Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What scientific proof can you offer that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Europeans have superior genetics when it comes to intelligence?
I don't even claim that, although it is very likely true that the genes which code for intelligence are distributed differently among different groups. In any case, contrary to your claim, genes certainly do underlie and influence our behavior, our strengths and weaknesses, and what we are ultimately able to accomplish at both the individual and group levels.
I don't even claim that, although it is very likely true that the genes which code for intelligence are distributed differently among different groups. In any case, contrary to your claim, genes certainly do underlie and influence our behavior, our strengths and weaknesses, and what we are ultimately able to accomplish at both the individual and group levels.
At group levels its totally meaningless for the simple reason that two individuals within the same ethnic group can have more genetic variation between them, then with someone outside the ethnic group. This was proven in a landmark study back in 1972 by Richard Lewontin. Lewontin identified that most of the variation (80–85%) within human populations is found within local geographic groups and differences attributable to traditional "race" groups are a minor part of human genetic variability (1–15%).
Its why variations in height, weight, disease, intelligence, etc differ radically within similar ethnic populations.
At group levels its totally meaningless for the simple reason that two individuals within the same ethnic group can have more genetic variation between them, then with someone outside the ethnic group. This was proven in a landmark study back in 1972 by Richard Lewontin. Lewontin identified that most of the variation (80–85%) within human populations is found within local geographic groups and differences attributable to traditional "race" groups are a minor part of human genetic variability (1–15%).
Its why variations in height, weight, disease, intelligence, etc differ radically within similar ethnic populations.
Of course they do, but they also differ significantly, on average, between populations due to genetic difference. Even small inter-group differences in gene expression can become significant when they trend in the same direction. Anyone with eyes to see knows that there are differences between groups in height, weight and other measures of body composition. And IQ divergence is just as well documented.
Of course they do, but they also differ significantly, on average, between populations due to genetic difference. Even small inter-group differences in gene expression can become significant when they trend in the same direction. Anyone with eyes to see knows that there are differences between groups in height, weight and other measures of body composition. And IQ divergence is just as well documented.
IQ divergence is not well documented. Please provide some scientific evidence to back such an absurd statement.
The Dutch have on average grown 8" taller over the last 150 years according to Dutch military records. The current gap now between the tallest nation on average and the shortest is a span of 8". What caused the Dutch to become so tall? Genetics? Nope, you don't have an 8" average height variation in a whole population in the span of 150 years. Diet is what has changed. Environmental factors. To attribute ethnic and regional variation to genetics alone would be folly since the environmentally conditions around the globe are so radically different. If this is obviously true for something so simple as height, its not much of a stretch to assume its the same with intelligence.
Here is an article written by Professor Kevin Mitchell genetics and neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin.
Quote:
Most of our traits, such as height, for example, are set by natural selection at an optimal level – it’s good for humans to be about so tall, on average. Some genetic variants tend to make people a bit shorter than average and some tend to make people a bit taller. The balance between these variants has been maintained by natural selection to keep average height “just right”. Intelligence is not like that. Unlike height, where being ever taller had no benefit, strong evolutionary forces drove intelligence in one direction only in our ancient ancestors.
Intelligence is our defining characteristic and our only real advantage over other animals. It gave us an initial leg-up in colonising diverse environments and its usefulness was massively amplified by the invention of culture and language. This increasing selective advantage of ever greater intelligence led to a snowball effect, which was probably only stopped by the limitations of the size of the birth canal and the metabolic demands of a large brain.
Evolution thus endowed us with a genetic program that holds the instructions of how to build our complex brains, with our resultant cognitive prowess. But any genetic program will be affected by chance mutations and this one is no different. What sets it apart from traits like height is that most genetic random mutations that affect on intelligence will do so negatively.
Statistically speaking, random mutations are vastly more likely to mess up the complicated genetic program for brain development than improve it, especially in ways that natural selection has not already fixed in our species. For the same reason, random tinkering with the highly tuned engine of a Formula One car is vanishingly unlikely to improve performance. Similarly, we shouldn’t expect intelligence to be affected by a balance of IQ-boosting mutations and IQ-harming mutations. Instead, genetic differences in intelligence may largely reflect the burden of mutations that drag it down.
Because most random mutations that affect intelligence will reduce it, evolution will tend to select against them. Inevitably, new mutations will always arise in the population, but ones with a large effect on intelligence – that cause frank intellectual disability, for example – will be swiftly removed by natural selection. Mutations with moderate effects may persist for a few generations, and ones with small effects may last even longer. But because many thousands of genes are involved in brain development, natural selection can’t keep them all free of mutations all the time. It’s like trying to play multiple games of Whack-a-mole at once, with only one hammer.
The result is that any population at any time will carry a varied bunch of mutations that affect intelligence. These will differ between populations, clans, families, and individuals. This constant churn of genetic variation works against any long-term rise or fall in intelligence.
Finally
Quote:
To end up with systematic genetic differences in intelligence between large, ancient populations, the selective forces driving those differences would need to have been enormous. What’s more, those forces would have to have acted across entire continents, with wildly different environments, and have been persistent over tens of thousands of years of tremendous cultural change. Such a scenario is not just speculative – I would argue it is inherently and deeply implausible.
sigh... population groups differ on average by IQ score. This isn't even controversial.
Quote:
To attribute ethnic and regional variation to genetics alone
I wish you folks would just stop with this "genetics alone" strawman. Nobody claims that. Argue honestly.
Quote:
Such a scenario is not just speculative – I would argue it is inherently and deeply implausible.
We shall see. We already have studies out identifying some of the genetic patterns associated with higher vs. lower intelligence. Soon I expect there will be inter-group comparisons...
Well, how do you explain the Ottoman Empire who has its roots in Asia, is at its peak in 1500, able to conquer large areas of Eastern Europe, Middle East and large parts of North Africa?
Do your research. At one point in time or another all
Colors of humans dominated over others, some brutally.
No one human is better than the other.
Back in the day it all boiled down to my rock is bigger than your rock.
Whack...whack....... I win!
Today it comes down to My government against yours, my nukes against yours. Get the picture.
We live in a Eat or be eaten world.
Conquer or be conquered.
Learn it Live it..............................nuff said.
Well, how do you explain the Ottoman Empire who has its roots in Asia, is at its peak in 1500, able to conquer large areas of Eastern Europe, Middle East and large parts of North Africa?
Large areas? It conquered a corner of SouthEastern Europe. Also I should add many Turks, especially in Istanbul, consider themselves to be "Europeans." I know this is gray, but what's clear is that the Anatolians are probably one the closest nonEuropean people to Europeans. Between them and Greeks, there is not much genetic distance.
"White supremacy" only exists as a concept because the last 500 years of history have been dominated by Europeans. How did that come about?
There is the geography theory, as espoused by Guns, Germs, and Steel. The northern European plain is the nearest large agricultural region to the cradle of civilization, so the theory goes it was bound to become dominant. I generally don't buy this, because China and India were actually more prosperous until about 1500, so why did the geography hand dealt take so long to be played?
There are genetic theories, mostly garbage since genetic diversity within the Homo sapiens out-of-Africa group is small compared to hominid diversity, and yet only one part of this group became Europeans. Also a genetic advantage would have again not waited until 1500 to take hold.
More plausibly, the development of the scientific method is easily shown to be an antecedent of most of Europe's modern advantages, and the scientific method was developed around 1500. That raises the further question of why Europe developed the scientific method, which Christian and classical apologists have played with for quite some time. I think the classicists have more to work with, which raises the question why the ancient Greeks were so advanced. This is a bit of a rabbit hole.
Most compelling to me is the European discovery of the new world. It happened around 1500 as well, and produced fabulous riches for Europeans, as well as acting as a population pressure release valve. I don't think any other civilization has had such a stroke of good fortune befall them as a discovery which triples the amount of land available to you. As to why Europeans were pressed to explore and others weren't, we know the reason is the exorbitant cost of the spice trade as exacted by middle Eastern and Mediterranean middlemen. And the Chinese voyages of exploration were abandoned for petty reasons with world-historical implications.
We tend to think this because the only history we are exposed to is European history. Even the history of Asia is told through the lens of European history. While European history is fascinating, I think an argument can be made that the bursts in advancement seem to be intertwined with the exposure of Europeans to the rest of the world. While those exposures were often aggressive in nature, the explorers were quick to identify what they thought would be useful or advantageous back in Europe, and to bring those things back to Europe. But there were probably many things that they overlooked, that would have been useful and advantageous, but that got left behind. We think we exploited "the New World" for all it had to offer, but the truth is that we exploited it for what we thought it offered, not ALL it had to offer. And we justified what we did because we thought we were superior and able to judge other cultures. I think the world would be much more advanced if we had explored the world with more of an open heart and open mind, learning about the rest of the world and what they had to offer. Even now, this topic suggests that we are still judging the rest of the world as somehow "lesser".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
