White Supremacist Takes DNA Test

[Dr Kynes]

You are discounting the potential for intelligence AC.

So you are really going to say that evolution can cause pigmentation change, height differences, eye color/shape differences, fast-twitch muscle response differences but the possibility of evolution occurring above the neck is impossible.

Why do you keep saying social darwinism when I say evolution. I never pegged you for the Adam and Eve origin type. I'm not going to judge you if you don't believe in evolution, but there's quite a bit of proof you may want to look into.

differences in intelligence happen on a much longer timescale than human society.

smart has always been a survival trait, so natural selection favours intelligence in every society except the most primitive pre-fire tribal groups.

no human society is much farther removed from crouching in the dark and hoping the leopard takes Ook Ook instead of you, than any other.

the much vaunted "intelligence differences" of the eugenicists and chauvinists are based on sociology, not biology.

 

[UncleBuck]

the maya and aztecs slaughtered those simple agrarian peoples when they migrated into the fertile areas of mexico from the sonoran desert.

civilized, superior euro types would never commit atrocities for arable land.

 

[ginwilly]

differences in intelligence happen on a much longer timescale than human society.

smart has always been a survival trait, so natural selection favours intelligence in every society except the most primitive pre-fire tribal groups.

no human society is much farther removed from crouching in the dark and hoping the leopard takes Ook Ook instead of you, than any other.

the much vaunted "intelligence differences" of the eugenicists and chauvinists are based on sociology, not biology.

I agree that sociology has the most influence on intelligence but biology has the most influence on potential for intelligence. We've been colonized for only a small portion of our existence. The needs for survival were different for different geographical regions. To discount intelligence played in a role in survival and growth more in some regions than others is discounting any physical traits that were needed.

If the potential for intelligence was far removed and no longer a factor, then physical differences born from those same needs would no longer exist either.

The Eugenics argument that blacks were inferior was based on emotion and being white and in power, not science. I've not making that argument, Buck and AC are claiming I am, but I haven't said anything of the sort.

 

[desert dude]

Because intelligence is based on phenotype and education. Heightened intellectual capacity is a phenotypical trait found in the entire species. Again, as I said, Social Darwinism has been thoroughly disproved. You maybe did not know why I said that. It is because the idea that "some people have evolved intellectually more than others based on geography", forms the core of that doctrine.

That's kinda dumb, AC. Phenotype is just the outwardly expressed trait coded in the genotype, the DNA. Saying that heightened intellectual capacity is a trait found in all humans is like saying that all humans are tall. While that might be true, I suppose, it is also true that the Masai are taller than the pygmies, hence "tallness" is more pronounced in some humans than others. While it might pain you to admit it, the possibility that intelligence is like "tallness" might just be a fact you have to live with.

 

[abandonconflict]

You are discounting the potential for intelligence AC.

So you are really going to say that evolution can cause pigmentation change, height differences, eye color/shape differences, fast-twitch muscle response differences but the possibility of evolution occurring above the neck is impossible.

Why do you keep saying social darwinism when I say evolution. I never pegged you for the Adam and Eve origin type. I'm not going to judge you if you don't believe in evolution, but there's quite a bit of proof you may want to look into.

I am an atheist and I have spent years of my life devouring books and college courses about evolution and anthropology. So you know where I am coming from, when I say social darwinism has been thoroughly disproved, I mean "survival of the fittest" is an inapt description of natural selection. Mutual aid is an equal factor as competition in natural selection. I'm talking about evolution. Environment also plays a part in evolution.

Now take this understanding over to genetics. You are naming a bunch of phenotypical traits and saying they have evolved and that it stands to reason therefore that intelligence should also. Every single phenotypical trait you mentioned, and intelligence can all be found in the people of every continent. However, some phenotypical traits are advantageous and those traits will therefore be more likely to be expressed (this is called epigenetics) and obviously over time those traits will be more likely to be 'selected' as it were. Over time this process will lead to a population having certain phenotypical traits.

If you took several hundred people from Africa and put them in the Alaskan wilderness, they would look phenotypically over time if they survive. Likewise if you took several hundred Norwegians and put them on a tropical island. You have to use large gene pools.

That principal is true with cannabis also, if you want to design a strain, you take a landrace you like and start with at least several hundred seeds and selectively breed them over a few generations into something homogenous. That is unnatural selection, but the principal is applicable.

The fact is, all of the phenotypes exist on all the continents, in all of the populations.

 

[ginwilly]

Now take this understanding over to genetics. You are naming a bunch of phenotypical traits and saying they have evolved and that it stands to reason therefore that intelligence should also. Every single phenotypical trait you mentioned, and intelligence can all be found in the people of every continent. However, some phenotypical traits are advantageous and those traits will therefore be more likely to be expressed (this is called epigenetics) and obviously over time those traits will be more likely to be 'selected' as it were. Over time this process will lead to a population having certain phenotypical traits.

Uh huh, it sounds like you actually understand, you just can't bring yourself to say the potential for greater intelligence was more advantageous in some regions than others.

 

[desert dude]

differences in intelligence happen on a much longer timescale than human society.

smart has always been a survival trait, so natural selection favours intelligence in every society except the most primitive pre-fire tribal groups.

no human society is much farther removed from crouching in the dark and hoping the leopard takes Ook Ook instead of you, than any other.

the much vaunted "intelligence differences" of the eugenicists and chauvinists are based on sociology, not biology.

This point has always given me pause when I get into these sorts of discussions. I guess where I disagree with the implication that it is impossible for one group to evolve with more intelligence than a similar group is that geographically separated groups won't evolve in the same way despite having identical selective pressures. Mutation is a random process, after all. To be more adapted to an environment, a group of organisms need only be more fit than its competitors. Neanderthals and Cro-magnons occupied the same environment, for example, and they evolved in different ways.

 

[abandonconflict]

Uh huh, it sounds like you actually understand, you just can't bring yourself to say the potential for greater intelligence is more advantageous in some regions than others.

yeah, some phenotypical traits are advantageous, like if you're in the north, light skin and more hair, in the tropics, more melanin.

However, all of the phenotypical traits exist in the populations of every region. I think this one is going over your head.

 

[UncleBuck]

...you just can't bring yourself to say the potential for greater intelligence was more advantageous in some regions than others.

go on, just say it.

don't be a pussy. you know you want to.

tell me which race is inherently dumber than the rest.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I am an atheist and I have spent years of my life devouring books and college courses about evolution and anthropology. So you know where I am coming from, when I say social darwinism has been thoroughly disproved, I mean "survival of the fittest" is an inapt description of natural selection. Mutual aid is an equal factor as competition in natural selection. I'm talking about evolution. Environment also plays a part in evolution.

Now take this understanding over to genetics. You are naming a bunch of phenotypical traits and saying they have evolved and that it stands to reason therefore that intelligence should also. Every single phenotypical trait you mentioned, and intelligence can all be found in the people of every continent. However, some phenotypical traits are advantageous and those traits will therefore be more likely to be expressed (this is called epigenetics) and obviously over time those traits will be more likely to be 'selected' as it were. Over time this process will lead to a population having certain phenotypical traits.

If you took several hundred people from Africa and put them in the Alaskan wilderness, they would look phenotypically over time if they survive. Likewise if you took several hundred Norwegians and put them on a tropical island. You have to use large gene pools.

That principal is true with cannabis also, if you want to design a strain, you take a landrace you like and start with at least several hundred seeds and selectively breed them over a few generations into something homogenous. That is unnatural selection, but the principal is applicable.

The fact is, all of the phenotypes exist on all the continents, in all of the populations.

taking a group of ethnically homogenous norwegians and stranding them for 100 generations in africa will not turn them into negroes.

that would take millenia, and would most likely NEVER make a group identical to native africans in appearance. you would get something similar, but quite different depending on how their society shakes out, and what traits are deemed sexy.

samoans are fairly typically asian, yet over millenia they came to view fatness as sexy, thus they tend to be beefier than other asians who are generally quite slim.

many other groups of asian pacific islanders, under the same conditions did not select for chunkiness and retain the typically slender asiatic body structure.

your assumptions are flawed.

 

[abandonconflict]

All of the phenotypical traits exist in all of the populations in every region. If you do not understand how this proven fact utterly destroys the notion that some races inherently have more cognitive potential than others, you don't understand the science.

 

[ginwilly]

go on, just say it.

don't be a pussy. you know you want to.

tell me which race is inherently dumber than the rest.

I'm not who you think I am. I know you want me to be racist because you can't argue any other way, but sorry bucktard, geographical region doesn't mean the same as race to anyone who's not so obsessed with race like you.

 

[abandonconflict]

taking a group of ethnically homogenous norwegians and stranding them for 100 generations in africa will not turn them into negroes

I didn't suggest that, I said that over time the dominant phenotypical traits would change. The process took a lot longer than a hundred generations also.

 

[ginwilly]

All of the phenotypical traits exist in all of the populations in every region. If you do not understand how this proven fact utterly destroys the notion that some races inherently have more cognitive potential than others, you don't understand the science.

Holy fuck dude, yes, that is true that all phenotypes exists in all regions, can you let that go? it has nothing to do with what we are discussing, and that doesn't destroy anything about some traits being more pronounced in some regions than others.

And stop making the argument about race would you? We are talking geographical regions, we basically all started as the same race you bigot. Maybe your PC ass can stop denying potential for intelligence can be different across regions if you stop making it about race.

 

[desert dude]

All of the phenotypical traits exist in all of the populations in every region. If you do not understand how this proven fact utterly destroys the notion that some races inherently have more cognitive potential than others, you don't understand the science.

Huh? I doubt you would find a Nordic sort in Africa 4,000 years ago. I doubt you would find a negro in Finland 4,000 years ago. You got some splainin' to do to make me believe, or understand your point.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I have a MS in PT and Informatics. What was your degree in again?

The degree arguement means you lost. The only thing that piece of paper proves is ability to know your place.

 

[abandonconflict]

Huh? I doubt you would find a Nordic sort in Africa 4,000 years ago. I doubt you would find a negro in Finland 4,000 years ago. You got some splainin' to do to make me believe, or understand your point.

We
are
all
africans

 

[Dr Kynes]

This point has always given me pause when I get into these sorts of discussions. I guess where I disagree with the implication that it is impossible for one group to evolve with more intelligence than a similar group is that geographically separated groups won't evolve in the same way despite having identical selective pressures. Mutation is a random process, after all. To be more adapted to an environment, a group of organisms need only be more fit than its competitors. Neanderthals and Cro-magnons occupied the same environment, for example, and they evolved in different ways.

neanderthals are a seperate branch of the same tree, they left africa millenia before homo sapiens. there is no evidence that they were dumber than modern humans, just ill suited to survive the ice age.

 

[ginwilly]

The degree arguement means you lost. The only thing that piece of paper proves is ability to know your place.

I only mentioned the science degree when he told me if I had ever even been to a community college or opened a book...., but yes, I feel shamed for bringing it up. I know he's uneducated so that rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[abandonconflict]

Holy fuck dude, yes, that is true that all phenotypes exists in all regions, can you let that go? it has nothing to do with what we are discussing, and that doesn't destroy anything about some traits being more pronounced in some regions than others.

And stop making the argument about race would you? We are talking geographical regions, we basically all started as the same race you bigot. Maybe your PC ass can stop denying potential for intelligence can be different across regions if you stop making it about race.

How limited does my argument have to be to conform to your theory that black people are stupid and white people are smart?