PDA

View Full Version : James Watson: God's gift to creationists



parallaxicality
2007-Oct-21, 09:43 AM
One of the central tenets of creationism is that evolution endorses racism and that it formed the basis for Nazi ideology. Now we have the co-discoverer of DNA babbling about how black people are less intelligent than white people! As if biology wasn't in enough trouble already!

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-21, 10:41 AM
Gee, 'cause there's no examples of any creationists ever saying anything racist, is there? And no ones ever been killed or hurt for disagreeing with the tenets of religion. Game set and match to the creationists then. Right, I'm off to the beach to remove 19,000 out of 25,000 sedimentary layers from the local cliff.

parallaxicality
2007-Oct-21, 11:34 AM
Sorry but knowledge is constructed by majority opinion. All the scientific evidence in the universe isn't going to mean squat if no one believes it. And evolutionists are in the minority. Don't forget that. We have to be better than they are, or they win.

Nowhere Man
2007-Oct-21, 12:21 PM
Nope. The evidence is what it is. If the majority chooses to disbelieve it, then the majority is wrong.

Fred

speedfreek
2007-Oct-21, 12:25 PM
So, is it not ok to state the opinion (based on experience) that some races have a tendency to be better at some things than others?

I'm thinking of sports or athletics, where there seems to be a consensus that certain races make better sprinters, or marathon runners...

Paracelsus
2007-Oct-21, 12:38 PM
Wasn't aware that biology was 'in trouble', as you put it. Dr. Watson's statements do nothing to justify the case for ID, as religion has traditionally supported several racist institutions in the past--most notably slavery.

Should creationists try to use that argument, there are plenty of historical examples of just such practice to shoot them down with.

Michael Noonan
2007-Oct-21, 12:45 PM
So, is it not ok to state the opinion (based on experience) that some races have a tendency to be better at some things than others?

I'm thinking of sports or athletics, where there seems to be a consensus that certain races make better sprinters, or marathon runners...

Science by its very nature looks at many issues and there are differences in individuals and statistical differences collectively. We aspire to do better at the good things we are told we excel at. To say anything generally negative is seen as an attack.

Whether it is creationists adapting or evolutionists evolving the goal is to become better than one currently is. To make anything better than it is requires effort even if it is already the best. A blanket negative statement is not designed to help or inspire or lead. If anything a blanket negative statement is a sign of giving up which could be done just as easily without opening one's mouth.

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-21, 12:54 PM
One of the central tenets of creationism is that evolution endorses racism and that it formed the basis for Nazi ideology.

But this could only be for fundamentalist religions that have been created since the 1930's, so are you referring to scientology?

parallaxicality
2007-Oct-21, 01:16 PM
Creationism is fairly new. The kind of mechanistic literalism demanded by modern creationists is something that only really emerged in the late 19th century. Most early Biblical thinkers never demanded the Bible be taken absolutely literally.


Nope. The evidence is what it is. If the majority chooses to disbelieve it, then the majority is wrong.

Fred

It's all well and good to say that, but what difference does saying it make in a world where it is irrellevant?


"How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."

"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."

Lord Jubjub
2007-Oct-21, 02:05 PM
One of the central tenets of creationism is that evolution endorses racism and that it formed the basis for Nazi ideology. Now we have the co-discoverer of DNA babbling about how black people are less intelligent than white people! As if biology wasn't in enough trouble already!

Creationism no more leads to racism than does evolution. Creationists believe everyone was created in the image of God and are equal before him. Some believe that Noah's curse on one of his sons led to the racial differentiation today.

Evolution lent more support to Nazi idealogy than creationism. Social Darwinism and Eugenics are based on evolution.

Damburger
2007-Oct-21, 02:14 PM
So long as creationists only have statements such as Dr. Watsons to fall back on, instead of any evidence of their beliefs, I don't think science is in serious danger.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-21, 05:13 PM
Evolution lent more support to Nazi idealogy than creationism. Social Darwinism and Eugenics are based on evolution.

They are distortions of evolutionary theory. And racism and anti-semitism far predate that theory. Nazis believed that they were once a "pure" or "higher" race and that others were degenerated, which is far more consistent with the Adam and Eve perfect creation concept than with evolution.

EDIT: The Spartans practiced eugenics, too. They just didn't try to justify it with pseudoscience.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-21, 07:02 PM
One of the central tenets of creationism is that evolution endorses racism and that it formed the basis for Nazi ideology.
No, it is just one facet of science that was abused by the Nazis to support their rule. They overemphasised their links to the Ancient Greeks at the 1938 Olympics, abusing archeology, as well. That being one more reason that I hate the Nazis.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-21, 08:04 PM
The Nazis, or at least the ones who founded their ideology, definitely did not believe that they were descended from apes. And many White Supremacist groups, at least in the U.S., are Bible Literalists who believe that black people and other races bear the "Mark of Cain", or similar nonsense.

RalofTyr
2007-Oct-21, 08:23 PM
People are dumb.

And God doesn't give very good gifts.

Michael Noonan
2007-Oct-21, 08:39 PM
In any argument, right or wrong it is harder to win than it is to discredit the opponent. We are just starting to understand the mind and how it has gotten this far. Really it is so small and as yet insignificant to what it could be that arguments on creation and evolution could be kept at tissue development.

The mind and righteousness versus social memes is altogether a different field of combat. In creation we are too evil not to be led and in evolution we are to stupid not to need leading, take your choice.

phaishazamkhan
2007-Oct-21, 08:49 PM
basis for Nazi ideology

Godwin's Law.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-21, 10:45 PM
Godwin's Law.

In a thread about racism, it's inevitable. Have to allow this one. Penalty declined! Game on!

Jens
2007-Oct-22, 04:21 AM
Evolution lent more support to Nazi idealogy than creationism. Social Darwinism and Eugenics are based on evolution.

This leads me to something I've wondered about with respect to creationists. I think there are two issues, which are slightly different: genetics and evolution. Do creationists reject genetics as well as evolution? In other words, do they believe that offspring do not resemble their parents, or that it is just coincidence if they do?

Neverfly
2007-Oct-22, 04:52 AM
This leads me to something I've wondered about with respect to creationists. I think there are two issues, which are slightly different: genetics and evolution. Do creationists reject genetics as well as evolution? In other words, do they believe that offspring do not resemble their parents, or that it is just coincidence if they do?

Most creationists seem to believe that genetics are one of Gods many tools in his wondrous divine plan.

laurele
2007-Oct-22, 05:28 PM
This leads me to something I've wondered about with respect to creationists. I think there are two issues, which are slightly different: genetics and evolution. Do creationists reject genetics as well as evolution? In other words, do they believe that offspring do not resemble their parents, or that it is just coincidence if they do?

Social Darwinism is a 19th century concept that played upon public fascination with science and technology and used that to give racism and other forms of fascism credibility by connecting them to science. Marx did the same thing with "scientific socialism." Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It was essentially hijacked by those who deliberately used it in a prescriptive manner to give themselves or a chosen few power over who would live and who would die.

Ilya
2007-Oct-22, 05:38 PM
Nope. The evidence is what it is. If the majority chooses to disbelieve it, then the majority is wrong.


Sorry to be dramatic, but majority in Middle Ages was wrong about witches. Majority in USSR was wrong about Communism. Majority in pre-1970's US was wrong about homosexuality. None of which made fat lot of good to the minority which thought otherwise.

Being right is not much use when it gets you executed -- or forcibly "cured", as in my last example.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Oct-22, 08:04 PM
So, is it not ok to state the opinion (based on experience) that some races have a tendency to be better at some things than others?

I'm thinking of sports or athletics, where there seems to be a consensus that certain races make better sprinters, or marathon runners...That opinion is only based on experience if you don't look very closely at the experience.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-22, 08:12 PM
This leads me to something I've wondered about with respect to creationists. I think there are two issues, which are slightly different: genetics and evolution. Do creationists reject genetics as well as evolution? In other words, do they believe that offspring do not resemble their parents, or that it is just coincidence if they do?

There are all kinds of Creationists, both smart and dumb. I assume here that you mean Literalists who believe that the Bible or Koran describes the actual creation process in a non-symbolic way and therefore that scientific evidence of the formation of the Universe and human evolution are somehow wrong. Some of these individuals are just ignorant about science, others construct elaborate rationalizations that the existing evidence has been "misinterpreted" somehow, by every scientist who has examined it. There have even been some Creationists who claim that God created the universe with false evidence of evolution in it, or that the evidence was put there by the Devil, etc.

Doodler
2007-Dec-14, 08:22 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248094/

Brushing the dust off this one for a decent laugh at the good racist's expense. ;)

Delvo
2007-Dec-14, 08:48 PM
There isn't anything ironic there at all. First, ancedotes have nothing to do with statistics and statistics has nothing to do with anecdotes, so there's absolutely no connection or relationship between his own individual case (or anyone else's) and anything that has to do with the statistical trend he was commenting on. Second, to claim that it turned out that he was black, as that article does, is to quite simply lie; a tiny fraction of one's genome does not constitute its entirety just because that tiny fraction happens to be from a minority group.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Dec-14, 09:53 PM
Thanks!

It's a nice article, there's just one misconception I wish they had addressed, once the joke was done. Folks, there's no such thing as "black" genes. There just isn't! What this genomics company probably found were African genetic markers, which is not the same.

Still a funny turn of events (tee-hee), though perhaps predictable when you stop to think about it... :D

Gillianren
2007-Dec-15, 04:23 AM
It should, I think, be noted that early childhood nutrition can influence intelligence. Therefore, it is possible that children actually born in Third World countries may have had their intelligence potential damaged by malnutrition.

Neverfly
2007-Dec-15, 04:27 AM
There isn't anything ironic there at all. First, ancedotes have nothing to do with statistics and statistics has nothing to do with anecdotes, so there's absolutely no connection or relationship between his own individual case (or anyone else's) and anything that has to do with the statistical trend he was commenting on. Second, to claim that it turned out that he was black, as that article does, is to quite simply lie; a tiny fraction of one's genome does not constitute its entirety just because that tiny fraction happens to be from a minority group.

I agree with this entire statement.

Although I do not agree with Watsons views.

I found the article to be misleading, infantile and ignorant. It smacks of childish revenge more than actual science.

WaxRubiks
2007-Dec-15, 08:22 AM
I thought the article made it fairly clear that the results of his test where pretty much meaningless given the lack of data on how genes relate to "race" and that what race, and someone's ancestry, is is a lot more complex than just finding a few markers.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Dec-15, 05:54 PM
I agree with Frog March. My one complaint notwithstanding, it's a good article. Even though it's not a science article, the author still used the opportunity to make some scientific caveats after he was done with the joke.


I found the article to be misleading, infantile and ignorant. It smacks of childish revenge [...]Misleading -- in what?
Ignorant -- of what?
Infantile -- maybe. But I'm sure a member of the master race like Watson can take a little criticism, or ridicule, like a good sport. Master races don't win the natural selection contest by being hypersensitive.

Noclevername
2007-Dec-15, 08:44 PM
Master races don't win the natural selection contest by being hypersensitive.

Ah, but MasterRacers believe their race is destined to win out. So by their standards, they win the natural selection contest just by existing and being "superior". Why compete when you believe you can't lose?

Neverfly
2007-Dec-16, 12:16 AM
I agree with Frog March. My one complaint notwithstanding, it's a good article. Even though it's not a science article, the author still used the opportunity to make some scientific caveats after he was done with the joke.

Misleading -- in what?
Ignorant -- of what?
Infantile -- maybe. But I'm sure a member of the master race like Watson can take a little criticism, or ridicule, like a good sport. Master races don't win the natural selection contest by being hypersensitive.

Setting aside the natural aversion to Watson's statements and reading the article subjectively, I found it misleading (claiming that Watson is a black man- He isn't African), ignorant (the author knew very little about the science and focused on Political Racism), as well as infantile ( using twisted facts, non-facts and slurred logic to exact 'revenge' due to an emotional response).

I found the article childish and silly.


Speaking for myself genetically, I also have African ancestry (somewhere along the line) as well as : Philippino, Chinese, French, Welsh, Scots, Irish, German, Native American and who knows what else. Mostly it is Scots and German and Irish and Welsh. But I like to downplay the welsh and never admit to the French.

These days it would be difficult to find a person who does NOT have a percentage of African markers in their genes- lil 11% or 16% in Watsons case. It doesn't make them black any more than I am Chinese or American Indian simply because by ancestry I'm something like 1/64th.

Neverfly
2007-Dec-16, 12:16 AM
Ah, but MasterRacers believe their race is destined to win out. So by their standards, they win the natural selection contest just by existing and being "superior". Why compete when you believe you can't lose?

Self delusion you mean? There's no such thing as a master race or a pureblood.

Noclevername
2007-Dec-16, 12:32 AM
Self delusion you mean? There's no such thing as a master race or a pureblood.
Uh, yeah. I was talking about their beliefs.

Ah, but MasterRacers believe their race is destined to win out. So by their standards, they win the natural selection contest just by existing and being "superior". Why compete when you believe you can't lose?

Delvo
2007-Dec-16, 02:50 AM
Well, since "master race" has nothing to do with anything even faintly resembling anything Watson actually said, it doesn't really matter what anyone who actually HAS spoken of master races thinks, because such a person would not be Watson or even remotely like him, and would thus not be the subject of this thread...

Neverfly
2007-Dec-16, 02:54 AM
Well, since "master race" has nothing to do with anything even faintly resembling anything Watson actually said, it doesn't really matter what anyone who actually HAS spoken of master races thinks, because such a person would not be Watson or even remotely like him, and would thus not be the subject of this thread...

Well, the issue is that ANYTHING spoken, scientific or not, about racial differences inspires the 'racism card' to be played. Has Godwin's Law been invoked yet in this thread?

HenrikOlsen
2007-Dec-16, 03:14 PM
Not yet.

Noclevername
2007-Dec-16, 07:27 PM
Actually, it was in the very first post. Kind of inevitable, in a thread about racism.

EDIT: Well, no, not directly, actually it just said "nazi". Not sure if that counts.

KaiYeves
2007-Dec-16, 09:17 PM
EDIT: Well, no, not directly, actually it just said "nazi". Not sure if that counts.
Well, we could go "Ooooh! You said the 'n' word.", but it wouldn't be right as he was talking about actual historical n---- ;-)

Disinfo Agent
2007-Dec-16, 10:15 PM
Setting aside the natural aversion to Watson's statements and reading the article subjectively, I found it misleading (claiming that Watson is a black man- He isn't African), [...]I pointed out earlier that "black" and "African" aren't the same thing. I wasn't just niptpicking. Surely, one can be black without being African! Millions of Americans are.


[...] ignorant (the author knew very little about the science and focused on Political Racism) [...]On the contrary, the science of race is inextricable from its political aspects. The author has shown that he is well informed about the topic.


[...] as well as infantile ( using twisted facts, non-facts and slurred logic to exact 'revenge' due to an emotional response).Which 'twisted facts', and which 'non-facts'?


I found the article childish and silly.I won't argue with that. I have no problem with someone saying "I didn't like the article, I thought it was in bad taste". But when you say there are misleading and ignorant statements in it, I do have a problem with that, because I didn't see any. You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your facts, as they say. That's why I'm being critical of what you've written.


These days it would be difficult to find a person who does NOT have a percentage of African markers in their genes-I hear it's not that difficult to find a person without traceable African genetic markers, actually. Where people are usually mistaken is in the assumptions they make about the percentage and physical appearance of such people.


lil 11% or 16% in Watsons case. It doesn't make them black any more than I am Chinese or American Indian simply because by ancestry I'm something like 1/64th.It looks like you've never heard of the One Drop Rule. Good for you, but I bet Mr. Watson has.

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Dec-16, 10:26 PM
It looks like you've never heard of the One Drop Rule.

I picked that up from the musical movie Showboat.

You learn stuff in the oddest places.

Kaptain K
2007-Dec-17, 12:36 AM
I remember watching an interview on 60 Minutes years ago with a racist from one of the southern states who refused blood from an African American because he didn't want to be "contaminated"!

Neverfly
2007-Dec-17, 07:43 AM
I pointed out earlier that "black" and "African" aren't the same thing. I wasn't just niptpicking. Surely, one can be black without being African! Millions of Americans are.
Quite true.

On the contrary, the science of race is inextricable from its political aspects. The author has shown that he is well informed about the topic.

He doesn't demonstrate being informed until LATE in the article- which really defeats the purpose OF the article in the first place. It starts out with the same nonsensical racial junk that Watson himself was promoting- that author of the article made himself just as guilty as Watson.


Which 'twisted facts', and which 'non-facts'?
(para)
I won't argue with that. I have no problem with someone saying "I didn't like the article, I thought it was in bad taste". But when you say there are misleading and ignorant statements in it, I do have a problem with that, because I didn't see any. You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your facts, as they say. That's why I'm being critical of what you've written.

I thought I was already clear on this- I guess not.

The author of the article takes semi-genuine information and claims it means something else- or something more than it actually means.

He claims Watson is a black man (he isn't) and he claims that Watson is a member of the race that Watson snubbed (he isn't) - it was in this twisting and distortion that he sought his childish revenge...
From the article- bold mine:

James Watson, the man who worked with Francis Crick to identify the double-helical structure of DNA, who upon casual inspection might well qualify for the title of "most blatantly Caucasian male" among a raft of serious contenders that includes Mitt Romney, Tucker Carlson, Harry Reid and Peyton Manning, is actually black!
The ACTUAL science merely pointed out that Watson has African markers in his DNA. He probably has OTHER racial markers as well.

(snip)and found that 16 percent of his genes are likely to have come from a black ancestor.
Oh so now he's a BLACK MAN? Whatever...

For example- My son is half caucasian (From me- and you KNOW how mixed my genes are!) and half mexican (from his mother).
Now.. Mexican his Native American and Spaniard. Oh and more than that.

In fact, my sons mother looks VERY Native American in appearance- for that matter, my brothers both look very Indian (different father than mine).
Races and racial markers in DNA are relatively meaningless. What makes any difference at all is how and where you were raised.

The article seems to border on racism itself- by continuing to focus on those african markers Watson has has racial justification- when they are, in fact, pretty meaningless.

Granted the article goes on to cover ALL of this- but well after it has established itself as racialy bigoted as Watsons statement was in the first place.

Several others have remarked in this thread that the test results to which Watson referred to are more likely to be the result of environment and education- than actual race.

I think if we are to debate the merit of Watsons claims- we should focus on the scientific facts- Not more racial propoganda as this article seeks to propogate.
African Markers in his genes makes not one bit of difference to what he actually stated.

The facts are QUITE clear- as are the articles intentions of twisting them to serve his own selfish desire to make a hypocrite out of Watson.
Toward the end of the article- he even admits to doing this and THEN after he has gleefully played the racist card- goes on into the 'facts.'
Watson’s critics are piling on with glee to such delicious irony. But while it is more than tempting to use this incident to bury the influential source of some very irresponsible racial speculation (yeah, OK, I have been indulging myself in the temptation) a number of other more important lessons need to be drawn from the news of Watson’s reclassification in the family of man It was too late. He should have covered that at the beginning instead of acting like a child.
He wasn't having a conversation in a bar. He was reporting the NEWS. But he seemed to forget professional journalism and slip back into bar chatter.

The facts are indeed at the end of the article:
The genetic testing really doesn't say much-
Genetics are quyite intermixed these days-
Our perceptions of race are ill defined-
and lastly
Environment and culture are what determines a persons persona- not race-

I hope I have made myself more clear this time around as to why I found the article misleading, juvinile, seeking childish satisfaction and continuing to promote racial bigotry. Although the author backpedals at the end- it was too little too late- the impression was already made.

It looks like you've never heard of the One Drop Rule. Good for you, but I bet Mr. Watson has.

I'm aware of the rule- but it is NOT a rule.

Technically - I can get special treatment by claiming I am Native America- yet I'm actually only 1/16th Native american by blood (although I was raised Native Culture... later in life...)
Strangely enough- I can also put that my race is one of many different ones from Asian to African on a legal document- It makes no difference. One Drop Rule is nonsense.
If I'm 10% african and 90% caucasian- yet I claim to be a black man- that is nonsense. What happened to the rest? Why does IT Suddenly Not Count?
I am neither black- nor white really- Just a human being. I appear to be caucasian. So caucasian -being the dominant genes of my ancestry- is what I put on a legal document.

I probably have genetic markers from apes too- but that doesn't make me a chimpanzee.

Meanwhile - we could debate as to whether or not Eminem/Slim Shady is a black guy...

Neverfly
2007-Dec-17, 08:03 AM
Off Topic:
(This started out as a clarification PM to Disinfo Agent- but then I decided to put it out there for all to read)

Incidently- You are quite right to call me out on something you think is incorrect- Opinions notwithstanding.

Opinions are what people make up to define reality for themselves to make themselves happy- regardless of the True Nature. I find very little worth in opinions and even less worth in the act of trying to hide behind 'opinions' or 'the right to have different opinions.'

I believe our job is to learn basic truths and gain wisdom. Not invent pretty opinions to please ourselves with.

I can be stubborn and hardheaded- But should a person effectively demonstrate that I was wrong or incorrect - I WILL change the statement- opinion or stance I have made.
If a person confronts me on an issue but fails to demonstrate that I was in error- then I will continue to stand by what I have observed, thought about and chosen to be my stance on the issue.

(Now back to the regular broadcasting)

Gillianren
2007-Dec-17, 07:03 PM
Opinions are what people make up to define reality for themselves to make themselves happy- regardless of the True Nature. I find very little worth in opinions and even less worth in the act of trying to hide behind 'opinions' or 'the right to have different opinions.'

I disagree. I don't think there is always a right or wrong answer. I'd say there is probably 75% of the time, but that other 25% is mostly what we discuss in OTB. I think, in fact, that that 25% is where a lot of other problems come in, like the difference among various criminal sentences. In those places, yes, absolutely people have the right to their own opinions.

The world isn't all black and white, and by trying to make it so, not only do you miss a lot, but you make a lot of other people, and probably yourself as well, very unhappy.

Neverfly
2007-Dec-17, 07:20 PM
I disagree. I don't think there is always a right or wrong answer. I'd say there is probably 75% of the time, but that other 25% is mostly what we discuss in OTB. I think, in fact, that that 25% is where a lot of other problems come in, like the difference among various criminal sentences. In those places, yes, absolutely people have the right to their own opinions.

The world isn't all black and white, and by trying to make it so, not only do you miss a lot, but you make a lot of other people, and probably yourself as well, very unhappy.

Im not going to argue the numbers- but I do agree that there are shades of gray in certain things... That situations will vary which determine what is right or wrong...

Also, what is Real and True for me may not necessarily be true for you.
I am - as stated - a mountain man, a soldier, a survivor.. I live by harsh rules. About the ONLY person that sees the softer side of me is my Son. (Who is liable to get hugs from me after I berate him:p Im a total softie where he is concerned- but Im working on it:p )
These rules cannot apply to you- nor SHOULD they. As a soldier- it is my choice and duty to protect you and all other citizens. As a person who shows empathy- caring and concern- whether I agree with your reasoning or not- allows you to reach people that I cannot reach- in my harsh way.
Similarly- sometimes a person needs the cold hard brutal truth- even when they do not want it. It is the only thing that will reach them. And I will succeed with that person- where you could not reach them with gentleness and concern.
These differences of nature are a GOOD thing- that balnce and create diversity- this diversity allows a populace or nation to excell and succeed...

However- some points:

Just because an idea is popular, does not make it true nor even close to true.

Just because people have a right to an opinion, does not grant them the right to ignore reality in order to live in dreamyland.

Just because people try to be considerate doesn't mean any person can take advantage of others consideration- Know Your Limits.

ETA: Hey who has the quote on their sig line: "What makes you think you have the right to go through life unoffended?" Or something along those lines?

Disinfo Agent
2007-Dec-17, 08:18 PM
He doesn't demonstrate being informed until LATE in the article- which really defeats the purpose OF the article in the first place. It starts out with the same nonsensical racial junk that Watson himself was promoting- that author of the article made himself just as guilty as Watson.Oh, come on, you didn't get that the first part of the article was tongue-in-cheek?! :)


The author of the article takes semi-genuine information and claims it means something else- or something more than it actually means.

He claims Watson is a black man (he isn't) and he claims that Watson is a member of the race that Watson snubbed (he isn't) - it was in this twisting and distortion that he sought his childish revenge...By some definitions of the word "black", Watson is a black man. The author of the article seems to be well aware of this. You seem to be the one who hasn't realised it yet.


What makes any difference at all is how and where you were raised.I agree. Race is not biological, it's social. But Watson doesn't seem to be convinced of this. He implied that it was pointless to try to help Africans, because they're just inherently (translation: "biologically") dumb.


The facts are QUITE clear- as are the articles intentions of twisting them to serve his own selfish desire to make a hypocrite out of Watson.A hypocrite? I thought the general accusation was the he's a racist idiot.


I'm aware of the rule- but it is NOT a rule.You say the One Drop Rule is nonsense, and I agree with that, but that's just our opinion. Historically, other people have thought very differently. The One Drop Rule was the law in the United States not too long ago. It influenced how people behaved then, and it still influences how many people think today. It's had a greater impact on society than any "scientific" notion of race. It's a very real thing!


If I'm 10% african and 90% caucasian- yet I claim to be a black man- that is nonsense. What happened to the rest? Why does IT Suddenly Not Count?You should ask that to the white judges who enforced the One Drop Rule so sternly.


I appear to be caucasian. So caucasian -being the dominant genes of my ancestry- is what I put on a legal document.Oh, human genetics is a lot more interesting than that! If you look Caucasian -- that in no way means that "Caucasian" genes are predominant in your genome! :)

But the main point is that Watson ought to know such things better than most people. Of course, race and racism were never based on reason or science. Responding in jest to an irrational belief seems pretty sensible to me.

Neverfly
2007-Dec-17, 08:36 PM
Oh, come on, you didn't get that the first part of the article was tongue-in-cheek?! :)

Nope. And that's what really matters isn't it? The author failed in his attempt with the reader.


By some definitions of the word "black", Watson is a black man. The author of the article seems to be well aware of this. You seem to be the one who hasn't realised it yet.

