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

Ive been out for a while so might I ask whether this direction of discussion was prompted by James Watson's recent proclamation regarding race and intelligence?

Dr Watson's a hell of a biologist but not much of a historian. His assertions dont really fit with archeological evidence. Neither does his understanding of 3Sigma variation of "Superintelligence" among the races. 3 Sigma intelligence peaks clearly show usernames points.

I hope that you were all referering to Watson on this point. If Im wrong just blame it on jet lag

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, I asked you first.

Where is the scientific evidence that supports that any race in genetically inferior on an intellectual level.

You claimed that there was some, and that we are rejecting it, but I've failed to find any evidence that that statement is true. I've asked you to provide it TWICE, and I get nothing.

Until we see any evidence from RL, this discussion may as well be closed.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

Your link makes my point very well...

wiki wrote:

Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems. Dog trainers, owners, and researchers have as much difficulty agreeing on a method for testing canine intelligence, as they do for human intelligence.
Certain breeds, like Border Collies, Poodles, German Shepherds and Golden Retrievers, are generally easier to train than others. It is worth noting that these descriptions are relative to other dogs, not relative to the world at large. The ability to learn and obey commands is not the only possible measurement of intelligence. Other breeds, such as sled dogs and Border Collies demonstrate intelligence in other ways.

And the same general observations relate to humans as well (which was the point of my previous question about musicians and artists being as intelligent as physicists and engineers). "Intelligence" has a slippery definition, so Watson should probably take his preconceived notions of what is intelligent and what isn't, and quit trying to force-fit science into his narrow minded boxes.

As predicted, you try to make the difficulties associated with DEFINING and MEASURING intelligence to appear as insurmountable barriers to establishing intelligence as a relevant subject.

Do you think intelligence is just a matter of opinion, ros?

Just because you predicted it doesn't mean it's not a valid point. Besides, it was the article you posted which made the point.

How do you define intelligence RL? Do you think it's just a matter of opinion?

I asked you first!

What's the matter, don't you like when someone plays your game on you? Awwww

When you get serious about discussing something I'll be glad to answer (as I always have).

Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems.

maporsche wrote:

Real Life, I asked you first.

Where is the scientific evidence that supports that any race in genetically inferior on an intellectual level.

You claimed that there was some, and that we are rejecting it, but I've failed to find any evidence that that statement is true. I've asked you to provide it TWICE, and I get nothing.

Until we see any evidence from RL, this discussion may as well be closed.

I asked for your view of Watson's statement, not my own.

Why not just give your opinion of Watson's statement with your disclaimer?

wiki wrote:

Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems.

didn't support your view as well as you might have thought.

So whether it is solely temperment, raw intellectual capacity or both, the idea that intelligence is , at least partly , based on genetics is rather obvious.

I defended Watson (though I thoroughly disagree with him) because I consider his statement to be consistent with evolutionary principle.

Oddly enough, some of the evolutionists seem to want to chuck the scientific implications and smooth things over for political reasons.

real life wrote:

So whether it is solely temperment, raw intellectual capacity or both, the idea that intelligence is , at least partly , based on genetics is rather obvious.

I agree, intelligence is at least partly based on genetics. Despite our disagreements, I still think that you are substantially more intelligent than a house fly. And I attribute that more to genetics than experience.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

So whether it is solely temperment, raw intellectual capacity or both, the idea that intelligence is , at least partly , based on genetics is rather obvious.

I agree, intelligence is at least partly based on genetics. Despite our disagreements, I still think that you are substantially more intelligent than a house fly. And I attribute that more to genetics than experience.

That one cracked me up ros. Especially considering that you greatly enjoy debating with a genetically souped up housefly. Thanks for the much-needed laugh. :wink:

real life wrote:

So whether it is solely temperment, raw intellectual capacity or both, the idea that intelligence is , at least partly , based on genetics is rather obvious.

I agree, intelligence is at least partly based on genetics.

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.

The variations within "races" are greater than the differences between "races".

username wrote:

The variations within "races" are greater than the differences between "races".

btw Isn't this contrary to what one would expect of populations that have 'evolved' in geographically isolated areas, (especially since all humans have descended from just one line) ?

neologist wrote:

Why not just give your opinion of Watson's statement with your disclaimer?

Why not just require RL to provide the evidence that he is stating that I'm dismissing if I disagree with Watson's statement.

Watson's statement WITHOUT any EVIDENCE is NOT WORTH discussing.

real life wrote:

I defended Watson (though I thoroughly disagree with him) because I consider his statement to be consistent with evolutionary principle.

Oddly enough, some of the evolutionists seem to want to chuck the scientific implications and smooth things over for political reasons.

Nobody is chucking the scientific implication that evolution can have an effect on intelligence.

We're only chucking Watson's specific conclusions related to races. Mostly because Watson hasn't backed up his conclusions with any good science. Even a bunch of us amateurs on this web site can see the flaws in his reasoning. The professional scientists even more annoyed, and I can't really blame them.

You have presented NO valid evidence that there are "racial" differences in intelligence.

How many of our evolutionists here at A2k will disavow the notion that blacks are genetically inferior?

If they do, are they rejecting scientific evidence?

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