Printable View
No, I will only stew within myself with you being a connotation to my own excessive degree of self-loathing. So is my evolution, and so is my religion.Quote:
It's all fine with me but don't fly airplanes into buildings and especially DON'T KNOCK ON MY DOOR ON SUNDAY MORNING
Eeeyaa! Wot yu on abowt geeza? Yu downt wan noffink a do with me den?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Wots dat mean m8? Is u bein sarky wiv me?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Nerd
You make less sense than I do. Perhaps I just can't explain...Quote:
Wots dat mean m8? Is u bein sarky wiv me?
Don't bother rhy he doesn't respond to defenses he just ignores you
'The 10000 Year Explosion' works from a flawed premise.
We all look at race through a western persective and through a western media. No wonder this thread has come to the conclusion all blacks are athletes
I dont think that......
I am not quite sure that your conclusion of the thread is something everyone will sign up on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Can you jump? [insert clown smiley]Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Gah! See, this is what you get if you spend time at college!Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
That Texas schoolbook woman is right - Texas education is liberal indoctrination.
I'm usually a good reader. Your previous two posts went well over my head though. I've re-read them several times now, but can't figure them out.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Nerd
Hey - at least you and I don't start a flamewar over our not understanding the other!!
Well duh, but is there any kind of statistically significant difference between various ethnicities that is not then explained away by environment at the expense of race my Asian-American example. Forget the more problematic notions of race which would be even harder to prove. No good evidence I've seen. :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
What kind of deduction is this (formalize please)? You are going from individuals and then to...?Quote:
If a trait is heriditable, and it is different between individuals, then it is subject to evolutionary pressure. So all we need is to show that cognitive abilities differ between individual people, and that there are heriditable aspects. I would show, but neither of these two is in much dispute.
If you are just attempting to state the obvious fact that there is variation in the human population when it comes to cognitive ability and that this may be partly due to genetics (which I don't think anyone questions), then OK. :shrug:
However, I don't see how this at all lends any credence to any kind of statistically significant cognitive differences between different ethnicities/races that can is primarily explained by biological/genetic factors, which is my interest in the thread.
First, believing that evolution stops at the level of the brain is not necessary for the dualist position (which is what I think you're getting at with the soul comment - forgive me if I'm wrong). Thank god there is still much implicit dualism in neuroscience in their unwillingness to study or speak about any kind of neural mechanism of consciousness ('covert dualism' as called by Arshavsky in his polemical ‘‘Scientific roots’’ of dualism in neuroscience because many scientists generally will not want to explicitly endorse such "pernicious" metaphysical ideas like mind-body dualism which are anathema to their naive worldview guided by the intellectually poor doctrine of falsifiability, damn you Popper!).Quote:
It's all you need. Everything else is creationist obfuscation: the idea that evolution somehow stops at the human brain, which is the realm of the soul.
Got me thinking, too. Sweden has such a problem with immigrants, you accept gutter trash (that don't even speak Swedishey) of all sorts into your country with open arms and act surprised when your women are found face down in the alleys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
That's not what we do here, sweet Jesus. Must be the brain differences, eh?
I can jump contrary to popular science. Im not going to go into details about my vertical leap again.
Ignore them. They were irrelevant to the thread. Back to topic please!! I will keep my moody sobbings to myself.Quote:
Your previous two posts went well over my head though. I've re-read them several times now, but can't figure them out.
Sports and Military knowledge (tactics, etc) are two things I can count your opinion on. :sad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
that actually made me a little proud.
and i count on you for all things britishy and communism :wink:
Haha, My public school education was filled with communism and social wlefareQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
But srsly, the book looks at us as if we are simply another animal when in reality we change the paradigm so much that to compare our evolution to even a monkeys is disingenious
meaning that our evolution cannot be looked at as an animals because of intellect and how we alter our lives so drastically.?
Yes,Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
For example, I have seen allot of black genitals in my life and they really aren't as big as people say they are (kind of dissapointing)
Point being that we are so indoctranated from a young age that certain people act a certain way or have x advantage because of this or that, that it becomes a self fufiling propechy.
Now I agree that certain groups of blacks have more fast twitch muscle fibers while Nordics (Mostly attribtuied to the R1a1) gene have more slow twitch muscle fibers. But its a falsehood to say that all blacks are good sprinters and all white boys are destined to move heavy weight at low reps
See what I mean cowboy?
i said basically the same thing about cultural assumptions.
fits my theory of why the top white basketball players come from canada, midwest, and europe (low black populations) no one is telling them they suck/ like how i do at my school games until i teabag their heads as i dunk on them
Without having read the entire thread, and without knowing too much about this; I've got one question: From a darwinistic evolutionary perspective, what reasons would there be for certain so-called "races" to become more intelligent than others?
I think none, really. I mean, it's obvious that different environments require different physical attributes - such as dark skin in warmer climates, and pale in colder - but it's not like surviving in for example a European climate requires higher intelligence than surviving in an African climate.
I don't even think there are different races, I'd rather say there are just regional variants within the same species.
@Paltmull: I guess species become more intelligent when their way of life and enviroment needs them to solve more and more difficult problems especially I think when it tries to overcome them in group. Possibly when there's a rarity in food and one has to be more creative in getting it. Not that sure though, size as an evolutionary trait for example is easier to tackle.
i think about that the same way hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Races are borne of civilization. A sense of belonging and purpose. And when such sentiment become ambition and desire to grow (nationalism, patirotism, etc), trouble arises between two proximitous neighbors. Wishes to assimilate the other present themselves, but neither group thinkis the others ideas are suitable [they are inferior] to their own ideals and certain annimosities arise. This breeds self-fufillment and the idea that the other race is less intelligent etc., or inferior (in a number of different ways). Appearence and the like come after this arrogance. The only thing that hinders world domination, is the fact that human capabilities (physicalities) are common to all human beings, thus, there can be no racial untopia, for every man is unique in appearance (and thinking). I hope this makes sense, I wrote it on the spur of the moment.
Natural selection does not operate with reasons, so that is a moot point. Random mutations and probabilities are what that matters. If some individual is carrying a mutated gene that gives him greater intelligence, then that is a potential advantage. So if he breed, the offspring of his that also carry the genes will have a greater chance of survival, provided that they are otherwise fit. As generations passes, this gene has a potential to become more widespread throughout the population since its carriers are more clever than the individuals that lack the gene. By pure chance, or because of genetical differences between the populations already present, this process could have different paces or take different routes in the two populations. I think the random element makes the evolution unpredictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paltmull
No not completely. The enviroment is the deciding factor of what mutations are more profitable. For example most larger animals evolve to smaller animals when living in a small closed area for example an Island or in dense forrested areas. (Take the Homo floresiensis, or compare a giraffe with an okapi.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
While evolution happens random it usually alwas is a way to adapt to the enviroment. Hence the enviroment does indirectly help determing what possible charasteristics evolve and in what way. Now with intelligence it is just not that easy to determine and expect.
What mutations you get is random, that's what I am getting at. Even if the the enviroment in itself does not require better cognitive capabilities, that doesn't mean that such traits aren't more favourable and will not give rise to better chances of survival.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
But if they don't give better chances of survival they usually don't spread over the population and eventually dissapears from it's genepool. Unless the population is really small.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Edit: unless it improves chances of mating. For example a comparison between gorilla balls (really small as there's only one male ape who get's down with the ladies) and chimps (who all try to get it down and hence have been competing for generations for having the best balls).
I forgot a couple of "nots" in my post, it should now be relying what I meant. A good trait is a good trait regardless of whether it was "truly needed" or not. It can make that little difference that decides whether the outcome is life or death, or when the job is to secure a good mating partner.
Indeed that makes for more sense. But those are evolutions that generally take longer. But that isn't an awnser to his quetion, it's rather a 'do note however'. But it still falls under lifestyle however. Like nowadays for humans, I don't think having higher intelligence ups your chances of survival/increases your offspring anymore.
No it doesn't but evolution is all mucked up. Being bigger and stronger doesn't really help either. You could make the argument in world wars that the bigger stronger faster people died off more. Because physically weaker people stayed behind a desk and the physical specimens were the actual fighters. Therefore the very strong survived along with the weak.
Though it is debatable that populations were affected enough by war even on that scale.
The question was From a darwinistic evolutionary perspective, what reasons would there be for certain so-called "races" to become more intelligent than others? The answer is that we have a random element, and thus it is perfectly possible. The differences between different groups of humans developed long ago, at a time when life was much different. The civilisations are not that old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
I think that intelligence matters in contemporary evolution as well, it might decrease the chances of individuals doing outright stupid things which could lead to death at young age. It's not random which youth that dies in traffic accidents due to taking unnecessary risks, and this could have to do with genetics.