Wow! Nobel Winner Says Blacks Less Intelligent

by Justitia Themis 60 Replies latest jw friends

  • Happy Harvester
    Happy Harvester

    Just so everyone knows, Watson and Crick stole a prepublication version of a paper from Rosalind Franklin, a woman, who had discovered the real structure of DNA through DNA x-ray diffraction. They presented her information as their own and gave her a brief footnote mention.

    So let's see, who is less intelligent here?

    Yes, erynw, I remember an interview with an author on Franklin. Thanks for that important reminder. I'm going to look up the book and read it; I'd forgotten about that disgusting little fact about Crick's work.

  • Happy Harvester
    Happy Harvester

    You know, I was about to get offended by his comment, but the guy has not aged well. He looks like the Crypt Keeper, for crying out loud:

    Thanks for discovering DNA.

    Now keep your mouth shut.

    And Crick wasn't the only one to "discover" how DNA is structured. Hopefully, Rosalind Franklin will haunt this guy into his grave, speaking of crypt-keepers! From Wikipedia:

    The rules of the Nobel Prize forbid posthumous nominations, [89] ; because Rosalind Franklin had died in 1958 she was not eligible for nomination to the Nobel Prize subsequently awarded to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins in 1962. [90] The award was for their body of work on nucleic acids and not exclusively for the discovery of the structure of DNA. [91] By the time of the award Wilkins had been working on the structure of DNA for over 10 years, and had done much to confirm the Crick-Watson model. [92] Crick had been working on the genetic code at Cambridge and Watson had worked on RNA for some years. [93]
  • mkr32208
    mkr32208

    Not to stir the pot but a scientist MUST be allowed to study ANYTHING without political or social bias!

    If a scientist wants to study the difference between the races and can do it in a scientific way then by all means he/she/they should be able to do it without fear of a political fire storm when they post results! Now having said that i don't know if he was speaking from a scientific point of view or is just a racist butt hole but here's the kicker NEITHER DO YOU GUYS! Did he cite a study? Is there a study out there? I don't know (and don't care) I just don't like to see all of these attacks when we don't know the whole story...

    You post a list of exceptional black scientist and what not as if that is some sort of scientific study and proved ANYTHING!... Sigh...

    You post a blatant and false accusation of theft (stealing the work of Rosalind Franklin)

    This whole study is ridiculous and offensive why are you giving this racist foolishness air time?

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208

    To use and expand on the research of other scientist is not theft...

  • Happy Harvester
    Happy Harvester

    You may be right, mkr, if the Wiki discussion of the matter is accurate.

    What study is ridiculous?

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208

    Sorry I've got a really bad headache and am at work. I intended to say "this whole thread is..."

    I personally feel that this is probrably just a race baiting SOB but opinions are like butt holes everybody gots one! When it comes to science opinions mean jack and squat! This guy said "science proves that..." so don't come back with YOUR A JERK! Come back with studies, research. case studes, longitudinal studies, etc not. I disagree cause I do... Makes you just as dumb.

  • Happy Harvester
    Happy Harvester

    Hope you feel better soon, mkr. I'm very tired and going to bed. I don't think it's necessary to call people dumb for sharing their feelings and opinions on the matter because it's just as much an emotional issue as it is a "scientific" one. I do agree with the point you are trying to make about backing up what one argues with sound research. "Argument from incredulity" doesn't hold water in the world of scientists, true, but most of us here are not scientists; we're just friends learning and sharing ideas and experiences.

    I think Richard Dawkins wrote a pretty good chapter on the issue of race - as mostly a social construct - in The Ancestor's Tale (and probably elsewhere).

    Maybe we could all read that chapter and have a discussion on it? Or perhaps we could start some kind of online book discussion groups on some of the topics we like to discuss here with other jwd-ers? It might be fun, and good exercise for the mind.

    Hope you get rid of your headache!

  • cognizant dissident
    cognizant dissident

    When the human genome project was just completed, I heard one of the scientists involved in the project speaking on national television. He said that the decoding of human DNA showed that there was NO such thing as RACE. There is no genetic differences between people of different races other than skin color and hair and eye color. It is merely a case of dark skin, dark eyes, and dark hair being a dominate trait and being naturally selected for in certain populations where there was no intermarriage with light skinned, light eyed people (which are recessive traits.) It is the equivalent of saying that tall people (which is another dominant trait) are one race and short people are another and all the variants in between are "mixed race". Or, people with large noses are one race and people with small noses are another race.

    This belief is based upon ignorance and the superficiality of the human ego developed over millenium combined with our desires to be superior to one another. It is a delusional denial of our true natures. What happens if enough people of so-called different races breed over hundreds of years, which is a real possibility with modern global travel. "Race" would eventually disappear and become meaningless when all our children are "mixed" to sufficient degree that their superficial differences become indistinguishable.

    There are many factors that have been proven to affect intelligence, proven with scientific and medical studies. Some of them are poverty, malnutrition, illness, and lack of early educational opportunities. These are all conditions that are over-represented in the black populations in America as well as on the continent of Africa. These are the true reasons that blacks have traditionally performed less well on IQ tests (tests that have been show to be flawed due to bias in favour of certain cultures and educational systems). While these factors that can affect intelligence exist to a greater degree in SOME black populations this is certainly not a genetic indicator of a lesser intellectual potential.

    Cog

  • barry
    barry

    The artical about this bloke appeared in our newspapers yesterday and i think he was just giving an opinion without any hard evidence and the artical also said there may be genetic intellegence tests within 10 years. He was also commenting on how help given to African countries may be misplaced because of lower intellegence.

    I think many people confuse cultural factors with their assesments on how smart they beleive a person or race is. I cant comment on negro people because we dont have many of them here in Australia. We have the aboriginals here in Australia and at first glance it would appear they are of very low intellegence, most dont work but live on welfare and dont seem to mind liveing in the most appaling conditions. Aboriginal people that have been taken out of their culture seem to have very little differences in intellegance than the wider population. Aboriginal trakers are very cleaver and are used by the police in crimes solving and cant be equalled anywhere in the world. The Australian aboriginals have negro looks but are actually closer to the caucasian race than any other race.

  • Happy Harvester
    Happy Harvester
    He was also commenting on how help given to African countries may be misplaced because of lower intellegence.

    Even if that sentiment rang remotely true, how do people who have evolved to be humane and compassionate justify NOT helping those less fortunate, especially those viewed as having "lower intelligence" due to a misguided belief in the construct of inferior races (which is complete balderdash anyway)?

    Choosing to believe or to find reinforcement for such beliefs simply demonstrates the ignorance of the person or people presenting their pseudo-scientific pre-conceived prejudicial notions.

    It always says a lot more about the nature and character of the person or people defending this kind of so-called research than it does about the supposedly inferior race.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit