10 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckKeyword being: "might", as in being a stereotype, and hence
It is reflective of skin and hair so that red-heads might be firey and blondes dippy.
Why hasn't the humble crocodile evolved?
inconsequential to the discussion.
Natural selection: "The specimen best adapted to the current
environment is the most likely to survive and propagate, thereby
passing on its genetic traits to a new generation". Well, what if a
species as a whole is perfectly adapted to their environment with few to
no other species impeaching on their specific niche in life? Would
evolution still occur? Why would an animal, who's got the perfect setup
and don't reproduce in a maddenly fashion start looking for food and
living quarters elsewhere? Changes to the immediate environment will
cause most specimens of a given species to move to new locations,
whereas others, better suited to these changes stay behind and voilá:
you have the beginning of a new subspecies (assuming they move
further and further apart over the next few millions of years, of course).
Racial differences as opposed to differences between species, tend to be
more superficial and less profound. For an entirely new species to evolve
from another one you need to give the process millions of years (I could
be wrong about that, but that's what I've been told).
No, I'm pretty certain that we're still pretty much the same as a species
compared to our ancestors from back in the good ol' days when fire was
yet to be invented and orgiastic sex was natural, wild and uninhibited
(but for the possible club blow to the head from a rivalling male).
10 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieIt depends also on how different the living surroundings are. If they are more different, new subspecies will evolve faster. Furthermore, it depends on how much contact the species still have, if they still mix once in a while the process will be slower than if one part is isolated on an island.
For an entirely new species to evolve
from another one you need to give the process millions of years (I could
be wrong about that, but that's what I've been told).
10 Feb 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThanks. I just knew there was more to it. 🙂
It depends also on how different the living surroundings are. If they are more different, new subspecies will evolve faster. Furthermore, it depends on how much contact the species still have, if they still mix once in a while the process will be slower than if one part is isolated on an island.
10 Feb 09
Repeated from the bottom of last page:
Does anybody else see how void these evolutionary arguments are? You can pick and choose your preferred characteristics and argue for diametrically opposite results.
There is no biological or genetic evidence to back up the existence of any significant differences in brain structure between races. The "giant leap" that qu1ck mentions was due to nurture, not nature. 30.000 years of unlocking the potential in our brains through progressively stronger stimulation since birth. Remember that things like IQ test* results improve with formal education.
* A measure of intelligence I dislike, but it serves to illustrate a point. The test may be narrow in scope, but this example serves to show that education can improve problem-solving ability (in that scope).
10 Feb 09
Originally posted by PalynkaWell spoken. I completely missed your post. Sorry. 😕
There is no biological or genetic evidence to back up the existence of any significant differences in brain structure between races. The "giant leap" that qu1ck mentions was due to nurture, not nature. 30.000 years of unlocking the potential in our brains through progressively stronger stimulation since birth. Remember that things like IQ test results improve with formal education.
10 Feb 09
Originally posted by JigtieI just find it hilarious that a successful business man from the US has trouble with basic out door stuff on a desert Island that I from a third world country would have no problem with. The women tend to be even worse.
Or more experienced and knowledgeable? Individual variations is no doubt
part of the equation, but all in all...
My point though was that it is extremely difficult to measure intelligence when experience is what tends to be manifested, and experience comes in many varieties so if your intelligence test is in any way biased on one area of experience the results will be biased.
I must admit that some of the survivors did remarkably well, either showing their past experience in the outdoors or their ability to learn.
10 Feb 09
Originally posted by Palynka….There is no biological or genetic evidence to back up the existence of any significant differences in brain structure between races.
Repeated from the bottom of last page:
Does anybody else see how void these evolutionary arguments are? You can pick and choose your preferred characteristics and argue for diametrically opposite results.
There is no biological or genetic evidence to back up the existence of any significant differences in brain structure between races. The "giant leap ...[text shortened]... his example serves to show that education can improve problem-solving ability (in that scope).
..…
-not so far and I see no reason to believe that such evidence is coming. But even if there was or eventually will be such evidence eventually, this STILL wouldn’t be relevant to this debate! ( nor would it in any way give credence to racist views -it just would mean that there are ‘differences‘ but NOT that one person is “inferior” over the other ).
10 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI agree, but my point only relies on brain difference being a necessary condition, it doesn't require it to be a sufficient one.
[b]….There is no biological or genetic evidence to back up the existence of any significant differences in brain structure between races.
..…
-not so far and I see no reason to believe that such evidence is coming. But even if there was or eventually will be such evidence eventually, this STILL wouldn’t be relevant to this debate! ( nor wou ...[text shortened]... would mean that there are ‘differences‘ but NOT that one person is “inferior” over the other ).[/b]
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by JigtieAh, so you admit that the rate that a species evolves is very much dependent
Keyword being: "might", as in being a stereotype, and hence
inconsequential to the discussion.
Natural selection: "The specimen best adapted to the current
environment is the most likely to survive and propagate, thereby
passing on its genetic traits to a new generation". Well, what if a
species as a whole is perfectly adapted to their environment ...[text shortened]... and uninhibited
(but for the possible club blow to the head from a rivalling male).
on their current circumstances/success in a given environment.
Why do you then not recognise that by moving out of Africa, homo's were then
place in a different environment and thereby had to be more adaptive?
Try and remember that at this time, there were still lots of different types of
homo's walking the earth.
12 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThe giant leap was due to necessity as all giant leaps are. As all evolutionary
Repeated from the bottom of last page:
Does anybody else see how void these evolutionary arguments are? You can pick and choose your preferred characteristics and argue for diametrically opposite results.
There is no biological or genetic evidence to back up the existence of any significant differences in brain structure between races. The "giant leap his example serves to show that education can improve problem-solving ability (in that scope).
traits are.
So how do you so readily disentagle animal from environment?
How does the brain 'unlock' a potential without becoming adapted to it?
Were there no circumstances in which the 'hard-wiring' of the brain required
fine-tuning or even adapting to?
Even if these changes are very small, why should we so readily sweep them under
the carpet? Why are we so frightened of giving them a scientific name?
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWhat part of "there is no biological or genetic evidence to back up the existence of any significant differences in brain structure between races" didn't you understand?
The giant leap was due to necessity as all giant leaps are. As all evolutionary
traits are.
So how do you so readily disentagle animal from environment?
How does the brain 'unlock' a potential without becoming adapted to it?
Were there no circumstances in which the 'hard-wiring' of the brain required
fine-tuning or even adapting to?
Even if th ...[text shortened]... ily sweep them under
the carpet? Why are we so frightened of giving them a scientific name?
12 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaMy argument is not that current races differ but that we are different from
What part of "there is no biological or genetic evidence to back up the existence of any significant differences in brain structure between races" didn't you understand?
our ancesters when they left Africa. Care to argue this or didn't you read my post?
Anyway, seeing as it's you Palonka I'm prepared to argue either case.