Or, of course, his invective might simply be the result of the frustration of dealing with a poster who repeats things over and over when they have already been demonstrated to be false or who simply drops changes to claims he has made regarding his own sources when the sources fail to provide the “evidence” he claimed for them.
Your claims about beneficial mutations never being reabsorbed in populations are simply a display of a really poor 10th grade understanding of evolution.
Your claims that the exam system could have had an effect on an enormous population in 1300 years based on the the ability to breed animals in a shorter time displays a really poor misunderstanding of the need for rigorous culling and re-breeding, (and an avoidance of the issue of unwanted secondary characteristics from inbreeding), when animals are bred.
Your embracing of Rushton, followed by your need to distance yourself from him, demonstrates the cherry-picking you need to employ to make your points.
I have said that there are three major races: whites, Negroes, and Orientals. Together these include the vast majority of the human population. I fail to persuade you because you do not want to acknowledge the importance of genes in determining superior intelligence in individuals, and average intelligence among racial groups.
You want to believe that in a perfect society, which presumably would be governed by those you like and agree with, people would be much more intelligent, and virtuous. The Soviet Union was based on the assumption that that was possible. The Soviet Union failed after demonstrating that it is not possible.
Important aspects of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society failed for the same reason. It has been nearly two generations since the civil rights legislation was signed. Blacks are still characterized by the same social pathologies and inferior intellects that were used in arguments against the civil rights legislation when it was proposed.
What I have thoroughly documented is that the different races differ significantly in terms of average intelligence, and rates of crime and illegitimacy.
Because I agree with Professor Rushton on some matters does not mean that I have an obligation to agree with him on everything. I agree with him on his assertions that can be confirmed independently.
So, that’s a no? You don’t have any genetic studies correlating race and intelligence?
While genetics gave us an explanation for why children resemble their parents, somebody had to actually go out and find those genes to prove it. The existence of the field of genetics was insufficient as actual proof (though it served as a reasonable hypothesis until then).
That’s called evidence. Somebody went out and proved (NOT ASSUMED) that genes existed that shape appearance and other phenotypic variation.
You have a hypothesis. Where’s the corresponding genetic evidence? What makes a genetic hypothesis better than any other hypothesis, including social and economic factors (which YOU YOURSELF already admitted can have an overwhelming effect)?
Also, notice that this argument doesn’t satisfy the definition of genetic evidence already provided.
So, where’s the study linking your definition of race (what’s the genetic basis for race?) and intelligence?
I hope you have the fire department on hand in case that enormous straw man goes up in flames.
I have made no claims regarding any “perfect society.” I have certainly never claimed that genetics plays no role in intelligence. I have made no appeals to any “perfect society.” You are simply inventing positions to attribute to me so that you can pretend that I am wishing away your purported facts.
The reality is that you persistently bring false information and bad logic to the discussion and need to attack beliefs I do not hold to avoid dealing with the problems in your own presentation.
Now you are back to talking about “three races” including “Orientals,” but we can easily look at your posts and note that you change the definition of “Orientals” from one of the “three races” to a limited population of people with epicanthic folds depending on what point you are trying to argue. That sort of shifting definition indicates that even you appear to realize that your claims are silly.
Both Johnson’s “Great Society” and Bush’s Needy Children Left Behind programs suffered from a lot more problems that simple racial disparities. The Great Society failed as many whites as blacks, (it was never intended to help only blacks and its failures occurred in the white and Hispanic communities as much as in the black communities). NCLB was also intended to help all kids and it has also failed white and Hispanic kids as much as black kids. In each case, both programs were criticized at their inception for being the wrong thing to do and, funding and politics being what they are, even supporters of both programs criticized the ways in which the funds were cut, allocated to the wrong projects, and misspent at the ground level. Both programs can be shown to have failed in remarkable ways without ever even considering the “races” of the people they were intended to help.
I have alreaday shown that you pick and choose what you claim. That you might both agree and disagree with Rushton is all very well, but you have explicitly said that the central thesis that Rushton presents is actually “extreaneous” to his work. You are simply willing to accept Rushton if he says something negative about black people while rejecting him if he is not laudatory of white people even when he is making the same statement.
Morte dodging and weaving.
What you have thoroughly demonstrated is a remarkably elastic definition of race. I’d like you to clarify some basic terms.
What are the characteristics that indisputably place a person into your classification of Caucasian, Negro or Oriental?
When people of different races interbreed, which of those characteristics need to be reproduced in offspring to classify the offspring as Caucasian, Negro or Oriental? Or, can you not classify a mixed-race person as Caucasian, Negro or Oriental?
After how many generations of interbreeding can we reliably classify an offspring as being of one race rather than another (in other words, how long, if ever, does it take to work the genes of a mixed-race person back to where the person’s considered non-mixed)?
Do you consider racial outliers (tall Orientals, blue-eyed Negroes, Caucasians with epicanthic folds, etc.) as being members of different races, or simply acceptable variations within your definition of race? Again, what types (or how proounced) of variations would move an outlier from one racial classification to another?
These are just my questions on simple, visible characteristics. Perhaps I’ll have some questions later on non-visible characteristics.
Every professor I am aware of who argues that racial differences are largely genetic is either tenured or retired. I have been told privately by college professors that presenting an original and well documented argument in favor of intrinsic racial differences is a bad career move for a graduate student who is competing for a faculty position.
I notice that you are still implying that a few hundred graduates a year would raise the intelligence of the gene pool in a country of millions while ignoring the fact that regression to the mean would have seriously diluted the reabsorbed gene mutations.
(And, frankly, you have not provided any credible evidence that the men who took the exam were really breeding at a rate that could have any effect on the majority of the populace.) You need for it to happen to support your prejudices, but you have failed to actually provide serious evidence.
ETA: I notice, for example, that you avoid the effect of the plague in China that reduced the cities, (where all the “healthy” men and their children lived), in the same way that it reduced the cities in Europe, leaving mostly the poor farmers of outlying areas with no exam selection to re-populate the country.
I’ve heard proponents of the moon-landing hoax theory, or creationists, state that “presenting an original and well documented argument in favor” of moon-landing as a hoax or creationsim is a bad career move as well.
You know, this was annoying, then it was funny, then I fell back into giving a shit against my better judgement, but now it’s just hilarious again.
You: The Moon is made of cheese ! Us: Err, no it’s not. It’s made of rock. You: Julius Caesar went to the Moon and he positively identified it as gouda. This proves the Moon is made of cheese. Us: There is not a single record of a Roman space program in all of history. Furthermore, while the Roman Empire made many significant scientific and technological breakthroughs and pioneered many technologies, Imperial technology was still nowhere near what would be required even for simple manned flight. The first gouda cheese was pressed in Holland in 1587 in a Jesuit brothel (citation needed), and the word itself traces its etymology back to the name of a town that was founded in 532 (citation really needed, guys, I’m not even joking) many centuries after the life of Julius Caesar had ended so even had Julius Caesar been to the Moon he could not possibly have positively identified its physical structure as gouda. In 1969 the American Space Program and NASA landed a manned vehicle on the Moon for the purpose of scientific exploration and brought back roughly half a ton of rock samples. Due to the temperature, pressure and continuous meteorite impacts on its surface, as well as the various environmental conditions of outer-space, if the Moon had been made of cheese it would have pulverized and broken down into itty bitty cheesy puffs millions of years ago. You: Well OK, but what’s important is that the Moon is made of cheese.