• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Did evolution leave all races with equal mental and physical competency?


  • Total voters
    43
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey look, some people find it wrong. Responding to something does not make you right and them wrong, or else I have just proven you wrong simply by responding. This is what we call elementary logic, which seems to be beyond you. Maybe you did not realize this, but just saying you are right does not make it so, and yet because the authors said they are right, you assume that means they are.

All you're doing is pointing to the articles that were published in that special issue:


Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). There are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 295-301.

Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 302-310.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 311-319.

Suzuki, L., & Aronson, J. (2005). The cultural malleability of intelligence and its impact on the racial/ethnic hierarchy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 320-327.

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R (2005). Wanted: More race realism, less moralistic fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 328-336.​


Oh look, it turns out people actually do disagree with your source, people with knowledge in the field.

I already noted that this issue featured dissenters. Just because someone dissents doesn't mean that their dissent is valid. Go take an evening and read the entire debate and see how weak the criticisms are and how they are addressed by the last article.
 
All you're doing is pointing to the articles that were published in that special issue:

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). There are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 295-301.

Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 302-310.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 311-319.

Suzuki, L., & Aronson, J. (2005). The cultural malleability of intelligence and its impact on the racial/ethnic hierarchy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 320-327.

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R (2005). Wanted: More race realism, less moralistic fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 328-336.​




I already noted that this issue featured dissenters. Just because someone dissents doesn't mean that their dissent is valid. Go take an evening and read the entire debate and see how weak the criticisms are and how they are addressed by the last article.

Just because some one says something is true does not mean it is. See how that works? Just because you believe it is true does not mean that people with honest to god knowledge in the field believe it is true. So far your only response to criticism has been to say "well, they said it was true", which is not a very good argument.
 
Well, you showed him...

Actually, you showed him that you could not counter his post and had to resort to, once again, misdirection in an attempt to draw attention away from it. By the way, Tucker in fact does know more on the topic than you do, as we have seen numberous times. Hell, I know more on the topic than you, and I just casually read things.

Yeah, ok. You guys go on believing that drift and mutation are factors apart from evolution. You're smart, just like Fredo. Keep telling yourself that.

 
Yeah, ok. You guys go on believing that drift and mutation are factors apart from evolution. You're smart, just like Fredo. Keep telling yourself that.

And now you are misrepresenting what he said(Hint, he said: "While the all play a role in evolution, they are not evolution"), and throwing an ad hom in again. Dishonesty along with a need to throw out random ad homs is not doing your position any good.
 
Moderator's Warning:
RiverDad, stop making things personal and attacking other users.
 
I said "insignificant" not "identical." That distinction is crucial. The Human Genome Project showed 99.9% similarity. The differences among humans, however one wants to group them, are insignificant. 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.
This is a common Fallacious tactic used by the PC in debates like this.
Of course, when one points out that Humans and some Primates showed 99% similarity, it Busts it, and demonstrates there's still Plenty of room for things like IQ difference among human 'strains'....

I said "credible" studies. I'm aware of the existence of discredited and, in the Jensen case, poorly-designed ones. There are no meaningful differences.
And IQ difference of a Statistically Significant nature; 1 Standard deviation or More (3) in some cases/between some races.
 
Last edited:
I am going to take your example here.

I assume you chose the Chinese because they are a developing civilization and appear to be quite intelligent, and I also assume you chose the Aboriginees of Australia because they appear to do nothing but play with rocks or something like that (no heavy thinking).

If you take a chinese newborn and take him to live with the Aboriginees and you take a baby from Austrailia and raise him in China, what will the outcome be?

I think intelligence is fostered and groomed from day one, and if you are in a society like China, where you need a strong brain to survive, the child will come out smarter and able to solve problems.
...Actually, they've already thought of that and already demonstrated you're Wrong with Trans-racial adoption studies. (ie, Minnesota)
Asian babies adopted into white families had higher avg IQ than whites, and Black lower IQ than whites.
All starting equal, adopted into in white families.
See below.
 
Last edited:
From a previous string:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...48-looming-un-pc-crisis-human-genetics-3.html

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
Race differences in average IQ are Largely Genetic
Medical Research News
26-Apr-2005

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply.

"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even AFTER matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they CANNOT be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, Both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
[.....]
3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

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.

6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
[.............]​
 
Last edited:
This is a common Fallacious tactic used by the PC in debates like this.
Of course, when one points out that Humans and some Primates showed 99% similarity, it Busts it, and demonstrates there's still Plenty of room for things like IQ difference among human 'strains'....

And IQ difference of a Statistically Significant nature; a Standard deviation or More in some cases/races.

This is like one of those "don't want to touch it with a 50 foot pole topics" ... but against my best instincts I'll join the conversation anyway.

I have not personally heard of any evidence that would suggest that there are significant within species differences between races. This is likely because most researchers don't want to touch the subject with a 50 foot poll either (it'd probably be hard to get funding for such projects). Most evidence that has been sited is confounded by environmental factors (such as growing up in a poor undereducated area). I think that there is a better case, as of now, for differences between races in regards to physical qualities, however, as the races intertwine over the years to come, those differences will likely disappear.

Differences such as skeletal structure (which influences muscle arrangements) are clearly evident. Additionally, such differences make sense as over the years different genetic makeups were more favored or not depending on one's geographical area of origin. Small within species changes like this can occur and we see this in dogs (for example). The difference of course is that in dogs, the traits were selected for by men/women and in humans traits were selected for by the environment (so to speak).

It has been found that people of who's indigenous origins where in high altitude and low temperature, were shorter and stockier than those whose origin was a lower altitude and a hotter environment. This makes sense as more heat can be stored in a stockier body and heat can escape more easily from a slender body.

Could this type of thing be having an effect on the brain? This is a good question and it is likely that it does, (as the brain is a physical part of us) however, it is likely a very small difference. This does not mean that any one race is smarter than another, just that certain races may have different physiological presentations (significant in appearance, not in genetics) and that some races may be genetically better at certain mental activities than other races. This of course does not mean I.Q. - which is supposed to be a measure of intelligence. All races are likely to preform relatively the equally on IQ once environmental factors (such as impoverishment) are taken out of the equation. However, there may be some differences in thinking styles (other than those affected by cultural factors) between races.

It should be noted that because most types of dogs, if released into the wild, will no longer look like their dog type of origin within a only few generations (they will simply look like other wild dogs), that it is likely that in humans, most of the differences are being lessened even as we speak.
 
Last edited:
This is like one of those "don't want to touch it with a 50 foot pole topics" ... but against my best instincts I'll join the conversation anyway.
I understand.
This is among, if not Thee, most contentious/dangerous/Un-PC issue there is.

Wikipedia has dramatically changed it's entry for 'Race and Intelligence' to a PC point where it is Unrecognizable vs the Fact filled one of a few years ago.
This is where Wikipedia is weakest/least useful; where social issue cross fact.
Now it's full of Apologetics while dropping Poignant studies, charts, graphs.

I have not personally heard of any evidence that would suggest that there are significant within species differences between races. ...
I just posted some immediately above. Probably while you were making your long reply to my previous one.
Reconsider please.
 
Last edited:
"Did evolution leave all races with equal mental and physical competency?"

Yes, Wake, everyone but you and we try to take that into account when responding to or avoiding your questions.
 
The answer is No when talking about averages, but the range of all "races" overlap each other in which it is possible for someone from any race to achieve any possible feat others can. So this makes it wrong to judge someone on their race because they easily could be above average and most tasks,goals,jobs don't even need half the potential then the average range on intelligence and ability.

For example, If the government was set up to randomly choose from birth what a baby would do for a job in their adult life. In the most clean-cut coldest sense all scientist/mathematicians would be chosen to be Jews then asian (due to better computational skills on average). All football/basketball players would be black except for QB's... ect.

And it's proven that Kenyans do have better breathing/Oxygen lung capacity, and people of African decent have faster muscle twitches (whatever that means). People of african decent have a higher risk of sickle-cell anemia by a whole lot for then any other race. People with blonde hair and blue eyes have bigger dicks on average then those with brown hair+ eyes. People with african decent on average have bigger dicks. We look on average different with grouping of physically characteristics, Europeans get sunburned easier, and Africans that live up north have to make sure they don't get Vitamin D deficiency...etc. etc.

Averages can sometimes be misused to discriminate, so it is naturally to want to defend against this idea; because it would propbably better for everyone in the end even if you are wrong.

As for classification of "race" that people are having such a hard to time to define. I will help you out. First off... it isn't absolutely defined, it lingers in the background of majority ancestors contributing to your genes, which can be quite complex... BUT you don't need to fully compute the system, you are able to extract meaningful(figuratively) information through many different statistics that actually can pretty reliable to determine very subtle differences between two populations. "race" is a very generalized term, intentionally so, but does give reasons to certain studies done on average abilities and tendencies.

First you have your close family- brother, sister, mom, dad->>>>> due to genetics you all have some tendencies you share that would be unlikely shared as closely outside your family. On AVERAGE in comparison to other families, smart mom's and dad's produce smart children, strong moms and dads produce strong children, heart-attack prone mom's and dad's produce heart-attack prone children.

Then, Extended family->>>>> many members of extended family can have certain tendencies that can pass down and spread to the rest. On average the qualities of an extended family is more similar to each other and different from other extended families. This genetic grouping is much more diverse then the first group.

SUper extended Family----->>>> Similarities between members seem to diminish, especially depending on whether the ancestry is more homogeneous or not.

Genetic groupings are only significant when all those contributing has something in common that can be directly attached to something.
But then there is a further ancestry grouping that actually starts to become somewhat significant again, and that is Continental ancestry. In modern times this isn't starting to be not as much of a factor, but through the vast majority of our gene-pools, we all came from very specific continental climates. Depending on the cultures of the area, some are more homogeneous then others. For example Africans, depending on the specific area are actually much more different amongst other nearby African cultures then, for example, Northern European populations over the last few thousand years. Europeans did a lot more inter-breeding amongst their own culture then the Africans inhabitants have. Ethiopian Africans are more genetically diverse then any other people in the world.
The different climates and historical cultural differences have contributed to the slight differences in the averages (some differences arn't so alight at all, like skin color disease resistance and such)
 
I understand.
This is among, if not Thee, most contentious/dangerous/Un-PC issues there is.

Wikipedia has dramatically changed it's entry for 'Race and Intelligence' to a PC point where it is Unrecognizable vs the Fact filled one of a few years ago.
This is where Wikipedia is weakest/least useful; where social issue cross fact.
Now it's full of Apologetics while dropping studies, charts, graphs.


I just posted some immediately above. Probably while you were making your long reply to my previous one.
Reconsider please.

The finding that is most significant to me is the following:

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.

This finding is something that I do not think many people would want to be exposed. However, it does make anthropological and evolutionary sense. Unfortunately, this would give people just another reason to hate science and evolution.

It's hard to argue with adoption studies .. however, I will note that the difference was only 17 points from the two groups which is not too much (but yes still significant). It also makes sense considering our ability to bread for certain traits in dogs (within species changes), for both physical and mental traits.

After seeing this, I really want to see some other evidence that would rebut this claim.

Finally, I'd like to note (as I did in my previous post) that there has been lots of intermingling of the races and this will only continue. Therefore, any small differences that exist now, will only get smaller and smaller to the point of non-significance.
 
Last edited:
The answer is No when talking about averages, but the range of all "races" overlap each other in which it is possible for someone from any race to achieve any possible feat others can. So this makes it wrong to judge someone on their race because they easily could be above average and most tasks,goals,jobs don't even need half the potential then the average range on intelligence and ability.

Totally agree with this

For example, If the government was set up to randomly choose from birth what a baby would do for a job in their adult life. In the most clean-cut coldest sense all scientist/mathematicians would be chosen to be Jews then asian (due to better computational skills on average). All football/basketball players would be black except for QB's... ect.

And it's proven that Kenyans do have better breathing/Oxygen lung capacity, and people of African decent have faster muscle twitches (whatever that means). People of african decent have a higher risk of sickle-cell anemia by a whole lot for then any other race. People with blonde hair and blue eyes have bigger dicks on average then those with brown hair+ eyes. People with african decent on average have bigger dicks. We look on average different with grouping of physically characteristics, Europeans get sunburned easier, and Africans that live up north have to make sure they don't get Vitamin D deficiency...etc. etc.

Averages can sometimes be misused to discriminate, so it is naturally to want to defend against this idea; because it would propbably better for everyone in the end even if you are wrong.

Yeah, I am glad that to my knowledge the government does not make policies revolving around averages regarding certain testing on different races.
 
"Did evolution leave all races with equal mental and physical competency?"Yes, Wake, everyone but you and we try to take that into account when responding to or avoiding your questions.
Why are you trolling? Does it make you feel more secure? That makes you seem like an embarrassment.
 
Last edited:
This is likely because most researchers don't want to touch the subject with a 50 foot poll either (it'd probably be hard to get funding for such projects).

You have no idea brother! The anti-science Left can make life miserable for researchers. From the book "Destructive Trends in Mental Health"

gott1.jpg

gott2.jpg

gott3s.jpg

gott4.jpg

gott5.jpg
 
Based upon the poll results I have to say that I'm amazed that so many believe that certain races are inferior to others.
 
Discussion in another thread gave rise to this poll.

Simply, do you think evolution, with it's supposed changing of humans, left mental and physical competence equal among all races? I ask because I haven't been given much if any empirical proof or valuable evidence for either side. I, for one, am highly suspicious of the notion that evolution left all races equally intelligent. So I'm left to question each side.

Do the Chinese have an overall higher intelligence than, say, Aboriginees of Australia? Looking at history, I can see that certain races advanced far faster than other races. All humans can almost be treated like a bacteria, with different strains of the same virus, what with the way we've spread.

Do you think evolution, with it's "magical" ability to cause people to vary from physical features and skin color, change everthing save mental competence? If mental competence wasn't touched in the slightest so that all races are equally intelligent, do you think physical prowess was also untouched in the slightest? What other things do you think political correctn---ehm, evolution, decide to leave equal?

Please support your claims with evidence otherwise this'll just be a repeat of the other thread.

EDIT: "Ye" is "yes". Confound you, Computer.

it's an interesting question. I would be tempted to apply strict theory and argue that the populations situated to engage in the most competition would be the ones that had developed the greatest mental abilities. Perhaps Jews really are smarter than all the rest of us :).

However, IQ has been demonstrated to flow as well from environmental factors - and certainly none of us would argue that ones ability to apply ones' intelligence to the world around them is heightened or lowered by environment - the mind can be exercised and strengthened like a muscle.

To define it within "races", however, is overly simplistic. Even if one was arguing for a straight nature response, the genetic variation within the races is too wide.
 
Last edited:
This is a common Fallacious tactic used by the PC in debates like this.
Of course, when one points out that Humans and some Primates showed 99% similarity, it Busts it, and demonstrates there's still Plenty of room for things like IQ difference among human 'strains'....

If there's 1% difference between human and primate, it still doesn't "demonstrate" that "there's still Plenty of room for things like IQ difference among human 'strains'." It's jumping to conclusion to say that. That human is 99% like primates genetically just doesn't lead to the conclusion that there is enough difference among the human races to group them genetically. This issue always come back to how we define "race". If we want to talk genetic, is there any dependable scientific method to determine a person's "race" genetically? If I use this method, can it tell me if Obama is "black" or "white"? If it can, we can then proceed to study what are the genetic differences between these "races" and whether these genetic differences actually affect intelligence. Another way would be to identify genes that affect intelligence, and find if those genes are more likely to be found in certain group of population characterised by certain physical characteristics. Maybe science will find that the gene that makes someone have black skin also causes them to have less synapses and less intelligence. Until then, you are jumping the gun.


And IQ difference of a Statistically Significant nature; 1 Standard deviation or More (3) in some cases/between some races.

And what are these studies? Link please.


1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, Both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
[.....]

That's the 1 std deviation difference the other posters dispute. And this gap is decreasing.

3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

There are questions about the validity of the studies that claim the 50% heritability of IQ as well: The heritability of IQ. [Nature. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI

A lot of studies in the past don't properly account for the womb environment and the mother's physical condition during pregnancy. Studies that measure IQ after birth will tend to have this problem since it's very hard to isolate these factors and genes without actually looking at the genes itself.

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

This is a common heuristic problem. It's like saying: P(A/B) > P(A/B') and P(B/C) > P(B>C') and therefore P(A/C)>P(A/C'), P(A/C) might be bigger than P(A/C') but you have to measure that to know for sure, inferring from the probability of the first two is not always correct.

If I gave you these statements:

Probability of getting false positive is higher with ovary cancer than non-ovary cancer
Probability of getting ovary cancer is higher in older women than in younger women
It doesn't follow that the Probability of getting a false positive is higher in older women.

Here it's easy see that one of the factors that confound the third probability is the background probability of getting ovary and non-ovary cancer among the two groups of women. If older women are also more likely to get non-ovary cancer, and the probability of false positive is low enough in non-ovary cancer, then it's not true that older women are more likely to get a false positive. Likewise in reading the probability of intelligence. How much does brain size explains intelligence? If it's small enough, it doesn't follow that having a smaller head size will result in less intelligence if it's overtaken by other factors that affect intelligence. If brain size explains most of our intelligence, then we should expect to find men are much more intelligent than women since their brain is much bigger - but they are not.


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.

This is the same roughly 1 std deviation difference and still doesn't account for what happens in the womb and before adoption, or the effect of racial identity. The author themselves wouldn't say that it's due to genetic differences.

The fact of the matter is that these studies all have differences that are not statistically significant and do not properly control for other environmental factors. To use them as if they proof anything conclusively is unscientific.
 
Last edited:
it's an interesting question. I would be tempted to apply strict theory and argue that the populations situated to engage in the most competition would be the ones that had developed the greatest mental abilities. Perhaps Jews really are smarter than all the rest of us :).

However, IQ has been demonstrated to flow as well from environmental factors - and certainly none of us would argue that ones ability to apply ones' intelligence to the world around them is heightened or lowered by environment - the mind can be exercised and strengthened like a muscle.

To define it within "races", however, is overly simplistic. Even if one was arguing for a straight nature response, the genetic variation within the races is too wide.

IQ is a horrible measure of overall intelligence and problem solving ability. Best example: I spent most of my life around farmers. The medium to big farmers are mostly high school educated if they finished and do not perform well on IQ tests. However, these guys can plan out crops for several thousand acres and figure out seed needs in their heads for that. They can weld and machine on mills and lathes. They can do small and large engine repair, fix hydraulics, and program programmable controllers. They can manage betwen 5 and 20 farm hands. They can look at a weathermap and make predictions as good or better than meteorologists. They follow and understand the markets that they deal in. They handle all their businesses finances, including taxes and paperwork for their employees. In the last 15 to 20 years they have also learned to be computer literate and some of them can do more with a computer than most people. In a couple cases you can add livestock management to their abilities, with all that goes with that. And yet if you talked with them outside of those areas you would immediately note their small vocabulary and ignorance of on things we take for granted.
 
Let's make a deal - I won't tutor you in physics and you don't tutor me on population genetics. OK?

No deal. If I say something wrong about physics, such as claiming gravity causes mass instead of the reverse, for example, you can feel free to correct me on it.
 
People are equal in absolute terms and not equal in nominal terms. :)
 
No deal. If I say something wrong about physics, such as claiming gravity causes mass instead of the reverse, for example, you can feel free to correct me on it.

OK, then. Please define for us the processes of evolution as they work at the population level such that they generate genetic variance and MORE IMPORTANTLY please list for us the factors other than those which operate under the engine of evolution which work to generate population level genetic variance.

Don't dodge this question. You're making a serious claim here, at least to me, that I don't understand what I'm writing about. You would be doing a great service to your fellow liberal creationists on this board to show me up as the fool that you think me to be. Your mouth has led you to make this challenge so demonstrate for us that you understand the process of how population level genetic variance is induced and what processes outside of evolution you have in mind when you made your charge.

There is only one process that could plausibly be considered "outside" of the processes which comprise the driving factors of evolution which is powerful enough to induce some population level genetic variance and even this process is rightly a subset of one of the principal drivers of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom