You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Nobel winning biologist, James Watson.
June 18 2019 8.24pm

Nobel winning biologist, James Watson.

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

 

View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 13 Jan 19 8.11pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

I have no idea if Watson is correct. However as a scientist he should know that if you are going to put forward a theory that goes against the consensus then you had better back it up with facts. As a geneticist I would have thought he could point to the DNA strand that supports his theory?

From what I have read today he hasn't done that and apparently neither has anyway else. Most scientists will argue that the differences between peoples are socio-economic and cultural and have nothing to do with genetics. They maybe wrong but it is up to someone to prove that.

I find it sad that he is being vilified for his views and his great achievement is being over looked. From what I read he is not a racist just a person making a controversial statement with very little to back it up.

Edited by Badger11 (13 Jan 2019 8.29pm)

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 13 Jan 19 10.11pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I have no idea if Watson is correct. However as a scientist he should know that if you are going to put forward a theory that goes against the consensus then you had better back it up with facts. As a geneticist I would have thought he could point to the DNA strand that supports his theory?

From what I have read today he hasn't done that and apparently neither has anyway else. Most scientists will argue that the differences between peoples are socio-economic and cultural and have nothing to do with genetics. They maybe wrong but it is up to someone to prove that.

I find it sad that he is being vilified for his views and his great achievement is being over looked. From what I read he is not a racist just a person making a controversial statement with very little to back it up.

Edited by Badger11 (13 Jan 2019 8.29pm)


On what are you basing this assumption?

I'm sure a man of his background would not make such a statement unless he can support it.
The question is whether those condemning him can support their argument with facts or if they are just being conformist for unscientific reasons.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 13 Jan 19 10.45pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger


On what are you basing this assumption?

I'm sure a man of his background would not make such a statement unless he can support it.
The question is whether those condemning him can support their argument with facts or if they are just being conformist for unscientific reasons.

I have seen this story in a number of articles and several radio reports. If he has evidence then they are not reporting it.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 13 Jan 19 11.00pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I have seen this story in a number of articles and several radio reports. If he has evidence then they are not reporting it.

And judging peoples reactions due to it being about race do you think they would?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
chateauferret Flag 13 Jan 19 11.00pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger


On what are you basing this assumption?

I'm sure a man of his background would not make such a statement unless he can support it.
The question is whether those condemning him can support their argument with facts or if they are just being conformist for unscientific reasons.

I would have thought it were straightforward to produce sample surveys of different races that show to a given confidence level that there are statistically significant differences between them in terms of intelligence, physical strength, size, sensory perception, longevity etc. etc. etc. And that should surprise nobody: they evolved in different environments and those environments demanded different attributes for survival, growth and competition with other hominid species.

It says nothing about the relative value of races or peoples and that is where some people have got it wrong. Some wine is red and some is white. Is white wine "better" than red wine? Of course not. It's just different.

 


============
The Ferret
============

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 14 Jan 19 12.24am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I have seen this story in a number of articles and several radio reports. If he has evidence then they are not reporting it.

The man co discovered DNA. Do you think he might know what he is talking about?
This is about silencing uncomfortable truths. Science might be full of them.

Research involving nature v nurture, for example, has been covered up in the past.
There was a recently exposed experiment where US government scientists split up quadruplet boys and made them live different lives to see what happened. The results were not published.

The men behind the curtain don't want us to know what they know and they want us to think the right thoughts.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 14 Jan 19 12.33am Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

Originally posted by chateauferret

I would have thought it were straightforward to produce sample surveys of different races that show to a given confidence level that there are statistically significant differences between them in terms of intelligence, physical strength, size, sensory perception, longevity etc. etc. etc. And that should surprise nobody: they evolved in different environments and those environments demanded different attributes for survival, growth and competition with other hominid species.

It says nothing about the relative value of races or peoples and that is where some people have got it wrong. Some wine is red and some is white. Is white wine "better" than red wine? Of course not. It's just different.

in Evolution, environment is everything.

Eskimo peoples are short, with short arms and legs and a torso which is evolved to conserve heat. Fair enough.

the irish are world champions at digesting cow's milk.

australian aboriginals have a supernatural ability to remember landmarks across large boring undulating terrains of land.....

in all cases because that characteristic saved the lives of their forebears.

as for intelligence ? it must be environment again. A cushty environment with a generous dole will spawn lazy stupids. A nasty rat race will favour cunning rats. An environment which gives opportunities to for teams to succeed, and not loners, will breed team-players.

like ascertaining what women want in a man....its complex and multivariate. Stephen Hawking was super clever, yet many footballers wives would prefer to stick with the footballer.

tall trees was the environment that made giraffes tall. Human environments across all history and geography are all different...fostering differences in the people. Its basic science. But its not all about IQ. Its adaptation to environments.

Tibetans have adaptations to high altitude living...in the genes. Whether they were clever or stupid was of lesser importance. What pretty woman in Tibet wants to marry a bloke who spends his whole time sitting in the corner trying to catch his breath ? who will dance with her at the ball tonight ?

imagine if Silicone Valley stayed the same for 200 years. Eventually all the kids being born there would have a natural talent for computer programming. Failure computer-programmers cannot afford the high cost of living in Silicone Valley and always move away....and have kids somewhere far away.

my theory on the extremely high IQ of some groups of European Jews is after hundreds and hundreds of years of persecution and harshness from Romans & later Christians ... the clever jews learned to survive - the other jews didnt survive the persecutions. The fact of so many Physics Labs in america having so many jewish number-crunchers working there could be a innate talent with numbers following hundreds years of their forebears being banned from most professions but allowed to work as moneylenders. The Merchant of Venice is all based on a real history. Sometimes environment favours intelligence, sometimes it doesn't.

for most mammal species, the females will mostly all reproduce. Only the successful males will do so. therefore much of the pressures on natural selection happen down the male line. Males must often compete with each other in a way that may seem unseemly if you saw two females fighting each other.

if you are a tenth generation.. <insert profession here >.... the chances are you will have a natural talent for that job. If i told you the room beside you was filled with sons of professional basketball players and goalkeepers what sort of height would you expect those kids to be ?

Environment is everything. For sure, humanity did not stop evolving 50,000 years ago when we left Africa. Its every year, even up to today. If you are connected to South London you are royalty, if its Brighton you smell of birdsh..t

Edited by PalazioVecchio (14 Jan 2019 1.01am)

 


34,300 reasons to love Selhurst in 2021

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 14 Jan 19 1.43am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

The work on intelligence has pretty much been done to death.....the work on twin studies brought up in different environments and their scores for example.

However what the research has shown is that....what we are call innate intelligence is something between 50 - 80 percent set from genetics....it's probably in reality nearer that higher end.

You can't just become Einstein from a great environment.....You can't just become McCartney from a great environment......Just as you can't grow longer arms you can't become greater than your intellectual potential.

Because intelligence is so highly prized and it is connected to massive value judgements.....people just don't want to hear it.

But the truth isn't about making people feel good.

However, no one should feel guilty over their genetics and we want a society that works for everybody regardless of ability.....In my book intelligence is not as important as allegiance.

Besides work on genetics will hopefully eventually result in humans ridding ourselves of the terrible life limiting affects of genetically set retardation......though obviously those technologies will also be open to abuse.

Anyway, It doesn't matter how smart a group is if everyone is pulling in different directions.

The establishment simply hide the findings when it comes to 'race'. They don't like what it shows because it's not politically correct and offends their ideas on equality. When it's brought up they obfuscate and question the findings far more than they would other findings...and they look to destroy the individuals presenting them.

That's what has happened here.....just as it happened to Charles Murray.


Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Jan 2019 3.05am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 14 Jan 19 8.16am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The man co discovered DNA. Do you think he might know what he is talking about?
This is about silencing uncomfortable truths. Science might be full of them.

Research involving nature v nurture, for example, has been covered up in the past.
There was a recently exposed experiment where US government scientists split up quadruplet boys and made them live different lives to see what happened. The results were not published.

The men behind the curtain don't want us to know what they know and they want us to think the right thoughts.

----

If I said the world was flat no one would listen or care. If Stephen Hawking had said it he would be challenged to prove it.

I take no view on who is right or wrong I simply don't know. I also agree that when it comes to race there are people who want to shut down the debate and I don't agree with the way he has been hounded.

However he is a world famous scientist and must have known that making such a statement would be controversial so it was down to him to back it up.

Remember he is a geneticist talking about genetic differences. You can point to study's that say black people perform worse but that doesn't prove it is down to genetics.

Scientists can now pin point in the genome the DNA that affects all sorts of things including illness, eye colour etc. To justify his statement he should be able to point to the DNA that impacts our intelligence and then show the difference between the racial groupings.

Now if he had done that no doubt other scientists would disagree with his finding but at least they would be arguing over the interpretation of how DNA works

At the moment he has offered an opinion without backing it up and so has presented himself as a target to be taken down.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 14 Jan 19 11.17am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

----

If I said the world was flat no one would listen or care. If Stephen Hawking had said it he would be challenged to prove it.

I take no view on who is right or wrong I simply don't know. I also agree that when it comes to race there are people who want to shut down the debate and I don't agree with the way he has been hounded.

However he is a world famous scientist and must have known that making such a statement would be controversial so it was down to him to back it up.

Remember he is a geneticist talking about genetic differences. You can point to study's that say black people perform worse but that doesn't prove it is down to genetics.

Scientists can now pin point in the genome the DNA that affects all sorts of things including illness, eye colour etc. To justify his statement he should be able to point to the DNA that impacts our intelligence and then show the difference between the racial groupings.

Now if he had done that no doubt other scientists would disagree with his finding but at least they would be arguing over the interpretation of how DNA works

At the moment he has offered an opinion without backing it up and so has presented himself as a target to be taken down.

Firstly, none of that has to do with removing his awards which is disgraceful and second, I'm sure that all the data that he referred to is available if one cares to seek it out.

Persecuting someone for having a scientific opinion is unacceptable. When that person is a founder of the science, it is astonishing and incredible.

This is politics over reason.

Galileo would be dismayed to see that religious zealots have been replaced by zealots who don't even have faith as an excuse.


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 14 Jan 19 11.23am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

----

If I said the world was flat no one would listen or care. If Stephen Hawking had said it he would be challenged to prove it.

No one has proved that HIV causes Aids.

However, no one serious challenges it.


Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Jan 2019 11.34am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
chateauferret Flag 14 Jan 19 5.58pm

And woe betide you if you ever prove that climate change isn't man made. Errm by showing for example that the dinosaurs were affected by it.

 


============
The Ferret
============

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Nobel winning biologist, James Watson.