/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8869826]

>evolution is real, species adapt to their environment and develop different characteristics, different dog breeds have different traits like intelligence, coat pattern, stamina, size etc.
>Different human races that evolved in different environments for tens of thousands of years are all 100% identical in intelligence levels you racist bigot

So is evolution real or not? Because only one of these statements can be true.

[Anonymous No.8869962]

>>8869826
This board is just showing their retarded contrarianism towards /pol/ being the biggest and trendier board.
Race is real, that's all you need to know.

[Anonymous No.8869973]

>>8869826

Dogs aren't a product of evolution.

[Anonymous No.8869997]

>>8869973

Breeding is just artificial, man-directed evolution.

[Anonymous No.8870002]

>>8869962
Race is on a spectrum, therefore there are infinite races. Typical Republican getting confused at science.

[Anonymous No.8870007]

Nobody contests the fact that Homo sapiens and say homo erectus belonged to different species.
"Tens of thousands of years" in evolutionary terms is a blink, there's no evidence that human intelligence went through any significant changes in the last ~100k years.
Your shitty dog picture is a result of domestication and selective breeding, not evolution. Sorry, /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.8870017]

>>8869997
Dogs might be the best direct/visual evidence we have that evolution is possible to show all the idiots who need work on a 'see it to believe it' bases.
Wonder how long it takes before we have such direct/visual/'for-the-idiots' evidence for climate change. Probably gonna be to late then anyway.

[Anonymous No.8870019]

>>8869826
>Different human races that evolved in different environments for tens of thousands of years are all 100% identical in intelligence levels you racist bigot
Who claims that? Although individual people may be exceptionally intelligent or uninteligent regardless of race, there can be a difference between average intelligence levels for entire races.

[Anonymous No.8870030]

>>8870007

>a result of domestication and selective breeding, not evolution

see >>8869997.

>>8870002

What the fuck is your point?

[Anonymous No.8870036]

>>8870030
Therefore race is a social construct, use your brain dumb Republican.

[Anonymous No.8870041]

>>8869826
What's the evolutionary pressure to become less intelligent?

The brain is an organ hard won over millions of years of adaptation, in return for which our species has dominated the planet. There is no conceivable situation where becoming less intelligent would have benefited a population over the tens or hundreds of thousands of years necessary for that trait to become pronounced, so why would it have happened?

Furthermore, you make your so-called 'objective' assessment of intelligence standing amongst the wealthiest fraction of a percent of the hundred billion or so humans who have ever lived. Up until the last couple of hundred years, almost no one in the world could read or write or even perform much more than basic arithmetic - and the only reason you can is because of the centuries-long efforts of social reformers and the investment of society into creating a mass education system. You stand upon the shoulders of a dozen generations of giants, look down at those a little way beneath you and declare that they must be that way because they're irreparably flawed.

Perhaps some day, in the far flung future, an appreciable proportion of humanity will be able to reach the absolute genetic limit of their potential.
But at that point we'll have no need to care.

[Anonymous No.8870046]

>>8870036

Color is a social construct too, that doesnt stop it from being what we call color red and color blue. Man I never knew you nerds on this board were such brainlets. Big egos, small autistic brains. Typical nerds.

[Anonymous No.8870047]

>>8870041
>What's the evolutionary pressure to become less intelligent?
one group being less intelligent than another doesn't imply that they started out with greater intelligence and then their intelligence declined.

[Anonymous No.8870049]

>>8870041

Less intelligent people have more kids.

[Anonymous No.8870051]

>>8870046
Race is not real stupid Republican.

[Anonymous No.8870053]

>>8869997

So incest is man-directed evolution of people?

[Anonymous No.8870060]

>>8870053
You are speaking of the species themselves directing it who are evolving, you could say that as much as you could say any organism is directing their own evolution (by choosing mates), but not in the same way he meant where man is directing another species evolution in the case of dog breeding.

[Anonymous No.8870081]

>>8870019
>Who claims that?
The majority of /sci/ anons in any thread that is remotely related to racial issues.

