3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksdoes the race mean some are more and some less evolved?
August 6th, 2013, 04:51 AM
does the race mean some are more and some less evolved?
hell no
No.
And there's only one human race.
However, there is a subspecies of internet poster who could use several million more years of evolution before becoming intelligent.
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.
It depends if we are talking about the Grand Prix or the Nascar race.does the race mean some are more and some less evolved?
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."There is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolution."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.
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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by sculptor
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.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.
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.
Cockroaches and lawyers....is there a difference?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.
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!
Have you been into argos lately?, mind you I suppose they're now trying to keep all the mutants out back.
| « LED and Coiled Fluorescent Lamps | Saving information for the distant future » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
