Slashdot Mirror
New Ancient Human Identified
krou writes "Working on a finger-bone that was discovered in the Denisova Cave of Siberia's Altai mountains in 2008, Johannes Krause from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and colleagues managed to extract mitochondrial DNA. They compared it to the genetic code of modern humans and other known Neanderthals and discovered a new type of hominin that lived in Central Asia between 48,000 and 30,000 years ago. Professor Chris Stringer, human origins researcher at London's Natural History Museum, said, 'This new DNA work provides an entirely new way of looking at the still poorly-understood evolution of humans in central and eastern Asia.' The last common ancestor of the hominid (dubbed 'X-Woman'), humans and Neanderthals seems to have been about one million years ago."
...it turned out to be Jesse Helm.
Hey Butt-head, this dude's a homo sapiens.
That's the name of my next daughter.
Dude, something is definitely wrong with you.
There is only one extant species of Homo, and that's Homo sapiens. People like you are what give Anthropology a bad name. The pressures on the minds of those who lived in Europe have been the same as those on people who lived in Africa have been the same as those who lived in Asia -- outwitting other human beings, and struggling against a hostile universe.
There are plenty of trivial physical differences between the different 'races', and that's just what they are -- trivial. Superficial. Unimportant. My mind is the same as the mind of a child growing up in China is the same as the mind of a woman in Europe.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Yes, they definitely extracted mitochondrial DNA (that's DNA that isn't in the nucleus but is rather in the mitochondria and is only passed down by your mother). Yes, the DNA looks different enough that they're pretty sure this isn't any form of contamination from modern samples (always a worry when doing this sort of thing). However, it is far from clear that this DNA is belonged to another species. There are multiple possible other explanations which could make this not another species. The details are a bit technical, but anthropologist John Hawks has a piece on his blog laying out the basic issues- http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/denisova-krause-2010.html. A slightly more lay-oriented piece by Carl Zimmer (the writer for Science Times and author of the very excellent book Parasite Rex) is also worth reading: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/03/24/the-x-womans-fingerbone/. The bottom line is that concluding that this is a new species is as of yet very premature.
Is Professor Xavier being politically correct nowadays? Being 48,000 years old is a cool super power but she's dead so I fail to see how she could help fellow mutants.
<sound>Crikets.wav</sound>
No, that'll never work. You should have used the <audio> tag.
Frankly, I'm more partial to ancient new humans. I used to dig the ancient ancient humans, but y'know, not a very lively bunch.
We aren't talking about modern day humans. The article, which I'll assume you have already read, is about a possible species separate and distinct from homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis that may have existed in Eastern Europe a long long time ago. The article also discusses the "Hobbit" of Southeast Asia which lived alongside homo sapiens for thousands of years.
If, as the article suggests, there was interbreeding going on, then the genes would be passed along to offspring. Given that long range mobility has only recently become possible, these pockets of special genes would have remained in the same area for a long time, even after the original species disappeared.
But you read the article, so I'm just telling you what you already read and disagree with. Silly me.
If only they had this persons nose. They could recreate the whole person then. Not much you can do with half a finger.
(and if he had eaten organic rice he would still be alive now).
http://michaelsmith.id.au
His parents are equally ugly, but they come from Baltimore, so it might just be a result of the environment.
H.P. Lovecraft, is that you?
You are correct that there's evidence for there being correlation between mental abilities and race. But that doesn't mean it is at all genetic. Much of it is almost certainly cultural and environmental. For example, if you get less nutrients growing up you likely aren't going to be as smart as someone else who does get enough nutrients. That's because early brain growth is determined in part by how much resources the brain has available. Similarly, certain cultures have games and habits with young children that may encourage certain forms of mental development or practicing certain skills. Moreover, some types of intelligent tests are very culturally based (there are some fascinating cross cultural studies about how people naturally organize things into groups. While in most Western societies we consider organization into functional categories to be ideal and consider people not as bright if they have trouble, in many other societies and even some Western societies, given a set of objects they will try categorize by which groups of objects can be used together. The classic example of this is giving a bunch of tools and a bunch of possible things that the tools can modify. The "correct" Western response is to group into tools and non-tools. But in some cultures they instead group into which are connected to relevant processes). So yes, such correlation does exist, but there's no strong evidence that such correlation actually means much at all.
The term Caucasian came about became some German thought the prettiest white people came from the Caucasus region in Eastern Europe.
Considering how nationalistic Germans are, that guy must have felt quite strongly about it to pick some foreign group to be the role models of physical beauty.
The Internet has confirmed his wisdom... all the beautiful big boobed babes with charming accents come from the Slavic countries. Search for yourself and see.
Highly unlikely. More likely a case of convergent evolution if anything at all.
By the way, how do we know that Neanderthals had those features? They might have had based on the shape of their skulls, but that's all guesses and extrapolations, since no-one has seen a live one.
This is news for nerds. Science, including anthropology, is of interest to some of the nerds. Therefore, this story belongs here, even if you personally don't happen to find it interesting.
Since you have an UID, you could simply hide science stories in your settings rather than complain.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
That is very strange talk from a Pak Protector.
I saw a very interesting Ted Talk by Elaine Morgan and it seems to me that a single non mutation change in the apes could have fostered any number of branches in the early evolution. I agree that there is no great genetic difference across the planet.
It seems to me that a single change in the ability to control breathing consciously could have been the difference that makes us the human branch. There is no strong linear delimiter that I have seen which would cause speciation from the apes.
It seems that an ape that could escape from others by traveling through deep water to safety or isolation would allow a population to become isolated. It would allow a new dominance similar to the ability to escape predators in trees.
I believe that it might be proved or disproved by the genetic SNP distance of the change which defines the ability to control respiration. If it were the oldest conserved gene, then it would seem that it could be possible.
It also leads to the ability to communicate. Apes have intelligence and hands, but lack effective communication due to the inability to control vocalization ( like birds ).
From the linked article:
Most scientists believe there is insufficient data to resolve the contributions of heredity and environment.
Further, races are social constructs. As in "constructed by societies." As in "not based in actual biology." There are more genetic differences among members of any given ethnic group than there are between members of any two ethnic groups. If you ever actually acted on any interest in sociology, much less studied it, you would know this.
All this points to the argument that differences in mental aptitudes displayed in aggregate by various "races" in the U.S. are primarily a cause of each race's traditional socioeconomic status, i.e., how members of each "race" are treated and raised by agents of social control (esp. teachers) determines their evident mental prowess.
No, that'll never work.
They said the same about slashdot's moderation system and now look at it.
While 115173 is a Pak like the rest of us I doubt he is a Protector because we lack the nutrients. But back to the topic at hand.
Even today Africa has most of the diversity in the human species. I wonder what would happen today if a group of african people became isolated from the rest of us. Diverse genes can lead to powerful selection pressure. I expect that this would have to happen off earth now.
Also I also wonder what would happen to humans generally if we lost the genetic diversity currently banked in Africa. Nothing good I suspect.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Take a picture, load it into photoshop, content aware fill, and BAM sneak peak into the past.
No, that'll never work.
They said the same about slashdot's moderation system and now look at it.
And your point is?
"For example, if you get less nutrients growing up you likely aren't going to be as smart as someone else who does get enough nutrients."
Whoooo boy let me show you my medical history, then let me show you what I do for a living, and you'll be retracting that statement pretty rapidly, I will guarantee it.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Uh... credentials mean nothing. Refuting a statement with facts means more.
It's kinda late and I'm a bit brain-dead at the moment. But the first thing that came to my mind was...... The Abominable Snow Man. What are the chances that this ends up being the smoking gun for that oh-so-elusive cryptoid that has had people arguing about hairy wild apemen since time forgotten? Personally, I think it'll realistically end up being a case of contamination or something else mondan. But with the odd chance that this turns out to be scientifically investigatable, we can hang on to the slim hope that there are other samples out there waiting to be found.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Perhaps mentioning of Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/index.html would be the simplist way to show how "well documented" doesn't mean accurate because it might just ignore cultural differences. Such as most Asians growing rice a peasants (in the middle ages) which required constant upkeep and strong basic math skills whereas, European peasants grew crops such as wheat that are MUCH easier to grow and require most of their work during planting and harvest, not much in the middle. This has lead to deep social consequences where we Europeans say "there are people who are good at math and those who aren't" but in Asia they generally assume everyone is good at math, its only a question of working at it. (THIS is a very over simplified version of it, and I'm sure I butchered it compared to how he wrote it) BUT... There is still many reasons like the above that "well documented" differences between races have more to do with society verses genetics.
Sounds like wishful thinking. If I see a Maori man, I can see he's a Maori. If I see a Chinese woman, I can see she's Chinese.
That doesn't mean the differences between are nonexistent.
... he'd know that it isn't genetics?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There are more genetic differences among members of any given ethnic group than there are between members of any two ethnic groups
I'm really quite surprised to hear this. I would never have guessed that ethnically pure members of the Mbundu or San tribes of Africa were less different from the S.E. Asian Lahu tribe (or even Koreans, being as homogenous as they are) than the members of these groups were amongst themselves. Do you have any prrof of this?
Put identity in the browser.
Further, races are social constructs. As in "constructed by societies." As in "not based in actual biology."
OK, that's ridiculous. I'm not arguing that one race is smarter than another or anything like that, but seeing as you can quite easily tell different races apart, there is obviously some biological difference.
The New Ancient Human was identified as:
Cowboy Neal
Based on my extensive... erm... research in Internet porn, I have to wonder, if Johann Friedrich Blumenbach were alive today, would we end up calling it the Bohemian race? I mean, Silvia Saint, Angelina Crow, etc.
Pretty much because, yes, his opinion of races seems to have had mostly to do with how pretty he found their women. E.g., he started with the blacks being pretty much sub-human and justified it then by cherry-picking skulls and a good dose of phrenology (an opinion that would influence pseudo-scientific racism to this day.) Then he made an 180 degree turns when he met a black woman beautiful enough to fall in love with (in his own words.) He then proceeded to "prove" by the same anatomical analysis methods as before that verily they're every bit as smart and talented and everything as the Caucasians.
Could be worse, though. We could have a classification made by a gay dude with a foot fetish, for example :p
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You may indeed have a valid point to make, but I have to agree this isn't it. Not only is this an appeal to authority, but the actual "authority" isn't even included.
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
Of course, this is not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
"Lewontin argued that because the overwhelming majority of human genetic variation (85%) is between individuals within the same population, and about 6–10% is between populations within the same continent, racial classification can only account for between 5–10% of human variation"
"As Edwards showed, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single locus is as high as 30% (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability based on 10 loci can drop to just a few percent."
What in realty is "-One locus is not enough to racially classify an individual" - as if someone really believed this - has destorted into the the lie of the grand parent.
When looking at a few hundred loci, misscalssification is in the tenth of percenteges.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128221025.htm
"The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent."
Your reply w.r.t. neanderthals apparently assumes that neanderthals had lower intelligence.
This is not true, or at least not proven. Just google "neanderthal intelligence" and you'll see many references that believe that neanderthals had higher or at least equal intelligence than homo sapiens. Also they interbred with homo sapience (google for "neanderthal interbreeding with humans" for many references to that claim), so "people like you" you were responding to do not have to give anthropology a bad name.
Apart from that, it is not proven that each current human race must have the same average intelligence. On the contrary, there are indications that this is not the case.
Ideologically motivated people can give anthrolopogy a bad name. This goes in both directions.
Apes have intelligence and hands, but lack effective communication due to the inability to control vocalization ( like birds ).
I would say that Apes have quite effective communication as do many creatures...it's just not (as) vocal. Vocal communication may be _more_ effective in many ways, but even a simple house cat does a hell of a lot more than meow if you know what to look for.
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
It's clearly Bigfoot or Sasquatch or whatever Great Hairy One that your culture accepts unto its beliefs. And I have no knowledge of the Pak and their worlds made of rings.
even a simple house cat does a hell of a lot more than meow if you know what to look for
You fucking sadistic pervert. If I ever find you I will kick your fucking ass.
I thought I was going to have to call a doctor because I was laughing so hard!
What makes you think that homo neanderthalensis were less intelligent than homo sapiens?
Oh, and haven't you heard the expression: beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
(you sound like quite an ugly person to me)
The plural of anecdote is not data. Anyway, present your evidence.
Eventually we may find that man originated in Asia and migrated to Africa.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
How can you classify the child of a Maori man with a Chinese woman?
e know that at least some of the various hominid species could interbreed, yes?
And that the various multiple different branches of hominid species are far from a linear progression to homo sapiens, right?
So I was wondering (and I really don't know enough about biology to know for certain, but I'm hoping a kind slashdotter will post) how could we tell if there were any other hominids alive today? Ones which were not homo sapiens sapiens, but one of the closer off shoots, which could interbreed?
Please note, I'm not talking about bigfoot or something. I mean one that, for all intents and purposes looks human. But isn't genetically the same type of hominid as another human?
Much of it is almost certainly cultural and environmental.
Actually, IQ tests conducted in Africa by Africans result in an average score of 65. African Americans score about an 85, due mostly to difference in nutrition in growing up as you point out.
IQ has to heritable to some extent, or we would never have evolved from our ape-like ancestors to be smarter.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Maybe God created Neanderthal Man in His image, and we went and wiped them all out. That would explain why he's pissed off all the time with all the wrath and stuff.
Did the cave have a stargate in it?
"For example, if you get less nutrients growing up you likely aren't going to be as smart as someone else who does get enough nutrients."
Whoooo boy let me show you my medical history, then let me show you what I do for a living, and you'll be retracting that statement pretty rapidly, I will guarantee it.
So according to you, a single anecdote (which you claimed you could -- but didn't actually -- provide) disproves a general statement that includes the word "likely"? Granted, I wouldn't have phrased it as GP did, but I generally agree with what GP was trying to say.
How about this: "All else being equal, someone who gets less nutrients growing up almost certainly isn't going to be as smart as that same person would have been if they had had enough nutrients at crucial points in their development." If you think you're smart now with very poor nutrition when you were young, I simply posit that it is highly likely you would have been smarter had your nutrition been significantly better.
One of the better /. posts I have read in quite awhile. And I did not have to be subjected Microsoft hate-talk being interjected. (Just an observation). No seriously, excellent, excellent post and responses with great links
Shows some possibilites of more genetic diversity in us that perhaps originally thought. Great food for thought
The sheer ignorance of modern anthropology I see on Slashdot is unnerving. So many people on here assume that their enculturated worldview equals science.
Race is a social construct. Phenotypical differences are one axis along which race is constructed, but it is not the only axis, and in some contexts it is not even the most important. As an example, you can also tell the "race" of a person if you talk to them on the phone. This obviously has nothing do with biology.
Although race as a system of scientific categorization started in European thought during the Enlightenment, it has seriously decreased in scientific merit because of genetics. Today, physical anthropologists think in terms of "clines." Unfortunately, because of the impact of European empires and their hegemony, race as a system of categorization persists in various incarnations throughout the world. This system is perpetuated by a wide variety of structural institutions and the uneducated public.
You can tell races apart because you are conditioned to detect certain characteristics which you associate with an arbitrary categorization of people. These arbitrary categorizations gradually accrued social and cultural capital in YOUR culture. This does not mean they are based in any kind of genetic reality.
Evolution of speech seems to have required changes in several related areas, and this sets a minimum number of favorable mutations that had to have occurred.
Speech requires specialized centers in the higher brain. It also requires changes in what we normally call the primitive brain, so that speaking stays synced to breathing and swallowing. There are changes to the tongue and soft palate, and given the way all modern languages use some form of modifiers like adjectives or adverbs, there are probably hard wired rules for making speech more sophisticated built into those upper brain speech centers. There may even be changes to the diet, to accomodate teeth that have to also help with speech as well as chew.
The problem with deriving anything from that point is, one mutation can impact multiple areas of body formation, so until we know more about which genes do specifically what in humans. we don't know enough to make a detailed model of what changes came first, or decide just what the differences were between h. saps and the Neanderthals, or any of those neat interesting questions idle slash-dotters are bringing up.
I think moteyalpha gets this, and hope at least most of the rest of this thread's posters do - the speculations are answerable in principle, but just because we've mapped the genome doesn't mean we've figured out all the connections. In 20 to 40 years, the truth about at least half the speculations in this whole slashdot thread will be known science.
Who is John Cabal?
Africa? You mean that place where millions of people starve to death every year? Can't imagine there's anything in the environment there that might result in lower IQs.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Does his head have an occipital bun? Do his ribs flare out at the waist? Are his hips set back further than yours? Do his legs bow outward? No? Then he doesn't look like a neanderthal, he just looks like a guy with lots of testosterone. Doesn't sound like someone I'd want to tease all the time.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Much of it is almost certainly cultural and environmental.
Actually, IQ tests conducted in Africa by Africans result in an average score of 65. African Americans score about an 85, due mostly to difference in nutrition in growing up as you point out. IQ has to heritable to some extent, or we would never have evolved from our ape-like ancestors to be smarter.
IQ alone is a dangerous measure of intelligence. It is highly susceptible to testing biases, and there is no real understanding or consensus about what it measures. In response to your point, the logical questions to ask are things like "who made those tests" and "what kind of std. deviation did they find". Personally, I find it more likely that the difference in IQ scores between Africans and African Americans is that African Americans are more likely to have received the kind of formal education that prepares them for standardized tests. Also if you want to dip into almost racism, it is not inconceivable that during the hundreds of years in which Africans were taken as slaves that there was some selection of the more intelligent individuals (meaning the ones not taken were possibly less intelligent). This is not a theory that I tend to agree with, but I can see how one could make the argument.
Regarding the so called "Nature vs. Nurture" debate, the rough numbers that I remember being thrown around in my Cognitive Psych classes were that before age 5-6 something like 60% of intelligence ability is hereditary while 40% is environmental. As the individual matures, this shifts closer towards 50%/50%. Some very interesting work has been done looking at separated paternal twins raised in different environments. There is clearly a strong genetic component to intelligence, and there is just as clearly a very strong environmental component.
You sir, are either a lying sack of shit, or a total idiot.
Race is what race is -- a combination of gross physical traits that let you make some vague underlying assumptions about the broad genetic heritage of an individual. If I took the word "race" out of it, and said that said traits contained a "significant genetic component" does that suddenly change your opinion of the statement?
Specifically, how does saying something has a "significant genetic component" shared frequently by those who are descended from peoples originally native to certain parts of the world meaningfully different (especially at the depth routinely gone on internet forums) from connecting it to "race"?
There are actually large modern cities in Africa, you insensitive clod. In this context, the "environment" is very similar to that in America. Also, Africans raised by whites and Africans raised by blacks have the same lower IQ. All these environmental and developmental factors have been ruled out in various studies and were reported in The Bell Curve almost 20 years ago. But as the authors predicted, most people would rather not talk about it or assume we are all identical and ignore the evidence. Nothing has changed in 20 years.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Also if you want to dip into almost racism, it is not inconceivable that during the hundreds of years in which Africans were taken as slaves that there was some selection of the more intelligent individuals (meaning the ones not taken were possibly less intelligent)
Yeah, because slave owners want bright slaves capable of questioning them and organizing resistance. I find it more likely the selection went the other way: for less intelligent and physically stronger individuals.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Which one is the cause, and which one is the effect?
Forty years ago, millions of people starved to death every year in China too, but the Chinese have a higher average IQ than Europeans. Millions more were also starving to death in India within living memory.
I'm sure nutrition has a role to play in intelligence, but clearly it isn't the defining one.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
As the child of a Maori man with a Chinese woman! Do you start arguing that pepperoni pizza is a social construct every time someone comes up with a new topping combination?
I'm sure, if you try really hard, you can find all kinds of alternative explanations. Unfortunately, when the same races show the same characteristics all over the world, under all kinds of environments, Occam's razor, as well as the bulk of research on the the matter, tells us those characteristics are at least to some degree heritable.
Sorry, but there's been plenty of research done on this topic, and your spew of liberal talking points, have been refuted a dozen times over. Give it up.
I'm no genius, but wouldn't that mark it as a Asiatic variant of H. erectus? Like Neandertals, there's no reason to assume that this hominid was anything other than another scion of the H. erectus migrations throughout Eurasia.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think you (maybe we all) are just misinterpreting each other when we say "race". To some race is synonymous with cultural group, to some race simply means a classification based on observable hereditary differences (fair notice, that language is stolen from Wikipedia). That's why race is such a challenging concept to discuss, its very definition is culturally dependent.
The cultural bigotry comes into play when people make the assumption that cultural norms and behavior are somehow directly linked to ancestral grouping. This is just not the case. I think this is the point you are trying to make (flame me if I'm wrong).
Hey humorless moderator, I thought that was actually pretty funny. Just because you don't get the joke doesn't mean it's overrated.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
I'm not a scientist, but I would figure that, to explain the lower average African score, the cultural underpinnings of the intelligence test outweighs the nutrition of the examinees.
IQ alone is a dangerous measure of intelligence. It is highly susceptible to testing biases, and there is no real understanding or consensus about what it measures.
LOL! You have to love the liberal mind. Any test capable of distinguishing between the abilities of different races will be dismissed as "biased" when it does exactly that!
Ok, then, let's leave IQ out of it. How do the races differ in terms of academic and economic performance? Social pathologies? And how do those correlate to performance on IQ tests?
If you want to play games, I'll give you the point. Let's say IQ tests don't measure a vague and ill-defined characteristic like intelligence. They still correspond fairly closely to individual's ability to succeed in a technologically advanced western culture. Whether or not you want to call that particular quality "intelligence" or not is merely verbal sleight-of-hand, it doesn't negate the value of IQ tests.
More to the point, the genetic differences between human beings of all racial groups are incredibly insignificant. According to a Wikipedia article on the subject, there is an average 0.1% difference between any two randomly-selected human beings, with a maximum difference of 8% between racial groups. This has led to a conclusion that race is largely insignificant at a genetic level. Race is, more than anything else, a social construct.
To paraphrase psychologist Harry Stack Sullivan's One Genus Theory, any randomly-selected human being has far more in common w/any other randomly-selected human being than w/anything else on the planet.
-Z
And the ONE reference you give is to someone that is been criticized by his peers due to his work being poorly researched. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton
Same as the Bell Curve was refuted by the authors peers (one such example here http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5877.html )
Then why would a test created by an African and delivered to Africans in Africa result in a score of 65? What is the cultural problem there?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
MOD PARENT UP!
Am I the only one who thinks it is strange to list the older age first? It seems unnatural.
Pinky, Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering? I think so Brain, but "instant karma" always gets so lumpy.
You're refutation was itself refuted, quite comprehensively long, long ago. Try to keep up.
Assuming you're one of the parties this is of interest to, let me ask this: of what significance is this find, outside of anthropological circles? Unless it leads us to the missing link, what effect does this knowledge have on the world? What does it change? I suspect that may have been more of what GP's point was.
You are confusing two separate points. First, no one here has made the claim that intelligence is not genetic. It is clearly partially genetic. The matter at issue is whether or not there's any substantial genetic component to measured differences between intelligence levels in racial groups or whether that is due primarily to cultural and environmental effects. Also, if you are going to cite sources, try not to cite ones which have been as widely discredited ok?
You have made an error by suggesting that the "holly" (holy) rollers base their beliefs or assertions on facts or evidence; they do not; they base their beliefs and assertions on "faith", which means belief specifically contrary to evidence. You don't need faith to believe something which is supported by the evidence.
The experiments are so abhorent its urban legend whether they have been tried or not. Horse & donkey, lion & tiger are further apart genetically than human and chimp and produce offspring. And one of those pairs has different chromosome counts, like humans and chimps.
So I'd expect humna-Neaderanthal breeding possible and possibly this new discovery.
Assuming you're one of the parties this is of interest to, let me ask this: of what significance is this find, outside of anthropological circles? Unless it leads us to the missing link, what effect does this knowledge have on the world? What does it change? I suspect that may have been more of what GP's point was.
Okay, who forgot to shut the door? Looks like a bean counter looking for ROI found their way in.
When two Bedouin boys stumbled upon some old papers in a cave at Qumran, I will bet money that they no idea of the significance of their find either.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
More importantly, the editors know they can cause another evolution versus creationism argument that is sure to generate lots of advertisement revenue.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Discredited, my ass. I'd like to see a cite for the discrediting. Not that I don't trust you, William Tell....
India still has the highest starvation rates of any single country, from what I remember.
I'm not an anthropologist, but I'll take a swing.
This is significant, because they discovered a species of hominin that branched off before Neanderthal but may have co-existed. This can provide some more insight to our own development. How many other hominins branched off but co-existed with our ancestors? Why did they die out while our ancestors survived? Did we fight them, hunt them, cooperate with them, merge with them, out-compete with them, or some combination of the above? Does it have a major effect on normal people's lives? Probably not, but it is a pretty big discovery for science and genetics.
Also, there is no such thing as "the missing link". Evolution is always happening, all fossils are is a snapshot of that species at the time of it's death. Since not everything leaves a fossil when it dies, all of the gaps will never be truly filled. However, the gaps continue to shrink as more and more evidence is found, and that is the best we can hope for, to keep expanding on our knowledge.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
The divergence actually occurred 150,000 years ago...she's half cylon.
Now, now...I never said the cat didn't LIKE it
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
As an example, you can also tell the "race" of a person if you talk to them on the phone. This obviously has nothing do with biology.
As an example, you can also tell the "sex" of a person if you talk to them on the phone. This obviously has nothing to do with biology.
Nothing whatsoever. It's just an ancient finger-bone.
Nothing. Even if it was a missing link, it wouldn't change anything outside anthropology, and even there it would only clarify a minor detail in hominid family tree.
As a side note, I find the whole term "missing link" weird. There's three generations of humans per century; since human evolution involves timeframes of millions of years, there's tens of thousands of links in the chain. Do you really expect to find them all? And in any case, the chain really extends back through 4 billion years of living organisms, and since "living organism" is simply an evolution of chemistry that became before that, to the beginning of the Universe; you're never going to run out of missing links.
Oh, I quite agree that this is only significant for those interested in anthropology. I simply assert that anthropology is one of the subjects covered by "news for nerds". Nerds existed before computers, and many of us have interests beyond them.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The test itself, not the administrator. Traditional intelligence tests are based in Western notions of knowledge and intelligence -- that's a common criticism of the tests. But perhaps the test of which you speak is not the kind at which that criticism is directed.
Again, that's just my notion. I'm open to argumentation; I don't have much of a preconceived conclusion, and I don't want anybody to construe my notion as an assertion of settled fact.
There are also plenty of tests that are based on numbers, association, memory, et al without any cultural context. These again result in the same lower average scores for blacks. A counter claim to these is that the blacks are not motivated to do well because of the environment in which they grew up, etc. So they did the tests again where you had to hit the button for the answer you guessed as fast as possible. Here again blacks scored lower, but had faster response times than whites. The next question is how they could be motivated in one split second and not in the next split second when they get the question wrong.
The Bell Curve addresses all these things and more with over a thousand sources. It evens predicts its own criticisms and addresses them. I've failed to see anything since then that counters its findings.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Do you really think that what you just said actually refutes what I said? Although I shouldn't address this asinine argument, I will.
Phenotype expression of X and Y chromosomes affects the development of the larynx and vocal cords. This results in higher and lower voices for females and males, respectively.
With regards to the expressive characteristics of speech, enculturation is the primary process for learning language habits early on. An example of a learned habit would be copula deletion, which is a characteristic of AAVE (African-American Vernacular English). Learned language habits are key for detecting a person's cultural ("racial") affiliation without seeing them.
Even if you were to find a study that suggested different laryngeal shapes rooted in different ancestries, you would still not approach being right about race's connection with biology. "Black" is a race, and in America it includes people whose origins are from very different places across the globe. West Africans and East Africans are only similar in your mind because you were taught that they are part of a homogeneous whole. I assure you they are not, and neither are their descendants, who have interbred with a wide variety of European and North American groups. Even if one of these groups had a distinct laryngeal shape that allowed you to detect their difference in speech, it would not extend to the black race as a whole.
Your response is spot on. The definition of race is exactly the point of contention.
That is what I'm trying to address. There is the American cultural understanding of race, and there is the scientific understanding of race. In my opinion, what is happening here is the equivalent of people talking about atoms when they mean molecules. While the general public may not care or bother with it, a chemist is going to feel frustrated, and want to educate the people who are making the error.
Unfortunately, while an ignorance of the physical sciences can have an impact on your day-to-day life, an ignorance of the sociohistorical conditions we are all raised into is guaranteed to have an impact on your day to day life. We see the world through the lens we've inherited. The current scientific understanding sees it differently, but it hasn't become a part of mainstream thought yet.
Even if you were to find a study that suggested different laryngeal shapes rooted in different ancestries, you would still not approach being right about race's connection with biology.
That's bullshit. An anthropologist can look at a thigh-bone, and determine the age, sex and race of the individual it came from. There are decidedly measurable characteristics that distinguish one race from another. And they correlate very highly to what is typically understood as race, even among the great unwashed.
Eventually we may find that man originated in Asia and migrated to Africa.
You know, I read a lot. Especially about things that have to do with history. I find that shit fascinating. Here's a fact, I don't know if you know or not, niggers were spawned by chinks.
It's a fact. You see, niggers have yellow blood pumpin' through their hearts. If you don't believe me, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, you see, the mongols ran out of decent places to rape and pillage, and so they conquered niggerland. And mongols are basically chinks.
So you see, way back then, uh, niggers were like ayrabs from ayrabia. They all had coffee colored skin and hooky noses, but then the mongols moved in there, and well, they changed the whole country. They did so much fuckin' with nigger women (though only the potbellied idol they worship knows why) that they changed the whole bloodline forever. That's why hooky noses and light brown skin became splat-flat double storm-drain noses and black skin. You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, that niggers still carry that chink gene.
The relevance of religious artifacts such as the dead sea scrolls is pretty obvious. Bringing it up in this context only sidesteps the question I asked. What significance does this specific discovery have if valid? What can it change?
As a side note, I find the whole term "missing link" weird.
True, I actually meant to put that phrase in quotes myself. When we're looking at minuscule genetic changes accreting over timespans that we can't imagine in a significant way, every piece of new info found is a part of the links we're looking for. (And perhaps that answers my own question...)
I simply assert that anthropology is one of the subjects covered by "news for nerds". Nerds existed before computers, and many of us have interests beyond them.
True, and I don't disagree on that point. I was thinking more than GP wasn't thinking it was of no interest to nerds, so much as not seeing the relevance overall. 'course, I could be reading too much into it.
True, I actually meant to put that phrase in quotes myself. When we're looking at minuscule genetic changes accreting over timespans that we can't imagine in a significant way, every piece of new info found is a part of the links we're looking for.
Torturously worded, perhaps, but in other words - yes I see your point and agree with it. I should have been clearer in my original post.
you would still not approach being right about race's connection with biology
I'm not sure to whom you're speaking, since I didn't attempt to connect race and biology. I was objecting to the totally fallacious argument you made ("foo can be determined over the phone, therefore, foo has nothing to do with biology").
I would love to hear what's "obvious" about it not being related to biology, since other things obviously are - such as larynx size being directly related to sexual dimorphism, as you so conveniently elaborated on for me.
Also, fwiw, I'm not the AC in this thread.
I thought I made it clear, my apologies. The distinction we make when we are hearing a "black" person speak versus a "white" person (as an example) is not based on the shape of their larynx, but rather their speech patterns, which are culturally learned, not biologically inherited.
My second assertion was that even if it was based on heritable traits, the different genetic ancestries that constitute "black" in America wouldn't necessarily share them, because they are not a homogeneous population biologically.
The problem again, comes down to the term "race." The scientific understanding of race is much different from the non-scientific understanding. See further up in the thread for the distinction and why I feel it is important.
Thanks for clarifying. No harm done. I also agree that it is pretty insignificant for most people, but many of us nerds find it interesting and it could be very important for those researching human evolution.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
The relevance of religious artifacts such as the dead sea scrolls is pretty obvious.
Only in hindsight. Before their significance was discovered, they were hung on a tent poles and occasionally taken out to show people.
My point is that you shouldn't hang this specific discovery on a tent pole.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
However, the gaps continue to shrink as more and more evidence is found, and that is the best we can hope for, to keep expanding on our knowledge.
The gaps split. They don't really shrink, they just get cut up..
If only we could find people who are genetically foo, but raised in a bar environment we might be able to solve that question.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
You must be really old or really stupid. Nobody has believed that since the early 1900s.
A hybrid, but it's irrelevant to the point you're trying to prove. Lurchers don't disprove the the existence of collies and greyhounds.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
A "hybrid" is the product of cross-breeding two different species. It has absolutely nothing to do with this.
"Greyhound" and "collie" are just names for dogs that have a bunch of determined characteristics. Those definitions are merely conventions and have changed with time.
Wrong. The term can apply to anything of mixed origin.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hybrid
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Names for things that are clearly recognizable and have different charecteristics.
It's mere convention to knock nails in with a hammer. You could do it with a screwdriver. I'd still be able to tell the difference.
So what? Since when did something have to be immutable to exist?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
First you say there's insufficient data to decide, and from that you dicide that it's environment.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
By some accounts the difference between our DNA and chimps' is less than 4%.
Is the difference between them and us a social construct too? Or shall we just conclude that clearly a small change in (some) genes can produce a big difference in phenotype, and hence that these raw number comparisons are bunk?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In Barnsley it's more like seven.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Pity his mother didn't have one. Er, wait...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Some part of created by an African giving you trouble, nigger?
Could be worse - they could think sociology is a science.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If you're trying to prove that eating fried chicken, wearing pants that don't fit and talking like "f'shizzle, ho!" has no genetic basis then bravo; you've successfully outdebated precisely zero people.
But even if there's no direct causal link there will be a correlation. People with the genes for Chinese appearance are mostly from China. People in China are mostly exposed to Chinese culture.
Ah, culture. It isn't a synonym for race, and the problem with spiralpath is that he doesn't grok that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If that were true then you'd expect all non-white groups/races/cultures to score lower than whites.
That isn't the case.
There have been attempts to produce a test culturally biased in favor of blacks which has the same predictive validity as the standardised tests in common use. No success.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Don't make caricatures out of my argument. I was merely providing evidence that race is not entirely based on phenotypical traits.
To be very clear, so that you can "grok" it, my argument (and the consensus in modern anthropology, which is assuredly a science) is that systems of race are socially constructed, and don't represent valid biological categorizations of people.
To whit, please investigate the racial system in Brazil. It is drastically different from the American racial system, yet both are inheritors of the Enlightenment-era European thought which gave birth to the early conception of scientific race. This was well before genetics. Two different racial systems, both started in the same time, have developed in drastically different ways.
Neither of them are rooted in genetics, but in changing social conditions and expedient political decisions. I am not suggesting that biological variation does not exist. I am suggesting that our categorizations of that variation is not based in biology. That is what I mean by "social construct."