Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

But I don't see where he addresses Watson's position on evolution of separate populations:

Quote:

There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

Is there somewhere that I overlooked it?

What is your response to Watson's premise?

The Bible has long taught that all men come from one and the same family, having descended from one line.

Some scientists are coming to the same conclusion based on evidence.

Others , like Watson, can't shake free of evolutionary biases.

Oakley said that anti-evolutionists often argue that mutations, which are essential for evolution, can only eliminate traits and cannot produce new features. He goes on to say, "Our paper shows that such claims are simply wrong. We show very clearly that specific mutational changes in a particular duplicated gene (opsin) allowed the new genes to interact with different proteins in new ways. Today, these different interactions underlie the genetic machinery of vision, which is different in various animal groups."

real life wrote:

The Bible has long taught that all men come from one and the same family, having descended from one line.

Some scientists are coming to the same conclusion based on evidence.

Others , like Watson, can't shake free of evolutionary biases.

That sounds as shady as a pusher selling drugs to school children.

There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

real life wrote:

But I don't see where he addresses Watson's position on evolution of separate populations:

Quote:

There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

Is there somewhere that I overlooked it?

What is your response to Watson's premise?

My view and Professor Laden's view is that there is no basis for looking at biological evolution as the cause of variations in "intellectual capacities". Professor Laden explains that the variations are not explained by genetics, but rather by the vagaries of intelligence testing, by economics, and by social factors:

Quote:

Dawn of Animal Vision Discovered

The Article wrote:

Oakley said that anti-evolutionists often argue that mutations, which are essential for evolution, can only eliminate traits and cannot produce new features. He goes on to say, "Our paper shows that such claims are simply wrong. We show very clearly that specific mutational changes in a particular duplicated gene (opsin) allowed the new genes to interact with different proteins in new ways. Today, these different interactions underlie the genetic machinery of vision, which is different in various animal groups."

When one says "the" eye, by the way, one implicitly means the vertebrate eye, but serviceable image-forming eyes have evolved between 40 and 60 times, independently from scratch, in many different invertebrate groups.

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

In a statement to the Associated Press, Watson states "THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR SUCH A BELIEF":

Quote:

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

In a comment piece for The Independent newspaper on Friday, however, Watson appeared to back his earlier assertions that evolution in different parts of the world may account for differences in capacity, writing: "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity.

"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism.

"This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

As he arrives in Britain, DNA pioneer breaks his silence on racism row
By Steve Connor, Cahal Milmo and Amol Rajan
Published: 19 October 2007
James Watson, the Nobel laureate who shocked the world with his views on race and intelligence, has defended his position in an exclusive article for The Independent today in which he seeks to justify his theory that there is a genetic basis behind differences in IQ.

Dr Watson, who helped to unravel the structure of DNA more than 50 years ago, apologises for any offence that he caused when he suggested in an interview at the weekend that black Africans were less intelligent than Westerners.

But he restates his position that studying genes may help to understand variations in intelligence............

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

The Bible has long taught that all men come from one and the same family, having descended from one line.

Some scientists are coming to the same conclusion based on evidence.

Others , like Watson, can't shake free of evolutionary biases.

That sounds as shady as a pusher selling drugs to school children.

Comparing this to pushing drugs is not valid.

How many times do you think the eye has evolved, ros?

Even if there was a demonstrable difference in I.Q. between races... what's the point of figuring it out? I dread a future where we accept a scientific study where we say that the I.Q. of blacks is genetically hamstringed compared to others.

You know what we do in America when **** like that is said? We start offering tax breaks. And qualify people for disability. And put them on government-run insurance programs. And that, is unacceptable.


I think we need to let the subject drop. At this point in our human/world history, the only point of continuing the conversation is to piss someone off or to try to justify racist attitudes.

So we ditch the science for political considerations like saving money, or 'so we can all get along', eh?

Well, I appreciate your honesty, stl.

Do you think that some breeds of dogs are more intelligent than others?

Where is the science, RL? Even Watson says there is no basis in science.

wandeljw wrote:

Where is the science, RL? Even Watson says there is no basis in science.

He said there is no basis in science for the statement that was falsely attributed[/b] to him, and that others had falsely inferred[/b] , i.e. that 'Africans were less intelligent' or that ' Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior'.

He did not disavow his[/b] statement, rather he reinforced it.