Crackas are crackas cause crackas cant get dat vitamin D son!

12/27/2009 11:53:41 PM

natural selection. check it out.

Quote :

"The concept of fitness is central to natural selection. "

12/28/2009 12:12:47 AM

This thread is hilarious.

12/28/2009 12:23:35 AM

Rocky Balboa beat Apollo Creed and Clubber Lang.

White people are better athletes.

12/28/2009 12:44:12 AM

Quote :

" jprince11: huh? there is certainly a genetic aspect to intelligence (referring to IQ), I don't think many people would deny that, on the other hand nutrition and development play a role in having the brain fully mature which is why it's hard to trust iq averages for third world countries the best data people can actually study are the ones observed within the same country like the US and some of the differences do appear to be valid"

There are nutritional disparities between groups within the United States, too.

Why would you overlook that?

12/28/2009 10:28:17 AM

This is an entertaining thread. Thanks, TWW.

12/28/2009 11:38:12 AM

Wow. Just lots and lots of wow.
.
.
.

Quote :

"In your other post you not only mentioned the possibility but suggested the likelihood that mental state is passed down to offspring which is complete nonsense."

The heritability of 'intelligence' is a huge issue that is not only up for debate, but also widely studied across multiple disciplines. It is anything but complete nonsense. If it were, there wouldn't be researchers who have devoted their entire lives to its study.

While you can debate the heritability of intelligence until you are blue in the face, you cannot debate that there are specific genetic differences that cause heritable cognitive deficits.

12/28/2009 6:03:20 PM

^ Apparently some people think that if something is controversial then it should not be talked about or is not true.

12/28/2009 11:04:24 PM

you can find a study for anything on the internet. hell, people have devoted their entire lives to proving certain races are chosen superior by an almighty being/creator. Go to anybody in the biology department at state with this shit.

12/29/2009 12:34:38 AM

white people are genetically superior banjo players. white people are also genetically superior piano players. Black piano players are only good if they are blind and their genes can't see that they are in fact not white.

12/29/2009 1:00:01 AM

Quote :

"you can find a study for anything on the internet. hell, people have devoted their entire lives to proving certain races are chosen superior by an almighty being/creator. Go to anybody in the biology department at state with this shit."

have u not embarrassed yourself enough in this thread....

12/29/2009 7:29:47 AM

Quote :

"Go to anybody in the biology department at state with this shit."

And they would tell you that cognitive ability is a complex human trait that is partially heritable (determined by genetics) and influenced by environment.

Now knowledge is not heritable. There is a difference between cognition and knowledge.

12/29/2009 11:59:31 AM

Quote :

"Black piano players are only good if they are blind and their genes can't see that they are in fact not white."

hahaha

12/29/2009 12:26:02 PM

It's obvious to me that intelligence varies between people. I don't know that this correlates with skin color, and I don't know why it would. How could anyone say that intelligence isn't a component of heridity, though? Just look at any other animal. Some dog breeds are really dumb. Others breeds are really smart. Is this just a function of training? Of course not. Different breeds have evolved in different ways and in different environments, often because of artificial selection.

If you're a materialist like me, meaning you think that all things are material and all phenomena are the result of material interaction, it should be very clear that intellectual capacity/ability evolved over time and can vary greatly. No one should deny that the species we evolved from were less intelligent. They had smaller craniums and smaller brains. Because we are all the result of separate (but similar) "evolutionary paths," some individuals are superior in certain aspects. This doesn't mean that white people are always smarter, because anyone can point out counter-examples. It simply means that there are quantifiable differences, and it shouldn't be taboo to point that out.

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2009 12:44:29 PM

Quote :

"Because we are all the result of separate (but similar) "evolutionary paths," some individuals are superior in certain aspects. This doesn't mean that white people are always smarter, because anyone can point out counter-examples. It simply means that there are quantifiable differences, and it shouldn't be taboo to point that out. "

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM. Reason : a]

12/29/2009 2:34:22 PM

When you identify the genes that account for "intelligence" and show some genetic disparity between the races, holla back. Until then, you're all talking out of your asses without any evidence. And it's taboo because it's the same kind of talk that's been used to justify practically all of the horrors and nightmares people have endured over the past few hundred years.

12/29/2009 2:56:30 PM

Pointing to the gene that determines intelligence would be like pointing to the gene that determines the size and functionality of any given organ. I'm not a scientist, so I can't help you there. The fact is, if you look at any any group of people, you'll find that the size, physical characteristics, color, and efficiency (that is, the degree to which the organ seems to serve its purpose) of organs varies. Skin color is different. Finger length is different. Hair type is different. Some people have thick bones; others have thinner bones. Some people have more natural muscle mass. Every single component of the human body varies between individuals, sometimes in a way so small that it is undetectable to the human eye. It would be ridiculous to claim that the same is not true of the brain, and consciousness is a function of the brain. That manifests in the form of "intelligence."

If you don't understand that, then you don't understand evolution. Evolution is fundamental, and I don't need a supercomputer or a lab to grasp the concept. While some people would attempt to elevate the status of one race over another, that is not my goal. However, it makes perfect sense that groups of humans that evolved in different environments may have developed (and retained) certain traits over others. It's natural selection. We can look around the world and see the diversity of life in the animal kingdom, yet humans want to pretend that they're somehow immune to this.

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2009 3:51:10 PM

Quote :

"Until then, you're all talking out of your asses without any evidence"

Quote :

"Go to anybody in the biology department at state with this shit. "

Typical knee-jerk liberal reaction when someone proposes an idea that works in contrary to the cookie-cutter, affirimitive action believing, socialist supporting, we are all equal attitude.

12/29/2009 4:02:15 PM

^^For someone who doesn't think it should be taboo, you sure are dancing around your point:

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: I don't know that this correlates with skin color, and I don't know why it would."

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: Because we are all the result of separate (but similar) "evolutionary paths," some individuals are superior in certain aspects. This doesn't mean that white people are always smarter, because anyone can point out counter-examples. It simply means that there are quantifiable differences, and it shouldn't be taboo to point that out."

Which is it?

You're not sure that intelligence is genetically tied to skin color?

Or you're so fucking sure that you're willing to toss some quotes around the phrase "evolutionary paths," point to supposedly quantifiable differences, and throw black readers a bone with some bullshit about counter-examples?

12/29/2009 4:23:10 PM

It's not one or the other. I stand by both statements. I don't know that intelligence would correlate with skin color. I don't know why it would. Those are both facts.

Quote :

"You're not sure that intelligence is genetically tied to skin color?"

It's not tied to skin color. Skin is a separate organ from the brain. They serve two different purposes. They react in different ways to environmental circumstances. You wouldn't say that dog intelligence correlates with fur length, because they have nothing to do with each other, unless you were able to demonstrate the correlation in some way. Your posts lack substance; you just feign outrage. I don't know if that's just your TWW persona or what.

12/29/2009 4:47:10 PM

My bad. I thought it was evident that i was comparing the two quotes, not just the two statements in the first quote. But whatever...

If my posts lack substance, it's because nobody has posted anything substantial to support the idea that white people are more intelligent than black people. I'm prompting you to present some evidence to support this statement:

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: Because we are all the result of separate (but similar) "evolutionary paths," some individuals are superior in certain aspects. This doesn't mean that white people are always smarter, because anyone can point out counter-examples. It simply means that there are quantifiable differences, and it shouldn't be taboo to point that out"

From this quote, I can glean that you believe that on the whole whites are more intelligent than blacks since you took the time to mention counter-examples and pointed to quantifiable differences between the races. And you clearly believe this supposed disparity in intelligence is genetic since you used the phrase "evolutionary paths."

You danced around it, but you ultimately said, "White people on the average are naturally smarter than black people."

Please support that assertion.

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2009 5:13:40 PM

Bridgetspk... bringing down the hammer

12/29/2009 5:53:15 PM

Quote :

"From this quote, I can glean that you believe that on the whole whites are more intelligent than blacks since you took the time to mention counter-examples and pointed to quantifiable differences between the races. And you clearly believe this supposed disparity in intelligence is genetic since you used the phrase "evolutionary paths.""

The quote in question says specifically that you can't say whites are more intelligent than blacks. Are you saying that there are no quantifiable differences between black people and white people? They have different skin colors. That's a difference. I haven't made the claim that one race is smarter, on average, than another. How would you go about measuring that? Intelligence is far too complex to understand from a simple test. IQ tests are more about knowledge than actual intellectual capability, and it doesn't take into account cultural differences.

The phrase "evolutionary paths" helps demonstrate the disparity between individuals, not groups. Within each group, there are individuals that are well below average in terms of intelligence, strength, or any other measure of ability. In human society, we no longer have survival of the fittest. You could say we have natural selection, but that's not the same. An attractive woman will have no problem finding a mate. She may be sickly, weak, stupid, and inferior to her peers in almost all genetic aspects, but if she is appealing to a man, she will pass on her genes to offspring.

If there were a way to objectively determine average intelligence, strength, speed, lifespan, or any other characteristic of each "race" (and, frankly, if you could even provide a coherent definition of race I'd be impressed, because I'm not even sure that I could - I have a huge problem with the racial categories as they are defined today), you would undoubtedly find that each race was superior in its own ways. It's pretty much impossible that you would have the same exact averages over all groups. Of course, there is not a way to objectively determine that statistic, so I wouldn't assert superiority or inferiority over one group or the other.

The fact that I think you have trouble accepting, probably out of noble intent, is that everyone is not equal. Some individuals are born inferior to their peers. Some people are stupid. Some people are small and weak. Some people are susceptible to disease. You know this from simple observation. These things have nothing to do with skin color, and everything to do with heredity. Of course, I haven't actually made the assertion you've accused me of making, and I'm not dancing around the assertions that I have made.

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2009 6:08:00 PM

^After I posted, I googled "evolutionary paths" and came up with some crazy stuff:

http://home.comcast.net/~pathinfo/thepath.htm

I had no idea that's what you meant.

I agree with most of what you've said except for one main thing. If you admit intelligence is too complex to measure with an IQ test and that race probably isn't much more than a social construct, then what were those "quantifiable differences" between blacks and whites that you were talking about with respect to intelligence?

12/29/2009 6:26:01 PM

Quote :

" The fact that I think you have trouble accepting, probably out of noble intent, is that everyone is not equal. Some individuals are born inferior to their peers. Some people are stupid. Some people are small and weak. Some people are susceptible to disease. You know this from simple observation. These things have nothing to do with skin color, and everything to do with heredity. Of course, I haven't actually made the assertion you've accused me of making, and I'm not dancing around the assertions that I have made. "

Bridget pwnt

12/29/2009 6:39:26 PM

^No, you pwnt.

The only reason you quoted d357r0y3r is because you thought he was supporting your perspective.

Now that we know that he's not, it looks like you're gonna have to go back to defending jprince11's racist nonsense while maintaining that you're not a racist.

12/29/2009 6:46:34 PM

Evolutionary paths is something I came up with in my head to describe lineage starting from abiogenesis and ending in our existence today. If there was a way to make a huge family tree, starting from the first forms of life and showing all offspring of every organism, with each organism on the chart having a full description of its genetic qualities, you could get an idea of how everyone is simply the end result of a very long line of breeding. Any two of us humans have a common ancestor, but some of us have a much more recent common ancestor, meaning we're more closely related. The most recent common ancestor most likely had black skin, though, so white skin is a deviation from that.

Quote :

"If you admit intelligence is too complex to measure with an IQ test and that race probably isn't much more than a social construct, then what were those "quantifiable differences" between blacks and whites that you were talking about with respect to intelligence?"

The quantifiable differences are not with respect to intelligence. That's with respect to the things we can actually see. Africans have dark skin. Asians seem to be shorter, on average, and more prone to myopia. The point is that inbreeding groups tend to have certain characteristics that make them different from other inbreeding groups. Intelligence is not as easily gauged as those visible characteristics, so I think it's fairly useless to try to rank the races in order of intelligence. At the same time, we shouldn't try to assert that there exists a "uniform range" of intelligence/cognitive ability (however it would be measured) across all inbreeding groups.

12/29/2009 7:02:45 PM

^I'm confused. If you were talking about things we can see, then why did you tack it on to the end of a discussion about intelligence:

Quote :

"Because we are all the result of separate (but similar) "evolutionary paths," some individuals are superior in certain aspects. This doesn't mean that white people are always smarter, because anyone can point out counter-examples. It simply means that there are quantifiable differences, and it shouldn't be taboo to point that out."

And since when has it ever been taboo to point out that Africans have dark skin and Asians are shorter?

12/29/2009 7:12:49 PM

Quote :

"No, you pwnt. The only reason you quoted d357r0y3r is because you thought he was supporting your perspective. "

Do you not get it BridgetSPK no one actually pays attention to your nonsense liberal rant.

12/29/2009 7:45:05 PM

Quote :

"Because we are all the result of separate (but similar) "evolutionary paths," some individuals are superior in certain aspects. This doesn't mean that white people are always smarter, because anyone can point out counter-examples. It simply means that there are quantifiable differences, and it shouldn't be taboo to point that out."

In other words, there are quantifiable differences in visible characteristics between inbreeding groups, so it should not be taboo to suggest that there may be inbreeding groups with a particular brain structure or size that supports superior intelligence, on average, over other groups. We all evolved from a creature that was not as intelligent as modern man, so it makes no sense to say that all lineages advanced from that base intelligence level at the same rate.

I guess I would expand upon the last line to read, "It [referring to the original statement about evolutionary paths] simply means that there are quantifiable differences in all aspects that we can see, and it shouldn't be taboo to point out that there there are most likely differences in terms of brain function and cognitive ability, as well, even though we cannot accurately measure or rank such a thing." It boils down to accepting that all animal traits, whether observable by the human eye or not, are passed down from generation to generation. The argument should not be whether intelligence varies between lineages, but rather, if that variance is at all significant. Given the fact that humans did not migrate to Europe until 35,000 years ago or so, and life has been evolving for billions of years, I somehow doubt that the gap in average intelligence between "races" is very significant.

12/29/2009 8:00:30 PM

Quote :

"How could anyone say that intelligence isn't a component of heridity, though? Just look at any other animal. Some dog breeds are really dumb. Others breeds are really smart. Is this just a function of training? Of course not. Different breeds have evolved in different ways and in different environments, often because of artificial selection."

You don't even realize that different human races are not different "breeds" like a shitzu and a german shepherd. Someone with such an acute understanding of biology, like you, has no business trying to argue something so off the wall. You're simply not qualified to pull claims out of your ass.

Also, even if your made up logic existed, how would you even explain how entire groups of people could gain cognitive ability at different rates based on something related to skin color?

12/30/2009 1:09:28 AM

Skin color would only be a correlation and a loose one at that. You are missing the whole point of d357r0y3r; you are just as easily talking out of YOUR ass calling his claim bullshit as he is. Just because something is "controversial" like the issue of legalized pot, does not mean that the issue should not be discussed or researched.

12/30/2009 7:43:14 AM

Quote :

""If I work out everday and get very strong, those genes are passed on to my children""

^^people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

12/30/2009 10:44:13 AM

Quote :

"You don't even realize that different human races are not different "breeds" like a shitzu and a german shepherd. Someone with such an acute understanding of biology, like you, has no business trying to argue something so off the wall. You're simply not qualified to pull claims out of your ass."

Actually, yes, in a very real way we are all different breeds. Now, with dogs, a "breed standard" is maintained for human purposes. With humans, we're all mutts. You can imagine that, if 20,000 years ago an alien race had arrived on earth and blocked off different parts of the earth using giant walls, only allowing those within each block to breed with each other, you could have very well defined "breeds" or "races" as we would call them. That did not happen, so we don't have very well defined racial groups at all. I'd like to reiterate that I have a problem with categorizing humans terms of "race," because there is good way of defining race in today's world.

Quote :

"Also, even if your made up logic existed, how would you even explain how entire groups of people could gain cognitive ability at different rates based on something related to skin color?"

It's not based on skin color in any way.

[Edited on December 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM. Reason : ]

12/30/2009 11:26:13 AM

Quote :

"It's not based on skin color in any way."

Just a correlation with the real factor being the native environment....

12/30/2009 12:22:11 PM

So, let me get this straight, d357r0y3r. When I challenged you on these “quantifiable differences,” you assured me you weren’t talking about intelligence:

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: The quantifiable differences are not with respect to intelligence. That's with respect to the things we can actually see. Africans have dark skin. Asians seem to be shorter, on average, and more prone to myopia."

But when I asked you what was so taboo about pointing out that Africans have dark skin, you went back on your original explanation and said you actually were talking about intelligence:

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: In other words, there are quantifiable differences in visible characteristics between inbreeding groups, so it should not be taboo to suggest that there may be inbreeding groups with a particular brain structure or size that supports superior intelligence, on average, over other groups."

Why would you say you’re not talking about intelligence and then say you are talking about intelligence by way of brain structure and size?


Anyway, you admit that race as we know it is a social construct that isn’t very meaningful, and you also admit that intelligence is too complex to measure with a test and likely not even measurable. But then you say, that if we could come up with an objective way to define and measure intelligence, and if we could come up with some way to objectively define racial groups, that you’re sure we could find a disparity in intelligence because we would find different brain sizes and structures among these hypothetical racial categories and those different brain sizes/structures would affect intelligence.

That’s a lot of coulds, woulds, and ifs that lead up to a hypothesis that is, by nature, impossible to ever prove, and according to you, meaningless anyway since this supposedly inevitable disparity would be insignificant. So what’s the point?

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 11:00 AM. Reason : ?]

12/31/2009 10:54:46 AM

Quote :

"That’s a lot of coulds, woulds, and ifs that lead up to a hypothesis that is, by nature, impossible to ever prove, and according to you, meaningless anyway since this supposedly inevitable disparity would be insignificant. So what’s the point?"

The point, if there is one, is that we are not all the same. Obviously, if someone comes out and says "people with green skin are smarter than people with purple skin," that isn't defensible. However, if someone comes out and says "all lineages are exactly as smart as all other lineages," that's equally preposterous. Some things we just don't know. This is one of those things. It seems taboo to even explore the subject, though, and I don't think it should be. A scientist that entertains the idea is usually labeled as a bigot. There will come a time when we understand the brain, consciousness, and intelligence in much greater detail than we do now. We shouldn't be afraid to do that just because we might come to the realization that some people are genetically inferior in some aspect, though.

12/31/2009 11:12:48 AM

every person is different andyou're trying to say every race is different and people inside those races vary minimally.

12/31/2009 1:59:34 PM

Eintstein’s brain was lighter than the average brain. We don’t know enough about how the brain works to say what affect changes in physical structures has on perceptible intelligence.

Just because there’s a difference doesn’t mean there’s a meaningful difference.

Quote :

"A scientist that entertains the idea is usually labeled as a bigot. There will come a time when we understand the brain, consciousness, and intelligence in much greater detail than we do now. We shouldn't be afraid to do that just because we might come to the realization that some people are genetically inferior in some aspect, though."

haha. The concept of “genetic inferiority” has no basis. One good example from back in your HS biology days is sickle-celled anemia. It might cause problem in certain conditions, but it also increases the subjects resistance to malaria IIRC. This is a genetic condition, but there is no inherent superiority of inferiority in it.

Not to mention that the newest research is leaning to a more prominent effect on environment than was previously believed: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/human-differences-environment-vs-the-genes.ars

Quote :

"And there was a definite impact from the genes. For about 350 of the genes that had significant expression differences, there was a clear association with a difference in DNA sequences. Anywhere from 15 to 60 percent of the expression differences in these 350 genes can be accounted for by genetics. All of that sounds pretty impressive until you consider the larger picture, though. Those 350 genes represent only about five percent of the total number genes that varied among the study population. For most of these genes, the environment, urban or rural, appeared to correlate more strongly than genetics. The effect was so pronounced that the authors were left wondering whether genetics mattered. "The robustness of the associations observed to the environmental effect," they wrote, "raises the issue of whether genotype-by-environment interactions influence the peripheral blood transcriptome at all.”"

Then you have to consider the societal impacts. It’s painfully obvious when it comes to things like evolution and climate science that neither politicians, the media, or the public at large knows how to interpret scientific findings. A scientist could be doing innocuous research about something tangentially related to brain morphology and genetics, and it would only take 1 single news reporter to misinterpret his results to cause a ton of headaches for that scientist.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/jr7x87781g01801u/fulltext.pdf?page=1

Quote :

"Two populations of laboratory mice lived outdoors in open pens for two years. Thereafter, some of them were bred in the laboratory. Morphometric analysis showed that the size of the synaptic projection area of mossy fibers (in the CA3 region of the hippocampus), which has an important functional role, and some behavioral traits of the open-pen mouse progeny had significant genetically determined differences from those in the initial population. This was attributed to differential breeding accounted for by the influence of severe environmental factors. Under environmental stress, selection occurred in the population and the mice with behavioral and neuromorphological characteristics differing from those of the control group proved to be better adapted to such conditions."

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

12/31/2009 2:07:49 PM

Quote :

"Then you have to consider the societal impacts. It’s painfully obvious when it comes to things like evolution and climate science that neither politicians, the media, or the public at large knows how to interpret scientific findings. A scientist could be doing innocuous research about something tangentially related to brain morphology and genetics, and it would only take 1 single news reporter to misinterpret his results to cause a ton of headaches for that scientist."

come on now let's give al gore some credit! he was great with statistics and data in his election with bush, unfortunetly bush won out with his genius "fuzzy numbers" debate and his high school level scientific ability

1/1/2010 6:56:00 PM

ithought it was cause all the blacks were shipped here?

1/2/2010 9:22:23 PM

The whites were shipped here too. Just earlier and under worse conditions. However, I don't think "ship didn't sink" is an effect of genetics.

1/3/2010 3:21:16 PM

just passing through, but:

Quote :

"""If I work out everday and get very strong, those genes are passed on to my children"""

ROFL

1/4/2010 10:15:36 AM

Europeans are white because they are descendants of Teutons which are descendants of Aryans.

[/19th Century American Philosophy]



Seriously though, I thought it was a very interesting article. However, all the trolling in this thread was ridiculous.

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ]

1/4/2010 11:25:16 AM

Quote :

"If I work out everday and get very strong, those genes are passed on to my children"

1/4/2010 4:11:47 PM

Quote :

"Actually, yes, in a very real way we are all different breeds. Now, with dogs, a "breed standard" is maintained for human purposes. With humans, we're all mutts. "

no dogs have developed into different sub species. Any human can mate with any other race but a picanese can't mate with a great dane without artifical insemination.

1/4/2010 7:00:17 PM

Is that the definition of sub-species? Penis must comfortably fit within the vagina?

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 9:14 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2010 9:07:53 AM

Quote :

""If I work out everday and get very strong, those genes are passed on to my children""

1/5/2010 12:51:42 PM

hense all the blacks in the nba

1/5/2010 2:08:27 PM

You have got to be trolling. Hence.

1/5/2010 2:30:50 PM