DNA double Helix Nobel laureate stripped of honours for opinions on race

Sonic Youth

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes he does because you're claiming to be attacked for your opinions. When in fact you're being asked to back them up and cry victim when asked to do so.

I don't think a scientist should be punished because he said some mean things about blacks and women.

sk8erboii

DS86DS wrote: »

And who said that any of those undercutting you would be "bad" at it. Employers care about the most profit returns.

All of this will become more aparrent the more Globalised we become and the more the EU dictates our borders policy.

People like you might have some concepts about dancing about the multicultural rainbow and loving everybody the same as our own.

But truth be known, none of these people give a **** about you and your liberal heart bleeding. They are here for one reason and that is opportunism. For all your fantasies about one big happy world family, they will gladly take your job and leave you on the street.........all the while sneering at what a bunch of gullible fools you and your liberal buddies are.

Lol. What happens to a person to be reduced to this?

Sonic Youth

Sonic Youth wrote: »

I don't think a scientist should be punished because he said some mean things about blacks and women.

He's not being punished. The bodies who gave him the awards before they were aware of his irrational views are simply protecting their own reputations by rescinding them.

Sonic Youth

sk8erboii wrote: »

Lol. What happens to a person to be reduced to this?

He's not wrong. Why the **** would a big American company hire you if they can get an Indian or a chinaman to do it for one fifth of your wages?

Odhinn

DS86DS wrote: »

And who said that any of those undercutting you would be "bad" at it. Employers care about the most profit returns.

All of this will become more aparrent the more Globalised we become and the more the EU dictates our borders policy.

People like you might have some concepts about dancing about the multicultural rainbow and loving everybody the same as our own.

But truth be known, none of these people give a **** about you and your liberal heart bleeding. They are here for one reason and that is opportunism. For all your fantasies about one big happy world family, they will gladly take your job and leave you on the street.........all the while sneering at what a bunch of gullible fools you and your liberal buddies are.

....if they happen to be intellectually inferior, how will they take our jobs?

DS86DS

Odhinn wrote: »

....if they happen to be intellectually inferior, how will they take our jobs?

Nobody ever said East Asians and some South Asians are intellectually inferior. At least not when it comes to technology.

Arghus

Odhinn wrote: »

....if they happen to be intellectually inferior, how will they take our jobs?

Where's that gif of your man's head literally exploding in Scanners when you need it?

DS86DS

Sonic Youth wrote: »

He's not wrong. Why the **** would a big American company hire you if they can get an Indian or a chinaman to do it for one fifth of your wages?

You're talking too much common sense and hard reality. Liberals live in a world of butterflies, rainbows and fluffy bunnies where everybody loves each other and watches each others backs

Junkyard Tom

Pochettino56 wrote: »

I don't know if ethnicity influences innate intelligence

Pochettino56 wrote: »

Can you provide evidence that ethnicity does not influence innate intelligence?

I've already explained that your very question doesn't make sense as ethnicity is learned from your environment/culture and innateness refers to genetics/biology.

Do you understand that?

sk8erboii

Sonic Youth wrote: »

He's not wrong. Why the **** would a big American company hire you if they can get an Indian or a chinaman to do it for one fifth of your wages?

Paranoid schizophrenic rants on how the liberals, globalists and feminists is why he cant get a job doesnt sound very rational to me.

Then he goes on about how university is ‘fantasy’ land when in fact its where you learn the most important skill in a social species: Communications.

Tbh, from any angle, you can externalize your personal failures to Soros, Liberal media etc all you want but at some point youre gonna have to face the fact that the problem is yourself

DS86DS

DS86DS wrote: »

You're talking too much common sense and hard reality. Liberals live in a world of butterflies, rainbows and fluffy bunnies where everybody loves each other and watches each others backs

You need to calm down. It's not good for you to be seething with hatred and so pessimistic that you can't get any joy out of life unless it's at someone else's expense. Happiness can be a choice.

batgoat

Sonic Youth wrote: »

He's not wrong. Why the **** would a big American company hire you if they can get an Indian or a chinaman to do it for one fifth of your wages?

By the logic of you guys, there shouldn't be anyone employed in the country.. It seems more like there's a handful of you who are desperate to blame all of your woes on immigration....

Odhinn

Arghus wrote: »

Where's that gif of your man's head literally exploding in Scanners when you need it?

The foriegners took it.

DS86DS

sk8erboii wrote: »

Paranoid schizophrenic rants on how the liberals, globalists and feminists is why he cant get a job doesnt sound very rational to me.

Then he goes on about how university is ‘fantasy’ land when in fact its where you learn the most important skill in a social species: Communications.

Tbh, from any angle, you can externalize your personal failures to Soros, Liberal media etc all you want but at some point youre gonna have to face the fact that the problem is yourself

What a load of strawman rubbish.

And yes, university is a sheltered and safe environment.....a little bubble. It's easy to be all liberal and engage in pro-Palestine marches when all you have to worry about is the next assignment or exam.

You have no idea what the real world is like. Just wait until you are competing with millions of others for jobs and property......you'll soon wake up to reality and what the real world is about.

One eyed Jack

Arghus wrote: »

Hold up though. The guy was bestowed with this honorary award on the basis of his achievements in science.

Nowadays he is chiefly in the news for propagating blatantly crack-pot and inflammatory views. And in the eyes of many his past achievements and long list of awards and titles gives more credence to what he has to say than if they came out of the mouth of some non-entity.

In this case I think it's fully within the rights of the party who originally awarded this honorary award to rescind it, because argubly its name is being also dragged into disrepute by association with the bad science that Mr. Crick peddles.

Oh absolutely it’s their right to rescind any awards they give to anyone. My point is that it diminishes the value of the award when it can simply be taken back like that. In this case - he was given an award for his work done. It has since come to light that he’s peddling nonsense. In that case I would suggest simply not giving him any more recognition, but taking away the recognition of his previous work, to me at least, just seems like a rather petty thing to do - the awarding body should by all means distance themselves from his current opinions, but this appears to be an attempt to rewrite history on their part as though they had no association with this particular scientist in the past.

It’s amusing to think a scientific body think they can simply make the evidence disappear when it doesn’t suit them :pac:

sk8erboii

DS86DS wrote: »

What a load of strawman rubbish.

And yes, university is a sheltered and safe environment.....a little bubble. It's easy to be all liberal and engage in pro-Palestine marches when all you have to worry about is the next assignment or exam.

You have no idea what the real world is like. Just wait until you are competing with millions of others for jobs and property......you'll soon wake up to reality and what the real world is about.

Pro palestine? Lol wut?

Man im glad other people are seeing how bitter your posts really are.

Whatever happened to you to become like this i hope you get over it.

Irelands a fine country full of people to be friends with.

Wibbs

gw80 wrote: »

Have you an opinion on cheddar man, and the "findings" of the scientists involved?

What about him GW? Is it the recent "black skin" thing? I'd not be surprised to find his population had darker skin. Years ago on Boards I asked questions about the notion that pale skin came from our environment/latitude, because if we look at native Tasmanian folks who live at an equivalent sorta latitude only in southerly regions they were a very dark people. My notion at the time was either a dietary thing or admixture from Neandertals who had been in Europe for 200,000 years plus. It seems farming causes the change. Farming is great, but the diet suffers. It becomes far narrower and lacks a few nutrients that hunter gatherers get. Vitamin D being one of them.

That said I'm always extremely wary of such "reconstructions". They contain far more artistic licence than science for the most part and they change over time and not always because of new science. Just as much because of current cultural expectations. The aforementioned Neandertal folks a perfect example. When they were first discovered and described, because of the times(19th century) they were seen as "fallen" humans, primitive and apelike, missing links(one name considered was Homo Stupidus). And they were portrayed as that. As time went on they were made a little more human like, but still primitive and thick. Think on this: the only ancient human scientific name the average person knows is Neandertal and it's used as an insult.

But then... DNA evidence showed we carried their DNA in us - something the scientific community resisted like fcuk(and some still do) - and lo and behold their reconstructions changed and they got more and more "human" and "European" looking, with feather headdresses and necklaces and face paint. And in a few cases even their bones were altered to make the faces look more like us. One reconstruction of a woman shows her with light blonde hair and light eyes and she also lost the massive brow ridges she had in life. At best major supposition, at worst and more likely, utter bollocks.

The genetic markers for skin colour are hard enough to pin down. Neandertals had a few different ones, that are different to ours. Their red hair genes are different to ours too(their skin colour seems to vary over time, ditto for eye colour and even facial structure. They were around for twice as long as us and in many different environments so you'd expect that).

If you look further beyond the headlines into the paper on Cheddar Man, the very curly black hair is supposition and might be the case, but his black skin is extremely tenuous a claim. Link here from New Scientist. The salient bit is "But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human".[emphasis mine] Oh and he had the genes for lighter skin, but they were archaic. This doesn't mean he was black.

TL:DR? Our perception of ourselves as "human" and what that means changes with the wind, our existing and current prejudices and perceptions, politics and culture. Tread carefully sorta thing.

QuintusFabius

I think they should give his nobel prize to a trans queer non binary muslim disabled person.
It's an utter disgrace that no nobel prizes have been giving to this group, just shows the white racist patriarchal bigots that hand out these "awards" ..

DS86DS

Everleigh Pitiful Container wrote: »

^^^ Grow up! BYEEEEEEEEE

The standard of debate from Liberals when somebody with a background in Science burst a hole in their "One race, One world, it's just culture" fantasy

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

DS86DS wrote: »

The standard of debate from Liberals when somebody with a background in Science burst a hole in their "One race, One world, it's just culture" fantasy

Pardon? You do realise that was directed at the now deleted Re Reg Troll?

sk8erboii

Everleigh Pitiful Container wrote: »

Pardon? You do realise that we directed at the now deleted Re Reg Troll?

He’s lost it..

DS86DS

Everleigh Pitiful Container wrote: »

Pardon? You do realise that was directed at the now deleted Re Reg Troll?

Regardless, the point still stands. Science is based on facts and evidence and not personal political opinion.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

DS86DS wrote: »

Regardless, the point still stands. Science is based on facts and evidence and not personal political opinion.

And where did I say anything contrary to that, or express any Liberal opinion?


Care to edit your post, please?

batgoat

DS86DS wrote: »

Regardless, the point still stands. Science is based on facts and evidence and not personal political opinion.

And Watson hasn't based it upon scientific evidence... He also has a track record of nonsensical bigoted views. As demonstrated with the letter Francis Crick sent him back in 1967....

Skylinehead

DS86DS wrote: »

The standard of debate from Liberals when somebody with a background in Science burst a hole in their "One race, One world, it's just culture" fantasy

Ha, you have no idea of Srameens own background clearly.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Nixonbot wrote: »

Ha, you have no idea of Srameens own background clearly.

Ssh, I'm letting him dig a hole here.

DS86DS

sk8erboii wrote: »

He’s lost it....as I said to myself as I gazed at the man staring back at me in the mirror

FYP

DS86DS

Nixonbot wrote: »

Ha, you have no idea of Srameens own background clearly.

And what background is that exactly?

sk8erboii

DS86DS wrote: »

FYP

The globalist CIA satanist multicultural PC police is after me.

HELP!!

Everleigh Pitiful Container

Everleigh Pitiful Container wrote: »

Ssh, I'm letting him dig a hole here.

He's fetching a JCB.

Odhinn

batgoat wrote: »

And Watson hasn't based it upon scientific evidence... He also has a track record of nonsensical bigoted views. As demonstrated with the letter Francis Crick sent him back in 1967....

He's a cranky 90 year old git. He may be a genius in his own field, but outside of that he's like yerman 'prince' phillip. As he's representative of various institutions its true to say they don't want to be associated with whatever crap he's coming out with now, hence the withdrawals and so on.

Odhinn

sk8erboii wrote: »

The globalist CIA satanist multicultural PC police is after me.

HELP!!

It's Mossad. Trust me on that one.

DS86DS

sk8erboii wrote: »

The globalist CIA satanist multicultural PC police is after me.

HELP!!

Unfunny as always.

sk8erboii

DS86DS wrote: »

Unfunny as always.

I agree. People come off as paranoid bitter losers when they go on those rants

steddyeddy

DS86DS wrote: »

Regardless, the point still stands. Science is based on facts and evidence and not personal political opinion.

Yes it is. That's why Watson lost his titles. He was confusing personal opinion with science.

Skylinehead

DS86DS wrote: »

And what background is that exactly?

Not going to speak for him, lets just say its a background of science.

DS86DS

sk8erboii wrote: »

I agree. People come off as paranoid bitter losers when they go on those rants

Bitter loser with money and owns his own house. Enjoy your dorm bunk bed, microwaved baked beans on toast and fantasies about the future.

gw80

Wibbs wrote: »

What about him GW? Is it the recent "black skin" thing? I'd not be surprised to find his population had darker skin. Years ago on Boards I asked questions about the notion that pale skin came from our environment/latitude, because if we look at native Tasmanian folks who live at an equivalent sorta latitude only in southerly regions they were a very dark people. My notion at the time was either a dietary thing or admixture from Neandertals who had been in Europe for 200,000 years plus. It seems farming causes the change. Farming is great, but the diet suffers. It becomes far narrower and lacks a few nutrients that hunter gatherers get. Vitamin D being one of them.

That said I'm always extremely wary of such "reconstructions". They contain far more artistic licence than science for the most part and they change over time and not always because of new science. Just as much because of current cultural expectations. The aforementioned Neandertal folks a perfect example. When they were first discovered and described, because of the times(19th century) they were seen as "fallen" humans, primitive and apelike, missing links(one name considered was Homo Stupidus). And they were portrayed as that. As time went on they were made a little more human like, but still primitive and thick. Think on this: the only ancient human scientific name the average person knows is Neandertal and it's used as an insult.

But then... DNA evidence showed we carried their DNA in us - something the scientific community resisted like fcuk(and some still do) - and lo and behold their reconstructions changed and they got more and more "human" and "European" looking, with feather headdresses and necklaces and face paint. And in a few cases even their bones were altered to make the faces look more like us. One reconstruction of a woman shows her with light blonde hair and light eyes and she also lost the massive brow ridges she had in life. At best major supposition, at worst and more likely, utter bollocks.

The genetic markers for skin colour are hard enough to pin down. Neandertals had a few different ones, that are different to ours. Their red hair genes are different to ours too(their skin colour seems to vary over time, ditto for eye colour and even facial structure. They were around for twice as long as us and in many different environments so you'd expect that).

If you look further beyond the headlines into the paper on Cheddar Man, the very curly black hair is supposition and might be the case, but his black skin is extremely tenuous a claim. Link here from New Scientist. The salient bit is "But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human".[emphasis mine] Oh and he had the genes for lighter skin, but they were archaic. This doesn't mean he was black.

TL:DR? Our perception of ourselves as "human" and what that means changes with the wind, our existing and current prejudices and perceptions, politics and culture. Tread carefully sorta thing.

I really have no issue darker skinned populations present in Europe many moons ago, I wouldn't be surprised tbh, it's totally believable that maybe some darker skinned tribes made their way to Briton and thrived for a time,

What bothers me about it is the way some of the scientists may have jumped the gun and declared cheddar man " a black man" leaving people with the idea that he was from Africa, which may not have been the case, but what bothers me most is that they may have let their liberal mind set steer the conclusion of the whole scientific investigation to suit an agenda,
I think it's a very worrying development if that is what happened here, it throws dought and mistrust in the scientific process, what I'm trying to say is, if these scientists would lie( or twist the truth a bit) why would we thrust any of them.
And just to be clear for anyone who didn't hear about it,some of the other scientists who were on the team have said there was no way they could tell for definite the colour of his skin.

Wibbs

DS86DS wrote: »

Regardless, the point still stands. Science is based on facts and evidence and not personal political opinion.

It's often both as history has shown time and time again. I didn't see the deleted post, but as far as "race" goes, we've gone from "there are separate races of humans and that's obvious" to "there is no such thing as race and that's obvious" and both were/are backed up by science. Depending on which science one reads. I would agree that "race" is a very inaccurate label and it led to all sorts of evil fuckery. However, there are different populations of Modern Humans. That's undeniable. Ask any pathologist and he or she will tell you that they can tell in the vast majority of cases the population origin of a skeleton. It's not "just skin deep". Spit in a test tube and send it to one of those online "ancestry" sites* and they'll tell you again in the vast majority of cases where you're from and what you likely look like.

So what does this mean as far as traits of populations go? It's damned hard to quantify. 1) there are a lot of fuzzy areas of overlap between populations. 2) The timescales involved when it comes to local evolution and adaptation are pretty short. That said heavily selected for traits can spring up and spread remarkably rapidly. EG lactose, gluten, alcohol tolerance. 3) the science is still in its infancy, regardless of what the easy to read media will tell you. Take genetics. We have made huge strides in the field, even in the last decade. However if we imagine the analogy of a huge library at night, in darkness; genetic research is mostly at the level of we have a flashlight, we know books exist and there are books and we can see them and we can read most of the titles on the spines and we know what letters are, but we've only cracked a few of the books open and much of what we read is not quite legible to us yet.






*Don't. It's wildly fluffy in accuracy and why the fcuk would anyone be daft enough to hand their DNA, the instruction book of you, to some profit driven corporation? And some worry about governments? While their DNA is with 23andme.com, their phone is following them around and they're asking "Alexa" to play a tune from ABBA in their living room. Beggars belief. Mine anyway.

greencap

admittedly going off headlines here, but, something either is or isn't.

if it is then you should be able to say it is so, regardless.
as long as you can actually back it up.

i've heard speculation of ashkenazi jews having higher iq than europeans due to genetics.

if its provable then it is what it is. and me going full offence monkey won't change it.

if it can't be proven though, then the speculator needs to stfu until such time as he/she can prove it

steddyeddy

DS86DS wrote: »

Bitter loser with money and owns his own house. Enjoy your dorm bunk bed, microwaved baked beans on toast and fantasies about the future.

Why would you microwave beans?

DS86DS

gw80 wrote: »

I really have no issue darker skinned populations present in Europe many moons ago, I wouldn't be surprised tbh, it's totally believable that maybe some darker skinned tribes made their way to Briton and thrived for a time,

What bothers me about it is the way some of the scientists may have jumped the gun and declared cheddar man " a black man" leaving people with the idea that he was from Africa, which may not have been the case, but what bothers me most is that they may have let their liberal mind set steer the conclusion of the whole scientific investigation to suit an agenda,
I think it's a very worrying development if that is what happened here, it throws dought and mistrust in the scientific process, what I'm trying to say is, if these scientists would lie( or twist the truth a bit) why would we thrust any of them.
And just to be clear for anyone who didn't hear about it,some of the other scientists who were on the team have said there was no way they could tell for definite the colour of his skin.

