Re: [evol-psych] Epigenetics, stress, and everything else [was Cracking the epigenetic code....]
- Brad - can you please just point to the actual DATA that contradicts
Bee? Just provide the link. Many thanks, Sonny.
--- In email@example.com, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:
> 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
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:
> I am confident that those who scoff at such scientific facts have aDWZ:
> hidden sociopolitical agenda in mind. It is a shame they are so
> cowardly about this sociopolitical agenda that they refuse to reveal it.
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.
Donald W. Zimmerman
Vancouver, BC, Canada