NO THERE ARE NOT SUB-SPECIES OF HUMAN. The last non-sapien human species to exist, merged and became diluted in our gene pool some 50-100kya.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-10-30 23:53:15)
Poll
Why are Africa and the Middle East so Fucked Up?
| Islam | 19% | 19% - 20 | ||||
| Corruption | 7% | 7% - 8 | ||||
| Ethnic Hatred | 15% | 15% - 16 | ||||
| Wrong Borders | 5% | 5% - 6 | ||||
| A combination of factors (pls explain) | 51% | 51% - 53 | ||||
| Total: 103 | ||||||
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6944
Yeah I doSpark wrote:
you know fuck-all about both.
Call them races then, or ethnicity, whatever you like..Superior Mind wrote:
NO THERE ARE NOT SUB-SPECIES OF HUMAN. The last non-sapien human species to exist, merged and became diluted in our gene pool some 50-100kya.
For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
Maybe evolution just stopped?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evol … _evolutionRecent and current human evolution
Natural selection occurs in modern human populations. For example, the population which is at risk of the severe debilitating disease kuru has significant over-representation of an immune variant of the prion protein gene G127V versus non-immune alleles. The frequency of this genetic variant is due to the survival of immune persons.[125][126] Other reported evolutionary trends in other populations include a lengthening of the reproductive period, reduction in cholesterol levels, blood glucose and blood pressure.[127]
It has been argued that human evolution has accelerated since, and as a result of, the development of agriculture and civilization some 10,000 years ago. It is claimed that this has resulted in substantial genetic differences between different current human populations.[128] Lactase persistence is an example of such recent evolution.
But no, of course we're all exactly the same....
Intelligence will be affected by evolution, just as it always has been.Medical sciences
In the medical sciences, where response to pharmaceuticals and other treatment can vary dramatically based on ethnicity,[35][36] there is great debate as to whether racial categorizations as broad as Caucasian are medically valid.[37][38] Several journals (e.g. Nature Genetics, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, and the British Medical Journal) have issued guidelines stating that researchers should carefully define their populations and avoid broad-based social constructions, because these categories are more likely to be measuring differences in socioeconomic class and access to medical treatment that disproportionately affect minority groups, rather than racial differences.[39] Nevertheless, there are journals (e.g. the Journal of Gastroentorology and Hepatology and Kidney International) that continue to use racial categories such as Caucasian.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-10-31 02:31:33)
Fuck Israel
i dont even know why we call them humans
just call them monkeys or somthin
just call them monkeys or somthin
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
We're all just monkeys really.
Fuck Israel
Scottish.Superior Mind wrote:
NO THERE ARE NOT SUB-SPECIES OF HUMAN. The last non-sapien human species to exist, merged and became diluted in our gene pool some 50-100kya.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6944
Ethnicity does not denote a different species. Pick up a fucking dictionary Dilbert.
And we are not monkeys, we are apes.
Also, good job citing wikipedia to promote your shitty argument.
And we are not monkeys, we are apes.
Also, good job citing wikipedia to promote your shitty argument.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-10-31 12:39:35)
LOL at dilbert in this thread. hahahaha. the science graduate from imperial is demonstrating a severe misunderstanding that wouldn't even be aired in most high-school classrooms. this is fucking embarrassing. dilbert, ethnic phenotypes/genotypes do not vary human intelligence. your stupid dog analogy is retarded because dog breeds have vastly different brain capacities, long-bred physiognomical strengths/weaknesses, and centuries of especially selective breeding and refinement. the human race does not have this. the human race is the same basic 'species' across the entire globe. racial and ethnic attributes are mostly only environmentally-specific and genetically-attributive. as i said in an earlier post... skin colour and physical changes occur in specific response to environenmental stimulii, which are thereafter exaggerated by continued breeding in the same population. how does 'intelligence' pass like this?
you are confusing the sociological (borderline eugenic) idea that intelligence as an inherited genetic capacity can be 'selectively bred'. however, there is NO SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE ADVANTAGE for ANY SPECIFIC RACE in the FIRST PLACE. the fundamental differences between the races exists pretty much only on the surface-level, as specific to each environment. the ENTIRE ASIAN RACE are not 'stupider' by genetic dictum, just because they grew up in a different climate and geographic area. this is absolutely fucking retarded thinking. yes, it is probably likely on a wide enough sample that things such a good looks, intelligence, athleticism etc. are congenital/inherited, or at least influenced partially as such. however you are confusing two ideas - genetic inheritance, and ethnicity - and you are confusing them disastrously. what happens in your warped little racist world when an intelligent african mates with a dumb white person? MISCARRIAGE?!? does not compute?!? there is no such thing as a genetically predisposed 'master' race in terms of intelligence. material advantage and advance comes and goes with the ages: europeans and the white-man do not have an eternal monopoly in the knowledge/technique game. we were behind ~600 years ago, which is nothing in the scale of evolution.
you are essentially saying: "look! we are ahead since the first industrial revolution!". then you are saying "look! all of us from this industrialised area look the same! and different from those who havent industrialised over there!". then you are using some very badly misunderstood science to construe a logical fallacy which simply does not follow. it has nothing to do with the "message being too uncomfortable to acknowledge". it's to do with you having a fucking laughable understanding of basic biology. and you're a STEM man by trade. you should be very, very ashamed.
you are confusing the sociological (borderline eugenic) idea that intelligence as an inherited genetic capacity can be 'selectively bred'. however, there is NO SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE ADVANTAGE for ANY SPECIFIC RACE in the FIRST PLACE. the fundamental differences between the races exists pretty much only on the surface-level, as specific to each environment. the ENTIRE ASIAN RACE are not 'stupider' by genetic dictum, just because they grew up in a different climate and geographic area. this is absolutely fucking retarded thinking. yes, it is probably likely on a wide enough sample that things such a good looks, intelligence, athleticism etc. are congenital/inherited, or at least influenced partially as such. however you are confusing two ideas - genetic inheritance, and ethnicity - and you are confusing them disastrously. what happens in your warped little racist world when an intelligent african mates with a dumb white person? MISCARRIAGE?!? does not compute?!? there is no such thing as a genetically predisposed 'master' race in terms of intelligence. material advantage and advance comes and goes with the ages: europeans and the white-man do not have an eternal monopoly in the knowledge/technique game. we were behind ~600 years ago, which is nothing in the scale of evolution.
you are essentially saying: "look! we are ahead since the first industrial revolution!". then you are saying "look! all of us from this industrialised area look the same! and different from those who havent industrialised over there!". then you are using some very badly misunderstood science to construe a logical fallacy which simply does not follow. it has nothing to do with the "message being too uncomfortable to acknowledge". it's to do with you having a fucking laughable understanding of basic biology. and you're a STEM man by trade. you should be very, very ashamed.
every single reasonable study i've ever seen has either been totally non-commital or entirely against the idea of a strong genetic basis in variance in intelligence. the sheer amount of noise in the data far, far overwhelms any legitimate link.
and yes there is fuckall genetic variation across the human race. in fact, homo sapiens is marked out in the animal kingdom by having an unusually homogeneous gene pool (which has interesting implications for how the human race must have developed in the fairly recent past)
and yes there is fuckall genetic variation across the human race. in fact, homo sapiens is marked out in the animal kingdom by having an unusually homogeneous gene pool (which has interesting implications for how the human race must have developed in the fairly recent past)
Last edited by Spark (2012-10-31 15:43:28)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
its only fair that we are smarter than black people, after all black people are faster.
and they have big pee-pees!
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Frankly, I don't understand why it's so revolting to expect intelligence variation among different peoples. We expect certain cultures to unconsciously selectively breed themselves to better adapt to their conditions, yes? People who live in high elevations and cold environments tend to have shorter limbs, people who live in hot climates tend to have longer limbs. Why? Heat transfer is dependent on surface area and certain body types are better adapted to such environments. By the same token, each culture has it's own definition of beauty and those we define as beautiful are more sought after. Think of a gold digging trophy wife. Her primary asset is her looks, she marries rich, and as a consequence her kids will have a better shot in life because they have better access to education, health care etc. If a culture favored intelligence over physical beauty when selecting a mate I would expect largely the same consequence. Really, I don't get why this is such a vile thing to think.
That said, I can only really think of one culture that doesn't value intelligence, and that happens to be among our own Western poor people.
That said, I can only really think of one culture that doesn't value intelligence, and that happens to be among our own Western poor people.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So in your view, if a culture prefers intelligence the stupid people stop breeding altogether? How does a social norm of intelligence favoring prevent stupid people from breeding with each other? Or do they then become a new race? I'm so fucking confused by your understanding of natural selection.Jay wrote:
Frankly, I don't understand why it's so revolting to expect intelligence variation among different peoples. We expect certain cultures to unconsciously selectively breed themselves to better adapt to their conditions, yes? People who live in high elevations and cold environments tend to have shorter limbs, people who live in hot climates tend to have longer limbs. Why? Heat transfer is dependent on surface area and certain body types are better adapted to such environments. By the same token, each culture has it's own definition of beauty and those we define as beautiful are more sought after. Think of a gold digging trophy wife. Her primary asset is her looks, she marries rich, and as a consequence her kids will have a better shot in life because they have better access to education, health care etc. If a culture favored intelligence over physical beauty when selecting a mate I would expect largely the same consequence. Really, I don't get why this is such a vile thing to think.
That said, I can only really think of one culture that doesn't value intelligence, and that happens to be among our own Western poor people.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
No, they just become the economic underclass.Pochsy wrote:
So in your view, if a culture prefers intelligence the stupid people stop breeding altogether? How does a social norm of intelligence favoring prevent stupid people from breeding with each other? Or do they then become a new race? I'm so fucking confused by your understanding of natural selection.Jay wrote:
Frankly, I don't understand why it's so revolting to expect intelligence variation among different peoples. We expect certain cultures to unconsciously selectively breed themselves to better adapt to their conditions, yes? People who live in high elevations and cold environments tend to have shorter limbs, people who live in hot climates tend to have longer limbs. Why? Heat transfer is dependent on surface area and certain body types are better adapted to such environments. By the same token, each culture has it's own definition of beauty and those we define as beautiful are more sought after. Think of a gold digging trophy wife. Her primary asset is her looks, she marries rich, and as a consequence her kids will have a better shot in life because they have better access to education, health care etc. If a culture favored intelligence over physical beauty when selecting a mate I would expect largely the same consequence. Really, I don't get why this is such a vile thing to think.
That said, I can only really think of one culture that doesn't value intelligence, and that happens to be among our own Western poor people.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Great, so then they remain part of the race, and thus generalizations about the intelligence of an entire race are worthless. Glad we agree for once.Jay wrote:
No, they just become the economic underclass.Pochsy wrote:
So in your view, if a culture prefers intelligence the stupid people stop breeding altogether? How does a social norm of intelligence favoring prevent stupid people from breeding with each other? Or do they then become a new race? I'm so fucking confused by your understanding of natural selection.Jay wrote:
Frankly, I don't understand why it's so revolting to expect intelligence variation among different peoples. We expect certain cultures to unconsciously selectively breed themselves to better adapt to their conditions, yes? People who live in high elevations and cold environments tend to have shorter limbs, people who live in hot climates tend to have longer limbs. Why? Heat transfer is dependent on surface area and certain body types are better adapted to such environments. By the same token, each culture has it's own definition of beauty and those we define as beautiful are more sought after. Think of a gold digging trophy wife. Her primary asset is her looks, she marries rich, and as a consequence her kids will have a better shot in life because they have better access to education, health care etc. If a culture favored intelligence over physical beauty when selecting a mate I would expect largely the same consequence. Really, I don't get why this is such a vile thing to think.
That said, I can only really think of one culture that doesn't value intelligence, and that happens to be among our own Western poor people.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Pochsy wrote:
Great, so then they remain part of the race, and thus generalizations about the intelligence of an entire race are worthless. Glad we agree for once.Jay wrote:
No, they just become the economic underclass.Pochsy wrote:
So in your view, if a culture prefers intelligence the stupid people stop breeding altogether? How does a social norm of intelligence favoring prevent stupid people from breeding with each other? Or do they then become a new race? I'm so fucking confused by your understanding of natural selection.
Jay wrote:
That said, I can only really think of one culture that doesn't value intelligence, and that happens to be among our own Western poor people.
Last edited by Jay (2012-10-31 16:47:47)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Aside from the issue that 'western poor people' can't be considered a homogeneous group at all (some do very much so value intelligence), proving you commit the sin of vast over generalization even in your half concessions, we seem to have confused race and culture somewhere along the way. Or at least, you have.Jay wrote:
Pochsy wrote:
Great, so then they remain part of the race, and thus generalizations about the intelligence of an entire race are worthless. Glad we agree for once.Jay wrote:
No, they just become the economic underclass.Jay wrote:
That said, I can only really think of one culture that doesn't value intelligence, and that happens to be among our own Western poor people.
Do explain how a culture is a race which can have natural selection applied to it (wrongly).
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
I largely take race to equal culture. Superficial genetic mutations don't make the French different from the Germans, it's the fact that they speak different languages, eat different food, etc. I don't look at everyone in Africa as belonging to a single race of people, even though the majority of the people on the continent have dark brown skin. They have vastly different lifestyles amongst them.Pochsy wrote:
Aside from the issue that 'western poor people' can't be considered a homogeneous group at all (some do very much so value intelligence), proving you commit the sin of vast over generalization even in your half concessions, we seem to have confused race and culture somewhere along the way. Or at least, you have.Jay wrote:
Pochsy wrote:
Great, so then they remain part of the race, and thus generalizations about the intelligence of an entire race are worthless. Glad we agree for once.Jay wrote:
That said, I can only really think of one culture that doesn't value intelligence, and that happens to be among our own Western poor people.
Do explain how a culture is a race which can have natural selection applied to it (wrongly).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you*re Dr. Livingston, I presume?Jay wrote:
even though the majority of the people on the continent have dark brown skin.
There are many different facets to intelligence, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that certain groups of people are better at some of these facets than others and vice versa. It's impossible to determine whether this is a product of nature or nurture though. Not to mention the difficulty in creating universal tests for these facets nevermind the endless discussion about what the actual definition of intelligence is.
It doesn't really matter anyway. Let's say you could perceive a difference and say it were a product of nature, it would appear to be so small as to be negligble. You can't explain anything by it. We're all the same species, the process of evolution would need considerably more time to make a perceived difference anywhere near significant. If you wish to have an explanation for the vast difference in living/education standards etc, a much better method would be to look at geographic, cultural and historical factors. So, why is Africa a 'shithole'? If anything it's because the people in Africa were dealt a shit hand.
It doesn't really matter anyway. Let's say you could perceive a difference and say it were a product of nature, it would appear to be so small as to be negligble. You can't explain anything by it. We're all the same species, the process of evolution would need considerably more time to make a perceived difference anywhere near significant. If you wish to have an explanation for the vast difference in living/education standards etc, a much better method would be to look at geographic, cultural and historical factors. So, why is Africa a 'shithole'? If anything it's because the people in Africa were dealt a shit hand.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-10-31 17:23:32)
inane little opines
I believe I recall the "Origin of Species" mentioned a tail when describing what we are derived from. Of course, it could be apes evolved from monkey, and humans evolved from apes. Making you both right.Superior Mind wrote:
Ethnicity does not denote a different species. Pick up a fucking dictionary Dilbert.
And we are not monkeys, we are apes.
Also, good job citing wikipedia to promote your shitty argument.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Why don't you just google it and find we didn't evolve from either, but shared an ancestor with apes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra … cat02.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra … cat02.html
You've told me to read Origin of Species before, it mentions our "ancestor" had a tail.Jaekus wrote:
Why don't you just google it and find we didn't evolve from either, but shared an ancestor with apes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra … cat02.html
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Well if you go back far enough he would be right. The concept is lost on you and shifty though no matter how much you read because you're of the brand 'religious fundamentalist'. Sorry warman.
inane little opines
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6944
Jay, why bother using the word race if you define it as you do culture. Race is an outdated and useless word. And by the way, Africa has the largest amount of genetic diversity in humans of all the continents. Skin color is a small part of superficial diversity.
At Warman: We put ourselves in a separate genus from the apes. However, we all belong to the family Hominidae. By our definition we are not apes, but are in the same family. Like house cats and lions. As a general descriptor ape is a decent word for the human being, but it is not scientifically accurate. Our ancestors were apes, and further back monkeys, and further back fish, and so forth back to floating strands of RNA. But none of that conflicts with your idea of an eternal soul.
At Warman: We put ourselves in a separate genus from the apes. However, we all belong to the family Hominidae. By our definition we are not apes, but are in the same family. Like house cats and lions. As a general descriptor ape is a decent word for the human being, but it is not scientifically accurate. Our ancestors were apes, and further back monkeys, and further back fish, and so forth back to floating strands of RNA. But none of that conflicts with your idea of an eternal soul.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-11-01 02:18:46)
LOL No.aynrandroolz wrote:
LOL at dilbert in this thread. hahahaha. the science graduate from imperial is demonstrating a severe misunderstanding that wouldn't even be aired in most high-school classrooms. this is fucking embarrassing. dilbert, ethnic phenotypes/genotypes do not vary human intelligence. your stupid dog analogy is retarded because dog breeds have vastly different brain capacities, long-bred physiognomical strengths/weaknesses, and centuries of especially selective breeding and refinement. the human race does not have this. the human race is the same basic 'species' across the entire globe. racial and ethnic attributes are mostly only environmentally-specific and genetically-attributive. as i said in an earlier post... skin colour and physical changes occur in specific response to environenmental stimulii, which are thereafter exaggerated by continued breeding in the same population. how does 'intelligence' pass like this?
you are confusing the sociological (borderline eugenic) idea that intelligence as an inherited genetic capacity can be 'selectively bred'. however, there is NO SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE ADVANTAGE for ANY SPECIFIC RACE in the FIRST PLACE. the fundamental differences between the races exists pretty much only on the surface-level, as specific to each environment. the ENTIRE ASIAN RACE are not 'stupider' by genetic dictum, just because they grew up in a different climate and geographic area. this is absolutely fucking retarded thinking. yes, it is probably likely on a wide enough sample that things such a good looks, intelligence, athleticism etc. are congenital/inherited, or at least influenced partially as such. however you are confusing two ideas - genetic inheritance, and ethnicity - and you are confusing them disastrously. what happens in your warped little racist world when an intelligent african mates with a dumb white person? MISCARRIAGE?!? does not compute?!? there is no such thing as a genetically predisposed 'master' race in terms of intelligence. material advantage and advance comes and goes with the ages: europeans and the white-man do not have an eternal monopoly in the knowledge/technique game. we were behind ~600 years ago, which is nothing in the scale of evolution.
you are essentially saying: "look! we are ahead since the first industrial revolution!". then you are saying "look! all of us from this industrialised area look the same! and different from those who havent industrialised over there!". then you are using some very badly misunderstood science to construe a logical fallacy which simply does not follow. it has nothing to do with the "message being too uncomfortable to acknowledge". it's to do with you having a fucking laughable understanding of basic biology. and you're a STEM man by trade. you should be very, very ashamed.
Isn't that about the definition of evolutionary pressure?just because they grew up in a different climate and geographic area
Of course there is. For humans to survive takes progressively more ingenuity the more hostile the environment is. There are other factors such as the available resources, whether the environment can be farmed or if only subsistence foraging is possible.there is NO SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE ADVANTAGE for ANY SPECIFIC RACE in the FIRST PLACE
I would imagine as every other polygenic trait passes, through the genes somehow.skin colour and physical changes occur in specific response to environenmental stimulii, which are thereafter exaggerated by continued breeding in the same population. how does 'intelligence' pass like this?
Historically thats not happened much, due to distances and such. I suggest you marry an African woman and find out.what happens in your warped little racist world when an intelligent african mates with a dumb white person?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-11-01 02:41:56)
Fuck Israel