Racial differences...

[Paltmull]

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.

[Moros]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe that we are part of the same clinal species, which has had a tendency toward further speciation until the upswing in global trade 6000 years ago. I believe that we are now becoming more ethnically similar day by day.

To deny that there are differences between racial groups is absurd. The recent studies that sugest that northern europeans, southern asians, eastern asian and pacific islanders are comprised of DNA from separate species of human beings highlights what we all know to be true, in spite of well meaning political correctness. We are very different, but what makes us different is nowhere near as imense or important as what makes us all the same.

[Lemur]

It's high time this thread addressed the real threat: Humanimals:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Let's be obscure:

It's high time this thread addressed the real threat: Humanimals

No species sees its own as just another species, but as a standard, as normal, as individuals. To a dog, all cats and all humans are just that - cats and humans. He will recognise different individuals, but they are all the same to him. A dog is something more, a person, a person with which he is in competition with, with which he has intimite relationships with, persons governed by the same passions as he himself. The only species of the same ontological plane as him, above, at least separate from, all other animals. so much so, that one can wonder if a dog recognises himself as an animal.

Humans are so accustomed to seeing humans as individuals - to focus on slightly different hairlines, eyes, facial expressions, the recognition of all which is hardwired - that it is easy to not see that we are just an animal like all the others. An ape, just another ape. These pictures should hopefully confuse the reader:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How many of the above are human?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One of them is not human:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is that poor mutated hairless chimp in the last picture.

A mutation that several hundred thousand years ago became dominant in humans.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let's be obscure:


No species sees its own as just another species, but as a standard, as normal, as individuals. To a dog, all cats and all humans are just that - cats and humans. He will recognise different individuals, but they are all the same to him. A dog is something more, a person, a person with which he is in competition with, with which he has intimite relationships with, persons governed by the same passions as he himself. The only species of the same ontological plane as him, above, at least separate from, all other animals. so much so, that one can wonder if a dog recognises himself as an animal.

Humans are so accustomed to seeing humans as individuals - to focus on slightly different hairlines, eyes, facial expressions, the recognition of all which is hardwired - that it is easy to not see that we are just an animal like all the others. An ape, just another ape. These pictures should hopefully confuse the reader:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How many of the above are human?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One of them is not human:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is that poor mutated hairless chimp in the last picture.

A mutation that several hundred thousand years ago became dominant in humans.

Oh come on, number one isn't human, two I can believe, and three clearly is human.

[Moros]

I think number one is supposed to be a reconstruction of an australopithecus (afarensis?) which would be one of our evolutionary ancestors. But if that's the case were talking about a complete different species. Which even if there would be one a live and some man/woman was so disgusting to want to make a child with it, it wouldn't even be possible. Either way I fail to see how similar species have anything to do with racial differences. (talking just about the pics, not the dog analogy)

[Tellos Athenaios]

No species sees its own as just another species, but as a standard, as normal, as individuals. To a dog, all cats and all humans are just that - cats and humans. He will recognise different individuals, but they are all the same to him. A dog is something more, a person, a person with which he is in competition with, with which he has intimite relationships with, persons governed by the same passions as he himself. The only species of the same ontological plane as him, above, at least separate from, all other animals. so much so, that one can wonder if a dog recognises himself as an animal.

There are numerous issues with your example: the relationship between dog and human is explicitly that of the family: the only social mechanism wolfs understand (a pack is little more than an extended family which bands together to hunt large prey, the social bonding lasts only for as long as the source of prey does). It might in fact come to regard other pets in your household as part of the same family. Within this family (or pack) there is a certain competition for the spot of top dog, and ill-disciplined dogs do display signs of competition towards their incompetent owners.

The fact that dogs bark towards humans (rather than growl) at first suggest that dogs treat us as dogs, not as humans and they'll proceed to sniff where they figure your genitals are. By contrast cats definitely understand the divide between humans and cats because they employ a different type of communication (the meow) towards us than they do towards other cats, and they will not approach until they have verified you are not a threat to them.

The real problem is however that dogs do not have any memory or intelligence anywhere near powerful enough to engage in such reflection. Dogs are every bit as devoid of intellectual thought as ants are[*], and considerably less clever than cats or pidgeons (both species have to perform far more complex mental exercises to survive). [*] Perhaps even more so as a colony of ants is capable of far more complex and intelligent behaviour than dogs are: as a colony ants are able to farm and herd and they perform accounting of the number of ants trespassing on their territory.

[miotas]

To deny that there are differences between racial groups is absurd. The recent studies that sugest that northern europeans, southern asians, eastern asian and pacific islanders are comprised of DNA from separate species of human beings highlights what we all know to be true, in spite of well meaning political correctness. We are very different, but what makes us different is nowhere near as imense or important as what makes us all the same.

Different subspecies perhaps, like a dog is a subspecies of wolf. If we were different species however, then interbreeding would either produce no offspring, or infertile offspring.

[Beskar]

Evil Furries and their beastiality ways.

[Viking]

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.

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.

[Moros]

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.

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.)
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.

[Viking]

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.)
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.

[Moros]

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 are more favourable and will give rise to better chances of survival.

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.

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).

[Viking]

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.

[Moros]

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.