Page 11 of 52 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 519

Thread: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    If he thinks global warming is for real, then yes, he's crazy.
    American conservatives are the only sane people on earth then...

  2. #102
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by nijato View Post
    Those are solid correlations indeed, and certainly point to a strong genetic influence over g. I'm not so clear about exactly what g is, but I assume it's some standard measure of intelligence - point granted.

    Clearly, intelligence has a high heritability. But... to tie that to race in the traditional sense is still meaningless because of the disparate genetic populations that would be categorized together as single "races."
    Let me ask you to reappraise the situation we're at now. I get called on points and I back them up. How likely is it that I just lucked out on all of the points that I've been called on in this thread and in the "Are you smarter than The Obama" thread but am confused on the finer points of population genetics? A little bit of Bayesian reasoning might be called for, no?

    The correlational structure of the genome allows us to classify into broad racial categories without using obvious genes for skin color. As we increase the number of alleles sampled we can parse down to finer and finer classifications of race. See here:


    For each person in the study, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within genes, but are simply genetic signposts on chromosomes that come in a variety of different forms at the same location.

    Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.

    "This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background," Risch said.


    Those patterns (bolded) are simply another way of referencing the correlational structure of the genome and this is where we find racial variance and those racial clusters coincide almost perfectly with the social definition of race.

    Your question addressed the issue of tying race to intelligence but you're not making clear to me why you think that the connection is meaningless. Think about how racial groups formed. We already know that intelligence is highly heritable and races are partially inbred, large extended families. For instance, an Asian person, say a Japanese, can, if they go back enough generations, find a common ancestor to another Asian person, say a Han Chinese. They'll have to go back a lot further to find a common ancestor with a Celt or with a Nigerian. The further back you go in your search for a common ancestor the more genetic distinction that has arisen over the years of separation you have to throw overboard. So what we're talking about here are degrees of relatedness as another way of referencing race. Intelligence is highly heritable and the genetic structure of intelligence, like other genetic attributes, also varies by race. See here:


    Genetics of human prefrontal function.

    "These observations suggest that some genetic variants that influence g will vary between populations rather than within populations. For instance, certain Asian populations have a frequency of 0.60 in COMT Met158 allele, which predicts lower COMT-enzyme activity and thereby better cognitive performance, while Caucasians have a frequency of 0.42 for the same allele.

  3. #103
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Run a model. Make a prediction with a long enough time factor. Lock it away. Come back 30 years later and see how well the model worked.

    Every time a scientist declares GCM to be effective and we find that a new process is either discovered or specified in greater detail, then logically we can conclude that previous GCM that were said to be bulletproof, were in fact, not bulletproof.
    Your usual strawman argument -- really getting tiresome. No one, and I mean NO ONE has ever claimed that a GCM is bulletproof. Climatologists readily acknowledge that they cannot model the full complexity of the atmosphere and the oceans. That's why climate predictions carry with them fairly large margins of error.

    You should probably spend a few days (at least) reading up on the subject before you comment further.

  4. #104
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    As with religious creationists, you liberal creationists trot out objections that take the same form - definitional hoop-jumping. Go look in the locked thread on "Are you smarter than the Obama" and your questions will be answered.
    I'll take that as an admission that you can't defend your argument.

  5. #105
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Well, that's all very pithy and as usual, not quite right. On the one hand it's certainly true that scientific discoveries are made by individuals, but on the other hand, it is ultimately a consensus of the scientific community that determines whether a purported discovery is valid or a crock of sh*t. Copernicus discovered that the the earth wasn't the center of the universe, but we might not know it if Galileo hadn't championed his discovery and convinced the scientific community that Copernicus was right.
    Wrong. Totally wrong. What you're painting is a social process that rides alongside the scientific method. The social process plays no part in determining the validity of science. It was the data and the scientific model that Copernicus released that allowed us to better understand the cosmos, not the popularity of Copernicus or his theory amongst fellow scientists. If they had rejected his model and stuck with the geocentric model, the fact that a poll of all scientists showed that the geocentric model was widely accepted (and it was the dominant model for a long time) would not tell us anything about the validity of the geocentric model. The fact that scientists came to support the heliocentric model also tells us absolutely nothing about the validity of the model. The science rises and falls on the merits of parsimony, model validity and reliability. Popular opinion plays no part in the process. Popular opinion amongst scientists is a sociological issue on how science is conducted. Look at the current happenings in anthropology where they've decided to jettison the scientific method so that they can better play advocates for the groups that they study. What's going on in that field has nothing to do with science, facts, theories, and everything to do with politics and human drama.

    IF you are actually a scientist with the advanced training required to rationally challenge the accepted wisdom. But it is the height of folly for someone who is not so trained (you or I, for instance) to imagine that we can know better than the vast majority of experts who have dedicated their lives to this pursuit.
    I haven't shared any details of my private life with you so it really isn't safe for you to be making unwarranted assumptions about me.

  6. #106
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,272
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Jon Hunstman is in fact crazy.

    Why?

    Well its because he's trying to get the republican nomination whilst accepting science.

    These two things cannot co-exist

  7. #107
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Wrong. Totally wrong. What you're painting is a social process that rides alongside the scientific method. The social process plays no part in determining the validity of science. It was the data and the scientific model that Copernicus released that allowed us to better understand the cosmos, not the popularity of Copernicus or his theory amongst fellow scientists. If they had rejected his model and stuck with the geocentric model, the fact that a poll of all scientists showed that the geocentric model was widely accepted (and it was the dominant model for a long time) would not tell us anything about the validity of the geocentric model. The fact that scientists came to support the heliocentric model also tells us absolutely nothing about the validity of the model. The science rises and falls on the merits of parsimony, model validity and reliability. Popular opinion plays no part in the process. Popular opinion amongst scientists is a sociological issue on how science is conducted. Look at the current happenings in anthropology where they've decided to jettison the scientific method so that they can better play advocates for the groups that they study. What's going on in that field has nothing to do with science, facts, theories, and everything to do with politics and human drama.
    Actually I am exactly right. How do you know the heliocentric model is right and not the earthcentric model? Have you performed the calculations yourself? I don't think so. You think you know it's right because you read it in a gradeschool textbook. And why did it get into your gradeschool textbook? It got there because a very large consensus of the scientific community, over many years, decided that Copernicus was right. In fact, unless you are a scientist, and it's pretty obvious you're not, that's how you've acquired virtually ALL of the scientific knowledge that you have. That's generally how knowledge works. We wouldn't have much time if we had to independently verify each and every scientific discovery ever made.

    I haven't shared any details of my private life with you so it really isn't safe for you to be making unwarranted assumptions about me.
    In this case I'm quite comfortable inferring that you don't have much scientific training.

  8. #108
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Actually I am exactly right. How do you know the heliocentric model is right and not the earthcentric model? Have you performed the calculations yourself? I don't think so. You think you know it's right because you read it in a gradeschool textbook. And why did it get into your gradeschool textbook? It got there because a very large consensus of the scientific community, over many years, decided that Copernicus was right.
    Let's do a falsification test on your hypothesis. Have there been any instances where scientists held a consensus opinion and the consensus opinion was wrong on facts. Why yes, the consensus opinion held that the Ptolemaic system was the accurate model of the heavens. DID THAT CONSENSUS MAKE IT TRUE? No, the consensus has no bearing no the validity of the question.

    You're comment focuses on how knowledge is disseminated, not on the validity of the knowledge. These are two very separate issues.

    I'm surprised that you've heard of Galilieo so I'll pass along this recommendation for you - read his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. He directly challenges your view on how science is conducted. His dialog pits two models of how science is conducted against each other - the scientific method versus the appeal to authority. It's quite an interested read, especially so because of how old the work is and how insightful it is today as so many people still remain clueless about the methods of science.

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,416
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Actually I am exactly right. How do you know the heliocentric model is right and not the earthcentric model? Have you performed the calculations yourself? I don't think so. You think you know it's right because you read it in a gradeschool textbook. And why did it get into your gradeschool textbook? It got there because a very large consensus of the scientific community, over many years, decided that Copernicus was right. In fact, unless you are a scientist, and it's pretty obvious you're not, that's how you've acquired virtually ALL of the scientific knowledge that you have. That's generally how knowledge works. We wouldn't have much time if we had to independently verify each and every scientific discovery ever made.



    In this case I'm quite comfortable inferring that you don't have much scientific training.
    I really like the first part.

    I'm not so sure about that last bit. RD frustrates me regularly, but he's got a lot of knowledge at his fingertips, so he's at least self taught to an acknowledgeable degree. Arrogant, belligerent, possibly deliberately obtuse, but not ignorant.

    That was weird.

    A post I liked part of enough to like but took issue with another part in defense of someone I'm consistently arrayed against. (Gotta stop doin drive-bys)
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  10. #110
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

    Quote Originally Posted by nijato View Post
    Obviously, you have confused evolution theory with abiogenesis theory. Don't you feel silly?
    Why do whales still breath air instead of water? Surely the need to no longer surface for air would be a survival advantage? Certainly it would when humans started hunting whales. Their only vulnerability is when they have to surface to breath?

Page 11 of 52 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •