Sub-Saharan Africans can say the same. Take a Scandinavian or German of 3,000 years ago, or even a big group of them, and plop them in the middle of Africa, and they would do poorly. Only recently did they develop sufficient technology to outcompete those indigenous humans who were adapted to the local environment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whelp, at least it’s moved from the ape comparisons to just implying different races are basically subspecies of humans, so there’s progress…:rolleyes:
Only recently? Waves of migration have pretty much been constant almost everywhere. Even the aboriginal Tasmanians, once thought to have been completely isolated for some 40,000 years (there may be linguistic evidence of more recent immigration some 17,000 years ago), didn’t become a separate species. When ancient Asians crossed the Bering to eventually become the American peoples, they didn’t speciate relative to other Asians, nor their more distant European or African relatives.
Compared to that, anyone living in the still-connected Europe-Asia-Africa landmass is a mutt of crossbreeding.
Homo Sapiens could indeed speciate, but it’ll likely be due to genetic engineering or space colonization or both.
Yep.
No, but if they keep humping members of their neighboring populations, as humans have always done, because they are still part of the same species, that helps adjust their evolution for them.
Can’t you be bothered even to look up basic factual information before asserting your opinion about it? The last common ancestor of humans and chimps lived at least several million, possibly a dozen million or more, years ago. Most of the extraordinary growth in the human brain has happened within the last one to two million years. By that time we were a very different species from chimps and pursuing very different survival strategies.
It probably was, but that doesn’t mean it had anything like modern human brain capacity. Your attempt to extrapolate intraspecies human differences from the much more drastic and more ancient differences between humans and chimpanzees is simply not plausible.
It is not easy to have a discussion with you when you clearly don’t really understand the difference between evolution and learning, or between intelligence and knowledge. A moment’s thought should make it clear to you that if you took a Scandinavian or German of 3000 years ago and put them in an African society in the middle of Africa, especially at a sufficiently young age that they could acquire the language(s) easily, they would do just fine. They wouldn’t need 3000 years of isolated “development” to learn to “compete” successfully in their new environment; all they would need would be a local mentor with patience and determination enough to teach them.
Heck, 3000 years ago there was already trade between Europe and Africa, and piracy and slavery: stray individuals were already getting occasionally assimilated, culturally and genetically, into geographically distant peoples. Humans can do that sort of thing, where, say, an elephant can’t assimilate into a chimpanzee tribe, because humans learn from one another by communication. And most of the knowledge crucial to humans in specific environments is transmitted by learning, not by reproduction.
It’s all a continuum, see? I mean, it’s obvious when you really examine the data.
See, there’s humans, and there’s chimpanzees. And somewhere in between are the Mud Races. (Whom we should educate more in the hope that they might some day learn their place.)
.
Heck, I’d forgotten about the Neanderthals. Sapiens could apparently successfully interbreed with them, so arguably they weren’t a completely separate species. Are there any groups of Sapiens now alive who are as different from other Sapiens as Neanderthals were from Sapiens generally?
I have reported many times before that my grammar is a crime against nature, but as **Evil Economist **showed, it is not hard for others do see what the main argument is.
It is also important to mention that I have seen a consensus in this message board that tell us that guys that concentrate on ignoring arguments by just complaining about the grammar of an opponent as a distraction. A distraction that makes the one complaining about grammar to be seen as a bit of a coward.
So I acknowledge my grammar shortcomings and I do this as an effort to improve myself. When are going to get better at fighting your ignorance?
It is not just me who notices that you should not ignore historical precedent and other evidence that showed how wrong you were about telling others that we could be wrong about what interventions are needed (while you attempted, with a reference, to accuse me and others of being “baddy” Nazis). You also end up branding yourself as more of a racist by ignoring that racists of the past did use their acceptance of the superiority of Asians back then to seek power, and now…
Well, many nowadays do seek the “power” that they are “losing” because they hate to see so many minorities progressing in the USA.
Of course I’m talking here about a number of successful minorities that is significant nowadays but that number would be much better if racism would not had been there in the past and present, the point is that many racists just do not want to see more minorities getting into better conditions so they offer cover, support and a voice to lousy guys like Murray.
Oh well, Gaudere’s law strikes hard. I meant to say that:
I acknowledge my grammar shortcomings and I do this as an effort to improve myself. When are **you **going to get better at fighting your own ignorance?
That’s not what a Harvard geneticist claimed in a NY Times opinion piece. I’m sure the credentials of the Pit are far more impressive.
Anyways, why is the human brain the one thing not bound by the laws of physics?
Please cite the specific points of disagreement in that NYT opinion piece.
Huh? What does this have to do with anything I posted? I certainly don’t dispute this.
You are claiming that the evidence is weak or nonexistent for different subsets of a species to have different statistical variations in physical brain structure. The NY Times piece says that point of view is not just fictional but is known to be fictional but promoted anyways for ideological reasons.
Of course a point made early is that it does not really do that. They do mention that indeed racists like Murray and others that were lionized by the right will increase their misunderstanding and will also misrepresent what it is found.
It is clear that the opinion piece is a bit naive about what it is going on, even their attempt at explaining how genes should not be ignored completely (something that if you had bothered to read is also what **iiandiii **and others have reported before) is misrepresented as “You see? those experts are appearing to support the scientific racist lukewarmers.”
Again, the bad ideological reasons are understood by the one making the opinion piece, the overall point of the opinion piece is that the scientific racists need to be countered. Even at the risk of confusing octopuses. 
Species subsets, huh? Can you expand on this, octopus?
I’m doing nothing of the sort. The claims are specific and about intelligence or other specific characteristics – for example, that black people are inherently inferior, on average, in intellect, due to genetics. That’s a specific claim in which the evidence against is much, much stronger than the evidence for.
And what the hell is “different subsets of a species”? Are you seriously saying that black people (including many that are uncles/aunts/cousins/children/etc. to particular white people or people classified by society as members of other races) are a “different subset” of the human species?
That’s just not true. The whole point of the article is that lying to perpetuate an ideological myth is counterproductive in the long run. The fact that you are spinning the piece to mean something opposite of what it is saying is the exact tactic the author cautions against.
Yes. A subset is set contained within another. Assume we have a set of organisms conveniently grouped as a species. Another set composed solely of members from the original set is a subset. If the individual members are highly distinct from one another the probability that random subsets share the same statistical distribution of traits is low.
If you don’t know what sets and subsets are, which 2nd graders learn with Venn diagrams, I don’t know why you even bother arguing these sort of topics.
As an aside, the tactic of arguing about migration and what is black, white, Asian, Polynesian etc. is completely disingenuous. People could spend an eternity trying to define those terms. Which is the point of those who use that tactic.
The point is intelligence is partially inherited. The brain is a physical organ that operates under physical law.
Even though it’s irrelevant to the topic and I’ve said this before I’d like to repeat that I don’t really see the utility of grouping people in such a fashion. Maybe when genetic testing is sophisticated enough we can find markers for school shooters or psychopaths perhaps there will be a use. Up until then, merely treating people as individuals should be a sufficient point to advocate.
Nope, it was you told us was:
Making the point that people like **iiandyiii **are ignoring genetics or perpetuating myths and on top of that implying that your heroes are just heretics, that is the lie.
To make it more clear: you were reaching for a monumental straw man when directed to many in this thread and the scientists in the cites I made. The target of the article you linked to are indeed elsewhere, it is what many scientists in biology or climate science complain about popularizers of science that are getting it wrong, not the people showing you what a shithed you are in this tread.
“Black people” are a subset categorized by society and culture, not by biology/genetics. So are “white people” and most other racial categorizations.
Such terms (black, white, and Asian, anyway – not sure about Polynesian) aren’t useful in a discussion of biology and genetics. They’re even counterproductive. If someone wants to talk about West African ancestry, or North African ancestry, or British Isles ancestry, for example, those might have some genetic/biological validity, and thus fit the “Venn diagram” metaphor. Any Venn diagram of humanity that tried to use groups like “black”, “white”, and “Asian” would be highly overlapping and jumbled (in that many people and groups classified as “black” would be more closely related to other people and groups classified as “white” and/or “Asian” than to other groups classified as “black”), and useless for anything except to demonstrate the silliness of using such categorizations for biology and genetics.
This doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said. I can’t figure out what I’ve said that you actually disagree with.
Wow, that is an incredibly fuzzy and waffly conflation of actual genetic populations with generally recognized racial groupings. You appear to be mixing up individuals being phenotypically different from one another (which I think is what you mean by “highly distinct”) with individuals being genetically less related to one another. You are also assuming, incorrectly, that all your subsets are disjoint.
The fact is that two people who are phenotypically different can easily be more closely related to each other than to another person who is phenotypically similar.
I’ve used this analogy before, but it’s still appropriate here: If you and your first cousin are the children of two red-haired siblings and both of you have red hair, then yes, that phenotypic similarity is likely due to your shared genetic ancestry. But it is very possible that your own sibling could have brown hair, so you look more like your cousin than your sibling. That does not mean that you are more closely related genetically to your similar-looking cousin than to your dissimilar-looking sibling.
Sure, but you’re mixing up the concepts of “heritable” and “genetically determined”: