Racial differences.

[GutZ]

There is this professor in my province that seems to think that there is a clear genetic difference between races ( I am not talking about pre-dispostion to certian dieases), i.e. like white people have more evolved brains and such. That makes no sense to me at all, how much truth is there really, what actually are the differences.

 

I am pegging him as a racist but to make sure, I thought I might ask.

[ecoli]

I think that even if there are, the studies will never be done/published due to political reasons... especially if they show that whites are superior at something.

[Ndi]

There are undeniable differences between races - for example, black people have genes that make their skin black and we have the white skin genes. Genetic profiling points to race, sex, physical characteristics, physical abilities and *may* point to mental abilities.

 

Whatever is common to black people and not an external factor is most likely in the genes. To be able to say that black people are inferior in IQ you'd have to fully profile genes that give IQ, understand them, then run tests on vast masses before you can make such an incendiary claim.

 

So while it's true we're different and there are trends, there's a long way between skin color and superiority. Too many factors need taken into consideration, the best is that we still don't have a way to measure intelligence. IQ only points to few abilities and are dependent on culture and school systems.

 

Basically "different" is true. We don't even know what "superior" means.

 

Edit: P.S.

 

One race is bound to be slightly higher when measured, if we ever have the means to measure. Should that happen, it's a scientific truth, not racism. Racism is race hate, not acknowledging differences. Nobody cried race when the calculated average per-country penis length.

 

The line is thin, though. So is formulating that line. Even if average white IQ proves to be higher, that proves [/i]nothing[/i] about any of the individuals. I can already picture the worst examples of the white race grinning with both their teeth thinking they are smarter than the black people.

[Dak]

This is all 'afaik':

 

genetically speaking, you cannot divide humans into two races, 'black' and 'white'.

 

the largest meaningful division you can make is into negros, caucasians, and mongaloids.

 

negroes = black, caucasians = black and white, and mongaloids = mostly white, but also black.

 

so... trying to divvy up humanity into black and white people is pretty meaningless from a genetical pov, as you include one race and parts of two others under 'black', and parts of two races under 'white'.

 

(for an eg: both the british and indians are 'caucasian', even tho 'british' are white and 'indian' black).

 

without white people forming one race, theres little to support the claim that 'white people' have more evolved brains, as they're not going to share any racial traits. as they're not a race.

[GutZ]

without white people forming one race, theres little to support the claim that 'white people' have more evolved brains, as they're not going to share any racial traits. as they're not a race.

 

I didn't think from an evolution perspective it was possible, I didn't think there was enough time. but apparently this guy equates that IQ scores and that black people have smaller brains, that they are genetically inferior. I think he even has a theory on how Male anatomy size = intelligence. I.E. Asians are the smartest, white people middle, and black people lowest.

 

I'll find some stuff he's published. Shouldn't be too hard, I am guessing he's popular in a negative way.

 

::Edit::

 

Here he be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

[Sisyphus]

That whole thing sounds like a mess. "IQ" is pseudoscience to begin with. Intelligence is not some substance that one has a greater or lesser quantity of. It's much, much more complicated than that. Also, as Dak points out, the traditional cultural division of "white, black, and asian" doesn't really reflect genetic realities all that well, and if this guy doesn't even know that, or chooses to ignore it, well...

 

I'm not saying there can't be large statistical differences in genetic groups. There probably are. It just seems like we're not really prepared to approach the problem scientifically.

[YT2095]

there are races that grow little to no bodily (pubic) hair that even extends to beards and moustaches as an example.

 

sure there`s a difference, you`de be mad to think otherwise.

[Sisyphus]

there are races that grow little to no bodily (pubic) hair that even extends to beards and moustaches as an example.

 

sure there`s a difference, you`de be mad to think otherwise.

 

I was under the impression he was asking about more substantial differences, like superior brain function. Obviously people look different.

[JHAQ]

Different human races were ( before intermixing ) the first step towards speciation . We all are however the same species as all races can interbreed . Sure there are minor genetic differences & just as there are between different breeds of dogs ( all the same species ). They have different attributes & temperaments so one could expect different "varieties " of H.sapiens to have the same .

[jackson33]

there are many differences in the basic races of mankind, genetically speaking. these differences are found in all other races and currently it would be hard to find a pure any race. blacks in Africa are the closest and biologist, believe they have found a defective cell in whites that created that race.

the whites then the second race and the others followed. the percentages of differences found in each depends on where you look. Chinese for instance have relatively low amounts of the Black difference, Blacks in Europe and the North America are well mixed or about 60% or so of the Blacks normal differences.

 

as to brain sizes or intelligence, many factors seem to be involved, but genetically its of no value. climates, location and Vit. C (Sun) even milk, seem to play a roll on many individuals with in or not of other races. historically and todays, orientals tend to excel in intelligence, however this has to do with many factors other then genetic.

 

a quick google check on Races and genetics, will get you much more on this subject. its interesting, however biologist are reluctant to promote their finding for obvious reasons. racism as well as being politically correct should both be discarded in the study, as the goals of these biologist are in medical treatment, which if a difference exist, should be so treated.

[GutZ]

Yeah see, I knew there were differences, little things, but for a race to be so much different, it seemed completely wrong, how long would it take for a race to develop a different brain? We can still mater inter-racially, we can't be THAT different.

 

It's true studies should be not done on PC terms, but in this case if it were true, it would of been out there by now.

[spikerz66]

I think that the pnly reason that theres differences like that is the different forms of Natural Selection that each race attributes.

[SkepticLance]

Racial differences, in the sense of superiority or inferiority, are a load of taurine excrement.

 

Geneticists have found that there is more genetic variation between the peoples of one race sharing a suburban street than there is between any two individuals of different races.

 

If we look at skin colour in terms of genetics, the number of genes involved is small - I seem to remember it is about 20. This is out of a total of 30,000 making up the human genome. And most skin colour variation is between light brown and darker brown. The extreme of black versus white applies to only a small part of the human race. The human species is genetically lacking in diversity, and different races are genetically very, very similar.

 

IQ tests are the most misleading guides of all. Sure, there were studies made comparing IQ results of black versus white Americans which showed that black had lower IQ's. Current thinking is that these results were utterly meaningless. The fault lay in the testing system - not in people's intelligence. Some racists, however, perpetuate the myth that the tests are meaningful. The differences in results came from culture, upbringing and education. Incidentally, the same tests showed white Americans had lower average IQ than Asian Americans.

[Dak]

I didn't think from an evolution perspective it was possible, I didn't think there was enough time. but apparently this guy equates that IQ scores and that black people have smaller brains, that they are genetically inferior.

 

well, if you took actual races, then it's entirely possible that thered be significant intelectual differences. and yeah, there'd be enough time. none of which is possible, tho, with 'pretend' races

 

a race is defined by the commoness of alleles within it, and racial differences = differences in/due to those allele frequencies... as white/black people dont form races, they cant have any common differences in allele frequency that make one more inteligent than the other. eg: you could pick a set of alleles all of which someone would be more likely to have if they were caucasian than mongaloid, so it's possible that either caucasians or mongaloids could be 'superior' in some way to the other, but the same presumptions about certain alleles posessed cannot be made about black/white people, barring the alleles that dictate skin-colour. it's like trying to say that red-heads have evolved crappyer brains, even tho the group 'read-heads' completely ignores meaningful racial and genetic groupings, thus making the statement inpossible.

 

so... afaict, the difference would have to be due to the one difference that you can count on there being between white and black people -- skin colour. maybe melanin (black skin pigmentation) retards mental development or interferes with brain activity, tho i'm sure, were that the case, that we'd have noticed that albino africans were more clever, on average, than other africans, or that white people become more stupid in the summer when they tan.

[Ndi]

Smaller brain <> stupid (or != if you prefer). If that were true, whatever we don't understand about time/space we could ask an elephant. There is a lower limit, such as you can't be REALLY smart if you have only 2 neurons, but the reverse is not true. It's like saying some people are stronger because they weigh more (weight lifter versus couch potato).

 

As I've said, if you average IQ (I picked IQ because it's numeric and can be averaged) then black IQ would be a number, white IQ would also be a number and they will not be equal given enough decimals. You can then say that black's smarter than white or the other way around. Whether this is genetic and permanent is quite another story. If figures are close, they could be invalidated by the time you compute the average.

 

I sincerely doubt enough research has been conducted to prove such findings because of the sheer number of people that need to be tested and the virtual impossibility to devise a test that fits the culture differences and be comparable. All IQ test I've seen so far require basic maths, basic social knowledge of a certain culture and, at the inconsiderate and incompetent edge, knowledge of US measuring system or English literature. None of these will ever work in South Africa. They need a native language test that uses localized questions to be even close to comparable.

 

I'd go as far as to say that (can't prove but will support) it's impossible to devise a test that can compare black people to white people and be precise enough to take into consideration.

[mr d]

Hello

 

Basically there is just one race, the human race, that is sub-categorized into groups based on observable physical characteristics. Futher more most of these characteristics are physical differences derieved from climatic and geographical condiction under which the people developed.

 

Black skin is simply contains more pigment than white skin as protection from the sun. As dark people moved futher northward into colder climates with less sunlight and colder temperatures, a lessening of pigment occurs to allow some minor absorption of vitamin E and C through the skin (not totally proven). Meaning there is a physical advantange to lighter skin in colder climates.

 

Same for hair, as the coiled form of hair found amoung Africans today provide a superior form of blockage to the sun's rays than the thinner flat lying hair of Europeans.

However straight flatter lying hair allows for a greater lenght of hair meaning it can hang down and cover larger areas of skin. More advantages in colder climates. Temperture playing a role in why Europeans tend to have a greater amount of body hair compared to Africans.

 

Africans have wider flatter noses to allow for larger nostral passages acting to help cool the hotter air they would breath in, less contact with tissue. Europeans developed a more narrow pointed nose which creates passages that while wide bring the air into much greater contact with tissue. This results in the air being warmed as to is brought into the lungs, better for colder climates.

 

Asian while many live in colder climates are a later arrival to those places, displacing the native inhabitants that did have more caucasion features. Also interbreeding lessened the physical differences.

 

Mr D

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought, There's no question that there are differences between "black people" and "white people" whatever those terms mean.

There is a question over the idea that one group (no matter how it is defined) is "superior" to another group.

In my (undoccumented, unscientific and limited) experience ,colour of skin is a rather poor predictor of general inteligence however racist beliefs seem to be negatively correlated with inteligence.

[GutZ]

well, if you took actual races, then it's entirely possible that thered be significant intelectual differences. and yeah, there'd be enough time. none of which is possible, tho, with 'pretend' races

 

a race is defined by the commoness of alleles within it, and racial differences = differences in/due to those allele frequencies... as white/black people dont form races, they cant have any common differences in allele frequency that make one more inteligent than the other. eg: you could pick a set of alleles all of which someone would be more likely to have if they were caucasian than mongaloid, so it's possible that either caucasians or mongaloids could be 'superior' in some way to the other, but the same presumptions about certain alleles posessed cannot be made about black/white people, barring the alleles that dictate skin-colour. it's like trying to say that red-heads have evolved crappyer brains, even tho the group 'read-heads' completely ignores meaningful racial and genetic groupings, thus making the statement inpossible.

 

so... afaict, the difference would have to be due to the one difference that you can count on there being between white and black people -- skin colour. maybe melanin (black skin pigmentation) retards mental development or interferes with brain activity, tho i'm sure, were that the case, that we'd have noticed that albino africans were more clever, on average, than other africans, or that white people become more stupid in the summer when they tan.

 

 

I see I think, so even if you were to force breed only smart people of one "race" and only dumb people of another, they would still be of the homo-sapien -whatever (fancy greek/latin word) Race. Skin colour doesn't matter, it's just an attribute right?

 

Can something de-evolve (for lack of a better word)? or is it either you evolve, stay the same (base species with variation), or die lol.

[Sisyphus]

What do you mean by de-evolve? Evolve into something which closely resembles an earlier form? Sure, especially in terms of small changes, and an environment which resembles the earlier one. Evolve to be less intelligent? Sure. Intelligence is extremely "expensive," biologically speaking, and needs an organism that can take major advantage of it in order to evolve and maintain itself.

[GutZ]

Interesting. Ok last question before I de-rail my own thread. Would a species more likely die out before it reverts back to earlier form? Intelligence must of been very advantageous to survive against nature and predators.

[SkepticLance]

Just a couple of comments on the evolution of intelligence.

The brain requires a lot of energy to run. The human brain, being as large as it is, requires an enormous amount of energy to run. If a species has a limited food supply, this is a major detrement.

 

Another oddity of the human species is that we have the smallest alimentary canal, for our size, of any primate. This reduces our ability to digest food. Thus, not only do we need to ingest a lot of food to run the energy hungry brain, but it must be high quality food, requiring little digestion.

 

It would be quite possible in terms of future evolutions, for a human sub group to be isolated in a place (like an island) where food is scarce, and brain size to evolve to a smaller mass.

 

On the question of reverting to an earlier form ...

This never actually happens. Sometimes it appears to happen, but the evolved changes will always be a little different to what happened earlier. Evolution runs in one direction only. Sometimes it leads to a simplification, but not back to an earlier form. Just a new simpler form.

[mr d]

Hello

 

Seen some investigation occuring that human genetic makeup still contains earlier forms, and not just as related to humans genes being human.

 

Sounds a bit odd but it is where you and say an ape share a common set of genetic code to help develope an opposable thumb. Due to evolution humans and apes have added futher genetic code to develope the thumb each species has. But the original code to still exists in both species.

 

Meaning some far distant ancestory of a number of species most likely has part of its code embedded in all those species as a building block for further evolutionary developement. Such as how human fetus' have tails and gills during very early developement; vestage dna.

 

So you might not de-Evolve, but you might halt a code at a simpler form, or redirect from the earlier point.

 

Mr D

[CDarwin]

One of my favorite race quotes, from Evolutionary Anthropology, my pen died before I could get the author:

"Race is a cultural construct with historical, biological, and anthropological elements: Its mix difffers for each person, probably in ways he or she is not even aware of."

 

Humans vary gradually across the planet, any attempt to split them up biologically into "races" or even "ethnicities" or any other euphemism is inherently arbitrary.

[SkepticLance]

Mr d said :

 

So you might not de-Evolve, but you might halt a code at a simpler form, or redirect from the earlier point.

 

That is, of course, correct. Each gene might do that. However, the human species has about 30,000 genes, and the probability against going back to the same genome that once existed is astronomically against.

[Sisyphus]

Right, it would never be identical, but evolving into something that has more in common with a more distant ancestor than a later ancestor? Probably happens all the time, especially over the relatively short-term.

 

As for the value of intelligence... well, yes, it's extremely valuable to us. Humans dominate the entire planet, expanding far, far beyond our original competitors and closest relatives. And sure, it's arguable that it would be valuable to any organism. But valuable enough to justify the expense?

 

As was said, brains require a lot of energy. More importantly, they require a lot of learning. Nothing is more helpless or helpless for a longer period of time than a human infant. Our rise to functional independence is longer than the entire lifespan of most mammals. That's a tremendous price, and immediately raises two questions about any organism that might spend it. First, is it possible? Can the organism actually care for its young to that extreme degree for that amount of time? Second, is it worth it? Is the cost outweighed by the benefit? I mean, sure, a tiger with human level intelligence might have some advantage, but actually not all that much. Their physiology just doesn't allow them the capability of tool-making or tool-use, and without any kind of technology, how worthwhile is intelligence, really?

 

Compare two races of human. They are outwardly identical, but one has human intelligence, and the other would be considered functionally retarded, but possesses all the instincts needed to aquire food and escape most predators. Both are naked and aren't allowed to make any kind of tools, clothes, or even carry anything except in their mouths. Now imagine that the retarded race reaches full maturity by age two. Put them in direct competition. Who wins?