Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    StealDragon's Avatar
    StealDragon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NCC-1701
    Posts
    13,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kayangelus View Post
    I have to say, that his phrasing is what made it racist. I think he said that every black scientist is dumber than other scientists, but if he had said that the average black is dumber than the average non-black, that would be pretty much correct. If people complained, wouldn't be all that hard to pull out a few IQ tests, statistics on percents of each race who had good grades in collage, etc. Would be interesting to compare...
    You cant measure inherent intelligence. There are environmental factors. It'd be like trying to prove that rich white kids are genetically smarter than poor white kids. There are circumstances that would skew the most objective of tests. IQ tests are bullshit. The only way this could be proved is to have hundreds of subjects from each possible ethnic backgrounds, and from birth educate them exactly the same with no outside interferences. Born and raised for the sole purpose of taking the test. And even that would be skewed since there are parental factors involved. You can't objectively prove a greater level of intelligence in any way no matter what youre looking at. It's impossible.


    I'd like to die with the songs I love stuck in my head. I hope to make the most of these hollow bones we become.
    I raise a toast to the the souls that sang all along. I've been gathering friends to just to make some sounds,
    before the ship goes down, I've been making amends by making the rounds before the whole world ends


    [Chit Chat Specific Forum Rules] // Last Update - Friday March 13, 2009

  2. #22
    bipolargraph is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Location
    Posts
    2,177

    Default

    ^ wow you people have a lot of time to waste if you actually read everything.

    The only thing that makes a black man different from a white man is that his melanocytes are more active. That is a genetic trait inherited to protect them against the rays of the sun. Seriously I can't imagine how people might even remotely think of the idea.

  3. #23
    adonai is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,630

    Default

    @echoblaze, Natural selection isn't limited to the simple interactions like inheritance.

    People (or animals) behave in ways that increases the chance that their genes and their culture/behavior is passed on. When it comes to genes that isn't restricted to their children, why do you think that traits like homosexuality and altruism evolved? In either case, the benefit is provided to relatives instead of descendants, at a significant cost to the individual displaying that particular behavior (and yes, altruism and homosexuality isn't limited to humans, many animals exhibit both or either behavior).

    And that's ignoring the fact that natural selection cannot distinguish between genetic and environmental factors that shape a creature's phenotype. For example, Japan used to be isolated to the extent that milk was pretty much never consumed, since this has changed in recent years, the average height of people in Japan has changed accordingly. Does this mean in the past a hypothetical competition involving height, someone from (let's say) India, would have an inherent advantage because of his genetics?

    Inheritance does not just mean: make more babies, and natural selection isn't just limited to genetics.

    It's described a bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...logical_theory

    And finally, if you want me to provide a direct example, certain types of bird song is something that is learned, a behavior that passed from generation to generation, and pretty much independent of genetics:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_song#Learning

  4. #24
    bipolargraph is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Location
    Posts
    2,177

    Default

    ^ on a different note, some goats in India I think, who haven't been near any tigers for almost 200 years, freaked out when they were brought some tiger poop

  5. #25
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adonai View Post
    why do you think that traits like homosexuality and altruism evolved? In either case, the benefit is provided to relatives instead of descendants, at a significant cost to the individual displaying that particular behavior (and yes, altruism and homosexuality isn't limited to humans, many animals exhibit both or either behavior).
    can't say much about homosexuality, but altruism greatly helps the individual as well - you have the support of an entire community just by giving a little. and besides, there are traits naturally selected that helps an entire species rather than just the individual - peacocks have bright feathers that make them more vulnerable to predators, but are used to attract mates for descendants.

    Quote Originally Posted by adonai View Post
    And that's ignoring the fact that natural selection cannot distinguish between genetic and environmental factors that shape a creature's phenotype. For example, Japan used to be isolated to the extent that milk was pretty much never consumed, since this has changed in recent years, the average height of people in Japan has changed accordingly. Does this mean in the past a hypothetical competition involving height, someone from (let's say) India, would have an inherent advantage because of his genetics?
    how does your example counter my point? (my point being natural selection is a physical thing, btw) and i already stated that natural selection no longer occurs, at least not for humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by adonai View Post
    Inheritance does not just mean: make more babies, and natural selection isn't just limited to genetics.
    "receiving traits from parents" != "make more babies". as for genetics, since you seem to like wiki links, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection - the entire opening paragraph has everything to do with genetics. natural selection itself is *defined* as a genetic process.

    Quote Originally Posted by adonai View Post
    alright, i read it. the first thing i got is that your main point is a controversial topic (ie no solid conclusion). the only thing i found that countered my argument were a few hypotheses.

    Quote Originally Posted by adonai View Post
    And finally, if you want me to provide a direct example, certain types of bird song is something that is learned, a behavior that passed from generation to generation, and pretty much independent of genetics:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_song#Learning
    song-learning has nothing to do with natural selection - it's a form of inheritance, sure, but that's about it.

  6. #26
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Actually adonai is correct here, it is possible that ideas are subject to natural selection. Specifically this is called memetics, and is in fact an entirely reasonable idea and field of science.

    After all, if an idea grants you an evolutionary advantage, it is clear that those who adopt that idea will have an advantage over those who don't. Also, those who adopt the ideas that give you an evolutionary advantage will spread those ideas to their offspring, simply because the ideas are useful. In the same way, ideas that are disadvantageous tend to be abandoned.

    Therefore, it isn't wrong to say that ideas can be inherited, despite the fact that they aren't if we use the word strictly.

  7. #27
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    just looked up "memetics". i'll have to argue that it follows the same process as natural selection, but isn't part of natural selection itself. natural selection is defined as a genetic process. it might feel like i'm splitting hairs here, but i think this is the reason why we're still arguing.

    i'll have to say though, that the memetics/idea inheritance thing was completely new to me. interesting to know

  8. #28
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by echoblaze View Post
    just looked up "memetics". i'll have to argue that it follows the same process as natural selection, but isn't part of natural selection itself.
    I'm not sure I follow your logic here, because natural selection itself is a process.

    Quote Originally Posted by echoblaze
    natural selection is defined as a genetic process. it might feel like i'm splitting hairs here, but i think this is the reason why we're still arguing.
    Actually, natural selection in the broadest term refers to the fact that individuals with the greatest evolutionary advantages are the ones most likely to reproduce. I fail to see why one sort of evolutionary advantage should be considered to be inherently different.

    Quote Originally Posted by echoblaze
    i'll have to say though, that the memetics/idea inheritance thing was completely new to me. interesting to know
    Actually, IIRC, the idea is quite old. I believe Dawkins coined the term in one of his books. But anyway, it truly is an interesting field of science. It's odd really that it doesn't get more attention than it does.

  9. #29
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Actually, natural selection in the broadest term refers to the fact that individuals with the greatest evolutionary advantages are the ones most likely to reproduce. I fail to see why one sort of evolutionary advantage should be considered to be inherently different.
    and i'm talking about natural selection in its original and most widely accepted definition (ie, opening paragraph in wikipedia, what's taught in biology classes). that was the point of my entire last post - we're not even talking about the same thing, so let's just drop this.

    back to topic. i believe that race has nothing to do with IQ, and that IQ reflects more of a person's surroundings/upbringing.

  10. #30
    adonai is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by echoblaze View Post
    song-learning has nothing to do with natural selection - it's a form of inheritance, sure, but that's about it.
    Mating songs?

    Behavior is a part of natural selection when it has a genetic basis, why should it be any different if the behavior has a cultural basis?

    They both transfer from one generation to the next and affect the survival of the individual.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162