Behind closed doors, textbook reviewers appointed by the Texas State Board of Education are pushing to inject creationism into teaching materials that will be adopted statewide in high schools this year, according to new documents obtained by watchdog groups. Records show that the textbook reviewers made ideological objections to material on evolution and climate change in science textbooks from at least seven publishers, including several of the nation’s largest publishing houses. Failing to obtain a review panel’s top rating can make it harder for publishers to sell their textbooks to school districts, and can even lead the state to reject the books altogether.
“Once again, culture warriors in the state board are putting Texas at risk of becoming a national laughingstock on science education,” said Kathy Miller, the president of the Texas Freedom Network, a nonprofit group that monitors religious extremists…
What’s more, because Texas has one of the nation’s largest public-school systems, publishers tend to tailor their textbooks for that market and then sell the same texts to the rest of America.
Few of the textbook reviewers who were critical of the teaching of evolution and climate change possessed any scientific credentials, according to NCSE. Among those who did, several were active in anti-evolution organizations such as the Discovery Institute.
According to the groups, the Texas Education Agency has declined to release documents showing what changes, if any, the publishers have agreed to make in response to these reviews. A public hearing on the books will take place next week in Austin, followed by a final vote to approve or reject them in November.
The article includes examples of the spooky crap nutballs would substitute for science.
Good for Texas. Too often liberals have been pushing a political agenda on these textbooks. Nice to see some conservatives push back. Let’s point out that McCarthy was engaged in a witchhunt that had actual witches, there were Soviet agents in the government. We have a top adviser to Hillary Clinton who can’t even acknowledge that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy.
Except it’s not about liberal versus conservatives, it’s about scientific theories versus fantasy. Lots of conservatives don’t believe the Earth was created 4000 years ago.
They have managed to uncover a few comments, and not even a full recommendation. And in the comments, some of those strike me as not unreasonable. Scientific theories vs fantasy? So often they put falsehoods to push evolution, without sticking to known facts. For a long time, the coelocanth was reported as a major evolutionary find. Then they actually found living versions of this thought to be extinct creature, and the theory was all wrong. Now many textbooks still report the incorrect theory. If a creationist points this out, he gets mocked by Mother Jones and Eiditor. This isn’t the only thing that Texas conservatives are pushing on. The history textbooks are being changed as well. In science, global warming gets a big heave ho, and they may be resisting the common core idea of accepting 2+2=5.
Welcome to science. You put forth a theory. You hope most experimental data supports it. You know some won’t. You look at the stuff that won’t and try to figure out a better theory.
The coelocanth does not disproved evolution. The fact that it had found an environment that it (meaning generations) could remain unchanged and could not be replaced by another species, kind of proves evolution.
Speaking of Creationism, if the dinosaurs perished in the Great Flood, including (for reasons unknown) those that were in the sea, why did this guy survive?
Those particular republicans are known to history as RINOs.
So Mother Jones has given us five examples:
support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that “creation science” based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption.
Text neglects to tell students that no transitional fossils have been discovered. The fossil record can be interpreted in other ways than evolutionary with equal justification. Text should ask students to analyze and compare alternative theories.
In reality we don’t know what climate change will do to species diversity…Question seems to imply that ecosystems will be disrupted which qwe [sic] simply don’t know yet.
In the same review, Bohlin repeatedly promoted Signature in the Cell, a book written by Stephen Meyer—director of science and culture for the creationist Discovery Institute—without disclosing the fact that he is a fellow there:
There is no discussion of the origin of information bearing [sic] molecules which is absolutely essential in any origin of life scenario. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell easily dismisses any RNA first [sic] scenario. The authors need to get caught up.
Reviewers examining the Pearson/Prentice Hall textbook also refer to “THE DISCREDITED PEPPERED MOTH SCENARIO” and “the replacement of discredited ‘Peppered Moth’ misrepresentations.”
Now, lots of liberals push works with which they are affiliated, and so 4 doesn’t strike me as a big deal. A quick research along with vague details suggests 5 is OK. The peppered moth scenario has changed in the last ten years slightly, with the original experiments found lacking. New testing confirmed the findings somewhat. Though it is not quite evolution in action as the article suggests but natural selection. Rather birds eat up one variant of the species, making the second more dominant. Now if birds ate up all of one variant, then the circumstances changed, and instead of going extinct, the birds EVOLVED to the other variant, that would be more significant.
I’m OK with 2 and 3.
So their attempt to look for the worst comments, and 4 out of 5 are reasonable, and it is not clear how many of these were actually adopted rather than coming from one reviewer. I’m shocked that this is the worst Mother Jones could find. It’s like Eiditor vs Mark Perkel.
“As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that “creation science” based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption.”
Presumably not an educator in science.
Science is a process. The process starts with hypothesis that are then tested, via experiment and observation to produce theories. If something doesn’t conform to that process it’s not science, it’s something else.
Starting from ‘the bible’ contains all the answers isn’t science. It’s faith. Why? Because the existence of god is unprovable – as the bible itself states. Literally it defines itself outside of science. Following it literally produces contradictory answers.
Such as such absurdities as Jesus hanging out with dinosaurs, or people were giants in the past. None of it stacks up to any evidence.
Recently I was reading that there’s a debate of whether Jesus drank wine or grape juice. From reading the bible it’s pretty obvious he drank wine. But seeing as drinking wine is considered a sin by some, Jesus could not have drunk wine, as he could not sin. Therefore Jesus must have drunk grape juice. It’s the same kind of backwards argument.
Basically it is _stupid_.
It really is that simple.
I don’t have a problem with faith – it’s more of a problem with stupid. Teaching kids in a science class how not to do science – by avoiding the scientific method – is perverse.
I understand it’s highly likely this will fall on deaf ears. But hey, I thought I’d throw it out there.
“Creation Science” is an oxymoron.
+1 !!!
Creation Science is really just MORONIC!
—–
Hey! MikeN!!! Take your fairy tale bible crap and shove it straight up your and all your idiot family’s asses! Keep that fucking evil book in that shit house you call a church. Or here’s an idea: try READING that goddamn book and perhaps a passage or two about “he who is without sin let him cast the first stone” (translation: people who live in glass…) or even that “do un to others” shit. I think there’s even a passage or two about “judge, lest ye be judged” too. Because when YOU moronically and hypocritically shove that piece of shit FAIRY TALE in my family’s face – or even my face – as if it’s some kind of evidence, I find it OFFENSIVE! And I can’t even come CLOSE to the same offensiveness you have shown.
I won’t bore you with the reasons why I hate the bible, organized religion, or even explain HISTORY to you since you clearly can’t THINK or REASON for yourself. Just know this: I am NOT the follower of EVIL that you are. And I too am a republican but for very different reasons than what you probably think being a republican is all about. So do us a favor (if you’re really a man of god) and GET OUT!
But if none of that means anything to you then take this to heart: FUCK YOU! And that goes DOUBLE if you happen to be a member of any clergy!
Of course, astronomy, biology, geology and genetics all corroborates evolutions. But what are facts.
Birds eating a dominate moth because the environment has changed leaving a non-dominate genetic adoration to flourish is evolution. And as for birds changing form to take advantage of different food, look up Darwin’s finches.
Bogus argument already proven wrong years ago by other evolution believing scientists.
Darwin didn’t have the tools to examine DNA. So he just made observational guesses with no real science to back it up.
His same-species birds with differing beaks for eating different foods DO HAVE the IDENTICAL DNA and also have identical switches to toggle between the same beak types. The switches are located in that stuff they originally called “DNA junk”.
Hence one bird did NOT “change form” (evolve) into the other with a different beak. Same bird, same DNA, same switches.
(If you think I’m saying that religion is the correct theory instead here, then you didn’t read my other posts)
“Darwin didn’t have the tools to examine DNA.”
That’s the point. He made observations and from those observation formed a theory (It’s SCIENCE!) And at the time, Mendel was also doing research in plant hybridization. So, they had a theory on how all this worked, but the mechanism for this (DNA) was not discovered for another century. If DNA allowed for zero mutations or changes, then evolution as a theory would have failed.
Evolution just doesn’t describe big chances, but it describes small ones too. And they are not always genetic mutation but rather the environment favors certain traits. Scientists (no doubt evil godless one) have raised chickens with teeth. The genes for teeth were there, just suppressed.
Practically any modern science has a tie in either directly with evolution or at least the concept that the Earth and universe is very old.
A chicken with teeth, yes. But, without lips, it did not end well.
http://freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/004/02/004-0223104642-chicken_with_teeth.jpg
Their is not a unified single theory of evolution. Their competing theoris such as did we evolve from homo erectus or homo erectus was a different species that died out. the origin of races. I cite Carleton S coon and Dr john Baker oxford university a book called race published in 1976. google them! Versus darwin. We know selective breeding changes many traits look at race horses and the different breeds of cows. in europe many people died during the many ice ages. changeing the frequency of many traits. the date and origin and location of modern homo sapiens is not agreed upon. The cuacus mountains vs. africa vs middle east. by the way Carl Linnaeus based the animal kigdom on morphology not genes. sapien means wise. Are the criminals in detroit wise? i think not!
Let me guess, you were home schooled?
Everybody knows that white people came from the Cracker Mountains, which are near Detroit.
“Their is not a unified single theory of evolution. Their competing theoris such as …”
We’re done here. This is a troll. Do not engage. Nothing to see here.
I resent being called a troll. My point is why teach a title “evolution” without a detailed scientific consensus “agreement on how evolulotion works. To 12 year old 7th grade biology students. The beginning of genisus is a buitiful simple explanation of mankind in the first three chapters at least.
sorry about spelling im tired on medication for pain. Is there anyone who can expand on the point im trying to make.
And yet Texas’ economy is at the forefront of science and technology in this country and growing as it robs other states of tech companies.
Huh? Forefront of what? Can you name a single TX science or tech company that came up with anything original?
That’s a tuffy…
How about Shockley’s transistor and the first integrated circuits?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments#First_silicon_transistor_and_integrated_circuits
Texas invented cankles.
horizontal drilling , modern oil drilling , modern drilling bits, actually just about any science that has to do with oil was invented in Texas,
Medical I believe the MRI is a Texas invention as well as a multitude of other medical procedures and devices
you want more examples dumb ass or is that enough to shut you up
Hahaha! Drill, baby, drill. Did you look at the calendar, cowboy? I should have clarified for the proud, but often so dumb Texans here: the question was about high tech, not technology in general. The Texas Instruments example is closer, but, hey, wasn’t it like half a century ago?
Texas is nice big state. Oil makes people rich, and there seems to be a certain amount of hubris associated with that. Rotting swamps from long ago don’t make oil, which is something the Texas oil “scientists” somehow missed. Don’t get me started on people who insist on literal interpretation of the bible.
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/22592.html
ID Software. Ever played Doom?
Early 90’s? What happened to them?
I.D. has always been about demonstrating a game engine more than the actual game itself — It is my opinion that they stuck themselves in their own soul-cube with the latest iteration, ID Tech 5, by trying to keep the aging consoles looking like pc’s with a ginormous 22 gbytes of look-pretty fakeums texture pack that would then fit into 5 gb of true open world play.
The original pc only innovator has sold out to derpifying thumb-stick jigglers and I don’t believe they are coming back.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/10/from-doom-to-rage-20-years-of-id-development/
The only smartphone built in America is built in Texas, with Motorola Mobility. Now why don’t these factories open in places like Illinois or California?
Motorola ASSEMBLES smartphones in Texas, the parts are made in China.
Hughes Corp.
“The Howard Hughes Corporation owns, manages and develops commercial, residential and mixed-use real estate throughout the country” – yeah, that’s high tech.
A brief history of Virgil, Texas and a celebration of it’s special ness (sponsored by VeriCorp) — Radio reception is great there.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYnNIWKK8sw
Shall we take a moment and give our thanks??
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wA15oCKCYHM
Underlying problem is BS “separation of Church and State” interpretation as “freedom from religion” vs. “freedom OF religion” that have led to the mandatory removal of religious education from the school system. Ignoring both the need for understanding it and need to express it by the student body which in USA arrives from predominantly religious families.
You deny the needs and “nature will find a way” to express it. Inevitable. Hence injection of religious teaching into anything with any similarity on the surface.
Teach the religion and explain creationism in its proper context and there would be no need or pressure to force it into completely unrelated field of science (which just on surface deals with similar problem but from completely different set of methods and subjects).
And the cartoon at the top of the article does the same BS that I as a scientist and religious person object to. Science is the one which deals with rationally reachable and measurable stuff, with experiments, assuming that there is nothing that eventually can’t be measured and explained. There is no Bible in the science. Religion is the one which by its very concept deals with exactly opposite – transcendental. Anything that by its concepts can’t ever be measured or experimented with. By very definition there is no experiment or measurement in the religion. And that MUST be thought in schools for this problem to be resolved.
“”Science is the one which deals with rationally reachable and measurable stuff, with experiments, assuming that there is nothing that eventually can’t be measured and explained..
And it is that *stuff*, matter and energy {which have been shown to be equivalent}, which is held to be ‘the creation’ and therein lies the the cruxifix of the solution. There is a distinction to be made between the physical and the spiritual. It’s been whispered that the former will pass away — The elements melting with fervent heat should not be interpreted as any kind of phase change but rather the absolute winking out of all the things. Pffft, it’s gone.
I’m OK with that but I want a unicorn in there somewhere,
Screw those veri-colord’ horned beasts of suck!
Screw them?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone “stump training” a unicorn.
And now you understand why those who participated in 9/11 never talk about it — even on their death beds. Secrets really can be kept.
+1
“…and climate change…” Perfect.
It’s just fine. The US can still buy engineers and scientists from other countries that still teach science and math.
IMHO there is too much BS and untruth coming from both sides.
The world is filled with illogical, irrational and stupid people on both sides who believe that their beliefs are the “truth”.
I see very few comments dealing with the actual reviews made by the committee. Perhaps they should have Jesse Jackson call them up.”Are there any Asians on your committee? Are there any homosexuals on your committee?”
Now if we can just get them to add the FSM, I will rest easier. Oh, and support bicurious males, so AC is molified.
There is a doctrine of the separation of Church and State, that is being ignored. Creationism is not science, but a FAITH (as stated above), and has no business being in a SCIENCE textbook. This should be a no-brainer, which perfectly describes the committees in Texas, for even considering this. Arguments such as creationism vs evolution, is not an argument to be discussed at the grade school level, save it for ‘special’ classes at the University level.
Keep teaching stoopid to American kids, then wonder why the lead in science and technology the US once held is disappearing. OTOH it makes it easier to “justify” H1-B visas for people from India, China, and other countries who are teaching 21st instead of 14th century ideas. Dumb down the Americans, run the USA into the ground, then auction off the pieces. A little “shock doctrine” couldn’t hurt, could it.
This story or one like it could have been written in most if not each and every one of the last 100 years (or however long the Texas State Board of Education has existed).
I lived in various parts of Texas on and off between 1959 and 1989, and a very high proportion of the people I knew were from elsewhere. Tech companies swarmed to Texas for the low taxes and wages (Texas being a “right-to-work” state), and employed thousands and thousands of people who swarmed to Texas from other states for the low taxes and cheap real estate costs.
