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

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

Expand Messages
  • hibbsa
    Brad - can you please just point to the actual DATA that contradicts Bee? Just provide the link. Many thanks, Sonny. ...
    Message 1 of 62 , Oct 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Brad - can you please just point to the actual DATA that contradicts
      Bee? Just provide the link. Many thanks, Sonny.

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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?
      >
      <snip>
    • 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.