Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Darwin and Social Darwinism.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 24th October 2010
Saw yesterday the film "What Darwin never knew"(US 2009). In fact I saw it on the French-German channel Arte as "ce que Darwin ne savait pas encore" (what Darwin still didn't know). It was interesting for my contributions in a thread on a French forum: "Détournement du Darwinisme par les idéologies extrêmes" (deviation of Darwinism by extremist ideologies) and another thread "Origin of Species: Charles Darwin".<BR /><BR />I first sought it in French and found it on Arte, but also found it in English:<BR /><LINK href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpjUHUGDk2Y">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpjUHUGDk2Y</LINK><BR />But searching for that video I came unvoluntary on another one, which is not so clear in my opinion as the American one:<BR />(it has only some letters difference in Google): "What Darwin didn't know":<BR /><LINK href="none"">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6wdzzTP7NM"</LINK><BR />It's from Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four.<BR />But will comment the two films tomorrow.<BR /><BR />Still reading the Dutch book from Cor Hermans: (translated title from Dutch): "The error journey of Social Darwinism. Earlier social interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection 1859-1918"<BR /><BR />Already at page 109. Not easy stuff to read for such a simple mind as I. Will give the link with the previous tomorrow too.<BR /><BR />Kind regards, <BR /><BR />Paul.<BR /><BR />
-
Message 2
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Monday, 25th October 2010
Hello Paul,
It seems to be an interesting programme. I'm sorry I have missed it.
The Â鶹ԼÅÄ will soon air David Attenborough's new series First Life, about the first stage of evolution in the seas.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 3
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 25th October 2010
Re: Message 2.
Poldertijger, (lol beeble),
thank you very much for your reply.
Reviewing again the last episodes of the Nova (american) documentary. It is very well made and I recommend it to every reader of these boards interested in the history of mankind. While history it is. Perhaps it is best placed on the "Ancients and Archaeology"..."ancients" hmm bit more: one billion (milliard)years...certainly: "Archaeology"... although it are recently more DNA studies, nevertheless archaeology has made great contibutions to the research of this history...
I realize now and I said it already on "our" French messageboard of history: the history of Social Darwinism isn't here on place, as it is the history of how people tried to look for examples in nature to organize the human society. And that is exactly what I am reading for the moment in the book that I mentioned from the Dutch Cor Hermans.
I will start it on the History Hub and I can already say that my opinion will be that one can't compare human society with nature, while there is the different organizing by humans, while they with their new "human" skills can react otherwise as in nature, even transform their environment for the good or the bad to fit with their desires. I will include also in that thread the comments on the book that Dai last mentioned on the Hub. The one from that other Dutchman: Frans de Waal.
Perhaps a word about the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four production, that you can compare with the American one. I said it also already on our French messageboard, I find the British one on the first sight (seen the two documentaries in some 4 hours) less clear in explaning the same matter (also on the first sight: the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four with British, European scientists and the American with American ones
, but it is amazing that they all "add" to the same "great" research...). Small additional note: I don't like the end (again on the first sight) of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ documentary with the "narrator" going in comtemplation how departing from nature human society could...some new Social Darwinism?
To come back on the subject and awaiting some comments from lol beeble, who helped me to understand in the past some difficult (for me) reasonings.
(about the Nova documentary)
Besides
the evoluting by eliminating during each generation of the individuals that have a lesser aptitude to survive in a given environment, so that only the ones who are better fitted to that environment can procreate(?) (ouf, not easy to give a definition...and in English (as a Dutch speaking one)
you had also 1)mutations, 2)switches and then 3) (and now I am a bit lost) genes which gives this switches orders, chemicals? (?) and then they spoke also about hox? ox? genes in the sequence about the arms and legs from the early stages on?
And lol, that introducing of that one kind of fish in that lake in (South-America?) extending to more than 600 species(?), was that a bottle neck in evolution as you explained once to me?
Kind regards and with esteem to both,
Paul. -
Message 4
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Saturday, 30th October 2010
Hello Paul,
David Attenborough's documentary Arrival, which is the first part of his series First Life, will be aired Friday 22:00 CET on Â鶹ԼÅÄ 2.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 5
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 30th October 2010
Re: Message 4.
Poldertijger,
thank you very much for the hint. They have some problems now on the direct URL and so I took the "cache"
s%2BFirst%2BLife/Nature/+%22first+life%22+%22bbc+2%22+attenborough&cd=4&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=be
They have it on I-player, but I am not allowed to look at it in "my area". That is Belgium for me. I suppose it will be the same in the Netherlands too. In any case will try to watch the document next Friday 5 November.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 1st November 2010
"Social Darwinism" has as much to do with Darwin as the term "Rectal Prolapse" has to do with rectitude.
Its actual title, should it be credited with originating from the ideaology of any one individual should really be "Social Spencerism", since it was Herbert Spencer who essentially misunderstood evolution as outlined by Darwin and assumed an extension into human social constructs, and it was also Spencer who coined that infamously fallacial expression "survival of the fittest", so ironically accredited to Darwin who had gone to such great pains to point out that "fit" and "strong" are by no means synonymous in evolutionary terms.
But even then one might also be doing Spencer himself a gross disservice since it could also be argued that those who took his faulty view on evolution and added a moralistic causality to it in order to egregiously justify socially acceptable policies advocating extermination of individuals did so in the full knowledge (at least at the beginning) that they were taking Spencer's philosophy in a direction he had never intended.
In summary therefore "Social Darwinism" is a triple misnomer:
It implies Darwinism as its source, which is wrong.
It employs Spencer's behavioural philosophy (egregiously) in order to construct a "social" doctrine, which is wrong.
It uses the word "social" in order to imply that any doctrine employed socially and quite subjectively in a moralistic and causal manner can be construed from naturalistic law, which is of course the wrongest bit of all! -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Yet, survival of the fittest exists very much but not of course in the way social darwinists told us and certainly not in the way many people imagined. And social darwinism IS applied on our everyday life, either we like it or not. Turning our eyes on the other side is counter-productive.
A typical case of social darwinism is the european royal families which on the one hand pretended to represent their nations while on the other hand considered them to be "too good" to mix with their nations and as such chose to marry only among themselves.
A pattern that was closely followed by, guess who, the international bankers - who form the next major inbred social class worldwide.
The rest is just dust and smoke on the eyes of people so as not to see the reality. -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Under Darwinism "fit" must be interpreted as "suitably adapted" or "suitably adaptable" - which gives the lie completely to the hijacking of the man's name to lend dubious credibility to subjective policies of social engineering involving extermination of individuals on the basis of notions of "weakness" and "strength".
I would prefer that people who subscribe to the notion of "survival of the fittest" in the sense you also use it, albeit in a critical manner, should also indicate they understand that it is a misuse of a term originated by Spencer, not Darwin.
I would also beg to point out that marrying within the confined numbers of members of a social elite class is - by a long shot - not the most glaringly destructive use of policies derived from the above misapplication of behavioural theory. In any case the genetic evidence would indicate it is a custom which had limited success whenit was widely practised and in recent years none at all since it appears to have been abandoned by the majority of those remaining within that class. -
Message 9
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Hello Paul, Nordman and Nik,
Darwin took his cue from Malthus Malthus was a sociologist, who conceived a dismal theory about the growth of the population; it would grow so much that farmers would be forced to put into use barren plots of land until their income would fall under subsistence level. This would lead to famine and the death of countless of unfit men and the selection of those that would be up to adverse circumstances.
This kind of reasoning was popular amongst the Whigs of the early 19th century; Cass has written quite a few messages about their philosophy.
Malthus couldn’t foresee the impact that industrialization would have on the welfare of the people. His theory was an accurate description, though, of the actual events at the beginning of the 19th century. Luckily, Malthus’ theory has been proved to be wrong because of the industrialization. His theory, on the other hand, was to get a new lease on life as Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 10
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Can I cheer please, Nordmann, the sometimes apparently wilful misinterpretation of 'fitness' has been a bugbear of mine for years. Why can some people not see that the spontaneous genetic mutation which gives an individual a reproductive advantage by better fitting an ecological niche is random and undirected and has no bearing whatsoever on wild theories of eugenics unless it is deliberately perverted. Darwin may have read Malthus but then, I've read the bible, it doesn't necessarily follow that I believe or choose to promulgate its teachings!
-
Message 11
Posted by Eliza (U14650257) on Monday, 1st November 2010
"Luckily, Malthus’ theory has been proved to be wrong because of the industrialization. "
I wouldn't be quite so optimistic! The world has proved, so far, to be able to support the current levels of population because of (a)increase in agricultural output due to factors such as mechanisaton of agriculture, chemical fertilisers, scientifically improved crop yields, scientifically developed pesticides and (b)because however many wretched people die of starvation, there's still enough left to replace them and more.
Overpopulation is THE gravest danger facing humanity, bar none (even climate change!)
At some point, the unchecked mass of humanity WILL press against available resources, however extended those resources are, because at some point the earth does have a finite energy capacity.
Unless population control is undertaken voluntarily, as has happened, largely, in the west (helped, obviously by medical contraception, as well as humans controling their lusts and urges to procreate!!!), which requires a degree of social engineering (rewarding small families, protecting them from the risks of few children - ie, giving them old age pensions and so on so they don't need a lot of children to support them etc).
Sadly, Malthus's predictions have only been deferred, not disproved.
In the end, Nature will find a balance on population, but it will happen by death, on a hideously large scale (even greater than that current from malnutrition and disease), rather than by voluntarily limited the earth's population in the common cause of humanity. -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Since I see there are open minded people here of varied personal views I have to state my perspective with a bit more detail.
We have to start by simple scientific facts:
Humans are animals like any other and like all animals present subspecies which in the human's case we call them races - I would mostly use the term anthropologic tribes as eg. there is no such thing as "white race" or "yellow race" or "black race" - just to give an example, what we call "white race" is actually a mix of distinct and quite disparate anthropologic races with the north and eastern part (i.e. central-eastern Scandinavia and all around Baltics) as well as much of Russia and Ukraine being actually Europeano-asiatic origins since pre-history (evidently Baltics did not get their asiatic looks and languages from Attila or Jenkis Han but preexisted there since prehistory). In the same extense, the Ethiopians and the Nigerians are as much apart as French and Russians. And original Bushmen in S.Africa used to be as close to Bantu tribes that later gave way to Zulus as Japanese were to the indigenous Ainou. In a few words, human anthropologic tribal variety is much larger than we tend to think.
Now the above is not even discussable, it is a reality well understood by the most educated down to the most illiterate and is something that is set aside only by those bound by religion, or propaganda - i.e. having anything else but scientific motives.
And I think, this is the worse. Instead of speaking about it we try to hide all the info down the carpet telling our kids that "every human is the same, every human is identical because every human must be equal" which is of course illogical as the fact that every human must be equal does not scientifically means that all humans are identical and the same.
Then our kids go to read on zoology, they get all the info about animals and their behaviours and skills and they take the example of the most studied animal the dog... where there are millions of lines of text about each dog race and its particular characteristics in terms of its intellectual skills, communication skills, interaction with humans, aggressive levels, skills of guarding and so on. And then our kids, who are smart enough will instantly make the connection: "If we speak such for dogs, how on earth this does not apply on humans"?
Well. To this question no science has any answer. The answer comes from religion and political propaganda: "Shut up and stop asking questions. All people are the same, end of story".
Then some of you might say "Well what you want, to start again the debate of superior and inferior tribes"? Well why does it have to be either black or white? Speaking of human differences means instantly speaking of superior and inferior tribes? Human differences are there and they do exist as much as they exist in dogs. People are 80% what they are born and 20% what they are formed to be socially throughour their lifes. It goes without saying that it is this 20% that is most critical in what they will do and how they will perform. But it is on the 80% basis they will work.
Again this does not imply superior and inferior ones since to claim so, one has to define the level. Eg. if we speak of long distance running, East Africans (Ethiopian anthropologic tribe) are the superior ones ruling over all other tribes. If we speak of muscle power then Caucasian (this is not Europea, , Caucasians are Georgians, Armenians, Chechens, northern Iranians etc.) are the superior ones ruling over all other tribes. And so on. While for physical skills things are rather easy since they are directly measurable, for intellectual skills things are more blurred as there are billions of subjects to set and measure and necessarily results will depend more on the educational background, i.e. on the 20% social basis rather than the 80% biological basis.
Differences exist and they are enormous. Mongolian race for example is extremely deviant with completely different psychology which has also basic physical differences - eg. Mongolian children come to maturity at a much slower pace with period among girls normally coming at much later phase in puberty (at an average of 13 to 15 years) than Europeans or Africans (at an average of 10 to 13 years) which of course explains why not only the looks but also the behaviour of East Asians is very infant-like in comparison to European and African people. One has to take into account also that the basic tribes, not matter their interaction must be divided by more than 100,000 years of evolution (or otherwise by some evolution leap) if one takes into account the fact that 50,000 of division made no big difference between Australian Aboriginals and Indo-dravidians in India who still bear observable similitudes among each other. 100,000s years of divergining (although inter-communicating evolution) can indeed bring real differences.
One might say for example that this had largely to do with culture. Well then there is a problem in that since it has been repeatedly remarked that particular people who for whatever reasons resemble not much their brethren happen to present less psychological characteristics of their brethren. A nice example comes from the Algerian Kabyls. Kabyls are evidently a population with some distant (but still obvious) link to Vandals. Yet they became muslims and to some extend mixed with the advancing Arabs and Berbers. However today despite some 1500 years of common history and common religion and basic traditions, Kabyls are vastly (really vastly) different to the Algerians not only in physical appearence but mostly in pshychology and behaviour both as a group as well as each of them alone. Accidental? Heritgage? Cultural? Or just the natural outcome of two different subspecies sharing the same culture but ending up again being different? Well... long discussion.
I have thought of the subject for a really long time considering the one and the other and I ended up that all that mumbo jumbo about "peace, love and jesus" is not interesting at all since no lie was ever of any interest apart to those who have a reason to spread it.
The reality, either we like it or not (and I do not like it or dislike it) humans are no different to dogs. Said this, there is absolutely no interest in trying to say who is the superior and who is the inferior and in fact it goes even against the basics of science. But we can never start from this late phrase, saying it is futile to speak of differences and it should be prohibited to study them. So what is the harm of it? What is the harm in acknowledging that as body illnesses hit different human tribes differently, psychological illnesses also hit different tribes differently for the simple reason that people are different not only physicaly but also pshychologically and intellectually without this implying that there are better or worse versions. Just different. For the simple reason that nature never revealed to any living organism the secret of how to be superior. The is nothing like that. -
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Reply to message 12.
Nikolaos,
I hadn't seen just one day the messageboard and already that...
"Speaking of human differences means instantly speaking of superior and inferior tribes? Human differences are there and they do exist as much as they exist in dogs. People are 80% what they are born and 20% what they are formed to be socially throughour their lifes. It goes without saying that it is this 20% that is most critical in what they will do and how they will perform. But it is on the 80% basis they will work."
Nik, "80% nature versus 20% nurture". Have you scientific backing for it? And what if by studies the scientists are theorizing about fifty, fifty?
And can we trust the scientists. In the past they seems to be started with wrong premises. The one who seems to have coined the first time the term "Social Darwinism" seems to have been the Frenchman Émile Gautier and it was not a scientist. But then you had a Vacher de Lapouge, a Galton and so on...
"Differences exist and they are enormous."
Nik, can you prove that with scientific foundings, instead of your own "feelings"?
"The reality, either we like it or not (and I do not like it or dislike it) humans are no different to dogs."
Nik, and I who thought that they even were different from apes...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Said the above we come down to the infamous "social darwinists" who are a perfect example of failed science:
Social darwinists took out the above considerations which pre-existed long before Darwin came out with his theory on evolution and tried to apply them in their own social context creating a world where those who ruled were "naturally" the fittest and those who were ruled were "naturally" the unfittest, i.e. they had something biologically better other than the chance to be born in wealthy powerfull social groups. Hence, for them, speaking of the same ethnic group, the ruling aristocracy was defacto the outcome of their inherent superiority over the mass while on the international scene the powerfull nations were inherently on the top of the evolutionary ladder and since all these theories were created in the 19th century mainly by anglosaxon and germanic guys and since 19 century saw the rise of the British Empire, the empowerment of anglosaxon US and the rise of the Germans as one nation, it meant that anglosaxons and germans were on the top of the evolutionary ladder. And there came all those theories about the blond races and such and here speak not only of social darwinists of course but about indo-europeanists/aryanists etc. etc.
... starting with the latter and moving up the former one cannot see the Epic Fail of such theories. Not accidentally all of them start not from antyhing else but from a momentary photographic scene of their world as it was back in the 19th century. They sought the superior in the one that ruled which of course meant that if the digging of Antartica liberated a new virus that would wipe out the 90% of Europeans leaving Chinese to take over the world, social darwinists would instantly recognise Chinese as the superior race!!!!! Quite a science out there, hehe!!!!
What is even more funny is that their photographic clip chose themselves, very convenient. Only that they failed to explain why on earth those "superior" blonds were up to the 1500s one of the most regressive human tribes both intellectually as well as culturally, failing to form any form of descent culture without first interacting with their lightyears more evolved on all levels southern neighbours. And they rushed to attribute the backwardness of African nations in their inner lack of capacity to develop and not in the simple mathematical fact that Africa was a huge continent built vertically and with great variation of landscape and climates and populated by extremely few people to have had created long-lasting cultures, yet its main place of contact with other continents, Egypt was in the forefront of human civilisation. Well social darwinists and aryanists would say that Egyptians were partly mediterranean and Middle Eastern, true but I saw no blond there so how come such a mix have an advance over the beloved ones of the social darwinists?).
And back to the very social darwinists, how on earth could they take the end-result and from it climb all the river up to draw conslusions? And how scientific can be that? If anything few if any of the ruling class ever excelled themselves in any of arts that distinguish men from beasts - if anything they only thing they excelled is in clinging to power and that ONLY via clinging together conspiring at the expense of people and being able to do so not out of any superiority, intellectual, spiritual or physical but out of the simple mathematical fact that they have been born in the power circles that have the means to permit them do so.
I remember that German aristocrat lady who in 1950 had commented on the reconstruction of W.Germany and the fact that when the US-derived Deutchmark arrived in Germany each German found himself equally rich as the next German, workers, teachers, bankers and aristocrats alike but in a matter of a few months the previous rich became again rich and the previous poor remained the same as poor... reffering to that as a big proof of social darwinism and the superiority of the ruling classes over the... plebians.
Which only shows of course the idiotic complexes of those people adhering to such beliefs: evidently the worker who was given 100 marks did not have the connections to set up his bank with that while the german aristocrat with political connections thanx to his family background could restart from point zero
Family connections afterall have made rich and successful people who are of evident aevrage-to-below-average intellectual capacity and who came from the one failure after the other. The one without network can fail only once. The one with a network can fail more than 5 times...eventually he will succeed and then the naif will call him successful, might as well call him superior as that german aristocrat lady would wish.
Absolutely ridiculous. The intellectual capacity of that class of people is for the village fairs. -
Message 15
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Re: Message 7.
Nordmann,
as someone said on the French messageboard, where I started this thread, Darwin was a child of is time. I think he meant that he was a contemporary of Malthus, Wallace, Galton and a lot of others that I met in the book that I am reading (now at page 222 of some 500)
I translate the title in English: "The error journey of Social Darwinism. Earlier social interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection 1859-1918")by Cor Hermans. I think I already mentioned it in the start of this thread.
On page 190 the author said something like: Darwin founded his conceptions, expressed in this paragraph,on Galton, Wallace, Lubbock, Bagehat and Greg, as Darwin formally confirmed. The author translates and comments the paragraph fully in Dutch then.
It was all new to me. So I did some research and found the original text in English:
Its in Chapter V: "On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilised Times"
It starts with the sentence:
"Natural selection as affecting civilised nations..."
I wanted to start the discussion on the "History Hub", after reading the complete book, but now it is already too far...If the host wants to move it overthere, where it is more appropriate...
Will comment further tomorrow. And as you understand French, why don't you read it overthere. Nik was once a contributor, but the moderators are more severe overthere. As is Poldertijger I just remember now.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 16
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Re: Message 14.
Nik,
had just the time to read it. How do you manage to write such long messages in such a short time? And you did the same in French. I was a witness of it. With great esteem for "that!".
Already midnight here near Bruges on the European peninsula, my comments will for tomorrow.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 1st November 2010
Hi Paul. Thanx for the feedback.
As you see in the above, I am not at all any supporter of social darwinism, let alone be any supporter of any other related theory. I have long in the past fought against indoeuropeanism and revealied the real basis of aryanism and other such crap. I am perhaps one of the few that reveals "unwanted details" for some, such as the non-existence of anything called "white, black and yellow" races as in reality the only thing that exists is anthropologic tribes and from there one you have endless subdivisions down to the single unity, i.e. you and me. We are not a single cell organism to have near identical characteristics - even identical twins have their differences, let alone two sibings, let alone cousins, 2nd cousins, neighbour tribes and so on...
"""Nik, "80% nature versus 20% nurture". Have you scientific backing for it?""""
There are studies on separated at birth identical twins and they mostly concluded on the 80%-20% basis. Why is it so strange? If it is to argue if that is 75%-25% or the lowest 50%-50% you mention (because it is easy to debunk any lower than 50%-50% and you know it) it is not of my interest. I agree with you that on such matters we can only speak very generically and with no precision as most stuff actually is down to statistics and there we have to speak a lot about the samples we use and the tests we do and so on. However ask any anthropologist and he will most often agree with the 80%-20%. To be noted though that at the end of the day it is the 20% that is most decisive since it is the active part while the 80% remaines the passive part and as all inherited stuff can remain dormant.
"""And what if by studies the scientists are theorizing about fifty, fifty?"""
Honestly Paul you are right to ask so but really I will live this debate to the very professionals to solve. What I only ask is that they should talk openly and honestly. Trying to hide or saying shushsssss or wispering behind closed doors ssssxxxsssmmssssxxx and other such mumblings only let people imagine "other" staff and you know very well what I am talking about. Theories about social darwinism and aryanism only got in the way because serious scientists abstained from proper research and the same happens till our days.
"""And can we trust the scientists."""
No. We only must give them the absolute freedom to study these subjects either we like them or not. I do not like psychology too, should I ban the study of psychology?
"Differences exist and they are enormous."
"""Nik, can you prove that with scientific foundings, instead of your own "feelings"?"""
Good question. To answer it fully I have to go back to my root sources (and that incudes text I might have read 10 and 15 years back - and I am only an amateur, I do not note done things I read, but I keep the essence).
So my answer is yes it is more my own "understanding" over the subject than scientific findings. But I can easily bypass this by
A - Taking 10,000 Pitbul Terrier and 10,000 Labrador dogs at birth (2 dogs of roughly the same size)
B - Put 3000 of each in groups of their kind, 3000 of each in mixed 50-50 groups and the rest mixed in unequal groups.
C - From there on raise them identically, same food, same training etc.
D - At adult age, start performing various tests.
Then repeat the experiment with comparison of:
- German shepherd vs. Collie
- Cannis vs.
If you like to take primates do it, there is much work out there about the differences between Bonomo Chimpanzee subspiece and the common Chimpanzee. But then why on earth do we humans think we are something different from dogs in terms of our inbetween subspiece.
"""The reality, either we like it or not (and I do not like it or dislike it) humans are no different to dogs.""""Nik, and I who thought that they even were different from apes..."""
Actually we are different from apes, indeed, our sexual habits are more close to those of sea-birds. But I spoke not of similarities between spieces here! I spoke of the fact that if on the 99,9999999% of spieces there are differences among the sub-spieces, why not the same does not apply among human subspieces? Isn't this "religion" or not? My view is leave the science free to search such fields of knowledge. -
Message 18
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 2nd November 2010
Hi Paul
I can understand where a portion of Darwin's theory was influenced by Malthus, without a doubt - namely Malthus's demonstration (in human population terms) that a species once successfully adapted tends to produce offspring in quantities eventually exceeding the optimal level of resources required to sustain the species. Darwin accepted this was evident (in both animal and plant species) and factored what he considered "artificial" or "induced" resource shortage into his model of species' survivability.
The other influences you mention are not so easy to deduce from Darwin's own words, and nor do I readily accept that Darwin can be easily summed up as simply a "child of his times" since he did so much in his construction of evolutionary theory to demonstrate that he evidently wasn't. It seems to me to be a summation based on subjective analysis conducted in extreme hindsight by modern academics, and not at all a definitive analysis at that.
Nik - you write a lot and say very little, it seems. Can you write a short summary of your viewpoint and on what it is based? -
Message 19
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 2nd November 2010
Paul, on the subject of Lake Nyasa's variety of species of cichlids, I think it is more a case of the adaptive radiation as opposed to population bottle necks. Bottle necks describe an event where the population contributing to the genetic pool of an existing lineage has been significantly reduced, either by death or some other means of preventing a large proportion reproducing, that tends to result in little diversity in the subsequent genome after the event. In the case of humans it has been proposed that the lack of mitochondrial diversity could have been the result of a population bottleneck although they are by no means the only cause of what is known as homozygosity.
Adaptive radiation is quite the opposite as it occurs amongst genetic lineages that expand rapidly and diversify to take advantage of different niches in a very short space of time. This model of adaptation was observed by Darwin when he visited the Galapagos Islands and recounted in his description of the various finch species that populated the region. The recent formation of Lake Nyasa can be compared to the emergence of island chains as it provided a fresh area for colonisation so the expansion from a small initial population of cichlids could result in a wide variety of different species in a fairly short space of time.
Speciation is accelerated by what is known as the founder effect. As the population radiates each new group will pass on only a proportion of the genes from the initial founder population to its offspring. The fact that each of the groups that occupy different niches are descended from such a small population in the first place means they are drawing from a very restricted gene pool and as each they fix on different combinations of genes, as a result of genetic drift, so it can result in drastic differences between different families despite their sharing very recent ancestry. This results in minimal genetic diversity in each species but quite a wide variety of difference between different species. The genetic drift associated with the founder effect can also apply in lineages subject to population bottle necks. -
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 2nd November 2010
Re: Message 18.
Nordmann,
re: your first paragraph:
From the Darwin book I mentioned in the URL.
From chapter V:
I paraphrase:
...humans adapt by their intelligence...lower anumals have to adapt by changing physiognomy...
My thoughts: man changed also a bit his physiognomy adapting to other climates, for instance black and white people?
Paraphrase again:
...as Mr. Wallace said-intellectual and moral faculties tend to be inherited...struggle of the tribes...the one with the best arts, which are the products of the intellect, wins...
My thoughts: the great debate: nature versus nurture?
Paraphrase:
...in humans: the principle of imitation, and reason and experience would have increased, and modified intellectual powers in a way...
My thoughts: nurture?
I leave it there. It is too long to comment it fully. I think you better read it yourself to comment if necessary.
Only this from further reading:
"obedience, as Mr. Bagehot has well shewn..."
Obvious Darwin is "wrestling" with the problem why one tribe emerges and others not?
And now we come to the paragraph commented by Cor Hermans:
Directly from Darwin himself: (edition 1871?)
"Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,* and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.*(2) Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
* Fraser's Magazine, Sept., 1868, p. 353. This article seems to have struck many persons, and has given rise to two remarkable essays and a rejoinder in the Spectator, Oct. 3 and 17, 1868. It has also been discussed in the Quarterly Journal of Science, 1869, p. 152, and by Mr. Lawson Tait in the Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science, Feb., 1869, and by Mr. E. Ray Lankester in his Comparative Longevity, 1870, p. 128. Similar views appeared previously in the Australasian, July 13, 1867. I have borrowed ideas from several of these writers."
The comments from Cor Hermans, as in his thesis for his "doctorat" at the Amsterdam university go some paragraphs further. And now at page 222 I still find from what I read in Darwin and others that the author Cor Hermans is level-minded and gives the historical comments without exaggeration.
Hope to come back on it as soon as possible.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 21
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 2nd November 2010
Re: Message 19.
lol,
thank you very much for your reply. It answers all my questions and I think I understand it now.
Perhaps one small question further: in the American documentary they speak about mutations; switches, which command mutations and; if I understood it well, thirdly about the commands of these switches as another "trigger" to adapt and evolute, but in the same way of natural selection: those with that better adapted genes to survive, survive more and have greater procreation....?
Especially the third I have never heard about...
Kind regards and with great esteem,
Paul. -
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 2nd November 2010
Re: Message 17.
Nik,
about the 80% nature versus the 20% nurture debate (and it is now assumed that nurture isn't so important and that it is more "environment"):
As I on the first sight didn't find a home I was not at ease, but saw then in the title of the URL:
And the man who coined: "nature versus nurture":
Sir Francis Galton
An the home:
As I see now that it answers also the other questions.
One last for the road
,
If I remember it well, the difference between the ape and the human is about 2 % (and they said it also in the documentaries, again if I recall it well).
And this 2% was able to shape that great society of ours on this small world.
And in that I am a Socialist (OUNUPA's "sidekick" to Dai). I am not sure if that view is caused by my inheritance or by my environment...And no I am not drunk from that one pint...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 2nd November 2010
Addendum to message 20.
Nordmann,
as I read again the URL that I last provided from Prof. Soshichi Uchii from the Kyoto university:
I see now that he under the same part as Cor Hermans commented he said nearly the same as the Japanese Professor said: quote from Soshichi:
"Notice that Darwin did not endorse eugenics, despite several sympathetic remarks, as you can see from the preceding quotations. At the same time, you can also see that eugenic ideas were "in the air" in Darwin's time, because major European nations (including the United States) were competing with each other in various fields. Such competitions were often likened to the "struggle for existence"."
Cor Hermans used nearly the same words as in:
"Notice that Darwin did not endorse eugenics, despite several sympathetic remarks, as you can see from the preceding quotations."
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 24
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 2nd November 2010
Hi Paul,
I am not a geneticist or biologist, but I do work regularly with people who are, so I am tempted to try to fill in... The people who wrote that American documentary may have referred to quite a number of things. The problem is that cells contain *a lot* of regulatory mechanisms.
The much-simplified story (in eukaryotic cells, such as ours) is something like this: The long DNA molecules are stored in the nucleus of cells, tightly folded in the small volume of the chromosomes. To express a gene, the relevant piece of DNA needs to be "unpacked", a process that is regulated by proteins called histones. Then the DNA of the gene needs be transcribed into messenger RNA (mRNA), a task that is done by enzymes called RNA polymerases and regulated by proteins that are called transcription factors and which help (or block) the binding of RNA polymerase to the DNA strand. The mRNA is then transported out of the nucleus. There ribosomes, which themselves consist of both RNA and protein, translate the RNA strand in a protein strand, i.e. one that consists of amino acids. This process is controlled by elongation factors. The protein then needs to be folded into its correct conformation to become functional, a process that is for the most part self-sufficient but is also aided and controlled by chaperone proteins.
So the expression of a gene into functional protein is quite tightly regulated: There are numerous factors that need to be in place before the entire process needs to be completed, in fact many more than I mentioned above. Switches, in a way, through which various genes and non-genetic sequences can interact with each other, in a very complex network. Hox genes are transcription factors which are thought to control the "layout" of the body. An intriguing fact is that hox genes are remarkably well conserved among species as diverse as insects and mammals, while the genes that they control (and the structures in which these result) are quite different. The expression of hox genes is itself controlled by gradients of other proteins.
There are two mechanisms of regulation, not yet mentioned above, which have attracted a lot of attention recently.
One is the so-called RNA interference mechanism: Parts of our DNA encode not proteins, but micro-RNAs (miRNA) and small interfering RNAs (siRNA), which act as a sort of recall message on mRNA. When expressed, such a molecule binds to a specific mRNA in a so-called RISC complex, with the result that the mRNA is degraded again before it can be translated into protein. It may seem a bit wasteful, but it means that the expression of a protein can be up-regulated by one signal (leading to mRNA) and down-regulated by another (leading to miRNA), providing finer control. For researchers it has been a very useful tool because artificial interfering RNA molecules are relatively easy to make, and allow them to "switch off" the expression of proteins and see what happens.
The other mechanism is that of epigenetics. In this, DNA is not modified to the extent that its code of base-pair letters changes. But some chemical modification can be made that induce the expression of genes to change, mostly by influencing the interaction between DNA or histones, which makes genes less or more available for transcription. Thus cells can be "reprogrammed" to some extent in function of their environment. Mostly that environmental response is concerned with differentiation, e.g. liver cells obviously need a different gene expression pattern than muscle cells. However, there are some indications that epigenetic modification can also pass generations, so that in some ways the embryo can already be "preset" by its mother for the environment that it will encounter when it is born. This particular "switch" would be a way for life to gain an evolutionary advantage by adaptation, without changing their genetic code. -
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 3rd November 2010
Hi Paul, hi Nordmann, yes I do write a lot since I type blind and lighting fast to the extend of what you read being more raw thoughts than well-designed, well-architecutred speech - but that is what interests me, I never played the professional researcher or something here.
Now, to put in a slightly fewer words :
Human races as most people present them do not exist. What exists is anthropologic tribes and those are based on physical characteristics of people. Evidently the idea of A.tribe (where I put tribe, see what you mean as race), is not a stationary one but an evolving one most often through interaction but also even in those cases of relative isolation for the simple reason that descendant populations are never identical to parent populations. Humans are nothing else than an animal spiece of the mammalian family, more particularly of the primate club. Modern science has shown to us that everything that we think of as "solely human" exists on other animals too including logical thinking, problem solving, feelings and even compasion while all of our drives are solely animal-based. There is no nature and us, we are part of nature. Any other idea is simply what I cal "religion".
So what I say is that in science we have to treat humans as we treat any other animal. And this has various repercusions: eg. when you treat the Bonomo and the Common chimpanzees (who can perfectly mix if found geographically in the same region) not as 2 tribes but as two branches-"sub-spieces" or even as 2 different spieces then one has to bring on the human variety and apply the same rules. Is the Bonomo so different to the Common Chimpanzee to deserve such division which is formally absent between a Siberian and a Bushman? And do dogs (even the chiwawas) differentiate so much from wolfs to deserve belonging to a separate spiece when they reproduce successfully with wolfs? In fact, down to the basics, wolfs, dogs, jackals & dingos are all 1 and the same spiece, each of them forming a tribe.
So what drives taxonomists considering them separate spieces? Geographical location or environment? Evidently not. It is more the inherited differences among them that define a lot about what they can do out in nature? And if so, why doesn't the same apply to humans?
I am evidently not into "creating spieces" and I do argue for freezing the definition of spiece as the group whose members may produce heatlhy fertile descendants. But I am also calling for more freedom of expreession : individual members of the group can vary vastly and as such subgroups of members can also ary among them.
People are different, different not just culturally, but also genetically. This has nothing to do with "superiorities and inferiorities" as some would like to hear. Different means just different, nothing more than that. While for physical (bone & body architecture, strength, speed etc.) and biological (resistance to viruses etc.) things are more than obvious, the psychological and intellectual characteristics are not measurable necessarily on mathematical scales. But they are there, existing. Just as the case of British bulldogs, Scottish Colies and German shepherds and Russian wolfs and American jackals and Australian dingos. -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 3rd November 2010
Continuing from the above, evidently things like psychological and intellectual characteristics are not measurable even with the most elaborate tests - I know no test that can combine an examination of the billion human parameters. IQ tests for example are no more worthy in measuring individual human intellect than any other test you wrote at school with people getting better the more they train on them evn though they do not increase their cognitive capacity. On the other hand, put an Aboriginal, a Bushman and an Ainou to prepare some IQ tests for us and we might as well fail in all of them.
However, there are millions of hints out there to pin point to us that there are basic differences among human tribes. I take an extremely easy example : the difference in maturity process among East Asians and Europeans. Comparing equal conditions societies, even a 6 months difference in average age of first period for girls would be important and an explanation would have to be given. However in this case we may as talk about up to 2 years!!! Saying that this will have no effect on the overall maturity process and on the psychological as well as intellectual characteristics of each group is simply a lie. Again, contrary to what most would imagine (i.e. East Asians being superior to Europeans) nothing suggests what is "superior" and what is "inferior". Making the link to physical characteristics, it is known that human tribes present different average human brain volumes with as much average difference as 150mm3 with Polynesians being the champions at near-Neaderdal levels (1500mm3). How this compares with other "spieces"? Well the difference of Homo Sapiens and the later forms of what we call Homo Erectus was about 200mm3. And the difference between Homo Sapiens and Neaderdal was 100mm3 with Neaderdal having the upper hand. Evidently again that makes no reference to "superior or inferior intellectual capacities". But it is a strong hint of existing differences. And here we speak only of volume, if we start dealing with architecture then it becomes quite evident that the huge variety of human skulls will eventually have an impact on behavioural characteristics no matter if we cannot define that in any meaningfull scientific way, no matter if that in practice would be knowledge to use for classification purposes rather than any "social experiment" of the kinds we saw already.
What I say is that while "social darwinism" is scientifically a failed theory, differences among people exist and differences among the average behavioural characeristics of groups of people also exist - again said, difference means not "smarter" or "superior" - these terms are for the village fairs. -
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 3rd November 2010
.... evidently mm3 = cm3 above, terrible error I cut and paste... I would rather had written directly cc but I wanted to avoid making it look like a car engine, the bigger the better.
Nontheless you have to ask the specialists to tell you what difference is between a man of 1000cc brain size and one of 1450cc to be able to understand that when different tribes have averages that differ as much as 150cm, there there will be some difference.
What difference? It is not me that may define something so complicated. But difference there is. The fact that we cannot know with precision means not that the difference is not out there, nor that we have to keep silent over it and hide the reality. Reality is out there. "Religion" was always the biggest enemy of science, freedom of human intellect and above all of truth. -
Message 28
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd November 2010
Re: Message 24.
Mutatis Mutandis,
thank you very much for this outstanding explanation.
I wasn't aware that the cells contain that many regulatory mechanisms.
As I see, also by doing research to counterbalance Nik's "statements", science is moving fast and a lot of knowledge is even very recent.
I tried to understand it all, but if I didn't "capture" the finesses, I catched at least the essence. I thank you again for that.
Kind regards and with great esteem,
Paul. -
Message 29
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd November 2010
Addendum to message 1.
I don't know what happened but all my URL's in this message are gone?
Will try to put them again in the thread while without these links my thread has no sense.
A wondering Paul. -
Message 30
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd November 2010
Second addendum to message 1.
The documentary of Â鶹ԼÅÄ Four:
The american documentary from NOVA:
-
Message 31
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd November 2010
Third addendum to message 1.
The odd thing is, if you click on "reply to this message". You have in the window : "in reply to PaulRyckier" the normal text with the two URL's ready to click on. Try it yourself, you will see...
A bewildered Paul. -
Message 32
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 3rd November 2010
Re: Message 25, 26, 27.
Nik,
no time anymore to reply tonight . But some links I will use in my answer:
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 4th November 2010
Indeed Paul, Wikipedia often has some very interesting articles serving well as first info on a subject and this is the case.
My main point remains - that any differential treatment of the human spiece in comparison to the treatment of other spieces is by nature "relgion" and not science.
Note that anthropologic tribes are realities. And their constant interaction and evolution is a reality too. One may use whatever terms to speak on the issue, but avoiding it is simply shutting off a field of knowledge.
Personally I am very interested in this issue but really not so much in what "some" are i.e. to prove or not prove not (by any means, very often not so scientific) of who is the best boy in the neighbourhood but mostly in terms of classification rise and demise of the various anthropologic tribes. It is mostly a matter of historical knowledge.
All the rest quite amuses me. People trying to explain the unexplainable and judging either by the end result which has been affected also by a million other parameters or forming opinions on the basis of their wish-lists. And you see this on both sides of the spectrum. Most people will not talk science but will talk "religion". -
Message 34
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 4th November 2010
Re: Message 25.
Nik,
comment on first paragraph:
I don't think that there are many people today that say that homo sapiens sapiens isn't part of nature.
And you seem to be obsessed with the "physical characteristics of people". You sounds as Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1854-1936).
In the meantime science is "evolved". (yes, evolution is perhaps the right word in this context). Found new directions sparked by new discoveries.
Comment on second paragraph:
"So what I say is that in science we have to treat humans as we treat any other animal."
I don't understand what you mean by this paragraph? As the whole world is now the subspecies: Homo Sapiens Sapiens, one can mix who ever one wants. The only barrier is a manmade cultural one? So it can be that, although the higher rotation between the continents, instead of some 100 generations it will take a lot longer to unify the human physiognomy?
Quote from the link Wikipedia I provided:
"While scientists use the concept of race to make practical distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, the scientific community feels that the idea of race is often used by the general public[6] in a naïve[7] or simplistic way, erroneously designating wholly discrete types of individuals. Among humans, race has no cladistic significance—all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[8][9] Regardless of the extent to which race exists, the word "race" is problematic and may carry negative connotations.[10] Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[11][12][13] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[14] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[7][15]"
I think I answered also your other paragraphs:
Perhaps your last one:
"While for physical (bone & body architecture, strength, speed etc.) and biological (resistance to viruses etc.) things are more than obvious, the psychological and intellectual characteristics are not measurable necessarily on mathematical scales. But they are there, existing. Just as the case of British bulldogs, Scottish Colies and German shepherds and Russian wolfs and American jackals and Australian dingos."
If I understood my wikipedia lessons well, your bulldogs, colies, sheperds, wolfs, jackals, dingos are different subspecies? And Homo Sapiens Sapiens is all the same subspecies?
On the first sight I don't see the link with the psychological and intellectual characteristics...?
But if you mean that some "authority" (and would that a self acclaimed autorithy,? Or a populist acclaimed by the "populus"?) would decide to let interbreed some populations on characteristics of (I suppose "good") psychological and intellectual genetics? On what scientific grounds (supposed the populus didn't turn against the authority and hadn't yet brought "it" before a firing squad) would the authority then handle?
I am aware that with new scientific techniques the community in the future will be able to adapt some human faculties for the good of the individual. But perhaps it is worth considering that the adaptabilty of humans to rapidly changing environment isn't jeopardized? And in my opinion each indivudual will have to keep the right what with his physiognomy, intellectual and psychological characteristics will happen. If I, as an individual, want to stay simple and without shiny psychological characteristics? So be it?
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 35
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 4th November 2010
OOPS, Nik, hadn't seen yet your message 33.
As I read your message we seem for once! to agree, apart from this:
"Note that anthropologic tribes are realities. And their constant interaction and evolution is a reality too. One may use whatever terms to speak on the issue, but avoiding it is simply shutting off a field of knowledge."
You have provided some examples to prove what you meant, but up to now in my opinion there are only some very small biological differences in subspecies of Homo Sapiens Sapiens caused for instance by sun exposure, cold climate, type of vegetation and al that. But all the rest is due to culture (nurture, environment) and basically up to now there is no measurable difference found between people from different continents as to innate! intelligence and all that.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 36
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Friday, 5th November 2010
Re: message 11
Hello Eliza,
Malthus predicted the starvation of the masses no matter what, so he was proved wrong. But if you mean to tell me that a happy outcome for mankind isn't guaranteed, I agree.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 37
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 5th November 2010
Re: Message 36.
Poldertijger,
thanks for the former reply in this thread.
"But if you mean to tell me that a happy outcome for mankind isn't guaranteed, I agree."
Happy outcome for mankind not guaranteed? I agree too. Altnough with all their common sense and intelligence it sould be, I presume.
Poldertijger, my friend from The Netherlands...I couldn't resist to...and yes as even the Belgians...
PS. And in the middle of the Belgian turmoil the VRT (the former BRT (Belgische Radio en Televisie)) has programmed on 21 November a discussion program among "professors" how Belgium could be
splitted. And "they" say it is not the same stunt as the previous one from some years ago by the RTBF (the former RTB (Radio Television Belge)) about the split of Belgium.
It hurts for a Northern Belgian as I.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 38
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 5th November 2010
Message 34, in reply to message 25.
Hi Paul and thanx for your interesting feedback:
Message 34: """And you seem to be obsessed with the "physical characteristics of people". You sounds as Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1854-1936)."""
Haha. No not obsessed. I would say mostly suspicious. How to say it. Here in France for example whenever I see a Greek-resembling French his behaviour most often resembles like that of a Greek. WHen he is German or English resembling, his behaviour is more "north European like". Is it my impression? Is it my interaction that influences the sample? Is it the fact that statistically most Greek-looking French are coming from the Mediterranean south and such it is mostly a cultural thingie? I do not think so. I have the suspicion that basic behavioural directives are also influenced of genetic reasons and that is something observable even inside the very same nation, the very same society. Seriously, haven't it ever struck you that the external appearence of people somehow goes in hand with their basic behavioural lines such as how extrovert, cautious, rebelious, interrogative, sentimentalist, expressive, analytical, abstract etc. etc. is someone. When I say so it always have to be taken for granted that I speak "on average" there is no point in bringing this down to personal level - the case of this friend of mine is though a reality indeed but I am not saying that every individual member of a group that is far from the average physically will be necessarily far from the basic behavioural guideline average. Certainly not. But what I do believe is that there is some observable correlation.
I know that the above can be used to say "Ahhh... this group are "smart" people, this group are "dump" , these are "hard working", these re "lazy" and so on... I am not speaking down to that level of "behavioural differences". Average cautioness or extroverness are not related to intelligence or workmanship.... evidenly! But would we let the naiveness of the general public tell us to stop researching if this suspicion I present here is really well-founded or if it is simply an impression out of the observer inter-acting and self-projecting his ideas on the specimens? I do not know. Making the link to dogs and to the countless lines of text that people occupied with raising dog races have left which has never been questioned by scientists - let alone whoever of them also written on that direction too - I do sincerely believe that there is a correlation.
"""I don't understand what you mean by this paragraph? As the whole world is now the subspecies: Homo Sapiens Sapiens, one can mix who ever one wants. The only barrier is a manmade cultural one?"""
Yes. Something like that holds true for common and bonomo chimpanzees yet scientists openly talk about observable basic hehavioural differences. Let alone the good old example of dog races, worlf, jackals, dingos etc. who are evidently all 1 spiece altogether.
"""Quote from the link Wikipedia I provided:
"While scientists use the concept of race to make practical distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, the scientific community feels that the idea of race is often used by the general public[6] in a naïve[7] or simplistic way, erroneously designating wholly discrete types of individuals.......Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[11][12][13] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits....Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete...."""
I am perfectly alright by that. Eg. how on earth 2 disparate anthropologic entities like the Mediterraneans and the Baltics can be included in the same group of people? And how the original bushmen can be related to original Bantu when they had a distance more than a French to an Afgan. It goes without saying that the division of tribes will be more or less always arbitrary. Be it so, that does not prohibit comparative studies - since in any case we speak of the average. Eg. one might wish to compare what he defines as the "white tribe" and the "yellow tribe" by taking samples of all over Europe from Atlantic to the Urals and samples from Siberia to Indonesia. Someone else might prefer to do a similar research but to take samples only of western Europe (Ireland, Wales, western France, western Spain) and eastern Asia, i.e. Korea & Japan. One might wish to bunch semitics with Europeans, another might wish to bunch Semitics with Eastern Africans or Indians. In reality it is known that the human variation is in the form of successive grades as there is not a single "irrelevant" tribe surviving on this planet with the most extreme being the Australian Aboriginals who however present an obvious resemblance to Indo-dravidians and indodravidians with southern Semitics and Eastern Africans etc. etc.
All that is ok. But it does not answers the obvious questions : does physical differences of the avearage of selected populatins imply observable variation of basic behavioural characteristics? Pick up anyhow your tribes, that is not the point!
""""....and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits....""""
Yet this does not clarify if they discourage them for reasons of being against scientific observation or for reasons of social propaganda (be it positive or negtive). You get me?
"""If I understood my wikipedia lessons well, your bulldogs, colies, sheperds, wolfs, jackals, dingos are different subspecies? And Homo Sapiens Sapiens is all the same subspecies?"""
A kind of - but whatever taxonomists decided of calling it, the question is not so much that. The question is upon zoologists : if you take a dingo from a puppy and if you raise just like any other collie or caniche, will it have (statistically observable) different basic behavioural characteristics or not?
"""On the first sight I don't see the link with the psychological and intellectual characteristics...? """
I think it is quite not the usual to have a doberman having the same basic behaviour with a caniche. -
Message 39
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 5th November 2010
The Greek gene - now I've heard it all. What a confused little eugenist you are!
-
Message 40
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 5th November 2010
Haha Nordman... and since it is my greek genes speaking, we have to define the word eugenist - or in its Greek form "eugonistis" means someone who whether makes speech of "superior" and "inferior" tribes (races) or whether makes speech of "superior" and "inferior" individuals (and the latter case is more rampant nowadays) has as an end target to provide a guideline of improving according to his perception of wanted human qualities the descendants of a given group of people, be it a social class, a tribe, a nation or even the bulk of humanity.
However, you need to draw a clear line here - the above category cannot fit all, and certainly does not fit a large number of people who are not interested in eugenicism but who for whatever reasoning are of the idea that indeed physical differences are accompagnied by observable behavioural differences - however this can be measured precisely or roughly.
I clearly fall in the 2nd category since I preach nothing close to eugenicism. I have written 1000s of line above and yet I have never even mentioned 1 given characteristic I consider "wanted human quality". I personally treat eugenicism as nothing more than another form of "religion", not science and as such it does not interest me. If I have to incorporate eugenicist thinking I would simply let it to the human "natural" selection. Nature knows best. I cannot understand why a eugenicist would like to influence the decision of a perceived "superior" quality human to couple with an "inferior" quality human when it should be clear that the very tedency of the former to be attracted from the latter and the latter to be able to attract the former (cos the other way round is the downhill easy way), implies by axiom that the former is not as superior as thought and the latter is not as inferior as thought. -
Message 41
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 5th November 2010
Whether you ascribe inferiority or superiority to what you perceive as genetically motivated behavioural differences which you yourself perceive between sub-strata of the human species, the fact that you are ascribing these perceived differences to genetics (without of course explaining exactly which genes or gene components might be responsible) is what marks you out as either a waffler or a eugenicist.
The etymological root of the term "eugenic" might indeed be "good stock" in Greek, but that you have already isolated a genetic difference between yourself and the Turks (and even the French, I note) you will forgive my not failing to notice the implicit irony in your viewpoint, and therefore my use of the term. An egalitarian eugenicist you may be, but a nincompoop who believes in equanimity, for all the virtue of his outlook, is still a nincompoop. Why should you be exempt from the same assessment?
For your own sake I really hope you're just suffering from your usual verbal diarrhetics. You've enough of a handicap in life with that one little problem, I think, without also labouring under the illusion that you're genetically disparate from your Turkish brother.
In the meantime you might aid your cause by resting your fingertips for a while (about a decade or so?) and learn about genetics. -
Message 42
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 5th November 2010
... however above I did not speak of any existence of "greek", "mexican" or "chinese" genes : on the contrary I mentioned that anthropologic tribes are liquids in contact and interaction and their combination forms tribes and nations. The existence of nations consisting of 1 only recognisable anthropologic tribe is extremely rare and right now I can only thing of extremely isolated tribes in Africa, Australia and Siberia or something.
See it another way, the extreme one. Take a sample of couples, 50% couples formed of 2 people you would describe as bright young people and 50% formed out of people of so low-perceived image that you would be simply ashamed to be socially associated with (ok I know you would include myself now in that, no hurt feelings, haha!, but you know what I meant). Study their offspring. Are there any differences? Yes most certainly there are statistically observable differences even at realtively early ages. Environment or inheritence? For those who are not convinced we could theoretically "abduct" sperm and eggs and produce in secrecy babies to be given in pairs (1 of high-status families, 1 of low-status families) to childless families. Of course this would be a very unethical experiment (so I guess somewhere in the US and ex-USSR they have already done it and filed the results....) but it would be interesting. If I am to bet money I would bet millions in favour of results showing at least a loose correlation between parents' capabilities and those of descendants irrespective of the environment taking into account that human beings inherit characteristics down to a significant number of generations (i.e. you might inherit things from 5-6 generations back).
Now, in case the above is true (and I personally think is the most plausible guess to make in absence of scientific proof of the contrary), that logically means that if we pick any 2 random groups of people they will have not identical measurables. You can pick just any group on any basis but evidently people would pick on either a tribal basis (in vogue in the 1930s) or social one (in vogue in post-1990 world).
Now, given the differences, what is interesting is to see whether there is correlation between physical and generic behavioural characteristics - in reality, correlation of human tribes and temperament - which are independent of environmental factors. To put it straight. Would a village of Norwegians installed in Greece for more than 1 generation start to significantly converge in terms of extrovertness to the Mediterranean level? I doubt. The reality is much more complicated than the easy solution of "tabula rasa". So far so good - differences exist, differences can be measurable though not on its totality nor of their complete nature. But differences do exist for the simple reason that if they did not exist 1) we would feel it in the first place 2) scientific experiments would indicate towards that direction.
Whatever the opinion of everyone, the reality is that if you search the specialist scientific reviews the vast majority of the serious work is simply indirectly or directly pointing out to the direction I point above, i.e. to the fact that there is a measurable rough correlation between anthropologic tribes and average temperaments. -
Message 43
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 5th November 2010
So you're saying it's not genetic then?
-
Message 44
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 6th November 2010
- "Nnnnnnnnobody expects the ESpanish Inquisition"!!
oi oi oi ... basta.... Nordmann... you accuse me of verbal diarrhoia cos I type 2ice as fast as you and put much more explanations than you put to the ideas I present but what do you think you are doing above - if this isn't verbal diarrhoia placed among a healthy discussion then what it is? Tell how revealing is the fact that I type out of my mind without processing and speak logic and you type after thinking and processing and end up writing such texts as above? 10 times better my style than yours. I speak logic, you speak religion.
""""Whether you ascribe inferiority or superiority to what you perceive as genetically motivated behavioural differences which you yourself perceive between sub-strata of the human species, the fact that you are ascribing these perceived differences to genetics (without of course explaining exactly which genes or gene components might be responsible) is what marks you out as either a waffler or a eugenicist.""""
Words have their meaning and I like to stick by that. Do not bend their use - this is typical of someone speaking "religion". It is not to my interest. It is clear that I do not even remotely have any relation to any category of eugenicists.
""""The etymological root of the term "eugenic" might indeed be "good stock" in Greek, but that you have already isolated a genetic difference between yourself and the Turks (and even the French, I note)"""""
Oi oi oi ... Basta! ... where did you see this? Did I mentioning anything remotely close to what you refer here? What sort of dialogue is that you are up to?
""" you will forgive my not failing to notice the implicit irony in your viewpoint, and therefore my use of the term. An egalitarian eugenicist you may be, but a nincompoop who believes in equanimity, for all the virtue of his outlook, is still a nincompoop. Why should you be exempt from the same assessment? """
Now you do not speak logic. You speak religion.
""""For your own sake I really hope you're just suffering from your usual verbal diarrhetics."""
You sit in the opposite seat whose pipework is stuck with stuff, the smell comes up to here and you accuse me of verbal diarrhetics? The whole W.C. room is down with laughter... ehehe... Call in the plumber.
"""You've enough of a handicap in life with that one little problem,"""
Naaahhh, it is my strong point. Fooling people with peoples "religion" is always amusing especially when people tend to get a grasp of how intellectually poor they are.
"""I think, without also labouring under the illusion that you're genetically disparate from your Turkish brother.""""
Where on earth did you see the Turks in the above discussion? I am amazed. And why do you use them as an accusation trying to assosiate them with me in that way you imply above? From your sayings the only thing you reveal is that you consider them an inferior human lot to be assosiated with the ones you want to discredit. I am reading what you read in disbelief! Here we never opened any discussion on that however, we speak of social darwinism and related discussions.
""""In the meantime you might aid your cause by resting your fingertips for a while (about a decade or so?) and learn about genetics."""
No need to teach me genetics. With a technical background I tend to work in a 1+1=2 - though here I will keep it on the other . I never claimed to be a specialist in genetics but from the bits and parts I have read in genetics related to the study of the evolution of human the last thing I see is real science. And that is exactly what I discuss here and that is exactly the point you seem to want to avoid.
I talk science, you talk religion. There is a huge difference. Had the date today ben, 1512 or something I would be in chains and you would be the accusator of the Spanish inquisition team! -
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 6th November 2010
Re: Message 43
"""So you're saying it's not genetic then?"""
No Norman, I am saying a kind of the opposite of that. I repeat myself:
"""...if you search the specialist scientific reviews the vast majority of the serious work is simply indirectly or directly pointing out to the direction I point above, i.e. to the fact that there is a measurable rough correlation between anthropologic tribes and average temperaments."""
What is so difficult for you to comprehend? 1+1=2.
And down to the basics why do you find it strange? Individual people are different. They have differential measurable capacities on the physical level which are more than easily measured. And they have differential capacitieis on the psychological and intellectual level that may not be measured in an absolute manner but they are certainly observable. Eg. you can use a stopwatch to tell who is faster and you can use weights to tell who is stronger. But there is no direct way to tell who is smarter - IQs and other such tests for example are like measuring on the basis of the 1/100th of the race. However be it no standardised methodology to have measurements what scientifically can be certainly moniroted is that there are differences and these while not measured on a scale, they can be certainly noted down and monitored, that is for certain.
Up to now all ok? Any disagreement?
Now, the above means that whatever random group of humans say 1000 footballers and 1000 bank clerks and note down differences. Results will show the whatever differences. Any 2 groups that you may pick on any criterion they will be bound to have differential average characteristics.
Any disagreement?
So what if you finally pick 2 human groups from 2 different anthropologic tribes? Say Chinese and Portuguese. Or your Turks and my boys, Ethiopians. Are you in position to say that you will find these groups identical? Of course not.
And the question is : if you successively pick 1000 times successively groups of 10,000 Portuguese and Chinese to compare them will your results be random? Or will they confirm the existence of certain trends?
And the next question is: are these trends the result of environmental and social conditions or also of genetics?
Well that is exactly what we discuss here. Up to this point, everything mentioned above is 100% logical and scientific. So the whole question starts from this point.
What I say is that no matter if it is difficult to provide a full proof that the complete range of human capacities is inherited and that temperament is something that varies across the variety of human tribes, it is on the other hand impossible to prove that it is not - otherwise it would had been simple to give an answer and resolve the question - instead all we have is "instructions" to accept this as religion and personal attacks against those who are interrogative and who think that the value of scientific knowledge is above whatever constructed pseudo-values sold by religions and the political oligarchies.
In absolute lack of the slightest point that would point in the randomness of human capacities across the anthropologic tribal race and in the presence of more than mere hints of the opposite, I can only say that "though science will hardly ever be in position to provide a full proof, there has to be some correlation between physical appearence (and as such, between anthropologic tribes) and temperament and human capacities".
You understand that with this I do not prove something and it is not up to me to prove anything. I just say what I understand after a quick review of what has been studied up to today in this field of knowledge.
The above comes free of "religion", free of political statements, free of social construction plans and other such rubbish. Knowledge of the above is knowledge for the shake of knowledge and nothing more than that.
I still cannot understand what is your problem with all that. -
Message 46
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 6th November 2010
And since your western mind has its limitations and you will once again make the link : I am sad to state that I am obliged to once again state for the above that in no sense I ever make evaluations when speaking of "human differences" referring to the psycho-intellectual level. There is no such thing that "this tribe is smarter over that one", "extrovert/expressive" trait is better over "introvert/reserved" trait, and other such - these are qualitative evaluations which are less scientific than comparing a Ferrari to a Lamborgini and saying that the first is faster than the second because the red colour is better than the yellow colour. Get it? Call me again a eugenicist if you like, no problem, I do believe I am from a good family by the way but I have never asked a title for it.
-
Message 47
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 6th November 2010
Sorry Nik, but as far as I understand your argument you are, perhaps not intentionally, implying that 'temperament and capacities" (I'm not clear what you mean by that) are transmitted genetically. You say " there has to be some correlation between physical appearence (and as such, between anthropologic tribes) and temperament and human capacities"Â
Now physical characteristics such as skin colour, hair and eye colour are indisputably transmitted genetically so, if there is a correlation with behaviour and intellectual capabilities, they surely must be genetic also. -
Message 48
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 6th November 2010
Ferval yes it is quite like this:
The one leg of my thought is that there is some sort of at least a rough but observable correlation between human physiology and temperament* and since physiology is inherited then temperament is also inherited.
* temperament is by no means a measurable - I just mean the bulk of behavioural traits: you might wish to include 10 traits or 1000 traits out of the billion traits that the human mind might present.
I do not promote the above neither as "religion". And for me it is just knowledge of no evident practical use - and particularly to be kept apart the likes of politics and sociology. I also clarify that there can be never (or at least it will be very difficult) any full scientific proof of the above. What I state is that if there was any absolute proof of the opposite, that should be obvious but in reality research conducted points out to the above direction. That is all. There is nothing magic about it, no cosmotheory... it is all about things you know, things you know about the doberman puppy and the collie puppy... same spiece, same upbringing but statistically obserbable different temperament linked to the different physiology. -
Message 49
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 6th November 2010
I tend to think that people are quite like dogs, and I've had a few from labradors through various collies to mutts. They all had very similar pleasant temperaments, which I attribute to my excellent training of them. My children, however, could not be more different from each other.
I'm not sure what you'd deduce from that!
Seriously, anthropology tells us that tribal groups who are apparently indistinguishable by their physical characteristics have utterly different behavioural characteristics, largely shaped by what is considered culturally acceptable. If your theory that physical resemblance goes with other characteristics then you seem to be suggesting ethnicity determines those characteristics so perhaps you could give an example. Be careful though, I detect the shade of Dr Kossina lurking in the corner. -
Message 50
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 6th November 2010
Re: Message 45.
Nik,
your ninth paragraph:
" I can only say that "though science will hardly ever be in position to provide a full proof, there has to be some correlation between physical appearence (and as such, between anthropologic tribes) and temperament and human capacities"."
about "physical appearance" (I call it "physiognomy") and
about "temperament and human capacities" (I call it "intelligence")
Let's start with "physiognomy" It can be that the avarage physiognomy of people from a part of the world have during time evolved different than in another part due to environment in the broader sense of the word: nature, nurture, education by the society of that particular region and all that.
Now about intelligence: there is the great discussion - not yet concluded scientifically, if it will ever have a conclusion - between what part of intelligence is due to genes and what part is due to environment. I read 50/50, but I agree it can also be 60/40 or 40/60.
It is said that the capacity of the human brain to intelligent thinking and expressing is several times bigger than what it very actually is used for. Nik, and don't start with your cc again, womens brains have perhaps avarage less cc, but nevertheless they are as smart or even smarter than men. In another discussion of the same type I found out that scientists seem to say that it is the surface of the brain that counts. So the female brain would contain the same total surface while the female brain is more times folded as using the same staple of paper, but not as high while they use thinner paper.
Then if there are "differences" in your "tribes" on average both in "physiognomy" and in apparent "intelligence" it can be that during generations the part of environment (again in the broader sense as I mentioned) has influenced the output.
As for "intelligence" tout court (in se?)? As I said the potential of the brain is many times bigger when trained, than if in some circumstances it only rests on it's "potential" while not sollicited. If I understood you well, you said the same as I, that for the moment it isn't possible to measure all that?
So, for the moment I bow for the scientifical knowledge of this time. And waiting till some new observations are made and logical ones and sticking to "real" data, I have to bow and have to say I just don't know it.
Kind regards,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.