WATSON AND CRICK SUCK!? 

@@cbreezy Idk all of Watson's views

it's not wrong though. tough break.

@@Normie_Normalson The first presidents had slaves , doesn't mean we have to change or erase history. We can teach values that contradict those views. That way we can learn as a society. people who forget their history are likely to repeat it

They've already been explained, multiple times, by multiple people, thoroughly. We shouldn't pretend that an explanation is needed. The motivation of the people who press the idea of "race and IQ" is clear, and they've been shown to be wrong ages ago.

@@sinachiniforoosh but they continue to be around nowadays. That's why we still have history, so it can be explained multiple times by multiple people. This is how we can continue to avoid ignorance.

Same. Finally, Franklin got credited 1st

My biology teacher brought her up a lot when we were learning about DNA and ended up going into a whole talk about sexism against girls in the work force and stuff that’s seen as “guy’s work”

that's because your high schul was kosher

@@mrpumperknuckles1631 and your sources are...

Same for me

MisterG I wasn’t stating that he wasn’t right, I was just making a statement. Kindof like how you added your unnecessary two cents to my comment. So weird flex, but ok.

“Please consume more bugs!!! Please live in the pod!!! If you’re white, you’re racist!!!”

same here

Virtually ever modern textbook does as well

Because they want James Watson erased from history because his views weren't very PC. Literally why they are crediting only Rosalind.

too mush soy.

Using and copying are different things But yeah, still wrong

Honestly there have nobel prizes given that make me go what the hell

They aren’t allowed to give out Nobel prizes to those who have already passed and when the Nobel Prize was given Rosalind had sadly passed

Lesa G that’s an accusation made by a claim of the feminist community throughout the educational universities of society. If he stolen the work than why did the female scientist had the hardest time ever explaining anything that she claimed was her actual discovery? why do we see Watson discovering countless other discoveries that actual push this notion that he did know exactly what he was talking about and had credibility in discovering? It’s because He discovered DNA and the DNA helix... the female scientists wasn’t even successful in her own hypothesis that she had written in her paper work. Watson proved by academic integrity that he was the person who discovered this information your just a bat shit crazy feminist who is the equivalence of black supremacists who say the white man taken all the worlds inventions from the black man and claimed that the black man invented all these things when reality it’s not... the white man invented it all. Discovered it all you people are just jealous so you come up with controversial conspiracies to try to discredit hard working intellectuals in the scientific world... just like how this video editor claims he knows science but yet can’t have a counter argument of evidence proving blacks and whites have the same IQ I doubt he even knows what IQ stands for...

Dunya Markovic she didn’t even make the discovery Watson did... she was jealous about Watson’s discovery and tried to claim it as her own. She was reckless in her endeavors in the scientific community and Watson admired her for that but she didn’t make the discovery so seriously if she was the true scientist who discovered it than she would have been proven by now to be the actual credited founder. The scientific community holds high regards to credit but instead we saw after a 10 year investigation that she wasn’t the true founder of the discovery! Watson was and Watson wouldn’t have made more strides and development in the world of DNA in the form of discovery if he did copied it off of her... he truly was the founder of the scientific discovery. What we see instead coming from about this issue is that the feminist community of the academic world propitiating this conspiracy instead out of malice and accusation

She didn't. Your university isn't accredited

all the science *yids ftfy

I totally agree, their actions have effected me personally as well and so I too hate them...

>believing the story of a jew nice meme

Harkeerat Of The Apollo Cabin but they didn’t her research was archived and placed as part of someone else’s research... she didn’t even get her hypothesis about the helix right... she claimed it was a cylinder shaped single strand form... she never said helix nor did she ever state that it was a double helix...

They claimed a double helix structure previous to the photographs, the photographs are proof of concept. the pictures would have credit, not the double helix discovery. People in here acting like science historians when they don't even know what the fuck crystallography is in the first. Go get that sandy vagene looked after.

He was not wrong.

What was he wrong about?

​@Squirrelcake in such a subject, one that has been influenced so much by personal and societal bias, things are not absolutely true. Taking the examples you mentioned, average height and susceptibility to certain diseases, they are greatly affected by environmental factors such as the amount of exposure, nutrition available and living conditions. Genetically speaking, variations between humans are so very small, and variations within a group of similar-looking people can be as much or greater than between groups of distinct looking people, that one cannot simply claim that genetics and a faulty concept such as race can determine a very complex characteristic such as intelligence. Saying that race is responsible for intelligence shuts down communication and understanding and brings up opportunities for hate and for horrible things to happen. Our brains are much more complex than what a single feature, such as skin color, can determine. Over and out.

what! a science textbook has no need to include the political views of the scientist

Except that he's not "dead wrong", idiot.

then explain the flynn effect

@@amirmirzaei3940 Not sure I am fully up to date on this Amir, but hasn't the Flynn effect failed in recent years? People as a whole seem to be becoming somewhat less intelligent. I believe it held as the case up to about the 1980's but is no longer so. Certainly a look at the modern world and the standard of debate (men can have babies according to some, for heaven's sake!!!), it would be hard to conclude that the Flynn effect still holds.

@@georgemcnally4473 that still proves the flynn effect lol. changes in IQ in less than 1 or 2 generation is what the flynn effect was all about. it going up and down is not relevant, that fact that is it changing massively in a short amount of time is the point of the theory

So disliking someone for being a racist has to be backed up by scientific studies?

Nick Tokar discovering the structure of DNA wasn’t just about the double helix, it was also about complementary base pairing. If it wasn’t for this we wouldn’t know how to genetically engineer organisms or have developed techniques like PCR and gel electrophoresis

Not saying that it's not important. I just think it's weird that DNA double helix is the only thing that ordinary people know. Most people don't even think about them doing base pairing either. They just know double helix by Watson and Crick and that is the extent of their genetics knowledge.

In high school biology, most people only go as far as watson and crick. PCR or cloning is not really that looked into until just a tiny bit later (which is unfortunate). Either way, not that many people know who Watson and Crick are either way (surprisingly), but I see your point.

Its pretty simple really, Watson & Crick (and Wilkins & Franklin) along with Mendel and all his transmission genetics stuff sort of cemented the basis of genetics as we know it today. All the wonderful applications of cloning or PCR amplification came to be as a result of their initial discoveries. Anyone else in their place would have had the same treatment. Also I wouldn't go so far as to call it a stolen discovery, they were the ones that applied Chargaff's rule to determine base pairings, and were then able to apply Franklin's photo 51 into their own work to establish the double helix (I just wish Rosalind Franklin was properly credited for her work).

Hyperioff I learned about Crick and Watson from Assassin’s Creed Unity before I learned it in school 😂

Except black people from places like ghana and nigeria perform better on average than white kids in the uk. And in order to disprove such a thing you are saying it first has to be proven which it hasn't. Economic, geographical and cultural (not racial) factors have been proven time and time again but racial factors have not.

benjamin garces HAHAHAHA im totally laughed by those 😂

B0omer96 why though?

Good that we don't live in the middle ages. I bet he'd end his life burning at the stake. A food for thought: "Brendan O'Neill | Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend | Proposition".

Watch this, all of them. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NNnIGh9g6fA.html&ab_channel=Stanford

the reason why watson and crick are terrible is bc their most famous scientific accomplishment that they’re famous for and won a nobel prize for wasn’t even their accomplishment, the research they claimed they did was stolen from rosalind franklin. that’s pretty terrible if you ask me.

@@mimiHTcat I agree, that's why I dedicated most of my comment to talking about his actual, big deal original discoveries in molecular genetics.

@@mimiHTcat no they actually deserve their nobel prize but there true error is to not recognize rosalind franklin

alanah youngloud or maybe they are just not very smart. Not seeing too much scientific production out of Africa and I don’t think there are enough whites over there to hold them back

@@brucebogtrotter3430 racist idiot

Brandon B don’t watch it ...if you can’t listen to the very important things he’s saying then get off.

Brandon B agreed. I'm interested in the content, but the editing is.... a lot

@@Candicedickinsonllc Didn't say I don't want to watch it, just that it's a super odd choices for the edits I feel. And as I said, just a personal opinion.

Yeah. I actually enjoy slightly over-the-top editing, but this is too crazy for my taste.

I actually really love it :D

LMAO

There was no misconduct on Wilkins part. His PhD student, Ray Gosling, who took the photo (not Franklin) showed Wilkins the photo as would be standard practice.

Conrad Spoke and she once announced the “death of DNA helix”. And indeed, Wilkins was working on the project with her. You can take all the data you want, but if you can’t analyze it it’s worth very little. Not to mention she refused to work with Wilkins who she was hired by the university to work with. People hail franklin as a goddess, and while she was a great scientist and pioneer for women in science, she has some serious shortcomings.

* had some serious shortcomings I should say

Couldn't have said it better myself. SJWs are getting really sensitive nowadays.

Nice post. It’s remarkable that he didn’t contend with the scientific literature but hand waved it all away. He is gaslighting people; the topic is quite contentious and unsettled. He didn’t try to delve into the data even a bit. Claiming that genetic differences aren’t in part the basis for the population differences has no evidence to support it. This is a good example of how readily sociopolitical biases trump a scientific mindset, just like climate change. Most people don’t want this data to be true for obvious reasons. It’s a miserable literature.

"I'm actually kind of appalled at the way greg handled this. Really, you're going to hand wave away differences in IQ as mere environment without ANY evidence what so ever?" The burden of proof is on the people who claim it's genetic, especially in a species as genetically uniform as humans. The most recent common ancestor of all humans, by some estimates, could be as recent as only 2000 years old. Any claim about vast genetic differences between human beings' intelligence is already suspect on that front alone. Moreover, "race" isn't a valid biological category, and never has been. It's a sociological one, which was historically made up out of thin air to justify slavery. And if anything correlates with a made up sociological category rather than any observable genetic factor (is there a "black" haplogroup or groups? a "black" gene or set of genes?) , then it is, by definition, not a genetic thing. Old, bad theories shouldn't be engaged with. It's a waste of time. No one engages with ideas like phlogiston, or Thompson's "plum pudding" model of atoms. Because we determined that they're wrong. The pseudoscience of race is also a topic that should be taken to be false. And because of its obvious association with morally abhorrent worldviews, there's even more reason to not legitimize it by pretending that there "might be some truth" in it. " There's a reason it's such a contenscious issue; despite attempts to close the gap, by controlling environment, it still seems substantial (85 vs 100)." Asserted without evidence. Take note: this is how propaganda works. "The complete lack of nuance and maturity in the discussion is disturbing to me" The amount of "nuance" here is exactly fitting with the discussion at hand. There's no "nuance" when discussing young earth creationism, a flat earth, etc. There's no nuance about pseudoscientific ideas of "race" either, and rightfully so. They don't belong in serious academic discussions, and don't deserve to be treated as such.

@@sinachiniforoosh To think you said so little with so much writing. Here let me distill what *you* just said: Race isn't a biological category and if it were there shouldn't be vast gentic difference because humans have a recent common ancestor 2000 years ago. Firstly, for the record the value is around 3000 years ago not 2000. But regardless the rest is all true, humans don't vary vastly be absolute standards obviously. We have to be more alike than different for us to be considered one species. However there is variation between humans, again obviously. You can call it 'race' or what ever but there are phenotypic traits that are shared generally by certain populations. If IQ was an absolute scale compared to all life, then all humans would be indistinguishable in intelligence, but IQ tests were designed to measure relative differences in intelligence among humans. And obviously there would be variation. My point was i don't buy that almost everyone on the continent, despite being the most genetically diverse people on Earth, has an IQ of 70.

sina chiniforoush different human populations have different genetic makeups. If you don’t think this is true, read David Reich’s new book.

This is all what SJWs can do - to hate!

@@Deli0Man says the racist

stefan lines Yeah, Franklin actually did a lot of math on the photo to get a prediction on what the 3D shape would look like.

@JoshHop google the flynn effect

Amir Mirzaei he is brave to say the truth. If he indeed stole other’s work, and he didn’t worth nobel prize, that means he is smart! If he is smart , how could he give the “racist” speech, and of course he knows at this age, any “racist “ sayings will destroy his science and social life! There is the only reason: he wants tell the truth from his work. A not honest person will definitely enjoy the nobel prize and never say the word which may lead him to trouble!

@@ericlouclair2585 So? what if he is a racist person? do you really think someone is going to watch this video and say "well, I should go hate Jews and black people now because a an old guy said so". No one will say that, unless that person is already brain dead, I never saw any brain dead person following scientists.

They "gave him heat" not because he was wrong. But because he was right.

@@dangelini1137 then explain the "flynn effect"

@Pez false

"The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962 was awarded jointly to Francis Harry Compton Crick, James Dewey Watson and Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material."" The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Media AB 2019. Tue. 15 Jan 2019. They literally did win Nobel Prize for DNA structure and not creating molecular biology. And here's more- www.nature.com/articles/171737a0 their paper! Her name is in the acknowledgments and not reference. Biiiiig difference - esp. in the scientific community. You need to learn ..... how to Google! Oh, and also, would you say that the Nobel committee was right to not include Jocelyn Bell Burnell for the prize? (Perhaps, you'll be able to join the dots and see why her name came up in this discussion)

​@@Pragy30 I meant that their model of structure of DNA lead to modern molecular biology. DNA being a double helix wasn't their model. It was a part of it, along with the base pairs. What you essentially have is Gosling taking the picture, obviously under Franklin's supervision, Wilkins who showed Crick the picture, and then Crick using this to advance the model he had already been working on for years. She absolutely contributed to the field, but she wasn't cheated out of a nobel prize or anything like that. They don't award them after death. Also, you can't exactly reference a paper that is published at the same time as yours. I do know why you mentioned Burnell. Do you think she was cheated out of some award, or do you think it is just fine that she didn't get a prize? She has in the past said that research students shouldn't get nobel prizes, except in exceptional cases, which she doesn't believe her's is. But then, again, given that they don't award nobel prizes to the dead, there is nothing wrong with what happened. Without knowing more about what specific actions each student actually took in the lab which would be far too intimate knowledge to be actually published anywhere, there is no way of knowing if these situations are actually equivalent though. I only mentioned Gosling to dispel the idea that she single-handedly changed the very field and theory behind the structure of DNA.

"You keep saying it's not genetic, but provide no evidence. Looking at twin studies, we absolutely can see that it is in large part genetic. IQ in the general population within the US is mostly heritable, so it's not odd that populations that evolved apart for thousands or tens of thousands of years would be different genetically." This is a false statement provided with no evidence. For the audience, take note: This is how propaganda works. Just asserting things without evidence, and demanding others prove you wrong. As if the assertion that there's a link between "race" (and archaic and bogus way of categorizing humans, created to justify slavery) and "intelligence" (an ill-defined quality, measured by an even less reliable measure, "IQ"), especially in a species such as humans, who have always (and continue to) procreate across populations, is supposed to be taken as absolute truth with no scrutiny. The burden of proof is not on people who don't accept such a hilariously unscientific claim. No one tries to argue that there's a difference between the intelligence of other animals based on their skin color (I don't see any papers about the intelligence of horses of different colors), but somehow for humans, we're supposed to accept it as a given? We already have a perfectly sounds explanation for why people believe that people of different "races" have differences in intelligence: to justify racism.Occam's razor says that racists should be ignored.

@@sinachiniforoosh Race was not created to justify slavery, IQ is an incredible predictor of life success and is well understood and measured, and some interbreeding doesn't mean the categories don't exist, just as purple doesn't mean that red and blue don't exist. It's race; not skin colour. And people do talk about intelligence across breeds of dog for example. We do it for several traits, and not just intelligence actually. IQ is just more interesting in humans because it is better studied and had better predictive power than personality. And no, you're not supposed to take it as a given, but you sure seem to take the exact opposite as a given. It seems a very popular position to assume 100% environmental causes to differences in IQ, but for some reason, saying that some of that difference might be due to genetics, which is a far more probable and moderate view, is just not allowed without people immediately jumping down your throat and saying how unscientific you are. Funny that you say people justify racism with differences in IQ, yet don't stop to think that what you call racism is essentially incoherent, essentially meaning heretic, and that stereotypes based on race are actually based on the traits of that group. It's actually people that hold the same beliefs as you who justify racism by trying to force equal outcomes which ignore the different traits. Instead of seeing that black people do worse in society and asking why, you just jump to racism, instead of examining why. Racism of the gaps.

@@Bridge2110 1. "Race was not created to justify slavery" Demonstrably false. The concept of race was created at the dawn of colonialism and African slave trade, to justify the inhumane treatment of who Europeans needed to label as "lower races". 2. " IQ is an incredible predictor of life success and is well understood and measured" Citation needed. 3. "some interbreeding doesn't mean the categories don't exist, just as purple doesn't mean that red and blue don't exist. " That's a hilariously lacking analogy. Humans are not colors, and the presence of even the smallest amount of interbreeding between populations (which is not true for humans, since there's a large and increasing degree of interbreeding in human populations, due to the fact that humans historically travelled a lot, engaged in wars, etc.) causes a large shift in genetics, because genes spread fast and amplify. 4. "It's race; not skin colour. And people do talk about intelligence across breeds of dog for example." Race is not a valid biological category. Therefore any argument linking race to any other attribute must acknowledge its socially constructed nature, and thus, speaking about "inherent" racial characteristics is bogus. It makes just as much sense to talk about the "New Yorker" or, NYers as a biological category. That is to say: none. Dog breeds have been deliberately bred for generations. Human beings have not. "IQ is just more interesting in humans because it is better studied and had better predictive power than personality. And no, you're not supposed to take it as a given, but you sure seem to take the exact opposite as a given." The "opposite" is a valid null hypothesis, given the facts that I've already mentioned about humans, who are all members of one, young species with a high degree of mixing between their populations. The burden of proof of the existence of any statistically significant differences between the "intelligence" of "races" is on people who claim it. The claim that there are "genetic differences of intelligence between races" is meaningless because: A. "race" is a social category, not a genetic one. B. IQ is a bad measure of intelligence, and there's no good evidence that it's a measure of any genetic attribute. And these are problems with the construction of the statement itself. To even attempt to "prove" it is a whole other issue. 5. "It seems a very popular position to assume 100% environmental causes to differences in IQ" The assumption is that "racial" differences in IQ are 100% environmental. Which makes sense, because race isn't a biological category. 6. "Funny that you say people justify racism with differences in IQ, yet don't stop to think that what you call racism is essentially incoherent, essentially meaning heretic, and that stereotypes based on race are actually based on the traits of that group." I love how racists can't help exposing themselves. Nah, racism is very clearly defined, and the definition fits your ideas perfectly.

Did you not watch the video? 2:32 to 2:55. Dumb be a dumb racist there is no science behind his claim.

@JoshHop yes! I learn and critically think about science and I care about feelings O:)

@JoshHop again i dont care about science, science is a way of understanding the world that uses experiments and analysis of data and then tests testable theories and whenever new data comes in that changes... the tea in this episode is more about the actions of the scientists that led them to cheat off of their colleage, the science didn't change because of it... (i watched the beginning of the video you suggested and i stopped because he obviously manipulates the audience and uses incorrect analysis of the data he is talking about, basically he talks in over-exagerations)

@JoshHop what's your point again?

@JoshHopwho said science doesnt matter? who said anyones feelings are hurt? (your mindset is very negative huh)... basically i respect results that are presented through a scientific technique but still critically think about them (in this case the structure of dna) AND feelings make me care about things, basically when i feel a certain way it makes me more invested in it (in this case the fact that a person uses a high status to steal ideas and spread misproven results)

@JoshHop what do you mean?

the first images of a double helix were taken by a woman but she got no credit for them and the men who stole them from her won a nobel prize for something *she* did. idk, maybe it’s stuff like that that discourages women and minorities bc even when we do STEM, no one recognizes us.

@@mimiHTcat Try living in the present day, not what is literally a lifetime ago. The world is not the same, if you were in it youd know that.

@@coreyh3170 racist idiot