View Poll Results: Did evolution leave all races with equal mental and physical competency?

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ye

    27 38.57%
  • No

    43 61.43%
Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 279

Thread: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

  1. #101
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    It's good that you're diagnosing yourself as having a reading comprehension disorder for you kindly save us all the trouble of having broach that subject with you. Now that you've broken the ice and shown that you're comfortable with discussing your disability, let me point to another mistake you've made in the quoted post:

    You realize that at best the paper you present is controversial, at worst it is seen as faulty?


    You made the above statement. You didn't indicate that you were conveying other people's opinions. So it seems that in addition to your reading comprehension problems you also have a short-term memory problem which inhibits your ability to recall what you wrote only minutes ago.

    To the substance of your evidence-free assertion, the APA published journal gave equal access to the critics, so if there was any fault with the paper then that fault would have been fully addressed by the critics, preeminent scholars in the field.

    Your tactic is widely recognized as "poisoning the well" - you lay a turd into the thread by declaring that a paper is controversial and possibly faulty and just leave that turd there to stink up the debate. You don't make an argument as to why YOU, or OTHERS, believe the paper is controversial and WHY some think it MAY be faulty. There would be value in discussing WHY that might be the case but simply dropping a turd like you did serves no purpose other than to poison the debate.



    YOU say the paper is controversial. Why should I be bound by your evidence-free assertion? The paper was peer-reviewed and the journal brought together top scholars in the field, people with very impressive publication records. These people all know there fields very well. There is no controversy here.
    So all the experts in the field who disagree with the methodology and conclusions, they do not make the paper controversial at best? You instead try and make it about me? That is hilarious.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    If you're going to say we're all the same race then racism can't exist because racism demands that there's a race that oppresses/insults/etc another race.
    Well, Social Darwinism existed as a social concept. People genuinely believed that humanity could be categorized based on species and then arranged in a hierarchy. That's basically where racism comes from. First you must assume there are races, then you go looking for proof of varying qualities.

    Racism is perceptual, it's not genetic determinism. If that were true, then everyone would be "racist" because we would be inherently separate. But we're not, so.

    I accept your non-scientific opinion on the matter nonetheless.

  3. #103
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,452
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Evolution didn't leave PEOPLE mentally and physically equal.

    Differences in intellect between INDIVIDUALS exceed "racial" differences.

    The "smartest" can easily dominate the less so.

    The brightest white person has a bigger advantage over the average white person than the average white person has over the average (insert ethnicity here) person.

    Genetic advantages between individuals are, imho, explain different outcomes better than any other metric.

    Not just intellect.

    Looks

    Charisma

    Timbre of voice

    Etc etc.

    The strongest used to rule the less so.

    Now its a different set of advantages, but the result of a roll of the dice, nonetheless.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  4. #104
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I said "insignificant" not "identical." That distinction is crucial. The Human Genome Project showed 99.9% similarity.
    The distinction that you're making is a meaningless one. Let me explain.

    Pulled randomly from today's news:


    The top Republican in Congress on Thursday dismissed President Barack Obama's jobs-creation package as a "poor substitute" for policies that would boost the economy and ruled out tax increases as a way to close the country's budget gap.


    Compare that news quote to the following statement:


    Square matrices without full rank have at least one zero eigenvalue


    Most of us can immediately recognize that those two sentences have no relation to each other. Your argument though is that there is no difference because both sentences use common letters of the alphabet. The second sentence is different because it uses the letter Q in a word and the first sentence doesn't.

    The fact that the HGP found 99.9% genetic similarity across the human species is a meaningless fact. Let me demonstrate with another example.

    Using the same methodology as that used in the HGP I could declare that a human male has more in common with a male chimpanzee than he does with a human female, because females don't possess the Y chromosome and the male human and male chimpanzee do and that similarity swamps the difference between species, where humans and chimpanzees are 98% similar.

    Going back to my text based example, the meaning of the two samples of text is found in the correlation of letters to each other, that is words have meaning and the same principle is in play with how race is detailed - the meaning of race is found within the correlational structure of the genome. This is how computer programs can very accurately categorize people into racial groups. If we were all 99.9% the same then the program wouldn't be able to bring about a sort.

    The differences among humans, however one wants to group them, are insignificant.
    You keep saying that the differences are insignificant but you don't define what you mean by the term. Are the differences between the two text examples I used also insignificant? The information that I extract from both samples of text conveys two very significantly different meanings despite the fact that both samples have highly similar use of letters.

    Furthermore, you completely misunderstood the analogy that references races (or any other grouping of humans) and species. Intra-species differences are very small compared to inter-species ones.
    Who says? Not Sewall Wright:


    By contrast, Sewall Wright, who can hardly be taken for a dilettante in questions of population genetics, has stated emphatically that if differences of this magnitude were observed in any other species, the groups they distinguish would be called subspecies.

    One can extend Wright’s argument even further. The more than 200 species of haplochromine fishes in Lake Victoria differ from each other much less than the human races in their neutral genes, although they are presumably distinguished by genes that control differences in their external appearances. The same can be said about at least some of the currently recognized species of Darwin’s finches and about other examples of recent adaptive radiations. In all these cases, reproductively isolated groups are impossible to tell apart by the methods used to measure differences between human races. Obviously, human races are not reproductively isolated (interracial marriages are common and the progenies of such marriages are fully fertile) but the external differences between them are comparable to those between the cichlid fishes and Darwin’s finches. Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is more a political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion? How much difference would Lewontin and those who side with him consider nontrivial?


    I said "credible" studies.
    I've seen this fallacy used numerous times. I'm tired of moved goalposts as a standard as well as the tactic of idiosyncratic definitions of credible. Next you'll be telling me that you only consider studies published in journals which use red ink to be credible and that any study published in a journal that uses black ink doesn't qualify by your standards as being credible.

  5. #105
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    The distinction that you're making is a meaningless one. Let me explain.

    Pulled randomly from today's news:

    The top Republican in Congress on Thursday dismissed President Barack Obama's jobs-creation package as a "poor substitute" for policies that would boost the economy and ruled out tax increases as a way to close the country's budget gap.


    Compare that news quote to the following statement:

    Square matrices without full rank have at least one zero eigenvalue


    Most of us can immediately recognize that those two sentences have no relation to each other. Your argument though is that there is no difference because both sentences use common letters of the alphabet. The second sentence is different because it uses the letter Q in a word and the first sentence doesn't.

    The fact that the HGP found 99.9% genetic similarity across the human species is a meaningless fact. Let me demonstrate with another example.

    Using the same methodology as that used in the HGP I could declare that a human male has more in common with a male chimpanzee than he does with a human female, because females don't possess the Y chromosome and the male human and male chimpanzee do and that similarity swamps the difference between species, where humans and chimpanzees are 98% similar.

    Going back to my text based example, the meaning of the two samples of text is found in the correlation of letters to each other, that is words have meaning and the same principle is in play with how race is detailed - the meaning of race is found within the correlational structure of the genome. This is how computer programs can very accurately categorize people into racial groups. If we were all 99.9% the same then the program wouldn't be able to bring about a sort.



    You keep saying that the differences are insignificant but you don't define what you mean by the term. Are the differences between the two text examples I used also insignificant? The information that I extract from both samples of text conveys two very significantly different meanings despite the fact that both samples have highly similar use of letters.



    Who says? Not Sewall Wright:

    By contrast, Sewall Wright, who can hardly be taken for a dilettante in questions of population genetics, has stated emphatically that if differences of this magnitude were observed in any other species, the groups they distinguish would be called subspecies.

    One can extend Wright’s argument even further. The more than 200 species of haplochromine fishes in Lake Victoria differ from each other much less than the human races in their neutral genes, although they are presumably distinguished by genes that control differences in their external appearances. The same can be said about at least some of the currently recognized species of Darwin’s finches and about other examples of recent adaptive radiations. In all these cases, reproductively isolated groups are impossible to tell apart by the methods used to measure differences between human races. Obviously, human races are not reproductively isolated (interracial marriages are common and the progenies of such marriages are fully fertile) but the external differences between them are comparable to those between the cichlid fishes and Darwin’s finches. Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is more a political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion? How much difference would Lewontin and those who side with him consider nontrivial?




    I've seen this fallacy used numerous times. I'm tired of moved goalposts as a standard as well as the tactic of idiosyncratic definitions of credible. Next you'll be telling me that you only consider studies published in journals which use red ink to be credible and that any study published in a journal that uses black ink doesn't qualify by your standards as being credible.
    All that is nice, but it does nothing to demonstrate that all intra-species genetic variance is entirely due to evolution, which would be necessary for your evolution hypothesis to be accurate.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-15-11 at 06:09 PM.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Windy City
    Last Seen
    09-21-11 @ 11:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    397

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Evolution didn't leave PEOPLE mentally and physically equal.

    Differences in intellect between INDIVIDUALS exceed "racial" differences.

    The "smartest" can easily dominate the less so.

    The brightest white person has a bigger advantage over the average white person than the average white person has over the average (insert ethnicity here) person.

    Genetic advantages between individuals are, imho, explain different outcomes better than any other metric.

    Not just intellect.

    Looks

    Charisma

    Timbre of voice

    Etc etc.

    The strongest used to rule the less so.

    Now its a different set of advantages, but the result of a roll of the dice, nonetheless.
    Great point.

    Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?-selleck-jpg

    vs.

    Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?-ugly-guy-jpg

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Funny but irrelevant point. As I said before, the question is not about specific individuals.

  8. #108
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    All that is nice. . .
    Thank you for that.

    . . . , but it does nothing to demonstrate that all intra-species genetic variance is entirely due to evolution, which would be necessary for your evolution hypothesis to be accurate.
    HUH?

    "Evolution" is a process with pretty big reach. Sexual selection, drift, mutation, are distinct processes but they all play a part in "evolution."

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,452
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Quote Originally Posted by David D. View Post
    Great point.

    Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?-selleck-jpg

    vs.

    Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?-ugly-guy-jpg
    THAT would be why they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

    If someone sent you in to meet your new boss and those two were the only ones in the room, how many would walk up and introduce themselves to the SECOND guy?
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  10. #110
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Thank you for that.



    HUH?

    "Evolution" is a process with pretty big reach. Sexual selection, drift, mutation, are distinct processes but they all play a part in "evolution."
    The fact that they all play a part in evolution does not mean that evolution plays a part in all intra-species genetic variance.

Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •