PZ Myers Discussion (8/10) - Richard Dawkins

[Xinfinitude]

I wonder if PZ knew of r/atheism back then. I think that can be unity among atheists, because we all tend to at least value logic.

[JollSSteR]

Im glad ive got Richard Dawkins on my side, he knows kung fu

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@Consciousish an IQ of 103 in northern italy versus IQ of 89 in the south (in Sicily) isn't such a small difference. I'd say if you have a person with 105 IQ versus 110 it is not so big of a difference, but when a person has 135 IQ versus someone with 89 IQ, it becomes quite massively different I'm afraid. The good news is that we don't need all super intelligent people, as James Watson found out marrying a really smart women causes the couple to have an autistic child

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@Consciousish possible but unlikely? huh? fuck that. About as unlikely as a greyhound being faster than a poodle. OBVIOUSLY our brain is a product of evolution. If it wasn't then what the fuck is it? created by god and not applicable to evolution? some of the idiot politically correct atheists act just like idiot creationists. It's sad.

[c6gunner]

@Consciousish They aren't trying to find answers - they're trying to justify a preexisting bias.

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@c6gunner really, and why is it that white people admit Japanese people are very smart? Is that justifiying a preexisting bias? That's anti-racism, to admit another race might be smarter than you. Like a poodle admitting a greyhound is faster than him. That's not racism. It's fucking evolution you idiot. Your so called racists even admit that black people have been shown to have better eyesight - superior is the word even used by the so called racist William Shockley

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@bbphnix I think greyhound dogs are faster than poodle dogs because greyhound dogs have an education on how to run fast and they are also fed more meat and protein which makes them faster than poodles. I think, I don't actually have any evidence and I like to be politically correct so that people don't call me racist.

[c6gunner]

@Consciousish Oh, wow, you quoted James Watson! Damn! I MUST be wrong!

Idiot.

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@c6gunner  James Watson is smarter than you'll ever be. When you get a noble prize please get back to me and leave a message.

[c6gunner]

@SeeProfileForDetails I'm not sure what a "noble prize" is. Get back to me when you've managed to reverse your rectocranial inversion.

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@c6gunner It was a play on words, numbnuts. Get back to me when you have managed to obtain your new prize.

[c6gunner]

@SeeProfileForDetails No, it was a misspelling, you dishonest twat. And with that lie, you've just pissed away whatever tiny shred of credibility you may have had left. Goodbye.

[mightyafrowhitey]

o.0 we're only 11 percent of the population?!?!? that's just sad...

[DerEchteSenf]

[...]like that morally. I think this is bad because we have to leave together peacefully, whether or not we are geneticaly equal.

[llHyRaXll]

THAT laugh at 5:07 was so retarded and fake lmao!

[llHyRaXll]

FUCK AIPAC

[deanjdk]

personality is developed by the second by second incoming of information by the 5 sences from the second of birth till this second right now.Genetics determines the range of theoretical possibilities within a given species.For example.. a cat cannot talk because it lacks the physical vocal abilities and the linguistic mental processing.Black and white people have the ability to be exactly the same.

[QCreyton]

thats the basic trend over the western world. smart people have fewer children even though they end up having more money. while idiots hump like bunnies and pop them out then teach the kids that "gawd" is real and science is "evul!"

[mfunke]

Evolution does not predict such differences between different races, mostly because they share the same evolutionary path for 99.9% of their development. Although the remaining time apart was enough to modify the races towards more visible differences such as hair and skin color, shape of face, eyes, mouth, etc, nothing in evolution implies or suggests these traits you mentioned are different between races. Those affirmations are lies and expose you as either a crazy supremacist or creationist.

[nathanrlyne]

or genuinely ignorant

[lamejorpersona1]

i cannot believe that evolution is actually controversial. darwin and dawkins, with all of their work, should be hailed as the god of both the jews and christians.

[marianiiina]

@lamejorpersona1 it would be a party all day long :D

[c6gunner]

"Darwin himself felt that something along those lines was true"

Oh, I see - you're actually a creationist pretending to believe in the theory of evolution. Nice one. You had me going for a bit there.

[c6gunner]

"No, I mean evolutionary theory is very consistent with the idea that black people are genetically less intelligent, genetically more prone to violent and criminal behavior ..."

That's idiotic. Congratulations - you are every bit as educated on the subject of evolution as Hitler was.

[xxSilverPhinxx]

@c6gunner

Good comment.

[DerEchteSenf]

@c6gunner No that is correct. Evolutionary theory is consistent with that. It just isn't the fact. But IF it would be, evolution would not be falsified by that.

[c6gunner]

@DerEchteSenf That's like saying that the phrase "Bigfoot ate my cat" is consistent with the Big Bang theory. Sure, it is, but only because the big bang theory has nothing to say on the matter. However, when people use the phrase "consistent with", they're implying that the theory being referenced actually SUPPORTS their conclusion and, in both of these cases, that's simply not true. I'm just not willing to give them that wiggle-room.

[DerEchteSenf]

@c6gunner Of course evolution predicts the developement of different races with different features. What else IS evolution?

[c6gunner]

@DerEchteSenf the term "race" refers to a genetically isolated sub-species. Black people aren't a sub-specie. They're part of the same specie as the rest of humanity. Therefore, while you've correctly identified one of the premises of evolution, you've completely failed to support your case. Moreover, you're still ignoring the fact that the phrase "consistent with" implies support. That's dishonest.

[DerEchteSenf]

@c6gunner Do you have a problem spending your spare time worthwhile or something? Evolution allows for different humen races with different features. But they don't exist. Where is the controversy?

What racists claim COULD be true but it just isn't.

[c6gunner]

@DerEchteSenf By the same logic, evolutionary theory is consistent with the idea that you are a clueless moron. Since we apparently agree on that point, this seems like a good time to end this conversation. Take care!

[DerEchteSenf]

@c6gunner Don't bother with logic, it seems to be a little to much for you. Anyway, this has nothing to do with logic whatsoever. It's about empricial science.

What you say is wrong. It's a simple as that. Evolution makes statements about the features of organism. It's not simply consistent/indifferent. A species can split into different races. What theory do you refer to to explain that? God did it?

[gouranga2007]

@DerEchteSenf You're referring to the term 'Race' in the social term. In Biology 'Race' is the same as species and that's how Darwin used it (for which he is often misunderstood).

Socially Race generally means people of a certain color or physical features.

In biology this form of race does not exist, biologist might talk about family groups with distinctive features (such as skin tone or shape of the nose), but you can breed an Italian with a Maori and get a mixture of both. TBC

[gouranga2007]

@DerEchteSenf That's because they are the same species and the individual features occur from a several different genes which may have several different roles.

I'm white from England and my wife is brown from India (socially) our children have a slightly darker skin tone than me but are not brown per se. In a social context they are neither race which is why scientists don't use such terms, they are inefficient and not useful in terms of defining anything. TBC

[gouranga2007]

@DerEchteSenf Another point you made was different "races" with different abilities but these are social constraints, nothing to do with their genetics. Its been shown time and time again that you can take someone from a primitive tribe in Africa and give them a western education and they will do just as well as any other student. Likewise in any Marathon you will see "white" runners keeping up with the supposed experts from Ethiopia and Kenya.

Skin color is literally skin deep. .

[DerEchteSenf]

I guess so. Our fight was more about if there was a possiblity of different humans (not "inter-breedable") and if the theory of evolution has anything to say about that.

I think is important to stress that skin color does not say anything about any other feature. But. I think some people attack science or the notion that science shows in theory or fact that humans can be different (in ability, morality, etc.), also because of their genes, simply they can or could not adress something[...]

[gouranga2007]

@DerEchteSenf The last "Other Human's" were the Neanderthals and they existed as recently as 25k yrs ago. They were cousins (not direct ascendants) and although interbreeding was probably possible (we share the same number of chromosomes) there's no Neanderthal DNA in modern humans.

Even if it did this would say nothing about evolution as evolution talks about gradual change over long periods. If a hybrid existed is would likely live in one or the other camp and unlikely spawn a third group

[gouranga2007]

@DerEchteSenf But skin colour does say something about other features as the chromosomes (and they are many) that decide skin colour also have other functions. It's just that it's affects are over played in social features such as athletic ability and learning ability.

Morality is a different question as sociopaths often have a "bad wiring" and or learnt behaviours to explain their morals (or lack of).

[Kan2209]

@c6gunner It's very consistent of it not being true, thankfully.

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@Kan2209 greyhound dogs are faster than poodles. That's racism. Oooh. Japanese are smarter than whites in certain iq tests. Oooh that's racism.

[stoltobot]

@c6gunner It's certainly not consistent with the idea but it does allow for the possibility

[c6gunner]

@stoltobot so does the theory of gravity. I'm not sure what your point is.

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@c6gunner No, you are idiotic. You're every bit as not educated as James Watson.

[c6gunner]

@bbphnix thanks :)

[JollSSteR]

@c6gunner Hitler was a catholic u noob, and i find it funny how people always use him as an argument in whatever theyre arguing about, its a cool fenomona.

and we dont have the same genes dude, its not rude to say that men have bigger brains than women, cause we do..

DNA, and they can gather objects for a longer period of time.

its not rude its just the way it is.

[c6gunner]

@JollSSteR As a rule, I don't argue with 12 year old kids. Get your parents to explain this stuff to you.

[JollSSteR]

@c6gunner im reading *the moral landscape* by Sam Harris ATM.

Its really interesting, did you know that we would rather not gain something than to lose it?

interesting.

Oh and by the way your a fucking retard.

12 years old is to much for your iq eay?

im actually not 12 years old so we can argue

[JollSSteR]

@c6gunner sorry your not a retard.

i got carried away, im tired.

[c6gunner]

@JollSSteR well, I have no idea what the heck you're going on about, but I'm impressed that you apologized before I even had a chance to read the insult :)

Since you seem like a nice enough guy, I'll gladly address your concerns if you care to clarify them. I have no idea what Hitler being catholic has to do with anything, nor do I understand why you'd bring up the difference in cranial size between men and women. If you can explain yourself a bit better, I'll do my best to respond.

[zebionic]

Applying "Darwinian principles" to human behavior is misrepresenting the purpose and meaning of those principles.

Evolutionary fitness has very little correlation to the kind of criteria that people apply so called "social Darwinism" to.

[ICameFromApes]

Atheists just need something radically stupid for them to unite. And suddenly they will drop everything and lunge at you at once.

[sciencealwayswins]

The problem is that 'atheist' is a term that applies to only one facet of our individual ideologies. The only qualifying factor is that one does not believe in any supernatural God(s), which leaves a lot of room for variation. Politically, we fall all across the chart. While I suppose it's true that atheists do have a tendency to be either liberals or libertarians, as well as stark supporters of scientific progress, I've met quite a few who identified as conservative.

[sciencealwayswins]

Plus, unity is usually contingent on the presence of a shared belief, rather than the shared absence of belief.

[generationalist]

~4:06 RD and PZM discuss the hierarchy of religious organizations and the infighting between them. I really liked the discussion. From a sociology standpoint it almost sounded as if they were positing their observation of tribal interaction. A small group closing ranks against outsiders. People acting like the apes we are and not the humans we struggle to become.

[aaronweingott]

"Organising Atheists is like herding cats."

I can't remember who said that, but it rings true here.

[bdf2718]

I believe it was first said of programmers. But it's also true of atheists.

[Clausfarre]

Evo-devo. I had not heard that one before. Those scientists are so hip to the jive.