NationStates Jolt Archive

Evolution is spurred by genetic mutation, which may be the result of our environment, or a number of other things. Mutations will be spread or not depending on how they affect the organism's ability to survive and mate.

Evolution is driven by selection, and operates on the genetic variation within (mostly) a population. That variation is caused by mutation and recombination.

Keep in mind there is also considerable debate over whether God created all species, or whether natural evolution shaped species.

In any cause, the data on IQ is out there. Also, the tests are standardized, I'm not sure where you find they aren't.

First, the study you cite is not conclusive, especially to extrapolate to greater populations. With my quick glance, there is no mechanism to accurately measure "regression to mean IQs." I am not saying there could not be something here, but not in the study presented.

Next, there really is not "considerable debate over whether God created all species, or whether natural evolution shaped species." You may want there to be, but there isn't in the observable and testable world. Philosophical debates don't suffice.

Finally, we have the issue of measurable IQ. Any IQ test has biases. These can be cultural, subcultural, socioeconomic, behavioral, or just plain testing only a portion of what could be considered IQ. Awful argument.

Maybe you perceived it as racist because different people/culture/regions develop different traits?

First, the study you cite is not conclusive, especially to extrapolate to greater populations. With my quick glance, there is no mechanism to accurately measure "regression to mean IQs." I am not saying there could not be something here, but not in the study presented.

Next, there really is not "considerable debate over whether God created all species, or whether natural evolution shaped species." You may want there to be, but there isn't in the observable and testable world. Philosophical debates don't suffice.

Finally, we have the issue of measurable IQ. Any IQ test has biases. These can be cultural, subcultural, socioeconomic, behavioral, or just plain testing only a portion of what could be considered IQ. Awful argument.

There is in fact considerable debate as to whether the theory of evolution is true. What I'm arguing is that the fact there is such debate does not disprove evolution. Likewise, the fact there is debate over group differences in IQ does not disprove the scientific assessments pointing to the existence of such IQ differences among races. Arguments against observed group differences in IQ is philosophically-motivated, with no scientific data presented by the side arguing for uniformity of IQ among different populations of humans.

Finally, the most rigorous IQ tests demonstrably lack bias. To simplify the explanation, it can simply be stated that test bias occurs only if regression patterns among two different races have different axis-intercepts or different slopes for the data collected by a particular test. That is not the case in modern IQ testing. IQ regression among whites, blacks, and all races as determined by modern IQ testing is exactly the same, thus validating the testing methodology. Furthermore, this suggests that intelligence itself is culture-blind; an intelligent black person will be considered intelligent whether he is living in a black society or white society, and the same goes for a white person or a person of any other race.

the last 6000 years, we humans are less and less natural beings, and more artificial. Artificial: Man-made.
we build houses, So do beavers, ants, and termites.
have elections,I think so do wolves. Ants have similarly dictatorial governments as the one in North Korea
marry,So do swans. They just don't have a ceremony to go along with it.
have religions ,We don't know if animals don't have belief systems
drive carsYeah, animals don't do this. Might have something to do with the inherent bias behind the user interface of most vehicles. Bicycles, on the other hand...
and make space ships,Whoop.
and sacred the right that everyone can procreate with anyone .Just like frogs?
that is not natural, that is against evolution.What is natural?
if we were natural beings, I would fight my brother, because only the stronger of us can procreate with an other female. What? That's not natural, that's "Might makes right."
evolution is finished and done. thats a good thing, because i belive that every born human being has the right for a prosper life, no matter what his genetic predispositions are.While I agree with the latter part, evolution isn't finished or done. The criteria for natural selection have changed due to our shaping of the environment.

the last 6000 years, we humans are less and less natural beings, and more artificial. we build houses, have elections, marry, have religions , drive cars and make space ships,and sacred the right that everyone can procreate with anyone . that is not natural, that is against evolution. if we were natural beings, I would fight my brother, because only the stronger of us can procreate with an other female. evolution is finished and done. thats a good thing, because i belive that every born human being has the right for a prosper life, no matter what his genetic predispositions are.

What you fail to realize is that human intelligence, ingenuity, and tool-making skill are all products of evolution.

What you fail to realize is that human intelligence, ingenuity, and tool-making skill are all products of evolution.

Or Gods will, ;¬)

if we were natural beings, I would fight my brother, because only the stronger of us can procreate with an other female.

bonobos.

are you sure you know what natural means?

I just listen to whatever the T.V. preacher tells me. That way my brain dont have to think hard. Back to watching NASCAR!

What you fail to realize is that human intelligence, ingenuity, and tool-making skill are all products of evolution.

though it doesn't follow from that that all the products of those abilities are themselves natural, unless we wish to make the term utterly meaningless.

though it doesn't follow from that that all the products of those abilities are themselves natural, unless we wish to make the term utterly meaningless.

Of course it does. If a sea otter learns to break open a shell fish whilst floating on it's back in the sea, using a stone as a tool, is that natural?

Of course it does. If a sea otter learns to break open a shell fish whilst floating on it's back in the sea, using a stone as a tool, is that natural?

Listen I love sea otters. Why do we have to bring them into this mess of evolution. Let the sea otter be the sea otter. Swim free friend swim free.

Of course it does. If a sea otter learns to break open a shell fish whilst floating on it's back in the sea, using a stone as a tool, is that natural?

yes. so?

yes. so?

So the human animal learning to use tools is somehow unnatural, how exactly?

So the human animal learning to use tools is somehow unnatural, how exactly?

did i claim it was?

did i claim it was?

though it doesn't follow from that that all the products of those abilities are themselves natural, unless we wish to make the term utterly meaningless.

Umm?

Evolution being racist makes as much sense as Relativity being sexist. To be racist one must be able to define someone's race and then make a judgment based on that presupposition and that alone. Evolution is a theory and a process, it is not a person or aware of it's surroundings therefore it is incapable of making judgments or being racist. Evolution is no more capable of choosing which organisms survive than gravity is at choosing which objects will b drawn to each other. Evolution acts on every organism equally and without bias just as gravity does. It is just far more complex than gravity because organisms exist in various environments and may react to biological pressures differently. Objects all react to gravity the same way because they are fundamentally the same.

As a side note, this same argument can be used to show how a "war on terrorism" is completely illegitimate. A "war on terrorism" makes as much sense as a "war on carpentry". Terrorism is a method, not a ideology or religion and there is no coherent global terrorism movement.

So the human animal learning to use tools is somehow unnatural, how exactly?

He claimed that it wasn't necessarily natural, which I agree with. It's the difference between a hand-made spear of a fallen branch and a sharpened stone and a handgun. One is fashioned "from nature" while the other requires refinement of natural resources.

There is in fact considerable debate as to whether the theory of evolution is true. What I'm arguing is that the fact there is such debate does not disprove evolution. Likewise, the fact there is debate over group differences in IQ does not disprove the scientific assessments pointing to the existence of such IQ differences among races. Arguments against observed group differences in IQ is philosophically-motivated, with no scientific data presented by the side arguing for uniformity of IQ among different populations of humans.

Finally, the most rigorous IQ tests demonstrably lack bias. To simplify the explanation, it can simply be stated that test bias occurs only if regression patterns among two different races have different axis-intercepts or different slopes for the data collected by a particular test. That is not the case in modern IQ testing. IQ regression among whites, blacks, and all races as determined by modern IQ testing is exactly the same, thus validating the testing methodology. Furthermore, this suggests that intelligence itself is culture-blind; an intelligent black person will be considered intelligent whether he is living in a black society or white society, and the same goes for a white person or a person of any other race.

Ok. What exactly is your point? To me it seems that you are trying to prove that IQ can differ between races.

Now, first of all, evolutionary speaking, the division of the human species into races has little meaning. When you look at genetic differences between races it has been shown, time and again, that the genetic variance between two races is due to the genetic variance within that two races. In short: human "races" don't differ. That fact repudiates the whole inferior race argument.

He claimed that it wasn't necessarily natural, which I agree with. It's the difference between a hand-made spear of a fallen branch and a sharpened stone and a handgun. One is fashioned "from nature" while the other requires refinement of natural resources.

yeah. and more than just refinement. the existence of a spear requires the existence of raw materials and a being capable of using them. the existence of a nuclear bomb requires the existence of dozens and dozens of entire industries, each of which in turn requires dozens more before we get down to the level of raw materials, as well as the existence of entire systems of social organization to allow for their invention, production, and upkeep, institutions of global trade, and social systems that would even want them, and millions and millions of people to engage in enough other activities to be able to pay for it all.

i prefer to sum up the difference as being the difference between our wild type and our domesticated type.

He claimed that it wasn't necessarily natural, which I agree with. It's the difference between a hand-made spear of a fallen branch and a sharpened stone and a handgun. One is fashioned "from nature" while the other requires refinement of natural resources.

To me it read that although he can agree that tool use, and the rest of what you listed is quite natural, it doesn't follow that how we use these tools is natural. How so?

If humanity is natural evolved, then surly what ever we do is natural. How can it be otherwise?

In other words can you name me anything that humans are capable that is somehow against the natural order, indeed can you name anything that goes against the natural order?

Unless of course we are all meaning quite diferant things when we use the word.

yeah. and more than just refinement. the existence of a spear requires the existence of raw materials and a being capable of using them. the existence of a nuclear bomb requires the existence of dozens and dozens of entire industries, each of which in turn requires dozens more before we get down to the level of raw materials, as well as the existence of entire systems of social organization to allow for their invention, production, and upkeep, institutions of global trade, and social systems that would even want them, and millions and millions of people to engage in enough other activities to be able to pay for it all.

i prefer to sum up the difference as being the difference between our wild type and our domesticated type.

Of course one could argue that the evolution of those complex social structures is itself an evolutionary trait.

But I do see your point.

To me it read that although he can agree that tool use, and the rest of what you listed is quite natural, it doesn't follow that how we use these tools is natural. How so?

If humanity is natural evolved, then surly what ever we do is natural. How can it be otherwise?

In other words can you name me anything that humans are capable that is somehow against the natural order, indeed can you name anything that goes against the natural order?

Unless of course we are all meaning quite diferant things when we use the word.

Well, first I don't agree in any sort of "natural order." However I do feel that any process that refines a raw material into a subsidiary product, i.e. refinement of uranium or oil from their natural resource, is where the line of natural and unnatural should be drawn. To use your definition would be to require the discarding completely of the term unnatural. It would render it meaningless in any sort of context.

I love otters.

I don't understand how evolution can be racist?
It doesn't really make sense (no offense).

I recently read a scientific 'essay' about a difference in intelligence between blacks & whites; that was considered racist despite the science behind it (I largely disagree - fact is fact).

As far as evolution goes, it's a natural process.
Society's getting pretty ludicrous right now, people would probably be offended by evolution :headbang:

Besides, what can the government do? Outlaw it?

Well, first I don't agree in any sort of "natural order." However I do feel that any process that refines a raw material into a subsidiary product, i.e. refinement of uranium or oil from their natural resource, is where the line of natural and unnatural should be drawn. To use your definition would be to require the discarding completely of the term unnatural. It would render it meaningless in any sort of context.

Well Obviously I don't agree. Lets say that the word unnatural has more an emotional context behind it. We can say that pedophilia is unnatural. But in essence other than in the above context, yes I agree the word unnatural becomes meaningless.

I'm interested though in any reasons why you don't agree in any sort of natural order? What does that say about evolution?

If humanity is natural evolved, then surly what ever we do is natural. How can it be otherwise?

under your conception, is there anything that isn't natural? it looks to me like you are just using natural to mean 'exists'. but we've already got perfectly good words to describe that. what words would you have us use to describe the various obvious and significant changes that have been seen in the past 10,000 years or so?

Well Obviously I don't agree. Lets say that the word unnatural has more an emotional context behind it. We can say that pedophilia is unnatural. But in essence other than in the above context, yes I agree the word unnatural becomes meaningless.

that context is actually just about the most mistaken use of 'unnatural' as we can have. it first confuses the natural for the good, which is trivially a bad idea, and then it denies without justification that sexual attraction to juveniles exists in nature.


a question - when i say 'in nature' what do you think of?

His use of natural to mean "arising from nature" is roughly synonymous with "extant", yes, but that highlights the arbitrariness of the traditional meaning of "arising without human intervention". What makes humans so special?

Describing something as natural is either meaningless or tautological - take your pick. Either way, it's not a helpful remark.

And of course evolution isn't racist. No true statement can ever be described as racist.

under your conception, is there anything that isn't natural? it looks to me like you are just using natural to mean 'exists'. but we've already got perfectly good words to describe that. what words would you have us use to describe the various obvious and significant changes that have been seen in the past 10,000 years or so?

Well we all know that words can have multiple meanings. If we call evolution a 'natural' occurance then sticking to the same context, everything that humanity does is a product of this 'natural' occurance, and so we must also call it 'natural', and so word unnatural becomes meaningless.

All I'm doing here is sticking to the same context. Of course the word unnatural has meaning, we can safely say that a two headed dog is unnatural, but if we then switch context and use the word in the same context as evolution being natural, then a two headed dog is a 'natural' product of 'naturally' occurring genetic mutation.

As I have said in the other post, even in this context we can still use the word unnatural, but it becomes suffused with all type of emotional content.

a question - when i say 'in nature' what do you think of?

Now that all depends on context huh! Without context if I read the phrase 'in nature' I automatically think of 'mother nature' cute little animals and trees.:D

Look kids the Spirit of the Confederacy lives On!

But, seriously, what "scientifically conclusive" evidence can you point to that certain races have superior or inferior attributes. (I would note that it is an active debate in many relative fields over whether there is such a thing as race to begin with.)



Having spent his life seeking equality for people of all races and skin colors, I don't think Reverend Jackson would be upset by the viewpoint that we are all equal in God's eye.

It's always nice to be slapped with a condescending slam from the very start, it lets me know I am talking to someone who is already closed-minded and prejudiced in their view of me, even though they do not know me. It is revealing of character, in my opinion.... so, thanks!

I think we can all be intellectually honest enough to admit, there are distinct differences in attributes between different races (breeds) of humans. Certain breeds are inherently stronger physically, or have stronger bone and muscle structures as a variety of the human species. Certain breeds are taller, heavier, or more mathematically inclined. Each race or breed of human has its own distinct differences, some are superior to others and some are inferior, but they are all different. This is not a racist view, it is not politically correct, but it is scientific and sound. That said, different doesn't mean non-equal. From an Atheistic view on Evolution theory to a Religious view of Creationism, we all descended from two (at the most) originally, so there really is no argument for the existence of 'race' , thus, no determination of superiority/inferiority.

When the world (including Jesse Jackson) comes to this realization, that we are all humans, we are all different due to our culture and lineage, and this doesn't mean anyone is superior or inferior because of it, just that we are different and always will be, then perhaps we can deal with the isolated bigots and racists within our respective societies. As it stands, true racist bigotry is masked under a collage of ridiculous political correctness, hypersensitive paranoia, and reverse-discrimination.

I despise true racist views, and it frustrates me that so many people will glom onto whatever is thrown out in the media as "racist" and rush to condemnation immediately, whether the issue warrants such attention or not. It's the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome, every white person is not a racist, and because they might make a "nappy headed ho" comment, doesn't mean they automatically become a racist. People who sincerely believe in their hearts, that one race is superior or inferior to another, are people who suffer from ignorance and fear. They deserve to be dealt with in their own right, and not confused with sometimes politically incorrect white folks.

His use of natural to mean "arising from nature" is roughly synonymous with "extant", yes, but that highlights the arbitrariness of the traditional meaning of "arising without human intervention". What makes humans so special?

humans per se? nothing. domesticated humans? having an impact on the rest of the planet that is typically reserved for giant mountains of rock traveling at very high speeds slamming into us from deep space seems pretty special to me.

Describing something as natural is either meaningless or tautological - take your pick. Either way, it's not a helpful remark.

in what way?

No true statement can ever be described as racist.

a klansman says "i hate niggers"

Now that all depends on context huh! Without context if I read the phrase 'in nature' I automatically think of 'mother nature' cute little animals and trees.:D

and not, for example, a municipal waste treatment plant. why is this?

humans per se? nothing. domesticated humans? having an impact on the rest of the planet that is typically reserved for giant mountains of rock traveling at very high speeds slamming into us from deep space seems pretty special to me.
So that we have an impact that large makes it unnatural? Why? As you point out, asteroids have a similar impact. Are they also unnatural? If not, what's the difference, and why does it matter?

There's no basis for the distinction. Either we use the etymological meaning of natural - "of or relating to nature" - which means everything is necessarily natural, or we make up a completely baseless definition that lacks any prescriptive force.
a klansman says "i hate niggers"
His hatred may well be racist. His description of it is not.

So that we have an impact that large makes it unnatural? Why? As you point out, asteroids have a similar impact. Are they also unnatural? If not, what's the difference, and why does it matter?

no, it makes us special. that and other aspects of our impact and activities combine to allow us to rightfully create a distinction between the artificial and the natural.

the etymological meaning of natural - "of or relating to nature" - which means everything is necessarily natural

no it doesn't. the term 'nature' generally excludes even more of human activities than my proposed definition does, unless specifically noted otherwise.

His hatred may well be racist. His description of it is not.

now i know you have difficulties when it comes to issues of race, but if someone says "i hate niggers", that is clearly and obviously a racist statement. a concise exemplification of racism, actually. and if they are not lying, then it is a true statement. thus there is at least one true statement that is racist.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evoloution racist?
The theory of evoloution says we evolved and have been evolving for the past 6 billion years.Now, wouldn't people still be evolving today which means one part of humanity is better than another part? Maybe it's because I don't belive in evoloution,but that is why I belive evoloution to be racist. Thoughts anyone?

Now then, if you don't believe in evolution how the heck can you have a spiritual preference. If we all came about the same way we are one and as such you should have no need to make this post ......

Here's a modern day example of evolution:

While fishing for crabs off the coast of China, some fishermen caught a crab that had what they thought looked like the face of Chairman Mao on its back. They threw the crab back as they thought it would be bad luck to kill it. That crab lived to reproduce and some of its offspring had the same markings. All the Chinese fishermen would throw back the ones with the chairman's image on them.

I guess you can imagine the outcome. There is now a huge population of crabs with Chairman Mao's image on their backs. That is evolution - survival of the fittest (fittest in this case means having Chairman Mao on your back).

No racism involved...and by the way, racism is an opinion (a form of bigotry). Mother Nature has no opinions, it's just sink or swim.

Question: If you don't believe in evolution, what race were Adam and Eve? Any answer you give will be racist by the way.

There is in fact considerable debate as to whether the theory of evolution is true.

That's a little like saying that there's considerable debate over whether the Earth is flat. Some people would like such a debate to exist, but they are either ill-intentioned or ill-informed.

Question: If you don't believe in evolution, what race were Adam and Eve? Any answer you give will be racist by the way.
Why would any answer be racist? I don't get that at all.

is racist, in case you didn't realize it. You make an assumption that the creature we all evolved from was black and that white people have evolved. That is completely false on its face. White, black, yellow, red, etc. all evolved from the same pre-human creature. They evolved with some different qualities because the environment they had migrated to made certain qualities more favorable. And some physical features seem to be grouped in our genes so if you get one you usually (but not always) get the other(s).

no, it makes us special. that and other aspects of our impact and activities combine to allow us to rightfully create a distinction between the artificial and the natural.
It makes us different. It's up to you to explain why that difference is relevant to any discussion about nature.
no it doesn't. the term 'nature' generally excludes even more of human activities than my proposed definition does, unless specifically noted otherwise.
As I just explained, that distinction is arbitrary. The division between man and nature is a false dichotomy.
now i know you have difficulties when it comes to issues of race, but if someone says "i hate niggers", that is clearly and obviously a racist statement. a concise exemplification of racism, actually. and if they are not lying, then it is a true statement. thus there is at least one true statement that is racist.
It's an expression of racism, yes. You're equating the statement with the motivation for its utterance. You're equating the true statement with the facts it describes.

It's an important distinction.

No true statement can be racist.

There is in fact considerable debate as to whether the theory of evolution is true. What I'm arguing is that the fact there is such debate does not disprove evolution. Likewise, the fact there is debate over group differences in IQ does not disprove the scientific assessments pointing to the existence of such IQ differences among races. Arguments against observed group differences in IQ is philosophically-motivated, with no scientific data presented by the side arguing for uniformity of IQ among different populations of humans.

Finally, the most rigorous IQ tests demonstrably lack bias. To simplify the explanation, it can simply be stated that test bias occurs only if regression patterns among two different races have different axis-intercepts or different slopes for the data collected by a particular test. That is not the case in modern IQ testing. IQ regression among whites, blacks, and all races as determined by modern IQ testing is exactly the same, thus validating the testing methodology. Furthermore, this suggests that intelligence itself is culture-blind; an intelligent black person will be considered intelligent whether he is living in a black society or white society, and the same goes for a white person or a person of any other race.

You seem to understand your statistics...does your argument about IQ tests include cross culture/society. Not just through subcultures, but through different world cultures. My issue is extrapolating results from a tested sample group that may not represent the larger population, not that results may not be politically correct.

I still do not understand where there is "considerable debate as to whether the theory of evolution is true." A scientific theory is technically never "true." Further the theory of evolution, while it has been tweaked, has never had observation, evidence, or testing that has directly refuted it. In fact, new discoveries, such as genetics and DNA, has only served to support the Theory. So, again, the debade you speak of is philosophical and not based upon eveidence.

It makes us different. It's up to you to explain why that difference is relevant to any discussion about nature.

As I just explained, that distinction is arbitrary. The division between man and nature is a false dichotomy.

the distinction was already made. 'what we do' and 'everything else'. it is a useful distinction, if we are careful about it, as it describes differences that are relevant to our interests. the fact that you wish to equivocate about the scope of nature is irrelevant.

It's an expression of racism, yes. You're equating the statement with the motivation for its utterance. You're equating the true statement with the facts it describes.

It's an important distinction.

No true statement can be racist.

on you account, no statement, period, can be racist. your account is dumb - expressions of racism are racist. that's just what words mean.

That is completely false on its face. White, black, yellow, red, etc. all evolved from the same pre-human creature.

:D Communism is in the genes, you heard it here first folks.

your account is dumb - expressions of racism are racist.
Expressions of racism are racist. Descriptions of racism are not.

I love otters.

Seconded!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues01/Co10202001/Art/sea_otter.jpg

Praise be to Al Gore!

'specially for being a cab driver in the Futurama movie. :cool:

‘specially for being a cab driver in the Futurama movie. :cool:
That made me chuckle.

As did much of the film.

'specially for being a cab driver in the Futurama movie. :cool:

Does that mean he stopped hunting Manbearpig?

is racist, in case you didn't realize it. You make an assumption that the creature we all evolved from was black and that white people have evolved. That is completely false on its face. White, black, yellow, red, etc. all evolved from the same pre-human creature.

Erm, what? The earliest examples of Homo sapiens probably were dark-skinned, and white people have evolved. So have black people. So have red and yellow people. It is impossible to opt out of evolving. None of those statements are "assumptions," seeing as they're all supported by a great deal of evidence, and I'm very confused as to how you think any of that is racist.

Does that mean he stopped hunting Manbearpig?

I don't think so, since cab driving provides him more opportunities to find him, while turning coin.
Keeps him from having to hawk his Nobel Prize!!

That made me chuckle.

As did much of the film.

Seconded!
I really, really wasn't expecting the whole "sign here and here" part. :D

and not, for example, a municipal waste treatment plant. why is this?

No context.