Movement for Black Lives releases its agenda

[Trausti]

And that highly intelligent people just happen to have greater than average IQs is just a coincidence. Plenty of brain surgeons with IQs of 85.

You just label them as "highly intelligent" based on a score of a test.

What they actually are is somebody who scored high on a test.

They might not be very "intelligent" at all.

Yet that intelligent people just happen to score high on this "test" is just a coincidence.

That argument is a non sequitur.

Saying things evolve differently is not saying they don't evolve.

So then you don't disagree that human cognition and behavior are subject to natural selection?

 

[untermensche]

You just label them as "highly intelligent" based on a score of a test.

What they actually are is somebody who scored high on a test.

They might not be very "intelligent" at all.

Yet that intelligent people just happen to score high on this "test" is just a coincidence.

You merely call them "intelligent".

Some of them aren't even bright. GW comes to mind. Graduate of Harvard and Yale.

But they can get a high score on a meaningless test.

I suppose if you call a test an "intelligence" test it MUST test "intelligence", whatever that is.

That argument is a non sequitur.

Saying things evolve differently is not saying they don't evolve.

So then you don't disagree that human cognition and behavior are subject to natural selection?

The same way vision is.

Either you have it or you don't.

The people who have vision have very small variations in the shape of the lens or the shape of the eye. Color blindness.

But the system in the brain and the areas in the brain that create vision vary very little. There is little room for variation in a working system.

While a trait like hair color, that in some places has an effect on survival, can vary quite a bit.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I already told you about where you can find many such genetic variants. The articles of Davide Piffer. Would you like me to list the SNPs?

I want you to show me one gene responsible for "intelligence", whatever that is, AND show me HOW this gene is responsible AND show me the racial distribution of the gene to demonstrate it varies according to race.

I want you to give something that is actual evidence of your worthless claims.

It is genetically illiterate to demand just one gene, as there are theoretically thousands of them, and dozens of them have been discovered. Asking for just one of them is an easy request to fulfill. Allele C of SNP rs10457441 has a 53.3% frequency among Europeans and a 19.5% frequency among Africans, according to "A review of intelligence GWAS hits: Their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autocorrelation." The frequency data is sourced from the 1000 Genomes Project Browser. The allele would explain a small portion of the within-group variance in IQ, per the article by Davies et al. (2015), titled, "Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53949)." If you like, I can hunt down the amount of variance in the supplementary information of that study (it would be less than 1%, I expect).

 

[untermensche]

I want you to show me one gene responsible for "intelligence", whatever that is, AND show me HOW this gene is responsible AND show me the racial distribution of the gene to demonstrate it varies according to race.

I want you to give something that is actual evidence of your worthless claims.

It is genetically illiterate to demand just one gene, as there are theoretically thousands of them, and dozens of them have been discovered. Asking for just one of them is an easy request to fulfill. Allele C of SNP rs10457441 has a 53.3% frequency among Europeans and a 19.5% frequency among Africans, according to "A review of intelligence GWAS hits: Their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autocorrelation." The frequency data is sourced from the 1000 Genomes Project Browser. The allele would explain a small portion of the within-group variance in IQ, per the article by Davies et al. (2015), titled, "Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53949)." If you like, I can hunt down the amount of variance in the supplementary information of that study (it would be less than 1%, I expect).

You have merely shown a gene that varies according to race.

You have forgotten the most important part.

Demonstrating this gene has anything to do with "intelligence", whatever that is.

What does the gene specifically do and how is this related to "intelligence"?

Of course if you look hard enough you will find genetic variation.

And thinking merely showing a genetic variation demonstrates something does in itself demonstrate something.

 

[Trausti]

It is genetically illiterate to demand just one gene, as there are theoretically thousands of them, and dozens of them have been discovered. Asking for just one of them is an easy request to fulfill. Allele C of SNP rs10457441 has a 53.3% frequency among Europeans and a 19.5% frequency among Africans, according to "A review of intelligence GWAS hits: Their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autocorrelation." The frequency data is sourced from the 1000 Genomes Project Browser. The allele would explain a small portion of the within-group variance in IQ, per the article by Davies et al. (2015), titled, "Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53949)." If you like, I can hunt down the amount of variance in the supplementary information of that study (it would be less than 1%, I expect).

You have merely shown a gene that varies according to race.

You have forgotten the most important part.

Demonstrating this gene has anything to do with "intelligence", whatever that is.

What does the gene specifically do and how is this related to "intelligence"?

Of course if you look hard enough you will find genetic variation.

And thinking merely showing a genetic variation demonstrates something does in itself demonstrate something.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZUjdEVHF4dkVtaTQ/view?pref=2&pli=1

 

[untermensche]

You have merely shown a gene that varies according to race.

You have forgotten the most important part.

Demonstrating this gene has anything to do with "intelligence", whatever that is.

What does the gene specifically do and how is this related to "intelligence"?

Of course if you look hard enough you will find genetic variation.

And thinking merely showing a genetic variation demonstrates something does in itself demonstrate something.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZUjdEVHF4dkVtaTQ/view?pref=2&pli=1

Show me ONE gene.

Show me what the gene does.

Show me how 'what the gene does' is related to "intelligence"

Connect the dots.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is genetically illiterate to demand just one gene, as there are theoretically thousands of them, and dozens of them have been discovered. Asking for just one of them is an easy request to fulfill. Allele C of SNP rs10457441 has a 53.3% frequency among Europeans and a 19.5% frequency among Africans, according to "A review of intelligence GWAS hits: Their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autocorrelation." The frequency data is sourced from the 1000 Genomes Project Browser. The allele would explain a small portion of the within-group variance in IQ, per the article by Davies et al. (2015), titled, "Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53949)." If you like, I can hunt down the amount of variance in the supplementary information of that study (it would be less than 1%, I expect).

You have merely shown a gene that varies according to race.

You have forgotten the most important part.

Demonstrating this gene has anything to do with "intelligence", whatever that is.

What does the gene specifically do and how is this related to "intelligence"?

Of course if you look hard enough you will find genetic variation.

And thinking merely showing a genetic variation demonstrates something does in itself demonstrate something.

No, I most plainly did not forget about that part. I provided just that citation. Again: Davies et al. (2015), "Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53949)."

 

[untermensche]

You have merely shown a gene that varies according to race.

You have forgotten the most important part.

Demonstrating this gene has anything to do with "intelligence", whatever that is.

What does the gene specifically do and how is this related to "intelligence"?

Of course if you look hard enough you will find genetic variation.

And thinking merely showing a genetic variation demonstrates something does in itself demonstrate something.

No, I most plainly did not forget about that part. I provided just that citation. Again: Davies et al. (2015), "Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53949)."

Then tell me the gene, tell me what it does, and tell me how it is related to "intelligence", whatever that is.

 

[Trausti]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZUjdEVHF4dkVtaTQ/view?pref=2&pli=1

Show me ONE gene.

Show me what the gene does.

Show me how 'what the gene does' is related to "intelligence"

Connect the dots.

Mr. Darwin, you've not explicitly shown how traits are passed from parent to child, or how, if at all, humans and apes could possibly have the same ancestor. Apes! Until you do so, I'll stick with my creation story.

 

[Trausti]

You have merely shown a gene that varies according to race.

You have forgotten the most important part.

Demonstrating this gene has anything to do with "intelligence", whatever that is.

What does the gene specifically do and how is this related to "intelligence"?

Of course if you look hard enough you will find genetic variation.

And thinking merely showing a genetic variation demonstrates something does in itself demonstrate something.

No, I most plainly did not forget about that part. I provided just that citation. Again: Davies et al. (2015), "Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53949)."

That's the link I provided. Directly cites rs10457441. But whatever.

 

[untermensche]

No, I most plainly did not forget about that part. I provided just that citation. Again: Davies et al. (2015), "Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53949)."

That's the link I provided. Directly cites rs10457441. But whatever.

Whatever exactly.

You can't tell me ONE specific gene, what it does and how that specifically relates to "intelligence".

 

[untermensche]

Show me ONE gene.

Show me what the gene does.

Show me how 'what the gene does' is related to "intelligence"

Connect the dots.

Mr. Darwin, you've not explicitly shown how traits are passed from parent to child, or how, if at all, humans and apes could possibly have the same ancestor. Apes! Until you do so, I'll stick with my creation story.

That doesn't make a system a trait.

Show me where the visual system is different.

Show me where the language capacity, thus the system which allows it, is different.

 

[ApostateAbe]

No, I most plainly did not forget about that part. I provided just that citation. Again: Davies et al. (2015), "Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N = 53949)."

Then tell me the gene, tell me what it does, and tell me how it is related to "intelligence", whatever that is.

The SNP is rs10457441, in Chromosome 6, Position 98678841, nameless gene, and the "t" allele has a Cohen's d effect size on cognitive scores of negative 0.0324, meaning that the competing allele "c" had an effect in the opposite direction.

 

[Trausti]

That's the link I provided. Directly cites rs10457441. But whatever.

Whatever exactly.

You can't tell me ONE specific gene, what it does and how that specifically relates to "intelligence".

Ya know that sequencing of the human genome was only completed in 2003? Yet, even in this short time, genes have been identified associated with intelligence. That science has not pinpointed with precision how the genes act on intelligence does not negate that the do. I mean, genes have been identified associated with higher risks of certain cancers. But we don't know how exactly such genes increase risks of certain cancers. Hence, because science cannot explain this relationship in finite detail, genetic tests for cancer risks are invalid. I suppose you'll just have to cling to your creation story.

 

[Trausti]

Mr. Darwin, you've not explicitly shown how traits are passed from parent to child, or how, if at all, humans and apes could possibly have the same ancestor. Apes! Until you do so, I'll stick with my creation story.

That doesn't make a system a trait.

Show me where the visual system is different.

Show me where the language capacity, thus the system which allows it, is different.

Unter, by your reasoning, intelligence can't possibly be inheritable because it's a system. It's all or nothing. The idea of gradual change over time impermissible. If that's correct, then none of us should be smarter than an amoeba.

 

[untermensche]

Then tell me the gene, tell me what it does, and tell me how it is related to "intelligence", whatever that is.

The SNP is rs10457441, in Chromosome 6, Position 98678841, nameless gene, and the "t" allele has an effect size on cognitive scores of negative 0.0324, meaning that the competing allele "c" had an effect in the opposite direction. It means someone with allele C has an advantage on WAIS tests accounting for 3.24% of the variance.

You have merely shown there is a statistical correlation with a gene and some test scores. Since there are so many genes you can make many such correlations. All meaningless.

Correlations can be made to many things. You can make statistical correlations between eye color and length of mother's maiden name.

They are meaningless.

You have not shown the most important part. The only thing that is demonstrative of anything.

How the gene specifically effects "intelligence"

What does rs10457441 do and how does this effect "intelligence", whatever that is?

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't make a system a trait.

Show me where the visual system is different.

Show me where the language capacity, thus the system which allows it, is different.

Unter, by your reasoning, intelligence can't possibly be inheritable because it's a system. It's all or nothing. The idea of gradual change over time impermissible. If that's correct, then none of us should be smarter than an amoeba.

Can the language capacity be inherited?

Can vision be inherited?

One wonders why you strain so hard to make bad arguments?

 

[ApostateAbe]

The SNP is rs10457441, in Chromosome 6, Position 98678841, nameless gene, and the "t" allele has an effect size on cognitive scores of negative 0.0324, meaning that the competing allele "c" had an effect in the opposite direction. It means someone with allele C has an advantage on WAIS tests accounting for 3.24% of the variance.

You have merely shown there is a statistical correlation with a gene and some test scores. Since there are so many genes you can make many such correlations. All meaningless.

Correlations can be made to many things. You can make statistical correlations between eye color and length of mother's maiden name.

They are meaningless.

You have not shown the most important part. The only thing that is demonstrative of anything.

How the gene specifically effects "intelligence"

What does rs10457441 do and how does this effect "intelligence", whatever that is?

The correlations count for a lot. We know the genes that account for eye color. But, we don't know how these genes work. Why does one variation change the color from brown to blue? We just don't know. Does that mean the genetic evidence is nil, in your opinion? Maybe the genes change the eye color, maybe not?

 

[untermensche]

You have merely shown there is a statistical correlation with a gene and some test scores. Since there are so many genes you can make many such correlations. All meaningless.

Correlations can be made to many things. You can make statistical correlations between eye color and length of mother's maiden name.

They are meaningless.

You have not shown the most important part. The only thing that is demonstrative of anything.

How the gene specifically effects "intelligence"

What does rs10457441 do and how does this effect "intelligence", whatever that is?

The correlations count for a lot. We know the genes that account for eye color. But, we don't know how these genes work. Why does one variation change the color from brown to blue? We just don't know. Does that mean the genetic evidence is nil, in your opinion? Maybe the genes change the eye color, maybe not?

We at least have a consensus on what "eye color" is.

Nobody really has a clue what "intelligence" is. In terms of anatomy and physiology.

It's like asking; What are the genes responsible for consciousness?

Even more complicated since "intelligence" is an aspect of both consciousness and subconscious processes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Germs refers to the environment. Why does that require any racial differences?

The "Germs" part of the theory is that the immune systems of Europeans evolved to fight epidemics that sprung up in animal farming environments, and the epidemics likewise evolved in competition. The Europeans brought these diseases to the Americas, which killed over 90% of the natives in a near instant, as the natives did not have immune systems adapted for it.

So, the Europeans would have a greater resistance to some diseases that aren't much of an issue anymore. That says nothing about how modern societies fare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This "argument" amounts to saying that because we don't have perfect understanding that there can be no effect.

If somebody wants to make genetic claims about race they have to talk about specific genes particular to some race and different in another and demonstrate the effect.

That is how science works.

These twisted "studies" that can't possibly rule out environment as cause don't cut it.

Science can find a pattern without knowing every detail of how it came to be. Much of science starts out by noticing a pattern and then there's a search for the why.

In this case we have three patterns:

1) Identical twins raised apart show a considerable correlation of intelligence.

2) Fraternal twins raised apart show a lesser but still clear correlation of intelligence.

3) Adopted children (as a group) have a lower intelligence than biological children.

#3 could be due to the environment in the uterus but the difference between #1 and #2 can't be due to that. The only factor left is genetics.

And not quite so clear cut: Identical twins raised together have a higher correlation of intelligence than fraternal twins raised together. Either that's genetics or else it's something different about how people treat identical twins--and I find the latter very unlikely.