• 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'

Note that many who support evolution fall into this camp as well.

I've often said that, if god exists, it's clear that it chose to design certain laws that controlled the phenomena seen in the universe instead of choosing methods which require active guidance.
 
I've often said that, if god exists, it's clear that it chose to design certain laws that controlled the phenomena seen in the universe instead of choosing methods which require active guidance.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I -thoroughly- enjoy those who believe that evoluton dispoves God.
 
...by (perhaps not intentionally) implying that all theories are created equal that if we accept the theory of gravity, so should we accept the theory of evolution because they are after all, both scientific theories.
There's actually no basis for this inference you made. All that has to be shown is that the denigration on the basis of it being a theory is not a denigration at all. The implication actually is that not all theories are the same. Some, like evolution, germ theory and gravity, are a different kind of theory than a hypothesis to be tested.
 
I -thoroughly- enjoy those who believe that evoluton dispoves God.

I have no idea why someone would think that. At most evolution being true would simply disprove the creation story present in the bible, but only if one feels that the story needs to be taken literally.
 
I have no idea why someone would think that. At most evolution being true would simply disprove the creation story present in the bible, but only if one feels that the story needs to be taken literally.
This is, of course, the obvious counterpoint.
Generally, these people are so stuck on the idea that God does not exist that they lose their ability to think a couple steps ahead.
 
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.​

Lots of good stuff here...

1. The Stanford study was really interesting. Not only does it demonstrate what you purport it to, but it also raises a few other questions, such as: Assuming all study participants are American, it seems to indicate that in a relatively small number of generations, distinct breeding populations self-segregate in human populations, AND there is not enough gene flow between these self-segregated populations to disturb Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

Excellent reference.

2. Should it then be hypothesized that Asia-Pacific Islanders have the highest IQ since they are the most divergent from the original ancestral population? If so, is there any data for that?

3. It is sort of a shame that cognitive ability isn't selected for by the civilized environment, isn't it? Considering the correlation between female education and birth rates, it would seem that low IQ is selected for in a population of humans who do not face survival pressures from the environment.

4. The NIH article is behind a paywall... any chance you have a copy lying around? Looks interesting.

much respect.
 
Last edited:
Lots of good stuff here...

2. Should it then be hypothesized that Asia-Pacific Islanders have the highest IQ since they are the most divergent from the original ancestral population? If so, there any data for that?

The IQ literature shows the following for group mean IQ: Ashkenazi Jew, 115; Northeast Asian., 105; Whites, 100; Hispanic, 89; African-American, 85.

The divergence from ancestral population is not the causal factor in play - all that does is present a bigger canvas upon which changes MAY arise, not WILL arise.

3. It is sort of a shame that cognitive ability isn't selected for by the civilized environment, isn't it? Considering the correlation between female education and birth rates, it would seem that low IQ is selected for in a population of humans who do not face survival pressures from the environment.

yes, Mike Judge has noticed this also.

 
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?

Seriously, I don't have the time... evolution is a process that selects what survives from what already exists. Whales breathe air because they have lungs, and that has worked for them. They're mammals! It's sort of the same reason the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe circles under it's aortic arch - any engineer would never contrive such a terribly inefficient design. You seriously would have to believe in a "designer" that purposefully designed organisms this way so as to make them to appear to be the products of natural selection. If that's not absurd enough of a proposition, I don't know what is.
 
The IQ literature shows the following for group mean IQ: Ashkenazi Jew, 115; Northeast Asian., 105; Whites, 100; Hispanic, 89; African-American, 85.

The divergence from ancestral population is not the causal factor in play - all that does is present a bigger canvas upon which changes MAY arise, not WILL arise.



yes, Mike Judge has noticed this also.
]

Now I need to watch that... do you have a ref for the IQ data? sorry if i missed it in a different post.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I haven't read the papers yet, but I'm curious if these studies take social factors into account as well as genetic factors. Do they include the study of, e.g. someone of Ashkenazi jewish descent who has been raised by black parents, or a black person raised by Ashkenazi parents?
 
The IQ literature shows the following for group mean IQ: Ashkenazi Jew, 115; Northeast Asian., 105; Whites, 100; Hispanic, 89; African-American, 85.

The problem with this is that the IQ literature also shows that environment plays a significant role in determining IQ, which considerably hampers the hypothesis that the racial variance in IQ is caused by evolution.
 
The problem with this is that the IQ literature also shows that environment plays a significant role in determining IQ, which considerably hampers the hypothesis that the racial variance in IQ is caused by evolution.

Right, that's what I was getting at above. There are many factors in early child rearing, and even health care during pregnancy, that impact IQ. If you don't control for those factors the race-based tests aren't particularly meaningful.
 
I like Huntsman. He is not my perfect candidate, but I agree with him on a lot of issues. In fact, I do agree with him on a lot more issues than I do with any of the other GOP candidates or Obama. I would vote for him if he got the nomination.

However, I highly doubt he will get the nomination. Like others have said, it seems that the GOP wants a far right candidate to go against Obama. In the actual election, I think this is a bad idea though because far right candidates are much less likely to get people to vote for them and are likely to even cause those like me who can't stand Obama to vote for him rather than end up with someone like them as President. Huntsman though would do well against Obama in the general election, if he could get the nomination, because he would likely get the Republican vote just from being a Republican (although some may choose just not to vote at all) and he could get moderates/Independents to vote for him, especially those who don't like Obama policies. He wouldn't likely rally the Republican base to actually get out and vote, but then again, it is also unlikely that he would cause more Dems to get out and vote just to vote against him, like some of the other GOP candidates are very likely to do.

It is unlikely that he could win as an Independent candidate, just from the way our politics in this country work, but it could happen. However, if he ran as an Independent candidate in the election, he could very likely cause some problems with predicting who would win between Obama and several of the other GOP candidates. It is likely that as an Independent, he would take votes away from both sides.
 
The problem with this is that the IQ literature also shows that environment plays a significant role in determining IQ, which considerably hampers the hypothesis that the racial variance in IQ is caused by evolution.

A number of highly educated, upper middle class white couples and the children they adopted were studied over multiple decades. The children in the study were grouped as follows - biological children of the couples, children born to two white parents, children born to a white parent and a black parent, children born to two black parents. The racial variance in intelligence presented itself.

If you contend that environment is the cause of racial variance, then the specific environmental factors which TOTALLY cause this variance must be factors other than maternal education, family socioeconomic status, neighborhood environment, child's peer network, quantity of school resources, quality of teachers, for these children were all raised in the same families and yet their IQs showed racial variance.

You toss out a environmental factor that you think is responsible and I'll shoot it down. Then pick another one and I'll shoot it down. Pretty soon you're going to be pinning all your hopes and prayers on only a few variables, likely ones that are unmeasurable, and those variables WILL have to have an immensely powerful effect.

This evolution-denying line of argument that you're advancing is precisely my complaint with liberals.

Lastly, why does it matter if you already concede the IQ variance is there and that there hasn't been any real closing of the gap despite the trillions of dollars that we've dumped into a sinkhole based on the premise that environmental remediation will solve the problem? Here is the reality that we're living with, deal with it honestly.
 
Researchers, Of Course, are aware of the variables and have been able to nullify them out for just about all factors/apologetics.

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
Medical Research News
26-Apr-2005

[............]
The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley"....."
"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors."..."

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even After matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they Cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture.
Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ Remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

7. IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.

8. Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.

9. Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.

10. Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.​
In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology.

Rushton and Jensen are well-known for research on racial differences in intelligence. Jensen hypothesized a genetic basis for Black-White IQ differences in his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article. His later books Bias in Mental Tests (1980) and The g Factor (1998), as well as Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, show that tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework..
 
Last edited:
I believe there are studies showing that infant care can have a significant effect on cognitive abilities, so I don't know that equalizing for things after age three is sufficient.
 
IQ tests fail as a measure of genetic intelligence. The Flynn effect is solid proof against it. The constant increase in IQ scores over the last hundred years shouldn't be possible, as there has been no meaningful genetic changes in that time period. The reality is that the test is flawed and doesn't actually measure anything other than one's ability to take IQ tests.
 
A number of highly educated, upper middle class white couples and the children they adopted were studied over multiple decades. The children in the study were grouped as follows - biological children of the couples, children born to two white parents, children born to a white parent and a black parent, children born to two black parents. The racial variance in intelligence presented itself.

If you contend that environment is the cause of racial variance, then the specific environmental factors which TOTALLY cause this variance must be factors other than maternal education, family socioeconomic status, neighborhood environment, child's peer network, quantity of school resources, quality of teachers, for these children were all raised in the same families and yet their IQs showed racial variance.

You toss out a environmental factor that you think is responsible and I'll shoot it down. Then pick another one and I'll shoot it down. Pretty soon you're going to be pinning all your hopes and prayers on only a few variables, likely ones that are unmeasurable, and those variables WILL have to have an immensely powerful effect.

This evolution-denying line of argument that you're advancing is precisely my complaint with liberals.

Lastly, why does it matter if you already concede the IQ variance is there and that there hasn't been any real closing of the gap despite the trillions of dollars that we've dumped into a sinkhole based on the premise that environmental remediation will solve the problem? Here is the reality that we're living with, deal with it honestly.

Provide the titles of these studies, please, so that I can actually view them myself. I prefer to review sources myself instead of assuming that the second-hand (or even third-hand) information is accurately portrayed.

Also, pretending that you can shoot things down by simply stating they are false is just pure nonsense.
 
Last edited:
[/SIZE]

Read more: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy' - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com


I have already contributed to his campaign once, and this makes me want to send the guy another check. However, since reason and sanity are not virtues Republican Primary Voters want in a candidate this year, I don't think this will help him out any.


A Republican with integrity and an intellect. Nope, he will never be the GOP nominee. Another blowhard science denier Texan is much more their speed!
 
IQ tests fail as a measure of genetic intelligence. The Flynn effect is solid proof against it. The constant increase in IQ scores over the last hundred years shouldn't be possible, as there has been no meaningful genetic changes in that time period. The reality is that the test is flawed and doesn't actually measure anything other than one's ability to take IQ tests.
The Flynn Effect does Not address, nor does it explain race difference in IQ that can be Consistently measured screening out for all variables economic and environmental (such as the Minnesota Trans-racial adoption studies above.)
That differential not is dispute. Just, as above, apologized for in various ways like "infant care."

NIH:

The Flynn Effect within Subgroups in the U.S.: Gender, Race, Income, Education, and Urbanization Differences in the NLSY-Children Data
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907168/?log$=activity

[........]
Similarly, race/ethnicity differences themselves were consistent with past findings, in that the race differences were ordered with Caucasian/NA/AA respondents’ scores higher than those of Hispanics’ scores, which were in turn higher than those of African Americans. There have been gradual shifts in the size of the race differences in math and other ability measures. For example, Hauser (1998) and Grissmer et al (1998) documented convergence of the race difference in data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Until the current study, this finding could be explained by a differential Flynn Effect in which minority scores increased at a steeper rate. However, we found no interaction in our data; the three different race categories each showed substantial FE’s, but they also tracked closely to the same consistent increase. The absence of race differences in FE patterns also has implications for the various other theories. If FE patterns in the NLSY-Children emerged from within the family, or were related to average family size (e.g., Sundet, Borren, & Tambs, 2008), ethnic differences in family culture and family size could potentially create differential FE patterns; but those differences were not observed. '...."
Nor does the Flynn Effect account for, ie, Cranial capacity which is consistent with IQ, as are Life outcomes. The latter can be seen world-wide and on individual, group, and even Continental basis.
-
-
 
Last edited:
I have already contributed to his campaign once, and this makes me want to send the guy another check. However, since reason and sanity are not virtues Republican Primary Voters want in a candidate this year, I don't think this will help him out any.

I think you send should him four or five more checks. That would be sane and reasonable would it not?
 
IQ tests fail as a measure of genetic intelligence. The Flynn effect is solid proof against it. The constant increase in IQ scores over the last hundred years shouldn't be possible, as there has been no meaningful genetic changes in that time period. The reality is that the test is flawed and doesn't actually measure anything other than one's ability to take IQ tests.

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.

For some reason liberals look down on people who ignore evidence and think people and dinosaurs existed at the same time, but when it comes time to protecting their biased view of reality, talking out of their ass is just fine and dandy. Go figure.
 
IQ tests fail as a measure of genetic intelligence. The Flynn effect is solid proof against it. The constant increase in IQ scores over the last hundred years shouldn't be possible, as there has been no meaningful genetic changes in that time period. The reality is that the test is flawed and doesn't actually measure anything other than one's ability to take IQ tests.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom