If it has, then that’s a bad argument. I didn’t make it. If we find the proverbial IQ genes, we don’t need to know how they got into which populations. That might be an interesting area for investigation, but it isn’t required in order to validate the existence of such genes.
No, you don’t know that. You think you do, but you don’t.
But if you REALLY think you do, then you should publish your results in a scientific journal. There is a Nobel Prize in biology just sitting out there, unclaimed, with your name on it!
It was boring. The usual suspects were making the same arguments while displaying an incredible lack of knowledge about how (and how fast) natural selection works. Worse, a vast lack of self-awareness at how little they understood how it worked.
And if we know they are there (even without identifying them), we don’t need to know how they got into which populations. Which is why the question is tangential.
Anyway, you jumped into an exchange between me and another poster who asserted it was necessary to “show some plausible reason why high IQ genes offered a reproductive advantage in Mediterranean Europe but not anywhere in Africa.”
If you think his argument is wrong, then you should have said so.
In my opinion, a charitable reading of his post yields a valid point: If there is no plausible way in which iq-boosting alleles could have ended up more common in some races than others, then it’s unlikely that iq-boosting alleles are in fact more common in some races than others.
Unfortunately for him (and as you agree), there are in fact plausible ways in which iq-boosting alleles could have ended up distributed unevenly among races.
No, you are the one with the mote in his eye.
Why? I am not the first person (lay or expert) to correctly conclude that some of the racial gap in intelligence is due to genetics. Do you seriously think somebody would win the Nobel prize for telling the elites what they really wish were not so?
It’s a conspiracy, a conspiracy to keep the truth from coming out. Virtually all scientists are in on it, but luckily a few brave idiots are fighting for truth!
I like brazil84’s thought process here, which is: it’s conceivable that it could happen, therefore it did happen, therefore I will argue obsessively about it on the internet.
His entire argument is that it’s *conceivably possible *that he’s right, which is a weak-ass argument. I mean, it’s conceivably possibly that I have a herd of tiny invisible elephants living in my bathtub. It’s conceivably possible that **brazil84 **isn’t mentally ill. Still, I’m not going to spend my life arguing for either of those things on the Straight Dope.
He also seems to lie a lot to support his argument. Like his constant lies that he has lots of evidence supporting his position, when in fact all the available evidence is against him. I also like the way his accuses his opponents of strawmanning him, when no one is, but on the other hand his entire argument consists of strawmanning his opponents.
brazil84, about the racist thing, here’s a word of wisdom; if three people tell you you’re drunk, go lie down.
Be careful, John Mace. You’re one wrong post away from **brazil84 **putting you on “ignore”. Since you’re the only poster in this thread who **brazil84 **hasn’t put on “ignore,” if you go down, he’ll be stuck with no one to talk to.
Actually, no. You brought it up, out of the blue, in response to my post. If you’ve been arguing that with some other poser, then there was no reason to throw it at me. You should apologize for being rude in the Pit.
So was Mali (home to one of the world’s richest men - Mansa Musa), so was much of Western Africa, so was Egypt. These are the examples I can think of from the top of my head: are their current states evidence of black inferiority? Why is this not the case for China and India?
That’s simply false. The snippet you quoted in Post #344 was in response to a particular point made by another poster. We were discussing the plausibility of a particular hypothesis in connection with a very specific argument. You jumped in without any idea what was being discussed.
is an incorrect statement about what that poster was arguing. If you read the exchange he had with iiandyiiii, you’ll see that he was simply saying that you 1) lacked the identification of the genes and 2) lacked a plausible explanation for why those genes would have appeared in certain populations.
He did not say that you needed #2 to prove #1. You made that up.
If you believe that, you need to better acquaint yourself with sports. For the record, I just use running and the speed positions in football. They’re the purest look. The consistency with which those of West African descent dominate the sprinting record books—regardless of where they were raised—is exceedingly strong evidence that genes are playing a role. As is the degree to which those with that same ancestry dominate the speed positions in football. Though the former is even stronger.
Another place to look is the Strong Man competitions, which mainly test upper body strength. Those with Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry dominate, because the best thing you can start with is massive size. Now this sample set is too tiny, IMO, to draw any real conclusions, but it does suggest other genes at play.
Question for you: if you could find bunch of 16 year-olds from some remote tribe, people who have never seen hockey, basketball, soccer, football, or track and field, and you get top train them for 2 days, do you think they’d do better in a 3-point shot competition, soccer dribbling and kicking accuracy competition, skating competition, or a pure running competition?
That’s wrong too, but even if it were true, it wouldn’t change the fact that what I brought up was not “out of the blue” as you have falsely claimed.
Of course I did not read the exchange since iiandyiiii is a liar and is on my ignore list. In any event, if I missed something in the person’s argument, he is free to bring it up. It doesn’t change the fact that my response to you was not “out of the blue” as you have falsely claimed.
Ummm, here’s the exchange:
(my bolding)
At that point, we were not discussing the identification of genes or alleles-- simply whether there was a plausible explanation why IQ-boosting alleles might end up being more prevalent in one race (or continent) as opposed to another. Belowjob2.0 clearly took the position that demonstration of such an explanation was necessary.
And of course I think that sub-point, charitably viewed, is correct.
So please stop lying about what was said. It’s all there in black and white.
You don’t know much about football if you think speed is all that’s needed to “dominate” at CB or WR. There’s a reason those are called “skill” positions. CB especially is a very, very tough position to learn. No one learns it quick. Almost everyone who makes it to the NFL or NBA has been playing the sport since they were a small child. Same goes for professional tennis or hockey, or any other sport. Look at what sports little kids are playing, and which kids are spending the most time on it, and you’ll see who is going to dominate that sport in 15 years or so. And this has always been true and will always be true. That matters far, far more than the genetics of different populations (if those genetics even matter at all).