[Anonymous No.8870093]

>>8870049
>source: Idiocracy
For almost all of human history, everyone had more kids, because you needed kids to run your farm and provide for you when you were old, and because incredibly high child mortality meant you needed several backups. The actual correlation is between prosperity and fertility. If you live in a wealthy country, you don't have to worry about your kids dying of dysentery and you don't need a bunch of them to till the fields, so you can invest more of your resources into a much smaller family. Indeed, having kids eventually becomes a net sink rather than a source of money over a lifetime, and at that point fertility rates drop.

[Anonymous No.8870102]

>>8870093
Oh, and
>inb4 too many kids is causing them to be poor, not the other way around
As the world gradually becomes more prosperous, fertility rates have dropped across the board, for the reasons previously stated. There's no sensible mechanism for the opposite direction of causality to be the case.

[Anonymous No.8870108]

>>8870041
Its not about becoming less intelligent. Its about everyone starting at an intelligence level equivalent to chimpanzees, and some people lived in an environment that valued intelligence over everything else (see the harsh winters of northern europe), while others lived in an environment where the only requirement for survival was escaping predators (see fertile, mild climate, impossible to farm, predator rich jungles of Africa). And yes intelligence helps to avoid being jaguar food, but what helps even more is being faster than the guy who becomes the food. Hence the old joke "i dont have to out run a bear, i just have to out run you".

[Anonymous No.8870110]

>>8870051

Species are not real either then you stupid nerd

>>8870053

Yes, if you want to breed a race of retarded goblins or something.

[Anonymous No.8870124]

>>8870093
>>8870102
That doesn't change the fact that lower IQ peoples have been having children at a higher rate than smart peoples for over 50 years.

The welfare state has supplanted the natural selection mechanism among humans.

[Anonymous No.8870138]

>>8870108
Except anatomically modern humans only arose around 200,000 years ago, and only left Africa around 70,000 years ago.
Furthermore, most early technological development didn't come from harsh Europe, but from the very mild and welcoming fertile crescent. Indeed, most of the indigenous hunter-gatherer populations of Europe were driven out (or at least had their social structures replaced) by technologically advanced nomadic farmers moving in from the Levant around 10,000 years ago, who now form the majority of the genetic component of modern Europeans.

[Anonymous No.8870142]

>>8870124
Ok guy, you gotta stop posting that image. Im >>8870108 and even i call bullshit on those numbers. Theres no way the average IQ in any country in the world is 59, even accounting for cultral differences. An average IQ of 59 would mean those on the lower end would be nearly stupid enough to forget how to breathe. I would be willing to bet that the average IQ of all Down syndrome sufferers is higher than 59. The cut off for mentally impaired is 70.

[Anonymous No.8870144]

>>8870124
Whoa, 50 years. That's like, two and a half generations and definitely long enough to make definitive statements about human population dynamics, especially if you ignore all the dozens of confounding factors both historical and contemporary.

[Anonymous No.8870145]

>>8870138
Asia would like a word with you about early technology.

[Anonymous No.8870151]

Human races are not genetically distant enough to classify as seperate species, this is likely due to high levels of inbreeding at some point in the early times

[Anonymous No.8870161]

>>8870142
Source:

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/uploads/pdfs/Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations.pdf

In 1959, AAMD set the IQ threshold for mental retardation at < 85. The civil rights movement of the next decade forced psychologists to rethink this boundary, because half the African American population fell below it. In 1973, responding to this concern, AAMD (by then AAMR) changed the threshold for retardation from IQ < 85 to IQ < 70. The boundary moved south by one standard deviation! The proportion of blacks below the threshold instantly dropped from about 50 percent to 12 percent. Subsequent refinements made it still more difficult to meet the criteria for retardation.

[Anonymous No.8870181]

>>8870151

I never claimed that, simply that there are very real physiological and psychological differences between the different races composing humanity.

[Anonymous No.8870190]

>>8869826
Yet despite all their differences, dogs are still all the same species and the same sub-species.

Of course racial differences exist, but dogs are the best argument against people who claim white and black people are different species.

[Anonymous No.8870192]

>>8870161
Just to take this entirely at face value, nothing about what you just said implied the original 85 standard wasn't also just as arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.8870195]

>>8870161
By the criteria of a modern IQ test, the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever lived were mentally retarded.

In fact, given the Flynn effect, you only have to go back fifty years to find the point where the average (contemporary 100 IQ) US citizen would be considered mentally retarded by today's standards. Does that seem right to you?

[Anonymous No.8870205]

>>8870181
>physiological
Of course.
>psychological
On the average, probably, but it's much more difficult to say this because a lot more goes into a human brain than into human skin color or bone shape. Environmental factors are critical to brain development, and nurture can override most inherent differences between humans. At the end of the day, you're probably just looking to make the argument "whites are smarter than blacks", and the fact is that by the nature of intelligence, you can never say that because there will always be black smarter than most whites and whites dumber than most blacks. Even if the average iq of blacks and whites raised in identical situations was different, it would still be very important to frame it as "The median IQ of blacks is lower than whites", not because it's politically correct, but because it's scientifically correct.

[Anonymous No.8870208]

>>8870161
L M A O
M
A
O

[Anonymous No.8870221]

>>8870190

> best argument against people who claim white and black people are different species

Nobody claims that. Just that there are very real differences between the races which can be verified experimentally.

[Anonymous No.8870232]

>>8870190

A german shepherd and chihuahua are the same species but the difference between them is fucking enormous. Whether you call something a species or not doesn't change the fact that there are incredible differences between different breeds/types. I feel like everyone gets too hung up on terminology.

Someone native to Brazil, and Australia, and Denmark, and Taiwan, and Zimbabwe are the same species, but to say that there is no difference between them seems like you are being deliberately blind to reality. It took thousands of years of evolution for those differences to develop. Superiority/inferiority has nothing to do with it, it's just looking at the world around you and seeing differences where they exist.

[Anonymous No.8870234]

>>8870181

But they're aren't.

Humans have what's called phenotypic plasticity, as well as a large reaction norm.

This means two humans with the exact same genetics can have wildly different phenotype based on their external influences, such as what and how much they ate, whether they participated in athletics or spent time solving logical puzzles. Each of those things have measurable changes on the actual expression of a humans genes. Further, studies have shown that things like IQ is only about 50% related to genetics, and when undergraduates go through rigorous physics or math courses (i.e., problem solving courses), their measure IQ actually goes up.

Basically, yes, humans have a wide range of different types of bodies and brains, but this is primarily a function of environment, not genetics or speciation or any stupid /pol/ ideas.

[Anonymous No.8870253]

>>8870041

>What's the evolutionary pressure to become less intelligent?

Internal resource optimization appears to be the evolutionary pressure. Nutrition deficiency especially during the prenatal stage forces the human biological system to allocate resources to absolutely necessary body functionality required for basic survival.

If you start to view intelligence as a premium resource it starts to make sense. Think about it, the khoisan, pygmy and aboriginal australians for example have a IQ threshold around 60 which while is dramatically lower compared to other populations is still "good enough" for basic survival in the wild.

If a human population lives in a ill-equiped environment that does not favor it. Organs like the brain can be reduced in size to a certain extent to prevent future generations from require high amounts of resources.

It may appear to be the equivalent to "penny pinching" in nature but every little bit of resources count.

Studies on malnutrition during the prenatal stage appears to back this up since malnutrition is the current defacto way to guarantee reduction in IQ (outside certain diseases of course).

[Anonymous No.8870275]

>>8870234

So a black person will become European if they are fed right.

LOL.

[Anonymous No.8870285]

I don't get how someone, much less a scientist, could look at a picture like this and think "yep, no difference at all". From a purely observational standpoint there are clearly significant differences here. Now that doesn't mean you need to be racist or discriminate, but our culture is weirdly shut off to any idea that there might be differences in populations.

[Anonymous No.8870295]

>>8870285

Most people are subconsciously 'racist' (asians are good at math, blacks are overly aggressive, whites are industrious and creative etc), yet for political reasons nobody can say these things in public. Sad times we live in when egalitarian fantasies substitute reality.

[Anonymous No.8870300]

>>8870275
and whites will be just as good sprinters

[Anonymous No.8870308]

>>8870275

Not him but while they won't become european their future generations will reduce to genetic distance between the two populations by adapting to a similar diet and dealing with with similar foodborne vectors and bacteria due to horizontal gene transfer.

[Anonymous No.8870344]

>>8870002
This is actually true.

[Anonymous No.8870852]

>>8870295
>Industrious and creative

Do white people actually think this?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8871417]

>>8869826
One was undergoing intelligent selection and controlled breeding programs. The other was not.

[Anonymous No.8871882]

>>8870275