No slave race: no evolution

[Blayz]

If a monkey, or a neanderthal, ever got supersmart, interbreeding and inbreeding would have destroyed the hypothetic supersmart characteristic and the lineage would regress back to the mean.

Wow. I mean, you actually have absolutely no idea at all about how evolution works, do you? I mean, forget the hard stuff that requires actual experience and study, even the simplest basics have simply flown over your head...or maybe they passed through your brain god hole?

It is easier for a fact to pass through TB's god hole than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...or something.

It's called selective pressure and/or natural selection. I am surprised that you have never heard of it. If a monkey got super smart and that super smartness conveyed some kind of fitness advantage, then the super smart monkey would be a more successful breeder and his super smart genes would pass through the population until they dominated.

You would only regress to the mean if there was no selective pressure and you had absolutely no knowledge of biology and statistics...since the laws of genetic drift say that even neutral traits can become fixed over time.

Get back to your big scary world argument TB, so far AV has made more sense than you.

 

[True_Blue]

Wow. I mean, you actually have absolutely no idea at all about how evolution works, do you? I mean, forget the hard stuff that requires actual experience and study, even the simplest basics have simply flown over your head...or maybe they passed through your brain god hole?

It is easier for a fact to pass through TB's god hole than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...or something.

It's called selective pressure and/or natural selection. I am surprised that you have never heard of it. If a monkey got super smart and that super smartness conveyed some kind of fitness advantage, then the super smart monkey would be a more successful breeder and his super smart genes would pass through the population until they dominated.

You would only regress to the mean if there was no selective pressure and you had absolutely no knowledge of biology and statistics...since the laws of genetic drift say that even neutral traits can become fixed over time.

Get back to your big scary world argument TB, so far AV has made more sense than you.

I understand selective pressure, Blayz. For selective pressure to work well, first, it's helpful to have asexual reproduction to prevent the genes of your mate from stripping out the characteristic from the genes of your children, and of course, erecti produce sexually. Second, it's helpful to have geographic isolation. But that's not present because your colleagues have assumed that away, and also our exploratory observation hasn't discovered any stupid, geographically isolated races, which itself is a damming observation against evolution. Third, it's helpful to actually have selective pressure, but all the observation and your colleagues have pointed out that Neanderthals are very intelligent, plus the fact that monkeys have survived just fine. With 21st century mores on racism, there isn't anything about the evidence that lends itself to human evolution.

 

[Blayz]

I understand selective pressure, Blayz. For selective pressure to work well, first, it's helpful to have asexual reproduction to prevent the genes of your mate from stripping out the characteristic from the genes of your children

You have got to be kidding me. Population genetics? Sampling Error?

Second, it's helpful to have geographic isolation.

Ahh, now you are confusing speciation with natural selection. I am beginning to get a glimpse of the mire of wrongness that is your understanding of this field...unless...wait...maybe you actually think that selection pressure requires geogrpahic isolation...

Maybe I should joing T in just pointing and screaming.

itself is a damming observation against evolution.

Nope, just a damning indictment of your woeful understadning of the topic.

Third, it's helpful to actually have selective pressure

Obviously you umean the asexual geographic isolation kind right?

With 21st century mores on racism, there isn't anything about the evidence that lends itself to human evolution.

Correction, there is nothing in your sad misunderstadning of the field that lends itself to evolution. Fortunately for me and my 20 years of working in the field,

You Are Wrong.

 

[Vene]

I understand selective pressure, Blayz. For selective pressure to work well, first, it's helpful to have asexual reproduction to prevent the genes of your mate from stripping out the characteristic from the genes of your children, and of course, erecti produce sexually.

What? No, just no. The recombination of genes during sexual reproduction increase variability, not decrease it. You are a fool. For the sake of your company never review the research, let somebody who actually has an understanding of it take care of that. Let a brain damaged chimp take care of it. Please, tell me you take care of the accounting or legal work or something.

 

[Blayz]

What? No, just no. The recombination of genes during sexual reproduction increase variability, not decrease it. You are a fool. For the sake of your company never review the research, let somebody who actually has an understanding of it take care of that. Let a brain damaged chimp take care of it. Please, tell me you take care of the accounting or legal work or something.

Or at least give us the name of the comapny. I have a biotech investment portfolio, and I'd hate to waste my money on your doomed venture.

 

[True_Blue]

What? No, just no. The recombination of genes during sexual reproduction increase variability, not decrease it. You are a fool. For the sake of your company never review the research, let somebody who actually has an understanding of it take care of that. Let a brain damaged chimp take care of it. Please, tell me you take care of the accounting or legal work or something.

Just about everything about sexual reproduction is antithetical to evolution, Vene. I'm not the least bit surprised about your first sentence, and I'm not surprised about your second sentence. Sexual reproduction causes mean regression on both ends. If you look at dynasties over time, extremely fit rulers that come to dominate those around them and create empires are followed by increasingly less fit successors that increasingly resemble the average of humanity. I've observed in my own family and in the literature that sexual reproduction strips out undesirable genetic defects.

Beyond that, the evolution of sexual reproduction in the first place makes no sense to me. "The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

 

[Bombila]

If one argues that no slave race existed because of interbreeding, I would point out that the breeding of animals leads to differentiation, not synthesis. That’s why we have distinct racial groups in the first place among humans and animals alike. Birds of a feather flock together. If a monkey, or a neanderthal, ever got supersmart, interbreeding and inbreeding would have destroyed the hypothetic supersmart characteristic and the lineage would regress back to the mean. An evolutionist must either believe that some races would be smarter than others, or the collective whole would gradually become smarter, like a world full of Einstein-like geniuses. I actually believe the opposite--that the human race on average has become less biologically intelligent over time, in conformity with the 2nd Law. Anyone who reads each of the English language Bible translations from the 1500s to the present can see a clear decay in the quality of the human mind reflected in the use of the English language.

If the complete skeletons are all like the skeleton in the picture on Wikipedia, we have 400 complete human skeletons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal.

My art is absolutely awful. Also, the aborigines on Tazmania were shockingly destitute, according to the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, lacking fire, bows and arrows, and other basics that one would think are absolutely necessary for survival.

You are clearly in over your head on this topic, as others have already noted, and I will leave the biologists to explain your errors, as they can do that better than I can.

If you are basing your belief that intellectual acheivement has declined on the basis of the quality of Bible translation over time, then I urge you to look right in front of you at the computer, keyboard and monitor you are using, consider the internet you are connected to, and then look around at your comfortable home and your well fed family. These things did not come about magically; the intellect and industry of modern people led to their invention and production.

I don't know what your reference to your artistic abilities signifies, but if you are awful at art, it is because you have not developed a capacity to think visually: it is a skill that can be both taught and learned, and is a pre-requisite for being able to draw - most people who have need of this skill pick it up as they study in their chosen field. I have taught people these skills myself. This lack might explain your comment about the Wiki skeleton: you don't see the marked differences between modern human and Neanderthal skull and skeleton because you have not learned to be visually discerning. I assure you, the differences are glaringly obvious to me, and I am neither a doctor nor an anthropologist.

[Diamond's discussion regarding the Tasmanian Aborigines was lacking in more recent research, which indicates their situation was more complex than first thought. They had not, for instance, lost the ability to make fires. However, that is a sideline topic that I'm only glancingly familiar with, so not prepared to argue about.]

 

[Vene]

Just about everything about sexual reproduction is antithetical to evolution, Vene. I'm not the least bit surprised about your first sentence, and I'm not surprised about your second sentence. Sexual reproduction causes mean regression on both ends. If you look at dynasties over time, extremely fit rulers that come to dominate those around them and create empires are followed by increasingly less fit successors that increasingly resemble the average of humanity. I've observed in my own family and in the literature that sexual reproduction strips out undesirable genetic defects.

Beyond that, the evolution of sexual reproduction in the first place makes no sense to me. "The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

That's because of inbreeding where recessive genetic diseases are able to spread. If they were to breed with the general population, it wouldn't be an issue. Sex increases variability, it doesn't reduce it. The link you provided even says that. Or did you just read the first sentence? I bet you did. Sections 3, 4, and 5 cover evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction.

And it's not like an unknown is a bad thing in science. It's expected. In fact, the wiki article gave a few ideas proposed by biologists to explain where sexual reproduction came from.

Actually, if a few unknowns make a theory invalid, I guess gravity is false too.
Look, anomalies (link)
Here's an article about problems in the theory of gravity (link)
Teach the controversy! Go Intelligent Falling!
Hey, I'm just using the same line of reasoning you are.
[sub](the last link is a parody, I just want to make sure you're clear on that True_Blue)[/sub]

 

[Split Rock]

If one argues that no slave race existed because of interbreeding, I would point out that the breeding of animals leads to differentiation, not synthesis.

No one is claiming that interbreeding prevented Neanderthals from becoming slaves. It only would show Neanderthals were similar enough to humans to interbreed, and not some dumb rejects that had to be enslaved.

That’s why we have distinct racial groups in the first place among humans and animals alike. Birds of a feather flock together. If a monkey, or a neanderthal, ever got supersmart, interbreeding and inbreeding would have destroyed the hypothetic supersmart characteristic and the lineage would regress back to the mean.

Please read this carefully. Populations evolve, not individuals! If a trait benefits a population in a particular environment, it will tend to increase in frequency in that population.

An evolutionist must either believe that some races would be smarter than others, or the collective whole would gradually become smarter, like a world full of Einstein-like geniuses. I actually believe the opposite--that the human race on average has become less biologically intelligent over time, in conformity with the 2nd Law. Anyone who reads each of the English language Bible translations from the 1500s to the present can see a clear decay in the quality of the human mind reflected in the use of the English language.

Now you are just making up assertions. Show us some concrete evidence that average human intelligence has decreased from 1500 to today. I do not see how changes in the english language constitute such evidence. You do realize that all human languages are equally complex? And please stop butchering the Second Law of Thermodynamics... it is bad enough you are butchering evolution and genetics.

If the complete skeletons are all like the skeleton in the picture on Wikipedia, we have 400 complete human skeletons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal.

There are specific differences, although they are similar. The skull of Neanderthals is lower on top with brow ridges and no chin. The lower leg bones are short. The chest is barrel-shaped. etc,

My art is absolutely awful. Also, the aborigines on Tazmania were shockingly destitute, according to the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, lacking fire, bows and arrows, and other basics that one would think are absolutely necessary for survival.

Artistic skill form a continium from poor to excellent in our population, just as it must have with Neanderthals. What is your point? The Tazmanian aboringines surely used tools. Just different ones. Neanderthals also used tools, but different from the modern humans they interacted with.

 

[Vene]

lol, ignored post

Nobody tell him that is not how natural selection and genetic drift work. It's funnier if he's wrong.

I see he also doesn't understand that the term "race" is meaningless in biology.

How in the world does f=ma relate to biology?


Yes, Neanderthals were human, that is why there are in the genus homo. The differences are subtle, but they are there, especially in the skull. Play close attention to the brow.

Compared to this:

My art sucks too, what's your point? Especially when things like this are made.

 

[Split Rock]

I understand selective pressure, Blayz. For selective pressure to work well, first, it's helpful to have asexual reproduction to prevent the genes of your mate from stripping out the characteristic from the genes of your children, and of course, erecti produce sexually.

What are you talking about?? How can it be helpful to have asexual reproduction to prevent genes from a mate from affecting your children? Asexual reproduction means there is no mate! In any case, sexual reproduction increases variation by assortive mating. It also may allow for sympatric speciation (ie without isolation).

Second, it's helpful to have geographic isolation. But that's not present because your colleagues have assumed that away, and also our exploratory observation hasn't discovered any stupid, geographically isolated races, which itself is a damming observation against evolution.

More nonsense. Modern humans evovled in Africa, and then migrated out from there. Who has assumed away geographic isolation? Also, why would we expect to find a popualtion of stupid humans anywhere? What would be the advantage in such a trait if a popualtion of humans was isolated?

Third, it's helpful to actually have selective pressure, but all the observation and your colleagues have pointed out that Neanderthals are very intelligent, plus the fact that monkeys have survived just fine. With 21st century mores on racism, there isn't anything about the evidence that lends itself to human evolution.

There is nothing but evidence in favor of humans evolving from lower primates. That is what the anatomical, biochemical, genetic, embryological, paleontological evidence ALL point to.

 

[huldah153]

We wouldn't have had much use for Neanderthals as slaves.

After all, we weren't designing pyramids, colosseums, palaces, fortifications or canals.

 

[Vene]

We wouldn't have had much use for Neanderthals as slaves.

After all, we weren't designing pyramids, colosseums, palaces, fortifications or canals.

They died out 30,000 years ago. Those structures are too new for Neanderthal slaves to account for their construction.

 

[huldah153]

They died out 30,000 years ago. Those structures are too new for Neanderthal slaves to account for their construction.

I don't think the Cro-Magnons would've needed any assistance with the cave paintings either.

 

[Bombila]

It is unlikely much slave labour was used in building the pyramids. There is speculation that some of the work was done by zealous volunteers from all over Egypt, wanting to participate in what was essentially a religious effort. But it is known that most of the workforce was paid, and the first workers strike in recorded history happened on that construction site. The workers' complaint was that they were owed backpay, and that they weren't being given enough onions in their food allotments.

 

[Naraoia]

Here's an except from the quoted article that makes me stroke my chin:

"They discovered that the brain at the time of birth was of exactly the same size as a typical human newborn. It had a volume of about 400 cubic centimetres. However, the skeleton was considerably more robustly formed than that of a modern human newborn."

It's rather difficult to study the cognitive function of Neanderthal newborns if all you have is a skull sans brain, and the brain is exactly the same size as a human baby.

I don't think I wanted to say anything about cognitive function. I posted the link in relation to the breeding rate of Neanderthals.

"Skeleton robustness" seems racial, not evolutionary.

Racial, not evolutionary? How do you think races form?

"As far as birth, development of the brain and life history are concerned, we are astonishingly similar to each other", says Dr. Ponce de León.

hmmmmm......

Hmmm...?

 

[True_Blue]

I don't think I wanted to say anything about cognitive function. I posted the link in relation to the breeding rate of Neanderthals. Racial, not evolutionary? How do you think races form?

Hmmm...?

Races [the scientific idea of species is a broken concept] of humans and animals form when groups become geographically isolated from a collective. Once isolated, and the isolation does not have to be complete, certain genetic traits become more fully expressed within that subset through repeated interbreeding. The differentiated characteristics, like hair and skin color, for example, form the basis of what we call races, and when applied to animals, plants, etc. by scientists, are the bases of differentiation between species, genuses, families, and, if the scientists really screw up, orders.

 

[Markus6]

Races [the scientific idea of species is a broken concept] of humans and animals form when groups become geographically isolated from a collective. Once isolated, and the isolation does not have to be complete, certain genetic traits become more fully expressed within that subset through repeated interbreeding. The differentiated characteristics, like hair and skin color, for example, form the basis of what we call races, and when applied to animals, plants, etc. by scientists, are the bases of differentiation between species, genuses, families, and, if the scientists really screw up, orders.

Doesn't sound like evolution at all

 

[Naraoia]

Races [the scientific idea of species is a broken concept] of humans and animals form when groups become geographically isolated from a collective. Once isolated, and the isolation does not have to be complete, certain genetic traits become more fully expressed within that subset through repeated interbreeding. The differentiated characteristics, like hair and skin color, for example, form the basis of what we call races, and when applied to animals, plants, etc. by scientists, are the bases of differentiation between species, genuses, families, and, if the scientists really screw up, orders.

So you know races are a product of evolution. Then why the stupid assertion in the previous post?

And no, the species is not a completely broken concept. It's the only rank in traditional Linnaean classification that sometimes (in relatively well-behaved, sexual organisms) comes close to representing a non-arbitrary entity. At least as far as I can judge from my short acquaintance with biology.

And since we have to classify the living world to make sense of it, what's your point?

 

[Bombila]

I don't think I wanted to say anything about cognitive function. I posted the link in relation to the breeding rate of Neanderthals. Racial, not evolutionary? How do you think races form?

Hmmm...?

TrueBlue's "Hmmm..." is meant to cast doubts on the existence of Neanderthals as a separate species of human. He would like to think they were a 'race', as current Asians are called a 'race', ignoring the DNA evidence which places Neanderthals as distinct from modern humans.

From John Hawks (paleoanthroploogist, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison) blog:

"....A complete mtDNA sequence provides a lot of sites, which allows a more precise estimate of the divergence time between recent human and Neandertal mtDNA lineages. The paper reports this time as 660,000 years ago, with a confidence interval from 520,000 to 800,000 years ago. That range of dates substantially overlaps with the prior estimates of divergence time, and is a pretty good match to the initial estimate based on a single HVR1 sequence in 1997."

"....Humans are all more similar to each other, when comparing the complete mtDNA genome, than any human is to a Neandertal. And in fact the Neandertal sequence is three or more times as different, on average, from us as we are from each other."

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals

I recommend Hawks' blog to anyone interested in anthropology. The quotes I just provided are from a bit down the page, if anyone's looking. You do have to be a little informed about genetics to understand some of his posts.