Karl Lenin
Prince
Ask yourselves what Europe would have looked like without horses.
Does natural selection imply inherent superiority in certain races?
- Thread starter student
- Start date
betazed
Seeking...
- Joined
- May 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,224
Hmmm..... I do not realize what this whole thread is about. 
It has been shown numerous times that the variability of genes within races (85 %) is substantially more than the variability of genes between races (15 %).
The above statement proves unequivocally that from a genetic viewpoint there is no significant difference between an average Arab, Oriental, Caucasian or San African.
It has been shown numerous times that the variability of genes within races (85 %) is substantially more than the variability of genes between races (15 %).
The above statement proves unequivocally that from a genetic viewpoint there is no significant difference between an average Arab, Oriental, Caucasian or San African.
AceChilla
Goedheiligman
That not true,
There are huge differences in human races.
Accroding to theories made by the controversial scientist Rushton Asian are the most advanced race on the subject of intelligence, after the whites and then the blacks. But blacks are ahead in phsycial development. They walk after 11 months, whites after 12 and asians after 13 months. Blacks get their real teeth earlier and reach puberty earlier than other races.
Just to show some of the differences, but it's almost illegal to speak about this subject. It's the last taboo, so I'll shut up
AceChilla
Goedheiligman
Originally posted by betazed
DM, is asked politely to go read a book on population genetics before making such claims.
I'm just quoting scientific studies that are teached in biology classes in university's.
AceChilla
Goedheiligman
But differences between races and still negligable if compared to differences between males and females 
betazed
Seeking...
- Joined
- May 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,224
Then that study must be heavily biased. Try to reconcile that statement with what I posted earlier.
Both of them cannot be true.
And the variability of the genes has been proven again and again.
If there is a statistically significant difference in intelligence or anything else between Asians and Caucasians (which I very much doubt) then it must be something else, not genetic.
AceChilla
Goedheiligman
Of course there are huge variaty within different races, and because races get mixed more and more and difficult to make statments about it.
But there are such thing's as statistical evidence, it has been statistically proven that blacks on averadge have longer leg muscels and are thus better equiped for running. Are you gonna tell me that cannot be true because there are many blacks with small leg muscles? That's just one example.
I'm absolutely no racist or anything like that, but I do think people should be aloud to speak openly about these issues it should be a taboo.
betazed
Seeking...
- Joined
- May 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,224
Of course you should be allowed to speak about anything, if you can back it up rationally. Rationally being the key word.
But the original statement that you made was not about leg muscles but intelligence. There is a significant difference between the two. Let me explain.
If you read my statement again I did not claim there is no difference between races. There is a 15% genetic difference between races. Now assuming that there is a statistically significant difference between length of leg muscles we can argue that the genes that detemine the length of leg muscles may lie within this 15%. Why can we say this? because we can argue that the number of genes it takes to completely determine the length of leg muscles is probably less than 15% of our genome. However, even then it is a tentative argument. To actually show that genetic differences lies in the difference of leg muscles you have to determine the gene(s) responsible for it and show that they differ among races. Has this been done? If yes then I agree with your claim.
However, can we say this about our intelligence. Definitely not. We do not even know how to define intelligence. So how can we say that the 15% difference determines all the differences in intelligence between races. Has someone linked any intellegence gene with the variability?
before you jump on me let me also tell you there have been genes identified for many things that have been shown to be statistically significantly different between races. IIRC, the gene for blood group is one such gene.
AceChilla
Goedheiligman
I'm no expert in biology nor the genetics, I'm just telling you some stuff I 've read in a article about his subject.
But I even with my little knowledge of genetics I dispute that in order to determine differences between races we have to go back to the origin of those differences being the genes that are responsible for those differences.
We don't have to know how those differences came to be you just have to scientifically prove they exist, and that can be done by aquireing enough statistical evidence from different people from different parts of the world to have a suvicient margin of error to state that the "race" indeed has a correlation with a certain psychical difference.
And that has been done, we can statisticallt prove that there is a correlation between race and the lenght of a leg muscle or the age at whitch puberty kicks in. We can also statisticallt prove there is a correaltion between race and the resceptiviness for certain a certain illness, in fact docters are trained to do that.
Now on intelligence. It's of course is a very touchy subject and very difficult to determine. We in the west may describe intelligence as being able to solve logical question while people from other parts of the world have a whole different definition. But according to research done by Phillipe Rushton professor at the university of western Ontario, a well know and distinguised scientist there is a correlation between intelligence and race.(http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf)
According to him Asians have the highest IQ of all races being 107, whites have an average of 100, and blacks have a lower number than that.
I suggest you read the link I gave you and form your own conclusions on what he has to say, although his theory has been attacked several times it is also being teached at hunderds of university's around the world and most experts in this field agree with what he has to say.
But I even with my little knowledge of genetics I dispute that in order to determine differences between races we have to go back to the origin of those differences being the genes that are responsible for those differences.
We don't have to know how those differences came to be you just have to scientifically prove they exist, and that can be done by aquireing enough statistical evidence from different people from different parts of the world to have a suvicient margin of error to state that the "race" indeed has a correlation with a certain psychical difference.
And that has been done, we can statisticallt prove that there is a correlation between race and the lenght of a leg muscle or the age at whitch puberty kicks in. We can also statisticallt prove there is a correaltion between race and the resceptiviness for certain a certain illness, in fact docters are trained to do that.
Now on intelligence. It's of course is a very touchy subject and very difficult to determine. We in the west may describe intelligence as being able to solve logical question while people from other parts of the world have a whole different definition. But according to research done by Phillipe Rushton professor at the university of western Ontario, a well know and distinguised scientist there is a correlation between intelligence and race.(http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf)
According to him Asians have the highest IQ of all races being 107, whites have an average of 100, and blacks have a lower number than that.
I suggest you read the link I gave you and form your own conclusions on what he has to say, although his theory has been attacked several times it is also being teached at hunderds of university's around the world and most experts in this field agree with what he has to say.
Pirate
Emperor
Let me restate what Betazed is saying to make it a bit clearer. Between any two people there are a certain number of genetic differences that make them individual people. These differences account for all of our personal variability in eye color, skin color, predispositions for diseases, behavior, intelligence, and anything that genes may code for. Now if you compare yourself to any other person on the planet, 85% of those genes are different simply because you are a different person. Only 15% of those differences relate to the fact that you may be a different race than the other person.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
First of all there is no genetic definition of the term 'race', it is simply not a scientific term. Betazed is on the right track, though the actual data that I am aware of can be summarized thus:
"If you sample two random copies of a random gene from two random human beings,
there is about an 86% chance they'll be the same and a 14% chance that they'll
differ. If you sample the same way, but from two human beings of the same race,
the chances are more like 86.5% and 13.5%. Practically all human genetic
variation lies within, rather than between, racial groups."
This quote is from the 2002 book Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect_ by Paul Ehrlich.
The point here is that we are all one race, and the variation that we see within our race is part of the key to our survival. As the environment we exist in changes for whatever reason - climate, technology, disease, etc. - specific allele frequencies within the race will shift in response. That is evolution, we are always evolving. This is most easilly seen in relation to disease resistance, sickle cell anemia's relationship to malaria survival and the increased suceptibility to the plague for blood type B.
Statistically speaking if there where a specific gene that confered survival from some extreme shift in our environment, it would exist at some level in all of the culturally determined 'races'. There is no gene that is unique to a single culturally determined 'race', at least none that is currently known.
Ehrlich goes on to say:
"Human beings are built from 60,000 or so genes, which simply is not enough to
specify many of the 10^14 to 10^15 synapses in the brain. For this reason it
seems that most of out behavior cannot be directly genetically controlled."
While this second claim is controversal, it does underline the fact that culture is not directly linked to genetics. It does seem likely that different cultural habits can influence survival from shifts in environment, so it seems that there is a cultural evolution of sorts that runs in parallel with genetics. There may in fact be a culture that is superior in its ability to survive into our future, but it is to our advantage as a race to have many different cultures within our race so as to be able to survive a range of environmental changes.
The mistake many people make is to link culture directly with genes, and so assume that there is a genetic definition of 'race'. There is not, it is a cultural definition.
"If you sample two random copies of a random gene from two random human beings,
there is about an 86% chance they'll be the same and a 14% chance that they'll
differ. If you sample the same way, but from two human beings of the same race,
the chances are more like 86.5% and 13.5%. Practically all human genetic
variation lies within, rather than between, racial groups."
This quote is from the 2002 book Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect_ by Paul Ehrlich.
The point here is that we are all one race, and the variation that we see within our race is part of the key to our survival. As the environment we exist in changes for whatever reason - climate, technology, disease, etc. - specific allele frequencies within the race will shift in response. That is evolution, we are always evolving. This is most easilly seen in relation to disease resistance, sickle cell anemia's relationship to malaria survival and the increased suceptibility to the plague for blood type B.
Statistically speaking if there where a specific gene that confered survival from some extreme shift in our environment, it would exist at some level in all of the culturally determined 'races'. There is no gene that is unique to a single culturally determined 'race', at least none that is currently known.
Ehrlich goes on to say:
"Human beings are built from 60,000 or so genes, which simply is not enough to
specify many of the 10^14 to 10^15 synapses in the brain. For this reason it
seems that most of out behavior cannot be directly genetically controlled."
While this second claim is controversal, it does underline the fact that culture is not directly linked to genetics. It does seem likely that different cultural habits can influence survival from shifts in environment, so it seems that there is a cultural evolution of sorts that runs in parallel with genetics. There may in fact be a culture that is superior in its ability to survive into our future, but it is to our advantage as a race to have many different cultures within our race so as to be able to survive a range of environmental changes.
The mistake many people make is to link culture directly with genes, and so assume that there is a genetic definition of 'race'. There is not, it is a cultural definition.
betazed
Seeking...
- Joined
- May 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,224
@Gothmog:
Maybe you (or someone else) can clarify I thought that came to my mind (I am assuming it is a valid question. Maybe it is not!
).
Since our ancestors came out of Africa and moved into different parts of the globe they became geographically separate and they reproduced locally. Thus, genetic drift should have set in. Correct? This would have led to a variability in our genes, which should be good for the species. Correct? Now with more and more intermigling is this variation going to increase or decrease? If so is this beneficial or detrimental to the human genotype?
Maybe you (or someone else) can clarify I thought that came to my mind (I am assuming it is a valid question. Maybe it is not!
). Since our ancestors came out of Africa and moved into different parts of the globe they became geographically separate and they reproduced locally. Thus, genetic drift should have set in. Correct? This would have led to a variability in our genes, which should be good for the species. Correct? Now with more and more intermigling is this variation going to increase or decrease? If so is this beneficial or detrimental to the human genotype?
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
There is an emerging science which takes Darwin's Theory and could successfully apply it to society - Memetics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics ) .
In a few words it's not a set of genes, rather a set of behaviours which allowed certain groups of people to be more successful.
In a few words it's not a set of genes, rather a set of behaviours which allowed certain groups of people to be more successful.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Well, black people are obviously better at basketball, and they didn't have basketball in Africa. 
Pirate
Emperor
As to the original question of one culture being more 'fit' than another culture, I think some people are stretching the ideas of natural selection.
Any species alive today is alive because it is 'fit' to be here. In fact it is the most fit organism for its particular niche. So to say that humans are more 'fit' than a bird of an earthworm is just plain wrong. We may be more highly evolved, but the survival of these other species is proof of their 'fitness'.
Likewise, any culture that survives naturally is a fit culture, even if others are more advanced. However, once we enter the realm of human politics we leave the realm of natural selection. A culture that may not be able to support itself and would over time die out (i.e. they ritualistically kill all female children) may be propped up by outside forces (i.e. female converts to their religion) and be artificially selected for survival. Likewise a culture that lives and farms sustainably may be able to persist for millenia, but they may be artificially selected against through an invasion and slaughter by an industrialized culture that if left to its own devices would have ended up poisoning its own land and exhaust its resources in a few hundred years.
These are not mechanisms for natural selection. Genetics and environmental factors do not always select which culture survives and so advanced cultures may not always be the most 'fit'.
Any species alive today is alive because it is 'fit' to be here. In fact it is the most fit organism for its particular niche. So to say that humans are more 'fit' than a bird of an earthworm is just plain wrong. We may be more highly evolved, but the survival of these other species is proof of their 'fitness'.
Likewise, any culture that survives naturally is a fit culture, even if others are more advanced. However, once we enter the realm of human politics we leave the realm of natural selection. A culture that may not be able to support itself and would over time die out (i.e. they ritualistically kill all female children) may be propped up by outside forces (i.e. female converts to their religion) and be artificially selected for survival. Likewise a culture that lives and farms sustainably may be able to persist for millenia, but they may be artificially selected against through an invasion and slaughter by an industrialized culture that if left to its own devices would have ended up poisoning its own land and exhaust its resources in a few hundred years.
These are not mechanisms for natural selection. Genetics and environmental factors do not always select which culture survives and so advanced cultures may not always be the most 'fit'.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
Heh, that is an interesting question betazed. I do not know the complete answer.
It is not obvious that the increased 'intermingling' will decrease variation, one would have to know the rate of drift and the rate of 'intermingling'. It is the competition between these rates that is important.
Of course at some point if the rate of drift was dominating the rate of 'intermingling' we would be left with genetically distinct races or sub-species (as apparently happened in our past with homo sapien taking over), and eventually different species unable to reproduce together succesfully. But the fact that most variation is within 'racial groups' implies that this is far from the current situation.
In fact it is likely that the rate of drift is controlled in part by environmental factors, and perhaps also by the rate of 'intermingling'. The rate of 'intermingling' is deffinitely determined in part by environmental factors including culture. So the equation becomes increasingly nonlinear.
I think that the technological and cultural 'advances' that have led to the increased 'intermingling' have increased our survivability. But that is just my opinion.
It is not obvious that the increased 'intermingling' will decrease variation, one would have to know the rate of drift and the rate of 'intermingling'. It is the competition between these rates that is important.
Of course at some point if the rate of drift was dominating the rate of 'intermingling' we would be left with genetically distinct races or sub-species (as apparently happened in our past with homo sapien taking over), and eventually different species unable to reproduce together succesfully. But the fact that most variation is within 'racial groups' implies that this is far from the current situation.
In fact it is likely that the rate of drift is controlled in part by environmental factors, and perhaps also by the rate of 'intermingling'. The rate of 'intermingling' is deffinitely determined in part by environmental factors including culture. So the equation becomes increasingly nonlinear.
I think that the technological and cultural 'advances' that have led to the increased 'intermingling' have increased our survivability. But that is just my opinion.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
@Pirate
I would include factors such as invasion and religion as environmental, and so would conclude that they are indeed mechanisms for natural selection. I do not believe that the term 'artifically selected' makes any sense. We are part of nature, anything we do is natural.
I would include factors such as invasion and religion as environmental, and so would conclude that they are indeed mechanisms for natural selection. I do not believe that the term 'artifically selected' makes any sense. We are part of nature, anything we do is natural.
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
To split quotes type: [-quote]the text of quote would be in here[/quote]. I have the symbol inside the box to prevent the text from becoming a quotation (which would prevent the box from appearing how it is typed). The should be left out when typing doing the quote. This box format can be used with to embolden text, italicize it, underline it, change its size and color, and other things. To bold text type [-b]text[/b] and in the middle of the boxes insert the text. The box with the / singles the computer to end the alteration.
You would normally not use the - symbol in the first box on the bold or any other of the box formats either. I used it so the boxes would appear as they are typed. Underline uses u instead of b and italicized uses i.
The African landscape is overall a more difficult one to live from what I have read therefore it seems to me that if another race had lived in Africa it would have inhibited their development. If European civilization and African civilizations had be reversed in terms of location I think the Europeans would have done somewhat worse off than they did and the Africans would have done somewhat better off than they actually did. The cultures of each were to some extent a product of interaction with neighbors. African landscape led to relative isolation of those nations and tribes compared to the ease of moving through Europe and the Middle East (much European culture came from there and some Chinese technology). So culture (also governments, society system and economies) does effect technological progress to some extent. They do not entirely control technological progress however because many factors intervene. Individual inventions also effected the course of history quite a bit. If the African populace had been in Europe their cultures would have been very different (hunter gathering would have disappeared over time probably). If another culture that was relatively advanced (such as Chinese) had been in Africa it probably would have done much worse than it did in reality. Difficult envioroments require special technologies. The Mesoamerican civilizations seem to have somehow acquired some these (they were able to construct elaborate structures in hills and even mountains) despite their locations though and therefore were relatively succesful. Their lack of neighbors and sufficient use of metals weakened military technology it seems though. No one really knows the exact absolute reasons why some civilizations did not become advanced in technology while others did because the topic is still debated heavily.
