If so then why cannot the same be said for races of man?

Races are the same species.

Because humans are neither chimp or monkey.

Races are the same species.Good point, but then what is the difference between a species and a breed or a type or a hereditary kind, and how are species produced in nature?

different Species cannot interbreed

Because humans are neither chimp or monkey.Are you saying they are not animals?

Species cannot interbreedExcept gorillas.

No, where did you read that into my comment?

One could argue that history is a powerful force for selection. The best slaves were not necessarily the smartest slaves.

Are Chimps smarter than Monkeys?

Except gorillas.

those are subspecies

OOOOPS! My error, My glasses wren't on and I misread your question, my dumbness.

One could argue that history is a powerful force for selection. The best slaves were not necessarily the smartest slaves.Indeed. In fact they might have even been the dumbest slaves.


Nikelodeon
Are Chimps smarter than Monkeys?I don't know, are they?
Are humans smarter than monkeys?

Chimps are more capable in some mental tasks than humans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203094823.htm

Chimps are more capable in some mental tasks than humans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203094823.htm

You just, singlehandedly, cast a shadow of doubt over the entire 'Humans are smarter than animals' myth.

Well, humans are apes.

Well, humans are apes.And so Chimps are equal to humans? :bugeye:

Yes, the classification system is outdated. Chimps, gorillas, and bonobos should properly all be called hominids.

Yes, the classification system is outdated. Chimps, gorillas, and bonobos should properly all be called hominids.
Fascinating.
Meaning we are all the same?

Races are the same species.
Are German Shepherds smarter than Pugs? Are Collies smarter than Bulldogs?

Questions for the not feint of heart and the not stupid.

1- If no differentiation can be made between sub-groupings and genetically isolated populations of the same species then how are species produced at all?

2- If no man can be judged by how (s)he looks, then why can a tree or a dog, and what of empiricism?

3-If environment only affects the organisms, or a group of organisms, superficially then how does intelligence evolve at all, why is not intellect uniformly distributed across species, and what is the distinction between the physical and the mental?

Such breeds are the result of careful interbreeding. All those breeds would revert to the same general configuration if left to themselves. Humans don't select their mates in the same way, and so such specialization is rare. Pugs have the same genetic potential for intelligence as a collie. Some collies aren't so smart. Some pugs are very clever.

Are chimps and humans the same? To an amazing degree we are.

Such breeds are the result of careful interbreeding. All those breeds would revert to the same general configuration if left to themselves. Humans don't select their mates in the same way, and so such specialization is rare. Pugs have the same genetic potential for intelligence as a collie. Some collies aren't so smart. Some pugs are very clever. Are you saying that breeding is a human invention?

Does the environment affect a species, just as a man affects his breeds, through selection?

Are chimps and humans the same? To an amazing degree we are.Case closed, humans are equal to chimps.....or are they just your [flame deleted]?

Are humans smarter than monkeys?

Removed flaming

Are you saying that breeding is a human invention?

Does the environment affect a species, just as a man affects his breeds, through selection?

Case closed, humans are equal to chimps.....or are they just your equal?

Where do you think human beings come from in the evolutionary tree Wanderer? Don't you believe we shared a common ancestor with the chimps? Or are you a creationist? Chimps and human share a lot of characteristics. Are we equal to them? Yes. We are equal in terms that we have equal rights to this planet. We are equal in regards to our right to exist.


------------------------------------

One prime example of why we should never judge a man on how he looks:

http://dev.smm.org/buzz/media/images/stephen%20hawking.preview.jpg

Upon first glance, those who do judge solely on looks (or assumes that how one looks is an indicator of intelligence) would view him as being retarded. But he is one of the greatest minds of our times.

.....

Bravo Enmos! :bravo:

I know the temptation to flame him is high, but lets keep it civil.

Bells, I apologize for that 'flaming'.. but wasn't it kind of equal to this:

Are you saying that breeding is a human invention?

Does the environment affect a species, just as a man affects his breeds, through selection?

Case closed, humans are equal to chimps.....or are they just your equal?

Bells, I apologize for that 'flaming'.. but wasn't it kind of equal to this:

I fixed that. Missed it before. Thanks.:)

Where do you think human beings come from in the evolutionary tree Wanderer? Don't you believe we shared a common ancestor with the chimps?
Chimps and human share a lot of characteristics. Are we equal to them? Yes. We are equal in terms that we have equal rights to this planet. We are equal in regards to our right to exist. There is no right to exist between species. Rights are a social convention created by humans to facilitate our interactions with each other. As such, rights only apply to humans.

If an animal does have a right to exist, who should the dinosaurs sue regarding their extinction? Or the dodo? Or a million other species that have come and gone over the millenia?

There is no right to exist between species. Rights are a social convention created by humans to facilitate our interactions with each other. As such, rights only apply to humans.
If an animal does have a right to exist, who should the dinosaurs sue regarding their extinction? Or the dodo? Or a million other species that have come and gone over the millenia?
lol they are welcome to.. ;)

There is no right to exist between species. Rights are a social convention created by humans to facilitate our interactions with each other. As such, rights only apply to humans.


I meant equal rights to exist on this planet. I'll amend the 'rights' to ability to exist on this planet in regards to each of their own circumstances..