Indeed, and many scientists are now debunking a claim that didn't even have any peer reviews to back it up in the first place.


https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161867-ancient-dark-skinned-briton-cheddar-man-find-may-not-be-true/

https://medium.com/anth374s18/cheddar-man-and-bad-science-e203100781d6

steddyeddy

DS86DS wrote: »

Indeed, and many scientists are now debunking a claim that didn't even have any peer reviews to back it up in the first place.


https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161867-ancient-dark-skinned-briton-cheddar-man-find-may-not-be-true/

https://medium.com/anth374s18/cheddar-man-and-bad-science-e203100781d6

Well that's great. Science is being used to debunk something. Perhaps you can provide the science on race and intelligence?

sk8erboii

DS86DS wrote: »

Bitter loser with money and owns his own house. Enjoy your dorm bunk bed, microwaved baked beans on toast and fantasies about the future.

Imagine thinking having friends is a fantasy...

Wibbs

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well that's great. Science is being used to debunk something.

That's sciences "killer app", it's often wrong, but it's updatable.

Perhaps you can provide the science on race and intelligence?

Any of the ones I've read have been dubious to say the least, regardless of the position they'd already decided upon. Many of them examined "race" in the US. A pretty daft idea considering many people who look "really Black" could be chock full of "White" genes and vice versa. Years back I was flipping channels on the oul TeleVisor Device and came across one of those "who do you think you are" programmes. Anyway the subject was an African American chap, whose name sadly escapes. I think he was an actor. Nice bloke anyway. So they went through the usual slavery thing and then on into Chicago and all that. At one point there was a genetics result and the narrator noted that he was "very" African in his DNA, unusually so for many African Americans.

The other part is the influence of culture. That's bloody massive and you see this throughout history. Take present day Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey. The oldest civilisations started there. They gave birth to the world we see around us. Back then if a Babylonian had travelled to say Germany, the locals would have likely thought of him as a minor god. Or an Alien. If a German had found himself in Babylon, he'd have thought he'd been transported to another world. Fast forward to today and compare Germany and Germans to those places. Same people, mostly the same genetics, different cultures, different outcomes.

And if they gave birth to the modern world, the Greeks were the midwife. As noted before Jews number right at the top as far as Nobel prizes go. Go back to Ancient Greece and Jewish folks were mostly considered, when they were considered at all, as funny middle eastern types with funny habits. When the Greeks were coming up with mathematics, engineering, politics(the very word is Greek. Polis = people/city/state, Politika = affairs of the people/city/state), philosophy, history, art, military tactics, poetry, architecture, drama, law, biology, physics, theology, chemistry, medicine, you bloody name it, the Greek lads( a couple of lasses) were necking back ouzo to beat the band and getting on with it. Apparently in olive groves. Fast forward to today and compare Greece and Greeks with Jews. When was the last time a Greek won a Nobel prize? Same people, mostly the same genetics, different cultures, different outcomes.

DS86DS

sk8erboii wrote: »

Imagine thinking having friends is a fantasy...

Probably as much a fantasy as your girlfriend who doesn't want to kiss you but who gets you as some engineering nerd to do her homework for her while she is actually sleeping with and dating the GAA captain of the college team.

Mod: Banned.

batgoat

Christ, After Hours has become a creche... :P

steddyeddy

DS86DS wrote: »

Probably as much a fantasy as your girlfriend who doesn't want to kiss you but who gets you as some engineering nerd to do her homework for her while she is actually sleeping with and dating the GAA captain of the college team.

That's maybe the longest slanderous sentence I've seen on Boards. Can I join in too?

WinnyThePoo

DS86DS wrote: »

sk8erboii wrote: »

Imagine thinking having friends is a fantasy...

Probably as much a fantasy as your girlfriend who doesn't want to kiss you but who gets you as some engineering nerd to do her homework for her while she is actually sleeping with and dating the GAA captain of the college team.

Your not Irish. Hahaha.

steddyeddy

DS86DS wrote: »

Probably as much a fantasy as your girlfriend who doesn't want to kiss you but who gets you as some engineering nerd to do her homework for her while she is actually sleeping with and dating the GAA captain of the college team.

So the girlfriend is not only sleeping with the GAA captain but also dating him??