This is the refutation rational wiki gave

How is that a dumb comparison? Are human beings not part of the animal kingdom like dogs?

It began as a site aimed to debunking conservapedia then concentrated on debunking pseudoscience. However it is run by your typical reddit-tier pseudointellectuals who think racism is worse than rape.

Remember Thunderfoot and his 40+ videos making fun of creationists and how when you were 14 you felt really smart when listening to him? That website is for people who never grew out of that feeling

They call themselves rational but they just defend the orthodox irregardless of rationality.

>"It's funny because the billionaire is a Jew"
>"He manged to make the dumbest possible comparison here"
How are these arguments? Literally opinions

But I never watched thunderfoot when I was 14. I thought he was gayer than theamazingathiest.

Gayer than the amazing "boiling oil on balls"athiest ? You are telling me there is somone gayer than the amazing"banana up the ass"athiest? i think you are mistaken their is no one gayer than the amazing " marying a tranie and geting devorsed because you have a micropenis" athiest

Attached: 1586204093779.png (868x760, 194.73K)

So they're just like the people they're claiming to criticize?

Kek. Well said user

Kek. Well said user. The only thing I learned from him was that micro penises were a thing. I wonder if that's a trait common to all atheists

>no refutations

Attached: jvkgvv.jpg (720x727, 101.97K)

They're right except it's not funny.

Attached: 367391879499.jpg (722x349, 82.52K)

God has a good sense of humor making a 7 feet man with a 2 inch dick ,mabie he squashed it in a bible when he was litle that would explain alot

Attached: 1586542753218.gif (280x250, 2.58M)

That's extremely fucking based

Attached: its_never_racist.png (622x609, 676.33K)

ED has been through some shit, but this comparison is undeserved.

>opposes eugenics
>based
No.

Its not opposing eugenics at all. I thought English was your first language bong? Or are you a Yusuf or Achmed?

He means Dawkins opposes eugenics ideologically, I suppose. In the post Dawkins is only arguing that eugenics will work on humans, not that we should start eugenics programmes.

best way of putting it i ever read.

Well this is pathetic, they don't even try.

The people on rationalwiki consider it to be a refutation even though it's not.

Attached: khazars.jpg (618x740, 176.29K)

god i love how much redpanels absolutely assblasts these cucks from just derping around in a paint program, absolutely based

It's dumb because of humans, being social animals, developing complex social systems, in which behaviour and social role are mostly determined by economic factors and access to education rather than by some genetic predisposal.

Intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing. Education makes you more knowledgable. It doesn't make you more intelligent.

>Education makes you more knowledgable. It doesn't make you more intelligent.
Human intelligence also depends on social factors, rather than genes. With obvious exeption of mentally ill people.

There are twin studies that prove that intelligence is a heritable trait. Intelligence is 50-80% heritable.

Surprisingly, even wikipedia admits this fact.

>Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%[7] and 86%.[8].

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

The only environmental effects are malnutrition, poor prenatal development and disease.

Ruskie BTFO.

Let's see how he tries to spin it.

>Although IQ differences between individuals are shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ necessarily have a genetic basis. The Flynn effect is one example where there is a large difference between groups (past and present) with little or no genetic difference.
Same article.
>poor prenatal development
How's that not a social factor?

>How's that not a social factor?
It's not ubquitous so it cannot explain group (e.g racial) differences.

If intelligence is heritable for individuals then it follows that it is also heritable for groups of individuals. To claim otherwise is silly.

>It's not ubquitous
What do you mean, "not ubquitous"
>it cannot explain group (e.g racial) differences.
It can, since we know about discriminating policies of the past and the impact they still have on social life in the west.
>If intelligence is heritable for individuals then it follows that it is also heritable for groups of individuals.
Unless there is some sort of social barrier that prevents intelligent people of certain group from realising their talents and potential.

>refutation
Do they not know what this word means?

Attached: 1546943254787.jpg (830x1024, 124.25K)

It is a shame the christfags here on this board are always up in arms against Dawkins. A lot of this stuff they would agree with, except their magical sky faggot.

Attached: 1586607779439.png (490x780, 543.09K)

>mostly
Citation needed bro
shitskins act like their race, despite being raised in first world countries

>irregardless
Why must you trigger me so?

A dog of a certain pedigree that is bred for a certain purpose may also never have that purpose cultivated. It could very well be that its doesn't have a master that places such a demand on it, or perhaps it is fed poorly. Other dogs can also be trained to at least to mimic. Then why continue to make the distinction between breeds? Is it purely physical?

Oftern "Allahu Akhbar" is followed by an explosion

>eugenics is deplorable

Dawkins agrees that religion was a necessity for humans to evolve into societies, dunce.

I really don't understand why eugenics triggers NPCs so much. Murdering babies is fine but telling people not to conceive is somehow evil.
We could eradicate all genetic defects and ugliness within a couple of generations and make a society full of 10/10 chads where everyone can just get on with their lives.
Everyone goes full nigger-tier when thinking about having children, no long term thought at all.

I'm afraid it's deeply-rooted christian morality, "every soul is the same".
That and NatSoc practices of eugenics. Allowing people to vote was a mistake.

Only when it suits (((their agenda)))
>look, these two captive lions are gay so bug catching is completely normal goys!
>this insect eats its newborn so abortion is completely normal goys!
Etc. Etc.

This but unironically

Attached: yirh7gycttr41.jpg (2244x2244, 1.26M)

But humans still have genes that affect them in ever aspect, just like an animal, retard.
>hurr durr certain diseases aren't heritable
>hurr durr eye color, hair color, bone structure, predisposition to alcoholism, skin color aren't heritable

Except that doesn't work. A genetic pool passes on all its genes unless certain genes are selected for removal. To state otherwise would be to insist humans had an equal chance to be born as caribou as a caribou has of being born a caribou.

Is this a psyop for Dawkins? He sounds based

Attached: 1458249114793.png (273x375, 9.42K)

>humans are social therefore genes don't affect their cognition, unlike every other animal
Soviet education.

> Murdering babies is fine
They're not babies, they're fetuses. And abortion is, in most cases, a volountary act.
>but telling people not to conceive is somehow evil
It is, because the very point of eugenics is not just tell you "don't breed", but prevent breeding by different means such as forced strerilisation.
This is violation of human right (or maybe several human rights), and a pointless one, because thoroughbred humans don't seem to outstand common people in their social roles.
Perfect example would be the european nobility, which was mostly consisting of thorougbred warriors as well as senior priesthood (who also fought wars and controlled feudal property, like bishop Konrad IV of Olesnica). As history took its course, it became obvious, that nobility with all their pedigree and history of wars and military education has no advantages over new officers and commanders with more common background. Your genetic heritage doesn't make you a better commander, neither it makes you a good businessman or scientist.

>christfags
You're a kike.

This isn't a baby to you?

>that affect them in ever aspect
Genetic predisposition to something is not a guarantee of that certain something being a 100% outcome. For example, you can be predisposed to kidney failure, but this doesn't mean that you're 100% going have a kidney failure.
Same goes to success in arts and science. Even if you come from lineage of artists and researchers, this is not a guarantee of becoming a good researcher yourself.

I'm not talking about "heritage" or "nobility", I'm talking about genetic qualify. Intelligence, physical attractiveness, athletic ability.
Why would you not want to find the people with the best genes and use them to continue the human race?
Many people spend their entire lives depressed about their physical appearance or other genetic defects. If we could turn everyone into 10/10 chads we would eradicate incels, eradicate the jewish cosmetics industry, eradicate most of the pharmaceutical industry etc.
We're talking about trading a couple of generations of "NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SAY I CAN'T HAVE KIDS" for hundreds of thousands of generations worth of future humans having perfect genes