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 22 of 28 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 279

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

  1. #211
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Thank you for the compliment, Riverdad. I think you're very intelligent. The ironic thing, though, is that I don't even believe in evolution. I favor some of Rene Descartes theory on logic and God.

  2. #212
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    do you have any GOOD evidence to the contrary?

    btw, Creationism has nothing to do with this topic.
    Of course it doesn't. But one shouldn't be surprised by the diversion from the thread's question. Superficial claims cannot be sustained for long when evidence is lacking.

  3. #213
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

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

    This thread is amazing. Just wanted to point that out. Sorry for the interruption.

  4. #214
    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
    It's backwards? Now your argument is that evolution is caused by population level genetic variance? I'd really LUV to hear an explanation for how this works. The EFFECTS are now driving the CAUSE.
    In all of your post, only this was worthy of pursuing further.

    Question: If someone's genes undergo a mutation, would you consider that evolution?

  5. #215
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    And don't forget that the paper has to have been published in red ink, the type font must be Copperplate Gothic, there can be no more than two authors on the paper, and the paper must have a publication date that falls on a Tuesday.

    This tactics of specifying that proof must be delivered in very precise forms is one that I grew very tired of back in my undergrad school days when I was very active in TalkOrigins circles and was battling religious creationists. The same denialist tactics bind the religious creationist camp to the liberal creationist camp.
    As expected, the data wasn't provided, as well it couldn't be furnished given the absence of such data. Without the data, one cannot reject the null hypothesis that the races are not unequal in terms of intelligence. Science is rigorous. Posturing over some article of faith for which data is lacking is not.

  6. #216
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

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

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    As expected, the data wasn't provided, as well it couldn't be furnished given the absence of such data...
    Don't forget, absence of evidence...isn't evidence of absence.


  7. #217
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig
    My post was made Merely to show donsutherland's claim of "99.9"%" was NOT definitive or even logical in being able to 'demonstrate' if there Could be IQ difference among humans.
    You have deconextualized my statement.
    In doing so, you have unwittingly re-enforced My point about His claim.
    The whole "percent" idea, which HE said precluded significant IQ difference .. does NOT.
    I assume you agree despite yourself taking an illogical partisan/PC stance on who to oppose.
    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareill
    So when you say someone is jumping to conclusions, it's okay, but when I show that you are jumping to conclusions I'm "taking an illogical partisan/PC stance". I have no obligation to call out all fallacious arguments, especially ones I didn't read before, or to repeat anything. I can point out any fallacious arguement I see as long as I can show how it is fallacious - as yours was. Ad hominem and being hypocritical doesn't help your arguements.
    Incorrect and emptily argumentative.

    I merely used HIS "99.9%" "percent" routine to show his premise was wrong.
    As I pointed out, it did NOT preclude racial IQ difference.
    Just more hostility.
    You still don't take stance on the correct position.. merely TRY to be technical in service of your bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig
    There are Hundreds/thousands of IQ studies.
    Richard Lynn used over 600 IQ Studies with a sampling of over 800,000 people globally in his 2006 book.

    [LYNN IQ TABLE showing numbers for many groups]

    IOW, Apologetics.
    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil
    IOW: I have a high scientific standard.
    Incorrect and emptily argumentative again.
    IOW, You had to Ignore respected Lynn's numbers summarizing 600+ Studies.


    Quote Originally Posted by me
    our comparison Inapt, and for someone of your intelligence I would say.. Disingenuous.
    My post contains the 3 sizes and differentials which correlate to IQ.
    Not just abstract verbal leaps as you posted/needlessly muddied, mine contains Numbers where If 6>4:::: 4>2 ::: 6>2. We know this even without the middle number.
    That's why this section of your reply was longest. It took More BS to attempt to bury a simple fact.

    Additionally, from a Wiki mirror site, not completely updated/PCed yet.

    [Cranial size and Neuron Data Table/numbers. Jenson; Rushton]
    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil
    Your post contain probabilities, not simple numbers. Heuristic and probability are not bull****. People who cannot understand it (even PhD researchers and doctors) make mistakes reading statistics all the time. My arguement was genuine and correct - you couldn't point out anything wrong other than to attack me and use emotional appeals. It was the longest part because I actually believed that I could explain the concept of representative bias to you. Some posters don't get that benefit because I believe they are too narrow minded to understand why they are wrong. But obviously I'm wrong and that was a complete waste of time. You are already convinced that IQ is genetically determined despite the lack of rigorous scientific evidence. All the evidence provided by you from that article shows a statistically insignificant difference coupled with study design that do not properly control for other variables. Science is about evidence before faith, you already have faith in your theory, anything that contradict that you just dismiss as PC-bull****, even though no one here has said anything about scientifically proving that genes determine intelligence being morally or politically wrong - you just keep argueing with your own strawman.
    This we will have to say is beyond 'incorrect' and a simple Big Lie.
    Those cranial numbers are Actual autopsy Measurements, not mere "probabilities."
    So you've now [had to] ignore all numbers posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig
    IQ researchers have corrected for variables, including socioeconomic ones. IQ remains consistent not only say, in Subsaharan Africa, or Rural china, but intercontinentally with the same populations in North America.
    Additionally your statement is wrong on a statistical basis. Not just that 1 SD is "insignificant", but if one looks at Asians vs Blacks we move comfortably over 1 SD.
    ie, Compare East Asian vs Subsaharans we move over 2 SDs. See the Lynn IQ Chart above.
    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil
    1 std deviation is insignificant for the current standard. If I'm wrong, show where it is accepted that 1 std deviation is statistically significant.
    Show where I claimed you said it was.
    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil
    Secondly do you understand how statistical testing is done? Please show me the article where you claimed they found 3 std deviation difference, or even this 2 std deviation difference instead of you just doing ad hoc arithmetic, and I'll interpret the results for myself, because I don't think you know how to interpret them properly.
    1 Standard deviation on IQ is 15 points. Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In quoting me you again [Had to] Ignore the Lynn Table showing IQ ranging from a 105 high for East Asians to 67 for Subsaharan Africans as low as 54 for Bushmen.
    I assume you can do the math if partisanship/gratuitous argumentation doesn't continue to handicap your replies.
    Last edited by mbig; 09-16-11 at 11:15 PM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  8. #218
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig View Post
    I merely used HIS "99.9%" "percent" routine to show his premise was wrong.
    I just wanted to add a tid bit .. I am not sure what the 99.9% thing was referring to but ..

    I am not sure that everyone completely understands the difference between genotypes and and phenotypes. So I will provide a definition:

    Genotype:

    The genetic constitution of an individual organism
    (Google)

    Phenotype:

    The set of observable characteristics of an individual
    (Google)

    Most would look at chimpanzees and humans and guess that there are much more genotypical difference differences that the 1.5% difference in genotype that has been found by researchers.

    The point is that it only takes fractions of genotypical differences to produce a large phenotypical difference between organisms.

    This is quite evident when we observe the differences between different breeds of dogs for example. All breeds of dogs still remain in the dog species, but can still have minor genetic differences which are considered insignificant; i.e. when researchers say there is no significant difference in genotype, they are saying that the differences that do exists do not warrant declaring that organism as a different species.

    We also see this between the different races of humans. Forensics, anthropologists etc. use the known differences, such as skeletal structure, to identify different races within the same human species.
    Therefore, because we know that there are these differences and we know that skull is cranium differently shaped between races, we know the brain's shape is related to the cranium shape and because we know that physical differences in the brain can cause differences in functioning, how could we not come to the conclusion that different races have slightly differing brain traits and or functioning?

    Additionally, because we know that the brain is a physical part of the body and it is thus affected by genetics, how could extremely small differences between different races not lead one to conclude that is is likely that there is some minor differences in functionality?

    This does not mean that one race is "superior" over another, but that they can have slightly different physical and brain functioning traits. Superiority is a subjective term. Each race likely has characteristics that are related to adapting to their environment of origin.

    Because there is a lot of interracial sexual/reproductive activity, this issue will likely be a moot point in the very near future. As for now, there appears to be some evidence that there are differences between races on certain functioning levels, such as the IQ test, which was originally developed to asses western individuals and does not account for differences in functioning between races. (see quote below)

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig View Post
    5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ Remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

  9. #219
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post


    This is quite evident when we observe the differences between different breeds of dogs for example. All breeds of dogs still remain in the dog species, but can still have minor genetic differences which are considered insignificant; i.e. when researchers say there is no significant difference in genotype, they are saying that the differences that do exists do not warrant declaring that organism as a different species.

    We also see this between the different races of humans. Forensics, anthropologists etc. use the known differences, such as skeletal structure, to identify different races within the same human species.
    Therefore, because we know that there are these differences and we know that skull is cranium differently shaped between races, we know the brain's shape is related to the cranium shape and because we know that physical differences in the brain can cause differences in functioning, how could we not come to the conclusion that different races have slightly differing brain traits and or functioning?

    Additionally, because we know that the brain is a physical part of the body and it is thus affected by genetics, how could extremely small differences between different races not lead one to conclude that is is likely that there is some minor differences in functionality?

    This does not mean that one race is "superior" over another, but that they can have slightly different physical and brain functioning traits. Superiority is a subjective term. Each race likely has characteristics that are related to adapting to their environment of origin.
    I think the main problem in the OP is talking about an artificial construction of race to try and define variation. The article below shows that 85% of difference is actually between people who are identified as being of the same national or linguistic group. Only 6-10% of variation depends on what is considered a 'racial group' - that is things like hair, kin colour, nose shape.

    The every-day socially defined geographical races do identify groups of populations that are somewhat more closely similar to each other genetically. Most important from the standpoint of the biological meaning of these racial categories, however, most human genetic variation does not show such "race" clustering. For the vast majority of human genetic variations, classical racial categories as defined by a combination of geography, skin color, nose and hair shape, an occasional blood type or selected microsatellites make no useful prediction of genetic differences. This failure of the clustering of local populations into biologically meaningful "races" based on a few clear genetic differences is not confined to the human species. Zoologists long ago gave up the category of "race" for dividing up groups of animal populations within a species, because so many of these races turned out to be based on only one or two genes so that two animals born in the same litter could belong to different "races."

    -snip-

    In an attempt to hold on to the concept while make it objective and generalizable, Th. Dobzhansky, the leading biologist in the study of the genetics of natural populations, introduced the “geographical race,” which he defined as any population that differed genetically in any way from any other population of the species. But as genetics developed and it became possible to characterize the genetic differences between individuals and populations it became apparent, that every population of every species in fact differs genetically to some degree from every other population. Thus, every population is a separate “geographic race” and it was realized that nothing was added by the racial category. The consequence of this realization was the abandonment of “race” as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century, an abandonment that spread into anthropology and human biology. However, that abandonment was never complete in the case of the human species. There has been a constant pressure from social and political practice and the coincidence of racial, cultural and social class divisions reinforcing the social reality of race, to maintain “race” as a human classification. If it were admitted that the category of “race” is a purely social construct, however, it would have a weakened legitimacy. Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary.
    Confusions About Human Races

    Edit: Also on simply intelligence I am reminded of Jung's experience when he met American Indians. They told him they thought the white man was mad. He asked them why. They said because they said they thought with their heads. Jung asked what they thought with and the man put his hand over his heart. Jung said from that moment onward he viewed Western civilisation anew.
    Last edited by alexa; 09-17-11 at 08:40 PM.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  10. #220
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

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

    I am having a hard time arguing this side of the argument as I realize how touchy the subject can be and I am not saying that you are being touchy; I am just saying that no one wants to be the "bad guy". Additionally, if groups who already harbor racism are told there are any differences between races, they will likely jump at the opportunity. However, if we are going to look at this subject in an objective manner, we have to acknowledge the facts. I will attempt to show how there are predictable differences in genetics between races; of course this variation is very very small (in terms of genetic percentages) and any phenotypical changes that are observed only mean "difference" not "superior" or "inferior".

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    I think the main problem in the OP is talking about an artificial construction of race to try and define variation. The article below shows that 85% of difference is actually between people who are identified as being of the same national or linguistic group. Only 6-10% of variation depends on what is considered a 'racial group' - that is things like hair, kin colour, nose shape.
    What that article is saying put in different terms but with the same meaning is .. and I quote:

    ... by far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations
    ... Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” ...
    ... The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races
    Here is the source originally quoted:

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    Here we see that between any two people within a national or linguistic population, there will be a certain amount of variation (they did not say what that variation was individuals, but it is a commonly known fact that the variation between individuals is on average 0.5% (Human genetic variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), i.e. on average individuals are 99.5% similar genetically speaking. Therefore we can calculate that of that 0.5% difference, around 85% of 0.5% (0.425% - rounded = 0.4%) is the average amount of genetic variation that will occur between individuals within the same population and the remaining 0.075% (rounded = 0.1%) are represent the genetic racial variation.

    While ~0.1% may not seem like a lot, we have to remember that while individuals vary by a total of 0.5%, our genetic difference from chimpanzees is only 1.5% (i.e we are share 98.5% of our genes with chimpanzees and 99.5% of our genes with each other, a difference of only 1%; Humans And Chimpanzees, How Similar Are We?). This means that humans on average differ genetically by 1/3 of the amount of difference between us and chimpanzees; another way of saying this is that humans are only 2/3 more similar (genetically) to each other than than they are to chimpanzees. Additionally, it can be said that the genetic differences between races is 15 times smaller than the difference between humans and chimpanzees; or that our genetic difference to chimpanzees is only 15 times greater than the difference between races. The the ratio of 1 to 15 (0.1/01.5) is not all that small.

    If you study a chimpanzee, you will find many many more differences in phenotype than 1.5% - who knows how many physical (phenotypical) there are between us and the chimpanzees .. I am guessing somewhere in the million or more range (just to give an idea of how different Chimpanzees are from humans phenotypically speaking). Because that small 1.5% difference produced such vast phenotypical differences between humans and chimpanzees, it should not come as a surprise that there are indeed significant, measurable phenotypical differences between races. This does not mean one race is "superior" to another; it only means that they are slightly different genetically and to a greater degree different phenotypicaly. And .. there is nothing inherently bad in this fact.

    What you may be realizing by now is that extremely small differences in genes (genotypes) can produce large differences in physical representations (phenotypes). If 1.5% genetic difference between us and the chimpanzees can produce such radical physical (phenotypical) then it can not be ignored that there is a 0.1% difference between races which will lead to phenotypical differences (e.g. hair, noses, cranium structure, etc. for the obvious differences as well as not so obvious differences - see article). This being said, the genetic differences are very small, so radical phenotypical differences between races is not likely.

    When scientists say there is no need to subdivide the humans into different races, they say this because 1.) this would be very bad for racism and 2.) the difference is really not large enough to make meaningful subdivisions. However, we are all aware of the phenotypical differences and thus we all know that there are genetic differences that cause those phenotype differences. Forensics are very aware of these differences and use them to identify individuals.

    Additionally dogs all belong to the same species and there are huge differences in their physical and mental appearances and characteristics. Anyone who would say facts like these are not evidence in support of genetic differences between races is just interpreting findings and delivering them in a way that makes it sound like there are no "meaningful" differences .. however, if you read closely you will see that they are admitting that their are differences but do not "feel" that such differences warrant any subdivisions.

    Subdivisions could be done, but there is no application for doing so and as every year goes by, those differences become smaller and smaller due to interracial marriages etc.; i.e. we don't want our children reading that there is 0.1% genetic variation between races - many campaigns have been based on ideas like "different on the outside but the same inside" or "we all bleed red" - encouraging thinking that for everything except appearances, all humans are the same. Unfortunately once someone pays attention in a college biology class, the realize that there is indeed differences and that they are indeed more than just skin and hair.

    Perhaps we should hide these facts so that extreme racists don't have another rock to throw? I have read articles that support the idea that racism is a natural phenomenon and it is in our roots to exhibit racial behaviors (a good portion of racism is also due to culture as well), whether its feeling like one is superior over the other, or getting involved in lynchings. So for any racists that may read this, I encourage you to embrace our differences; we are all human and there are differences between races, but these differences are dwindling and different does not mean "inferior" or "superior", it just means different. As of this point we don't really know much about the differences other than obvious physical characteristics, some proteins and higher susceptibility to certain diseases among some races. We do know that there are differences most likely due to genetic variables that effect performance on the IQ test, but other than that I do not know of any more research in this area - likely because no one wants to touch the issue and it likely only work to serve the strengthening of evolutionary theory and nothing else.

    I would just like to say that I am all for protecting people from becoming more racist. However, I know that when people feel like they are being lied to, they often question things even more. So, in that sense, it may just be better for us to acknowledge that, for now at least, there are genetic and to a greater extent phenotypical differences between races. Each race should be valued for their differences; each race developed different skills based on their environment of origin and thus all races are winners. Some may be able to run faster, some may be able to think in certain ways easier and so on. This of course does not mean that every person in one race is 0.1% different than a person from another race in terms of characteristics as the 0.1% figure is an average and does not take into consideration the individuals within a race that are very similar to individuals in another race. All I ask is that people find positive ways to use this knowledge or not use it at all. I would like a place where differences are respected and even admired.

Page 22 of 28 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... 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
  •