Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So this group at King's College in London has recently finished a study looking at test scores of sets of identical and non-identical twins raised in the same household. They show that there is a higher level of similarity between genetically identical twins than the fraternal ones in pretty much any subject. They estimate that genetics accounts for almost 60% of the variance.

So my question is this...how do you reconcile believing in racial "egalitarianism" (all races possess negligible differences in intelligence and aptitudes on average) with a non-theistic belief in evolution as a cold, non-supernatural process that doesn't care about fairness or equality? If test scores can be so much more dissimilar with full-blooded siblings than genetically identical twins how likely is it that populations of people geographically isolated for many millennia will possess the same levels of genes for high aptitudes and intelligence? I mean, if very small genetic differences between siblings can produce so much more variance than those of identical twins, then do you really expect different ethnic groups with their own distinct genes and physical features and different susceptibilities to diseases to have equal genetics for mental capacities?

Just saying, being a physicalist and believing evolution to be the sole source of what we are today has logical corollaries that might clash with your other beliefs.

BBC report on the paper.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25337953" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Link to the text of the paper.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0080341" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pwns wrote:Racial Equality

BBC

Does this explain West Virginians?

Pwns wrote:So this group at King's College in London has recently finished a study looking at test scores of sets of identical and non-identical twins raised in the same household. They show that there is a higher level of similarity between genetically identical twins than the fraternal ones in pretty much any subject. They estimate that genetics accounts for almost 60% of the variance.

So my question is this...how do you reconcile believing in racial "egalitarianism" (all races possess negligible differences in intelligence and aptitudes on average) with a non-theistic belief in evolution as a cold, non-supernatural process that doesn't care about fairness or equality? If test scores can be so much more dissimilar with full-blooded siblings than genetically identical twins how likely is it that populations of people geographically isolated for many millennia will possess the same levels of genes for high aptitudes and intelligence? I mean, if very small genetic differences between siblings can produce so much more variance than those of identical twins, then do you really expect different ethnic groups with their own distinct genes and physical features and different susceptibilities to diseases to have equal genetics for mental capacities?

Just saying, being a physicalist and believing evolution to be the sole source of what we are today has logical corollaries that might clash with your other beliefs.

BBC report on the paper.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25337953" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Link to the text of the paper.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0080341" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First of all Racial Egalitarianism is NOT believing that all races poses equal test score intelligence...
It is believing that no race has more (or less) intrinsic value than another

No one confuses the phrase:
"All are equal" with the notion that all think the same and process data the same way
equality has nothing to do with that... Surely you understand that..? (but I like where you're going)

Secondly
Homo erectus / Homo Habilis / Homo Ergaster : Pick a Homo (I kid)
They all had (slightly) different diets (slightly) different skill sets and (slightly) different behavioral patterns

Now look at:
The Gibbon / Chimpanzee / Gorilla / Orangutan
They exhibit similarities and differences as well

Evolution accounts for all of this / your point is pointless

Chizzang wrote:
First of all Racial Egalitarianism is NOT believing that all races poses equal test score intelligence...
It is believing that no race has more (or less) intrinsic value than another

No one confuses the phrase:
"All are equal" with the notion that all think the same and process data the same way
equality has nothing to do with that... Surely you understand that..? (but I like where you're going)

Secondly
Homo erectus / Homo Habilis / Homo Ergaster : Pick a Homo (I kid)
They all had (slightly) different diets (slightly) different skill sets and (slightly) different behavioral patterns

Now look at:
The Gibbon / Chimpanzee / Gorilla / Orangutan
They exhibit similarities and differences as well

Evolution accounts for all of this / your point is pointless

I think you missed the point entirely. I realize that there is a difference in believing certain groups of people have "smarter" gene pools than others and being a eugenicist or someone that would never hire people of certain ethnic groups, and that isn't the point. I'm just wondering how people reconcile their beliefs about evolution and race. Some don't even try to. James Watson is a perfect example of a hardcore atheist and evolutionist who is a racist, and there are people in the scientific community who agree with him.

Pwns wrote:
I think you missed the point entirely. I realize that there is a difference in believing certain groups of people have "smarter" gene pools than others and being a eugenicist or someone that would never hire people of certain ethnic groups, and that isn't the point. I'm just wondering how people reconcile their beliefs about evolution and race. Some don't even try to. James Watson is a perfect example of a hardcore atheist and evolutionist who is a racist, and there are people in the scientific community who agree with him.

I don't completely disagree with him and his opinions and findings...
Although I have it on good authority he was intentionally provocative and controversial

I've always found it funny how he somehow took credit for being born how he was born...
Even after all his research and discoveries proved that so much of what we are is based on factors completely unrelated to our own determination and free will

He somehow seemed like he was entitled and self appointed
But his research (always) proved otherwise - that was a huge disconnect that I never quite understood

CAA Flagship wrote:Does this explain West Virginians?

Nothing explains West Virginians. Although, I do have a lot of WV blood in me, so that might explain me.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Does this explain West Virginians?

Nothing explains West Virginians. Although, I do have a lot of WV blood in me, so that might explain me.

You sir, are a mess.

The ship sailed on this being a politically viable (and therefore meaningful) discussion many years ago

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Nothing explains West Virginians. Although, I do have a lot of WV blood in me, so that might explain me.

You sir, are a mess.

Least I ain't a wop.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:

You sir, are a mess.

Least I ain't a wop.

There's no scientific basis for race for starters.

Skjellyfetti wrote:There's no scientific basis for race for starters.

I don't think watching THEM race would be exciting at all anyway.

Skjellyfetti wrote:There's no scientific basis for race for starters.

Your belief in observable science appears to be selective.

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:There's no scientific basis for race for starters.

Your belief in observable science appears to be selective.

Observations + cultural conditioning influencing our perceptions of race = biased results



Here's a quiz of 10 politicians around the world to see how good your observations on race are.

Guess (or, scientifically observe ) their race.

See how you do. If you get above 50%... I'll be impressed.

A.



B.



C.



D.




E.




F.




G.




H.




i.




J.

Skjellyfetti wrote: F.

What the fuck is that???

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Does this explain West Virginians?

Nothing explains West Virginians. Although, I do have a lot of WV blood in me, so that might explain me.

Rough weekend, huh?

They made me squeal.

Skjellyfetti wrote:There's no scientific basis for race for starters.

That fact that different ethnic groups have their own distinct facial features and appearances means that there are genetic differences. There are genetic tests that already exist that can determine ancestry. Whether or not you can really say that they constitute "races" is really a matter of semantics.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Your belief in observable science appears to be selective.

Observations + cultural conditioning influencing our perceptions of race = biased results



Here's a quiz of 10 politicians around the world to see how good your observations on race are.

Guess (or, scientifically observe ) their race.

See how you do. If you get above 50%... I'll be impressed.

A.



B.



C.



D.




E.




F.




G.




H.




i.




J.

This has nothing to do with the selective nature of your belief in observable science.

Might as well put this here. No commentary, just obervation. On my way to work I pass two townhouse communities that are literally next to each other. Each morning there are kids waiting for the school bus in front of each community, the two groups 100 yards apart. Each group is approximately 20 kids. One has 7 white kids, 5 black kids, 4 hispanic kids and 4 asian kids. The other has 20 black kids. I find this interesting (OK, maybe that counts as commentary).

Do you really count the races of groups of kids you pass when you are driving around?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Do you really count the races of groups of kids you pass when you are driving around?

He's in the George Zimmerman neighborhood watch club.

I figured JSO would have posted in here by now. He most likely is waiting to post, "Whites are the superior race!"

Skjellyfetti wrote:Do you really count the races of groups of kids you pass when you are driving around?

I pass them every morning and it's extremely noticiable. Plus, at least once a week I get caught by one of the busses and have to wait while they all board the bus. Really not that odd douche bag.