Ophiolite

I completely agree with you. I would not want to put numbers on it, but many of the people who make this point are doubtless racist. My thesis is that if we assume all people who make the point are racist we are guilty of the same unthinking prejudices we suspect them of. If we set aside race, but speak rather in terms of populations then I should be surprised if there were not meaningful differences in intelligence and height and fast/slow muscle fibre ratios and susceptibility to liver cancer and....... But so what?

I agree, but I feel it is important always to recognise the line is there, else we are guilty of the dogma, prejudice and kneejerk reactions of those who may rightly be condemned. I quite agree. In the case of the East Africans, a lifetime spent at altitude has to be a benefit for long distance runners. And a childhood spent walking and running long distances as part of life have to have an effect. Similar arguments are less easy to make for West African sprinters. Nevertheless my underlying point is that to note the success of these runners as potentially related to genetics is not racist. And if that is not racist, then observing that there may be a correlation between race and intelligence should not automatically be assumed to be racist. Your other points in your post seem to be an expansion of my underlying thrust, so I naturally agree with those too, especially the blurriness of just is IQ, or intelligence for that matter. And so we should not make assumptions about motivation for making the observation and pointing out a possible cause without more data. Would you agree?

As far as I am able to tell I am not racist. I do have definite cultural prejudices, but when examined closely these seem to be uncorrelated with race. We know that individuals differ in intelligence and we know that a portion of this difference can properly be attributed to genetics. There is no specific reason that the genes responsible for intelligence should be associated with those responsible for what are deemed racial characteristics. However, there is no reason that such an association should not exist. It is therefore plausible that there might be a relationship. The apparent correlation of IQ with racial groupings is superficially suggestive. However, when we consider the cultural biases of IQ tests and the impact of education (or lack of it) the relationship seems much less convincing. As a natural skeptic they do not convince me at all, but that same skepticism prevents me from completely rejecting the possibility. I find it quite plausible that an individual, less skeptical than myself, might genuinely believe the data point towards a strong correlation. If they believe this to be true then stating that belief cannot be, in my view, considered as racist. It may be an incorrect view, or at least a precipitate one, but it is not automatically racist. To illustrate the point: is it racist of me to point out that less than a handful of male sprinters who have run less than 10.0 seconds for the 100m are of African origin and all but one of those are from West Africa.

I agree that voting should not be compulsory. However, those who do not vote would be forbidden from expressing any political view until the next election. Any breach of this prohibition would be met with a solid punch on the nose.

Wrong. Completely wrong. We have discovered that being exact, using mathematics, having a precision of language all contribute to the immense success of science in building our understanding of the world. Conversely, we have learned that using subjective perspectives, employing loose terminology because it evokes positive "feelings" and paying undue attention to analogies and simplifications leads to ineffective models, with poor predictive abilities and very little connection with reality. (I do wish you would write in proper sentences.) It is not the same. The only similarity between the two is the use of the word attraction which has two distinct meanings. Attraction, in the context of sexual attraction, involves consideration of instincts, pheromones, evolutionary pathways, cultural constraints, physiology and a host more besides. This is not sophistication, this is a complex interplay of physical, chemical, biochemical and social factors. Sophistication might be applied as poor metaphor, but metaphors are meant to clarify not obfuscate. Attraction, in the context of attraction between charged particles as a well investigated, documented, quantified phenomenon cannot be mapped to sexual attraction. This is not because one is simple and one is spohisticated, it is because they cannot be so mapped. They are wholly different phenomena. You are not comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing F type main sequence stars with Imperial typewriters. Emergence is a well studied and debated phenomenon. Scientists already use both holisitc and reductionist approaches. They do so based upon careful consideration of the implications, constraints and potential of each approach, not based upon weak and inappropriate analogies between charge and haute couture. Because, to purloin the words of La Place, I have no need of that hypothesis.

Until quite recently I believed that the British public were smart enough to vote to remain in Europe. What a misconception!

Frankly Mike, some of the time you make as much sense as Blue89. If you are trying to say that one can appreciate some things better through poetry, or art, or internal reflection, or a sense of spirituality I might well agree. But if you say we can understand some things better that way, then I would tend to disagree. Science is designed to construct models of reality. It is not there to provide reasons, or purpose, or to answer the why questions?. If you are looking for it to do so you are looking in the long place? You say you are making a serious point. What is it please? People are repeating that your English is not good because you have refused to accept that it is not good. If you would say this : "I realise that my English is of poor quality. I would like you all to help me improve." Then we would stop telling you that your Enlgish is not good and we would work to help you improve it. I also hate to see repeated actions. The repeated action I hate just now is your repeated refusal to accept that your English is not good. That is all I have to say on the matter. You are now on Ignore.

Off-topic: I see some asshole has downvoted three innocuous posts (#6,7 and 8) from three individuals, myself included. I've neutralised the other two.

You might wish to read The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, Report on Probability A by Brian Aldiss and Life Line by Robert Heinlein. These are good examples of the many individuals who have anticipated your ideas. You should not be discouraged that these are not original ideas - they are original for you and show good imagination, though as Raider observes they are not science.

We can measure the total mass of the attached hair. We can measure a sample of the hairs, determining the distribution of length, mass, diameter, colour, tensile strength, composition, internal structure, etc. We can investigate the mechanism by which they are attached to the rod We can use FEA to model their behaviour when subject to a variety of forces And so on. In short, Mike, we can achieve a comparable level of specification for the hair as we did for the rod. Since the hair is more complex it is not surprising that it takes more effort to achieve this, but that extra time/effort does not justify the dichotomy you feel exists.

I'm too far north! I see, checking on line, this is more a Geordie usage. My son-in-law is a Geordie, but I've not heard him use it. I'll add it to my vocabulary.

As a small child I asked my parents why we always went by bus and never in a taxi. They explained that "taxis are for rich people". At around the same time I had heard them discussing taxes, which phonetically is almost indistinguishable from taxis. Putting two and two together and making 7 3/4 I concluded that we paid taxes so that rich people could ride around in taxis. Socialists continue to believe this when they are adults.

In the upper echelons of society we call it "being curious".

I suggest you first learn to write English properly. I speak no foreign languages, but in the past my French, my Indonesian and my Spanish were at least as good as your English and I did not claim to be able to speak any of those.

Which do you value more, truth or lies? Here is a lie: your English is very good and the meaning of your posts is clear. Anyone who denies this is a fool and can be safely ignored. Here is the truth: your English is not good. It is very difficult to understand and at least 50% of it is impossible to understand. Anyone who who states this is doing so because they wish to help you, not to insult you.

That is certainly the most elegant, eloquent and effective "Up Yours!" I have seen for some considerable time. Concise, comprehensive and convincing.

Interesting observations. Did you have a close relationship with your father? /parody.

Proposal: Lock the thread Reasons: Tom is incapable of clearly explaining his method. As far as his method can be understood it appears to be claptrap. We are now going in circles. And, the most important, daily exposure to the thread is increasing my blood pressure to dangerous levels.

I like that idea, but then I'm a geologist, so what do I know?

The option "None of the above" exists in a practical sense on all ballot papers. Simply write the following, or something more closely matching your sentiment, on the ballot paper. They are all corrupt fools. This will be treated as a spoiled ballot paper, but you have still exercised your democratic right. And besides, I imagine it feels good. Edit: I missed Delta1212's post, which proposes much the same thing.

@ Over 9000: I don't understand what you mean by saying that race is defined by ancestry. So if the Chinese are a race, how do we define that race? You say they are defined by ancestry, but what does that mean. How can I take an individual and know, from their ancestry that they are Chinese and not Hottentot, or Scandinavian? (Substitute other names if any of these are not considered by you to be races.) What are the step by step processes that allow you to make the decision? I am not trying to trap you, trip you up, or confuse the issue. I really do not understand how you actually use your definition of race by ancestry to identify individuals of a particular race. It may be because I am thick, but it might be because you have so far failed to explain the method.

Interesting perspective Ten Oz. I am not sure it is correct, but it certainly resonates well.

400 metre hurdles?

Memammal, this is an open forum. Any member may respond to any post regardless to whom it is directed. Your behaviour in this instance is improper. A rigorous definition, which is what you claim you have offered, demands specificity. This applies whether we are talking in absolute, or relative terms. This is both simple and fundamental. I asked the question because I presumed you would understand this and provide a measured (literally) response.

I do have a reasonable understanding of the concepts involved. My post was intended to politely demonstrate that you do not. The "degree of genomic similarity" was not something I made up. It was, however, something I parroted. I took it from your post #194 where you defined a sub species thus: They have the rigorous yet simple definition of shared ancestry or genomic similarity. I found it difficult to take you seriously before. I find it impossible now.