However, I do believe animals do have rights. I guess we beg to differ on that. If you watch animals in the wild, you will see they recognise what we would deem to be rights or privileges.

If an animal does have a right to exist, who should the dinosaurs sue regarding their extinction? Or the dodo? Or a million other species that have come and gone over the millenia?

And you are applying their rights to human actions in regards to lawsuits. But to answer your question because I'm feeling cranky this morning and feel the need to be amused..

Dinosaurs.. act of 'god' in that they cannot sue for an unenforceable event like an asteroid.

Dodo.. the Dutch..

Other species.. depends on each of their extinction circumstance.

Where do you think human beings come from in the evolutionary tree Wanderer? Don't you believe we shared a common ancestor with the chimps? Or are you a creationist? Chimps and human share a lot of characteristics. Are we equal to them? Yes. We are equal in terms that we have equal rights to this planet. We are equal in regards to our right to exist.


------------------------------------

One prime example of why we should never judge a man on how he looks:

http://dev.smm.org/buzz/media/images/stephen%20hawking.preview.jpg

Upon first glance, those who do judge solely on looks (or assumes that how one looks is an indicator of intelligence) would view him as being retarded. But he is one of the greatest minds of our times.Ballsy, once more you take an environmental effect which warps or atrophies the natural potentials of an organism, as these are determined by its entire historical past, as evidence of soemthing you cannot defend.

If I, Ballsy, grab a man and castrate him, will I then point to the dismembered individual as evidence that not all males have penises?

The disease, Ballsy, that has crippled this man does not negate the entire heritage her carries and w2hich is expressed in his look.

Questions for the not feint of heart and the not stupid.

1- If no differentiation can be made between sub-groupings and genetically isolated populations of the same species then how are species produced at all?

2- If no man can be judged by how (s)he looks, then why can a tree or a dog, and what of empiricism?

3-If environment only affects the organisms, or a group of organisms, superficially then how does intelligence evolve at all, why is not intellect uniformly distributed across species, and what is the distinction between the physical and the mental?No responses, huh?

To Ballsy:

If I come across a burned tree in the forest, looking like a shrub because of what happened to it, will I assume that this tree is no different than the shrub?

1- If no differentiation can be made between sub-groupings and genetically isolated populations of the same species then how are species produced at all?
Species are not produced, they evolve.
All members of said groups are genetically different from each other, any drawn line is purely artificial.

2- If no man can be judged by how (s)he looks, then why can a tree or a dog, and what of empiricism?
The question is what judgments are made. You can judge a person on their looks if it's the looks you want to say something about.
Judgments about a persons character based on their looks are more often than not false. It is called prejudice..

3-If environment only affects the organisms, or a group of organisms, superficially then how does intelligence evolve at all, why is not intellect uniformly distributed across species, and what is the distinction between the physical and the mental?
This is just not true. The environment has a large impact on a species gene pool over time.

I just want to make clear that 'race' is the same as 'subspecies'.
ALL humans alive today are members of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. So we are ALL the same race.
The word race (as you want to use it) is thus misused, it is a relic from an ignorant past.

Ballsy, once more you take an environmental effect which warps or atrophies the natural potentials of an organism, as these are determined by its entire historical past, as evidence of soemthing you cannot defend.

If I, Ballsy, grab a man and castrate him, will I then point to the dismembered individual as evidence that not all males have penises?

The disease, Ballsy, that has crippled this man does not negate the entire heritage her carries and w2hich is expressed in his look.

*Sigh*

Trying to book a flight to my aunt's funeral:bawl:.. God damn incompetent airlines..

My point, Wanderer, was that one cannot judge a man's intelligence by how he looks. We both know Hawking is a brilliant intellectual, most probably the most intelligent human being on this planet. But one would not know that by looking at him because society has a tendency to view non-abled humans as being somehow inferior. For example, you cannot judge a race of people simply because of their race or how they look. One's race is not a determining factor of intelligence. Just as how one does not have to look intelligent to be intelligent. Get it now?

Hawking is diseased and crippled. Ergo he is genetically inferior to you, assuming you are not diseased or crippled. Does that mean you are better than he is or more intelligent than Hawking? The answer to that would be no.

And to answer your question, yes, there are some men who are born without penises. Does not mean they are not 'men'.

If you watch animals in the wild, you will see they recognise what we would deem to be rights or privileges.


:roflmao:

I just want to make clear that 'race' is the same as 'subspecies'.
ALL humans alive today are members of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. So we are ALL the same race.
The word race (as you want to use it) is thus misused, it is a relic from an ignorant past.Calling humans Homo sapiens sapiens is based on the idea that neanderthal was actually merely a subspecies of human, Homo sapiens neaderthalentis. But I believe that idea has gone out of favor and Neanderthal is now considered a seperate species. Regarding race=subspecies:
'Race' is applied in formal taxonomy to variation below the species level. In traditional approaches, substantively morphologically distinct populations or collections of populations occupying a section of a species range are called subspecies and given a three-part Latin name.So variation below the species level is race, and morphologically distinct populations are subspecies. Pretty arbitrary difference, if any, as far as I can see.

Species are not produced, they evolve.
All members of said groups are genetically different from each other, any drawn line is purely artificial.That's what I meant, and you didn't answer the question.

How do species, then, evolve at all?

The question is what judgments are made. You can judge a person on their looks if it's the looks you want to say something about.
Judgments about a persons character based on their looks are more often than not false. It is called prejudice..And so you are calling empiricism and the entire scientific methodology prejudiced?
Again, you didn't actually answer the question.

How does man gather information to judge at all?

When a biologists judges an organism as belonging to a specific type with general characteristics, common genetic pasts, common method of surviving and reproducing, general physical/mental qualities, is he also not judging using sensual information?
Why is some sensual information when used to judge indicative of prejudice in one context and not indicative of prejudice in another?

Does the fact that a species looks a certain way not a result of its entire evolution, its past, its heritage?

This is just not true. The environment has a large impact on a species gene pool over time.Thanks, genius.
Now reread the question and try to understand it.

I just want to make clear that 'race' is the same as 'subspecies'.
ALL humans alive today are members of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. So we are ALL the same race.Indeed. And how did we splinter away from our common ancestor and become a distinct species?

The word race (as you want to use it) is thus misused, it is a relic from an ignorant past.Okay, lets call it type or kind indicative of a common heritage.

Calling humans Homo sapiens sapiens is based on the idea that neanderthal was actually merely a subspecies of human, Homo sapiens neaderthalentis. But I believe that idea has gone out of favor and Neanderthal is now considered a seperate species.
Link ?
As far as I know all humans are taxonomically classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. I am not aware of any recent change in this.

Regarding race=subspecies:
So variation below the species level is race, and morphologically distinct populations are subspecies. Pretty arbitrary difference, if any, as far as I can see.
Well, it's true. Race = subspecies.
Maybe different ethnic groups of humans would be classified as different subspecies if it were not humans. But what group would then be the nominate subspecies ? It would not be ethical to do so.
And even if it were done it would only be on morphological grounds, skin color for example.

That's what I meant, and you didn't answer the question.

How do species, then, evolve at all?

And so you are calling empiricism and the entire scientific methodology prejudiced?
Again, you didn't actually answer the question.

How does man gather information to judge at all?

When a biologists judges an organism as belonging to a specific type with general characteristics, common genetic pasts, common method of surviving and reproducing, general physical/mental qualities, is he also not judging using sensual information?
Why is some sensual information when used to judge indicative of prejudice in one context and not indicative of prejudice in another?

Does the fact that a species looks a certain way not a result of its entire evolution, its past, its heritage?

Thanks, genius.
Now reread the question and try to understand it.

Indeed. And how did we splinter away from our common ancestor and become a distinct species?

Okay, lets call it type or kind indicative of a common heritage.

I reject 1 & 3, so no need to answer.
2, ethics.

Morphological grounds as opposed to what, moralistic or cultural grounds?

Is anyone hear proposing a mind/body dichotomy?

Morphological grounds as opposed to what, moralistic or cultural grounds?

Is anyone hear proposing a mind/body dichotomy?

Why don't you just say it out loud ?

I reject 1 & 3, so no need to answer.
2, ethics.Then you are a culturally indoctrinated hypocrite and a coward.

You reject what you fear points to something socially uncomfortable and ethics is what sheep use to feel safe within the herd.

Why don't you just say it out loud ?
Why don't you admit it?

Why don't you admit it?

I can't admit anything if I don't know what this is about exactly..

Come on, say what you want to say.. then I'll agree or disagree.

I know the temptation to flame him is high, but lets keep it civil.

why?
i see questions and quest for rational answers
motives are irrelevant at this time

can you dig that?

Then you are a culturally indoctrinated hypocrite and a coward.

You reject what you fear points to something socially uncomfortable and ethics is what sheep use to feel safe within the herd.

I think you misunderstood pal..
I say the premises in 1 & 3 are wrong, thus probably agreeing with you on those points.

I can't admit anything if I don't know what this is about exactly..

Come on, say what you want to say.. then I'll agree or disagree.Answer the questions.

You are attempting to inject a cultural uproar based on a culturally determined and defined moralistic perspective with no merit or intelelctual integrity at all.

Describe how species are produced or how intelligence evolves at all.
Answer the questions.

why?
i see questions and quest for rational answers
motives are irrelevant at this time

can you dig that?

I would assume we are able to seek answers to all questions with some degree of civility.

Come on, say what you want to say.. then I'll agree or disagree.

ask me

/pissing in pants as we speak

Answer the questions.

You are attempting to inject a cultural uproar based on a culturally determined and defined moralistic perspective with no merit or intelelctual integrity at all.

Describe how species are produced or how intelligence evolves at all.
Answer the questions.

In what context ?
And why don't you describe it ? You want to make a point, not me..

ask me

/pissing in pants as we speak

Why don't you use diapers ?

Did you mean that question ?

I think you misunderstood pal..
I say the premises in 1 & 3 are wrong, thus probably agreeing with you on those points.Let's see:

1- If no differentiation can be made between sub-groupings and genetically isolated populations of the same species then how are species produced at all?What produces multiplicity and all the variations of life if the environment has only a cosmetic effect on populations.
3-If environment only affects the organisms, or a group of organisms, superficially then how does intelligence evolve at all, why is not intellect uniformly distributed across species, and what is the distinction between the physical and the mental?Here your selective reasoning admits that environmental conditions effect an organisms evolution, both physically and mentally, except....EXCEPT, when it comes to humans, in which case the effects are superficial. :wtf:

enmos

stop fucking beating around the bush
stop fucking pissing in your pants

what point do you think this thread is trying to establish?
answer!!

What produces multiplicity and all the variations of life if the environment has only a cosmetic effect on populations.
It does not only have a cosmetic effect, I already said that. That's why I disagreed.. sigh.

Here your selective reasoning admits that environmental conditions effect an organisms evolution, both physically and mentally, except....EXCEPT, when it comes to humans, in which case the effects are superficial. :wtf:
No, I did not. Environmental conditions can affect either of those.

enmos

stop fucking beating around the bush
stop fucking pissing in your pants

what point do you think this thread is trying to establish?
answer!!

I thought you was pissing your pants, I have no such problems.

Why should I make up what this thread is about, isn't it the job of the OP to make that apparent ?

And why aren't you answering questions yourself, or are you just here to be an ass ?

It does not only have a cosmetic effect, I already said that. That's why I disagreed.. sigh.Huh?

In which case, a mans look exposes his essence, his entire past, as it has evolved, responding and being affected by environmental conditions, and passed onto the next generation.


No, I did not. Environmental conditions can affect either of those.So, where do you disagree, on moralistic grounds?


Is truth and reality subordinate to ethics and human social environments with their own necessities and mythologies?

Does a more challenging environment nurture intellect and or any mutation which offers an advantage?

Huh?

In which case, a mans look exposes his essence, his entire past, as it has evolved, responding and being affected by environmental conditions, and passed onto the next generation.
No, it doesn't have to be.
Maybe only the looks have changed because of the environment, or maybe only the intelligence was affected.
It is not all or nothing.

So, where do you disagree, on moralistic grounds?
Huh ? Do you have a reading disability ? I am AGREEING with you on this.
"Environmental conditions can affect either of those."

I can't help it that you are confused by your own half-assed questions.

Is truth and reality subordinate to ethics and human social environments with their own necessities and mythologies?
In society ? Yes.
Unless you want to be a pariah.

Does a more challenging environment nurture intellect
It certainly could.

and or any mutation which offers an advantage?
Yes, if it gets the chance to spread.

No, it doesn't have to be.
Maybe only the looks have changed because of the environment, or maybe only the intelligence was affected.
It is not all or nothing.Then you, sir believe in a mind/body division.

Appearance is essence.
You assume that the environment only affects a part of the organism, in this case a distinct part since its appearance has nothing to do with its essence, whereas its mind does.
You are a fool and a prejudiced, selective thinker.
You've been socially and culturally conditioned to perform this feat of selective reasoning.

You like the division because then you can selectively choose when the environment affects the body, which exposes itself completely and so is undeniable, and when it affects the mind, which is a manifestation of the brain by the way.


Huh ? Do you have a reading disability ? I am AGREEING with you on this.
"Environmental conditions can affect either of those."There's no selection either.
You can't pick and choose when it suits you to accept that the environment affects an organism superficially and when it does profoundly.

What is intelligence and how does it evolve and why?

An appearance is not separate from an essence, unless you want to believe in a soul or an absolute unchanging thing-in-itself or a God or a core or soemthing absurd like that.

I can't help it that you are confused by your own half-asses questions.It's unfortunate when minds display their quality in such ways.
Getting angry will not save you from your own simplicity.

In society ? Yes.
Unless you want to be a pariah.Ah, a sheep.
I did smell the feces.

In your simplicity you've compartmentalized existence into what is physical and what is mental.

In this way you retain the delusion that we are all, all species included, part of a common core and so equal where it counts...down deep inside.

You can't really answer my questions and so you try to degrade them, skirt around them or selectively understand them.

Why should I make up what this thread is about, isn't it the job of the OP to make that apparent ?

?

".....races of man?"

some better than others?
give criteria, then measure

Enmos
“
Originally Posted by WANDERER
Does a more challenging environment nurture intellect
”
It certainly could.

“
Originally Posted by WANDERER
and or any mutation which offers an advantage?
”
Yes, if it gets the chance to spread.In this case, is it reasonable to assume that a species that has evolved within a specific environment becomes habituated in it and evolves the traits that will help it survive within it?

If so, then would not any subsequent groups pushed out of these primordial grounds not going to face more alien and therefore challenging environments in relaiton to the ones they are forced out of?
And so, if geography also isolates these groups, one remaining back in the original homelands and another forced into different environments, will not these groups begin to evolve differently and due to genetic isolation begin exhibiting the characteristics, both physical and mental, that the environment necessitates as vital?

inuit vs tahitian?

meteor strike
peoria vs timbuktoo

Link ?
As far as I know all humans are taxonomically classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. I am not aware of any recent change in this.I just goggled it. You're right.

I didn't know about Homo sapiens idaltu. Last I heard, it was sapiens and neanderthals. With neanderthats now considered a different species, the extra sapiens would be redundant.

But, now that this idaltu guy's showed up, I guess we're back to the double sapiens.

different Species cannot interbreedThis is wrong. Within a genus, species can hybridize. In fact when I studied biology fifty years ago the definition of "genus" was: a group of species capable of hybridizing. In most cases they cannot do it naturally because their different courtship rituals do not stimulate the urge to copulate; e.g., tigers with their retractable claws require being scratched to stimulate sexual desire whereas lions don't get off on that at all, but "tigons" have been created by artificial insemination. In other cases like zebrasses, coy-wolves and ocicats, the mating can occur due to difficulty finding a mate, in captivity or a shrinking population. Black-headed and rose-breasted grosbeaks hybridize freely where their ranges now overlap due to forest clearing, so freely that within a century they will probably blend into a single species. Hybrid psittacines (within the genera macaws, conures, Amazons, cockatoos, etc.) are common in the pet trade.those [gorillas] are subspeciesThis is wrong. There are now two recognized species of gorilla: Western and Eastern.Yes, the classification system is outdated. Chimps, gorillas, and bonobos should properly all be called hominids.Humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and the two species of gorilla comprise the hominid family ("great apes"). Together with the gibbon family (hylobatids or "lesser apes") the two families comprise the superfamily of apes, now called hominoids.As far as I know all humans are taxonomically classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. I am not aware of any recent change in this.I believe there is some controversy although I don't know whether a sizeable majority of biologists weigh in on one side or the other. The Wikipedia article is not very scholarly (it implies that if it's true that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred that means they must be one species, which is balderdash) and I'm not going to start digging through articles I probably won't understand.Well, it's true. Race = subspecies."Race" is a term that has fallen out of favor but some biologists say it's more akin to a population than a subspecies.Maybe different ethnic groups of humans would be classified as different subspecies if it were not humans.Particularly in the past few hundred years with transportation technology facilitating the mixing of populations, the genetic identification necessary for classification as subspecies has all but faded away.But what group would then be the nominate subspecies? It would not be ethical to do so.A good case can be made for the sub-saharan Africans. After the diaspora in 70,000BCE it's likely that the migrants out of Africa would have encountered conditions causing greater pressure for genetic variation than the population that remained in Africa. Or we could just take the Rastafari point of view that deep down inside we're all Africans. :)And even if it were done it would only be on morphological grounds, skin color for example.One of the most ephemeral of traits. Populations can change from extremely dark skin to extremely light skin in a couple of thousand years if they migrate in a north-south direction.enmos. . . stop fucking beating around the bush. . . stop fucking pissing in your pants. . . what point do you think this thread is trying to establish?Hey dude, we all get to mouth off once in a while. But you're aggravating a personal insult by combining it with spurious profanity. Please try to stick closer to the rules of discourse on this forum, and argue like a scientist.

spurious is the key
no venom
just emphasis

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4098/20080114220613qf9.jpg

knock yourself out
frag, i do not trust you

If so, then would not any subsequent groups pushed out of these primordial grounds not going to face more alien and therefore challenging environments in relaiton to the ones they are forced out of?
And so, if geography also isolates these groups, one remaining back in the original homelands and another forced into different environments, will not these groups begin to evolve differently and due to genetic isolation begin exhibiting the characteristics, both physical and mental, that the environment necessitates as vital?
How dare you...

Moderator! Delete these contraversial and confronting words, this madman is inciting uncensored, potentially un-complimentary, thought with his deviously holeproof logic.

Wanderer, my advice to you is to take the "sciforums celebrates diversity" course, that will cure you of your problematic ideas.
Plus you get a nifty scar on your forehead.
Everyone at sciforums does it... join us!

Are Chimps smarter than Monkeys?


Since there is no testing that has ever been done with both animals taking the same exam I'd say that they were about equal when it comes to their own intelligence. Monkeys do things in their own ways in order to survive and chimps do their things to survive. They are both still here and therefore that means they have about equal intelligences in the natural world in which they live, not in a world in which humans test them against each other.:p

Then you, sir believe in a mind/body division.

Appearance is essence.
You assume that the environment only affects a part of the organism, in this case a distinct part since its appearance has nothing to do with its essence, whereas its mind does.
You are a fool and a prejudiced, selective thinker.
You've been socially and culturally conditioned to perform this feat of selective reasoning.

You like the division because then you can selectively choose when the environment affects the body, which exposes itself completely and so is undeniable, and when it affects the mind, which is a manifestation of the brain by the way.


There's no selection either.
You can't pick and choose when it suits you to accept that the environment affects an organism superficially and when it does profoundly.

What is intelligence and how does it evolve and why?

An appearance is not separate from an essence, unless you want to believe in a soul or an absolute unchanging thing-in-itself or a God or a core or soemthing absurd like that.

It's unfortunate when minds display their quality in such ways.
Getting angry will not save you from your own simplicity.

Ah, a sheep.
I did smell the feces.

In your simplicity you've compartmentalized existence into what is physical and what is mental.

In this way you retain the delusion that we are all, all species included, part of a common core and so equal where it counts...down deep inside.

You can't really answer my questions and so you try to degrade them, skirt around them or selectively understand them.

I am angry ? lol
You are the one being angry, and that merely irritates me.

Why do you even start a thread when all you want to hear is people agreeing with you. The moment someone disagrees with you you start flaming them.
I feel sorry for you.

As you were..

Enmos
In this case, is it reasonable to assume that a species that has evolved within a specific environment becomes habituated in it and evolves the traits that will help it survive within it?

If so, then would not any subsequent groups pushed out of these primordial grounds not going to face more alien and therefore challenging environments in relaiton to the ones they are forced out of?
And so, if geography also isolates these groups, one remaining back in the original homelands and another forced into different environments, will not these groups begin to evolve differently and due to genetic isolation begin exhibiting the characteristics, both physical and mental, that the environment necessitates as vital?

Work on your attitude and maybe then I'll answer your questions.

Goodbye.

A good case can be made for the sub-saharan Africans. After the diaspora in 70,000BCE it's likely that the migrants out of Africa would have encountered conditions causing greater pressure for genetic variation than the population that remained in Africa. Or we could just take the Rastafari point of view that deep down inside we're all Africans. :)
Of course you'd then have the racists against you yet again since they deny that humankind originated in Africa ;)

One of the most ephemeral of traits. Populations can change from extremely dark skin to extremely light skin in a couple of thousand years if they migrate in a north-south direction.
I agree.

spurious is the key -- no venom --just emphasisTo a certain degree venom is in the eye of the beholder. I am suggesting that many beholders of this thread will see venom in your post regardless of how it was intended, and that's what counts. Misunderstandings can occur very easily on a forum with a huge international membership. Different cultures have wildly different standards of politeness and tolerance of profanity and we want to make everyone feel welcome. The dominant language on this website is English but that does not mean we uphold American, British, Australian, or other anglophone cultural standards.http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4098/20080114220613qf9.jpg knock yourself out -- frag, i do not trust youMy warnings to you were based upon your insults to other members and/or moderators, which is a clear violation of the rules. If these insults were meant in jest then please enlighten me. I have been accused of not understanding sarcasm.

You do not have to trust me, but you do have to at least recognize my authority as a moderator. I tolerate a lot of rude behavior because most of you members are crazy young kids, but at some point I have to enforce the rules. One of the rules is: No insulting other members or moderators. I am lenient with that because kids use strong language and kids make jokes, but my leniency has a limit and you are close to reaching it.Of course you'd then have the racists against you yet again since they deny that humankind originated in Africa.These days I think we'd all agree that this would constitute an "extraordinary assertion," since the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that humankind did indeed originate in Africa. Therefore, in accordance with the scientific method, this assertion must be immediately supported with "extraordinary substantiation." If it is not so accompanied, it constitutes trolling. I--and at least some of the other moderators--will treat it as a clear violation of the forum's rules.

These days I think we'd all agree that this would constitute an "extraordinary assertion," since the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that humankind did indeed originate in Africa. Therefore, in accordance with the scientific method, this assertion must be immediately supported with "extraordinary substantiation." If it is not so accompanied, it constitutes trolling. I--and at least some of the other moderators--will treat it as a clear violation of the forum's rules.

Good to hear as I know there are some here that hold that position :)

Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker
One of the most ephemeral of traits. Populations can change from extremely dark skin to extremely light skin in a couple of thousand years if they migrate in a north-south direction.

We have been over this on another thread Fraggle. There you were unable to come up with a convincing argument why the Tasmanian Aborigines, who have lived for over 40,000 years in a climate similar to Britain, have not shown any evidence of this incredible adaptation which produces white Europeans from black Africans in the space of a 'couple of thousand years'.

If such an adaptation occurred, one would suggest that the ideal skin color for Europeans would be a light brown, as this would enable vitamin D synthesis (the current theory in vogue), whilst avoiding the ravages of skin cancer.

The diet of the ancient Celts was very healthy and included fresh and salt fish, as well as dolphin and whale meat.

To add further confusion, there is the findings of Keith Cheng at Penn State University in 2005, that suggests different skin colors are the results of DNA mutations, albeit his work involved zebra fish.

If any of the above happened, why are there not pale skinned people with African facial markers such as flattened features, large lips and frizzy hair anywhere on earth? Not to mention the physiology of the body which is very different.

We have been over this on another thread Fraggle. There you were unable to come up with a convincing argument why the Tasmanian Aborigines, who have lived for over 40,000 years in a climate similar to Britain, have not shown any evidence of this incredible adaptation which produces white Europeans from black Africans in the space of a 'couple of thousand years'.

I don't think you understand how mutations take place and are propagated. The Tasmanians obviously didn't experience the mutations which would result in a lighter skin color.

What's the mystery?

To add further confusion, there is the findings of Keith Cheng at Penn State University in 2005, that suggests different skin colors are the results of DNA mutations, albeit his work involved zebra fish.

Umm.
Of course variations in skin color are due to genetic mutations... How is this confusing?

I don't think you understand how mutations take place and are propagated. The Tasmanians obviously didn't experience the mutations which would result in a lighter skin color.

What's the mystery?

So how has not having light skin been disadvantageous to them?

Shouldn't they have died out as they struggled to synthesize vitamin D?

Why do dark skinned people in northern Europe not suffer any debilitating illness due to their skin tone, and yet white Europeans contract fatal skin cancers?

We have been over this on another thread Fraggle. There you were unable to come up with a convincing argument why the Tasmanian Aborigines, who have lived for over 40,000 years in a climate similar to Britain, have not shown any evidence of this incredible adaptation which produces white Europeans from black Africans in the space of a 'couple of thousand years'.Yes, sorry I didn't respond. But while I was thinking about it (and then not thinking about it as other things came up) I followed the rule of not pursuing my argument further without first responding to your criticism.

First you have to remember that the main population of Aborigines underwent the change from light skin to dark skin in the first place, which is consistent with my assertion. There are plenty of other illustrations. The Bengalis and the Lithuanians are separated by no more than three thousand years of migration. The Mohawks and the various people of the Amazon, something like ten thousand, and the opposite change of color correlates with the opposite direction of migration. I didn't specifically mention black Africans; Europeans are indeed descended from them but that separation goes back 70,000 years and would hardly validate my hypothesis. As for the Tasmanians not undergoing it, nobody said that biological phenomena are universal. They're a small population and perhaps they simply didn't have the right genes among them to be selected for.If such an adaptation occurred, one would suggest that the ideal skin color for Europeans would be a light brown, as this would enable vitamin D synthesis (the current theory in vogue), whilst avoiding the ravages of skin cancer.Nature has no predilection for ideal mutations. Just ones that barely work.To add further confusion, there is the findings of Keith Cheng at Penn State University in 2005, that suggests different skin colors are the results of DNA mutations, albeit his work involved zebra fish.Duh? What else would they be the result of, given that they are hereditary? If any of the above happened, why are there not pale skinned people with African facial markers such as flattened features, large lips and frizzy hair anywhere on earth? Not to mention the physiology of the body which is very different.Because it was only one tribe (or a small number in collaboration) who made the migration out of Africa. That was a pretty small gene pool. Perhaps they didn't happen to have what we consider to be "typical" African features. We don't even know what typical African features were 70,000 years ago.So how has not having light skin been disadvantageous to them? Shouldn't they have died out as they struggled to synthesize vitamin D?What population of humans or other animals would have out-competed for their ecological niche as they struggled with the effects of poor adaptation? Island ecosystems are famous for bizarre animals. It would probably take two orders of magnitude more time for them to either fall prey to the sparse competition in that environment or to be saved by a spontaneous mutation that provided the adaptation. And during that time the sea level would rise and fall hundreds of times and reconnect them with the mainland ecosystem anyway.

There are other ways to get vitamin D besides synthesizing it, and I'm sure they don't all depend on living in our modern "Better Living Through Chemistry" artificial ecosystem.Why do dark skinned people in northern Europe not suffer any debilitating illness due to their skin tone, and yet white Europeans contract fatal skin cancers?People with lighter skin have a survival advantage over people with darker skin in darker climates, but it's a statistical effect. You're not going to see entire neighborhoods dropping dead from a vitamin deficiency in the--how many, one?--generation during which there's been a significant population of dark-skinned people in northern Europe.

Europeans have only been living long enough to die from cancer for a few generations. Life expectancy 100 years ago was around 40--for an adult who had already survived the perils of childhood. The Agricultural Revolution with its grain-intensive diet had a terrible impact on life expectancy. In the Roman Empire it was 23.

I am angry ? lol
You are the one being angry, and that merely irritates me.

Why do you even start a thread when all you want to hear is people agreeing with you. The moment someone disagrees with you you start flaming them.
I feel sorry for you.

As you were..
I want to be disagreed with by people with a mind.

Your thought processes and your inability to answer my questions points to a quality of mind and an indoctrination.

What irritates me is simplicity pretending to be depth and fear pretending to be enlightenment.

How dare you...

Moderator! Delete these contraversial and confronting words, this madman is inciting uncensored, potentially un-complimentary, thought with his deviously holeproof logic.

Wanderer, my advice to you is to take the "sciforums celebrates diversity" course, that will cure you of your problematic ideas.
Plus you get a nifty scar on your forehead.
Everyone at sciforums does it... join us!I say we all pretend all species are alike, simply because our assessments of them is based on superficial standards.

1- If no differentiation can be made between sub-groupings and genetically isolated populations of the same species then how are species produced at all?

2- If no man can be judged by how (s)he looks, then why can a tree or a dog, and what of empiricism?

3-If environment only affects the organisms, or a group of organisms, superficially then how does intelligence evolve at all, why is not intellect uniformly distributed across species, and what is the distinction between the physical and the mental?

The problem here is that you are assuming there is such a thing as 'essence', that living organisms have an 'essence', a 'who/what they really are', that they are 'things an sich'.
As the history of Western philosophy shows, this 'essence' is a difficult thing to pinpoint or define.


2- If no man can be judged by how (s)he looks

Like I said above, this is a tricky issue, as it assumes man has 'essence'.

An alternative is to think in terms of 'who can get along with whom, and with whom not'.
Say, if I see someone dressed as a hippie or a beatnik, or an Aboriginal, or an Ayn Rand fan it means that I will not get along with such a person. I predict that the quality of any relationship I might have with them will be bad or insignificant to me.

So instead of thinking in terms of 'essence', it is possible to think in terms of 'predicted quality of interaction'. This seems rather accurate and seems to be a good guideline for action that is satisfactory to the individual pursuing it.

However, this alternative is, of course, not politically correct or 'humanistic' etc.

The disease, Ballsy, that has crippled this man does not negate the entire heritage her carries and w2hich is expressed in his look.

Hawking also says that the disease affects his thinking. Since he cannot use the chalkboard or paper and the usual requisities, he has to do his computations in his head. This is one reason how he has a different approach to thinking about things.

What we usually consider handicaps can sometimes help produce input that we value.

I want to be disagreed with by people with a mind.

Your thought processes and your inability to answer my questions points to a quality of mind and an indoctrination.

What irritates me is simplicity pretending to be depth and fear pretending to be enlightenment.

If I am so stupid why don't you explain it to me ?

Questions for the not feint of heart and the not stupid.

1- If no differentiation can be made between sub-groupings and genetically isolated populations of the same species then how are species produced at all?

Differentiation between sub-groupings and isolated populations of the same species can be made just fine.


2- If no man can be judged by how (s)he looks, then why can a tree or a dog, and what of empiricism?

Get a haircut you hippy! Humans judge each other on looks just fine. So what?


3-If environment only affects the organisms, or a group of organisms, superficially then how does intelligence evolve at all, why is not intellect uniformly distributed across species, and what is the distinction between the physical and the mental?

Not sure what you mean by superficial effects of the environment. Consequently there is no distinction between physical and mental as the brain is quite a physical entity. There is a distinction between cognition and non-cognition... for example emotional health vs pancreatic health.

If I am so stupid why don't you explain it to me ?* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATORS' COMMUNITY * * * *

Hey both of you guys (and everybody else): This is a science forum so please comport yourselves like scientists. Human Science is even one of our science subforums; it's not like Politics or Art where it can be difficult to apply the scientific method to the discussions. Furthermore, the O.P. raised a question that can be easily analyzed with proper scientific discourse, even if "human science" is not exactly particle physics.

Please don't turn this into a name-calling playground squabble. Personal insults are a violation of the rules so don't sink to that level. You're getting pretty close here.

Challenge the statements, don't try to psychoanalyze the motivation behind them.

* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATORS' COMMUNITY * * * *

Hey both of you guys (and everybody else): This is a science forum so please comport yourselves like scientists. Human Science is even one of our science subforums; it's not like Politics or Art where it can be difficult to apply the scientific method to the discussions. Furthermore, the O.P. raised a question that can be easily analyzed with proper scientific discourse, even if "human science" is not exactly particle physics.

Please don't turn this into a name-calling playground squabble. Personal insults are a violation of the rules so don't sink to that level. You're getting pretty close here.

Challenge the statements, don't try to psychoanalyze the motivation behind them.

So what is the statement ? Wanderer seems to disagree with himself about that.
Btw. I take it you didn't mean me when you said 'you're getting pretty close here'..

I hope Satyr continues the conversation. I want to see where he ends up delineating objective / subjective and where his bias stumps him.

I take it you didn't mean me when you said 'you're getting pretty close here'..Well, I suppose I didn't quote the worst offender. "If I'm so stupid then why don't you explain it to me" (or something to that effect) doesn't exactly qualify as an "insult." But still it's playground talk, not lab talk. It doesn't move the discussion forward. Try to maintain a reasonable standard of discourse and not let someone else drag you down to his level. I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but epidemics of trash talk have been known to break out on this subforum because of the controversial subjects it naturally attracts, and I'm just trying to keep a lid on the trashcan. :)

Well, I suppose I didn't quote the worst offender. "If I'm so stupid then why don't you explain it to me" (or something to that effect) doesn't exactly qualify as an "insult." But still it's playground talk, not lab talk. It doesn't move the discussion forward. Try to maintain a reasonable standard of discourse and not let someone else drag you down to his level. I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but epidemics of trash talk have been known to break out on this subforum because of the controversial subjects it naturally attracts, and I'm just trying to keep a lid on the trashcan. :)

Ok, in my defense though.. my reaction was because the discussion wasn't moving forward to begin with.
Thanks for your reply though :)

Thank you SciKingdom Lords and Ladies for derailing another thread and making it into a discussion over the King's policies.

As an exqmple of things to come I envy your position as SciKindom's elite ruling class.

I would tell you what I really think, but my 30 day probation isn't over and the morality police of this smelly Kingdom is posted outside my shack watching every move I make, ready to throw me outside these thick, hard, dense walls.

Send the King my regards and tell him he's naked....again.

Thank you SciKingdom Lords and Ladies for derailing another thread and making it into a discussion over the King's policies.

As an exqmple of things to come I envy your position as SciKindom's elite ruling class.

I would tell you what I really think, but my 30 day probation isn't over and the morality police of this smelly Kingdom is posted outside my shack watching every move I make, ready to throw me outside these thick, hard, dense walls.

Send the King my regards and tell him he's naked....again.
Or you can set the 'Alpha' for the thread.

Thank you SciKingdom Lords and Ladies for derailing another thread and making it into a discussion over the King's policies. As an example of things to come I envy your position as SciKingdom's elite ruling class.It's hardly elitism to remind members that this is a place of science. As I noted, this particular board by its nature attracts controversial discussions and sometimes we have to pull people out of the mud pit. I'd rather keep them from falling into the mud pit in the first place because nothing "derails" a thread worse than that.I would tell you what I really think, but my 30 day probation isn't over and the morality police of this smelly Kingdom is posted outside my shack watching every move I make, ready to throw me outside these thick, hard, dense walls.I almost never vote to ban a member and I don't even issue warnings very often, so you're in no danger from me. Just try to remember that this is a place of science. If you're going to "tell us what you really think," I would hope that it's about some tidbit of science, not the IQ or personality of another member, and I would hope you would not need to be reminded of that.