• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

We have gotten taller during that time period, why is not feasible that IQ scores increased as well?

"Skeletons and written records show that human beings today are inches taller than humans just a century or two ago."

We have gotten taller primarily because of better nutrition. IQ scores have also increased because of environmental factors. The problem is that people are trying to pretend that IQ scores are some kind of genetic measure for intelligence, which is without merit.
 
We have gotten taller primarily because of better nutrition. IQ scores have also increased because of environmental factors. The problem is that people are trying to pretend that IQ scores are some kind of genetic measure for intelligence, which is without merit.

IQ is affected by both genetics and environment. But that doesn't mean it is an accurate measure of intelligence, though. There are serious issues with the construct validity of IQ.
 
And the racial gaps don't close. It's a calibration issue.

As for the canard that all the measure is how well one takes tests, only an ignoramus working on superficial knowledge would make that statement.

Its not a calibration issue. The Flynn effect is solid proof that IQ tests have unknown environmental variables influencing the outcome. It is unacceptable to claim causal relationships between race and IQ based on correlative experiments with significant unknown variables altering the results. That doesn't even get into the fact that the racial categories for such tests is based sloppy measurements like self-identification, not genetics.
 
How does that work?

The IQ score has to be normalized to some group, and that group is the white population in the US. This is why we see the variance around 100 when we compare whites to other groups. You could set 100 to any other group if you like, but then you have to recalculate for every other group.

When international IQ comparisons are done they have to compare "like to like." For instance, Japan can do a national IQ test and decide to normalize their population at 100 so that they can use the results for internal purposes and see what's going on in the country. When it comes time to compare Japan to the US then they need to move their societal mean up from 100 to about 105-108 so that it is in line with the white American norm of 100. This is because when the tests are compared side by side, the Japanese score higher than white Americans.

The upshot is that the US mean IQ is about 98, Canada's mean IQ is about 99, Norway's mean IQ is 100, China's mean IQ is 105 and Hong Kong's is about 108.
 
The problem is that people are trying to pretend that IQ scores are some kind of genetic measure for intelligence, which is without merit.


  • MRI-based studies estimate a moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.40 to 0.51;
  • Genetic modelling has shown that g and grey matter volumes depend on the same set of genes (the genetic correlation is about 0.25);
  • g is significantly linked to differences in the volume of frontal grey matter, which were determined primarily by genetic factors;
  • The volume of frontal grey matter had additional predictive validity for g even after the predictive effect of total brain volume was factored out;
  • The linkage between volume of grey matter and g is mediated by a common set of genes;
  • Neural activity in several areas, measured by a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, was greater during high-g than low-g tasks;
  • Studies using electroencephalograms and event-related potentials indicate that the speed and reliability of neural transmission are related to higher intelligence;
  • Monozygotic twins raised separately following adoption show a correlation of 0.72 for intelligence; that is, one twin’s intelligence strongly predicts the other’s, despite their different rearing environments;
  • For 48 identical twin pairs separated in early infancy and reared apart, Bouchard et al. found remarkably high between-twin correlations for verbal scores on the WAIS (0.64) and for the first principal component of special mental abilities (0.78);
  • Psychometric g has been shown to be highly heritable in many studies, even more so than specific cognitive abilities (h2 = 0.6–0.8);
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Evolution is one of the two foundation laws of biology. Every life science, meaning everything from zoology, medicine, genetics, botany, and so on, is based on evolution. Much of the food you buy, cancer drugs, antibiotics..... much of what we take for granted in our every day lives, and the vast majority of medical advances of the last century that have improved life for all of humanity.... all have a foundational basis in evolution. Denying evolution is like denying the laws of physics, it is a refusal to accept reality.

So far we have one candidate in the entire GOP field that has taken the rational position of accepting the physical world for what it is.

Ahh, but the existence of limited evolution doesn’t rule out the existence of God. Care to explain why monkeys have stopped evolving into men? Where are all of those cross species specimens that prove man came from monkeys?

Evolution, as it was taught when I was in grade school, is a pile of warm excrement based upon half truth and half religion, just as the current AGW theories are.

BTW, I am an agnostic on all three issues, and just as smart as any of you.
GPS_Flex said:
Care to explain why monkeys have stopped evolving into men?
Simon W Moon said:
^This question shows that you missed some of the basics.^


If you/GPS-flex are an "agnostic" on all 3 issues, including evolution, and inject "God" into a reply to SWM, then you might want to question your "smart" Claim.
Especially after that Incred!ble/Laughable statement about 'when monkeys stopped evolving into men', and 'where are all the cross species'.

Not really a surprise to see your position here is even weirder/more outrageous than your climate one.
 
Last edited:
Well, congratulations. It took some time but you did eventually get my point. As I said from the beginning, individuals make scientific discoveries; the scientific community determines which discoveries are valid -- unless or until it determines that another discovery is more plausible. And the point is still the same: unless you are yourself a scientist with the training and experience necessary to challenge the accepted wisdom, it is irrational to challenge the accepted wisdom.

And for the most part, people only do this with respect to global warming, and they do it not because we have millions of brilliant climatologists in this country, but because we have a lot of dimwits who listen to other dimwits who are paid to take a political stance on a scientific question. I mean really, why aren't all of these geniuses challenging the scientists on subatomic physics? Gluons? What a load of crap! Those physicists are just in it for the money!! Yeah, you REALLY expect me to believe that quantum mechanics HOAX?! :roll:

Get real.

In all honesty, denial propaganda is sophisticated and complex. Expensive. Pervasive.

I would expect it to influence people well above the level of dimwits.

Many people don't have the time, energy or ability to arrive at their own conclusions. PR designers know this and take advantage of it.

Its a little harsh to label all skeptics dimwits. Some are simply deceived.
 
In all honesty, denial propaganda is sophisticated and complex. Expensive. Pervasive.

I would expect it to influence people well above the level of dimwits.

Many people don't have the time, energy or ability to arrive at their own conclusions. PR designers know this and take advantage of it.

Its a little harsh to label all skeptics dimwits. Some are simply deceived.

Most are deceived simpletons
 
If you/GPS-flex are an "agnostic" on all 3 issues, including evolution, and inject "God" into a reply to SWM, then you might want to question your "smart" Claim.
Especially after that Incred!ble/Laughable statement about 'when monkeys stopped evolving into men', and 'where are all the cross species'.

Not really a surprise to see your position here is even weirder/more outrageous than your climate one.

I have seen nothing to convince me that God exists.
I have seen nothing to convince me that evolution proves God doesn’t exist.
I have seen nothing that proves AGW exists.

If you can prove any of the above, feel free to make yourself look smart. If you know my position on climate and think it is weird, feel free to explain why.

If you think monkeys have never evolved into men, say so. If you think monkeys are still evolving into men say so as well. Don’t pretend to be more intelligent than me with your sharp criticisms and run away without facing the reaper.

Your position on climate is what the liberal blogs tell you it is and your position on evolution remains unknown to me.
Bring you’re "A game" mbig, you have always been easy to handle and I even feel sorry for you sometimes.
 
Last edited:
I have seen nothing to convince me that God exists.
I have seen nothing to convince me that evolution proves God doesn’t exist.
I have seen nothing that proves AGW exists.

Only fools ignore the best information on subjects which have been neither proven nor disproven



If you think monkeys have never evolved into men, say so. If you think monkeys are still evolving into men say so as well. Don’t pretend to be more intelligent than me with your sharp criticisms and run away without facing the reaper.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Science has proven that all life evolved from a common source.

And even The Reaper palms his face at the morons who don't believe in Global Warming.
 
In all honesty, denial propaganda is sophisticated and complex. Expensive. Pervasive.

I would expect it to influence people well above the level of dimwits.

Many people don't have the time, energy or ability to arrive at their own conclusions. PR designers know this and take advantage of it.

Its a little harsh to label all skeptics dimwits. Some are simply deceived.


Obviously this could never be the case with the AGW alarmism so prevalent today. Only conservatives would believe such propaganda.
 
I have seen nothing to convince me that God exists.
I have seen nothing to convince me that evolution proves God doesn’t exist.
I have seen nothing that proves AGW exists.

Give me time and a few more beers and I think I can prove all of the above.:mrgreen:
 
I have seen nothing to convince me that God exists.
I have seen nothing to convince me that evolution proves God doesn’t exist.
I have seen nothing that proves AGW exists.

Point #2. - There is nothing inherent in the issue of evolution which demands that one accept that god doesn't exist. You're setting up a battle where a battle need not take place.
 
I have seen nothing to convince me that God exists.
I have seen nothing to convince me that evolution proves God doesn’t exist.
"prove" .. of course not
Even My 'C' game notes this is a cheap strawman.
No one here is trying to prove God doesn't exist-- but that evolution Does exist and there is PLENTY of evidence for this.

I have seen nothing that proves AGW exists.
Another Red Herring.
There is plenty of "evidence".
But 100% 'proof' is a strawman.

If you can prove any of the above, feel free to make yourself look smart. If you know my position on climate and think it is weird, feel free to explain why.
I have just shown who's even reasonably smart by Exposing your Fallacious challenge. (Never having to even push to my 'A' game)

If you think monkeys have never evolved into men, say so. If you think monkeys are still evolving into men say so as well. Don’t pretend to be more intelligent than me with your sharp criticisms and run away without facing the reaper.
YOU thought so!
That's NOT the way evolution works.
As SWM said to you.. your goofy claim showed you don't even have the Basics.

Your position on climate is what the liberal blogs tell you it is and your position on evolution remains unknown to me.
Bring you’re "A game" mbig, you have always been easy to handle and I even feel sorry for you sometimes.
I HATE PC and in this very string have taken highly UNliberal/Un-PC line.
Brilliant read GPS-flex!
You really show NO comprehension ability or minor discernment even in this short span of posts.

And you could have easily (with minor IQ or initiative) searched for my evolution position.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/groups/team-science-d452-15-answers-creationist-nonsense.html

Or Yesterday's
http://www.debatepolitics.com/book-nook/26529-you-reading-right-now-138.html#post1059739476
 
Last edited:
If you think monkeys have never evolved into men, say so. If you think monkeys are still evolving into men say so as well. Don’t pretend to be more intelligent than me with your sharp criticisms and run away without facing the reaper.

Have you ever looked at a genealogical tree? Think of descent from a common ancestor in the same way. There are branches which start and dead end, there are branches which grow and branch again. "Monkey" and Man come from an earlier ancestor - just like you and your 20th cousin, 18 times removed, both come from a common ancestor. That's how both George Bush and Barack Obama can trace their ancestors to a common ancestor.
 
Only fools ignore the best information on subjects which have been neither proven nor disproven
You sound like a high priest who is about to execute me for being an infidel or a pagan. What do you know about whether I have ignored or studied such information? Try this one on for size: Only fools talk about things they know nothing about. What have I studied sangha? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Science has proven that all life evolved from a common source.
Really, where is said proof? Something tells me you don’t have it handy at this moment.

And even The Reaper palms his face at the morons who don't believe in Global Warming.
Only a moron would imply that I don’t believe in global warming.

Thanks for playing sangha.:lamo
 
You know, science has already proven that man did not evolve from monkeys, so I don't think that bush* and obama were the best examples to use.
 
Ahh, but the existence of limited evolution doesn’t rule out the existence of God. Care to explain why monkeys have stopped evolving into men? Where are all of those cross species specimens that prove man came from monkeys?

Evolution, as it was taught when I was in grade school, is a pile of warm excrement based upon half truth and half religion, just as the current AGW theories are.

BTW, I am an agnostic on all three issues, and just as smart as any of you.

Holy **** your understanding of evolution is completely flawed. No, seriously, when us liberal elitists are making jokes about rednecks being too dumb to understand evolution, "If we evolved from monkeys how come monkeys aren't still turning into humans" is literally the phrase used to make fun of them.

Jesus Christ. Wow. That's the best post I've ever seen.

Nobody sane thinks evolution rules out the existence of God. God is, by definition, outside the realm of science. So, straw man and whatnot. Evolution and other aspects of science, however, do rule out certain interpretations of the bible.
 
Last edited:
As usual certain candidates continue to embarrass America. At least we know who not to vote for.
 
The IQ score has to be normalized to some group, and that group is the white population in the US. This is why we see the variance around 100 when we compare whites to other groups. You could set 100 to any other group if you like, but then you have to recalculate for every other group.

When international IQ comparisons are done they have to compare "like to like." For instance, Japan can do a national IQ test and decide to normalize their population at 100 so that they can use the results for internal purposes and see what's going on in the country. When it comes time to compare Japan to the US then they need to move their societal mean up from 100 to about 105-108 so that it is in line with the white American norm of 100. This is because when the tests are compared side by side, the Japanese score higher than white Americans.

The upshot is that the US mean IQ is about 98, Canada's mean IQ is about 99, Norway's mean IQ is 100, China's mean IQ is 105 and Hong Kong's is about 108.

Interestingly, at least on study has shown that improvement in early child care (from about 4 months) can result in IQ improvement that is greater than the noted IQ differential between many of these countries. Abecedarian Early Intervention Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The effects of improved early child care are even more notable in practical effect.
 
Interestingly, at least on study has shown that improvement in early child care (from about 4 months) can result in IQ improvement that is greater than the noted IQ differential between many of these countries. Abecedarian Early Intervention Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The effects of improved early child care are even more notable in practical effect.


It seems that I read somewhere that the head start program jumped IQ,s few percentage points. Don’t know where I read it as its been a few years. Plus head start is in the winger bulls eye for cuts.
 
Holy **** your understanding of evolution is completely flawed. No, seriously, when us liberal elitists are making jokes about rednecks being too dumb to understand evolution, "If we evolved from monkeys how come monkeys aren't still turning into humans" is literally the phrase used to make fun of them.

Jesus Christ. Wow. That's the best post I've ever seen.

Nobody sane thinks evolution rules out the existence of God. God is, by definition, outside the realm of science. So, straw man and whatnot. Evolution and other aspects of science, however, do rule out certain interpretations of the bible.

Hate to break it to you Deuce but the theory of man/everything evolving from a single cell is real and very much part of the evolution theory.

My use of the term “man from monkey” is just as amusing to agnostics like me who think people like you are fools for what you believe and to make fun of them as well.

Sounds like you and I agree on this issue other than the fact that you felt the need to insult me by comparing me to a redneck and dumb people.

If you don’t think life evolved from a single cell or whatever twist you want to put on it, be sure to clarify.
 
We have gotten taller during that time period, why is not feasible that IQ scores increased as well?

"Skeletons and written records show that human beings today are inches taller than humans just a century or two ago."

Read more: Why Are People Taller Today Than Yesterday? - TIME

Hell, pre/post natal nutrition could significantly affect IQ. Which is why we're taller. Or some people are...
 
Hell, pre/post natal nutrition could significantly affect IQ. Which is why we're taller. Or some people are...

It's also the case that IQ scores have been increasingly significantly by the decade.
 
Back
Top Bottom