Reply With Quote
That it is
Where are the problems again?
That it is
Are you really trying to argue that an animal that has to run a lot to hunt it's food, over generations, it's offspring will not become faster and better at it?
Really? You are going against hereditary adaptation. I believe you just made a mistake in telling me I am wrong.
An animal cannot improve its genes as it lives. They are what they were at the time of conception. It is those genes that will go on to determine what genes its offspring will have whether it breaks its legs, starves for several months, or lives a perfectly healthy life.
I made no mistake in telling you that you were wrong.
In order for there to be substantial differences today, the selective breeding would have had to have been coordinated, systematic, and done for several generations. It would seem so, at least.
It's simply something that cannot be proven conclusively, in the same way that proving IQ differences among races is limited to unproven theories. I could make a case, which should be persuasive to you and others, that selective breeding led to lower IQs today among black people.
I don't buy it. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that selective breeding was that pervasive, nor have I seen anything to suggest that such traits could remain with a race 150 years after the alleged selective breeding ended.
How prim and proper.There's no consensus if the disparity between blacks and whites in psychometric intelligence can be partially explained by genetics. This debate remains unsolved (and The Bell Curve states precisely that, btw).
The talk it inspired on the West Mall at the University of Texas (before the free speech area was demarcated) was not so restrained. There was open boasting of white superiority and minority inferiority. People kinda puffed up.
They were all shrilly denounced as racists by screaming hordes of bohemians, neophyte sophisticates and dirty hippies on the West Mall, to be sure, but they kinda put themselves out there for that. Screaming and shouting were common on the West Mall in my day. I think people on both sides liked it.
I think they still do.
I never suggested there was. I only wanted to point out that we are talking liberal arts level bull here.
How do you explain instinct then? A spider is born and intuitively knows exactly how to build a web. It is not taught, and there is no mimicry.
So, by reason, a spider somewhere along started this behavior even if it was small and primitive, and through instinct, was improved until we get the spider webs we see today.
Is this not hereditary adaptation? It happened in the life of a spider. This is instinct, behavior, and it is passed on to the off-spring.
Why then is it hard for you to understand that, something much simpler, such as physiological changes can also be passed onto the off-spring?
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 10-04-2009 at 01:55 AM.
Why would it have to be coordinated? The desired traits were the same across the board. They wanted bigger, stronger slaves. I agree it would have been done for several generations and the accounts are that it happened. Systematic? From the accounts I've read and seen this wasn't an infrequent occurrence but common practice.
You just contradicted yourself but I think its irrelevant anyway. The history is there. Whether or not people want to believe it or accept it has to do with many other factors including political correctness but has no bearing on what happened.It's simply something that cannot be proven conclusively, in the same way that proving IQ differences among races is limited to unproven theories. I could make a case, which should be persuasive to you and others, that selective breeding led to lower IQs today among black people.
The evidence is there. There are numerous fist hand slave accounts. There have been a great deal of books written on the subject for quite some time.I don't buy it. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that selective breeding was that pervasive, nor have I seen anything to suggest that such traits could remain with a race 150 years after the alleged selective breeding ended.
As for the traits remaining, where exactly would they go? If you breed a population to a point where a larger percentage of that population displays a certain trait then that higher percentage would persist unless that trait proved negative towards reproductive. I'm not sure being more athletic is exactly something that makes you less suited to reproduce as a human.
Fist hand slave accounts.
This isn't liberal arts bull or kulturekampft double-speak:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...91886999001221
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/r...telligence.pdf
The fact that claims about ethnic differences have been used in the past to rationalize racism has nothing to do with the scientific discussion.
You've moved onto a completely different subject here and have tired to make it analogous. Just to be clear, you were saying that a specimens level of health can be transferred to its offspring via heredity and there is absolutely no proof of that. If you can provide me with some then please do so.
Instinct is an entirely different subject all together and I do not see how it bears any attention here. You cannot make the jump from the physical to the behavioral and call it the same nor can you make the claim that this happens over the course of a limited number of generations without some proof.
Freudian slip?
I wasn't aware we were having one.The fact that claims about ethnic differences have been used in the past to rationalize racism has nothing to do with the scientific discussion.
What is the Psychology department?This isn't liberal arts bull or kulturekampft double-speak:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...91886999001221
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/r...telligence.pdf
@Manny: Probably just a typo.
Lets hope so.
I don't know. The relation of genes, intelligence and race is, or can be, a scientific discussion.
Meh, once again, who cares? It's irrelevant the name of the department a guy works for. Either his claims have scientific a en or they don't. They can't be summary dismissed because of who produced them.What is the Psychology department?
Here's a guy who sustains that genetic factors account for the differential in intelligence tests and comes out of a Medicine School:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17460719
Maybe not, but provenance does count. Psychology is the classic instance of a psuedo-science being ins utionalized. C'mon.
You're gonna rely on the social scientist and the psychologist to measure racial differences?
Or were you just stressing that "it's still a valid hypothesis"?
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-04-2009 at 02:23 AM.
Not in my experience. I've never known it it to proceed that way. Never.I don't know. The relation of genes, intelligence and race is, or can be, a scientific discussion.
I guess I don't hang out with too many scientists, not being one myself.
Tiger's reputation as a fearsome, dominating golfer were earned in his 20's, when he was at the peak of his career. His number shvae dropped since he turned 30.
Let's compare Tiger and the Golden Bear in their 20's in majors:
(note - Tiger turned pro at 21, the Bear at 22)
40 Majors
Events Played
Bear 36
Tiger 39
Made cut
Bear 33
Tiger 38
Top 10
Bear 23
Tiger 21
Top 5
Bear 21
Tiger 17
Top 3
Bear 19
Tiger 14
Top 2
Bear 15
Tiger 12
Won
Bear 7
Tiger 10
So both won alot, Tiger won more, but Jack Nicklaus has more consistent, first-class excellence.
POINT SYSTEM
Tiger
10 wins = 100 points
2 2nds = 14 points
2 3rds = 12 points
3 other top 5s = 15 points
4 other top 19s = 12 points
17 other cuts made = 17 points
TOTAL = 170
Bear
7 wins = 70 points
8 2nds = 56 points
4 3rds = 24 points
2 other top 5s = 8 points
2 other top 10s = 6 points
10 other cuts made = 10 points
TOTAL = 174
The fact is, Tiger is not going to come close to matching Jack in his 30s. Jack was better in his 30 than in his 20s. Tiger has dropped off.
AGE 30 to 33
Made Cut
Bear 16
Tiger 12
Top 10
Bear 14
Tiger 11
Top 5
Bear 12
Tiger 9
Top 3
Bear 9
Tiger 9
Top 2
Bear 8
Tiger 8
Wins
Bear 5
Tiger 4
POINTS
Bear = 97
Tiger = 81
@ the stupid golfing discussion.
Seriously - ing lame.
DNA can be changed during 1 life cycle. If you didn't know that, now you do.
Yes, genes can be modified during your life, to improve or deteriorate. It can be done in many different ways.
For instance, your GRANDFATHER's nutritional habits can lead to an increased risk of diabetes-associated mortality in their grandkids.
This also goes for significant muscular changes.
Here is a quote :
They suggest a way that environmental factors—what we eat or how active we are—may perhaps influence our genes, for better or for worse.
http://www.labspaces.net/99442/Dynam...human_diabetes
Into the time capsule.The fact is, Tiger is not going to come close to matching Jack in his 30s. Jack was better in his 30 than in his 20s. Tiger has dropped off.
*Epigenetic modification*
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions