PZ Myers

re:Adams

God save us from engineers….

Perhaps he was referring to the vast amounts of influence I have on the nation’s ruling regime?

Todd Zywicki lobbied for the bankruptcy bill because, in his own words, he wanted to bring back the concept of “shame” in this country, for people with debts. Yes, Todd “Bring Back Shame” Zywicki.

And that was after wishing that the FTC would regulate health care, implying a preference that John Ashcroft would remain AG, and calling for more ‘economists’ in Congress like Dick Armey and Phil Gramm. He’s a piece of work.

“God save us from engineers….”
I think you have characterized the problem exactly. (N.B. I am an engineer by training, but acknowledge that engineers have certain unfortunate intellectual tendencies, many related to overestimating our own intelligence.)

I think Zywicki is referencing PZ’s lefty take on the Summers/Harvard/math class is so tough controversy. Todd (unlike PZ) is apparently a big fan of evolutionary psychology, about which I’m tempted to say some somewhat-but-not-really informed negative things.

(I can’t get the Zywicki article on SSRN to link, but for a good time google Zywicki evolutionary psychology).

Todd Zywicki simply thought that ‘Lysenkoism’ was a soviet name for ‘Darwinism’. A simple mistake if you are an ideologue that doesn’t know squat of what you are talking about.

Hunh. I thought he was a software engineer.

If memory serves, Todd is probably still miffed that PZ took him to the woodshed over evolutionary psychology’s scientific lack of scientific standing.

And here I’d gone and just about completely forgotten Todd Zywicki.

The ID crowd appears to have attempted to latch onto Lysenkoism as an attack against natural selection/evilution[1]. They are attempting to pretend that Lysenkoism is “socialist science” and therefore anything put forward by “lefties” is likewise “socialist” and therefore Lysenkoism. When you point out to the IDers, that Lysenkoism was a “national science” like “aryan science” and it was ridiculed by everyone outside the nation it was conjured up in (like the ridicule that ID gets outside the US), they go ballistic. You’ll see some of the observer fallacy: they have limited experience with science, limited exposure to people outside their social class, therefore they think that because all the people around them “believe” in creationism, then everyone else believes in creationism. Bush’s bubble, on a local scale.

Intelligent Design, the new Lysenkoism, is used as a political litmus test; to separate the faithful from the infidels. Science requires the ability to observe things. Faith requires the ability to deliberately ignore reality. Lysenkoism, like ID, requires that you ignore reality in order to stay a member of the elect. ID, Lysenkoism, and Nazi Science were all acts of will, not science.

IDers will pretend that evilution is the state sponsored “religion” and that no dissent is allowed (because to them, everything is a religion, even not having one is a religion). They’ll catch selective amnesia when one points out that ID is a belief of a politically connected cult, and it isn’t a belief held by most Christians: only some American ones. Like Lysenkoism, ID wouldn’t get anywhere without the political patronage of bush.

[1] I’ll use their malapropism.

Kieran:
It appears that you haven’t followed this debate very closely. It is well-established that science on the left is riddled with Lysenkoism, as the lynching of Larry Summers made clear. It is odd that you even choose to contest it, given that the left has for some time embraced the idea that science is inherently subjective and charged with politics.

I’m sure that other leftists fall prey to Lysenkoism, but as for PZ Myers, the charge was established beyond question in the discussion that Sean cites.

The initial claim about the Lysenkoism of the left is made by a biology professor here:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/longcomments/the_conservative_counterattack_ho_hum#c31355

Then, the applicability of the definition to this fellow Myers is described here:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/longcomments/the_conservative_counterattack_ho_hum#c31388

Champions of Myers whined at the time that the term was “mean” and such, but they never were able to rebut the charge that the liberal attack on Larry Summers was Lysenkoist in nature–ideologically-driven science–as the remainder of the discussion there makes clear.

A good example of how ideology blinds one to good science is provided by one of the Commentators there(http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/longcomments/the_conservative_counterattack_ho_hum#c31369):
[Y]ou can’t have a “room full of counterexamples” as a response to a claim about a statistical distribution. Statisticians refer to “those in the room” as “observations” or “data points” in the distribution, not “counter-examples.” Michelle Wie is not a “counterexample” to the statistical observation that men, as a statistical generalization, can hit a golf ball further than women.

It may hurt the feelings of those on the left to know that they are Lysenkoists, but if the shoe fits….

If you disagree, perhaps you can explain why this sort of ideologically-motivated science on the left does not fit the definition of Lysenkoism. As one of the posters there noted, it is not clear which is worse, Intelligent Design theory on the right or modern-day Lysenkoism on the left. What is clear is that the shackles of political correctness has so undermined the credibility of scientists on the left that they are unable to sustain a persuasive case against ID. On this point Adams is unquestionably correct.

I’m guessing that Zywicki decided it was better to simply amend the post than to deal with the headaches of Myers’s brain-dead lynch mob again. This sort of intimidation and attacking heretics is, of course, also typical of Lysenkoists.

Mr. Z has updated his post:

I deleted the second paragraph of the original post in order to avoid spurring a debate that goes beyond what I was trying to raise here, and one that has been discussed extensively elsewhere. I really didn’t want to open that can of worms here at this time, and so have revised the post accordingly and disabled comments.

Mr Zywicki: Jean Schmidt was right about you–you are a coward.

For the sake of anyone not already familiar with this, it’s common practice, a tactic, among creationists and IDers compare those who think teaching science facts is a good thing to Lysenko. The tactic is to equate an insistence on facts with a rigid system of censorship. The ridiculousness of this position is well described at this link by Wesley Elsberry and Mark Perahk (Perahk has firsthand experience with living under the Soviet regime).

“Does Todd have evidence that Myers fakes his scientific research? That he believes that species can be changed through hybridization and grafting? …”

This is painfully literal. I don’t think anybody uses Lysenkoism in this way anymore. It’s widely and loosely used as a term to describe those who mix ideology with science.

Were slices of Larry Summers’ flesh distributed to the crowd after his hanging? Were his limbs and genitals amputated while he was still alive? Was he carefully doused with gasoline in such a way before he was set alight so that he would feel being burned to death instead of passing out from the smoke of his own charred flesh? [1]

No? Hm. Then I guess he wasn’t lynched. But what do you expect from someone who isn’t familiar with what the word “Lysenkoism” really means.

[1] Actual lynchers weren’t brain-dead at all. They put a lot of care and thought into their torture-murders.

Good thing “albert e.” was around to set the record straight.

Yes, it’s liberals, and specifically pro-science anti-creationist skeptical thinkers who understand mathematics and logic who use ideology-driven nonsense to prop up bad science. Letting politics drive the direction of scientific conclusions.

Yep. That’s it.

Yep. Liberals. On the left. Not righties conservatives. Nope.

Not, say, on global warming. Or, um, on areas of medicine involving health and human sexuality.

Or, um, in areas involving teaching of good science to children.

Yep.

Suppose we agree to use Lysenkoism to refer to the unacceptable infection of science by politics. It’s still not acceptable to call PZ a Lysenkoist – not even if his views on evolvutionary psych. are influenced by his poliics. There is a genuine and ongoing scientific debate over the disputed claims of EP (there are some EP-type claims that are not reasonably disputed, but PZ doesn’t dispute them). There is some evidence on both sides. This is nothing like Lysenko’s own communist inspired Lamarckianism, which flew in the face of the evidence. Moreover, it’s clear that politics plays a role on both sides of the debate: it’s never far from the surface in Pinker, for instance, and it IS the surface in folk like Barash (or Rose & Rose). To call PZ a Lysenkoist is to distort the state of the argument, and attempt to avoid the debate.

This is painfully literal. I don’t think anybody uses Lysenkoism in this way anymore. It’s widely and loosely used as a term to describe those who mix ideology with science.

Sez you. To me it has always meant someone who simply bends their findings to arrive at a preconceived idea that has precious little to do with science and then tries to impose that as valid science.

If I have an issue with PZ, it’s that he gives the claims of EP that are in dispute GREATER credence than it deserves:

Cardinal Ratzinger is an ape. He is driven by oh-so-typical ape motivations, the desire for dominance, the need to control the reproductive behavior of other members of his clan, the back-and-forth of social feedback

Eudoxis, you’re simply misrepresenting the state of the science (or ignorant of it) if you claim that PZ is flying in the face of the evidence here. There is a debate . And what is happening in the debate (oddly) is that both sides are getting more reasonable, and edging toward agreement on the view (a) our dispositions are certainly shaped by our evolutionary past and (b) that the dispositions that are our evolutionary legacy are also thoroughly shaped by individual development and local environment, such that (for the most part) the direct effects of evolution are subtle.

Todd Zywicki’s smear of PZ Myers (via Crooked Timber) works according to a familiar logic:

1. Describe Darwinism
2. Efface the Historical Record
3. Show Countless Millions Starving
4. Or Possibly Oppressed
5. Or Certainly Dead
6. Blame Darwinism
7. Shoot Darwinists
8. Drink Punch
9. Eat Pie
10. Dance
11. Dance
12. Dance
More…

Mr Z. at Volokh acts like we have to rehash the Summers affair to even agree on the definition of Lysenkoism so that we may tar Myers with it. First, there is the attempt to claim an understanding of science and its history by using the term, which has a very specific meaning. Second, there is the reluctance to enter into the debate in the “it’s so tiresome, I can’t possibly do it” way, and “I don’t even want to have comments open.” Those two things are both disingenuous. If you mean a scientist who is an idealogue, just use that word, don’t conflate the very specific term Lysenkoism with what you mean, even though you secretly love the Stalinist/far Left implication. Second, what’s the possible damage of leaving comments open, people can chatter away, you can ignore it? I like the PZ method, just call the fools fools, don’t ask for apologies. We’re always demanding despicable people apologize for their unintelligent despicable behavior. Screw it. They can reap their foolish harvest.

I had no idea I was so powerful. Zywicki’s new excuse:

For anyone who has doubts why I would have second thoughts about going down that particular path, I can simply point you to Scott Adams’s post to which I originally linked. On reflection, I quickly realized that I would sooner bang myself in the head with a ball peen hammer repeatedly than to go through a similarly exasperating experience again.

You know, I had exactly one post anywhere on my site that mentions Zywicki. It was harsh in tone, but it’s not as if I then dedicated my blog to pounding on poor Todd over and over, or deluged him with email, or stalked him at home, or shot his dog.

I guess I made a strong impression with that one comment, though. I’m torn; I made Todd sad, and may have caused him a few sleepless nights, and now give him ball peen hammer nightmares, and I don’t know whether to feel guilty are awfully damn smug.

Peter: IDers will pretend that [evolution] is the state sponsored “religion” and that no dissent is allowed (because to them, everything is a religion, even not having one is a religion).

Bad Jim: But then, some folks in the United States do seem to think that Christmas and Christianity are threatened by the tiny godless minority. … This sort of transparently ridiculous projection is becoming a commonplace

Here’s a striking example, from Mother Jones’ December issue, whose theme is right-wing theocracy):

All governments are theocracies. We now live in a secular humanist theocracy. I want to change that to a government with God at its head.

That’s Gary DeMar, head of Reconstructionist publishing house American Vision. While I’m on the subject, those interested in keeping an eye on and resisting fundamentalist takeover might want to check in on Talk2Action, a new group blog that brings together a distinguished group of Dominionist-right watchers.

PZ, apparently your posts hit people like a hammer, causing excruciating headaches.

Forget spamming for money on the net; extort your way to billions!! “Dear Sir, if you think that that post hurt, just wait until I spend a whole night e-mailing you. It’ll be a horrible death; to avoid it, simply sent $100,000 to my Swiss bank account #XXXX…..”

Pedro, it’s more of an intellectual maturation than a actual shift in policy positions. People with libertarian instincts have a tendancy to be petulant, especially when young, and I have been trying to shed that cocksure aura of “Wow, I’m so right and you’re so wrong” that so many young intellectuals seem to possess.

Amazing—when challenged with evidence of Lysenkoism, the response is more Lysenkoism.

Here’s an excerpt from the definition of Lysenkoism linked in the original post:
“In a broader context, Lysenkoism is often invoked to imply the overt subversion of science by political forces…. Today, the term ‘Lysenkoism’ survives as a metaphor for other beliefs challenged by empirical evidence but preferred for ideological reasons. Carl Sagan compared American creationists to supporters of Lysenko.”

The question is not whether all of those on the left are Lysenkoists as Kiernan improperly frames the question, but whether there are those who reject out of hand hypotheses and conclusions that contradict their dogmatic politically-correct world view. On this point it is blatantly obvious that there are plenty of politically correct Lysenkoists in our midst.

Amazingly, not content with shutting down Summers, there are people here who want to actually EXPAND the list of questions that are to be taken on political faith rather than open to study and scientific evidence (now I see that several of you have added “global warming” and “The Bell Curve” to the list of verboten questions, for instance).

So, what do you say Myers? Ready to do some serious research on the “Summers hypothesis”? He provided references to support the plausibility of the hypothesis; you’ve supplied no evidence to rebut it. There has been no study that controls for innate intelligence differences; thus, it looks to me like you are taking your opposition to the hypothesis on faith, not empirical evidence.

How about the question of racial differences in IQ? The evidence on differences in g is compelling. Again, the weight of the evidence clearly rests on the side of natural differences. Ready to tackle this question?

And evem if the evidence demonstrated innate differences with respect to intelligence (as most neutral scholars acknowledge) would you be willing to admit it?

Are you even willing to study it? Consider the hypotheses?

What about the rest of you here? Up for it?

The answer to whether you will even examine these questions seems obvious doesn’t it?

And that’s why you are a Lysenkoist.

Or do you want to have an honest discussion about the weight of the evidence with respect to these scientific questions?

Are those questions considered closed–notwithstanding the empirical evidence because they are too politically incorrect? As a scientist, wouldn’t you want to know the answers to these questions before jumping to conclusions about race or sex discrimination? Universities all over America are practicing affirmative action on the premise that there is rampant discrimination–but the alternative hypothesis of innate differences has never been rejected.

Of course, Myers would have to learn statistics in order to examine these questions–none of this “counterexamples” to a “statistical distribution” nonsense. Pathetic straw-grasping. Or is it true ignorance?

So, the relevant question is not whether Myers is a Lysenkoist—that much is clear from his track record on any scientific issue questioning his politically correct dogma. The real question is whether he is the most notorious Lysenkoist in the blogosphere, or whether there are others on the left (including some here) that have earned that moniker instead.

thus, it looks to me like you are taking your opposition to the hypothesis on faith, not empirical evidence.

That’s nice. Meanwhile, back in a very old controversy you may be too young to remember, the problem with the ‘Bell Curve’ hypothesis was that they refused to look at factors other than race.

This is why we’ve been having so much fun at Sullivan’s expense of late.

there are people here who want to actually EXPAND the list of questions that are to be taken on political faith

Really? Who? Where? Or is this what you need to invent (mind reading!) to leverage your sad conflation of PC with Lysenkoism?

Actually, I don’t care.
.

Scott Adams believes that if you write down your goals over and over, they will become true.

Yes, it’s quite unfortunate that he ran into the internet’s worst “Lysenkoist.” Boo hoo.

This is not difficult, yet you refuse to answer the question.

There are exactly two possible answers to my question:

1. Yes, we should study whether innate differences in intelligence in women and blacks versus white males explains their different patterns of career success.

2. No, we should not study whether innate intelligence differences for women and blacks explains their different patterns of career success.

Why won’t anyone here answer the question?

Or is it because you have decided the question itself is out-of-bounds for political reasons?

“This is not difficult, yet you refuse to answer the question.”

Well, if it’s not difficult, answer the question yourself.

I think your response is just as telling…you’re getting answers…you just don’t like what you’re getting since they don’t fit the binary mode you seem to want.

Albert E.: I think it is perfectly within the bounds of scientific inquiry to ask questions about distributional differences between biologically different groups of people. The problem is that the studies that attempt to shed any light on the subject are actually methodologically suspect, and very easy to criticize. For example, in studies from the psychometrics literature, it has been shown that if one controls for a number of sociological variables that are not considered in some of the race-IQ “studies”, the supposed differences in IQ between subjects of different races disappear. This, of course, does not suggest that there are no differences in IQ (which does not measure intelligence, mind you, but whatever) and race. It simply suggests that the studies that right wingers, so decidedly immune to Lysenkoism, exhalt with a reverence untainted by ideology.

I actually believe it is very likely that the hypothesis “population genetics has a nonzero effect in the distribution of talent X or Y among different groups of people–perhaps associated not by what we regard as race, perhaps indeed associated loosely by what we regard as race” is with all certainty true in a vast number of cases, though the extent of said effect could very well be negligible. But what the effect of population genetics is in specific task-performance (not talent, which is not easily observable) differences among groups of humans is a very hard empirical question to answer. The reason is that social variables do indeed matter, and this is well documented; and it is really hard to control for social variables.

If you ask me to condemn the suggestion that population genetics might have something to do with why group X outperforms group Y at some specific task, I will not do so. But if you suggest it is “evident” (as you do) that what underlies difference in performance is obviously race, then I say you are committing petitio principii, and that the evolutionary psychological arguments you indulge in to rationalize your racialist explanations are wildly speculative in nature and decidedly undeserving of the sort of reverence we scientists rightly hold for the theory of evolution

Albert E., there is a very large literature on the concept “innate”. Here are some names (look them up): Elliot Sober, Paul Griffiths, Fiona Cowie, Jerry Fodor, Bill Wimsatt. Not all of these people agree with the conclusion, but all accept that it is not crazy to think that there is “innate” is meaningless (Paul Griffiths is one who argues this explicitly). The others, who do think that “innate” is meaningful, would accept that it is meaningless in the context in which you use it. We can’t look for innate differences in IQ, b/c “innate”, in that sentence, is meaningless. As for the Bell Curve type claims, around which you assert a conspiracy of silence, there is a mountain of work. It shows, to the satisfaction of all except ideologically driven racist morons (alright, and one or two folk who are merely obtuse) that the work doesn’t bear up. It’s not Lysenkoism to insist on good science. It’s not Lysekkoism to refuse to look at the issue again every time some ideologically driven racist moron wants to raise it. We should look at it again when, and only when, someone comes up with some new evidence, and not nonsense from someone who doesn’t understand what norms of reaction plot.

I, for one, am completely in favor of testing your hypotheses, Albert. And the only way to really control for differences in socialization is to create a society where they don’t exist. In the spirit of inquiry!

On the other subtopic, I’m of the opinion that we should all quit using specific ideologies or theories as metaphors when a perfectly good noun exists: saying “fascism” when you really mean “authoritarianism” or “Lyseknoism” when you really mean “politically motivated pseudoscience.” For the primary reason that it cripples people’s understandings of the former terms.

Zywicki is embarrassing himself. It is unlikely that he knows anything about the subject. This is being discussed over at Ed Brayton’s blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars http://stcynic.com/blog/

Frankly, I have little use for blogs that don’t conventionally allow for comments. The Volokh blog is difficult enough to navigate, and it doesn’t normally allow for comments. As far as I can tell, it is nothing more than an advertisement for the bloggers’ outside practices.

And leaving aside Myers specifically, I am pleased that many of you have been willing to endorse the “yes” statement that we should study racial differences in intelligence, while adding the caveat that you believe that race is impossible to categorize. So I see now where this leads us–those who believe that we can identify “race” for purposes of detecting discrimination and implementing affirmative action now claim that we cannot identify race for purposes testing innate intelligence. The statement amounts to, “We should study racial differences in intelligence, but only because we can’t define the concept of race.” Nice try–you can endorse the propriety of the research while retaining a built-in excuse for ignoring any results that you don’t find to your liking. How convenient. And how intellectually dishonest. We all know that there is a well-established literature on race and IQ, so let’s not try to play these silly games:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

And I note that none of you appear to be willing to study sex differences in intelligence, such as mathematical ability. Is this because when it comes to sex you can’t hide behind your equivocations about how to classify the relevant subgroup, so as to dismiss any inconvenient findings?

Such champions of scientific freedom.

Kiernan–As this all makes clear it really is imperative for you to post an Update that corrects the record.

This thread is a thing of beauty. Apparently, if it wasn’t for Lysenkoists holding them back, conservatives would be hard at work proving what’s really important: that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

Whilst one appreciates the patience of the many commenters who have tried to engage with ‘albert e.’, surely it should have been obvious after his first post or so that there is really no point talking with him. He, and people like him, are interesting only as specimens; and not terribly interesting even as that. DNFTT; left alone, he will soon enough fuck off back to GNXP or VDare or Stromfront or whatever rock he crawled out from under.

Still, he’s surely right about it being imperative for Kiernan to post an update, if only we knew who Kiernan is.

First of all, have you come up with a good definition of intelligence – one that is objectively measurable, not culturally-specific, and so on?
Second, have you explained how we are supposed to measure this innate difference, if one exists, and be sure that we are not simply measuring the effects of environmental or cultural factors?
Third, could you be any more obvious in your agenda here? Even if, through some amazing and unlikely method, we were able to isolate the genetic effects of intelligence, and were able to demonstrate that on average, women scored 2% lower on some agreed scale, what kind of an idiot would you have to be to believe that a difference that small is going to persist through environmental and social effects to translate into differential patterns of career success?
Answer: an idiot for whom politics is more important than science. You could almost call it Lysenkoism.

“I give the man credit for trying to push back the ID’ers as politically-motivated science, but thats no excuse for engaging in ideologically-motivated leftist science”

PZ is an developmental biologist, you dolt. Name one bit of “leftist science” he has done. Even if he were in favour of suppressing gender and race based studies of intelligence, which he isn’t, he wouldn’t be engaging in ideologically motivated leftist science because he wouldn’t be engaging in the science. Nobody is stopping anybody from analysing intelligence according to race or gender. As you yourself admit, there’s a lot of literature on the subject. There are thousands upon thousands of psychologists doing research on the subject. The point people are making is that given how little we understand precisely how the loose concept of intelligence translates into either brain processes or genes, there’s isn’t a hope in hell we could control enough variables in a study on career progression to get any meaningful data. We wouldn’t even know what variables to control, for God’s sake.

I misspoke. Apparently what’s really important is proving that women are genetically inferior to men. Albert E knows that someone out there is inferior to him, and he’s going to use SCIENCE! to prove it.

Genetically different how?
There is more genetic variation within ‘races’ than there is between ‘races’, and part of the reason albert e’s flailings have been so laughable is that both he and we know that there isn’t any real genetic marker that could be used to clearly distinguish between (for example) black, white, and Hispanic people.

Albert E. — nobody here is interested in debating you on terms of your choosing. Be stunned if you want to be.

Let’s get back the the “Lysenkoist” charge against Myers, which was the original topic of the thread. Let’s even allow for the sake of argument that “Lysenkoist” simply means “someone who allows politics to influence his scientific thinking” rather than the more exact “someone who wants to ignore established scientific findings and who uses the secret police to enforce his decision” (or more exactly still, “someone who supports Lamarckeanism, against all scientific evidence”.)

Adams, a non-biologist, was attacked by Myers, another non-scientist, because of number of know-nothing statements Adams made, one of which was a refusal to grant credibility to any professional biologist regarding evolution, since they all have a conflict of interest.

Zywicki, another non-biologist, commiserates with poor Adams, who had been attacked by an evil Lysenkoist.

But even if Myers were in fact a Lysenkoist, it would be irrelevant here, because Myers vs. Adams was a fight between a scientists supporting science and a non-nothing.

Furthermore, Zywicki is political and not scientific, as is out friend Albert E. here. Myers is both political and a scientist. It looks like the political non-scientists injecting politics into science are Albert and Zywicki.

The Summers issue is a political issue and Summers’ supporters, such as Albert here and Zywicki, are politicos. Summers is an administrator, not a scientist, who was speculating off the top of his head about using some untested science to develop new educational strategies and admissions policies. He got the normal opposition that administrators get when they propose new politicies. He kept his job and still is a powerful man. No lynch mob, no gulag.

It’s quite normal, and in fact necessary, for scientists to oppose new, unproven scientific theories. It’s quite a different thing than trying to ditch established scientific for no good reason, which is what Lysenko did.

And if politics entered into it, so what? Summers was in an educational-policy position, not a scientific-research position, and he was defended by a noisy claque of political operatives and ideologues, few of whom were working scientists.

I think that it’s time for Albert to declare victory, put his tail between his legs, and scurry home.

“….because ‘Myers vs. Adams’ was a fight between a scientist, supporting science, and a know-nothing.”

You’re drunk, aren’t you?
What do you think is different about tall basketball players, apart from the fact that they’re very tall? Is this some US euphemism I’m not aware of? “Oh yes, the ladies love that guy, he’s very… tall” Or is it some new conspiracy theory – tall NBA players have been genetically engineered by the British royal family, as part of a secret plot to prevent the gold standard from being reintroduced! But I still don’t see where the apes fit in – are they double-agents or something?

Is it any coincidence that the last ten World Disco Dancing Champions have been black? I’m sure we all know what’s going on there…

(Seriously, rollo, if you can’t even point to a genetic marker for being black, its a little difficult to argue that white people have genes that prevent them from jumping)

“I erred using the layman’s ‘genetic’ to describe something science hasn’t given us a snappy term for. I’m sure the DNA mix is muddled enough that “races” are a meaningless term for biologists. Kind of like the sub-molecular separation of matter. Everything’s hollow and full of holes. Lots of space in between the constituents. The smooth surface of a plate glass window’s a total illusion.”

Your biggest problem is that you’re ignorant. “The DNA mix is muddled”. That’s your theory as to why there’s no genetic basis for “race”? That’s just stupid.

The domination of the NBA by black athletes is entirely, 100%, completely, totally, with no exception, absolutely cultural.