Re: James Watson and the Monkey Test

ragland31@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:08 am, d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DK) wrote:
raglan...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:53 pm, d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DK) wrote:
raglan...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Richard Flynn of Ireland? That Flynn? He is and has always been part
of
the well funded (pioneer funded to some extent) club of "social
scientists"
who believes Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites.

You are confusing Richard Lynn of Ireland with
James Flynn of new Zealand...

My child is unable to hydrolyse galactose. Is she, in your
veiw, "genetically inferior" to the lacZ+ bacteria I made
in the lab yesterday?

No.

OK, next question:

No one in my large family is above 174 cm in height. Even
the latest generation that had all the benefits of better
nutrition and all that. Thus, it's almost certainly genetic.

In your view, am I genetically inferior to tall people?


No

Don't be so sure. If it turns out that tall people get to screw
around more an/or live longer and care better for their
offspring, then why not - short people really would be genetically
disadvantaged. (Note, BTW, that there does seem to be some
selection toward taller people in the past few thousand years).

As a member of the group "short people", am I bothered
by this possibility? - Nope. No more than I am bothered by not
being born into some multi-billionaire family. (Which might have
been nice but it didn't happen).

and I don't like you beating around the bush; spit out what it is
you think I'm susceptible of. That way
there will be clear communication. Do you somehow thing that I employ
such archaic terms as "racist'
that I myself am a racist or split people into genetically superior
and genetically inferior?

No, I just meant to show you - logically, step by step - that shaping
a discussion of evolution and diversity in terms of inferior/superior
is a silly and unproductive thing to do. Such an approach reeks
of political agenda rather than scientific one.

DK

.