tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post2484835481814068108..comments2023-10-18T16:25:13.593+01:00Comments on Famous for 15 megapixels: If everybody looked the same We'd get tired of looking at each otherStefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-22194954002410710212007-11-10T10:37:00.000+00:002007-11-10T10:37:00.000+00:00So, going to Karl Popper and his idea of falsifiab...<I>So, going to Karl Popper and his idea of falsifiability of hypotheses as a test to see whether or not they are scientific: how would one falsify Darwinism?</I><BR/><BR/>F*cked if I know<BR/><BR/>Whilst it's very good for weaving plausible-sounding 'Just So' stories after the event the predictive power of Darwinism is negligible, so I'm not even sure that it qualifies as what I understand the term 'science' to meanStefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-11628676848916862502007-10-29T11:32:00.000+00:002007-10-29T11:32:00.000+00:00"I always thought good scientists were suppose to ..."<I>I always thought good scientists were suppose to welcome the opportunity that criticism provides to test their theories out and to see if they are 'true'...</I>"<BR/><BR/>So, going to Karl Popper and his idea of <I>falsifiability</I> of hypotheses as a test to see whether or not they are scientific: how would one falsify Darwinism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-34359548707067792622007-10-23T10:59:00.000+01:002007-10-23T10:59:00.000+01:00"It's not about science. It's about advocacy"Indee...<B>"It's not about science. It's about advocacy"</B><BR/><BR/>Indeed, and I believe you<BR/>(or was it Alex Fear?<BR/>http://www.abandonallfear.co.uk/)<BR/>came out with another bullseye about genetics/evolution when you said its about plausability.<BR/><BR/>Too right!<BR/><BR/>Science (and solid thought) is definately festering in the bin on these ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-13037652718621974052007-10-23T02:24:00.000+01:002007-10-23T02:24:00.000+01:00Strange, I've always been more interested in the s...<I>Strange, I've always been more interested in the shit they try to pass off as evolutionary rationalisations, never thought about darwin's theory much at all.</I><BR/><BR/>The interesting thing about Darwin is the number of very loud voices claiming that the 'debate' is over and that any dissenters are either mad, ignorant or deluded. I see fairly clear parallels with the treatment of people who dare criticise the current man made global warming narrative<BR/><BR/>It's not about science. It's about advocacy<BR/><BR/>I always thought good scientists were suppose to welcome the opportunity that criticism provides to test their theories out and to see if they are 'true'...Stefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-38690396613563996512007-10-22T22:36:00.000+01:002007-10-22T22:36:00.000+01:00"When I came across the definition of intelligence..."<I>When I came across the definition of intelligence -</I>" ... yep, entirely subjective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-43281224884855671402007-10-22T22:35:00.000+01:002007-10-22T22:35:00.000+01:00Schützenberger - that's the one, thanks Stef, man....Schützenberger - that's the one, thanks Stef, man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-22049054382605804012007-10-22T20:50:00.000+01:002007-10-22T20:50:00.000+01:00here's another one along Schutzenburger's linesStr...<A HREF="http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/berlinski/deniable.html" REL="nofollow">here's another one along Schutzenburger's lines</A><BR/><BR/>Strange, I've always been more interested in the shit they try to pass off as evolutionary rationalisations, never thought about darwin's theory much at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-88973119808904354192007-10-22T19:52:00.000+01:002007-10-22T19:52:00.000+01:00It's survival of the fittest gone mad!People livin...It's survival of the fittest gone mad!<BR/><A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/22/ndivide122.xml" REL="nofollow">People living in north of country are likely to be unhealthier, poorer and live shorter lives.</A><BR/>But formidable reproductive success proves they are the fittest:<BR/><I>The under-18 conception rate is highest in the North East, at 51.2 per 1,000 girls compared with 33.6 per 1,000 in the East of England and the South East.</I><BR/>They might not live long, but their wretched low grade genes willAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-16665661756027675092007-10-22T16:55:00.000+01:002007-10-22T16:55:00.000+01:00Schutzenburger on Dawkins...Biology is, of course,...Schutzenburger on Dawkins...<BR/><BR/><I>Biology is, of course, not my specialty. The participation of mathemeticians in the overall assessment of evolutionary thought has been encouraged by the biologists themselves, if only because they presented such an irresistible target. Richard Dawkins, for example, has been fatally attracted to arguments that would appear to hinge on concepts drawn from mathematics and from the computer sciences, the technical stuff imposed on innocent readers with all of his comic authority.</I><BR/><BR/>what a starStefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-85983578079021409832007-10-22T16:49:00.000+01:002007-10-22T16:49:00.000+01:00Schutzenburger's quite a good readTrust the Frogs...Schutzenburger's quite a good read<BR/><BR/>Trust the Frogs to evolve into something so annoying<BR/>Must be a gene for itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-8557080548398492502007-10-22T15:24:00.000+01:002007-10-22T15:24:00.000+01:00When I came across the definition of intelligence ...When I came across the definition of intelligence - <B>that which is measured by intelligence tests,</B> I decioded that further research / discussion / debate was worthless.zizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15249645812407323273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-41863783043228432262007-10-22T15:04:00.000+01:002007-10-22T15:04:00.000+01:00I've linked to this interview before but Vonnegut ...I've linked to this interview before but Vonnegut has some amusing things to say about Darwinism too...<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/cljk3Stefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-55629885032065433352007-10-22T15:01:00.000+01:002007-10-22T15:01:00.000+01:00Hmmm, a french intellectual posing with a cigarett...Hmmm, a french intellectual posing with a cigarette<BR/><BR/>well, that narrows the search down a lot...<BR/><BR/>Marcel-Paul Schützenberger<BR/><BR/>www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htmStefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-54998962724138799132007-10-22T14:21:00.000+01:002007-10-22T14:21:00.000+01:0021 October 2007 22:10 and 21 October 2007 22:26 th...21 October 2007 22:10 and 21 October 2007 22:26 thanks for responding to my points.<BR/><BR/>Modern thinkers say that evolution is simply a random process. Throw the dice often enough and your genes will come out so that you have a blue *rse. If this doesn't kill you; you pass it on to your descendants etc ... Further on down the line, people searching for a reason where there isn't one will say, 'oh, the blue makes him more attractive to the opposite sex etc' All nonsense, which cannot be proved etc ...<BR/><BR/>Lastly, what's the name of the French number theorist (he died ca 2 yrs ago); who calculated that the rate of evolution was such that Darwinism as described couldn't work, 'cos the earth hadn't been around for long enough? (Pictures of him show that he usually has a cigarette hanging from his mouth).<BR/><BR/>If anyone can remember his name; 't would be appreciated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-67809666960906999992007-10-22T13:36:00.000+01:002007-10-22T13:36:00.000+01:00If I am wrong give me the gene sequence, come on, ...<I>If I am wrong give me the gene sequence, come on, how about just the chromosome(s), where to find it?</I><BR/>And if you find it,that's when you can start wondering about <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis" REL="nofollow">epistatic</A> effectsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-2667983627415051512007-10-22T10:33:00.000+01:002007-10-22T10:33:00.000+01:00Sorry, but genertic "trait" is a meaningless fudge...Sorry, but genertic "trait" is a meaningless fudge! A human impositon upon a contrived manner of intelligence assessment, piled on top of a science that can prove you have more than the average number of legs.<BR/><BR/>If I am wrong give me the gene sequence, come on, how about just the chromosome(s), where to find it?<BR/><BR/>If ones peers entertain knobish ideas, what conclusions can one draw concerning ones self?<BR/><BR/>Intelligence is overwhelmingly determined by social factors and God given bounty (See the story of Adam and also of Khidr, Moses' teacher) - lwAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-79692620802211030912007-10-22T10:18:00.000+01:002007-10-22T10:18:00.000+01:00Aa above, what use is the average ability of a rac...Aa above, what use is the <I>average</I> ability of a race to perform iq tests?