> From the article you linked to:
>
> "There is no strong evidence yet for specific gene variants (alleles)
> that lead to group differences (differences between clusters) in
> behavior or intelligence, but progress on the genomic side of this
> question will be rapid in coming years, as the price to sequence a
> genome is dropping at an exponential rate."
>
> It seems he is right and you've failed again to make your argument.
And the next paragraph goes on to say:
"What seems to be true (from preliminary
studies) is that the gene variants that
were under strong selection (reached
fixation) over the last 10k years are
different in different clusters. That
is, the way that modern people in each
cluster differ, due to natural selection,
from their own ancestors 10k years ago
is not the same in each cluster -- we
have been, at least at the genetic
level, experiencing divergent evolution."
Yes. Divergent evolution.
Anyway Vance, how do you explain that cluster map? Did a "scientific racist"
just make it up?
Do you believe in evolution or are you a creationist?
http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/straw_man_of_race.htm
> I can understand your wanting to jump on links like this, they seem so
> supportive, but that's because you seem to be a simpleton. The
> implication in the quoted statement is that further research will
> establish that there is a genetic basis for differences in behavior
> and intelligence. That's obvious and certainly what you keyed on.
> However, the statement is carefully crafted to create that impression
> without going so far as to assert that future research will show the
> needed genetic link for a solid racist argument. Why is that?
Once again, how do you explain that cluster map?
> The answer is simple, scientists from several disciplines,
> starting with biological anthropology
Egalitarians such as Frans Boas, Ashley Montagu, Richard Lewontin, Stephen
Jay Gould, Steven Rose, Jared Diamond etc, etc?
On the other hand you have the hereditarian camp which includes William
Schockley, J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn etc, etc.
So your assertion that "science" doesn't support my views is false. What you
really mean is that the side you agree with (egalitarian and social
determinist) does not support my view.
> and certainly including my own former
> field of neuropsychology, would shred the article to pieces,
Your a former neuropsychologist? Please tell me more.
> The rest of your links are as trivially easy to deal with since
> they are all the result of your fataly flawed thinking.
> I don't envy your position. You're only able to regurgitate the
> thoughts of someone else, so you don't have the capacity to support
> the ideas with your own mental effort.
Where is your mental effort to explain why blacks consistantly underachieve
in modern society then? Fact is you're the one who's been brainwashed by the
government, education system and mainstream media. Just because politically
correct lemmings like you are in the majority at the moment doesn't make you
right.
> The problem is worse than that, though.
> Every racist argument that tries to rub up against science hoping for
> some respectability gets bit in the ass because the rules of science
> apply.
> If you call on science then the criteria of science for
> whether or not an assertion is supported apply. There is no special
> dispensation which will allow you to have your wishes fullfilled.
"Wish fullfillment" is the department of egalitarians.
> At this time, science does not support racism as a matter of biology,
> a fatal flaw for your argument. That may change in the future, but
> given what we know in several fields, all of which have very material
> things to say about the potential biological basis for racism, it
> doesn't seem likely that the future will save you.
What is playing out in real life now vindicates the race realists. Of course
if you live in a mostly White neighborhood and spend lots of time watching
television then you might not really notice what's going on. Reality will
catch up with you soon.
> One more time for the stupid, you need to solid current science for
> your argument not to be bankrupt from the beginning and you don't have
> it. You can't legitimately argue the counter factual (that which
> isn't the state of affairs as they exist) which means you can't argue
> on the basis of what science may discover someday. That's also
> bankrupt.
>
> Here's your type of argument: We know the ancient Egyptians didn't
> have the mathematical concept of pie. Pie would be needed to
> construct the pyramids. They must have had help from (aliens,
> Atlanteans, etc.) How else would you explain it? It's a fact that
> they didn't have pie and nobody would argue that.
Pie? What sort of pie? Chicken and mushroom pie or steak and kidney pie? I
can understand how pyramids couldn't be built on an empty stomach that's for
sure.
Oh sorry, do you mean pi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
> If you think it through, the answer is really very simple. They used
> a wheel to measure lengths. What is the value of the circumference of
> a circle? 2 times pie times the radius squared. All of the
> mathematical concepts needed where built into the device as were the
> calculations that needed pie. You suffer from the same type of mental
> laziness and jump to the first thing that looks like its an answer.
> As a result, the brass ring is always way out of your grasp.
> Okay, I've worked off my boredom.
Possibly, but your still a smug git who's failed to make his case yet.
> Vance
