Home » Culture, Darwinism » James Watson — Why does he say the things he does?

James Watson — Why does he say the things he does?

Anybody willing to offer predictions about when Darwinists will be getting back big time into the eugenics business?

Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer
SOURCE: news.independent.co.uk

. . . His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

75 Responses to James Watson — Why does he say the things he does?

  1. i have always thought we should be open to this discussion. it seems like no one wants to discuss it because it is not politically correct…

    take a look at major league sports, is there not some argument there based on micro-evolution that african americans are more suited to particular sports? if so, then is it possible that a corollary could be true?

    hey, it bothers me to even think about it, but we should be open to truth. regardless it would not affect issues of equality in my mind….because even were it generally true, i assure you that many many of african descent could be proven to be far more intelligent than me. similarly, i can be shown to be far more athletic (which is not saying much i assure you) than many african americans. so at the end of the day the discrepancy is not enough to warrant any radical decisions……

    regardless, i have also always thought that is presented a very awkward elephant in the room for darwinists.

  2. What’s particularly awkward is that, hey – James Watson can simply say ‘Look, I’m just following the data where it leads. It’s not more invalid if it upsets egalitarians than if it upsets creationists.’ But the response can be that what the data may say isn’t necessarily whole story, and that regardless of whatever capacities Watson asserts various races may have, it still does not mean they should not be afforded the same respect, opportunity, and priviledge as others.

    But then that would be tantamount to admitting that people can disagree about what data demands we think when it comes to controversial subjects, and we can’t have that either. What can be done?

  3. “Anybody willing to offer predictions about when Darwinists will be getting back big time into the eugenics business?”

    They’ve been there since Sanger started Planned Parenthood and never got out of the game.

    We shouldn’t be surprised that someone like Watson who embraces an a-telic Darwinist account of life embraces ideas like this. Without some conception of the equality of all men provided by (to cite one good example) The Imago Dei, there is no reason to think that all men are equal, and we should applaud Watson for at least being honest and taking his Darwinism seriously.

    It makes a nice change from the dubiously honest rhetoric we are normally treated too.

  4. yeah…his consistency is to be lauded.

  5. Are you being sarcastic interested ?

    I think it is good when Darwinists like Watson some out and speak the truth as they see it.

    Better than the insulting and disingenuous drivel from someone like Eugenie Scott that wants to play nicey nicey.

  6. The idea of equality of the races and sexes is a Christian value straight out of the New Testament.

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galations 3:28

    “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” Colosians 3:11

    What do you think Thomas Jefferson was referring to when he said, “all men are created equal”? With out this Christian value democracy and human rights would not have developed in Western Civilization. Why do you think that only Christian Civilizations developed the concept of human rights and the institutions to protect them?

    This idea of equality which is fundamental to Christian values and the Christian world view is contrary to the logic of Darwinism. It is really impossible to exaggerate how destructive the Darwinist world view is to human civilization.

  7. “It is really impossible to exaggerate how destructive the Darwinist world view is to human civilization.”

    These are my general thoughts about Darwinism as well (strict, naturalistic Darwinism, that is). But you know what evolutionists say to that, Jehu?

    “That makes evolution no less true.”

    From a certain angle, this is correct. Scientific progress, from a completely empirical standpoint, has nothing to do with the emotions of observers. However, the world isn’t all about science. And I think that if the moral bankruptcy of evolution were really true, we would never have found it to be morally outrageous in the first place. The very fact that we do have an ethical objection to eugenics and the like is troublesome for Darwinism. Where does it come from?

    It might be “commendable” to be honest, like Watson has, about what Darwinism really means. But if he genuinely embraces this ideology without a shred of ethical objection…that’s just revolting.

  8. “…it still does not mean they should not be afforded the same respect, opportunity, and priviledge as others.”

    Why?

    In the Christian worldview, EVERYONE is made in the image of God.

    In the consistent darwinist worldview e.g. Peter Singer: “The life of a newborn baby is of less value than a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee” (Darwin Day in America).

    So, why should treat others with respect???

  9. Your Christian God (mentioned again I notice) is not required to reject eugenics, as a non christian but believer I have no doubt humans are equal based on simple observation.

    Also I treat others with respect (if they deserve to be treated so) because it makes sense for me to live without confrontation.

    You don’t need Yahweh to tell you how to act. Work it out yourself.

  10. Peter Singer: “The life of a newborn baby is of less value than a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee” (Darwin Day in America).

    WOW…..I can understand a Darwinist equating human newborns with those of other animals, but “less value”??? Why?

  11. There was an article several years ago about Norman Borlaug who some have called the greatest American of all. Unknown to nearly everyone, he is responsible for bringing the green revolution to most of the world and saving more lives than anyone in history with his ideas for growing food.

    There was one place in the world where Borlaug had not succeeded in creating the green revolution but was currently trying to do so. Guess where and and guess who was fighting him on this project?

    This has nothing to do with James Watson but is indicative on how certain groups think.

  12. By the way I recommend people read DNA, the book by Watson. It is an excellent account of the history of the finding and subsequent science associated with DNA including the human genome. But in it you will see this so called perceptive scientist blindly hail evolutionary theory. I got the feeling Watson was a committed atheist from reading the book and subsequently saw this verified in other places.

  13. To lotf:

    Think about our own law system. If murder being illegal is the only thing holding back those who are sincerely planning a homicide, I would be very worried. Said individuals would probably go ahead with it anyway. But one usually doesn’t think, “Oh, the law says I can’t do it, too bad.” Rather, one has an intrinsic knowing of its egregiousness. This is speculative, yes, but do you think our most fundamental ethical principles are something we’ve learned from what our government has written down on paper?

    So why have the law against murder, then? One could come up with many reasons, but without it we would probably have the deranged acting horribly without retribution, for we’d have nothing to charge against them. Or it can serve as a barrier for those who actually think they’re justified (i.e. Raskolnikov) in killing another. Yes, I know Raskolnikov did murder anyway, but he also, fearing being caught, suffered through hellish paranoia afterwards.

    Point is, I doubt people behave in certain ways “because God said so.” Rather, God’s word could be viewed as an ethical primer of the image we are created in.

  14. That makes evolution no less true.

    But many Darwinists are apparently choosing their theory for its implications, not for its ultimate truth. Exposing ALL of its implications may force them to reexamine the truth more dispassionately.

    Of course the same thing could be said about IDists or Creationists. But unlike Darwinists, design-believers have presented their worldviews for scrutiny for thousands of years. There are no “trade secrets” of Theism, something which cannot be said of Darwinism.

  15. I would like to point out the fact that Genetic Entropy (devolution) is apparent in human races from Africans!

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....073157.htm

    Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”

    (SHHHH, don’t tell the more evolved (master race) scientists they actually have less information than Africans!

    Also I recently found that Genetic Entropy is noticeable in ancient 40,000 year old human DNA.
    http://www.godandscience.org/e.....ional.html

    A quote of Special Note from the article!
    The authors concluded that the “loss” of the ancient mtDNA variation seen in ancient Australian could explain how Neanderthals do not share mtDNA with modern humans.

    Although I am not intimately familiar with this ancient DNA study they are analyzing, I am very confident this evidence they are talking about will strictly conform to the principle of Genetic Entropy (devolution) and will be discernible as the loss of genetic diversity as human races have adapted away from the parent species!

  16. @Berceuse

    It’s not the law that holds people back it’s our nature, humans are social creatures that live in groups where some behaviour, murder for instance, is considered taboo or outright wrong.

    I guess you would be saying this nature comes from the creator? It’s possible I guess but after reading the Bible I get the impression that Yahweh is quite the opposite, He kills and murders for half the book at least. Is it do as I say not as I do?

  17. @bornagain77

    What parent species have the human ‘races’ adapted ‘away’ from?

  18. We should be able to lock these darwinoid loonies up! They’re advocating genocide. Jim Watson is using hate speech, and should be charged as such (no less than the men at Jasper, TX).

    Not to mention in prison, the darwinists might find God, and finally understand intelligent design.

  19. Watson’s comments clearly show he does not know the literature on human intelligence, and is way out of his depth scientifically. His is a peculiar kind of arrogance that trusts in his own infallibility. If you look, you’ll find that the scientific community is pretty unanimous in its condemnation of Watson in this case (see today’s posting at Pharyngula for one, and links to more).

  20. @lotf

    humans are social creatures that live in groups where some behaviour, murder for instance, is considered taboo or outright wrong

    So is it wrong? According to Darwinism our ‘nature’ is responsible for a lot of things, like murder itself! So on what basis do we decide which of these natural urges are ok and which aren’t?

  21. LOTF etc:

    First, let us note that BA77, in 16, has put his finger on a gaping hole in the racist case against Africans [and BTW, do I come across as mentally deficient and moronic . . . this kinda gets personal now! ;-) ]:

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations . . . . Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”

    Second, on the side-point raised, where do you think binding moral claims and outrage over perceived violations comes from? (Relative to non-theistic worldviews . . . and noting that when we quarrel we hold others to the expectation that they will acknowledge the binding nature of moral obligation. Since this blog is not about theology, I won’t take you up in details on your assertions about the God of the Bible. Just let’s note that the balance of the case is arguably not what your summary polemics implies. For a start, have a look here.)

    Here’s a hint, on the source for the core moral teaching that underlies our law codes, from Locke’s citation of the magisterial C 16 – 17 Anglican Theologian Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity in his 2nd Essay on Civil Govt:

    . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant. [Ch 2 Section 5, cf. discussion in Rom 2:6 - 15, 13:8 - 10 etc]

    Mr Watson’s worldview impels him and otehrs to rejectt he notion of a common human nature, which immediately flows formt eh understanding that we are made by God in his image.

    The direct result is precisely to undermine morality and much else besides.

    So, I go with Russ in 15:

    But many Darwinists are apparently choosing their theory for its implications, not for its ultimate truth. Exposing ALL of its implications may force them to reexamine the truth more dispassionately.

    Finally but one, I observe: I treat others with respect (if they deserve to be treated so) because it makes sense for me to live without confrontation.

    What of the situation where one has such disproportionate power that there is no threat of effective confrontation? [See where we get Darwinism as an ideological prop for genocide at the hands of the Stalins and Hitlers of this world from?]

    Which brings out the Judaeo-Christian rebuttal tot he idea that You don’t need Yahweh to tell you how to act.

    As say Rom 2:6 – 15 highlights, you have an intuitive morality in you as an endowment from God, the one we call in some guises conscience guided by right reason, and in others, the candle of the Lord.

    THAT is why we recognise that we are bound by moral principle, and it is why we are capable of right reason too. Just go back over the recent thread [Aug 20 was it, on humourously Quote-mining Darwin on ID]; where it came out very plainly that Evo Mat cannot ground the credibility of the mind or the binding nature of morality.

    So, it has a major and indeed self referentially incoherent explanatory gap in its claim to be an account of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans.

    GEM of TKI

  22. Jason Rennie wrote:
    “I think it is good when Darwinists like Watson some out and speak the truth as they see it.”

    I agree. If you’re going to talk the talk, then walk the walk. Darwinism leads to this type of thinking, and any Darwinist who says otherwise either doesn’t believe his own beloved theory or doesn’t understand its implications.

  23. lotf you asked,

    What parent species have the human ‘races’ adapted ‘away’ from?

    The parent HUMAN species is what has been adapted away from!!!!

    Dr. Behe asserted that the Edge of Evolution is somewhere between orders and species, and due to the varying definition for the morphology of all animal groups this is probably the best definition for the current state of scientific evidence of how animals have been classified.

    Yet, because of the inherent interest in studying human origins, science now has enough genetic evidence, besides the morphological evidence, to solidly infer that Humans are a unique species that has indeed been created separate from the over-arching Homo group. That is to say, that information is required, by a preponderance of the available evidence, to have been inserted at a “Adam and Eve” level, yet I believe the information is at a earlier date than is currently given by popular biblical definition!

    The current state of science has humans migrating out of Africa 50,000 years ago. Current African populations have more Genetic information as well, it is east to see they have more information for skin color, (in material, black contains all the information of the other colors) (I also argue more information for shape as evidenced by the vast diversity of African populations in size)

    In this study for ancient Austrailian DNA we have clear evidence of Genetic Entropy being obeyed!:
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....rtid=33358
    Of special note:
    Adcock et al. (7) clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years, the ancient mtDNA clearly does not, providing an excellent example of why the history of any particular locus or DNA sequence does not necessarily represent the history of a population. Adcock et al.’s (7

    And this analysis of the preceding study
    http://www.godandscience.org/e.....ional.html

    points out that the range of the 40,000 year old mtDNA is within the range of modern humans.

    Thus we have hard proof of the loss of information and also have hard proof that the genetic variation is within the range of modern humans!

    Neat Huh?

    As well the evolutionary theory requires a lot of Genetic “juggling” in order to avoid problems with inbreeding and with the number of deleterious mutations they are required to generate in order to get the “hypothetical beneficial ones they need!

    The figure of 100,000-300,000 generations is given by evolutionists since monkey and man split, and let’s even give the evolutionists the benefit of a doubt and say that the ancient genome was only halfway between modern man and chimps (1% of 3.5 x 10^9 = 35 x 10^6), then .5 times 35 x 10^6 equals 17.5 x 10^6 beneficial SNP that are required to be generated for man to exist in the evolutionary scenario of the top limit of 3 x 10^5 generations given by evolutionists between monkey-like ancestor and man. Thus approx. 18 x 10^6 divided by 3 x10^5 equals 6 x 10^1 = 60 beneficial SNP required per generation..

    Yet even using the evolutionists low end estimate for deleterious mutations of 999 out of 1000, we find that 60,000 total mutations are required per generation to even generate the 60 beneficial ones they are required to have for a successful evolutionary scenario.

    That, my friend, is a lot of “required” genetic “juggling” within the 2000 generations between the ancient Australian and the modern Aborigine.

    Yet once again the hard evidence has betrayed the materialist/evolutionist!!!!!

  24. I think what needs to be kept in mind here is there’s more than enough variance within same-race or same-gender groups to make it unreasonable to render judgements about individuals via statistical characteristics of the large group.

    The kerfluffle about which race has the highest average IQ is ridiculous. How many of you happen to know that east asians have a higher average IQ than caucasions? Yet a few thousand caucasions who travelled thousands of miles in rickety wooden sailing ships dominated hundreds of millions of east asians for much of recent history. So much for what a slightly higher IQ gets you in the real world, eh?

    For me the proof of the pudding is always in the tasting. In the world today one nation stands head and shoulders above all others in economic and military acheivement. And guess what – it’s the nation with the most racial diversity in its population and individual equality codified into its laws. Never argue with success.

    Serving four years in the United States Marine Corps opened up my eyes to the truth that racial features are no measure of a man. Heart, courage, honor, and brotherhood formed by common values and goals are what counts and I’m happy to report that people of all races, ethnic categories, and religious belief can display these virtues in great abundance working side by side. Focus on what unites us not what divides us.

  25. [...] this scenerio, you have design detection without identifying the designer, or knowing how it was… DaveScot: I think what needs to be kept in mind here is there’s more than enough variance within [...]

  26. “In the world today one nation stands head and shoulders above all others in economic and military acheivement.” (sic)

    All together now: We are number one! We are number one!

    Wait . . . I hope you don’t mean . . . Switzerland?

  27. I’d like to hear anyone’s comments on the following study and how it relates to the IQ of different races ( and even between genders ) :

    ———————————–

    http://www.libreopinion.com/me.....ace06.html

    In his epic book, The Story of Man, Professor Carleton S. Coon (former President of the American Association of Anthropologists) wrote that the weight of the average Black brain is 1249 grams, compared to the weight of 1380 grams of the average White brain, and that the average cubic capacity of the Black brain is 1316 cubic centimeters, and was 1481 cubic centimeters in the White Man. He also found that brain weight and size is greatest in Whites, with Orientals second, Blacks third, and Australian aborigines last. The differences in brain size between the races is in large part due to the differing sizes and shapes of the skull. Any anatomist, for example, can look at a skull and instantly tell you if it belongs to the White or Black race, and this is born out by the fact that when a person’s body is found, that person’s race can be determined even if it is completely decomposed and only the skeleton is remaining. The Black skull is narrow with a low forehead. It is not only smaller but is thicker than that of the average White. The hardness and thickness of the Black skull has much to do with their success as boxers, for they can generally absorb more blows to the head than their White counterparts. The area of the brain termed the cerebral cortex is the most recently evolved and most complex part of the brain. It governs the most advanced types of mental activity, such as mathematical ability and other forms of abstract reasoning. Dr. Coon wrote that there is a considerable difference between the Black brain and the White. The frontal lobe of the Black forebrain is less developed than that of the White. Thus, their ability in the performance of thinking, planning, communication, and behavior is more limited than in Whites. Professor Coon also found that this area of the Black brain is thinner and less grooved on the outer surface than in that of a White person, and that the development of this part of the brain ceases at an earlier age in the Black, thus limiting further intellectual advancement. Nor is Dr. Coon alone in his conclusions. The following researchers, in the listed years, using different procedures, showed the differences to run from 2.6 to 7.9% in favor of Whites: Todd (1923), Pearl (1934), Simmons (1942), and Connolly (1950). In 1980, Khang-cheng Ho and associates, working at the Case Western Institute of Pathology, determined that White men had brains 8.2% larger than those of Black men, while White women had brains 8.1% larger than those of Black women. (Women’s brains are smaller than men’s if measured absolutely, but larger in proportion to their body size).
    Back to top

  28. @mattghg
    So on what basis do we decide which of these natural urges are ok and which aren’t?

    Society decides, you shouldn’t look to a description of reality for moral guidance.

    Do you think it’s Ok to own people, keep slaves? I would hope not yet I can’t find anything in the Bible telling me it’s wrong to own slaves, can you?

  29. “Do you think it’s Ok to own people, keep slaves? I would hope not yet I can’t find anything in the Bible telling me it’s wrong to own slaves, can you?”

    The Biblical line is that it’s ok if they are from neighboring countries, but not your own (see Leviticus 25:44).

  30. @kairosfocus

    Firstly I believe in a higher power, in fact I believe Yahweh exists. I don’t worship Him however, I have read the Bible and he’s a monster.

    What of the situation where one has such disproportionate power that there is no threat of effective confrontation?

    Like Yawweh deciding to kill every man, woman and child on the planet apart from a drunkard’s family?

    it came out very plainly that Evo Mat cannot ground the credibility of the mind or the binding nature of morality.
    I’m new here and don’t visit often so I missed that but it begs the question where do other primates get their morality from do you think?

  31. RE: I don’t worship Him however, I have read the Bible and he’s a monster.

    If this same YHWH gave these people life and human life is His to give, I don’t see why it is a problem if He takes it away. It would be a problem if you or I did it, but why would be a problem if YHWH did it ?
    He gives, he preserves and He takes away. Thus it has always been.

  32. @bornagain77

    I don’t follow a lot of what you’re saying so i’d like to ask a couple of questions which may help if you don’t mind.

    it is east to see they have more information for skin color, (in material, black contains all the information of the other colors)

    How does black contain all the information of the other colours? When I get a tan (and I go from a light brown colour to almost black) have I gained information?

    we find that 60,000 total mutations are required per generation to even generate the 60 beneficial ones they are required to have for a successful evolutionary scenario.

    Can you let me know where your figures are from to make this calculation? Thanks, this does seem an issue.

  33. “Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

    Looks like Watson is reasoning correctly IF Darwinism were true.

    Amazing how so many very intelligent people can be, at the same time, such educated fools.

    LOTF: “Society decides, you shouldn’t look to a description of reality for moral guidance.”

    That is pure tripe. Society decides based on what foundation? Personal opinion? Subjective feelings? What?

    No one can invent moral values. They are all based on absolute, objective values.
    Try to invent a new moral value. You cannot.

    If society decides the rape of children is ok, is it? Sodom had decided such. They deserved to be destroyed.

    “Do you think it’s Ok to own people, keep slaves? I would hope not yet I can’t find anything in the Bible telling me it’s wrong to own slaves, can you?”

    You mis-read the bible on all hands and seriously need a course in biblical interpretation, historicity, and it’s cultural-historical contexts.

    Slavery in the bible was more like employment than your recent history slavery such Americans practiced towards blacks. In fact the word is often interchangeable with servant or even employee. Too bad you didn’t do your homework huh, or you would’ve known that.

    “I don’t worship Him however, I have read the Bible and he’s a monster.”

    Ah yes, another who has read the bible without any understanding of historical context or cultural context. And worse, without any serious reasoning – and then judges and accuses God of evil based on his own ignorance and bad interpretations.

    “every man … on the planet …drunkards family”? Surely you jest!
    I’ve seen worse clap trap than this but yours is up high on the list of stupid interpretations.

    1. The charges against the God of the bible are, and always have been, the same over the centuries. Cruelty, killing, injustice etc.
    These charges have been answered over and over again ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. Perhaps you should at least try to find some of those answers. There are tons of sites that deal with those very issues, many do so intelligently.

    2. If God gave mankind it’s moral sense – which the bible clearly states – then how could the same God act contrarily to those very moral sentiments that allow man to judge moral issues?

    i.e. men are mistaken and use clouded judgment whenever they attempt to judge God as you have. He is not on trial. You are.

    3. If God deems it morally correct to kill, under specific circumstances (just like we do), then as creator, he must necessarily have both the moral authority and the right motive for doing so.

    In your example (Noah) we clearly see that “every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil and that continuously” (btw Noah only got drunk after the flood). So why should not a creator have authority to remove such a corrupt race from wherever?

    By what objective moral principle do we have the right to judge God for destroying what he made?

    As great executive magistrate of the universe it is both his right and duty to do so when that morally endowed race becomes auto-destructive and a menace to order. And such action would keep moral the spreading of selfishness (and thus suffering) throughout the world.

    4. The Canaanites, for another example, were notoriously known for their disgusting practices in idolatry – state endorsed prostitution, child sacrifice, incestuous, homosexual and pedophilic state endorsed religious rites and the list goes on.

    You need to do your homework before spewing forth venom against things you have so small an understanding of.

  34. Lotf,

    When you tan did your genome pick up information for your original skin color? In short, No it did not.

    We are talking about information that is already present in the parent species genome.

    It is commonly known that the black color, when referring to a material object, is a mixture of all the other colors combined,,,whereas it is also commonly known that white light is a mixture of all the other colors combined when referring to light!

    The figure of 100,000-300,000 generations is given by evolutionists themselves, since monkey and man split.

    1% difference between man and chimp genome is approx. equal to 35 x 10^6 35,000,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) difference

    1/2 that is = 17.5 x 10^6

    so approx. 18 X 10^6 SNPs divided by 3 x 10^5 (300,000) generations equals 6 x 10^1 = 60 SNP per generation average required for successful evolutionary scenario.

    Evolutionists grudgingly admit that at least 999 out of 1000 SNP to DNA will be deleterious before any “hypothetical” beneficial SNP will occur.

    thus, 60 Beneficial SNP x 1000 Total SNP required = 60,000 SNP required to generate the average of Beneficial SNP required per generation for chimp like ancestor to reach man.

    40,000 year old human fossil, at average of 20 years per generation = 2000 generations of humans since ancient Australian lived.

    Thus, unless evolution came to a complete stop, 80 million SNP have been required to be generated since the ancient Australian lived.

    Evolutionists do a song and dance about genetic or mutational drift to get around the obvious implications of genetic entropy and “mutational load” revealed by inbreeding and the deleterious mutation rate itself. Yet the ancient Australian, though required by the evolutionary scenario to have a significant (detectable) amount of “mutational drift” from modern humans in 40,000 years is still found within human range for genome variability when compared to modern Aborigine.

  35. lotf, Seekandfind, Borne, and others,

    I’d be best if this discussion does not turn into a Luciferian vs Christian religious debate. If you want to have such a debate I suggest you keep it to private emails. Thanks.

  36. Firstly I’d like to apologise for this hijack.

    Now then:

    @Borne
    Society decides [morals] based on what foundation?

    What works basically, a society that is founded on destructive principles will not survive.

    If society decides the rape of children is ok, is it? Sodom had decided such. They deserved to be destroyed.

    A society that decides rape of children is Ok will not last long. I consider it wrong of course what sane man wouldn’t?
    To Sodom – didn’t Lot allow the men who came for the angels to rape his daughters? I don’t remember the passage that condems Lot’s behaviour, could you point it out for me?

    Slavery in the bible was more like employment than your recent history slavery such Americans practiced towards blacks

    So a slave could choose not to work for his\her master? They could change masters? Do you have a cite for this? I have studied Roman history and this is not how the Romans saw their slaves for sure, they were property.

    We have different moral codes then, to me ‘owning’ someone is abhorant, every man should be born free and equal.

    Ah yes, another who has read the bible without any understanding of historical context or cultural context.

    Wow you got that from one sentence? Impressive. If a tad nasty, you Christians…

    If God deems it morally correct to kill, under specific circumstances (just like we do), then as creator, he must necessarily have both the moral authority and the right motive for doing so.

    I’m sorry but the killing of children can never be morally justified in my opinion, we’ll have to disagree on that one. This is why I choose not to worship him, quite the opposite.

    You need to do your homework before spewing forth venom against things you have so small an understanding of.

    Thanks for the advice, if you could supply me with the passages condeming Lot that would be a great start don’t you think?

  37. @Patrick

    Sorry I posted before I had seen your post.

    I shall stay on track now.

  38. correction: this statement:
    Thus, unless evolution came to a complete stop, 80 million SNP have been required to be generated since the ancient Australian lived.

    should read:

    Thus, unless evolution came to a complete stop, (2000 x 60,000) 120 million SNP have been required to be generated since the ancient Australian lived.

  39. @bornagain77

    It is commonly known that the black color, when referring to a material object, is a mixture of all the other colors combined,,,whereas it is also commonly known that white light is a mixture of all the other colors combined when referring to light!

    Sorry still lost me, it’s a scientific fact that white light is a combination of colours, what does material object colour combined (to paraphrase) actually mean? Colour is just different wavelenghts of light.

    To the numbers – aren’t you including all differences in your calculation and not just the beneficial changes?

  40. If you mix red, yellow, and blue paint !(the three primary colors for a material object) you will get the black color,,,Thus the all the information for color, when talking about a MATERIAL object is in the black color…Is this clear enough for you?”

    The calculations I used, are just “back of napkin” figures to give me a ballpark figure at what the evolutionary scenario is required to generate,,,

    The main point of the whole post was that the genome lost information!!!!

    to reiterate the main point:

    Of special note:
    Adcock et al. (7) clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years, the ancient mtDNA clearly does not, providing an excellent example of why the history of any particular locus or DNA sequence does not necessarily represent the history of a population. Adcock et al.’s

    particularly this :
    clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human,

    This is losing mtDNA information instead of gaining it,,,,and believe me lotf,,,if they would of found totally new mtDNA sequences, instead of a lost mtDNA sequence, the “proof of evolution” would have been paraded on every newspaper headline and science magazine cover in America!

  41. [...] Fury at DNA pioneer’s theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really” By Cahal Milmo Published: 17 October 2007 Comment/link at Uncommon Descent [...]

  42. “It might be “commendable” to be honest, like Watson has, about what Darwinism really means. But if he genuinely embraces this ideology without a shred of ethical objection…that’s just revolting.”

    I agree his behavior is revolting. I would not use the word commendable to describe it. But it is refreshing that he is willing to be honest unlike so many of his cohort.

    It is the honesty that is a good thing not the opinion itself.

  43. “We should be able to lock these darwinoid loonies up! They’re advocating genocide. Jim Watson is using hate speech, and should be charged as such (no less than the men at Jasper, TX).”

    Although I think hate speech laws are truly evil things, I must say that I agree with this sentiment in part.

    If these sorts of idiotic laws are on the books then they need to be applied equally.

    At least if there were either they would quickly get off the books, always good to see bad laws removed, or else at least the true face of much of Darwinism would come to light.

  44. “Do you think it’s Ok to own people, keep slaves? I would hope not yet I can’t find anything in the Bible telling me it’s wrong to own slaves, can you?”

    Actually there is plenty you just need to know enough cultural background to understand what is going on, especially give the slavery in the OT is not the chattel slavery of the American South that was a catalyst towards the American Civil War.

  45. “Firstly I believe in a higher power, in fact I believe Yahweh exists. I don’t worship Him however, I have read the Bible and he’s a monster”

    Maybe you need to actually do the hard work and stop reading it like it was a newspaper written yesterday for your personal consumption and not ancient documents written to people in a different culture and place.

    Sure that takes some hard work and thinking, but that seems preferable to this knee jerk ignorance you display don’t you think ?

  46. If you mix red, yellow, and blue paint !(the three primary colors for a material object) you will get the black color,,,Thus the all the information for color, when talking about a MATERIAL object is in the black color…Is this clear enough for you?”
    I finally understand what you mean, my apologies for the tardiness.
    But I don’t agree. By saying all the information for colours are in black material objects implies that one can ‘produce’ all the colours from black. From a beam of white light and a prism one can produce all the colours, what is the equivalent for black material objects? If this can’t be done how can you state that the ‘information for color is in the black color’?

  47. @Jason Rennie
    Sure that takes some hard work and thinking, but that seems preferable to this knee jerk ignorance you display don’t you think ?

    Ok help me out – where in the bible is Lot condemed for giving his virgin daughters’ to strangers so that they can rape them?

  48. We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

  49. “Ok help me out – where in the bible is Lot condemed for giving his virgin daughters’ to strangers so that they can rape them?”

    Do your own leg work. You should probably start by not again assuming the biblical text is a newspaper written to you yesterday. Your comment indicates that you are still doing this.

  50. Lotf;
    You are confusing black material with white light.

    White light has the inherent ability (information) to produce all the colors of its own accord, when it is properly separated, whereas a black material object has the inherent ability (information) to reflect all the colors of its own accord, when it is likewise properly separated .

    That is why it is proper to say a black material object has more inherent information for color than any other color material object!

    That is why I can draw a solid inference from the proven greater genetic diversity of Africans to their skin color also, both have been scientifically proven to have more information!

    Is this clear enough for you now?

  51. “The main point of the whole post was that the genome lost information!!!!”

    I wonder if we could look at the number of mutations, and compare them with old skeletons to get a genetic clock of when the fall took place (I think we can all agree the pre-Fall genome was perfect). Seems to me it would be more accurate than the back-of-the-napkin calculations used by backtracking all the begats in Genesis.

  52. 52

    In the world today one nation stands head and shoulders above all others in economic and military acheivement. And guess what – it’s the nation with the most racial diversity in its population and individual equality codified into its laws. Never argue with success.

    Bravo DaveScot, well said.

    If I could only add one thing, pertaining to the issue of ID and evolutionism, I would add that this country is also great because of the freedoms that we enjoy. Foremost amongst those freedoms is freedom of speech and the freedom to think as one wishes. The current Darwinista has tried to usurp this power by denying ID science advocates the right to have their say. They seek to deny us our freedoms and suppress scientific advancement. These actions could have dire consequences for this nation.

  53. Nochange,
    I really don’t know if they can extract the DNA of a complete Genome from ancient bone fragments,,,I think they seem to be limited to extracting mtDNA from ancient bone fossils.
    It would be really cool if they could, we could really prove a lot ID-wise if we could get our hands on that type of crushing evidence!!!

  54. bornagain77,

    It’s nice to see that you are writing up the paper before the evidence is in. I think the correct answer is

    “It would be really cool if they could. Maybe then we could increase our knowledge of the situation and let the results lead us to a compatible theory”

  55. Leo,
    The fossil record, the practically 100% case of detrimental mutations to DNA and the principle of Genetic Entropy everywhere I look make the case rock solid for ID,, the only thing that remains is to overturn the highly suggestive similarities found between genomes!
    The evolutionary perspective has completely overlooked the foundational principles of science that rule out a evolutionary scenario..Yet they stubbornly hang on to superficial scientific credibility through the shallow inferences they are able to make through these similarities…Man is making great strides through projects like ENCODE,,the time is indeed short for the alchemy of evolution! Whether evolutionists like them apples or not!!!!

  56. @bornagain77

    White light has the inherent ability (information) to produce all the colors of its own accord, when it is properly separated, whereas a black material object has the inherent ability (information) to reflect all the colors of its own accord, when it is likewise properly separated .

    Ok so tell me how I can get the information for cyan from a black material object? Black absorbs light not reflects it btw, that’s why it’s black.

    That is why I can draw a solid inference from the proven greater genetic diversity of Africans to their skin color also, both have been scientifically proven to have more information!

    You must be using some definition of information that I am unfamiliar with, could you quantify it for me please?

  57. @professorsmith

    The current Darwinista has tried to usurp this power by denying ID science advocates the right to have their say.

    I have no idea what you mean by Darwinista but how can you seriously say ID science advocates are being denied their say writing on a blog that advocates ID science?

    I think we have to move away from propogating a myth that ID science is being surpressed and on to producing papers and evidence to back up the ID case.

  58. @Jason Rennie

    Do your own leg work. You should probably start by not again assuming the biblical text is a newspaper written to you yesterday. Your comment indicates that you are still doing this.

    In the face of such Chrsitian charity I find it tough to ask another question, you have blessed me with enough of your time I’m sure.

    But anyway, how do you see Lot’s behaviour, is it moral do you think to hand your children over to a gang to be raped?

  59. Lotf,
    Cyan (from Greek ??????, meaning “blue”) may be used as the name of any of a number of a range of colors in the blue/green part of the spectrum.

    lotf,
    excuse my poor choice of words , but color is really not that difficult of a concept to understand.

    Red, yellow, Blue are the primary colors! black is obtained in paint (a material object) by combining these three colors, subtract (or more easily do not add) the proper amounts of blue/yellow absorbing paint (material) to obtain the proper shade of cyan you want!

    It is so simple a child can see it, black is a combination of all other colors for a material object.

    I don’t know if you are really this ignorant, but from reading your post with others, I have a feeling you are not ignorant, but just enjoy being difficult for the sake of being difficult, because you have some sort of ax to grind with your “religious” concept of God!
    If this is truly the case, I can assure you that your triviality and pettiness is not appreciated by myself or others on this site.

  60. LOTF:

    It is now very clear that you know that this blog is not along the lines you are trying to pull the debates.

    Were it so, I would answer you point by point. But, for excellent reason, it is not — and you know that. Just to exemplify [pardon Patrick, IMHCO, LOTF needs to know that there are in fact reasonable answers to his sort of Village Atheist objections], in the case you just identified:

    –> In the context, Lot was in a semi-backslidden, compromising condition so his behaviour is not to be regarded as an example of upright conduct — just as JR spoke of.

    –> Lot had just tried to intervene to save some visitors to the city from probable rape by many of the men of the city by offering them shelter under his roof [instead of their staying overnight in the open in the Market], and faced a confrontation with an angry crowd on his getting on a high horse to “lecture” to them on their blatant immorality and out of control sensuality — especially since he was a mere immigrant.

    –> Now, his offer of hospitality under ANE culture imposed an obligation of defence to the point of death if needs be; and he was trying to carry it out in light of ANE common practices, in an impossible situation of facing probable massacre of his whole family and the guests by an enraged crowd. (NB: By his earlier self-centred, material prosperity based choices, he put himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Guess why I have utterly no desire to emigrate with my own family to today’s No 1 parallel to that ancient cesspool of evil, regardless of the material prosperity that would ensue?)

    –> In the wider background, the city — its cup of iniquity brimming over — was under imminent threat of judgement of destruction, and God was intervening to save what was savable out of it; having interacted through intercessory prayer with the better [but far from perfect] example of godly conduct in the account, Abraham, in which there was not enough of a remnant left in the city that made it worth saving. (Cf here key parallels to the situation I linked in 22 above.)

    –> The account then goes on to further misadventures by Lot, which show just how corrupted he and his family had become during their sojourn in that proverbial city of bright lights and out-of-control sensuality. (Hint, hint . . .)

    In short, were there time and space, and were this the proper focus of this blog, your shopping list of objections could be reasonably answered: through speaking uncomfortable, unwelcome truth to power.

    [NB: You may find Gleason Archer's well-known work on Bible Difficulties a good place to start if/when you really want serious answers. There are also entire major and quite good web sites that deal with the sort of question you are asking, if you are sufficiently open-minded to do a simple web search.]

    But, you also know from 36 – 38 above that your behaviour constitutes a “hijack” [your term] attempt is based on knowing the rules but insisting on putting up such “rationalist” polemics.

    Your insistent hijacking/ diversionary and atmosphere- poisoning behaviour at this site is therefore, sadly, inexcusable.

    For instance, I must note that you evidently have not even bothered to follow up the link I gave in 22 above, which would address a major bloc of your concerns and would give you enough background to see what is going on in the background that Jason and others have been trying to point you to. That sort of pattern of rushing on to the “next objection” without acknowledging the relevance of an earlier response is on long experience telling — sadly so.

    What is more (given the wider context of debates over ID and certain common slanders), you are probably also trying to — by pushing for a “hijack” into such matters — provide “evidence” for the slander that the design inference is an “improper” injection of “religion” into the realms of “science.”

    All of which on the evidence of recent developments addressed in the blog, promotes the kind of usurpation of power by utterly uncivil and even tyrannical agendas tied to evolutionary materialist views.

    Here, I note by citing from the above, how Mr Watson’s racism is simply yet another playing out of the inner absurdities of this view. Cf. his remark, that There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.

    In fact, on the evidence, there is no good ground for us to accept that Evo Mat is capable of accounting for the emergence of a credible mind or grounding the binding nature of morality. In short, it is inescapably self-referentially absurd and so necessarily false.

    GEM of TKI

  61. @bornagain77
    It is so simple a child can see it, black is a combination of all other colors for a material object.

    I don’t dispute this at all what I dispute is that black contains all the ‘information’ for the other colours. If I have black paint how can I get cyan for example? If black paint contains cyan (and in colour theory black is a combination of cyan, yellow and magenta) how can I get cyan paint from black paint? If you can’t it doesn’t contain the information for cyan does it?

    I don’t know if you are really this ignorant, but from reading your post with others, I have a feeling you are not ignorant, but just enjoy being difficult for the sake of being difficult, because you have some sort of ax to grind with your “religious” concept of God!
    If this is truly the case, I can assure you that your triviality and pettiness is not appreciated by myself or others on this site.

    I’m sorry if you see it this way I am honestly trying to understand. Answer my question above and that may get us back on track I hope.

  62. PS: Now that my troublesome web access over the past several days is working a tad better [yet another ICT headache! Add to that the firetruck that overturned at the local airport Monday, leading to the loss of air access by the 19 seater puddle-jumper . . . the "joys" of living in paradise! But then when I look across at my favourite treasure on mornings, she is well worth it!!! (Atom, I just may got you beat . . .)], here is a useful link on difficulties and much more.

    PPS: On defining race; this was done in the earlier thread on Dawkins’ antisemitic remarks. Go look up the Oxford English Dictionary or another credible source — this is not a serious objection; and we are not so ignorant, stupid insane or wicked that we can’t google or yahoo a word.

    BA 77 is dead right that LOTF you — sadly — are coming across as arrogant, conceited and superciliously contemptuous while being in fact willfully ignorant [or too lazy to look up on Google or Yahoo] and/or simply wanting to be difficult. Please, fix this.

  63. @kairosfocus

    I no longer wish to derail this discussion with bible talk, my apologies if I have offended you.

    I asked about race on the other discussion shall we take this up there?

  64. lotf you asked,
    If black paint contains cyan (and in colour theory black is a combination of cyan, yellow and magenta) how can I get cyan paint from black paint? If you can’t it doesn’t contain the information for cyan does it?

    Paint is a extremely difficult medium to work with as far as separating to a proper color, so let’s use a computer program for our example of separating colors, There are two options for the way you can set up the computer program for separating colors. One is to set up the program as if all the information is in the white color. The method of dealing with colors is called additive color mixing.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g.....ol.html#c1

    The other way is to set up the program as if all the information is in the black color. This method of dealing with colors is called subtractive color mixing.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g.....ol.html#c1

    These are the only two options for setting up the computer program, that is if you want a full range of colors for your program. If the computer program is set up on the material basis of how color acts (subtractive color mixing), the computer program will be encoded with information for each of the primary colors of black (cyan, magenta, yellow) and add them to one another to get from a completely white (background) screen to a completely black (colored) screen. Subtract from some or all of the information you have for any or each of the primary colors you have for black in the computer program to get to the desired color you want between black and white. Subtract all the information for each primary color to get to a white (background) screen.
    Whereas, if the program is set up for white light having all the information (additive color mixing), the computer program would have all the information for the primary colors for white light (blue, red, green) encoded in its program. Add all the primary colors up and you will get a white screen. Like-wise subtract any or all of the information for the primary colors you have for white to get to any color you want between white and black. Subtract all primary colors to get to the black (background) screen!

    Thus, my assertion that the African Race has more information for color stands upon the scientific principle of subtractive color mixing!

    lotf, If this is not clear enough for you to understand I’m sorry.

    I could probably get a lot more technical with the subject, but I see very limited benefit from going any further into the details, and my patience for explaining this subject to you is shot.

  65. lotf is no longer with us

  66. (Atom, I just may got you beat . . .)

    :D

    Obviously his cup of blessing doesn’t run dry…he can bless all and still have more to give.

  67. [...] Here’s a post criticizing him from the religious perspective, which I found rather [...]

  68. DaveScot: “lotf is no longer with us”

    thanks, it becomes nauseating trying to reason against arrogant ignorance and poor logic.

  69. I could probably get a lot more technical with the subject

    Bornagain77, you have a gift for cranking out the prose. Please tell me you work the night shift. Because, I’d hate to think we are benefiting from your detailed treatises while you are on the clock!

  70. rrf,
    No sir, I write on my own time. But my job doesn’t chew up that much of my time, so I have time to research, read and write on ID. A subject that has captured my interest, to put it mildly.

  71. 71

    Alas, lotf is no longer with us, so this reply is rather belated, but in case he comes back:

    I have no idea what you mean by Darwinista but how can you seriously say ID science advocates are being denied their say writing on a blog that advocates ID science?

    That independent blogs have arisen to support ID does not mean the scientific establishment is not suppressing it. Look no further than the cases of Sternberg or Gonzalez for pertinent examples.

  72. Re skin colour:

    The skin contains specialised cells that produce melanin which is a black pigment. People who produce it very efficiently have black skin. European, Asian and Indo-American folk, produce it less efficiently. Albinos produce next to none.

    So all skin, hair and eye colours depend on how much melanin you produce. The information dictating how much melanin you are able to produce is in your DNA.

  73. Janice: Its not quite as simple as you think:

    Melanin comes in two types: pheomelanin (red) and eumelanin (dark brown to nearly black). Both amount and type are determined by four to six genes which operate under incomplete nce. One copy of each of those genes is inherited from the father and one from the mother. Each gene comes in several alleles, resulting in a great variety of different skin tones.

    Even if it was just a simple case of the efficiency of one melanin in the skin of people, I would still hold that it demonstrated less information for the younger descended races from Africans,and thus still conformed to genetic entropy…But as the case stands my inference to subtractive color mixing is strong and my case for the Genetic Entropy of skin color in younger human races is bolstered all the more!

  74. Yeah. I knew it was more complex than what I wrote but I thought that fellow was getting confused by the talk of paint and light etc.

    Of course I didn’t know it was quite as complex as you have described. One of these days I must read that book about genetic entropy.

  75. It seems to me that with the concept of Genetic entropy that we might expect certain groups of people to have important genes for say, intelligence, decay over time. That’s what we should expect if mutations accumulate from a common ancestor that was designed. Perhaps some populations decay faster than others?

Leave a Reply