I already made it quite very clear that I'm aware of "some" ridiculous and backwoods definitions. They are STILL nowhere near reality.
The author played the same race card Watson did- just from the other side of the fence is all.


I agree. Race is not biological, it's social. But Watson doesn't seem to be convinced of this. He implied that it was pointless to try to help Africans, because they're just inherently (translation: "biologically") dumb.

Pointing out the flaws in Watsons statements is much more professional and scientific than resorting to further racism and juvinile revenge.


A hypocrite? I thought the general accusation was the he's a racist idiot.
Agreed that he's a racist.
Disagree that he's an idiot.

Both irrelevent- the author claimed he's BLACK and therefore a hypocrite.


You say the One Drop Rule is nonsense, and I agree with that, but that's just our opinion. Historically, other people have thought very differently. The One Drop Rule was the law in the United States not too long ago. It influenced how people behaved then, and it still influences how many people think today. It's had a greater impact on society than any "scientific" notion of race. It's a very real thing!
Not where I lived it didn't. and so what if decades ago the ignorant folks put cvalue on nonsense? we still should today? Or use it to promote racism?
It isn't my 'opinion' that water is wet. It really is wet!

You should ask that to the white judges who enforced the One Drop Rule so sternly.
The bigots? Sure thing. I'll get right on it.


Oh, human genetics is a lot more interesting than that! You look Caucasian -- that in no way means that "Caucasian" genes are predominant in your genome! :)
I can pretty well assure you that Im well aware of what is dominant in my genes thanks.
And Im not quite ignorant about genetics either- personally I have always found it fascinating.

But the main point is that Watson ought to know such things better than most people. Of course, race and racism were never based on reason or science. Responding in jest to an irrational belief seems pretty sensible to me.

Watson Should- but knowing better doesn't stop a bigot does it?

I have made it VERY VERY CLEAR at this point what I disliked about the article- so I would appreciate it if you got up off my back about it.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Dec-17, 08:42 PM
I have made it VERY VERY CLEAR at this point what I disliked about the article- so I would appreciate it if you got up off my back about it.What you have not made clear is what, if anything, is factually wrong or misleading about it. But don't worry, I will get off your back now.

Neverfly
2007-Dec-17, 08:53 PM
What you have not made clear is what, if anything, is factually wrong or misleading about it.
Funny, considering that you admitted that One Drop Rule is well outmoded, flawed, ridiculous, Non scientific etc...
And Watson is not a black man...
and claiming that he is black was scientifically incorrect...
as well as genetically incorrect...

But yeah- I failed somehow there.


But don't worry, I will get off your back now.

Much appreciated.

KaiYeves
2007-Dec-17, 10:40 PM
Human obsession with ethnic ancestry. Interesting.

Noclevername
2007-Dec-17, 10:42 PM
Human obsession with ethnic ancestry. Interesting.

Whatever anyone's "official" ancestry, we all come from a long line of milkmen and chambermaids anyway. ;)

Neverfly
2007-Dec-17, 10:45 PM
Whatever anyone's "official" ancestry, we all come from a long line of milkmen and chambermaids anyway. ;)

ROFL

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Dec-18, 12:45 PM
I'm rather confused by this talk of "African markers".

Humans first appeared in Africa! We're all Africans, if you go far enough back. So surely we all have "African markers" in our DNA?

So where do you draw the line that says "These markers belong to modern Africans"? Define "modern".

Neverfly
2007-Dec-18, 01:47 PM
I'm rather confused by this talk of "African markers".

Humans first appeared in Africa! We're all Africans, if you go far enough back. So surely we all have "African markers" in our DNA?

So where do you draw the line that says "These markers belong to modern Africans"? Define "modern".

Even a "modern" description can go back a long way.

These genes determine the genetic codes that describe our physical characteristics- which vary between the races.

African markers include the African traits: Black wooly hair, dark skin, blood cells (Remember, only Africans -including descendents in other nations - can suffer sickle cell anemia), eye shape, nose shape etc.

The European markers would include; Light skin, lighter thinner (not balding but thinner meaning not wooly) hair, slender raised noses, and wider eyes.

Asian includes: Tan skin, mongolian folds in the eyelids, predominantly dark eyes and hair - but still not wooly hair.

American Native includes: Tan to even reddish or bronzed skin, asian type hair, slender raised noses and wider eyes.

Aborigines include: Dark skin, the rounded african nose and african eye shapes, but can also inlcude mongolian folds and Blonde wooly hair. In fact the aborigine genetics are bit interesting altogether.

These would be the specific genetics referred to. Yes - all over the world we are THE SAME. Although our appearnaces and cultures are different, our psychology and social characteristics show very little difference. The differences arise when a culture accepts certain ideas, religions, values or the environment demands any of these things that creates that individual society.

No individual from any race shows any sign of being more faithful in relationships, sexual, more intelligent, more scientific, more athletic based on race. These individual characteristics are developed from environment and personal choices as well as genetics in determining physical attributes- such as individual intellect or individual athletic ability- but that still isn't by race- but by HUMAN genes in general.

So although it is scientific to point out the differences between races - it is not scientific to try to claim that on a social standing the races are different. Any social differences between the races are developed from forces outside of racial genetics.

This is why Watsons claims were outlandish and scientifically unsound. The premise behind the statements are based on misconceptions ( and most likely bigotry) about geneology and genetics and not based on fact.

Delvo
2007-Dec-18, 02:58 PM
I'm rather confused by this talk of "African markers".

Humans first appeared in Africa! We're all Africans, if you go far enough back. So surely we all have "African markers" in our DNA?They're talking about alleles that are rare or absent in the human races from outside of Africa and common or universal in indigenous (pre-Columbian) African populations (not counting northern Africa because the population there, genetically speaking, belongs with the population of western Eurasia). There are also unique or nearly unique alleles in the populations of other broad racial regions such as eastern Eurasia, western Eurasia, North & South America, and Australia. Some of these alleles can be found in small amounts in a small minority of the people of another race, such as Watson being a white guy who has a few alleles that are normally found in black people, but for the most part, there's little enough mixing to keep them in the race that they originated in, which draws slightly fuzzy but still clear lines between the races based on who has which alleles. (There are plenty of other alleles that aren't found predominantly or exclusively in one race or another, but those aren't called "racial markers". The racial markers are the ones that are.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26human.html


So where do you draw the line that says "These markers belong to modern Africans"? Define "modern".Since the emmigration of everybody else to inhabit everywhere else. :)

Or, the "modern African" population is the one that has those alleles that aren't found elsewhere (or are only very rarely found elsewhere).

Disinfo Agent
2007-Dec-18, 06:32 PM
African markers include the African traits: Black wooly hair, dark skin, blood cells (Remember, only Africans -including descendents in other nations - can suffer sickle cell anemia), eye shape, nose shape etc.

The European markers would include; Light skin, lighter thinner (not balding but thinner meaning not wooly) hair, slender raised noses, and wider eyes.Not true! Ask any genetician. They never use the genetic material that codes for those traits. For one thing, most of those genes haven't even been identified yet.

I wish I could explain this more authoritatively -- and answer Stuart's question, which I suspect has a very interesting and surprising answer -- but I'm not the right person to ask. However, one thing I have figured out, from what little I've read about this issue: African genetic markers are just that. They do not encode any of the physical traits we are used to associating with race.

Noclevername
2007-Dec-18, 08:07 PM
African markers include the African traits: Black wooly hair, dark skin, blood cells (Remember, only Africans -including descendents in other nations - can suffer sickle cell anemia), eye shape, nose shape etc.

The European markers would include; Light skin, lighter thinner (not balding but thinner meaning not wooly) hair, slender raised noses, and wider eyes.

Asian includes: Tan skin, mongolian folds in the eyelids, predominantly dark eyes and hair - but still not wooly hair.

American Native includes: Tan to even reddish or bronzed skin, asian type hair, slender raised noses and wider eyes.

Aborigines include: Dark skin, the rounded african nose and african eye shapes, but can also inlcude mongolian folds and Blonde wooly hair. In fact the aborigine genetics are bit interesting altogether.

What you've listed here are phenotypes, not genetic markers. For example, the Pacific Melanesian phenotype is nearly identical to black Africans, but is due to convergent adaptation rather than genetic relationship; there are a wide range of Native American phenotypes, including some who closely resemble Asian and some who closely resemble Polynesian; there are caucasians who have sickle-cell anemia (approx 3-5% of sufferers, IIRC); and so forth.

Genetic markers commonly used to determine ancestry are not associated with phenotypic data, specifically because many phenotypes are highly varied within an ethnic group or even a single family. Variations in pigmentation, facial shape, etc. exist in most human gene pools, and as an increasing portion of the world population are of mixed derivation due to increased travel and social changes, outward appearance becomes an increasingly less reliable means of determining relationships.

EDIT: Man, I got wordy, didn't I?

Delvo
2007-Dec-18, 09:02 PM
What you've listed here are phenotypes, not genetic markers... Genetic markers commonly used to determine ancestry are not associated with phenotypic dataSome of them are. See the link I put in my last post. The alleles for some of the phenotypic racial traits, such as a couple for skin depigmentation, have been identified and are among the alleles that show racial distribution patterns. Some of the other alleles with similar distribution patterns have been identified to code for phenotypic race-associated traits that are not so obvious on the surface, such as lactose tolerance and "salt retention". Some (perhaps most) of the racially-distributed alleles have not been identified as the causes of anything about the racial phenotypes, but presumably some of them must be, because the genes for some phenotypic differences have also not been identified. And others could code for little or nothing and might even have become race-linked by random genetic drift rather than by selection.


increasingly less:D

Neverfly
2007-Dec-18, 10:56 PM
Some true, some not. I'd have to hit my genetics books again (MAN my book shelves are almost to the breaking point already! ) but in this case I'll gladly take any corrections offered... while pointing out....
I was being more simplistic only to drive home the irrationality of assigning personality traits based on race.

Although genetics does come into play in determining an individuals character traits- it isn't be an extremely large margin and is an over-all human effect that has nothing to do with race.

Over the course of a lifetime, it doesn't mean squat. Too much actual living comes into play for a gene to compete with.

Watson's claim was that black people are less intelligent.

Even someone posted here about scientific studies that back this claim up. Now I'm not one to turn a blind eye to science simply because it yields an ugly truth (Bring it on!) but I will question it simply because there are WAY too many other factors that can determine intellect than a study can predict and set a control for.

An aside example is about misconceptions:

George Washington Carver or Neslon Mandela are obviously very intelligent men. However if you go over a list of notable geniuses in the last century- the vast majority of them are white.

Does this mean that black folks make less geniuses?
Of course not!
Not in the least. Because of social orders and racism itself- Black geniuses did not get the chance to develop their skills or make them known. Because of the stigma of being born black- many notable men and women have likely never reached their potential in history. The shame of it is disturbing enough to make a man want to invent a time machine and go back through history taking out the trash!
Fortunately these things have been changing- and you can bet that as the future comes- many minority geniuses will now have their chance to strut their stuff- and make it into the history books.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Dec-19, 03:57 AM
Watson's claim was that black people are less intelligent.
Actually no, Watson took the statistical fact that people of African decent on average tested lower in IQ tests and claimed that the cause was genetic instead of social and/or nutritional.

That a test of his genes then indicate that one of his great-grandparents is of the group he himself claimed are genetically less intelligent IS a cause for teasing him mercilessly.

The article makes no claim of being a scientific report, which can be seen from the listing as commentary.

Neverfly
2007-Dec-19, 04:13 AM
Originally Posted by Neverfly
Watson's claim was that black people are less intelligent.
Actually no, Watson took the statistical fact that people of African decent on average tested lower in IQ tests and claimed that the cause was genetic instead of social and/or nutritional.

OK yeah. You just said the exact same thing I said but you used fancy schmancy words. :neutral:
Go over ALL my posts and you can see plainly where I touched on all these issues.

That a test of his genes then indicate that one of his great-grandparents is of the group he himself claimed are genetically less intelligent IS a cause for teasing him mercilessly.

Ok, that is fine. Do it in conversations and at the bar- laughing with buddies. Maintain journalistic integrity when reporting the news. Stick to the facts.


The article makes no claim of being a scientific report, which can be seen from the listing as commentary.

Ok, fault mine. I didn't notice the listing as "commentary."

I STILL don't like the article- for reasons I have clarified repeatedly at Disinfo Agents request- and I finally got grumpy and closed the argument with a snap- If you want to re-enact it- I'm willing to close the argument with a snap to you too.

I've made several posts on my nitpick on why I didn't like the article.
Really.
Do we really need to rehash it yet again?

Delvo
2007-Dec-19, 04:23 AM
That a test of his genes then indicate that one of his great-grandparents is of the group he himself claimed are genetically less intelligent IS a cause for teasing him mercilessly.Only to people who are really eager to demonstrate their complete ignorance or dishonesty about the issue. A comment on the statistics is not a claim about any individual, so no facts at all about any individual could possibly have anything to do with the comments on statistics. People have attacked the statistics with anedcotes before, but the existence of intelligent people in group A and unintelligent people in group B does not counter the statistics of group B getting the higher intelligence scores overall, and that straw herring hasn't suddenly gotten any more true now in this case than it ever was before. Attacking a statistical issue with anecdotes about individuals is like disputing someone's claim about the temperature in Moscow with readings from a car's odometer in Buenos Aires.

Neverfly
2007-Dec-19, 04:27 AM
Delvo,

I agree with about half of that...

But the "Straw Herring" left me rolling on the floor:p

ETA: to clarify- I agree with the first half. I don't agree that statistical studies so far even come CLOSE to substantiating that there is a genetic difference in racial Intelligence Quotients.

Noclevername
2007-Dec-19, 04:36 AM
I don't agree that statistical studies so far even come CLOSE to substantiating that there is a genetic difference in racial Intelligence Quotients.

I looked at the post, I don't think it says genetic anywhere.

Neverfly
2007-Dec-19, 04:41 AM
Maybe not in that particular post- But I don't just go off of one single post at a time. I go off ALL the posts the poster has made. Something I think more people here should try to do.

Read all the rest of Delvo's claims from early in the thread and you will see the genetic tie in.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Dec-19, 05:15 AM
I STILL don't like the article- for reasons I have clarified repeatedly at Disinfo Agents request- and I finally got grumpy and closed the argument with a snap- If you want to re-enact it- I'm willing to close the argument with a snap to you too.
No need, I'll close it with an apology for making my comment on the one part of your post I disagreed on sound like I was criticizing your understanding of the subject.

Neverfly
2007-Dec-19, 05:22 AM
No need, I'll close it with an apology for making my comment on the one part of your post I disagreed on sound like I was criticizing your understanding of the subject.

Ahhh... I'm probably just really jumpy right now. And you ended up slamming into my wall.

Admittedly, I haven't brushed up on genetics in years and it could use updating. But we actually agreed on the issue at hand- just our words bumped into eachother so it looked like it was different. My earlier posts covered more of the detail you used in your reply- But after I have said something in an initial post- I tend to try to abbreviate repeats in following posts.

KaiYeves
2007-Dec-19, 08:27 PM
Let me just say that I think this news story has proven the existance of...

Karma. ;-)

Click Ticker
2007-Dec-19, 09:39 PM
That a test of his genes then indicate that one of his great-grandparents is of the group he himself claimed are genetically less intelligent IS a cause for teasing him mercilessly.

Actually that would be highly irrelevent and no cause for teasing him if one considers how genetic traits are actually passed along. I might have a brown eyed ancestor - but I didn't inherit brown eyes. If only one in eight of my great-grandparents had brown eyes - the likelyhood of my inheriting that trait is rather slim. A person could have a parent that is a dwarf and not necessarily inherit the gene. Just because he has this ancestor doesn't necessarily mean he inherited the supposed gene in question.