• 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.
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...


The differences are insignificant, as one would reasonably expect given extremely minor gene pool variations. Different races are not remotely the same thing as different species.

On the intelligence issue you raise, I am not aware of even a single credible study that shows a statistically significant difference. Some people have made arguments based on reported mean IQ scores, but that is an inadequate basis from which to attempt such conclusions. Unless one can show, for example, the differences are statistically significant e.g., at a 95% level of confidence, one cannot draw the general conclusion you ask about. Furthermore, IQ, itself, only explains a portion of intelligence, and that further complicates the issue.

For illustrative purposes concerning the statistical issue, the following is a hypothetical case: Let's say there are two groups: A and B. A has a mean score of 110 and B has a mean score of 105. However, A has a standard deviation of 15 points while B has a standard deviation of 12 points. 95% confidence intervals (rounded to the nearest whole number) would be as follows: A: 81 to 139; B: 81 to 129. In other words, either group's true score could fall somewhere in the ranges set forth. On account of the overlap between the two group's ranges, one cannot state that A is better than B due to A's somewhat higher mean score.

Bottom line: There are no meaningful differences. Statistical rigor, not political correctness, is the basis for reaching such a conclusion.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Then how can we answer the question? We can't study relative intelligence between races if we don't know what races we're discussing.
Click to expand...

How the heck do painters every manage to paint the interior of houses when they don't know what colored paint is because color is a socially constructed metric. When a home owners says he want a room painted blue what the heck does that even mean?

Clearly that explains why no houses in the world have painted interiors.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Yes but in order to determine whether or not all races have equal and mental competency then we would first have to list all races and then compare intelligence data between all races. So your question requires us to get specific.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, in regards to me.

I ask the question because I don't know and obviously don't have all of the data regarding it.

Ergo, I ask here because all ya'll are the supposedly intelligent and argumentative type.

I can help in trying to answer the question, but don't think I'm going to have all the answers because that's not the nature of the inquisitive one who doesn't know.
 
RiverDad said:
You've shown yourself to have the reasoning ability of a rock. Impervious to evidence and reason like a rock is impervious to water.
Click to expand...
see donsutherland's post about the lack of evidence. you always act as if i'm the only one who says the things I do - that's your first mistake since i formed my opinion directly from the the opinions and evidence provided by the scientific community.
 
Wake said:
...erosion...

...and Pokemon...
Click to expand...

Except I can't spare a billion years in order to drive understanding into the noggin of theplaydrive.
 
RiverDad said:
Except I can't spare a billion years in order to drive understanding into the noggin of theplaydrive.
Click to expand...
Like I said, my opinions come directly from the scientifc community. It's strange that I made the same argument as don and several other posters on this board that you only attack me.
 
No, it doesn't, in regards to me.

I ask the question because I don't know and obviously don't have all of the data regarding it.

Ergo, I ask here because all ya'll are the supposedly intelligent and argumentative type.

I can help in trying to answer the question, but don't think I'm going to have all the answers because that's not the nature of the inquisitive one who doesn't know.
Click to expand...

You certainly claimed to know in the other thread.
 
David D. said:
I think Oscar is just saying that many people accept the fact that different environments can cause a single species to divide and evolve into different physical appearances, so why can't different environments cause a single species to divide and evolve into different variations of mental capacities/ways of thinking, ect?

I think it's a valid point.

Or was your comment including a point made by Oscar in a prior post (maybe I missed that)?
Click to expand...

It can be not valid if his argument that environment cannot be used to explain disparities in IQ is valid. Either environment can create variations or not.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
You certainly claimed to know in the other thread.
Click to expand...

In order to "know" one typically has to have a "belief" to give reason for said "know."

In that other thread, it was a question with an argumentative twist in order to drill out some credible info from both sides.

I don't believe either way, because I don't know. I just don't like the feeling of being expected to believe one way, even though there's a scientific possibility of it being the other way.
 
RStringfield said:
It can be not valid if his argument that environment cannot be used to explain disparities in IQ is valid. Either environment can create variations or not.
Click to expand...

please look up the definition of strawman. I have never made that arguement.
 
Wake said:
"asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.)" is.

When I say race it means "all" races. People shouldn't use the Argument by Question fallacy. I don't have the time to collect a complete list; it's just not practical.
Click to expand...

If you are using a term in a premise of your argument, it most definitely has to have a snappy answer or else you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.

It's not a fallacy to ask for terms to be defined, but it is a fallacy to have undefinable terms in a premise.

If you wish to limi tthe descriptions ot the source you used earlier, though the fallacy youare guilty of is:

"Failure To State:
if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic."

A List Of Fallacious Arguments
​
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
In order to "know" one typically has to have a "belief" to give reason for said "know."
Click to expand...


Isnt this just one of a few epistemological stances? I dont quite remember.

Also race is a cultural conception.

Once again, I can't wait to see this ****.
 
So what are your guys's philosophies on race? I mean, are they black when they look sort of black? Are they black when they're still 1/16?

What genetic parameters would you use to distinguish between races? Which races are actual races? As if this were even a valid discussion.
 
Tucker Case said:
If you are using a term in a premise of your argument, it most definitely has to have a snappy answer or else you are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.

It's not a fallacy to ask for terms to be defined, but it is a fallacy to have undefinable terms in a premise.
Click to expand...

There's no fallacy in asking if evolution did or did not affect the mental or physical capability of all races.

To say that's fallacious is to say that all questions of dubious scientific background are fallacious.

Equivocation:
using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different. For example, sometimes "Free software" costs nothing, and sometimes it is without restrictions. Some examples:

"The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there."

All trees have bark.
All dogs bark.
Therefore, all dogs are trees.

"Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three lefts do."
- "Deteriorata", National Lampoon
Click to expand...

Not sure where my question suddenly changed its meaning.
 
SE102 said:
Isnt this just one of a few epistemological stances? I dont quite remember.

Also race is a cultural conception.

Once again, I can't wait to see this ****.
Click to expand...

See? That's another good question.

I don't have the answer but I'd like to hear your thoughts and the thoughts of others about it.
 
Last edited:
There's no fallacy in asking if evolution did or did not affect the mental or physical capability of all races.

To say that's fallacious is to say that all questions of dubious scientific background are fallacious.
Click to expand...

What genetic parameters would you use to distinguish between races? Which races are actual races?
Click to expand...

I caaaaan't wait to seeee this.
 
OscarB63 said:
link please, I have argued no such thing
Click to expand...

Poll: Is it OK for Blacks to Bash Whites for Comedy Purposes #258 and there are other posts within that thread expressing the same sentiment.
 
Wake said:
There's no fallacy in asking if evolution did or did not affect the mental or physical capability of all races.

To say that's fallacious is to say that all questions of dubious scientific background are fallacious.



Not sure where my question suddenly changed its meaning.
Click to expand...

It creates equivocation when you refuse to define it because race is an ambiguous term. Wehn you say "all races" is an adequate limitation, you are saying Humanity is an adequate definition of race.

Furthermore, see my edit to that post.

If you wish to limit the descriptions to the source you used earlier, though the fallacy youare guilty of is:

"Failure To State:
if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic."

A List Of Fallacious Arguments
Click to expand...
 
Wake said:
No, it doesn't, in regards to me.

I ask the question because I don't know and obviously don't have all of the data regarding it.

Ergo, I ask here because all ya'll are the supposedly intelligent and argumentative type.

I can help in trying to answer the question, but don't think I'm going to have all the answers because that's not the nature of the inquisitive one who doesn't know.
Click to expand...

As is already covered, we have no adequate way to measure this or determine the relative intelligence of the races. Noone has the answers, if we cannot measure it in any accurate way we cannot even confirm whether it does or does not exist.

Having said that.. in theory isolated populations can acquire traits inherently selected within that group that would infer a survival advantage within that group or environment. So different groups could theoretically attain a different type of intelligence. Hypothetically one group may gain an advantage for intuitive thinking necessary to reach quick decisions in a rapidly changing environment (solo hunting in a jungle perhaps), while another group somewhere else may develop a better knack for for planning and foresight -a more methodical analytical intelligence - (perhaps a group that would need a well planned organized hunting strategy.. such as an Eskimo whale hunt). Now these are just random examples, and in no way reflect what may or may not be reality, I do not know. This also brings us back to the problem that we have no way to accurately measure any slight variations there may or may not be in a broadly categorized definition of intelligence, yet alone to accurately measure variations in a specific type of intelligence.

So the answer is we do not know for sure, we have no way of telling, but given different environments and different pressures evolutionary processes can cause this to occur. We have not had any "races" isolated long enough for such pressures to manifest themselves sufficiently for us to even be able to measure them.

This is further compounded by the immense degree of variations in intelligence within any given group. It is easy to isolate and measure something such as melanin level where there is very little variation within a population. When you are talking intelligence any given sample can have a range that varies from imbecile to genius - and even the supposed imbeciles could in fact have aspects of intelligence that could easily be construed as being genius themselves (ie: idiot savants), while a genius could be rock dumb when it came to common sense or intuition.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
please look up the definition of strawman. I have never made that arguement.
Click to expand...

Well, then explain to me how it is that slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, disparities in educational opportunities and other environmental factors have not impacted our measures of intelligence amongst African Americans.
 
RStringfield said:
Poll: Is it OK for Blacks to Bash Whites for Comedy Purposes #258 and there are other posts within that thread expressing the same sentiment.
Click to expand...

sorry, but methinks you are misinterpreting or misrepresenting my sentiments
 
RStringfield said:
Well, then explain to me how it is that slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, disparities in educational opportunities and other environmental factors have not impacted our measures of intelligence amongst African Americans.
Click to expand...

according to you they haven't...we are all equal.

you can't have it both ways. can't blame black failure on slavery and then cry that environment doesn't affect IQ.

FWIW, my "sentiment" isn't that black failure is due to a lack of IQ, it's due to a lack of motivation. they are intelligent enough to succeed, many of them just choose not to. there is a difference.
 
Tucker Case said:
It creates equivocation when you refuse to define it because race is an ambiguous term. Wehn you say "all races" is an adequate limitation, you are saying Humanity is an adequate definition of race.

Furthermore, see my edit to that post.
Click to expand...

I view race as a set of people with similar physical features, etc. Though, after googling a few definitions, I could wonder over it a bit more.Race (classification of humans) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not think "race" could be considered by others to be such an ambiguous word.
 
OscarB63 said:
you can't have it both ways. can't blame black failure on slavery and then cry that environment doesn't affect IQ.
Click to expand...

Environment does affect IQ. Saying that isn't the same thing as saying IQ is affected by environment the same way that evolution is affected by environment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom