Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by josh w.
    For cultural reasons the concept of "race" persists despite its limited scientific value. First of all, many who favor the concept seem to be of the opinion that if people share some physical traits, on the basis of genetics they also share social and psychological features. There is very little scientific evidence of any such genetic linkage. The vast majority of "racial" differences can be explained by culturual and ecomomic factors. One exception appears to be genes linked to brain measurements but this is only weakly related to more important functions such as intelligence.

    Secondly the concept of race appears to assume that people of the same race have much in common besides physical appearance. However scientific evidence goes in the opposite direction. There is much greater genetic and behavioral variation within races than between races. This is one reason why race based medical treatment will be of value but to only a limited degree. Finally, as autosomal genetic testing clearly indicates, people of different "races" have alot in common genetically speaking.
    Race is POLITICAL. And "race" in its moral and economic frames can be summed in the following: those that got deserve more and those that don't got DON'T, because they are obviously OTHER and evidently don't deserve it because they are not prepared or equipped to take it away from those that are prepared or equipped to prevail. It is about power. Period. And also about the justifications that the powerful (albeit ultimately uncertain) need to make to get what they want.

    NOTHING, you think or do is going to prevent our sun going nova in x billion years and NOTHING you think or do is going to prevent our galaxy from front-ending Andromeda in x billion years. So you get to THINK or DO whatever you care to think or do (and create all sorts of human suffering - the suffering of your genetic brothers in the interim) in advance of those ULTIMATE catastrophies.

    Go for it!!!

    G-d may be on your side. I just don't know. But if you do, you have the advantage. I guess.
    Last edited by tomcat; 20 August 2007, 11:06 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by tomcat
      DUH? Race is POLITICAL. And "race" in its moral and economic frames can be summed in the following: those that got deserve more and those that don't got DON'T, because they are obviously OTHER and evidently don't deserve it because they are not prepared or equipped to take it away from those that are prepared or equipped to prevail. It is about power. Period. And also about the justifications that the powerful (albeit ultimately uncertain) need to make to get what they want.

      NOTHING, you think or do is going to prevent our sun going nova in x billion years and NOTHING you think or do is going to prevent our galaxy from front-ending Andromeda in x billion years. So you get to THINK or DO whatever you care to think or do (and create all sorts of human suffering - the suffering of your genetic brothers in the interim) in advance of those ULTIMATE catastrophies.

      Go for it!!!

      G-d may be on your side. I just don't know. But if you do, you have the advantage. I guess.
      My, quite an outburst! I'm not sure whether you're reveling in the "go for it" attitude you described or just describing the way you think things are always going to be. In either case, it's scary. I prefer to act according to what Josh wrote about the commonality of humans.

      Comment


      • #18
        The topic of "race" especially in the United States is very complex. The ideas of "race" and of "culture/ethinicty" are often used interchangably which is confusing.

        A system of racialism is supported by the government in the requirement of "racial" identification, which makes "racial" divisions a daily routine accepted without investigation.

        Tomcat's reaction was understandable given some of the politely offensive and scientificly unsound things josh w. appears to have said regarding "racial" divisions being a matter of 'brain-size genes' and 'psychological' factors.

        From what I understand as your position, josh w., you believe that genetically all "races" are similar but the real "racial" difference is in the brain.

        If this was not your position, then please do explain what you meant.

        Comment


        • #19
          Although lively debate is always encouraged, please make sure to limit your discussion to topics related to genetic genealogy. Thanks!

          Comment


          • #20
            To reply to your rude posts..This a clue!!!

            Kennewick Man

            The identity of the first Americans is an emotive issue for American Indians, who believe their ancestors were the first to inhabit the Americas.

            Controversy erupted after skeletal remains were found in Kennewick, Washington, in 1996. This skeleton, estimated to be 9,000 years old, had a long cranium and narrow face—features typical of people from Europe, the Near East or India—rather than the wide cheekbones and rounder skull of an American Indian.

            A coalition of Indian tribes, however, said that if Kennewick Man was 9,000 years old, he must be their ancestor, no matter what he looked like. Invoking a U.S. federal law that provides for the return of Native American remains to their living descendants, the tribes demanded a halt to all scientific study and the immediate return of the skeleton for burial in a secret location.

            The matter is still stuck in the courts.



            Originally posted by Pleroma
            The topic of "race" especially in the United States is very complex. The ideas of "race" and of "culture/ethinicty" are often used interchangably which is confusing.

            A system of racialism is supported by the government in the requirement of "racial" identification, which makes "racial" divisions a daily routine accepted without investigation.

            Tomcat's reaction was understandable given some of the politely offensive and scientificly unsound things josh w. appears to have said regarding "racial" divisions being a matter of 'brain-size genes' and 'psychological' factors.

            From what I understand as your position, josh w., you believe that genetically all "races" are similar but the real "racial" difference is in the brain.

            If this was not your position, then please do explain what you meant.

            Comment


            • #21
              My post was regarding MMaddi's reaction to Tomcat's reaction to josh w.'s posting on the meaning of "race."

              What the Kennewick Man has to do with my posting or with the meaning of "race", I have no idea. Could you elaborate?



              Originally posted by dnaval
              Kennewick Man

              The identity of the first Americans is an emotive issue for American Indians, who believe their ancestors were the first to inhabit the Americas.

              Controversy erupted after skeletal remains were found in Kennewick, Washington, in 1996. This skeleton, estimated to be 9,000 years old, had a long cranium and narrow face—features typical of people from Europe, the Near East or India—rather than the wide cheekbones and rounder skull of an American Indian.

              A coalition of Indian tribes, however, said that if Kennewick Man was 9,000 years old, he must be their ancestor, no matter what he looked like. Invoking a U.S. federal law that provides for the return of Native American remains to their living descendants, the tribes demanded a halt to all scientific study and the immediate return of the skeleton for burial in a secret location.

              The matter is still stuck in the courts.

              Comment


              • #22
                I have some difficulty understanding how anyone can see my comments as supportive of the concept of "race" since my intention was just the opposite. My main point is that there is little scientific support for the concept. Thus the concept survives for cultural or political rather than scientific reasons.

                However I reject absolute knownothing approaches to this issue, i.e. one should look at the actual scientific data rather than merely assert that the concept is unscientific. A few years ago some neuroscientists asserted that they had found continental differences in two genes related to brain size. Now there is a small correlation between brain size and measures of intellegence. However no one has found any correlation between the genes in question and measures of intelligence. Moreover more recent research questions the relationship between the specific genes and brain size
                The issue of race based medicine is more complicated. The research needs replication but some studies have found racial differences in response to medication. As I have stressed, this is not a very common finding but some researchers have advocated race based medical treatment. However even the supporters of this approach stress that this is a temporary stopgap strategy until observable markers for the relevant genes can be identified. When that result is reached there will no longer be a reason to use race as a proxy for the newly identified markers. I have already expressed my doubts about this approach given great within race genetic variability.

                Some may fault me for even mentioning these topics. However for me open discussion is an important way to combat the knownothingism that fosters racism.
                Last edited by josh w.; 21 August 2007, 02:08 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  josh w., thank you for clarifying your thoughts. It was not entirely clear what you wanted to communicate when you touched on the topic of brain size while addressing the topic of "race." It was an odd mix that made it confusing.

                  The topic of brain size and intelligence in itself is controversial given that men in general have larger brains than women.

                  There have been some that have claimed that there is a correlation between human brain size and intelligence levels among people, but I am very skeptical. It seems rather simplistic for such an fantastic and complex organ like the brain to be analysed like it was hamburger on a butcher's scale.

                  Plus I would surely have noticed it play out in everyday life (big-headed people should be noticably more intelligent and it just isn't happening that way.)

                  Also, genes do not set the brain for life. The study of neuro-plasticity is really just beginning.

                  For anyone interested in the topic and the history, here is an article in Neuro Science:

                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv...rosci.box.1833

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Pleroma, I agree with almost all your points. I also agree that brain size appears to be a very gross measure of anything. However despite the point you raised about the irrelevance of sex differences in brain size, meta-analyses have revealed a correlation of around .30 between brain size and individual differences in cognitive test scores (within the same gender). Of course brain size is a function of many factors not just genes.


                    For light summer reading try Gary Marcus' "The Birth of The Mind". His position is not that the brain is genetically "fixed" at birth but that genes make possible individual flexibiity and neuroplasticity. ( I used to be a die-hard environmentalist but all this dna stuff has got me thinking again)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by josh w.
                      ... However despite the point you raised about the irrelevance of sex differences in brain size, meta-analyses have revealed a correlation of around .30 between brain size and individual differences in cognitive test scores (within the same gender). Of course brain size is a function of many factors not just genes.
                      ...
                      And this is just the way this 'thing' goes ...

                      In the previous post gene-implicated brain size did not matter. And in the next post gene-implicated brain size DOES matter.

                      And as none of us can even see genes we can, EVIDENTLY, judge a mental inferior by the color of their skin, or their gender, and almost certainly by their level of their socio-economic attainment.

                      What we have not yet heard is what is the current obligation of 'the white man's burden'? I expect it is even less than that of the 19C ... which was perfunctory and undertaken to salve the white man's religious consciousness. But now with 'real science' at our side and 'political correctness' as our armor, I expect that any intervention would be contra-indicated.

                      Unless you are Iraqi and a nominal heir to vast oil reserves.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        There is apparently NOT a gene that obliges human beings to a rectification of errors. That would be a gene that, although it might serve our BELIEF in various divinities proposed, would run counter to our more compelling interest in our own success and comfort.

                        So, in obedience to that more compelling interest, there is no genetically-determined need to revisit the duplicity and broken treaties that characterized our history vis-a-vis Native Americans. And there is no need to revisit our history vis-a-vis African slaves.

                        We are CONTENT that all those lands formerly enjoyed by the Natives are now ours and all their artifacts grace our museums, and we are CONTENT that all the efforts expended by African slave labor, that made the American South one of the richest regions of the world at the time, are now part of the general wealth that may be enjoyed by all Americans. (Here an Emoticon tearing out my hair, gouging-out my eyes, lacerating my flesh. Why the lack of expressive creativelity on this forum 'powered by vBulletin'?).

                        With this, I have exhausted my patience with the discussion of RACE in this thread and in this forum.
                        Last edited by tomcat; 21 August 2007, 10:58 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by dnaval
                          Well, I noticed that we have animals in every part of the world.
                          Even dinasours developed in North America, How did they migrate.
                          Also there are different types of cats,tigers,jaguars that live only in
                          certain parts of the world.
                          Don't animals follow the same evolutionary pattern.
                          My point is how did they animals develop as seperate species without
                          a starting point.
                          They say humans developed out of africa and migrated out to middle east
                          asian and north america.
                          My point is did animals start in africa also and migrate the same pattern,also.
                          I feel that their must be a creator under all this evolution ,otherwise
                          how would we even start?
                          I think it may be possible the creator put people in different parts of the
                          world and evolutized there.
                          I just love questioning things...
                          I am not a scientist, its important to open our mind a bit though.

                          I wrote this fast hope it makes sense
                          I just skimmed thru this thread. I found a thread I haven't posted in yet

                          Well, since humans came out of Africa I assumed all creatures did too, and then spread out over the world, but some got isolated/stranded in certain regions and then evoled or 'specialized' to adapt to where they were stuck at, such as the Giant Panda in China, and koalas and kangaroos in Australia. I think that's what happened. But, I'm no scientist.
                          Didn't the dinosaurs start in Africa?
                          Why are there crocodiles in Florida and Egypt?
                          Why...
                          Oh, never mind.
                          I'm glad I forgot about my subclade test for a moment.
                          This forum can be so entertaining sometimes.

                          p.s. I didn't read any of the links, sorry.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion on plate tectonics, but the answer to why there are dinosaur fossils all over the world can be found here:

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana

                            Dave Smith

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I think it's supposed to be how many synapses that are in the brain that determines intelligence, not the brain size.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ragnar
                                I think it's supposed to be how many synapses that are in the brain that determines intelligence, not the brain size.
                                ....just because ragnar's post is worth repeating.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X