Are Blacks equal to Whites in all regards, or are they "genetically inferior," as Dr. Watson said he found?

Question

Anyone who wants to accuse Whites of unjustified racism should download a week's supply of any one of our daily newspapers online, and read the truth. The co-discoverer of DNA, one Dr. Watson, declared that HIS Professional opinion was that Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites- and he was vilified. I only just now heard of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, which no one ever told me about while I lived in England. I knew the name, but no what he was infamous for. The man was right, and they punished him for telling the truth.

If there is a curse upon the Black race, it would explain everything. Imagine if you saw a man beat up another man, to "prove" his "superiority." Would you not abuse the bully?

But what if the man, after beating the fellow to a standing eight-count, now sits him down, and says, "Here is my gun. Here is how it works," gives a good demo. "I am laying my gun down by you, here. I am giving you live ammunition. If you want to prove that you are a man...

Answer 1

Actually, Dr Watson just said that African had lower IQ's. And contrary to what the press said , he didn't apologise. He just pointed out that there's no such thing as superior or inferior as far as evolution goes.

He made a very neutral statement about it, that you had to read carefully to understand.

“Science is no stranger to controversy. The pursuit of discovery, of knowledge, is often uncomfortable and disconcerting. I have never been one to shy away from stating what I believe to be the truth, however difficult it might prove to be. This has, at times, got me in hot water.

Rarely more so than right now, where I find myself at the centre of a storm of criticism. I can understand much of this reaction. For if I said what I was quoted as saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it. To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.

I have always fiercely defended the position that we should base our view of the world on the state of our knowledge, on fact, and not on what we would like it to be. This is why genetics is so important. For it will lead us to answers to many of the big and difficult questions that have troubled people for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

But those answers may not be easy, for, as I know all too well, genetics can be cruel. My own son may be one of its victims. Warm and perceptive at the age of 37, Rufus cannot lead an independent life because of schizophrenia, lacking the ability to engage in day-to-day activities. For all too long, my wife Ruth and I hoped that what Rufus needed was an appropriate challenge on which to focus. But as he passed into adolescence, I feared the origin of his diminished life lay in his genes. It was this realisation that led me to help to bring the human genome project into existence.

In doing so, I knew that many new moral dilemmas would arise as a consequence and would early on establish the ethical, legal and societal components of the genome project. Since 1978, when a pail of water was dumped over my Harvard friend E O Wilson for saying that genes influence human behaviour, the assault against human behavioural genetics by wishful thinking has remained vigorous.

But irrationality must soon recede. It will soon be possible to read individual genetic messages at costs which will not bankrupt our health systems. In so doing, I hope we see whether changes in DNA sequence, not environmental influences, result in behaviour differences. Finally, we should be able to establish the relative importance of nature as opposed to nurture.

One in three people looking for a job in temporary employment bureaux in Los Angeles is a psychopath or a sociopath. Is this a consequence of their environment or their genetic components? DNA sequencing should give us the answer. The thought that some people are innately wicked disturbs me. But science is not here to make us feel good. It is to answer questions in the service of knowledge and greater understanding.

In finding out the extent to which genes influence moral behaviour, we shall also be able to understand how genes influence intellectual capacities. Right now, at my institute in the US we are working on gene-caused failures in brain development that frequently lead to autism and schizophrenia. We may also find that differences in these respective brain development genes also lead to differences in our abilities to carry out different mental tasks.

In some cases, how these genes function may help us to understand variations in IQ, or why some people excel at poetry but are terrible at mathematics. All too often people with high mathematical abilities have autistic traits. The same gene that gives some people such great mathematical abilities may also lead to autistic behaviour. This is why, in studying autism and schizophrenia, we believe that we shall come very close to a better understanding of intelligence and, therefore, of the differences in intelligence.

We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things. The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.

To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers. It is very likely that at least some 10 to 15 years will pass before we get an adequate understanding for the relative importance of nature versus nurture in the achievement of important human objectives. Until then, we as scientists, wherever we wish to place ourselves in this great debate, should take care in claiming what are unarguable truths without the support of evidence.”

Answer 2

You are awesome Mathilda.

Answer 3

I'm no real fan of some of Dr. Watson's opinions, but he never said that blacks were genetically inferior to whites. He actually said something a little meaner than that, but also much less damaging in the larger sense. It was almost a comment that occurred outside the scope of his scientific work, except that he said it in front of a group of scientists.

Personally, I don't buy his speech that Mathilda quotes, the "You misquoted me now all let's wait 10 or 20 years and see who's right about this - look my son's a victim of DNA too - see here's some really clearcut cases about DNA and psychological matters even though I was talking about something completely different in the first place." Not that all the inspirational stuff about science and truth was wrong. I just don't think it applies that well to his particular case.

But the important thing to take away here is probably that Watson did not say what you're saying he said. He got vilified for what was probably a simple blunder, but the type of blunder he made is the type that tends to scratch at a lot of wounds in our society.

Answer 4

As usual, a balanced answer, supportable empirically, Mathilda.

Answer 5

No, Blacks are not genetically inferior.

Race is a myth anyway, as there's just the one.

No, there's no curse.

No, newspapers are no support of the idea of inferior of any group of humans.

No, Watson didn't know what he was talking about when he called some groups inferior.

Any hate-mongering moron can give a speech; doesn't make what they say true.

Your last paragraph makes no sense and has no relationships to the hate-mongering nonesense you spew in the previous paragraphs.

Answer 6

The genetic differences between white and black people are minute.

Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people

groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups

did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would

agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from

the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups

as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands

of years of separation. Most people believe that there are such vast

differences between groups that there had to be many years for these

differences to develop.

One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable

differences arise from some people having unique features in their

hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but

incorrect idea. Let’s look at skin colour, for instance. It is easy to think

that since different groups of people have ‘yellow’ skin, ‘red’ skin, black

skin, ‘white’ skin, and brown skin, there must be many different skin

pigments or colourings. And since different chemicals for colouring

would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the hereditary blueprint

in each people group, it appears to be a real problem. How could all

those differences develop within a short time?

However, we all have the same colouring pigment in our skin,

melanin. This is a dark-brownish pigment that is produced in different albinos, who inherit a mutation-caused defect, and cannot produce

melanin), then we would have a very white or pink skin colouring. If

we produced a little melanin, we would be European white. If our

skin produced a great deal of melanin, we would be a very dark black.

And in between, of course, are all shades of brown. There are no other

significant skin pigments.4

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/...

Answer 7

in science, there is no such thing as "race"

Answer 8

Blacks and whites are equal.I don't know where Watson found this c**p about blacks being  inferior to whites,it's just plain bull dust.In fact Black babies walk earlier than White babies but that doesn't mean blacks are better than whites.The truth is we are all equal but the problem is a specific race group or "colour" likes to think they're better than everybody.I am not saying any names or pointing any fingers but I don't know where they get that from.Such attitudes must come to an end