I was watching a show about dogs and they went on saying that specific breeds were good for different things, i.e. some were intelligent, some were work horses, some were protective, etc. This was due to breeding and/or evolution.

Since the different human races were separated for hundreds or thousand of years before global travel become possible, is it credible to think that, on things like physical adeptness, intelligence, emotions, tolerance of weather, etc. the different races evolved at different rates on things like this all based on their individual needs? Can human intelligence or physical strength evolve at different rates due to racial heredity, or is a brain is a brain is a brain?

Please don't turn this in a race baiting thread, I'm honestly curious.

Here's a hypothetical: Let's imagine that one in every 25,000 people today are smart enough to become a Ph.D. If we went back to the earliest known time when humans existed and plucked up 25,000 babies, do you think we'd find someone capable of being a modern day Ph.D.?

I'm not really clear on what you mean by different rates, particularly on something like tolerance to weather. It doesn't matter how long the Inuit continue to evolve; they are unlikely to ever become adapted to living in the tropics (unless the global warming doomsayers are correct). I suspect that, if there are different rates to evolution, they are driven by the environment rather than racial heredity. More extreme conditions or greater competition lead to faster evolution (or just plain extinction).

But if there are meaningful differences they are not at the broad racial categories. The Dinkas (average male height 5'-11" or so) and the Pygmies (average male height 4'-3" or so) are both black-African tribes that have clearly followed different evolutionary tracks. Simply averaging out their differences by grouping them in the "black" racial group obscures meaningful variation within the group.

No offense to Ph.D holders or those working towards one. However, that is purely "time in" and professional students dedicated to academia and that is it. I have a hard time referring to these folks as "DOCTOR". It's in humanities! Hello....

I think genetic mutation extends to our brain function. That does not preclude us from overcoming any handicaps provided we put in the work on our shortcomings. The key IMO is knowing that you have those shortcomings and addressing them instead of allowing them to drag you down.

(08-16-2014 08:32 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  No offense to Ph.D holders or those working towards one. However, that is purely "time in" and professional students dedicated to academia and that is it. I have a hard time referring to these folks as "DOCTOR". It's in humanities! Hello....

I'm insulted.

(08-16-2014 08:32 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  No offense to Ph.D holders or those working towards one. However, that is purely "time in" and professional students dedicated to academia and that is it. I have a hard time referring to these folks as "DOCTOR". It's in humanities! Hello....

Well what else would you call it?

(08-16-2014 01:08 AM)jh Wrote:  I'm not really clear on what you mean by different rates, particularly on something like tolerance to weather. It doesn't matter how long the Inuit continue to evolve; they are unlikely to ever become adapted to living in the tropics (unless the global warming doomsayers are correct). I suspect that, if there are different rates to evolution, they are driven by the environment rather than racial heredity. More extreme conditions or greater competition lead to faster evolution (or just plain extinction).

But if there are meaningful differences they are not at the broad racial categories. The Dinkas (average male height 5'-11" or so) and the Pygmies (average male height 4'-3" or so) are both black-African tribes that have clearly followed different evolutionary tracks. Simply averaging out their differences by grouping them in the "black" racial group obscures meaningful variation within the group.

Regarding the weather, I saw a documentary about life in the Alaskan wilderness where very, very young babies were totally naked and the temps were below 20 degrees and they were all smiles.

Your comparison to the Dinkas and Pygmies took me by surprise because I was thinking about things on a global scale rather than a Galapagos Island-esque scale. Clearly your example is one of physical traits being passed along by genetics. But going back to the dogs I was talking about, do you think humans, by breeding or whatever, can be considered intelligent by breed? Or work horses? Or protective? Can we breed mental traits into humans or is that something just limited to animals?

(08-16-2014 01:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Regarding the weather, I saw a documentary about life in the Alaskan wilderness where very, very young babies were totally naked and the temps were below 20 degrees and they were all smiles.

I understand how groups can become adapted to their environment. It's the rate statement that I was unclear about. I'm not sure the rate of adaption is very relevant (and probably rather difficult to objectively measure).

Quote:Your comparison to the Dinkas and Pygmies took me by surprise because I was thinking about things on a global scale rather than a Galapagos Island-esque scale. Clearly your example is one of physical traits being passed along by genetics. But going back to the dogs I was talking about, do you think humans, by breeding or whatever, can be considered intelligent by breed? Or work horses? Or protective? Can we breed mental traits into humans or is that something just limited to animals?

There is a big difference between evolution and breeding. Breeding is done intentionally with a goal in mind--evolution is not. And the apparently voluntary nature of the vast majority of human reproduction makes it more difficult still (although I am not sure how long ago this remains true). Mix in some interbreeding, and now we have a complicated gumbo.

The broader the grouping the less likely the average holds in any particular case. But I absolutely believe that evolution has resulted in subgroups with different characteristics. Both the average values and the size and shape of the distribution curves are likely to be different among different subgroups. For most traits, with the possible exception of those related directly to the environment, there is likely to be a great deal of overlap between the two curves.

It's an idea with a fairly deep history, and one that has had attached to it a lot of racial noise.

To heck with all the doctorate programs. It's a made up bunch of goods like
valentines day is to sell more cards. We could have done without this
European invention. Real life experience instead of working on degrees
would be of more benefit.

?......... so my PhD and research in Neuroscience is useless university window dressing?

(08-15-2014 11:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I was watching a show about dogs and they went on saying that specific breeds were good for different things, i.e. some were intelligent, some were work horses, some were protective, etc. This was due to breeding and/or evolution.

Since the different human races were separated for hundreds or thousand of years before global travel become possible, is it credible to think that, on things like physical adeptness, intelligence, emotions, tolerance of weather, etc. the different races evolved at different rates on things like this all based on their individual needs? Can human intelligence or physical strength evolve at different rates due to racial heredity, or is a brain is a brain is a brain?

Please don't turn this in a race baiting thread, I'm honestly curious.

I would agree with this, but to suggest so would surely paint you as a racist.

Chris Rock did a sketch on SNL once where he kind of played off all the "good" racial stereotypes (asians good at math, jews good with money, etc.) and how black people would love to have the "good" stereotypes. I tried to find the clip but was unsuccessful.

In my opinion, the whole idea behind ethnic groups and the various races today being different enough to reach the level of meaningful is only a shadow a different truth.

IQ tests show that there are differences between races. However, it's been shown that tests like this also show that people seem to be getting smarter. You would most likely score higher on an IQ test than your great-great grandfather and every generation shows some level of improvement. I agree with the argument that what is being measured is actually how adapted to society a group is, and our European/White society at that.

There are no meaningful differences between the races in terms of innate intelligence or anything else, what you are seeing is an imperfect measuring stick that measures how people fit within a particular system that stands apart from a very high percentage of other humans.

(08-16-2014 03:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In my opinion, the whole idea behind ethnic groups and the various races today being different enough to reach the level of meaningful is only a shadow a different truth.

IQ tests show that there are differences between races. However, it's been shown that tests like this also show that people seem to be getting smarter. You would most likely score higher on an IQ test than your great-great grandfather and every generation shows some level of improvement. I agree with the argument that what is being measured is actually how adapted to society a group is, and our European/White society at that.

There are no meaningful differences between the races in terms of innate intelligence or anything else, what you are seeing is an imperfect measuring stick that measures how people fit within a particular system that stands apart from a very high percentage of other humans.

Excellent post. Well said.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The core of your reasoning is wrong because you are comparing humans to dogs. There are huge variations among species in terms of percentage of genetic similarity in DNA. For example chickens have 60% genetic similarity. Humans meanwhile have 99.9% genetic similarity. So it's unreasonable to compare us to other animals like this, especially to dogs which have a much lower precentage.

I can see some correlation between Scandinavians and their blond looks and Mexican Indians and their black hair/skin color and it's on account that it's hotter/sunshinier in Latin America and colder and less sun in Scandinavia. But why are Scandinavians tall and Latin American Indians short. Is it because Scandinavians are tall because they're reaching as high as hey can for some sun whereas the Indians are short because they get too much sun?





I'm being facetious here, ok. But really why the physical differences?

Ollie, here's an example of what I'm talking about that you might be familiar with.

I know some guys in El Paso and they're being pushed around by their company. When I asked them why they don't fight back they said their El Paso ancestor were farmers and not warriors and they just don't have that instinct in them. I forget the name of the tribe, but I'll find out.

The name of the tribe is Tiguas

That's bull. They fought and won their independence from spain. That's why v they are here

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App