<BR/>Unscientifically, I would say fuck allAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-56188573449788930002007-10-22T09:31:00.000+01:002007-10-22T09:31:00.000+01:00The best thet can be said for that is that asians ...The best thet can be said for that is that asians are better at doing iq tests<BR/><I>the presence of a precise genetic trait that scientists <B>believe</B> to be connected to the brain's size and function.</I><BR/>As no one knows how the brain works, belief is its proper realmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-77228830300725957222007-10-22T09:13:00.000+01:002007-10-22T09:13:00.000+01:00Asians on average do best on IQ tests. The Chinese...Asians on average do best on IQ tests. The Chinese researcher Dr Bruce Lahn reported a genetic evolution that occurred in human beings about 6,000 years ago and is believed to be an important contributing factor in intelligence.<BR/><BR/>Scientists who have researched this mutation have found evidence that it was geographically dispersed in Europe, Asia, and North Africa. Sub-saharan Africa was geographically isolated by comparison, so the mutation occured there at a much lower incidence. This is not simple IQ sampling on racial lines - it's statistical data examining for the presence of a precise genetic trait that scientists believe to be connected to the brain's size and function.<BR/><BR/>This research appeared in one of the leading peer reviewed journals a year ago:<BR/><BR/>"Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens. Science, 309:1720 (2005).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-52272813667475290422007-10-22T08:48:00.000+01:002007-10-22T08:48:00.000+01:00If you accept Darwin's theory of adaptationary evo...If you accept Darwin's theory of adaptationary evolution you are in no way obliged to accept its application to areas it has no utility or sense.<BR/>Mutoo kimura's neutral theory suggests that most mutations are not adaptationary, that 'fitness' is not the driver but a by product of the mechanism by which we evolve.<BR/>Evolutionary theory (ET)has no 'implications' other than those people choose to overlay on it, for whatever reasons they might have.<BR/>To choose to use that specious, morally loaded phrase 'survival of the fittest' is to misuse the ideas of ET for current social ends, nothing to do with a theory of evolution. <BR/>Fitness in ET terms means being suited to an environment, not the triumph of a single type or subtype within a population. Bacteria are just as 'fit' as us, possibly fitter as they mutate so much faster.<BR/>Adaptation, as the hectoring Dawkins tells us,takes place over very long periods long periods. Modern social changes happen so quickly it has no relevance and things like public health, clean water and food production have contrived to frustrate any adaptationary pressures. A 'weak' person in the wealthy west has generally just about as much chance at survival and reproduction as the strong (Aren't the papers always full of stuff about our alarmingly fecund underclass?).<BR/>Darwin had a good idea about how <B>species</B> adapt over long periods of time and mendel had a good idea about the mechanism behind it. That's it, anything else is darwin'ism' which for me, just means wishful thinking.<BR/>Using population genetics to ascribe a degree of 'intelligence' to the varied people of an entire continent is a classic case of wishful thinking. <BR/>I suppose it might have some use if all people who shared a continent comprised some gestalt communal intelligence with which they could 'compete' with peoples of other continents,but that doesn't seem to be the case so its just a high falutin' way of blaming the victim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-32175572746822263112007-10-22T04:03:00.000+01:002007-10-22T04:03:00.000+01:00what a fantastic post this has been.Well done Mr. ...what a fantastic post this has been.<BR/><BR/>Well done Mr. Watson!<BR/><BR/>Not for being racist of course, but for catalyzing even stronger arguements against those who place DNA and on an alter and worship it.<BR/><BR/>Cheers mukka :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-1200832353480294452007-10-21T22:55:00.000+01:002007-10-21T22:55:00.000+01:00@wolfie/ sophiawhat all this demonstrates to me, y...@wolfie/ sophia<BR/><BR/>what all this demonstrates to me, yet again, is the fact that many, not all, people who accept Darwinian evolution are being pussies about its implications and continue to cling onto moral codes that came not from science but from religion<BR/><BR/>Personally, I'm happy with that<BR/><BR/>I'm mindful of the fact that some of the biggest names of the Enlightenment believed that hierarchies and exploitation were rational, even laudable. That's how you can have the paradox of people like the Founding Fathers of the US penning the absolutely brilliant 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' stuff whilst still keeping slaves and denying universal suffrage<BR/><BR/>And it's fun watching Secular Humanists going the through the process of coming up with moral codes based on 'rational principles' which add little if anything and largely replicate codes that were formulated long ago by superstitious irrationalistsStefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-17548242744547117632007-10-21T22:36:00.000+01:002007-10-21T22:36:00.000+01:00The truth,IMHO, is that environment is paramount. ...<I>The truth,IMHO, is that environment is paramount. As most people are 'genetically' adequate, education, class employment etc are more important in determining your life than your individual genetic endowment.</I><BR/><BR/>If Watson had said something like <BR/><BR/>'The problem with our approach to Africa development is that we're trying to impose solutions conceived by people from one culture and environment onto different cultures and environments'<BR/><BR/>No-one would have batted an eyelid<BR/><BR/>He didn't<BR/><BR/>He called people thick<BR/><BR/>I'd love to see the results of Watson sitting an IQ test set by an Aborigine - or even better, the results of a practical exam that would involve dropping Watson into the middle of the Outback somewhere to fend for himself for a couple of days equipped with nothing more than his colossal intellectStefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-54304300677336211632007-10-21T22:26:00.000+01:002007-10-21T22:26:00.000+01:00"who are claiming that Watson’s comments are someh...<I>"who are claiming that Watson’s comments are somehow scientifically inaccurate"<BR/><BR/>Is there a scientifically objective measure for intelligence? Is there a scientifically objective measure for race?</I><BR/><BR/>A fair question<BR/><BR/>I don't think that there is an objective measure of intelligence or race<BR/><BR/>And, in response, I could ask the question 'Is there an objective measure of fittest?' as in that tautological old Darwinian chestnut 'Survival of the...'<BR/><BR/>A large chunk of natural science is all about grouping things - rocks, clouds, finches - into similar groups, giving those groups names and then subsequently leaping onto perceived differences between those arbitrary groups. Hominid palaeontology is packed with funsters playing this game - slapping new species names on bone fragments that fall well within the range of variability displayed by humans alive today<BR/><BR/>Again, I'm not a Darwinian but if I were I'd find it quite difficult to rubbish someone talking about intelligence because it is subjective term and then try and pretend that adaptive fitness was an objective one...Stefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8225855.post-40557622083998144062007-10-21T22:10:00.000+01:002007-10-21T22:10:00.000+01:00"on a genetic level there is no such thing as race...<I>"on a genetic level there is no such thing as race and that any differences between races are really only skin deep<BR/><BR/>Yeah, tell that to the sickle cell"<BR/><BR/>... so, how does one demarcate races? Again, what's the objective measure?</I><BR/><BR/>I mentioned the sickle cell specifically because when I was being taught about evolution sickle cells were cited as a specific example of an inherited genetic characteristic which evolved in certain groups of people in response to localised environmental/ selective pressures - in this case malaria<BR/><BR/>Now as it happens I think that's probably a Darwinian fairy tale - along with that neatly arranged chart of horse evolution, haeckel's dodgy embryo drawings, vestigial organs and lots of other 'proofs' of Darwinian evolution I subsequently realised or discovered to be bollocks<BR/><BR/>But if I were a Darwinist I would find it very difficult to argue that you can't subdivide humanity into subgroups ('races') of individuals who share particular packages of inherited adaptations which evolved to suit to the different environments in which those groups liveStefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01467757421113856218noreply@blogger.com