No. Evolution has stopped in humans. It basically stopped with regards to potential intelligence before we left Africa.
Oh, wonderful Marxists, if only the Aboriginal people didn't exist to hilariously invalidate every word out of your mouth. The average IQ tested is in the 60's and no matter how much money is thrown at them, makes nearly no difference. A large portion of the group went extinct due to being the only modern day humans that couldn't invent fire. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8688531/Billions-spent-on-Australias-Aborigines-yield-dismal-results.htmlEven looking at the skull difference between an Aboriginal and European, you need to be both stupid and a liar to claim there's "no genetic differences". The skull on the left is AFTER 1800's, it's not from millions of years ago. There's a clear divergence of species going on here:  I didn't say there's "no genetic differences". ^^So which shitty race r u? (You'll never be as smart as a Jew  )  I think he might be "special". One of those kids who dropped out of the Derek Zoolander Institute. |
|
|
|
I guess my point is "potential intelligence" is like Libertarian's "value" (as in "Bitcoin is a store of value") -- only meaningful until you try to define it.
By "potential intelligence" I simply mean the range of intelligence available within the group. It doesn't seem to differ between human racial groups, but it differs a lot when you compare a human to an orangutan. All humans (except maybe small-blockers) will register in a completely different range than the orangutan. "Potential intelligence" = "range of intelligence available within the group" is a poor definition of "potential intelligence," for several reasons. 1. The word "potential" implies ...well, potential, as in "possibility of becoming something." Your definition appears to evaluate the actual intelligence within the group. 2. "Intelligence" is left undefined. Before we can go on to evaluate X ("range of [X] available within the group", or even "potential [X]"), we must know what it is that we are evaluating. (  arguments of why IQ tests are ethnocentric/anthrocentric go here) But let's get ahead of ourselves and, without defining what "potential intelligence" is, figure out how "all groups have identical potential intelligence" proposition could be proven/disproved. Since can't a priori, have to resort to messy empiricism & do this: [im g]http://s8.postimg.org/56jn3rxd1/Capture.png[/img] I doubt we did, because just no. I guess my point is "races are equal" is just the B-side of eugenics. I know, both 1 and 2 are complex. That's why I tried to dumb it down. And I'm sorry for calling you a creationist. It was just a joke. I didn't mean to upset you. |
|
|
|
I guess my point is "potential intelligence" is like Libertarian's "value" (as in "Bitcoin is a store of value") -- only meaningful until you try to define it.
By "potential intelligence" I simply mean the range of intelligence available within the group. It doesn't seem to differ between human racial groups, but it differs a lot when you compare a human to an orangutan. All humans (except maybe small-blockers) will register in a completely different range than the orangutan. |
|
|
|
...
No. Evolution has stopped in humans.
Onoes, disheartening! Are we sure it was ever a thing? Just wondering what it was that "has stopped in humans." And why. BTW, the Pope is illegitimate. ~Luke-jr P.S. Appears this thread's getting purged  Genetic material doesn't decide if you get to live and breed. Natural selection is not a thing in modern human society. |
|
|
|
...
No. Evolution has stopped in humans.
Onoes, disheartening! Are we sure it was ever a thing? |
|
|
|
before we left Africa.
Get your facts straight. The out of Africa paradigm is just an hypothesis. One of the most influential man behind this theory was professor Yves Coppens. He himself recognized that a multi-regional theory might be much appropriated in regards of the recent discoveries. The Out of Africa theory have been falling apart of all sides for at least 15 years but is still systematically pushed forward for political and ideological reasons. Nope, it has largely been confirmed through the study of genetic material. |
|
|
|
Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.
In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long. There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't. Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes. This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin D. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia. So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion. I don't get it. You just provided more evidence for your opponent's position. It doesn't matter if there are more differences with dogs than humans. What matters is that there are differences, and these differences aren't just in appearances, but also in behavioral traits and intelligence, because differing traits are advantageous in differing environments. What is more interesting to me is that humans everywhere have evolved instincts and behaviors that were useful in their original environments but very maladaptive now in modern times. The most obvious being that we stay hungry far after we have consumed sufficient calories. Some of these maladptive behaviors are sex-specific, such as men's preferences for women with visual fertility cues or women's preference for high status men to the exclusion of far more logically relevant qualities. We have changed our environment in many ways, some of which are better and some of which are incompatible with our natural behaviors. Cubical farms and assembly lines are miserable places to work. Mating practices and rituals are elaborate, inefficient, and often produce worse results than random pairings or arranged marriages. What remains to be seen is whether we can continue to improve our environment or whether we will develop traits more compatible to it. You've misunderstood Robert Metcalfe's net worth is 250 million. What's yours?
You've misunderstood No, I think I understand very well. You are saying that natural selection is cruel enough without us making it more so. I agree with that, but I also know that there are limits to how much we can ameliorate evolutionary pressures without introducing even worse cruelties. We don't have the luxury of merely virtue signalling how much we care about the unlucky and the ungifted. Responsible advocacy has to consider costs, benefits, and unintended consequences. No. Evolution has stopped in humans. It basically stopped with regards to potential intelligence before we left Africa. So the point I am making is that there is no genetic reason for discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or "race". We all know this. There is no reason to feel sorry for Kofi Annan or Ban Ki-Moon (or Freddy Mercury for that matter). They haven't been dealt inferior genes. It's not a thing. They're far "better" humans in their field than anyone on this forum. |
|
|
|
Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.
In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long. There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't. Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes. This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin D. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia. So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion. I don't get it. You just provided more evidence for your opponent's position. It doesn't matter if there are more differences with dogs than humans. What matters is that there are differences, and these differences aren't just in appearances, but also in behavioral traits and intelligence, because differing traits are advantageous in differing environments. What is more interesting to me is that humans everywhere have evolved instincts and behaviors that were useful in their original environments but very maladaptive now in modern times. The most obvious being that we stay hungry far after we have consumed sufficient calories. Some of these maladptive behaviors are sex-specific, such as men's preferences for women with visual fertility cues or women's preference for high status men to the exclusion of far more logically relevant qualities. We have changed our environment in many ways, some of which are better and some of which are incompatible with our natural behaviors. Cubical farms and assembly lines are miserable places to work. Mating practices and rituals are elaborate, inefficient, and often produce worse results than random pairings or arranged marriages. What remains to be seen is whether we can continue to improve our environment or whether we will develop traits more compatible to it. You've misunderstood Robert Metcalfe's net worth is 250 million. What's yours?
You've misunderstood |
|
|
|
Mammal's unite!!
 THIS IS BITCOIN!!! |
|
|
|
All good but it's vitamin D not vitamin E, I know you know that and it's only a typo.
Thx, fixed it. |
|
|
|
Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.
In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long. There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't. Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes. This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin D. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia. So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion. |
|
|
|
Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.
I'm pretty sure I live in the same country you're living in. I'm just trying to piss off a drunk canadian. You should try it. It's fun! |
|
|
|
Fair enough. Perelman is no slouch. For a country with the population of Russia though, they don't do so well. Meanwhile, half of the original Silicon Valley was educated at The University of Western Ontario or the University of Waterloo. The rest came mostly from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Michigan at Dearborn. That's not counting Stanford of course. The were the destination. Many of our best minds were scooped up by the Americans (and their money) in the 1960s. At the time we called it the brain drain. Canada doesn't have a monopoly on smart people but on a basis of population we're still well ahead of the Russians It sort of helps to speak english in Silicon Valley. Let's look at some other measures: This is what Russia sent up into space 30 years ago:  This is their contribution to the ISS:  And Canada?  "fap fap fap fap fap"Ok, change of focus: Russia: Mussorgsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff. Canada: Avril Lavigne, Bryan Adams...... eh...ehh... Russia: Bolshoi Ballet, Mariinsky Ballet. Canada: Cirque du Soleil. As for "easy pickings" remember who won the War of 1812 (hint: it wasn't the USA).
Great Britain  |
|
|
|
President Putin’s counselor and advisor on the internet, German Klimenko, or a Canadian uᴉoɔʇᴉq monomaniac calling himself adamstgBit...
Who to believe?
I'll take the Canadian over the Russian any day. The smartest Russian, Vitalik Buterin grew up and was educated in Canada. Coincidence?Mind you, he was smart enough to take his (and other people's) money to Switzerland. Klimenko? He's just toadying up to KGB boy. o rly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_PerelmanBeyond that, yes Klimenko is a siloviki toad. Whenever they speak down stuff it means it's powerful stuff. |
|
|
|
read the fucking article
click on the fucking link |
|
|
|
Izabella Kaminska. Isn't that the woman everyone thinks is lambie?  Wouldn't surprise me. She is absolutely a Bitcoin skeptic.Maybe hates it with a passion. Would have been cool if that Wright dude turned out to be Satoshi and started laying down the law. "Ok, clearly we don't need a block size limit any more. This should be obvious to any idiot. Oh, and PoW? Hmmmm... I've been working on a solution in my lair." |
|
|
|
Izabella Kaminska. Isn't that the woman everyone thinks is lambie? |
|
|
|
Even though you seem thrilled to find and post bearish uᴉoɔʇᴉq news, those articles could also be read as bullish... - especially the second one because in the end, there seems to be quite a bit of decentralized decision-making and investment going into uᴉoɔʇᴉq, that signifies that individuals (and small companies, and maybe even governments) will be continuing to invest in uᴉoɔʇᴉq's computing power and into securing the blockchain (as well as attempting to control some of the mining process). Good ole competition may well cause a computing power arms race in respects to uᴉoɔʇᴉq. Even if it seems to be wasteful, it surely shows anticipated ongoing interest. Plenty of permabulls here, happy to post bullish news, I'm just playing for the other team. About market direction, IMO if during the next 2 days there won't be a pump that turns 6h MACD to positive, then we'll crash. If there will be a pump, we'll still crash after that, but from a higher price point...  Good articles. I think the PoS∕PoW discussion is next on the list when the scaling issue has been resolved. Hopefully Ethereum will have shown that PoS can work by then. ...
so cypher-d. IS a confirmend scammer? (serious question)
Yes and no. He made serious scratch by pimping HashFast, but he also was upfront about being on HF payroll. People got pissed once they figured out just how much he made. Just can't stand to see the other fellow win. It's the only time I've ever seen iCEBREAKER defend cypherdoc. I don't know if it helps (iCE and morals... meh), but it's interesting. Also kind of interesting to see all the anarcaps and libertarians trying to rip cypher a new one for not redistributing money that is lawfully his. Double standards are twice as good as the regular kind. |
|
|
|
that scammer don't run the forum... there are way more scammers on bitcointalk.org then on the other fourm, do you feel your associated with the sammers on bitcointalk? Where's the new forum software? I heard it would have a sentient search bar. |
|
|
|
BTC moving down, ETH moving up  It's almost starting to look like ETH might take over. I better go buy an ETH debit card then to spend all of these ETHs. Or go visit an ETH accepting restaurant. I can use them to buy things at Amazon for a discount right? A convoluted way to use a debit card and Amazon coupons. I hope BTC has more going for it than that. Being able to drop your bank and use an international currency that has a finite amount...I'd say that's quite a bit. Can I do that with ethereums? I wasn't really thinking in terms of eth vs btc. I was thinking about btc as a useful currency. It seems like btc has become less useful lately. The merchant adoption boom of 2014 seems to have stopped and even regressed. I recently discovered overclockers.co.uk has stopped accepting btc. That's the most relevant real-life use case for me personally, gone. I guess I can go to some shady site and buy a gift card with btc, but if my money is legal I don't really see the point of this instead of just using paypal. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
