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

whysoserious said:

But you are providing nothing of substance yourself. Why do you get to ask questions and provide no answers or evidence but you expect others to provide them? Let's sum it up:

-You have a question about evolution
-You have no real basis or reasoning behind the question, but it's still a question
-You have no proof or evidence for your claim
-There is no scientific method or logic involved

Did I sum it up well?

Click to expand...

he also has no scientific basis for doubting that evolution has created all races basically intellectually equal. and yet he wants us to respond to his baseless-speculation, with evidence, facts, & figures.

this thread is inherently dishonest.

Thunder said:

he also has no scientific basis for doubting that evolution has created all races basically intellectually equal. and yet he wants us to respond to his baseless-speculation, with evidence, facts, & figures.

this thread is inherently dishonest.

Click to expand...

You argue that to have a question one must always hve a large sum of knowledge on the issue already? Wow, interesting.

Wake said:

You argue that to have a question one must always hve a large sum of knowledge on the issue already? Wow, interesting.

Click to expand...

No, but then it is just a question. You have no argument and you have no theory. You only have a question.

Wake said:

You argue that to have a question one must always hve a large sum of knowledge on the issue already? Wow, interesting.

Click to expand...

your question is due to your baseless and evidence-free speculation about evolution.

to challenge this speculation, you demand evidence, facts, figures, & data.

that is not a mature nor honest way to ask a question nor debate an issue.

Wake said:

You argue that to have a question one must always hve a large sum of knowledge on the issue already? Wow, interesting.

Click to expand...

Actually, you asked a question and then also made a claim or two. After which you demanded evidence despite not providing any for your own claim. You didn't provide anything falsifiable. It's not even clear what you mean by "race". Black? White? Asian? Are you talking nationalities? For example, you made a comment about Chinese when Chinese is a nationality, or could be a rough grouping of varied ethnic groups from a particular region (some of whom are quite different in culture, language, physical features, etc.).

Also, your question doesn't require a HUGE sum of knowledge, but at least some basic knowledge and common definitions that can be agreed upon to begin to answer your question, such as the idea and definition of what constitutes a "race". If your base concept of race is flawed or simply not a valid way of categorizing humans, then the question is pretty worthless.

Races evolved according to their needs. They grew by their own standards and relgious beliefs. Asians place great value on honor, so education is of paramount importance. Caucasians initially were tinkerers which is why Europe produced people who created items bringing us to where we are today. Negros lived more wild than the rest of us and placed more need on physical strength and endurance.

Bottom line the three races are different, even though all of himanity began in one location.

coolwalker said:

Races evolved according to their needs. They grew by their own standards and relgious beliefs. Asians place great value on honor, so education is of paramount importance. Caucasians initially were tinkerers which is why Europe produced people who created items bringing us to where we are today. Negros lived more wild than the rest of us and placed more need on physical strength and endurance....

Click to expand...

none of this has anything to do with evolution. and most of it is quite silly.

coolwalker said:

Races evolved according to their needs. They grew by their own standards and relgious beliefs. Asians place great value on honor, so education is of paramount importance. Caucasians initially were tinkerers which is why Europe produced people who created items bringing us to where we are today. Negros lived more wild than the rest of us and placed more need on physical strength and endurance.

Bottom line the three races are different, even though all of himanity began in one location.

Click to expand...

You lost me at "Negroes"...but then I kept reading... and you lost me again at "the three races". As Thunder said, none of this anything to do with evolution.

Thunder said:

none of this has anything to do with evolution. and most of it is quite silly.

Click to expand...

Evolution, correct, but it's not silly. Very early on it was asked if an Eskimo could win a foot race. I said they could if they set their mind to it and trained to do that. As it is, they have concentrated on what is important to them. What is being argued here is culture. Culture does play a role in the generic question.

Asians do better in acedemics because their culture does emphasis that. If other races put as much importance, they would do as well.

1Perry said:

...Asians do better in acedemics because their culture does emphasis that. If other races put as much importance, they would do as well.

Click to expand...

again, this is just silly. you are claiming that ALL Asians, be they Indian, Pakistani, Han Chinese, Thai, Malaysian, North Korean, Tibetan, Bangladeshi, Indonesian, Philipino, ALL have uniform & monolithic levels of average intelligence?

please...

Thunder said:

again, this is just silly. you are claiming that ALL Asians, be they Indian, Pakistani, Han Chinese, Thai, Malaysian, North Korean, Tibetan, Bangladeshi, Indonesian, Philipino, ALL have uniform & monolithic levels of average intelligence?

please...

Click to expand...

Well he is right that much of Asian culture emphasizes education because of the impact Confucianism had on Asian culture in general. That's not to say ALL Asians have uniform and monolithic levels of intelligence (which 1Perry didn't argue), but it's just an explanation for why Asians, as a group, tend to do better in academics than much, if not all, of the rest of the world.

That said, this wasn't really the point of coolwalker's post. He linked culture with different types of evolution - which is silly.

No because culture plays a role in which genes are more likely to get passed on among races - though less and less as the world become smaller thanks to the ease of migration and thus cultural background of various racial groups is changing. In cultures where physical strength is paramount for survival, the strong are who live long enough to reproduce. In cultures where problem-solving is important for survival or providing, that skill gets naturally selected. I could go on, but I think you get the point. It would be foolish to believe that all cultures have naturally selected the same skill set.

Frolicking Dinosaurs said:

No because culture plays a role in which genes are more likely to get passed on among races - though less and less as the world become smaller thanks to the ease of migration and thus cultural background of various racial groups is changing. In cultures where physical strength is paramount for survival, the strong are who live long enough to reproduce. In cultures where problem-solving is important for survival or providing, that skill gets naturally selected. I could go on, but I think you get the point. It would be foolish to believe that all cultures have naturally selected the same skill set.

Click to expand...

I agree with the physical aspects of genetics, but there isn't any reliable scientific evidence that mental faculties such as problem-solving differ among "races". For that reason, tying culture with evolution particularly as it deals with intelligence and academics is silly. You may think it's foolish to think that all "cultures" or human populations have "naturally selected" the same mental skill set, but until someone comes with reliable scientific results that say otherwise, it's actually foolish to believe that they haven't.

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. 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.

Click to expand...

What I find interesting is that if you mix many colors of paint you usually end up with gray. If many generations of various races keep mixing then a planet may end up with a gray race.....not much unlike the gray "aliens" many have claimed to see throughout history...it is almost as if the claimed sightings are exactly what the human race would eventually evolve to look like...

mbig said:

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.

Click to expand...

You did more than that, you claimed that it "demonstrates there's still Plenty of room for things like IQ difference among human 'strains'...." and that's where you jumped to conclusions.

Just more hostility.

Click to expand...

I suppose a sensitive person might take any contradicting arguement as "hostility", but that's how debates work.

You still don't take stance on the correct position.. merely TRY to be technical in service of your bias.

Click to expand...

That's you speaking from your bias opinion. eace

Incorrect and emptily argumentative again.
IOW, You had to Ignore respected Lynn's numbers summarizing 600+ Studies.

Click to expand...

I can't be ignoring something and questioning it at the same time. If the study is not conclusive, it's not "incorrect" or "emptily argumentative" to point out that it's inconclusive, in fact, scientific standards demand it.

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.

Click to expand...

This tells me you don't understand how to interpret those results correctly. How do you interpret the means of two populations? That the brains of Asians pooled together is bigger than the Blacks group or that the brain of an Asian is more likely to be bigger than that of a Black person? The first doesn't mean much (so what if the pool of one group is bigger than another?), the second is why we study descriptive statistics and it's a probabilistic interpretation.

Show where I claimed you said it was.

Click to expand...

You claimed I said what? You definite claimed that I was wrong:

mbig said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your diversion is not working. Do you want to show that 1 std deviation is significant or retract your claim?

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.

Click to expand...

That's not how statistical testing is done. "Doing the math" cannot tell you if the difference between the means is significant. Each sample will have its own standard deviations, and you need both, and the means and the sample sizes, to conduct significance testing. You don't seem to understand how to interpret statistics correctly and yet you make very strong claims. My Conclusions, and my arguements, are base on my understanding of statistics and the scientific method, until you can prove me wrong on that ground, calling me "partisan" is an ad hominem, not a logical arguement.

Frolicking Dinosaurs said:

No because culture plays a role in which genes are more likely to get passed on among races - though less and less as the world become smaller thanks to the ease of migration and thus cultural background of various racial groups is changing. In cultures where physical strength is paramount for survival, the strong are who live long enough to reproduce. In cultures where problem-solving is important for survival or providing, that skill gets naturally selected. I could go on, but I think you get the point. It would be foolish to believe that all cultures have naturally selected the same skill set.

Click to expand...

Only when there's enough time for the "selection" to take place - do you have evidence that there has been enough time and that it has taken place? If not, why make a claim that it has? I would just say I don't know either way.

Having disposed of nonpariel, who showed he didn't know a what Standard Deviation was, nor it's significance..
as well as spouting/repeating other nonsense which doesn't refute what I said, just went for gratuitous dissociation/multi-quote abuse:

Why Kenyans Make Such Great Runners: A Story of Genes and Cultures - Max Fisher - The Atlantic

“…It turns out that Kenyans’ success may be innate. Two separate, European-led studies in a small region in western Kenya, which produces most of the race-winners, found that young men there could, with only a few months training, reliably outperform some of the West’s best professional runners.

In other words, they appeared to have a Physical advantage that is common to their community, making it probably genetic.
The studies found significant differences in body mass index and bone structure between the Western pros and the Kenyan amateurs who had bested them. The studied Kenyans had Less mass for their height, Longer legs, Shorter torsos, and more Slender limbs. One of the researchers described the Kenyan physical differences as “bird-like,” noting that these traits would make them more efficient runners, especially over long distances.

Racial politics can make the genetics of African athleticism difficult to talk about in the West. Surprisingly, Western popular writing about Kenyans’ running success seems to focus less on these genetic distinctions and more on cultural differences. For years, the cultural argument has been that Kenyans become great runners because they often run several miles to and from school every day. But, about a decade ago, someone started asking actual Kenyans if this was true, and it turned out to be a merely a product of Western imaginations:…”

Races yes, individuals no. "intelligence per se is not just dependant on evolution but on environmental and personal experiences. Its how YOU learn and WHAT you learn. yes there is an genetic component but its not guarenteed. A brilliant person could produce a severely mentally handicapped child (example).

So overall I think all races started out about the same sort of like Tabla Rosa, but over time and environmental (social) experience there has been some diversion but I think its pretty minimal

OscarB63 said:

what I always find amusing is that people have no problem admitting that environment has affected physical evolution, but if you dare suggest that environment might have affected mental evolution you are suddenly a flaming racist.

Click to expand...

If true, then I am a flaming racist.
Of course, the environment has affected "intelligence".
Man seems to be, usually, no more intelligent than what is necessary to survive..this is my opinion....
And this survival is all important...
Check out the Prussians and the Austrailian aboriginals.

IN order to survive, the Kenyans had to run, for thousands upon thousands of years, the survivors prospered, the losers -food for saber toothed cats and worse..At the same time, the Prussians had the same problem, but, they made lances and spears instead...tens of thousands of years ago..
Evolution.....

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. 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.

Click to expand...

Since all we have to measure such are psychometrics, there's very likely no way to tell, at present. Whatever the case, I'd wager that any differences are so negligible as to invite nothing more substantial than agenda.

A better question is, why would evolution favour any one geographical sub-group of the same species over another, given commonality of origins and ongoing impediments? What was there in any given environment that necessitated greater mentality? Even those attributes that accounted for adaptation to climatics aren't indicative, as, in themselves, the differences never occurred in tandem with any concomitant cognitive crises. The fact that a species might become less hirsute and sweat less, reflects only the extent to which temperature and humidity might become factors. And ones that require no conscious effort to tolerate.

Asians and Europeans went through several population cleansing bottlenecks. Less intelligent perished. (back and forth as ice advanced and receded.)
Survival easier in warm climates.

As to Black athletic superiority google Jon Entine's "The Last Taboo."

Above demonstrated weekly by looking at an NFL game.

Google "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" for starters.

mbig said:

Having disposed of nonpariel,

Click to expand...

Did you really just come back to the thread over a year after nonpariel's last post to you in it and declare yourself the victor? :lol:

Tucker Case said:

Did you really just come back to the thread over a year after nonpariel's last post to you in it and declare yourself the victor? :lol:

Click to expand...

Did you really just bump a 3 day old string from the bottom of the section Just to take a personal Cheap Shot at me from the previous page?
As I've said previously, you have personal/grudge issues, now again confirmed.

I "came back to the thread" mainly to post an article I just came across and was published in the interim containing two very Relevant studies.
Of course, had you quoted me fully, 'claiming victory' was appropriate, but even then, more of a segue/aside and Confirmed by, the new information. But you Dishonestly left off the Bulk/meat of my post.

Please manage some self control, and even if you can't, at least add some token Topical content. At the time of this post you hadn't even voted in this poll.