learnt)

Never said that IQ is 100% hereditary.

do not equal differences in cognitive ability,

IQ is linked with income and educational acheivement.

nor do average differences taken from such a diverse group of individuals represent ANY of them particularly well.

So the fact that all the asians beat all the white kids in my uni program is just a coincidence?

The average person has one boob and one testicle, but how many people do you know like that?

That's a completely unfair comparison and you know it.

In cognitive psychology and neurology and biology the idea of an individual's IQ being the result of his race was thrown out long ago. This wasn't because the scientific community are bleeding hearts or "atheist kiddies", its because it was disproven many a time.

And yet despite this "knowlege" and all the neat educational stratergies. the black-white IQ gap isn't shrinking :( :(

In any case, the most critical studies you can cite find the SD on black IQ scores between 1-1.1, meaning that the differences in the scores on an individual basis put around a fifth above the white average anywho, which would make the Pearson's r value way below the 0.8 that is generally accepted as the rule of thumb for a significant positive correlation.

Wait so you're actually contending that there isn't a significant difference in IQ between blacks and whites? lmao

Any debates that weren't settled in the 20th Century?

Sigh, another boring appeal to authority. I suppose you think that the majoirty of people in east-asians countries live in better environments than blacks in america? No?


BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-21 06:31:45 Reply

At 11/20/11 07:03 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: I'm sorry I do not have the time to watch a 3 hours video

Then you don't have time to sufficiently understand the arguments, and so you shouldn't be talking about it.

Nah, it's pretty correct.

All that says is that the use of race is disputed, and that race is a problematic word because of the imprecise and inconsistent definitions that exist for it.

First of all, some africans are shit at running, and yes some of them perform especially well

No, the average man of african origin is better than the average european. He is also stronger and has greater muscle mass.

because of various factors.

Mainly, greater testosterone.

I would assume the diet and they way of living which is probably less sedentary.

This doesn't explain anything, especially why basically all olympic runners are black. Okay, fine, let's assume that most europeans are lazy and so on average are athletically inferior. But those who are raised to be runners, who compete from childhood and have strict diets still can't compete with african men.
And besides, Australia's fastest runner grew up on a boat. Inherent talent is the single most important factor.

Now you might find it hard to believe that culture and the way of life can make a population such good runners. here I would mention the Taharumara. These fuckers are badass runners.

So nearly all east asians, even though the majority of them are poor, live in better conditions than blacks in america, and so this explains the racial IQ difference? Really?


BBS Signature
AKACCMIOF
AKACCMIOF
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-21 12:15:17 Reply

At 11/21/11 06:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote::

When the state's economic programs encourage people who make unfit parents (see: ghettos, London) the consequences are bad, in the same way going back in time to help less fit individuals survive/reproduce and protect them selection pressures.

I'm not going to say there isn't an argument to be made for free market economics, but believing it's flawed does not make someone a hypocrite for also believing in evolution.

That doesn't make sense. "They are retarded given neither their arrogance."

(Pedantry doesn't become you) Neither does arrogance. Quite ironic you should get pedantic about that point.

So? It also agreed with Abraham Lincoln, but surprise surprise you just HAPPEN to liken me to the mas-murderer.

Abraham Lincoln lived a LONG time ago, in a completely different scientific environment. Hitler is far more recent.

Sigh...read the damn thread before you say retarded shit like this.

Famas: "I hope you're trolling, I don't want to assume that there are actual neo-nazi advocates on this board."

Yeah, OK, but its not like you were JUST responding to Famas, you were responding to everyone who dared point out the similarities between your fallacious views on race/ intelligence and Hitler's. You still haven't addressed any differences between the two besides stating that you wouldn't put your views into action as you are a non- statist (implying that Hitler would have been on solid intellectual ground provided he too was a non- statist).

Wrong again retard.

Eugenics as Francis Galton (the founder of eugenics) practiced it was still viewed as eugenics, though it never forced any two people to mate. It was his intensive study of the differences between races, as he saw them, that was named eugenics, and though he fantasised about putting his ideas into practice and you may not, if you are using the same scientific approach with the same assumptions, don't be shocked when someone calls you up on it. What Francis Galton studied is universally noted as eugenics, and though it was the logical conclusion there was no force breeding. A dictionary.com quote doesn't make you scientifically literate.

So? There are plenty of black supremicists in the world. Hitler just happened to be in a position of power to do what the black supremicists would have done too, I don't see why this make's Hitler's "intolerance" particuarly evil.

The fact that it led him to believe killing 8/ 9 million people was the right thing to do?

You are right though, Hitler was not the only intolerant bigot. This doesn't make his intolerance any better. I think if you honestly think that there is nothing wrong with the (scientifically disproven) train of thought you're taking, you should look into the history of Rwanda, and its Dutch occupation. The fashionable eugenics introduced theorised that the Tutsi minority where a long lost ancient Egyptian tribe, far superior to the ethnic majority. We all know the consequences the subsequent cultural divisions birthed.

"Or at least people like you." <<<

"I'm sure you're going to go ahead and make some more unfalsifiable hypotheses about me though, so I might as well not spend too much time addressing that one." <<<

People who are strongly "anti-racist" want policies like welfare and affirmative action to be based on race, and these people are often evolution advocates.

And I am like them because I am an evolution advocate? So its hypocrisy by association?

You called me a eugenicist.

Well you kinda are, with the stand you're taking on race.

Never said that IQ is 100% hereditary.

Then how was it relevant to your point?

IQ is linked with income and educational acheivement.

Neither of which are equal to cognitive ability. The common factors they share with IQ are in fact... A stable learning environment on socio-economic position! Cognitive ability DOES come into the mix somewhere, but its damned ridiculous to assume a difference with SD that great compared to the difference of averages implies causation.

So the fact that all the asians beat all the white kids in my uni program is just a coincidence?

No, but it isn't necessarily a race thing. There are more common factors than that that you haven't even considered.

That's a completely unfair comparison and you know it.

It points out why the mean is so often unreliable and you know it. It ignores other common factors and subgroups (ie sex).

And yet despite this "knowlege" and all the neat educational stratergies. the black-white IQ gap isn't shrinking :( :(

This is a tragedy, I'm sure we both agree. To me, though, it highlights the need for a revitalisation of "black" culture, which all too often now is euphemism for "gang culture" among the poor black population. It isn't coincidence that with the rise of American rap culture in the UK the number of blacks in prison has risen and the number of blacks at university, relatively, has fallen. I highly recommend tthat before you give up all hope and assign the differences to insurmountable race differences, you look up the "acting white" phenomenon. A good introduction.

In any case, the most critical studies you can cite find the SD on black IQ scores between 1-1.1, meaning that the differences in the scores on an individual basis put around a fifth above the white average anywho, which would make the Pearson's r value way below the 0.8 that is generally accepted as the rule of thumb for a significant positive correlation.
Wait so you're actually contending that there isn't a significant difference in IQ between blacks and whites? lmao

Yes I am, given, well, statistically speaking, THERE ISN'T. Or rather, the correlation there is is below the 0.8 mark of Pearson's r value, meaning you'd be really forcing it to infer direct causation. Go take a statistics class.

Sigh, another boring appeal to authority. I suppose you think that the majoirty of people in east-asians countries live in better environments than blacks in america? No?

No but, their culture places a far higher stress on the need for personal achievement and a far higher social stigma on failing. Anyone who's opened the Book of Changes, anyone with the most cursory knowledge of East Asian culture and family structures knows this to be true. Same for India, another rising star.

I don't want to end this post you under the impression (or anyone else reading this comment) that I think you've a similar personality profile/ moral compass to a mass murderer. I don't. But the Hitler comparison on your view of insurmountable race differences stands (if you believe them insurmountable. I will concede I may have got you wrong, you seem more rational than that). It is an act of intellectual cowardice to give up on a field of studies arise when problems arise, lay it down any obstacles to progress as insurmountable and ignore the statistics when they say your dispositional hypothesis is wrong (as so many did about the Germans being inherently more "Nazi" than Americans before Milgram),

Where there are problems there are solutions. If new, cultural, ones arise, we do our predecessors a disservice by standing up to face them. The race disparity issue is close to my heart, and one of the reasons I am so passionate about psychology. The scientific theories of "Social Learning" and "Learned Helplessness" go someway to explaining this divide. Culture can be changed, the difference is not insurmountable.

Akala agrees.


Best be knowin, MoonBurn be postin'.
Download my EP for free RIGHT NOW

BBS Signature
VenomKing666
VenomKing666
  • Member since: May. 12, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Artist
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-21 13:08:27 Reply

At 11/21/11 06:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Then you don't have time to sufficiently understand the arguments, and so you shouldn't be talking about it.

No, if you want to provide an argument it's YOUR job to actually provide it and not post a 3 hours video. You have no excuse.

All that says is that the use of race is disputed, and that race is a problematic word because of the imprecise and inconsistent definitions that exist for it.

Yes, it also explains the problems with scientific racism. Which is exactly what you were bringing up.

This doesn't explain anything, especially why basically all olympic runners are black. Okay, fine, let's assume that most europeans are lazy and so on average are athletically inferior. But those who are raised to be runners, who compete from childhood and have strict diets still can't compete with african men.

African men that do the same thing.

And besides, Australia's fastest runner grew up on a boat. Inherent talent is the single most important factor.

It's true most athletes in the olympics are black, and to be entirely fair this part of your post made me doubt a little as I was not as informed as I tought on the matter, but I found this article here.

Here is the important part:

The real problem with the "blacks are born to run" thesis is not that it is politically incorrect, but that it is factually incorrect. The most basic difficulty with it is its confusion of racial and population differences. Different population groups are clearly physically distinct. The Masai of Kenya tend to be taller and longer limbed than the stocky, short-limbed Inuit in the Arctic, because the body forms of both have been shaped by natural selection to suit their particular environments. But that there are physical differences between human groups does not mean that such differences can be reduced to racial distinctions, nor need they necessarily have a consequence in human endeavour, whether that be sport or IQ tests.

It is certainly possible to divide humanity into a number of races, as we conventionally do, according to skin colour and body form. However, it is also possible to do it many other ways - using, for instance, blood group, lactose tolerance, sickle cell, or any other genetic trait. Genetically, each would be as valid a criterion as skin colour. The distribution of one physical or genetic characteristic - say, skin colour - is not necessarily the same as that of another - such as blood group. The current division of the world into black, white, Asian and oriental races is, in other words, as rooted in social convention as in genetics.

So nearly all east asians, even though the majority of them are poor, live in better conditions than blacks in america, and so this explains the racial IQ difference? Really?

Asians also tend to put way more focus on excellence and academic success than in the united states. You can't just look at the factors that are conveniant.

AKACCMIOF
AKACCMIOF
  • Member since: Jul. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-21 13:50:30 Reply

Where there are problems there are solutions. If new, cultural, ones arise, we do our predecessors a disservice by standing up to face them.

*by NOT standing up to face them.


Best be knowin, MoonBurn be postin'.
Download my EP for free RIGHT NOW

BBS Signature
The-universe
The-universe
  • Member since: Apr. 6, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Arguing Evolution 2011-11-21 18:23:56 Reply

At 11/19/11 08:23 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It's realllly long, but look in the vdeo description for specific parts if you don't want to sit through the whole thing.

I meant peer reviewed articles or text books. Youtube unless for drama or random facts is unbecoming to me because I'll end up needing the first two to confirm any way.


It's not the lack of crimes that values your morality but your capacity for contrition.

Click this and one day I'll be worth bazillions.