Challenge thread: Charles Darwin was racist... so what?

[Leaf473]

When Fire Met Food, The Brains of Early Humans Grew Bigger

Informative article!

The discovery of fire wouldn't have brought an end to natural selection imo.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think the environment itself would have to be capable of planning.

An example that doesn't involve intelligence, but does show how an environment can require planning is ancient Egypt. Dealing with the irrigation systems related to the flooding of the Nile produced an early civilization. Or so I've read.

If a protein-rich diet leads to a bigger brain, then the cat family would have bigger brains than ours imo.

Your phrasing very much made it sound like you were saying that it was the environment that was capable of planning.

And it's not just th eating of proteins, it's the way the proteins are used in brain development.

Informative article!

The discovery of fire wouldn't have brought an end to natural selection imo.

I never said it would. Natural selection is a continuous process, as long as there is an environment and beings in that environment to act on.

 

[Leaf473]

Your phrasing very much made it sound like you were saying that it was the environment that was capable of planning.

And it's not just th eating of proteins, it's the way the proteins are used in brain development.



I never said it would. Natural selection is a continuous process, as long as there is an environment and beings in that environment to act on.

So... natural selection affects everything that is the product of genetics, doesn't it?

And isn't the size and complexity of the brain a product of genetics?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So... natural selection affects everything that is the product of genetics, doesn't it?

And isn't the size and complexity of the brain a product of genetics?

Yes... and?

 

[Leaf473]

Yes... and?

And does it not follow that people living in different parts of the world would be naturally selected to have different brain size, levels of complexity, or different areas of complexity in their brains? Even if those differences cannot be measured today?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And does it not follow that people living in different parts of the world would be naturally selected to have different brain size, levels of complexity, or different areas of complexity in their brains? Even if those differences cannot be measured today?

No, not in the slightest. Because that is racist. Like... the sort of racism that people in the Victorian period would have supported.

 

[Leaf473]

No, not in the slightest. Because that is racist. Like... the sort of racism that people in the Victorian period would have supported.

Why would complexities in different areas of the brain not be selected?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why would complexities in different areas of the brain not be selected?

Because that's not how human evolution worked. All humans present in the world are the same genus, Homo Sapiens. If we still had remnants of the other Homo genera, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis, etc, which showed that a marked difference in brain capacity compared to Homo Sapiens, then maybe you'd have something.
But all humans are the same genus, so that question falls flat worse than a Scots poet drunk on Burn's Night.

 

[Leaf473]

Because that's not how human evolution worked. All humans present in the world are the same genus, Homo Sapiens. If we still had remnants of the other Homo genera, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis, etc, which showed that a marked difference in brain capacity compared to Homo Sapiens, then maybe you'd have something.
But all humans are the same genus, so that question falls flat worse than a Scots poet drunk on Burn's Night.

Do you agree that there are differences within the same genus?

I see that you talk about a marked difference.

I agree there is no marked difference. I don't think it follows that there is no difference of any kind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you agree that there are differences within the same genus?

I see that you talk about a marked difference.

I agree there is no marked difference. I don't think it follows that there is no difference of any kind.

I think you really just ignored what I wrote.

 

[Leaf473]

I think you really just ignored what I wrote.

Not at all. I read it carefully, that's how I spotted the use of Marked difference. I agree there isn't a marked difference.

Do you agree that there are at least some general characteristics that vary among humans, all of the same genus, from different parts of the world?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not at all. I read it carefully, that's how I spotted the use of Marked difference. I agree there isn't a marked difference.

Do you agree that there are at least some general characteristics that vary among humans, all of the same genus, from different parts of the world?

If you had read what I said, you'd know that I said there was a marked difference between Homo Sapiens and the earlier genera of Humans, which was something that was both physical and cranial too.

Yes, characteristics do evolve in populations based on specific environmental necessities. Skin colour, wider noses, body size. But those physical differences do not mean that an African man is a different species to a European man. They are still Homo Sapiens.

 

[Leaf473]

If you had read what I said, you'd know that I said there was a marked difference between Homo Sapiens and the earlier genera of Humans, which was something that was both physical and cranial too.

Yes. Was not the implication was that there is no marked physical or cranial difference within homo sapiens?

Yes, characteristics do evolve in populations based on specific environmental necessities. Skin colour, wider noses, body size. But those physical differences do not mean that an African man is a different species to a European man. They are still Homo Sapiens.

I agree that we are all homo sapiens.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes. Was not the implication was that there is no marked physical or cranial difference within homo sapiens?

There are characteristics of human bodies that do show whether a person was from one country or another, which a lot of people mistake for racial characteristics. Cranial differences though? I have very much yet to see any.

 

[Bradskii]

Is there something wrong with the logic that I've presented?

I believe I've already implied that data would be difficult to collect. And I'll add that historical evidence will tend to be subjective.

It's your subjective opinion I'd like.

 

[Astrid]

No, not in the slightest. Because that is racist. Like... the sort of racism that people in the Victorian period would have supported.

It's nothing to with whether it is "racist". It's whether it
happens to be so.
That said effect is undetectable is a sign.

 

[Astrid]

Yes. Was not the implication was that there is no marked physical or cranial difference within homo sapiens?

I agree that we are all homo sapiens.

The more sapiens ones spell it properly.

 

[AV1611VET]

The more sapiens ones spell it properly.

"Sapient" -- not "sapiens."

 

[Astrid]

physical characteristics are the obvious and needed difference to sustain these environments. In both environments the strongest survive and their "strongness" is passed down to the next generation. Comparing the strongest in different environments to see who is superior may be too difficult to measure.

Pluralism encourages critical thinking over segregation regardless of environmental factors but pluralism also increases the gene pool since more intermarry.

So the act of pulling someone out of their environment both stimulates critical thinking and increases the gene pool of their off spring, the latter may make race superiority immeasurable. Comparing strickly while still in their environments also is not fair because of critical thinking differences which are environment fostered.

If there are differences today it certainly is not big enough to matter that races don't naturally intermarry within pluralistic environments. Even within x environment the rich and powerful tend to interbreed with the rich and powerful producing off spring that are rich and powerful. But there's no special ingredient in their DNA that make them rich and powerful and most of the advantage is an environment that fosters the right thinking to keep them rich and powerful. X race may adopt Y race babies and they grow up as intelligent as as their adopted race is.

Hypothetically there could be a difference but our modern world is too pluralistic that the gene pool balances enough that the difference is not measurable. In fluid dynamics the process is called infusion and essentially it's the same thing happening with people. Over enough time it all balances out and there is no difference. Pluralism taken to the farest level will eliminate race all together and the other differences will be environmental.

How does " strongest" explain this?
Google Image Result for https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2020/02/03/14/olm.jpg?width=1200

 

[Astrid]

Stalker is another word that starts with s