I found that those who wanted a real education quickly found other sources than the state-approved textbooks and knew who the really good teachers were and which were the really good schools.
It’s really a shame that a state that elects so many yahoos to office has such an inordinate effect on textbook selection nationwide.
So how come the states that elect the non-yahoos keep losing people to Texas? Are those non-yahoos not running the state properly?
I suspect it’s because they are incompetent.
I don’t tell anyone what religion to belong to. Don’t tell me! There are so much organized religion stealing and lying. The catholic 10 commandments have been changed so it is ok to have idols. As I recall god gave Moses the 10 commandments. There were no Catholics yet! There are more from all religions.
Does anyone remember the CNET tv show. It was around the time OJ killed everyone.
Global warming is great for yachts.
And AGW dogma is a great tool for strangling true believers with their own assholes.
Studies have found Texas schools to be quite good, especially for minorities.
If they play football.
No. Uhh uhh. That’s fixed. We have Chelsea Mannings for tumblers and the half-backs are half-blacks, now.
I wonder how many of the detractors in this thread are creationists without even realizing it.
These are the people who cherry-pick which of Darwin’s theories to get behind not realizing that Darwin had a thing or two which went against egalitarian PC beliefs.
But basically liberal creationists believe evolution stopped 50,000 years ago and at the neck.
What the hell are you talking about? Is this some racist crap?
And for this reason, evolution needs to be taught in school. The average genetic variation within races is greater than the average genetic variation between races.
And that is relevant how?
Should The Bell Curve be valid reading for high school students? Or do liberals feel that it is racist for suggesting that their is a genetic component to IQ, and that certain races will have lower IQ?
Of this I can categorically say, you do not know what you are talking about. So much more goes into IQ than genetic make-up. The Bell Curve is political opinions pushed as science. I know. It’s sitting on my shelf.
My point previously is that chances are you have closer genetically speaking to a bushman in Africa than your neighbor across the street.
And people wonder why evolution gets a bad rap. Because people conflate it to their own ideology.
And of course you have done no such thing.
No. Evolution describes how organisms adapt to their environment and change over time. I don’t use it to justify my left meanings– unless you mean me thinking people are people and there’s not that much difference between us. But that’s just good ole common sense too.
So everything evolves except the brain? Or are you saying there are no physical differences between races at all?
Actually those are good questions. Some think that after we developed language, we no longer needed to evolve. If we needed to stay warm, it didn’t take generations to evolve fur, we were able to learn how to collect hides from others. We don’t exactly know what a smarter brain looks like. It’s probably not more brain cells, but is a better temperament, more social, quicker growing brain cells. So how do you identify the genetics if you don’t know what you are looking for. And how much of that is environmental.
I don’t believe the are differences in the race. We have different traits. The Irish is known for red hair and blue eyes, doesn’t mean they are “different” for the rest of us.
So…. there are “no differences” between the races. Those that I do recognize and can name that everyone else can too are not important in my value system so I deem them not to exist at all.
My dogma has barked.
The issue of race and racism is interesting to observe. How simple truths are avoided and lies are clung to.
What difference does it make if the average white guy is 3 IQ points dumber than an Oriental?
Tell me: just imagine the IQ difference is real!!====>now tell me what difference it makes?
…. and you can’t. Don’t confuse the difference not making a difference with the difference not existing.
Yea, verily!
It could make a difference, but you don’t have the math skills to understand the argument, perhaps because you are not from certain part of Asia, or the part of Asia on the other side.
Wait a minute now, I’m only beholden to this evolution theory if the white man comes out on top. If you’re saying that these Asian are more highly evolve, I’ll go back to believin’ Jesus done made us.
So, from an evolution standpoint, why would have Asians developed better math skills? And what structures in the brain changed to make it happen? Why aren’t all Asians good at math?
You need better math skills to count your population.
That would be environment and not genetics. See how this work? Environments can be somewhat easily changed. Genetics are much harder.
No scientist *moi* but I’m not sure I buy into this assertion that brown folks of a “pure” African persuasion are more similar to whiteys than whiteys are to themselves. Recently I’ve heard theories that native Africans don’t share whiteys’ commingling of genes with Neanderthals. Did whitey succumb to a temptation of the flesh & compromise his own gene pool thereby? That’s another can of worms.
The issue becomes murkier on this side of the pond since none of our home-grown brown folks retain a “pure” African lineage. They’ve all been whitey-fied to a greater or lesser extent. (There is a citation for that somewhere within the past year but I have not retained it.)
“The average genetic variation within races is greater than the average genetic variation between races.” That is an interesting statement & I suppose it makes sense, that the races went off in their own directions & “updated” themselves in their own ways—mostly cosmetic. Okay, you win this one. But “makeup” hath not a hyphen.
But, “make-up sex” has got hyphens protruding out of every little idiogrammatic crack.
The average variation within African races is greater than the the variation in non-African races. There is considerably more genetic variation in an African village than in the whole of Scandinavia.
The reason an the effect should be obvious – and is the reason all you Ikea-Nokia heads all look the same to us!
You’re interjecting “neanderthal” as if it were a bad thing, when evidence shows that it’s anything but. Neanderthal man was quite a bit more intelligent than Cro-magnon, but unfortunately for them, not nearly as aggressive. Sort of like comparing modern humans with our fellow Hominoidea, the Pans (chimps).
Hey, don’t knock a little interbreeding with the Neanderthals.
You fail to appreciate the human ability to fuck anything that moves. If a human can have sex with sheep (not mentioning any names) then something that walks upright is like having sex with a Vegas showgirl.
All your religion are belong to us!
http://static.squarespace.com/static/508c04a7e4b0d28844dafc31/508c1046e4b01df2979f127d/508c1861e4b08e76ed282f94/1351358561645/magikarp.jpg?format=500w
http://static.squarespace.com/static/508c04a7e4b0d28844dafc31/508c1046e4b01df2979f127d/508c1861e4b08e76ed282f91/1351358561072/moar.jpg?format=750w
Hank Hill said it. I believe it!
The article includes examples of the spooky crap nutballs would substitute for science. /// God Bless You Eideard.
1. MikeN says:
9/12/2013 at 9:05 pm
Should The Bell Curve be valid reading for high school students? Or do liberals feel that it is racist for suggesting that their is a genetic component to IQ, and that certain races will have lower IQ? /// I think the evidence is in that culture biased IQ tests do consistently show a continuum of race based IQ’s “but” I wager you don’t even know what that means for everyday interracial intercourse: ……… nothing. It is a statistical measurement of zero significance. Can you wrap your pea brain around that? True but meaningless? Somewhat analagous to you idiot musings on evolution and science: Wrong and meaningless. Ha, ha.>>>>>>I crack myself up.
2. Hyph3n says:
9/13/2013 at 5:58 am
……My point previously is that chances are you have closer genetically speaking to a bushman in Africa than your neighbor across the street. //// How can that possibly be true when our African Root Stock contains the MOST GENETIC VARIETY there is. All migrating groups creating a filter by which dna is limited from the parent group. Your statement makes no common sense unless it has also gone thru some filter, the kind you object too? Can you explain or provide the filter that supports your mathematically suspect claim?
3. Timmy===what TWO links I have to evaluate to figure out what the heck tangent you are on? Please provide the executive summary for each.
4. BracketCreep says:
9/12/2013 at 5:52 pm
I wonder how many of the detractors in this thread are creationists without even realizing it. /// In my own drunken review, they all seem to PROUDLY PROCLAIM this ignorance as the basis for their posting. What the HEY are you trying to spin?
These are the people who cherry-pick which of Darwin’s theories to get behind not realizing that Darwin had a thing or two which went against egalitarian PC beliefs. /// Giberish. Say it straight: what “thing” went against PC beliefs???? ((I know you can’t support your rhetorical BS.))
But basically liberal creationists believe evolution stopped 50,000 years ago and at the neck. /// BS. …… and so are you. Made up straw man arguments without support, logic, link, or analysis. Sad really.
Are we Men of Science……. or Devo????? Sadly, oh so many are Devo.
Silly Hoomans.
I thought the images were pretty self-explanatory;
1.) What is not to get about a giant flying magic carp proclaiming “I swear to God, when I evolve I’m going to kill you all” ??
2.) The cat is all meow meow mean-kitty pissed off at his situation. Now he has thrown caution to the wind and is doing a daring, mocking, brave-hearted taunting of “You missed him, Mr. Bartlett.” at whatever sky-faring entity just glass parking-lotted his litter box.
The “average” genetic variation between the races are less than the “average” variation within the races. And that genetic variation is much larger for people in Africa.
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12019240
Probably this is because only a small portion of the population migrated from Africa. Answers the question?
Thanks for the link Hyphen. I am about 8 beers in before passing out for what I call sleep but the headline is:
Larger genetic differences within africans than between Africans and Eurasians
is totally consistent with what I ask and totally conflicting with what you posted.
Note that is not “exactly” the same as saying that your neighbor would be more genetically variable but that goes against the headlines.
Regardless……. of interest is the point you might be trying to make otherwise? What would that be exactly? Some call to our common humanity… I assume and accept. I have not yet seen evidence that show differences between the races so significant that racial differences should be taken into account in ANY of the social constructs. That said, I’ll pop another slushy beer.
“” ANY of the social constructs
Well, black performance artists are getting Darwin’d in american theatrical performances by bursting into flames more frequently than Inuits. But, from Micheal Jackson to Richard Pryor, they still come out on top by taking the money to just blame it on The Man’s crack pipe —
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bjD4PHojNBU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BDpJY1qwuhM
p.s. So, I picked a couple cherries — I learned it from the best.
“I have not yet seen evidence that show differences between the races so significant that racial differences should be taken into account in ANY of the social constructs.”
Wait… we may be on the same side on this one. Races are a social construct, rather than a genetic one.
I give you bonafide research and you complain. There’s just no pleasing people. I’ll have to hunt down the paper about genetic variabilit
I thanked you for the link to the research and I agree with that research.
YOU misapplied the research.
If B is a subset of A then B will naturally have less variation than A. We all agree on that. THEN you say that those within subset B will have more variation…..no, thats not what you’re saying. Geeze, re-reading a few times, I don’t know what you’re saying.
I am more like an African than I am like my neighbor? If my neighbor and I am both of subset B, I don’t see how that is mathematically the rule. There might be a fuckbag in there that has not been squared?
Most of humanity’s family tree does not fork — Just look at who you are waiting around standing in line for the privilage to interact with at the court house.
And how is that relevant?
If one race has a variation of IQ from 10 to 150 while another has a variation from 50 to 180, the averages are 80 and 115, so the variations within a race are bigger than between the races, but it says nothing to the point of whether there can be a variation at all. You know, what the original poster posited as grounded in science but you dogmatically say isn’t so.
Gee, won’t be able to buy anything for Texas Instruments anymore !!! Their data sheets will have a footnote “*God willing” !!!
And I wonder if this will give a foot in the educational door for the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” as an “Alternative Faith” and a HAILSTORM OF “SEPARATION” LAWSUITS !!! (We can only hope so !!!)
Their data sheets will have a footnote “*God willing” !!!
LOL. That was good.
I wish I had professors like Pedro and Bobbo in my college.
If Whiteys did intermingle with Neanderthals and also with that other new human species discovered in Asia–((Denisovans)) sure seems like the variability of whites should be very large when compared to Pure African Stock?
What gets me though is how two more “human” species could have evolved outside of Africa and be so close that the species could interbreed? That kind of parallel evolution usually goes to form and function, not dna. With my firm grounding of English Literature, seems to me the Neanderthals and “those others” must have had common ancestors with what became homo’s and that common ancestor would have had to be quite close in time to keep the genetics that close.
Just seems like something doesn’t add up. A mystery I’ll just have to learn to live with.
…………….or stop being ignorant and Google: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/125-missing-human-ancestor/family-tree-graphic
Hyph3n says:
9/15/2013 at 3:57 am
Wait a minute now, I’m only beholden to this evolution theory if the white man comes out on top. If you’re saying that these Asian are more highly evolve, I’ll go back to believin’ Jesus done made us. /// You “sound like” you don’t know but the first thing you learn in racial theory is that indeed many studies have consistently show that IQ increases from blacks to whites to Asians to Anakasi (sp) Jews. I forget by how much, its measurable, but not significant and that goes for GROUP statistics. Take it down to the individual level and its a useless factoid. Why would IQ be distributed by race? It could be gene linked in some way or evolving by environmental forces as a concomitant matter. There are stronger sex linked differences that no one even disagrees with … all averaging to the same IQ in the sexes by test design. All rather amusing.
So, from an evolution standpoint, why would have Asians developed better math skills? /// I don’t know if they have. What I’ve read I only remember as IQ of which math is only a component.
And what structures in the brain changed to make it happen? /// Last I read, IQ is reflected in the Brain by more folding in the structures. If that is cause or effect, I don’t know.
Why aren’t all Asians good at math? /// Because everyone and every skill falls on a continuum which when summed up across any group will form a bell shaped curved.
…..but I grog you have gone from innocent ignorance to pimping. Thats not intelligence per se although that does require some.
yada, yada.
My “sarcasm” tag got lost in the post (true story).
Let’s say for a moment that on average Asian are better at math. It doesn’t have to be genetics. It could be cultural– anything from the way they learn to count to their social structure. More folds in the brain are an effect of knowing more, not a cause.
Maybe some future scientist will definitely say that “this gene” is directly correlates with IQ tests. But then to get smarter, we will all be able to take a pill.
I haven’t gotten into what an IQ test really measures and whether it’s worth anything.
My “sarcasm” tag got lost in the post (true story). /// I hate it when that happens. Has “almost” made me stop being sarcastic. Still: (sarc/on/off) is hard to lose?
Let’s say for a moment that on average Asian are better at math. It doesn’t have to be genetics. It could be cultural– anything from the way they learn to count to their social structure. /// Absolutely correct and the Asians keep a lot of their culture as they move from ghetto to ghetto. Same with the Blacks. With whitey in the middle with little culture at all?
More folds in the brain are an effect of knowing more, not a cause. /// Not exercise and diet huh? (sarc/off)
Maybe some future scientist will definitely say that “this gene” is directly correlates with IQ tests. But then to get smarter, we will all be able to take a pill. /// I’m sure its a group of genes, not just one although there will be several that can be acted on individually to increase IQ.
I haven’t gotten into what an IQ test really measures and whether it’s worth anything. /// If you study the area, the experts do know. Roughly… AS YOU ALREADY KNOW…. its the ability to learn. Correlates to many other human measurements and achievements and potentials.
If you’ve ever been around someone with less than 130 IQ….you wouldn’t have any question about it. ((Sarc/====OFFFFFFFF!…. buts its still true. Amusing how socially unacceptable reality and sarcasm mirror one another?))
God could do anything, right? If so, then God created evolution. God created climate change. God created UFOs. You have been warned not to follow the teachings of men, but you ignore the warning, and think yourselves to be godly at the same time.
The natural consequence of this reasoning, sarcastic or otherwise, is to make the bible meaningless. Perhaps a good first step?
“If religion could be reasoned with, there wouldn’t be any.”