Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree3Likes
  • 3 Post By Neverfly

Thread: has human races to do with human inteligence?

  1. #1 has human races to do with human inteligence? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1
    does the race mean some are more and some less evolved?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    hell no


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    No.
    And there's only one human race.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    However, there is a subspecies of internet poster who could use several million more years of evolution before becoming intelligent.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    There is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolution. Evolution simply means 'change over time.' It does not have a goal, a pinnacle or advancement.
    To put this in perspective, Tyrannosaurus Rex was exactly as evolved as you are. There are no stages of evolution- that's a misconception. For example: Is modern English better than olde English?
    Well, no- it is simply changed over time is all. It functions just as well - but different groups showed different selection of expression that led to more changes over time. Such as how to spell a word or when to apply it or how one pronounces a word.

    When it comes to human races, it is no different than differing breeds in other species of animal. Because of the evolution of the English Language, older ideas have flavored words even when better learning showed older wording to be a bit fallacious. For example, "The Sun Rises." We still call it Sunrise and Sunset even though we are all well aware that it is the Earth that is spinning, not the Sun that is Rising.

    Race simply means breed which simply means very minor changes in genetic coding. And yes, that is evolution of the Human Species. Given a couple million years, it's quite possible that those minor differences could add up over a long time to a human different enough from us that mating with that human would cause either a sterile crossbreed or would be ineffective for reproduction.
    But for now, no.
    As it stands currently, different races within the human species have minor cosmetic differences only. These cosmetics were influenced early on by survivability in different climates. One of our strongest survival traits- intelligence- is a profound change, not a minor one and it's pretty evenly distributed across all races with only minor fluctuations between individuals. Because of that trait, we've gained an ability to adapt to our environments very, very, very quickly. This has also resulted on less sexual selection as it's not as important to breed only with people that can say, survive a harsh winter, when we can take an airplane to New Mexico.

    Everyone in the human species of Homo Sapiens Sapiens is as evolved as everyone else, just as whales and sharks and donkeys are.

    This is not a politically correct post. It is a scientific viewpoint and if the data said that one race lacked all the other races ability to smell waffles or something, I would say so and be damned.
    KALSTER, scoobydoo1 and Strange like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    does the race mean some are more and some less evolved?
    It depends if we are talking about the Grand Prix or the Nascar race.


    "There is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolution."
    Hum, I think I get what you say, specially when people assume humans are the pinnacle of evolution or ask where we are heading (which way is up), but from another perspective humans and squirrels, have "more evolution" in them (the 'over time' aspect you mention) than archaic unicellular life, more complexity and more organization of molecular processes, and much more than a cloud of hydrogen gas drifting in space, imo. The Squirrel is more intelligent than a bacteria, has a much more complex representation of his environment (has a model of the surroundings, trees, nuts, cats, sky, sun) and is both able to move, actively and knowingly change his position in the environment, and alter the environment (build a nest by relocating specifically selected twigs and leaves), etc, all this was not possible when proto-life grew into unicellular organisms, because it take a while for these newly created unicellular organisms to 'organize' thru interactions into the complex multicellular organisms that are squirrels.

    It is not impossible for current day mammals and birds and even reptiles have more complex metabolism and immune systems than dinosaurs, but I agree that adaptation to a given environment trumps/outweighs most aspects of evolutionary complexity/adaptive-systems. A pre-dinosaur primitive fish would probably be more adapted to live in the middle of an ocean in 2013 than a 2013 squirrel thrown off a cruise ship.
    Last edited by icewendigo; August 6th, 2013 at 07:33 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    long ago, oh so long ago
    I read that as a race/ culture/ people, chinese/asians scored better on IQ tests. As a religion, Jews scored better on IQ tests-------
    the tests were derived from the chinese mandarin tests for bureaucrats by the french(Binet), then refined at stanford(Terman)

    does the provenance of the test determine the results?
    does the test measure intelligence more than it measures test taking ability?
    does the test have any effective "real world" application?

    I've known many who scored much lower than I on those tests, but seemed no less intelligent, and some who scored higher, but seemed no more intelligent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    The problem with I.Q. tests and such is that Poor Education often skews the results.

    For example, citizens in the African continent consistently show an average I.Q. in the 50's. But the same people, raised in a culture where education is available, score an average over over 90.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    long ago, oh so long ago
    I read that as a race/ culture/ people, chinese/asians scored better on IQ tests. As a religion, Jews scored better on IQ tests-------
    the tests were derived from the chinese mandarin tests for bureaucrats by the french(Binet), then refined at stanford(Terman)

    does the provenance of the test determine the results?
    does the test measure intelligence more than it measures test taking ability?
    does the test have any effective "real world" application?

    I've known many who scored much lower than I on those tests, but seemed no less intelligent, and some who scored higher, but seemed no more intelligent.
    Many very intelligent people don't do will in written tests. I don't know why. Has nothing to do with not knowing the material.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    To put this in perspective, Tyrannosaurus Rex was exactly as evolved as you are.
    This is probably not the case. Since humans have had an extra 65 million years plus of evolution we have likely gone through more genetic changes than T.Rex and are therefore, by definition, more evolved. Of course so are rabbits, cockroaches and lawyers. And since generation time is important, micro-organisms are the most evolved living things on the planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    To put this in perspective, Tyrannosaurus Rex was exactly as evolved as you are.
    This is probably not the case. Since humans have had an extra 65 million years plus of evolution we have likely gone through more genetic changes than T.Rex and are therefore, by definition, more evolved. Of course so are rabbits, cockroaches and lawyers. And since generation time is important, micro-organisms are the most evolved living things on the planet.
    I do not agree and let me explain why and you let me know if it makes sense.

    You are equating length of time (Which I disagree with as a method and I'll explain why below) and if we go that route:
    - Tyrannosaurus Rex was the Johnny come lately of Tyrannosaurids that lived for about 20 Million Years. T.Rex lived about 2.4 million years- as estimated by the fossil record.
    -Humans have existed for about 1.8 million years and Homo Sapiens Sapiens for less than 70,000 years. These are rough estimates but the difference between them is still quite large.
    But I find this route flawed because Evolution is simply Change. It is not a means of Higher Advancement- we are not 'more changed' because you would need an absolute or standard by which to measure such.
    "More changed" relative to what?

    If you are calling the changes that we term evolution as "Amount of changes over time" then even though I see your point, it is still problematic because of the Mass Extinction Event that the T.Rex lived right up until. This Mass Extinction was not exactly a complete starting over point but was mighty close. So using that method, a modern slug is "more evolved" than T.Rex, as well. I do not see that method as any more helpful than the other.

    Lastly, and barely on topic... Let's discuss what T. Rex was likely to be capable of and the ramifications of it- given detailed scans and restructuring of skull finds:
    The brain structure is estimated, using computed tomography scans, to be extremely adapted toward scent, given the structure and build of the nasal cavity, sinuses and its relation to the brain. The portion of the brain devoted to scent would have been enormous. It had a very large olfactory bulb.

    If so, this beast could either hunt or scavenge by smell alone, finding its way through all the various smells to pick its way even if utterly blind. This is akin to how a bat uses echolocation to "see" only this sucker could "See" more clearly- with its nose.
    But it wasn't blind... In fact, with eyeballs the size of softballs and them being forward facing, it probably had keen vision, as well. As keen as any eagle.

    That "primitive" and "lesser evolved" critter is NOT something you'd want a run in with. Which is where such descriptions fall completely down because how successful a creature is is dependent on how adapted it is to Current Conditions- as conditions will also change, eventually.
    And going by the first route we examined... hundreds of millions of years of evolution was not enough for the California Condor. It's numbers are low. Not doing so well. Having a rough time.
    ...But, on the other hand; I have good news for slug lovers...
    Last edited by Neverfly; August 7th, 2013 at 06:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    To put this in perspective, Tyrannosaurus Rex was exactly as evolved as you are.
    This is probably not the case. Since humans have had an extra 65 million years plus of evolution we have likely gone through more genetic changes than T.Rex and are therefore, by definition, more evolved. Of course so are rabbits, cockroaches and lawyers. And since generation time is important, micro-organisms are the most evolved living things on the planet.
    Cockroaches and lawyers....is there a difference?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Cockroaches are more likeable.
    Don't know if I agree. Some in Hawai'i are like almost 3 inches long and they freaking FLY!.....then again.....at least when you go to see one it doesn't cost you $300.00 and $5.00 to make a copy!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    No.
    And there's only one human race.
    Have you been into argos lately?, mind you I suppose they're now trying to keep all the mutants out back.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Types of Human Personality or Human Character
    By xingha in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: February 20th, 2018, 06:47 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 9th, 2011, 12:13 AM
  3. Human vs. Non-human intelligence
    By ufcarazy in forum Biology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2009, 04:22 PM
  4. Human vs. Non-human intelligence
    By ufcarazy in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 30th, 2009, 11:27 AM
  5. A Human is completely human only when s/he plays
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 30th, 2008, 05:16 AM
Bookmarks
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
  •