Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Epigenetics, stress, and everything else [was Cracking the epigenetic code....]

Expand Messages
  • clarence_sonny_williams
    RAF, Yes, I know what I wrote but apparently you do not. Assuming you are as honest in intent as I am, that means one of two things has happened: I worded
    Message 1 of 62 , Oct 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      RAF,

      Yes, I know what I wrote but apparently you do not. Assuming you are as
      honest in intent as I am, that means one of two things has happened: I
      worded what I said in a way that you misunderstood, or you have some
      hidden (but still honest) agenda in twisting my words.

      Your failure to answer my simple question about any group membership
      that you have raises suspicions that you have a hidden agenda...but I
      will forget that. It is your prerogative to deny by silence that you
      belong to any organization, so that leaves us with only the first
      possibility: I have worded something in a manner that misled you.

      OK, let me reword what has been my scientifically derived opinion for
      many years and for which I owe no one an apology (least of all you): ONE
      CANNOT SEQUENCE A FETUS'S DNA AND THEREBY KNOW THE ADULT PHENOTYPE.
      That means if I sequence a white baby's DNA and know the combination of
      genes that result in intelligence as I define it (the first of which is
      currently impossible and the second of which is subjective), I cannot
      know the baby's adult intelligence. There are too many intervening
      variables during development, which variables play a large role in
      determining intelligence. Can I get close? Well, that depends on what
      you mean by close.

      I previously translated this by saying that if you allowed me to vary
      the environment, I guarantee you that the black baby you gave me will be
      smarter than the white baby you gave me (you insist on using skin color
      in association with intelligence which I find repulsive and
      scientifically ignorant, but you insist on it). You found this
      objectionable because you assumed that I was not going to alter the
      white baby's environment as well as the black babies. Why you would
      assume that is revealing to me, but I'll also leave this alone, will let
      you get away with this bit of unconscious prejudice. If you pick any
      black baby in the world at random and then pick any white baby in the
      world at random and continue this until you get a large enough sample
      size, I guarantee that the two populations will be of equal intelligence
      (if we agree on what intelligence means).

      I also know the difference between monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic
      (fraternal) twins. Moreover, I am familiar with Bouchard's early
      research on MZ twins, wherein he found remarkable similarities when MZ
      twins were reared apart. Gee, he even determined that both MZ sisters
      who never knew each other existed feared water! Wow, I'm getting all
      tingly just thinking about how profound was that discovery! Then I read
      other statisticians who take people at random...and also come up with
      some amazing coincidences. Damn! There goes my amazement. Uh...so
      what?

      Are you familiar at all with the severe limitations of the purely
      statistical science of behavior genetics? From the racial comments
      you've made, it is apparent that you do not know that behavioral
      genetics research on two populations cannot be compared. Let me example
      this. Let's say Bouchard or Jenkins did some research and found that
      the heritability of intelligence was 60% for a group of males in a
      Zambian village and a Detroit suburb, but it was 75% for a group of
      white males from Boston. What does that mean to you?

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, R A Fonda <rafonda@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > On 10/28/2012 8:29 AM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
      > > I will not demand an apology for lying about what I said
      >
      > You know you wrote it, and the post still exists in the list archives,
      > so you are in no position to demand any apology. And it was no casual
      > mistake; you went on to defend the statement in several posts,
      claiming
      > that the environment was responsible for up to 50% of IQ scores and
      > revealing that you believed that influence could be additive, rather
      > than (as is the case) mostly acting to decrease genetic potential
      > through various 'insults'. You just can't bear to admit that you were
      > wrong, so you keep 'pointing and sputtering'. You would have been so
      > much better off to say, early on, that you had been mislead by the
      > misrepresentations of authors who make such claims, or at least imply
      > them. There would have been no shame in such an admission, but the
      > stubborn persistence in error, and denial of what you wrote, and your
      > attempts to cover your embarrassment by attacking me, are unbecoming.
      >
      > How about your recent claim that: "Natural selection has selected for
      > organisms that have a wide range of phenotypes possible from the same
      > genome."
      >
      > Tell me more about those "same genome[s]" that can produce "a wide
      range
      > of phenotypes".
      >
      > And bear in mind that this whole discussion is about HUMANS, and
      > particularly about the genetics of IQ, so to claim some "organisms"
      have
      > identical genomes and produce different phenotypes is just
      obfuscation:
      > we are talking about humans and IQ. Are there humans with "the same
      > genome", and if you adduce identical twins, are you claiming they
      > display a "wide range of phenotypes"? Do you claim that identical
      twins
      > raised apart have a wide range of IQs?
      >
      > RAF
      >
    • Don Zimmerman
      ... DWZ: I wouldn t be surprised if they already have plans drawn up for a Gulag, so that when they seize power they will have a place to send the PC liberals.
      Message 62 of 62 , Nov 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:

        > I am confident that those who scoff at such scientific facts have a
        > hidden sociopolitical agenda in mind. It is a shame they are so
        > cowardly about this sociopolitical agenda that they refuse to reveal it.


        DWZ:
        I wouldn't be surprised if they already have plans drawn up for a Gulag, so that when they seize power they will have a place to send the PC liberals. Fortunately, those dreams of power are about as plausible as their "scientific" theories.

        Best regards,

        Donald W. Zimmerman
        Vancouver, BC, Canada
        dwzimm@...
        http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.