What am I bid for one used Nobel Prize?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 27, 2014

Culture, News, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

No, seriously, from the BBC:

Watson is the first living recipient to auction off his Nobel medal

Prof James Watson is to auction off the Nobel Prize medal he won for the discovery of the structure of DNA.

The auctioneer says the medal is the first to be auctioned by a living recipient and could fetch between $2.5m (£1.6m) and $3.5m (£2.2m).

The 1962 prize was awarded to Watson, Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick, with each receiving a gold medal.

Various science not-for-profits will be among the beneficiaries.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

goodusername. Thats nit true. First yEC denies any possibility of race/sex affecting intelligence. its absurd for many many reasons. The bible says so pf coarse. YET we are all NOT ALL THAT. In other words comparisons are only working on the present low levels of intellect we have unless its agree mankind is as smart as we can get. There are no such things as races. Our looks were not slow adaptations but instant. Good reasons God made our bodies change as needed. No selection at all. for example all white peoples became whits AFTER segregation at babel. We segregated by language while still brown. Upon migration to the north everyone mutually whited up unrelated to common origin. Evolutionism always and still must allow, even insist, that intelligence was as selected upon as looks. A few could say no. Darwin insisted there was no racial intellectual option for difference. (Only sexual). Anyways the only way to know is by testing which can't be done in controled experiments because of mingling. I think its not acceptable to enough of the educated public about racial smarts being about evolution. A chance for ID/YEC to make profit here if they got the nerve.Robert Byers_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

JDH
One of the reasons I find it so easy to reject materialism/evolutionism as a theory is the inability of materialists/evolutionists to admit the troubling aspects of their various beliefs and theories. Evolutionary theory mandates that separated populations which evolved very different physical properties would most probably have evolved different mental aptitudes. The chance of mental aptitudes — which evolutionists claim come completely from genes — as a whole population, not being different in one separated population from another are almost nil.
First, I doubt there's anyone who believes that mental aptitude is completely from genes. I think all are in agreement that there are a myriad of environmental factors that influence mental aptitude. Second, since you're talking about separate human populations, this is in the domain that many call micro-evolution. Even most Creationists and virtually all ID proponents believe that populations within a species may change (within limits) to adapt to their local environment. This is how evolutionists believe that human races came about, but is also how most Creationists and ID proponents believe races came about. (The only exception may be the polygenists that believe that the human races were created separately by a Creator.) And so I'm puzzled why you call this "evolutionary theory" and see this as an aspect of materialism. Let's assume that you are right, and that different mental aptitudes is a consequence of this theory: How do your beliefs avoid the same consequence? I think most evolutionists would agree that the races are recent and the differences trivial (which makes even the existence of "races" controversial), and so even assuming that some differences in mental aptitudes exist between populations, they pale in comparison to the differences that exist within the populations, making any such differences between populations/races utterly irrelevant and inconsequential. Of course, I think most ID proponents and Creationists would say the same thing, for the same reason, as they believe essentially the same theory.goodusername_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

Watsons stuff is one of the very few bobel dudes I ever heard of! He actually did something cool as the others get the gold for minor things later forgotten. Still iots only a object of prestige recognizing a fact of accomplishment. the accomplishment really should trump the item of prestige. nobody ever mentions Einstein getting a nobel because his accomplishment trumps any prestige item recognizing it. thats the true test of doing something cool in science. likewise most of the best stuff never got anyone a nobel prize. I wouldn't buy it. Guess he needs the money ! guess he doesn't respect it enough to keep it. it is a chance for a evolutionist to get one!!!Robert Byers_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

And how exactly, pray tell, does an atheist know if something is really morally evil or good if objective morality is not really real but merely illusory in the atheist's worldview? “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity ‘Right and Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe? by C.S. Lewis Doodle - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis Doodle - animated apologetics (the trancendent nature of moral law) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow R.C. Sproul and Stephen Meyer Explain Ethics – video – 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzQwyq_e9fI Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: Prager University - Peter Kreeft - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVYpBwXWLk Albert Einstein and his answer to his Professor! – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLOZDpE1rkA Moreover, Darwinism has more than its fair share of moral evil in its own closet to deal with before it starts pointing out the past sins of Christians: The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society - Dr. Phil Fernandes – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcQfwICe2Ogbornagain77_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

It is my personal experience, that devoted Christians — who have the express command from their Lord to Love every individual — treat individuals of Other populations much nicer and with less prejudice than devoted scientists
My reading of History leads me to a different conclusion. Organised religion was Gang Culture writ large, and woe betide you if you ever found yourself in the wrong gang. In the latter half of the Middle Ages in Europe, devoted Christians regularly took time off from murdering other flavours of Christions to go on their holidays (i.e. vacation) to the Holy Land, but I have heard rumours that whilst they were there they were rarely nice to the local muslims. And for the century or two after the Middle Ages, you were likely to find yourself tied to a post and burnt alive for minor errors in your methods of Christian Devotion.Tamara Knight_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

JDH -
Evolutionary theory mandates that separated populations which evolved very different physical properties would most probably have evolved different mental aptitudes. The chance of mental aptitudes — which evolutionists claim come completely from genes — as a whole population, not being different in one separated population from another are almost nil.
And indeed African grey parrots and humans have different mental aptitudes. Indeed, African grey parrots and cockatoos have different mental aptitudes. This is totally different to humans, where populations are not separated and are genetically very similar. But there are large societal differences (e.g. in resources used for education), so differences in intelligence can easily be explained that way.Bob O'H_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Bob OH One of the reasons I find it so easy to reject materialism/evolutionism as a theory is the inability of materialists/evolutionists to admit the troubling aspects of their various beliefs and theories. Evolutionary theory mandates that separated populations which evolved very different physical properties would most probably have evolved different mental aptitudes. The chance of mental aptitudes --- which evolutionists claim come completely from genes --- as a whole population, not being different in one separated population from another are almost nil. But why do "scientists" who are supposed to boldly face the "cold hard facts" reject this idea. Because they emotionally ( not rationally ) don't like the philosophical/political/social implications. But if they stand fast against the obvious implications (racial differences) of their supposed facts (evolution of different characteristics) in one area for philosophical/political/social implications of it - why not may they be also hiding their eyes from the scientific observations ( the many evidences for ID ) for the philosophical/political/social implications of it. Two observations. 1. Scientists should be knowledgeable about the difference between the traits of an entire population, and the traits of an individual. Thus even though one population may have a mean value of some measurable characteristic that is higher/lower than a different population - this tells you almost nothing about how an individual from each population will compare given the large spread of values typical in these measured characteristics. This means one can admit that one population has a different aptitude without this knowledge overly influencing one's expectations of the aptitudes of an individual. For an example from basic chemistry - because in chamber A (a population of molecules) the air is hotter than chamber B, does not mean every molecule in chamber A is moving faster than every molecule in chamber B. 2. It is my personal experience, that devoted Christians -- who have the express command from their Lord to Love every individual -- treat individuals of Other populations much nicer and with less prejudice than devoted scientists . Your mileage may vary.JDH_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Bob OH:
Sorry, DavidD, but I don’t believe that, and I’m an evolutionary biologist
Can YOU link to the alleged theory of evolution or do you agree that it doesn't exist? As an evolutionary biologist do you know what makes an organism what it is? As an evolutionary biologist can you tell us how to measure evolution? As in how many mutations it takes to get a bacterial flagellum in a population that never had one?Joe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

I agree with Bob on Taoism. I like that it say that whatever Answers you think you may have are not the Answers.Aleta_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

DavidD - the iconographic "March of Progress" is only 50 years old, so you're over 100 years out. FWIW, my favourite religion is actually Taoism. I love a holy book that starts off by warning the reader that it doesn't contain The Answers.Bob O'H_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Come on, guys above, this is getting out of hand. If you want to talk about evolution and claims about race, how about discussing Nick Wade's recent book, A Troublesome Inheritance? http://www.amazon.com/Nicholas-Wade/e/B001H6WF40 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #12,711 in Books (See Top 100 in Books) #1 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Anthropology > Physical #6 in Books > Textbooks > Social Sciences > Anthropology #7 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Specific Demographics > Ethnic Studies "Publishers Weekly: “Wade ventures into territory eschewed by most writers: the evolutionary basis for racial differences across human populations. He argues persuasively that such differences exist… His conclusion is both straightforward and provocative…He makes the case that human evolution is ongoing and that genes can influence, but do not fully control, a variety of behaviors that underpin differing forms of social institutions. Wade’s work is certain to generate a great deal of attention.”" That's where the action is, not Watson's views. - News, a mod around hereNews_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Bobby O "Sorry, DavidD, but I don’t believe that, and I’m an evolutionary biologist. Just because you and Watson think that Others are inferior doesn’t mean that everyone does." Next time choose your favorite religion more carefully, the religious iconography of the March of Man is loaded with an Apeman with negro feature always lagging behind a muscular white stud ever since Darwin invented his pathetic Church. Evolutionary Biologist. You know, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.DavidD_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Sorry, DavidD, but I don't believe that, and I'm an evolutionary biologist. Just because you and Watson think that Others are inferior doesn't mean that everyone does.Bob O'H_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

Maybe they should give Watson another Nobel Prize for his coming out of the closet and having the courage to speak up and reveal the evolutionary truth of how Africans are inferior in intelligence to white Europeans? He did what every evolutionist believes at heart but do not have the guts to public post.DavidD_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply