User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 57 of 57

  1. #51
    Content. Content? DigitalMethod's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Everyone has the potential to reach any goal set in front of them, any standard society has created, the ability to prove themselves equal. Unless a handicap is in place such as retardation.

    So why does it matter?
    "The life of the individual has meaning only insofar as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful."
    - Albert Einstein

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    To make it simple: Evolution is shaped like a tree with branches, not like a ladder.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default The Day Ezra massacred the Theory of Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    The subject I'm most interested in is race and intelligence. I want to know whether or not there is (even a rough) correlation between race and intelligence. I read about comments made by James Watson, a distinguished scientist, a few months ago. The first obstacle encountered is to get past all the moronically subjective and fabricated crap various people have attributed to the scientist as having said. The second obstacle is deciding whether or not his comments are true or not - is there actually a correlation between race and intelligence?
    First off, it is very much so an excursion in how NOT to fence-sit, and how best to be subjective, when you take James Watson's inquiry re: intelligence and race, to extrapolate to the whole continent of Africa.

    Cuz:
    1) It is pretty obscure and ridiculous to interpret that, as a WHOLE continent, there is genetic inferiority in terms of intelligence....you would have to show how exactly the WHOLE is contained (what are its parameters)
    2) What is race? Esp. as a contained unit within Africa? E.g., egyptians
    3) Evolution is SLOW AS MOLASSES. Intelligence, at the level of human group differences, when quantified (most used - IQ testing), would point towards the opposite of genetics, because as a whole, we are 'smarter' (on avg) than we were 40 or even 50 years ago. This time frame is too small for evolution.
    Humans are like maggots' maggots within the context of evolution & its timescale.

    4) As such, differences rising to firstly, have distinct 'races' and secondly, have them statistically significantly differ on intelligence...goes against any intuition one has about the workings of genetics and evolution.

    Firstly, I need to define what I understand to be race. A lot of people (including me) see "race" as being "the human race" - that is every human being. However, another view which I see as perfectly legitimate is the view that there are different races within humankind. When people like Watson use "race", they are talking about whites, blacks, browns and yellows, and this is what I'm interested in.
    And....there's your commentary to my inquiry: what is race?

    In order to look at race from a biological perspective, one would have to look at phenotypic differences. Most evidence show that rather than a geographic cluster, we see a cline, meaning there's gradual changes in allele frequencies from place to place. I.e., we cannot see something that is inherent to a geographically-bound parameter, but rather due to a change in the envt. across the species' geographic range. The change is due to more pinpoint factors (such as change in environment) than at any global scale, like, a continent. (unless you think all of Africa's environment is the same).

    For your edification:
    Serre, D. & Paabo, S. (2004). Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents. Genome Research, 14, 1679-1685.

    Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents Genome Research

    {dunno if you can access the article, as I am under my school's proxy server & have access}


    Secondly,
    Another view, propounded by my housemate (who is a scientist (albeit a chemist rather than a biologist, which his father is)), is that there is a single human race, but that black people are less evolved than other types of people (I will call them "races" for simplicity's sake). This is, according to him, because black people are biologically closer to apes (from which every human being evolved) than other races. Think about the logic of this: apes -> black people -> white people. He backs this claim up by explaining that Africans cannot rule themselves, and are better with white rule e.g. Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Leone and so on and so forth. I realise that this looks backed up by irrational prejudice (and indeed I do think it is, and he actually recognises that it is), but I do think he has a valid point which needs to be properly challenged instead of just being dumped in the bin. Now, I have a few problems with this which I shall outline.
    You are commenting on evolution and using culturallly prescribed subjective words (along with a host of other misinformation). That's a fallacy (along with your fallacy of appealing to 'authority').

    Mistakes:
    1) Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans ARE apes, in scientific terms.
    Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    1a) if in colloquial jargon you wanna speak of the 'apes', it is STILL an error to say Humans evolved from apes. We shared a common ancestor long ago. We didn't evolve from them. Difference. note it.

    2) There is no such thing as "MORE EVOLVED" when commenting on and contrasting any species that are currently living today. This is a ridiculous assertion if you understood even a fraction of evolutionary theory. All species, living in their present state, are more evolved than whatever came before them in their evolutionary line. There is no species that can be ---> another, and have both the species living side-by-side, at present. THIS WOULD THEN NOT BE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

    3) I have never seen any scientific proof that says black people are closer to 'apes' (cuz, well, back to 1) we, ALL people, not just blacks, are apes)

    4) There is no scientific justification of why the 'end' line of evolution is white people....as most 'white people' have the greatest variety in terms of ancestral phenotypes.

    The rest of your posts have been tackled by others, esp. w/ regards to the 'demise of Africa' so I'll end here for now.


    * please note: fence-sitting may be something you want to practice more than you preach, because as it stands, you have little to no understanding of what it looks like on either side of the fence. Let alone, then, make an informed choice for the middleground.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Feops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTx
    Posts
    829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    To make it simple: Evolution is shaped like a tree with branches, not like a ladder.
    With frequent pruning

  5. #55
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    James Watson[/url], a distinguished scientist, a few months ago. The first obstacle encountered is to get past all the moronically subjective and fabricated crap various people have attributed to the scientist as having said.

    This is, according to him, because black people are biologically closer to apes (from which every human being evolved) than other races. Think about the logic of this: apes -> black people -> white people. He backs this claim up by explaining that Africans cannot rule themselves, and are better with white rule e.g. Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Leone and so on and so forth.
    1) Watson is considered a fcking jerk by most scientists and a loon on top of that. Jst FYI as his ideas are not taken seriously scientifically. Crick was a really awsome guy but watson is a jerk

    2) Africans actually are more gentically diverse from one another than when comparing the avarage african to the avarage north american. I in texas white as a lily could be more closly related genetically to the guy in the sudan than thee black guy in the next town. Africans did not stop evolving when the first migrants moved up into eurasia (actualyy that has been happeneing for about 100,000 years in waves). Instead they kept evolving gentically just like the rest of us. In northern eurpoe the selective pressure for melanin content was not present-actually likely selected against in low light climates given our need for vitamin D sysnthesis.

    IQ does have genetic components but being too smart makes you useless and social-economic factors have a much larger influence on eventual social status

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    It simply means you haven't read.

    You should learn phylogenetics instead, and try to figure out how this science works.
    I understand. Which is why your explanation makes perfect sense to me, but not everyone is educated in that field of knowledge. Too bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
    With frequent pruning
    That's how it should be. Unfortunately, modern medicine is allowing some individuals to live, that wouldn't be able to otherwise.

  7. #57
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    There are slight differences in biochemistry, Blood cell distrubitons between "races", as well as variations in red cell markers (protien and sugar coatings on the surface of red cells), but this tends to be more related to geographical distribution than race, but I fail to see how this reflects in levels of intelligence as most of these differences are due to exposure of environmental factors (such as nutrition, types of infections etc) over thousands of years.
    As various people have stated in various different ways, it is environmental, and cultural factors that affect intelligence, not "race".
    I also believe that perhaps you are working from a narrow definition of intelligence, as there are many different types. I won't reiterate what others have said, but I believe they explained more concisely than I would have.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?
    By RaptorWizard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-18-2015, 04:34 AM
  2. Is the Big Bang Theory supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?
    By RaptorWizard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-13-2013, 01:52 PM
  3. Music and String Theory
    By wyrdsister in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-16-2012, 09:32 PM
  4. What is a scientific theory?
    By Tamske in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-19-2010, 09:14 AM
  5. When folk theory meets scientific theory?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 02:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO