What? IQ tests are good indicators of one’s ability to reason logically and one’s verbal abilities. Look, I have no dog in this fight but that’s total BS Diogenes, where did you get that information? In fact, cognative testing (IQ Tests) have a very high correlation with genetic relationship in that identical twins scores have a positive correlation of .90. In fact, if you look at genetic relationships, IQ scores correlate down the line in rough correspondance with the degree of genetic relationship.
You have a cite for that? Doesn’t one foster the other? Education comes with intelligence – or intelligence with education? In fact, IQ scores, before one decides whether they will or will not attend college is the best predictor of whether one will suceed in college or even attend.
So now the Harvard professor, one who held a Chair at Harvard, is a neo-nazi? A neo-nazi sympatizer? Or just accepts funding from neo-nazi groups? Which??
In stead, why don’t you just tell everyone what exactly is in error - where and why is what you claim as pseudoscience - pseudoscience?
Siege - that may be true but let me add, people who join Mensa are a self-selected group. They do not necessarily represent those people who do well on cognative ability tests. In addition, there is an assumption that the majority of intelligent people have as one of their primary goals the acquistion of material stuff / wealth. In fact, I’d suspect that may not be the case. I’d think that truely intelligent people are more interested in activities that do not normally bring material success.
The article doesn’t claim the professor who co-authored the book is a neo-nazi. It just states that the research was funded by neo-nazi’s, and that the studies used by the professor came from others who have received money from this group.
The relatedness of Australian Aboriginals and the San people (Bushmen is a derrogatory term) should be about the same as any group outside of Africa. That’s the whole point. It’s not just looking at “genes” but at genetic markers that can be correlated with the timeframe that various populations split off from each other.
I don’t doubt that there isn’t unanimity of opinion among biologists, though. This is all pretty new stuff and is being revised all the time. But the general timeframes listed in Wells book are dead-on mainstream evolutionary biology. You’ll find only a few hold-out followers of Wolpoff and the Mutliregionalist theory of human evolution,
The relatedness of Australian Aboriginals and the San people (Bushmen is a derrogatory term) should be about the same as any group outside of Africa. That’s the whole point. It’s not just looking at “genes” but at genetic markers that can be correlated with the timeframe that various populations split off from each other.
That makes sense. When I saw the program based on Wells’ work it gave the impression that Aborigenals were descended primarily from from San peoples, and this seemed to contradict an article I’d read in Discover which identified a line of migration from what is now south China, through Indochina to the Pacific islands and Australia. One line of descent doesn’t preclude the other.
First Gould wasn’t in the field at all, so your post is misleading. Second, Gould should have provided a free copy of his book to the Supreme Court Justices since IQ scores are now used as part of the process when determining life and death decisions in the criminal justice system in the United States. I’m sure, if Gould’s book is accepted by psychometricians, that fact would be used by prosecution lawyers when prosecuting certain defendants.
I stated that as opinion, not fact. There is no scientific evidence sophisticated enough to prove either of us right, unless you’ve got something good.
And, I was thinking along the lines of behavioural RIM’s anyway. Speciation is not clean cut.
Opinions on anthropological studies change every year. Opinions on psychological studies change every year. I have little doubt that the forces of PC dogma would come up with some Jewish scientist skilled in sophistry to “refute” anything that would defy the nice little ideas of “equality” that everyone wants to believe. I shall have to read this book when I get some time.
I actually have a lot of literature to read since becoming a White Nationalist. The list is growing.
On IQ: It’s a useful measure, but not absolute. Reasons behind discrepancies in the results correspond to the age old “nature vs. nurture” argument that is the thorn in the side to the progress of real knowledge in behvioural evolution. I don’t think it takes a member of Mensa to see that it’s a little of both.
“Misleading”?! He was a scientist, he argued against IQ as an “accurate quantifier of intelligence” - how is that misleading? The fact that he may not have been “in the field” is utterly irrelevant; his interests and knowledge were quite broad. Surely, you aren’t attempting to argue that he wasn’t really a Scotsman…
All of which is completely irrelevant, and you know it. He disagreed with the idea of IQ as a measure of intelligence, as do many others. The fact that Supreme Court Justices don’t disagree with it has no bearing on the point.
Scientific evidence does not “prove” anything, and there is no evidence of which I am aware that indicates Homo sapiens was ever on the verge of speciating further.
That’s interesting. I remember reading somewhere, (I have no idea where) that South Americans were the farthest from…
Oh, no. That was chimps. Sorry.
Anyway, here’s a BBC story on research linking South American Mongoloids to Australoids. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm
I said “a fair bit on it’s way,” (or something to that effect . Right?) I didn’t say, “on the verge”. I wouldn’t make such a proposterous claim. I’m thinking, like, 30%, assuming it would happen via phyletic gradualism.
I don’t care about you’re spelling typos, az long az I ken undirstand wut yer trieng too tipe.
Where does that idea come from? Is there any actually scientists who publish research along those lines?
Let’s for the moment assume that one could measure such a thing as “% on the way to speciation.” No one could measure such a thing, but let’s just say they could. Why would you assume that the “speciation” was destined to continue? Populations split off and reunite all the time. There is no law of nature that says that if populations are isolated for any amount of time, they can’t or shouldn’t recombine at some other time.
Evolution does not march towards a goal. It’s a series of random events that can change at any time.
I think “Holocaust” when I hear somebody say “Juden” and “I’m a National Socialist.” If you can’t figure out why, you should really sit down and work it out.
Uh… that’s exactly the point. White’s not a race, black’s not a race… do you think everybody but you is too stupid to understand what words mean?
I wonder why that could be.
Nor do I, since it doesn’t appear that anything significant has changed.
Pal, if you have to compare yourself to Stalin to make yourself look good, you’re already in a pretty deep hole. I don’t know where you came up with the idea that nobody thinks Communism is bad - I’m related to a Communist, so I have some firsthand experience with that stuff. Perhaps working in Communism’s favor are the fact that it’s got a political component to go with its mass-murder component, and Communism is just about dead, while neo-Nazis are still around and anti-Semitism has still got its violent proponents.
What DOES it mean? You haven’t really told us. As long as it continues to stand for racism and similar junk, the changes in details probably won’t matter to many people. Not that it should.
The “oh, I’m white, everyone hates me it’s so unfair” position is a caricature, just like position that the left blames white people for everything. I’ve met a few people online who do believe this PC left exists and blames them for everything, but I’ve never met the actual leftists who do so. I’m going to stick with the word caricature even if such people exist because the position still seems devoid of reason.
I do understand how your comment was intended and what it meant. I think you’ve taken my post as being directed solely at you, which it wasn’t. I was not offended, I was making a point. Although I agree there’s no sense getting emotional in a debate about white supremacy. :rolleyes:
I am an Eastern Slavic/Germanic hybrid. I suppose it’s possible that I have a miniscule drop of Khazarian admixture from long ago. Whatever.
Converted? Oh, good. That’ll save me some time.
I’ve seen a good article on genetic research that shows Ashkenazi Jews as having virtually exclusively Khazarian Y-chromosomes but varying sources of mtDNA, but I can’t find it.
Anyways, I concede that it sounds like you may know more about theories of human migration than I do. All I know is that I’ve seen a lot of different theories that contradict eachother. There are people at Skadi who can go on about it forever. I took one look at the huge volumes of information on anthropological theories that are available on Europe alone, and decided: aaahhhh, maybe later.
I think that National Geographic map is pretty vague. It doesn’t even have the Kon-Tiki migrations.
Regarding Wells’ Y-chromosomal research, fine. Regarding National Geographics summary of it: Biased much?!?
The Australopithecus common ancestor is the strongest theory right now, and probably part of that is because people want to believe it, because it would lend a miniscule iota of credibility to the notion that “we are all equal,” whatever “equal” is supposed to mean. But the multi-regionalist theory is far from dead. I don’t know, but neither do they.
Agreed. That was a wild generalization, and it was meant to be. We don’t know and can’t prove anything the likes of this yet. Perhaps we have millions of years. I doubt it, though, since in the next 1000 years we will have a choice between eugenics and extinction. Old-fashioned Natural Selection doesn’t really apply to us today.
Because diversification is nature’s way.
Perhaps. Many NS hold the Cosmotheist belief that “nature” is “God,” and that evolution is but one of the manifestations of its will. Is there a goal to evolution? I think that’s too big of a philosophical question to just dismiss off hand like that.
The point is that you’re rejecting the science and saying “I don’t know what it is, so I think it’s this.”
I doubt that you’d get speciation in any kind of reasonable time frame. People can survive in a wide variety of climates as is- so I don’t see how segregation would produce more diversity. And what’s natural about separating related populations based on arbitrary criteria?
. Right?) I didn’t say, “on the verge”. I wouldn’t make such a proposterous claim. I’m thinking, like, 30%, assuming it would happen via phyletic gradualism.
