Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 512 KB, 817x460, Watson_James-D__DNA_Authority.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8364169 No.8364169 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>inb4 /pol/
Is Watson a stormfag? I don't think so
Let's discuss and seek the truth beyond relative morals

>> No.8364173

>stormfag
>>>/trash/ with your SJWtard tier ghetto slang retard

>> No.8364179

He made a comment at a conference or something.

He did not claim differences in intelligence between races were due to genetics, nor did he publish or provide any evidence of that. He made one bad comment and you idiots pretend he's a martyr for your psuedoscientific garbage.

OP can't inb4. Go back to /pol/

>> No.8364183

>>8364173
spotted the cuck, doesnt the truth hurt? blacks will never compete on the same level as whites or asians, theyre simply inferior. end of story.

>> No.8364187

>>8364183
Most blacks are better than the people on /pol/

>> No.8364190

>>8364187
i dont browse pol, just lit and sci. I dont need to browse pol to see that blacks are a doomed race not on the same level as the rest of the world

>> No.8364194

>>8364190
Who do you think you're fooling?

>> No.8364195

>>8364169
There is a firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved very similarly.

Intelligence isn't directly selected for in nature, and even if it were, the 20,000-10,000 years between now and when humans migrated out of Africa aren't enough to produce a significant difference. Evolutionary change requires a fuckton of time, unless there is very large selection pressure and a very small population with little migration, which has never been true for humans.

There's not enough evidence to claim that different humans, who are all genetically very similar, have wildly different capabilities based on phenotypical differences that are spectral in nature.

Racism is not based on science. Someone who is very smart and very accomplished like Watson can still be a racist, and can still believe unscientific things.

>> No.8364196 [DELETED] 
File: 65 KB, 494x849, gun alley suck dick black.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8364196

>>8364187
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Oh yeah the primitive obnoxious monkeys who rape, steal and burn down establishments are much better than people who occasionally use the N word on image boards.
Back to your zoo >>>/an/

>> No.8364198

>>8364179
Not an argument
This thread is about race and intelligence, not to show that you know the epistemological difference between a scientific research and a public speech (and if you truly knew it, you have would understand that I used Watson only for rhetoric purposes AKA "go beyond board wars and morality discuss seriously about this topic).
Is intelligence completely unrelated with race? Why?

>> No.8364201

>>8364195
Not only this, but intelligence is highly polygenic with estimates of thousands of genes influencing it. Humans would have to show huge genetic distances in order for this trait to be explain by genetics. The reality is that humans have about 1/10th the genetic variation of other primates.

High impact genes are also ruled out. We would have easily detected small numbers of genes with large influence by now.

>> No.8364203

>>8364179
Not OP but pretty sure Watson hasn't backed down. Not that it means anything that he believes these things, old scientists believe all kinds of shit.

>> No.8364204

>>8364187
spotted the cuck, can you go back to ur shed please?

>> No.8364205

>>8364195
Homo sapiens did not get out of africa 20.000 years ago and its proven he.mixed with neanderthals
Also, intelligence is part of the phenotype
And nature doesn't "directly select" anything

>> No.8364206

>>8364198
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000460

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.full

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/full/nature15393.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015

>> No.8364208

>>8364205
>not understanding the basic concepts of evolution
>pretending to understand human evolution
Brainlet spotted

>> No.8364210

>>8364196
white people do all those things

>> No.8364215

>>8364206
>No need to write a thesis and argument it
>I'll just copypaste a bunch of links without even reading them
From the first link

>Science has become just as dogmatic and rigid as religions are. Free thinkers in the past led scientific revolutions who incorporated many different notions into their work including their own religious and spiritual beliefs. But modern science follows a strict code, stifling any creativity because of "facts". "Facts" are 100% true beliefs which will certainly not be dismantled and laughed at in 100 years time when our understanding is not dependent on concepts such as "everything is fixed and ordered".

Do you know how financing for research works? Do you know that declaration by scientists are coherced by the.historical period?

>> No.8364218

>>8364215
>ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!

Sorry but you have zero understand of how this works. Science is about observing reality. No amount of raiding and shitposting on /sci/ is going to turn the sky purple, turn the moon into cheese, or change the reality that we can test thousands and thousands of people's DNA and make observations about it.

Science is not about "winning debates" online. It's about presenting data. Take your tinfoil hate and political agenda elsewhere.

>> No.8364219

>>8364208
>believing in XIX century-tier evolution
Do you also believe in the good savage myth? Lmaoing.at ur.brain

>> No.8364221

>>8364215
That is nowhere in the first link.

>> No.8364223

>>8364219
>Lmaoing.at ur.brain
Wow that was so gay i think i just got aids

>> No.8364225

>>8364218
No conspiracy here
Simply scientists must censor themselves in social.issues or they won't receive financial support/be persecuted (many scientists werw persecuted in nazy Germany and forced to push the "muh Aryan" meme to keep in with their searches. This goes back tho fucking.Socrates)

>Science it's about presenting data
No

>> No.8364227

>>8364195
Evolution also requires selection pressure. Otherwise yeah pretty much.

>> No.8364228

>>8364221
Are you retarded? It's literally the conclusion of the first link

>> No.8364233

>>8364225
You are implying its a conspiracy. That is not how funding works either.

Why isn't science PC on other issues like climate change, GMOs, NASA budget, vaccinations, nuclear energy, etc? Why only race? Do you have any evidence that scientists are being censored or did you just make this up?

The truth is we've been studying human genetics and evolution for decades. We just aren't getting the answers YOU want. Reality is reality. Deal with it.

>> No.8364234

Is there actually any proof that there's significant differences in intelligence between the races? Even if scientists were hesitant to go against the zeitgeist, there'd have to be evidence somewhere

>> No.8364242

>>8364234
Of course there is.

That's never debated. The most normal question is why? Which for a long time has been basically taboo to answer with genetics.

>> No.8364244

>>8364233
Do you even know what the meaning of conspiracy is? Link it from any dictionary if you want, it still won't mean what you think I'm saying
Then I'll answer

>>8364234
How it is possible that intelligence is the only phenotypical trait equal in all the races?

>> No.8364247

>>8364244
>How it is possible that intelligence is the only phenotypical trait equal in all the races?
>only

>> No.8364260

>>8364247
>We are part of the same species
>It means we're phenotypically equal

>> No.8364261

>>8364242
>of course there is, I'm just not going to post it

>> No.8364267

>>8364260
>you said x
>that means y

>> No.8364271

>>8364267
>you can't guess and be right until you prove it
>microbes did not exist until.the creation of the microscope

>> No.8364277

>>8364271
>hurp de derpa derp

>> No.8364278

>>8364215
Not in the first link
>>8364228
Conclusions sections doesn't reveal anything either.

Ctrl + F doesn't lie.

>> No.8364283
File: 474 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_2016-09-23-02-00-59.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8364283

>>8364278
I hope you're just pretending

>> No.8364289

>>8364283
Please highlight the section where
>>8364215
This quote is.

>> No.8364290

>>8364278
Oh shit I noticed only know I failed to copypaste
That was a quote from a retard in another thread
Sorry, I'm on sleep deprivation

>> No.8364307

>>8364195
>unless there is very large selection pressure and a very small population with little migration

You ever read about the Ashkenazi Jews, and their IQ
>inb4 le "iq is a meme" meme

>> No.8364311

>>8364206
Allow me to annotate those links for you. Greentext is direct quote and tl;dr: is a quick rundown.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
>Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.
tl;dr: There is some amount of correlation about race and genetics and when you have no better alternative then you may use race as a last resort to try and make some inferences about a piece of data however said inferences aren't guaranteed to be correct and nothing compares to assessing genetic data directly.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095
>The pattern of decrease in genetic diversity along colonisation routes is very smooth and does not provide evidence for major genetic discontinuities that could be interpreted as evidence for human ‘races’
tl;dr: Just some basic results about population genetics and why "race" is a shit tier social science concept.

(cont.)

>> No.8364312

>>8364206
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000460
>Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full
direct link to the paper: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
tl;dr: A paper on population genetics that has nothing to do with race.

http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html
tl;dr: An anthropology paper (social science) that is still using shit tier pre-modern genetics methods like taxonomy on the "hard science" side of their argument.

(cont.)

>> No.8364314

>>8364206
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.full
>It is often taken for granted that the human species is divided in rather homogeneous groups or races, among which biological differences are large. Studies of allele frequencies do not support this view, but they have not been sufficient to rule it out either........Genetic variation remains high even within small population groups. On the average, microsatellite and restriction fragment length polymorphism loci yield identical estimates. Differences among continents represent roughly 1/10 of human molecular diversity, which does not suggest that the racial subdivision of our species reflects any major discontinuity in our genome.
>But what do these results imply for the race concept? Although no consensus has ever been reached on how many races exist in our species, with proposed figures ranging from 3 to 200 (20), in general a species is divided in races when it can be regarded as an essentially discontinuous set of individuals (21). Studies on a limited number of populations, like ours, cannot exclude that there are true discontinuities in the distribution of some genetic markers all over the world. However, only for one of the 109 loci studied was the within-population component of variance less than 50% of the total. If loci showing a discontinuous distribution across continents exist, they have not been observed in this study, and so the burden of the proof is now on the supporters of a biological basis for human racial classification.

(cont.)

>> No.8364317

>>8364206
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full
>Genetic variation in humans is sometimes described as being discontinuous among continents or among groups of individuals, and by some this has been interpreted as genetic support for “races.” A recent study in which >350 microsatellites were studied in a global sample of humans showed that they could be grouped according to their continental origin, and this was widely interpreted as evidence for a discrete distribution of human genetic diversity. Here, we investigate how study design can influence such conclusions. Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/full/nature15393.html
tl;dr: Another paper on population genetics that has nothing to do with race

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract
>However, only a minimal fraction of alleles, and a small fraction of combinations of alleles along the chromosome, is restricted to a single geographical region (and even less so to a single population), and diversity between members of the same population is very large. The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. Nevertheless, racial categorization is all but gone, especially in clinical studies. We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine

(cont.)

>> No.8364321

>>8364206
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/

/pol/ status: TOLD
tl;dr: Points out that race as a biological notion hasn't been taken seriously for a long time but also argues that race as a social construct is similarly harmful and shit tier. Instead the paper explores alternative notions to race.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015
>In the past, concepts drawn from genetics have been used—both by geneticists and by individuals outside the field—to justify and perpetuate racial and ethnic discrimination (Kevles 1985; Provine 1986). The belief that racial and ethnic groups have substantial, well-demarcated biological differences and that these differences are important has contributed to many of the great atrocities of the 20th century and continues to shape personal interactions and social institutions (Mosse 1985; Shipler 1997).
tl;dr: Modern geneticists should be wary of these terms (race, ethnicity, etc..).

>> No.8364325

>>8364321
Good work anon. Now watch as the /pol/ memesters don't even find one article to prove the opposite and cry about social pressures

>> No.8364692

Watson isn't a stormfag. He's just full of himself and is prone to saying all silly shit that comes to his head. Look up some of his quotes. They are hilarious.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action