Nobel Peace Prize winning geneticist says Africans are not as intelligent

[Atlanteax]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21362732/

(snippets following)

LONDON - London's Science Museum canceled a Friday talk by Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson after the co-discoverer of DNA's structure told a newspaper that Africans and Europeans had different levels of intelligence.

James Watson provoked widespread outrage with his comments to The Sunday Times, which quoted the 79-year-old American as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."

He told the paper he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

...

History of controversial comments

The Independent catalogued a series of controversial statements from Watson, including one in which he reportedly suggested women should have the right to have abortions if tests could determine their children would be homosexual.

In 2000 Watson shocked an audience at the University of California, Berkeley, when he advanced a theory about a link between skin color and sex drive.

His lecture, complete with slides of bikini-clad women, argued that extracts of melanin — which give skin its color — had been found to boost subjects' sex drive.

"That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

Telephone and e-mail messages left with the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory after business hours Wednesday were not immediately returned.

(end snippets)

.

In regard to the Latin lovers...

Hey CT!! How are *you* doing?!!? :wink:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

He's as smart as Gore is!

[Gigantuous]

LMAO

Well, at least he's got the nuts to say whatever he wants, in front of whoever he wants, if he believes it to be true.

[Blazing247]

I don't even care enough to research it, but maybe he has some kind of scientific basis for saying that there is a link between melanin and sex drive/testosterone levels? Just like they are more likely to develop sickle cell and Alzheimer's?

The comment of African's being less intelligent, that's way out in left field. It's one thing to say they don't know as much as a European would, being that their society is hundreds of years behind, but that isn't the same as saying they don't have the CAPACITY to know as much as a European would. Which was he saying?

As for "dealing with black employees" heh, has anyone ever done the "time the cashier" test in a supermarket?

[Celephais]

The comment of African's being less intelligent, that's way out in left field. It's one thing to say they don't know as much as a European would, being that their society is hundreds of years behind, but that isn't the same as saying they don't have the CAPACITY to know as much as a European would. Which was he saying?
So you're all for accepting that behavior can be influenced by racial differences in body makeup, but it's out in left field to say that one race has a lesser developed brain than another?

In purely scientific terms it's perfectly acceptable to say that a border collie is smarter than an afgan. He's not saying that all non-africans are smarter than all non-africans, just that their brains might not be as developed. Sure his comment about employeers will tell you that is questionable because it's non-scientific, but it wouldn't be racist to claim that evolutionarily African's didn't need to develop their brain as much as Europeans :shrug:

[Blazing247]

So you're all for accepting that behavior can be influenced by racial differences in body makeup, but it's out in left field to say that one race has a lesser developed brain than another?

In purely scientific terms it's perfectly acceptable to say that a border collie is smarter than an afgan. He's not saying that all non-africans are smarter than all non-africans, just that their brains might not be as developed. Sure his comment about employeers will tell you that is questionable because it's non-scientific, but it wouldn't be racist to claim that evolutionarily African's didn't need to develop their brain as much as Europeans :shrug:

I didn't say that. What I said was (or asked, really), was he saying that Africans do not have the capacity to learn like Europeans do (less developed brain as it wasn't needed) or was he saying that Africans do not know as much as Europeans (less "worldly")? It didn't say in the article, probably because if there were any scientific basis for it it wouldn't be such a sensationalistic headline (though he hints as "testing"). I agree with what you're saying, I didn't really state an opinion other than to say that the comment is out of left field and very odd to bring up during an interview and not a lecture where it's less likely to get blown out of proportion.

[Warriorbird]

I should've taken the bet I was offered about Blazing contributing to this topic.

[Celephais]

Gotcha... yeah I don't know which he was claiming, most likely (as a scientist) he'd be stating capacity, as otherwise it's a pretty stupid comment (Pfff, did you see that sudanisian idiot when I asked him how to format a hard drive?). I agree his timing could have been better, but he's old, fuck it.

(I was really tempted for my first post in this thread to say, and only say "Sounds about right.")

What's the time the cashier test?

[Gan]

"English patients"...


ROFLFLFLFLFLFLFLFLFLFLHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAahhhhhh pfffffft.

:lol:

[TheEschaton]

Wow. I guess discovering DNA allows you to do whatever the hell you want.

[Gambler010]

This article doesn't hold any ground. His "statistics" dont include where he tested for, it is easy to go to your local 7/11, and test the clerk that probably hasn't even finished High School yet.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

NO WAI! He and Al Gore are super geniuses (is the plural of Genius Genii?). Anyway. The earth is gonna spontaneously combust and only Europeans can save us from it!

It's true because they both won the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Blazing247]

I should've taken the bet I was offered about Blazing contributing to this topic.

You definitely should have. About the only thing more likely than ME responding to a racial topic is Daniel, although he's usually a day or so late as it takes him time to don his Captain Racism cape.

[Hulkein]

Seeing as I believe in evolution I don't think it's outrageous to hypothesis that a group of people who evolved relying more on their physical attributes to survive as opposed to their mental attributes would have less brain capacity yet more physical capacity.

[Gan]

DARWIN ALERT!!!

[Daniel]

I should've taken the bet I was offered about Blazing contributing to this topic.

Lol.

[Celephais]

Seeing as I believe in evolution I don't think it's outrageous to hypothesis that a group of people who evolved relying more on their physical attributes to survive as opposed to their mental attributes would have less brain capacity yet more physical capacity.
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/Whitemen.jpg

[Daniel]

You definitely should have. About the only thing more likely than ME responding to a racial topic is Daniel, although he's usually a day or so late as it takes him time to don his Captain Racism cape.

It usually takes you a full day or two to fully put the racism gears into motion. You initially start out with some closest statement that is hard to interpret, then after further questioning you come out with shit like "Well, have you ever done the supermarket cashier test".

I applaud you on finally cutting to the point.

[Stanley Burrell]

There is no place for racism, bigotry or Tabor in academia. Ever.

If you want to actively research racism as a social science, that's fine. Base pairing of nucleotide sequences and phosphodiester bonds have zilch to do with the notion of intelligence, especially with regards to how Watson & Crick published them.

It's astounding that someone like this would actually confuse something as simple as sociocultural differences into his own personal racial prerogative.

[TheEschaton]

I feel like being an ass in tonight's postings, mainly because I'm a bit drunk, and both the BoSox AND Rutgers won, extending the ALCS and PUSHING BC TO THE TOP 2!!!!!!

(And thisi s the thread at the bottom of the pile).

FUCK James Watson.

-TheE-

[diethx]

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/Whitemen.jpg

:rofl: That is fucking awesome.

[Whimsi]

He's apologetic it seems:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ha6Uxje06Fv054CU7LwK0-qiqNogD8SC14GO0


Watson is in Britain to promote his new book, "Avoid Boring People," and a publicist for his British publisher provided this statement Thursday to The Associated Press:

"I am mortified about what has happened," Watson said. "More importantly, I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said.

"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

[Whimsi]

Wow. I guess discovering DNA allows you to do whatever the hell you want.

Yeah, just like doing just about anything else allows you to do whatever the hell you want...

[Satira]

It usually takes you a full day or two to fully put the racism gears into motion. You initially start out with some closest statement that is hard to interpret, then after further questioning you come out with shit like "Well, have you ever done the supermarket cashier test".

LOLOLOL QFT

[Celephais]

The reason there is no "scientific basis" is because nobody is going to fund research to enforce negative steriotypes. It's blatently clear to me that genetic factors play a role in nearly every aspect of a human being, do I think that makes one genetic tree "inferior" no, but I certainly think certain trees are specialized for certain tasks.

It's seriously like kindergarden, "everybody is a winner", some kids are just dumb. And just like genetics, we need to pussyfoot around it, obviously there are exceptions and I think nurture can overcome nature, but it plays a role certainly.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u222/GuinnessKMF/Laider.jpg

As a side note... really cool website showing the progression of homo sapien and our phylogenetic "network" http://www.roperld.com/HomoSapienEvents.htm

[DeV]

There is no place for racism, bigotry or Tabor in academia. Ever.

It's astounding that someone like this would actually confuse something as simple as sociocultural differences into his own personal racial prerogative.Agreed x3.

Africans just need to ensure that their childrens is learning and they'll be all good.

[Latrinsorm]

It's seriously like kindergarden, "everybody is a winner", some kids are just dumb. And just like genetics, we need to pussyfoot around it, obviously there are exceptions and I think nurture can overcome nature, but it plays a role certainly.The first step towards demonstrating this kind of thing would be to demonstrate that "African" is a legitimate genetic term: that is to say, that Africans are genetically distinct in some way from Europeans (or whiteys in general). If you look at taxonomy before and after genetic studies, it's pretty interesting how often things got switched around.

As to the site you posted, I didn't see any mention of Yakub or Patmos so it's clearly false.

[Celephais]

The first step towards demonstrating this kind of thing would be to demonstrate that "African" is a legitimate genetic term: that is to say, that Africans are genetically distinct in some way from Europeans (or whiteys in general). If you look at taxonomy before and after genetic studies, it's pretty interesting how often things got switched around.

As to the site you posted, I didn't see any mention of Yakub or Patmos so it's clearly false.
I just took the term "Africans" to mean at some branching point. As he didn't actually perform a study he didn't actually study a particular defined geneticly distinct group, and I am not actually defending his statement, I'm saying that it's genetically possible.

