…Continued

For example, one could ensure that a child grew up to be angry, and someone who probably scores low in IQ tests, by abusing them severely throughout their childhood, but their skin colour will remain the same.

<<There are clear examples in the animal world where genetic inheritance within species results in groups of organisms within particular environments possessing similar personalities and behaviour.>>

From species to species, sure. But humans are all one species.

<<You have stated that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture.>>

Correct.

<<That is a clear implication that nature and nurture affects behaviour in all organisms, either individuals or in groups.>>

Incorrect.

That behaviour is a product of nature and nurture says nothing about the extent to which it is heritable, particularly across large populations.

<<You claim that scientists [cannot] find any common ethnic personality traits as genetic.>>

As far as I know, that is correct, yes.

<<Arguably, the world's leading geneticist, James Watson, head of the prestigious Human Genome Project, got into the poo with the PC crowd for claiming that IQ and race are linked.>>

That’s because he had no evidence for his claim. This is an Appeal to Authority. That’s eleven fallacies now.

<<His HGP team were prevented by act of Congress to investigate the genetic alleles making people prone to criminal behaviour.>>

Gee, I wonder the racist old fool wants to do that? Could you link me to some further information please? I’d like to learn more about this incident.

<<Thanks to you, I have now done a bit more research and have discovered some more facts which I just can't wait to throw in your face.>>

Oh please, do share. Since you’re enjoying the research so much, here’s a few articles demonstrating why your racial theories are wrong:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Sternberg2/publication/8089268_Intelligence_Race_and_Genetics/links/09e4150d72eda62d14000000.pdf
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-60171.pdf
http://www.joelvelasco.net/teaching/3334/block99-how_heritability_misleads_about_race.pdf
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Rushton,%20J.%20Philippe%20%26%20Arthur%20R.%20Jensen.%20%22Thirty%20Years%20of%20Research%20on%20Race%20Differences%20in%20Cognitive%20Ability.%22%20Psychology,%20Public%20Policy,%20and%20Law%2011,%20no.%202%20(2005).pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreana_Haley/publication/8997472_Socioeconomic_status_modifies_heritability_of_IQ_in_young_children/links/0deec516b9271c1c48000000.pdf
http://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Lewontin-Jensen-Bulletin-of-the-Atomic-Scientists.pdf

I’ve had a look for some scholarly work supporting scientific racism, but couldn’t find any. Perhaps you could help me out?

Instances of emotive language: 12
Fallacies: 11

At the risk of being considered boastful, I can now state that I can fire 7 shots out of a muzzle loading gun faster than anyone can fire 7 from an Adler.

Does rather make the proposal that the Adler is really fast firing look as silly as it is.

Thank God you are back, AJ. I missed you. Nothing to do all weekend but read my new John Grisham novel. But I am off to work, so this is a quick post.

You know I am backing you into a corner, and now you are getting cute and playing dumb. (although, it may not be an act)

AJ tries to muddy the water.

"You’re confusing genetic influence with heritability."

And you are being deliberately obtuse. Your quote plainly advocates the position that genetics works (or functions) in individuals, but does not work (or function) with groups of individuals. If this is not what you meant, then bloody well tell us what you meant. If it is what you meant, then please explain how genetics can not work in groups of individuals.

AJ wrote

"As with the above, it would appear that the potential for the type of intelligence that IQ tests test for is heritable, yes. How do you know that the type of intelligence that IQ tests test for is the same type......."

Another red herring. Toss as many as you want, AJ, I am not going to be distracted. You really are getting desperate.

AJ wrote

"Here’s a question for you: what happens to people who have low IQs but a lot of common sense?"

Another red herring.

AJ wrote

"That behaviour is a product of nature and nurture says nothing about the extent to which it is heritable, particularly across large populations."

What kind of crazy logic is that? You acknowledge that behaviour is a product of both nature (genetics) and nurture, then imply that genetic derived behaviour is not heritable in large populations. Gee, that's funny. If a group of socially isolated human beings can evolve within a particular environment to have genetically heritable, similar physical appearances, and genetically heritable, similar physical abilities, and to have genetically heritable, similar susceptibility and non susceptibility to diseases and allergies, how is it genetics can not work (or function) to produce genetically heritable, similar IQ's and behaviour?

LEGO,

I like your choice of author, I'm reading 'The King of Torts' at present and have 'The Rainmaker' up next, the latter was $1 from the Salvos.

LEGO,

Given that you’re the only one here who has committed a fallacy (eleven of them, to be precise), I hardly see how you’re backing me into a corner.

<<Your quote plainly advocates the position that genetics works (or functions) in individuals, but does not work (or function) with groups of individuals.>>

That depends on what you mean by “works”. You still haven’t clarified this. “Functions” is just as vague. Apparently inconvenient details “muddy” the waters for your simplistic, black and white thinking.

<<If this is not what you meant, then bloody well tell us what you meant.>>

I’ll be glad to once you’ve clarified what you mean, but “works” has no useful scientific meaning. It’s too board.

<<Another red herring. Toss as many as you want, AJ, I am not going to be distracted.>>

No red herring or desperation on this side, LEGO. Apparently there is on yours, though. Another serious problem for your racial theories and you can’t answer it. They’re really stacking up now, aren’t they?

<<Another red herring.>>

If you’re just going to write off crucial questions as “red herrings”, then I may as well leave. But that’s exactly what you want, isn’t it? Do I have to start counting the number of questions you can’t answer too?

Again, what happens to people who have low IQs but a lot of common sense?

<<You acknowledge that behaviour is a product of both nature (genetics) and nurture …>>

Correct.

<<… then imply that genetic derived behaviour is not heritable in large populations.>>

More that its polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable. Then there’s 'genetic variability' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variability), which applies to all heritable traits to varying degrees.

<<If a group of socially isolated human beings can evolve within a particular environment to have genetically heritable, similar physical appearances …>>

I’ve already explained the difference here. You clearly haven’t read any of those articles either, have you? Still waiting on you to provide me with some.

Where are these fun facts you have for me too, by the way?

AJ wrote

"More that its polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable. Then there’s 'genetic variability' , which applies to all heritable traits to varying degrees."

There you go again, AJ. You first agree that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, and then you claim that nurture "drowns out" nature. That is a contradiction. Either behaviour is a product of nature AND nurture, or it is not. You can't agree that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, and then deny it.

How do you justify your self evident contradiction?

Oh, and please note, I am not going to pretend that I don't know what "drowns out" means, even though it is hardly a scientific term. Unlike yourself, I don't have to pretend that I don't understand plain English in order to dodge explaining what my own position is.

You're the corner now, aren't you, AJ? You have to support the premise that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, probably because it is in your university Criminology curriculum. So you can hardly deny it. But you are denying it. You need to deny it, even though you know it is a lie, because you know it validates my position. So first we get all of this mental gymnastics which are clearly contradictory, then comes "me no speaka da English." "Me no understand what "work" or "function" means?"

Hahaha.

If nurture "drowns out" nature, then your position must be, that behaviour is almost entirely a product of nurture. Is that what you "criminology" text books tell you, AJ? They don't, do they?. The concept of "nature versus nurture" in explaining behaviour goes back to the ancient Greeks. I found out about nature and nurture by reading my five Psychology text books, and even though Psychology is not quite Criminology, you have to understand psychology to be a criminologist.

So you are in the uncomfortable position of proposing a premise which your own text books would tell you is absolute nonsense.