The site isn't a be all end all resource on genetic tracing, but it certainly is interesting for someone who doesn't know too much in the field (that'd be me. Perfect timing too... I found the site after reading about the peruvian discovery on tuesday morning quarterback earlier this week). If you've got a better one, I'd be interested.

[Latrinsorm]

In early Nation of Islam teachings, Yakub was this scientist who "bred" a white race into existence from the previously black human race to take over the world (for some reason). I saw a reference to Noah's flood and thought that would be a fun reference to make in jest: I wasn't saying (genuinely) that the site was unreliable.

On the other hand, I can't read TMQ anymore. The guy is ridiculous.

[Clove]

The first step towards demonstrating this kind of thing would be to demonstrate that "African" is a legitimate genetic term: that is to say, that Africans are genetically distinct in some way from Europeans (or whiteys in general). If you look at taxonomy before and after genetic studies, it's pretty interesting how often things got switched around.

As to the site you posted, I didn't see any mention of Yakub or Patmos so it's clearly false.

I agree with Latrin on this. I would assume that you'd have to define the genetic group first and I think as we "mix it up" more and more that this will become increasingly difficult. Especially in countries like the United States, Canada etc.

I also agree with Celephais, however, that not all things will be equal in genetic groups just because they're all human beings; IF the group is unique and isolated enough.

[TheEschaton]

But there's been studies showing that there technically aren't any genetically identifiable seperate races among homo sapiens. There are genetic differences, yes, but there is only one human race.

Now, saying that there are significant enough genetic differences in human groups which are based solely on environment....that might be difficult.

Now, if your hypothesis was: genetically, and physiologically, all human beings are the same, but traditionally and culturally human beings in different places have focused on different things, I would agree with that. It's already been said, though, in a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel. There's an idea that because Europe was so cold, human beings living there had to think longer and deeper on ways to survive. In Africa, despite how hot it is, if you have water nearby to keep hydrated, you're pretty good.


-TheE-

[Clove]

But there's been studies showing that there technically aren't any genetically identifiable seperate races among homo sapiens. There are genetic differences, yes, but there is only one human race.

Now, saying that there are significant enough genetic differences in human groups which are based solely on environment....that might be difficult.

Now, if your hypothesis was: genetically, and physiologically, all human beings are the same, but traditionally and culturally human beings in different places have focused on different things, I would agree with that. It's already been said, though, in a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel. There's an idea that because Europe was so cold, human beings living there had to think longer and deeper on ways to survive. In Africa, despite how hot it is, if you have water nearby to keep hydrated, you're pretty good.


-TheE-

Of course we're all the same race but listen to yourself E. You can see SUPERFICIAL DIFFERENCES OF GENETIC GROUPS WITH YOUR TWO FUCKING EYES. Skin color, hair-shaft, eye shape. Given that, wouldn't it be possible there for there to be more significant genetic differences between groups of humans that have lived in the same area over thousands of years?

[TheEschaton]

Physical differences that are a result of thousands of years of environmental changes? No, I would not say those are genetic, but purely environmental.

Color, hair type, are definitely due to environmental factors, and are genetic insomuch as an environment like Africa might favor a kinked-hair type moreso than straight hair (which, I might note, isn't uniform, as people from tropical regions the rest of the world round tend to have straight hair).

-theE-

[Celephais]

Of course we're all the same race but listen to yourself E. You can see SUPERFICIAL DIFFERENCES OF GENETIC GROUPS WITH YOUR TWO FUCKING EYES. Skin color, hair-shaft, eye shape. Given that, wouldn't it be possible there for there to be more significant genetic differences between groups of humans that have lived in the same area over thousands of years?
Completely agree, hair, skin melanin, bone structure are all physical attributes of the body... guess what, your brain is a physical attribute of your body. There is no reason that genetic makeup couldn't alter the capacities and abilities of a human brain.

Nurture might have a huge impact on how those capacities and abilities are realized, but that's not to say that your genes have no influence.

[Celephais]

Color, hair type, are definitely due to environmental factors, and are genetic insomuch as an environment like Africa might favor a kinked-hair type moreso than straight hair (which, I might note, isn't uniform, as people from tropical regions the rest of the world round tend to have straight hair).
All genetics are "passed on" enviromental influences. If an African moved to an area that disfavored kinked-hair, his next kid wouldn't have unkinked hair. I would be willing to say that absolutely EVERYTHING in our genetic makeup is an influence of the enviroment at one point in time.

[ElanthianSiren]

wow, I can't believe this is still going on.

He said something stupid, and there's absolutely no way of defending what he said. It doesn't diminish his contribution to the scientific community, without which, we wouldn't really even have biochemistry and hence none of the fun drugs the guys all use so much on the PC (viagra yay!).

And yes, pigmentation differences, in general in eukaryotes, not including plants or protists, are environmental. There's absolutely no difference in the melanocyte concentration (cells that make melanin) between someone living in africa and n. america. Phsyiologically, we are the same. Genetically, people living in climates with more direct sunlight over many generations tend to have genes that tell the melanocytes to make more melanin, hence darker skin color. That's all it is.

As for studies, supposedly some were done on Scottish brains versus English brains in the 1800s. They were sponsered by English richies, and so of course, the English were shown as smarter. Then, you also have the french studies that claimed criminals were destined to be criminals, which were also debunked. That's a hard argument to tow.

1,000 lashes to ignorant old men. :blndwhip:

[Clove]

Physical differences that are a result of thousands of years of environmental changes? No, I would not say those are genetic, but purely environmental.

Color, hair type, are definitely due to environmental factors, and are genetic insomuch as an environment like Africa might favor a kinked-hair type moreso than straight hair (which, I might note, isn't uniform, as people from tropical regions the rest of the world round tend to have straight hair).

-theE-

:wtf: Genetic differences evolve over thousands of years in response to specific environmental challenges. At least that's my recollection of Bio. 101. What exactly IS your definition of a genetic difference? We're not talking about what CAUSED it, only that the differences exist across humanity.

[Clove]

wow, I can't believe this is still going on...

...Genetically, people living in climates with more direct sunlight over many generations tend to have genes that tell the melanocytes to make more melanin, hence darker skin color. That's all it is...


Except that it's not all. There is also hair shaft, epicanthal fold, not to mention genetic predisposition to certain diseases such as sickle cell, genetic predisposition to certain intolerances etc. For the most part lots of the identified differences are superficial- but since they do exist isn't it possible that more substantial genetic predispositions exist?

Please don't interpret this to mean that I believe that different groups of people are inferior because of genetic differences. But there are differences. The fact that people don't even want to discuss the possibility, let alone research it puts me in mind of Galileo.

[Some Rogue]

Except that it's not all. There is also hair shaft, epicanthal fold, not to mention genetic predisposition to certain diseases such as sickle cell, genetic predisposition to certain intolerances etc. For the most part lots of the identified differences are superficial- but since they do exist isn't it possible that more substancial genetic predispositions exist?

Please don't interpret this to mean that I believe that different groups of people are inferior because of genetic differences. But their are differences. The fact that people don't even want to discuss the possibility, let alone research it puts me in mind of Galileo.

You better be quiet or the political correctness police will be knocking on your door. You know anything deemed remotely offensive to anyone cannot be uttered anymore.

[ElanthianSiren]

Except that it's not all. There is also hair shaft, epicanthal fold, not to mention genetic predisposition to certain diseases such as sickle cell, genetic predisposition to certain intolerances etc. For the most part lots of the identified differences are superficial- but since they do exist isn't it possible that more substancial genetic predispositions exist?

Please don't interpret this to mean that I believe that different groups of people are inferior because of genetic differences. But their are differences. The fact that people don't even want to discuss the possibility, let alone research it puts me in mind of Galileo.

So you're saying mutant type sickle cell is never beneficial? aa #6 on sickle cell is valine. Valine is a non polar amino acid; whereas in standard RBCs, the amino acid is glutamic acid, which is acidic. When valine replaces it due to the altered genetic code, the cells clump. Not surprisingly, this clumping actually enables cells to avoid malaria better than normal RBCs. Malaria being an environmental hazard and all... I think that's a point for me.

I can't though, for the life of me, think of an evolutionary application where a benefit would be reduced intelligence... well maybe the pc, but we haven't been around that long :P

[Clove]

So you're saying mutant type sickle cell is never beneficial? aa #6 on sickle cell is valine. Valine is a non polar amino acid; whereas in standard RBCs, the amino acid is glutamic acid, which is acidic. When valine replaces it due to the altered genetic code, the cells clump. Not surprisingly, this clumping actually enables cells to avoid malaria better than normal RBCs. Malaria being an environmental hazard and all... I think that's a point for me.

I can't though, for the life of me, think of an evolutionary application where a benefit would be reduced intelligence... well maybe the pc, but we haven't been around that long :P

I said different not necessarily beneficial. My intuition tells me that most genetic evolutions would trend over time to improve survival in whatever particular environment it's in. However, useless and mildly unbeneficial traits must crop up (and persist) as well.

While it may be true that sickle cells are more resistant of malaria, considering that it's classified as a disease which I take to mean the condition is very unsuited to survival in general; what you're saying seems similar to "having no eyes keeps you from getting impaired by sudden bright lights".

I can't think of a stituation where less intelligence improves your chances of survival either, but I don't discount the possibility that genetic groups could include a diminished potential.

[Hulkein]

What is the benefit to being physically slower than another group of people? Are you telling me that you don't believe that blacks are inherently more athletic?

[Clove]

In reality only being a sickle carrier raises your malaria survival chances. Having sickle cell just makes you very sick. And it's a strange adaptation when 1/4 of your children will have normal susceptability to local disease, 1/2 will have resistance and 1/4 will be horribly impaired; which is the situation that occurs when two sickle carriers have children.

Once you're out a region of intense malaria exposure that trait selects out pretty quickly. It's recessive which is why it works at all. It offers increased survival to some and drops off fast when it isn't needed anymore.

It's a strange and counterintuitive adaptation which leads me to believe that all sorts of equally strange and counterintuitive adaptations are possible (even if we don't like the implications). I don't really think the universe cares about how we think it ought to work.

[Celephais]

I can't though, for the life of me, think of an evolutionary application where a benefit would be reduced intelligence... well maybe the pc, but we haven't been around that long :P
Are you kidding? Do you seriously not see that the "benefit" would be MORE intelligence in Europeans, nobody is saying that the possibility is that africans evolved into being stupider, they are saying they didn't need to develop the level of intelligence that Europeans in a "harsher intellectual" climate. Hell you can see it nowadays, as a white American I am in a climate where intelligence and being able to spell/grammarize on a forum is an asset, whereas if I was a black American I would need to develop skills in basketball, as conjugating is optional. If more intelligence doesn't really get you any benefit, there is no evolutionary predisposition to passing that trait on.

[Nieninque]

Is it not just different applications of intelligence, rather than more intelligence.

I know some pretty stupid Europeans.

[Clove]

Is it not just different applications of intelligence, rather than more intelligence.

I know some pretty stupid Europeans.

So do we.... :love:

[Nieninque]

Yeah...fuc....HEY!

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm not disputing the existence of a polygenetic assortment of traits known as intelligence. I'm disputing the Africans bit of the statement, which assumes that genetic assortment/selection etc occurred in a vacuume with little variation among constituents. It's just not that simple, especially with polygenes.

Also, even homozygous "very sick" sickle cell individuals would live long enough to most likely reproduce. I can think of a better disease to further the argument you're making, though it isn't as wide spread as SC and Sean2 will come in and cry.

Celephais, I hope that post was intended to make us laugh, or I've been awake too long and need a nap.

[Celephais]

Is it not just different applications of intelligence, rather than more intelligence.
Perfectly acceptable response IMO... but reaking of political correctness. But at least you're willing to accept that there are genetic influences over our mental facilities.


I know some pretty stupid Europeans.
... and one of the worlds best golfers is black ... and Yao Ming is a tall chinamen... and I know a sober irishman... and there might be a brave person somewhere in France.



Celephais, I hope that post was intended to make us laugh, or I've been awake too long and need a nap.
The italics didn't give me away? I was serious in the notion that one group of individuals, lets call them "Team Saltine" are exposed to an enviroment where intellectual superiority is needed to survive, but physical attributes are not heavily tested, and then another group of individuals, lets call them "Team Grape Soda" are exposed to an enviroment where physical hardships are the norm and there is less incentive to be creative and innovative than physically fit.

I wouldn't say that TGS's non-development of a pre-disposition to intelligence in their genes is a disadvantage, because they didn't need to develop it, but TS developed a portion of their brains as a needed advantage. *This is all hypothetical, I've done no research nor am I claiming this is true, I'm just saying it isn't scientifically unbased to propose it as a theory. Genetics (enviroment over time) can influence intelligence.

Are iguana's inferior to penguins because they haven't developed a waterproof layer of insulation? No it's a tool they didn't need...

[Stanley Burrell]

Yeah. Just to reiterate:

If anyone at grand rounds did this shit, I'd bust out how random assembly sequencing creates the greatest abundance of adaptive characteristics and start doing a reverse-racist thesis on how mixed gene pools are the biological Übermensch.

When security escorted me out, I'd do a really decent figure 1.a of the middle metacarpal.

Watson is all QQ @ Okazaki.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Celephais
Perfectly acceptable response IMO... but reaking of political correctness. But at least you're willing to accept that there are genetic influences over our mental facilities.

I got a different take from her post. Rather than her accepting that genetics have influence over ones mental facilities I took it as:

Assuming (since at this point we don't know) that the capacity for information and development is equal amongst various races it's the application of the banked information that sets cultures apart in addition to the ability to spread information.

[Sean of the Thread]

I've started my "DIABETES DIATRIBE"all rights reserved countdown timer on this thread in case anyone was wondering.

[Kranar]

I think some serious misconceptions are being made with respect to how phenotypes arise. For one, phenotypes do not arise as a result of ones environment. If a population of white skinned people move to Africa and they only reproduce with other white skinned people, millions of years will go by and not a single descendant will be a pinch darker in skin colour. It's not like the environment creeps into their genes and manipulates them to make them darker.

As such, the argument that somehow in Europe humans needed intelligence so much more than they needed some other phenotype, that they just managed get that phenotype, and for who knows what reason lose other ones, is suspect at best.

Another note I wanted to point out is the idea that genes and phenotypes have to somehow be beneficial to us for them to exist or get passed on down generations. This couldn't be further from the truth. Many of your genes produce phenotypes that are harmful to you, some even result in your death. The reason why we have the phenotypes we have isn't a result of whether it's somehow beneficial to us or not, it's whether that phenotype is beneficial to its own self, whether that phenotype helps its own individual self to replicate. Many phenotypes benefit themselves at the expense of the living organism hosting it... those phenotypes do quite well.

All in all... the idea that somehow Africans aren't intelligent because in Africa no one needs to be as intelligent as Europeans really makes no sense. There is no basis to such a belief and historically when it's brought up, it's typically because some racist wants to find a way to justify that belief. That's why people continue to be skeptical of such research, why it's not likely to get much funding... it's not like people haven't gone down this road in the past.

You don't become intelligent because of your environment just like you (or your descendents) won't ever begin to grow fins because you decide you're going to live in the ocean. Evolution doesn't quite work like that.

And if anyone is really interested in this topic, one of the best books on this topic (and one of the best books you'll likely read period) is The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins. I'm also happy that someone mentioned Guns, Germs, and Steel, another excellent read on this issue.

[Celephais]

Pre-disposition is different than saying they'll magically sprout that genetic trait.

More importantly to what I was getting at (I latched on to the "need to be smart in europe" thing because it facilitated my point), do you believe it's possible for a phenotype to influence intellectual capacity (in any form)?

[Warriorbird]

I'll agree with Kranar. Both of those are great books.

[Nieninque]

Perfectly acceptable response IMO... but reaking of political correctness. But at least you're willing to accept that there are genetic influences over our mental facilities.

It isnt political correctness, its more a belief that intelligence is a different beast than knowledge...and ethocentric knowledge at that. I believe that intelligence is something that transcends race, class, sex, whatever else you may want to throw in there, but that people's experiences affect how that intelligence is applied.

[Daniel]

I said different not necessarily beneficial. My intuition tells me that most genetic evolutions would trend over time to improve survival in whatever particular environment it's in. However, useless and mildly unbeneficial traits must crop up (and persist) as well.

While it may be true that sickle cells are more resistant of malaria, considering that it's classified as a disease which I take to mean the condition is very unsuited to survival in general; what you're saying seems similar to "having no eyes keeps you from getting impaired by sudden bright lights".

I can't think of a stituation where less intelligence improves your chances of survival either, but I don't discount the possibility that genetic groups could include a diminished potential.

You can easily say this because you live in a country where Malaria was eradicated by a massive and sustained government action.

However, if you lived in the Tennessee valley or on the Eastern seaboard a couple hundred years ago, I doubt you'd look at things the same way.

[Clove]

I think some serious misconceptions are being made with respect to how phenotypes arise. For one, phenotypes do not arise as a result of ones environment. If a population of white skinned people move to Africa and they only reproduce with other white skinned people, millions of years will go by and not a single descendant will be a pinch darker in skin colour. It's not like the environment creeps into their genes and manipulates them to make them darker.

I disagree. As I understood evolution tiny random changes in genetic traits occur over many many generations and natural selection causes traits best suited to the organism's environment to remain. Which of course doesn't mean that all genetic qualities need to be beneficial to exist or be passed on; it does mean that a group of lily white humans plopped down in a sunny region may develop natural protections (such as darker skin) over millions of years.

I won't say there are groups of people that have a genetic predisposition to greater intelligence than others; only that it's conceivable. We'd have to able to define intelligence first and I think that subject is slippery in itself (like defining "wealthy" or "pornography").

I fear a "Gattaca-like" future if we aren't wise in how we respond our increasing understanding of genetic science; but the solution isn't denying possibilities because they could open a can of worms.

People have tried to prove that this or that race is "genetically inferior" in order to promote ignorance and oppression- it's concepts like "genetically inferior" that we need to eliminate. What would it really mean if one group had "more potential intelligence" or "greater dick-size potential" or "a resistance to heart disease" or "susceptibility to cancer" or on and on and on?
If we were able to determine the genetic likelihood a person would contract an incurable disease should we deny them health-care so resources go to "better bets" or should we prepare EXTRA insurances to cover their greater odds of suffering (just as an example).

All I'm trying to say is that it isn't information we need to fear- it's what we do with it.

[Daniel]

You missed the point where you can not create something that isn't there.

If the gene for creating more melanin is not present in white people then they simply won't create by being exposed to the sun. It's a far more likely scenario that the people who lacked the natural resistances to the sun and heat moved to colder and more suitable climates for themselves.

At the end of the day we are all human beings and making comments like he did like "Anyone who has ever had black employees will tell you how worthless they are" does nothing to further our knowledge of genetics and the human system. It simply polarizes the issue and detracts from the reality. Some of the smartest and greatest people in the world have originated on the African continent and there is no reason whatsoever to presuppose that the current situation of the continent is due to genetic differences.

To further illustrate my point: if we did the same thing, but used the time period of the dark ages you would find a european continent in absolute chaos while civilizations in Africa and the near east flourish with substantial intellectual feats, that even today are remarkable.

[Sean of the Thread]

You missed the point where you can not create something that isn't there.

.
GOD CAN

[Daniel]

Touche.

[Clove]

You can easily say this because you live in a country where Malaria was eradicated by a massive and sustained government action.

I can easily say this because I've had exposure to both sickle-cell anemia and malaria victims. Carriers have a resistance to malaria. Sickle-cell victims just have two big problems.


You missed the point where you can not create something that isn't there.

I haven't missed the point. Mutations to genes change them. All ordinary humans have melanin producing genes and these genes over many, many generations can undergo variations such as mutations that increase or decrease their melanin expression. How do you think greater melanin expressing genes evolved in the first place? We weren't dropped here with a final set of unchanging genes. Next you'll be telling me about the Ark.


At the end of the day we are all human beings and making comments like he did like "Anyone who has ever had black employees will tell you how worthless they are"

I don't think you'll find a single person advocating that sentiment here, or congratulating him for being an ass. Only that it could be true that groups of human beings may have varying potential that is limited by their DNA.

[Daniel]

I don't think you'll find a single person advocating that sentiment here, or congratulating him for being an ass. Only that it could be true that groups of human beings may have varying potential that is limited by their DNA.

*Reference Blazing247 in his first post.

Either way I think it's pretty ridiculous to start from that assumption. No one is saying that the possibility of differences between races is not there, but rather that if they are they are infinitely more shallow than the factors that inhibit growth as is.

The fact that the average african child may be illiterate compared to the average white child has probably very little to do with his genes and rather the social circumstances of his environment.

Africa is a really really shitty place right now, but it has not always been that way, and Europe doesn't exactly have the best history either.

[Clove]

*Reference Blazing247 in his first post.

You're being generous in my definition of "person".


Either way I think it's pretty ridiculous to start from that assumption. No one is saying that the possibility of differences between races is not there, but rather that if they are they are infinitely more shallow than the factors that inhibit growth as is.

I can agree with that. Or at least that we don't know which is the stronger influence. Personally my opinion is environment is strongest which is why I'm not afraid of where the genetic chips fall (and I don't think anyone else should be either).

[Latrinsorm]

I was serious in the notion that one group of individuals, lets call them "Team Saltine" are exposed to an enviroment where intellectual superiority is needed to survive, but physical attributes are not heavily tested, and then another group of individuals, lets call them "Team Grape Soda" are exposed to an enviroment where physical hardships are the norm and there is less incentive to be creative and innovative than physically fit.Every human group survived primarily due to intelligence though.

What do people have in mind specifically when they propose that Africa offered more physical challenges while Europe offered more intellectual ones?

I haven't read Richard Dawkins' book, but I hope he's better at being a biologist than the very poor sociologist he makes himself out to be.

[Sean of the Thread]

What do people have in mind specifically when they propose that Africa offered more physical challenges while Europe offered more intellectual ones?



White men can't jump?

[Kranar]

More importantly to what I was getting at (I latched on to the "need to be smart in europe" thing because it facilitated my point), do you believe it's possible for a phenotype to influence intellectual capacity (in any form)?

I most certainly do believe this. I for one hope that I am smarter than a hyena, and while hyenas certainly live in an environment much different than mine, I'm inclined to believe that it's my phenotype that makes me smarter.

What I mostly disagree with, and I do not accuse you of this, but I do accuse Watson of it, is the prejudgement that if somehow genetics play a role in human intelligence, then it's gotta be those African's who are the inferior ones. It irks me everytime this issue is brought up that if genetics play a role in human intelligence then it's gotta be the black people who are dumber. It just reeks of a subconscious racial bias. And then it's made worse with flimsy justifications thrown out to justify this possibility, like European geography somehow requires people to be oh so intelligent while in Africa all humans need to survive there is the ability to run fast and swing in trees. It's bothersome, it's not a productive approach to the issue or to science in general, and the hypothesis is not consistent with what modern evolutionary biologists have found.

So you will have to forgive me and many others for being skeptical when this issue comes up and if we're less than forgiving about it.

[Kranar]

I disagree. As I understood evolution tiny random changes in genetic traits occur over many many generations and natural selection causes traits best suited to the organism's environment to remain. Which of course doesn't mean that all genetic qualities need to be beneficial to exist or be passed on; it does mean that a group of lily white humans plopped down in a sunny region may develop natural protections (such as darker skin) over millions of years.

Not so much relevent to the intellegence issue, but when it comes to natural selection, one must first define what the unit of selection is that lives into the future. You state that the unit of selection are the phenotypes that benefit the organism in an environment. It is certainly tempting to believe that it is the organism that must benefit, being human beings with a strong sense of individuality this would be our natural intuition. However strong this intuition is, it is incorrect.

The unit of selection is the gene. It is the gene that passes on from generation to generation, and as morbid as this sounds, the organism is just a vehicle, a machine that a collection of very "clever" genes engineered for themselves to efficiently replicate. Of course calling genes clever is just a figure of speech, but the point is that it doesn't matter if a gene benefits an organism and many genes actually benefit themselves by harming the organism they inhabit. Why do we have male and female genders? Why not everyone just be the same sex? It's not because gender benefits the organism, it's because the gene(s) responsible for gender have cleverly managed to ensure a 100% success rate of propagating itself into offspring whereas say, the gene(s) responsible for blue eyes were not as "clever". It couldn't matter less if it benefits the organism or not, all that matters is that the gene benefits its own self. Senescence (bodily deterioration from old age) is an example of a gene that benefits itself at the expense of the host and yet it too has managed a 100% rate of success.

So yes, while it is tempting to want to believe that the organism, our mind and body are whom genes must serve and benefit in order to attain immortality, it is a false picture, an illusion. The more accurate picture is that it is the body that is the servant to the gene.

[Tsa`ah]

Every human group survived primarily due to intelligence though.

Exactly. More specifically they did so by removing themselves from the "natural" order of things.

Agriculture, voluntary breeding, shaping the environment to the needs of the society and so on. The "gist" of it wasn't much different from one continent to the next.


What do people have in mind specifically when they propose that Africa offered more physical challenges while Europe offered more intellectual ones?


I don't think anyone believing this has an answer. It's sheer ignorance.

When you get down to it, terrain is terrain and climate is climate. A population would have to adapt or die no matter where they were. It makes no difference if it's tundra, jungle, or desert. No specific terrain or climate is conducive to intelligence or anatomy.

One could argue that a social environment is, or rather necessity. Though these are, more often than naught, singular or exclusive discoveries ... not the product of an entire race of humanity.

[Blazing247]

*Reference Blazing247 in his first post.

Either way I think it's pretty ridiculous to start from that assumption. No one is saying that the possibility of differences between races is not there, but rather that if they are they are infinitely more shallow than the factors that inhibit growth as is.

The fact that the average african child may be illiterate compared to the average white child has probably very little to do with his genes and rather the social circumstances of his environment.

Africa is a really really shitty place right now, but it has not always been that way, and Europe doesn't exactly have the best history either.

Quote me where I said that, you fucking cocksucker. I don't believe I said anything to that effect. You're not exactly proof that black people are intelligent, you ignorant fuck.

[Gan]

Quote me where I said that, you fucking cocksucker. I don't believe I said anything to that effect. You're not exactly proof that black people are intelligent, you ignorant fuck.

Speaking of intelligent displays of predisposed European DNA...

:banghead:

This is the point where you should just walk away from this thread.

[Clove]

So yes, while it is tempting to want to believe that the organism, our mind and body are whom genes must serve and benefit in order to attain immortality, it is a false picture, an illusion. The more accurate picture is that it is the body that is the servant to the gene.

Yes. While it isn't necessary for the gene to express a trait that benefits the organism, since the organism has to survive long enough to procreate in order for the gene to spread itself; ones that help their "host" do this have a competitive edge. Also if a trait doesn't advantage the individual sometimes it can be considered to advance the species. It might be better to say that natural selection generally improves an organism's ability to continue (both individually and wholly) but the general idea that selection improves the organism isn't at all false- it's one of the best ways a gene can continue itself for obvious reasons.

That being said, since a gene doesn't HAVE to benefit its host, all the more reason why one that might limit potential intelligence, creativity, agility etc could exist.

[Daniel]

As for "dealing with black employees" heh, has anyone ever done the "time the cashier" test in a supermarket?

Next.