The Neanderthal theory, your thoughts?

Page 11 of 12 [ 185 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

_BRI_
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

09 May 2008, 3:56 am

Neanderthals and Sapiens coexisted Europe for 15.000 years. Neanderthal genome is incomplete, so far is it a close match, there's no noticeable difference. Neanderthals and sapiens were the same specie. They had interbreed capability.

AND WE ARE DISCUSSING IF SAPIENS SAPIENS SUBESPECIE COULD HAVE NEANDERTHAL'S GENES?

HILLARIOUS


LEAVE YOUR GOLDEN RETRIEVER ALONE WITH THE NEIGHBOUR'S POINTER FOR ONE AFTERNOON AND CALL ME IN 3 MONTHS.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

09 May 2008, 5:38 am

Its not that simple _BRI_

Lions and Tigers may cross breed and they are more distantly related than horses and donkeys. The horse and donkey combination, called a mule, is unable to have offspring of its own.

A Liger(a cross between a lion and tiger) may have children, either by mating with a Lion, a Tiger, or another Liger, or even a Tigon(which is a cross between a male tiger and a female lion).

In fact, most hybrids in nature are sterile and unable to reproduce. The above mentioned lion-tiger mixes are an unusual example of animals that break that general rule.

In nature mating rituals are as important as genetics in determining who will cross breed. Using birds for an example, it is important that they have the proper colored feathers and that they pose and make the correct motions and sounds to attract a mate.

Size is even more important. For example, a male Chihuahua cannot impregnate a female great dane, even though dogs are all the same species(Canis Familiaris), but a Husky(Canis Familiaris) could impregnate a wolf(Canis Lupus).

There is more to the equation than genetic similarity, and nobody can really know if homo sapien and neanderthal could cross breed.

Finally. I am taking away your caps lock key. Its considered rude to type in all caps like that.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

09 May 2008, 10:24 am

_BRI_ wrote:
Neanderthals and Sapiens coexisted Europe for 15.000 years. Neanderthal genome is incomplete, so far is it a close match, there's no noticeable difference. Neanderthals and sapiens were the same specie. They had interbreed capability.

AND WE ARE DISCUSSING IF SAPIENS SAPIENS SUBESPECIE COULD HAVE NEANDERTHAL'S GENES?

HILLARIOUS


LEAVE YOUR GOLDEN RETRIEVER ALONE WITH THE NEIGHBOUR'S POINTER FOR ONE AFTERNOON AND CALL ME IN 3 MONTHS.

I can has citation plz?

I'm out of the loop for quite some time now. If you have anything that would back this up, kindly present it.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

09 May 2008, 2:36 pm

Fuzzy wrote:
In nature mating rituals are as important as genetics in determining who will cross breed. Using birds for an example, it is important that they have the proper colored feathers and that they pose and make the correct motions and sounds to attract a mate.


Exactly. That's a strong indication that Aspies are another species, because it is common that Aspies do not understand the NT mating ritual and has preferences of their own that NTs find weird or disgusting.
:wink:



PrisonerSix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 689
Location: The Village

09 May 2008, 2:41 pm

All this talk about Neanderthals and Home Sapiens existing together and AS has made me think of the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Dear Doctor." In this episode, the Enterprise finds a ship drifting in space and they bring the crew members aboard and save their lives. They then say their race is dying off from a disease they can't cure and they're out in space looking for help, even though they can't get to another star system because they haven't developed warp drive yet. The Enterprise takes them back to their home planet and discovers two humanoid species living there, the technologically advanced Valakians and the primative Menk. The Menk are supposedly less intelligent than the Valakians but they are good workers, so they do all the menial jobs and the Valakians provide them with everything they need.

Dr. Phlox finds it fascinating there are 2 sentient species on the planet living together peacefully. Even though some think the Menk aren't much more than slaves or pets, Dr. Phlox finds it interesting because on other planets where there have been 2 sentient species, one usually ends up anihilating the other. He doesn't judge the relationship between the 2 species, in which one does all the menial work and the other provides for all of their needs by human standards.

The Menk seem to be immune from the disease the Valakians are dying from, so Dr. Phlox decides to study them and find out why. He goes to a Menk village and finds that they are an agrarian culture, but since the Valakians can farm more efficiently with technology, the Menk are only allowed to live in areas where the land isn't very arable. A Menk hospital orderly helps him with his work and strangely enough, starts speaking and understanding some English. In addition, a Menk puts tissue samples in the same order he would have which tells him the Menk are more intelligent than previously believed.

His studies of the Menk and the Valakians determine that the problem isn't a disease, it's a genetic defect that exists in their DNA, that they are at an evolutionary "dead end," and their race will most likely be gone in 2 centuries. However, Dr. Phlox has the technology to cure them but wonders if he should. He thinks this "dead end" was the natural progression of the Valakians and that the Menk are on the verge of an evolutionary awakening, but as long as the Valakians are around, the Menk will be kept down and won't have the opportunity to make this breakthrough and make it to their true potential.

At first, Captain Archer tells Dr. Phlox to give them the cure, but he thinks it would be wrong interfere in the natural progression of their race, but then Archer changes his mind realizing the Enterprise isn't out in space to "Play God," and comes to a compromise. Dr. Phlox gives the Valakians a treatment for the disease. Although it won't cure it, it will perhaps buy their species another 50 years or so in which either they might find the cure, or develop warp drive so they can go into the galaxy and find a cure.

Makes me wonder if perhaps this can be compared to the Sapien/Neanderthal thread.

Just a random thought.


_________________
PrisonerSix

"I am not a number, I am a free man!"


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 May 2008, 3:13 pm

rdos wrote:
I don't think it can. Not if there are a few people pointing out that the "IQ gap" is there because of autistic genes. White supremacists won't suddenly start celebrating autism because most of these guys are NTs. The Bell Curve is an entirely different matter as it says nothing about the background.


The problem, as I see it, is with the claim that aspies are largely a subspecies of Caucasoids. No matter whether the intellectual variance in the races is principally attributed to aspies, a case is still being made for Caucasoids having a higher culturally-neutral average IQ score.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

09 May 2008, 3:25 pm

nominalist wrote:
The problem, as I see it, is with the claim that aspies are largely a subspecies of Caucasoids. No matter whether the intellectual variance in the races is principally attributed to aspies, a case is still being made for Caucasoids having a higher culturally-neutral average IQ score.


Not only Caucasians, but also NE Asians and Amerindians. This is because how the interbreeding happened. It started in Central Asia, after which proto-Caucasians went West and continued to interbreed in Europe and proto-Mongoloids went east and eventually to the Americas. Then we also have the movements out of Europe and into Near East and North Africa (and back again). Basically the only population that remains largely unaffected are black Africans. If it didn't happen this way, it would be impossible to match it with the IQ distribution of the world.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 May 2008, 4:20 pm

rdos wrote:
Not only Caucasians, but also NE Asians and Amerindians. This is because how the interbreeding happened. It started in Central Asia, after which proto-Caucasians went West and continued to interbreed in Europe and proto-Mongoloids went east and eventually to the Americas. Then we also have the movements out of Europe and into Near East and North Africa (and back again). Basically the only population that remains largely unaffected are black Africans. If it didn't happen this way, it would be impossible to match it with the IQ distribution of the world.


Again, I think you are reifying the construct of IQ. Intelligence and aptitude tests - whether Stanford-Binet, SAT, ACT, or others - are nothing more than operational definitions of intelligence. In other words, intelligence is not a thing. It is a presumed set of abilities which are measured by various indicants (scales and indices).

The overriding problem, which is now almost universally acknowledged by social scientists, is that operationalizations of intelligence cannot be separated from culture. In other words, no matter how one writes the questions, it is impossible to test completely for intelligence while controlling on socialization. They are part and parcel of one another.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


_BRI_
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

10 May 2008, 12:36 am

Why don't we collect funds to check our genes?



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

10 May 2008, 5:44 am

nominalist wrote:
Again, I think you are reifying the construct of IQ. Intelligence and aptitude tests - whether Stanford-Binet, SAT, ACT, or others - are nothing more than operational definitions of intelligence. In other words, intelligence is not a thing. It is a presumed set of abilities which are measured by various indicants (scales and indices).

The overriding problem, which is now almost universally acknowledged by social scientists, is that operationalizations of intelligence cannot be separated from culture. In other words, no matter how one writes the questions, it is impossible to test completely for intelligence while controlling on socialization. They are part and parcel of one another.


I know and you are absolutely correct. We just witnessed the IQ testing of our daughter (WISC), and there is no doubt that culture & socialization is a big part of the results. Another big part is the lack of typical NT-adaptations. I can tell this because many questions were related to what our daughter had missed in school because she has been in special education and has not yet learned these things. There is no such thing as a culturally independent IQ-test. An even bigger problem when doing these things on children is that they are normed to "typical development". Children that don't develop according to the typical norm will get useless results.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

10 May 2008, 8:50 am

_BRI_ wrote:
Why don't we collect funds to check our genes?


Too early. We need an almost complete Hn genome first. Because of the method used, we need most of the genome before genes can be assembled. And, besides, we allready have AGRE as an excellent source. 8)



_BRI_
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

10 May 2008, 9:04 am

rdos wrote:

There is no such thing as a culturally independent IQ-test.



I want to share with you the prologue of a book written by a well known mathematician from Argentina, my country.. that's why my english sucks by the way. He's a recognized proffessor of the University of Buenos Aires and a very nice person to meet. Excuse my poor translation...

IT REALLY WORTH THE TIME READING.

"For long years I was in the search for a good definition of the word intelligence.
What is it exactly? Everybody and when I say every is because there's no way I couldn't speak to someone in any given time who wouldn't say: That's an intelligent person.. or he's a very intelligent guy.. or quite the contrary: He does not have an ounce of intelligence.
I stop here because... you know what I mean. But what really amazes me is that If you ask someone to define intelligence. It is quite probably you'll hear a wide range of answers.

A. It's about the skills to solve problems.
B. It's about the capacity to quickly adapt to new situations.
C. The skills to learn and comprehend to get profits of the experience.
D. It's the capacity of an individual to perceive, interpretate and adapt a response to the environment.
E. It's the innate capability to perceive relationships and indetify corelationships.
F. It's the dexterity to find sameness and diferences and recognize things that are iddentical.

Obviously that list could go on. The problem resides in the fact there's not a universally accepted meaning. So, when people talks about intelligence what do they mean?

Far beyond my reluctancy, there's a thread in what do people believes when they are talking about intelligence.

But I have some questions:

-One is all-around intelligent?
-One who is intelligent for business is also intelligent for physics?
-To be intelligent.. you have to be quick?
-Do you have to make conclusions faster than average? How do you measure average?
-Can you be intelligent being deep and profound but not necessarily quick?
-Being intelligent is having new ideas?
-The intelligent people are prepared to understand all the questions to search for the answers?
-Where's the point or line when you go from not intelligent to intelligent?

Classic positions.

Since 1930 there are some people who believes It's a genetic factor. Therefor is hereditary. Others say It's the environment in which a kid develops, and the stimulus he receives. In the 60's and the 70's the public and private sectors held the voice of the scientist who didn't dare to say it loud. Ingelligence is genetic!
In 1994 was published the first edition of the Book The bell Curve. Which was a best seller. It's authors Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray presumed they had found a good definition of intelligence, a way to quantify it and therefore a way to measure it. They show statistical analisis and a pormenorized study of the IQ (intelligent quotient). The IQ becomed the general method to express the performance of an individual in a given population.

That book splitted the american society public opinion in two.

What could be essential to analize this discussion is a less passionate point of view. It's hard to debate a topic so undefineable with certainty.

Another scientits who are in strong disagreement with the IQ tests claims that the more important aspects of human skills are so diverse, so complex, so changing, so dependable of cultural context and above all means so subjective to be measured with a list of questions.
And they go on "intelligence is more comparable to beauty or justice than to height or weight"

From another point of view, Howard Gardner a psychologyst from Harvard says "there is not just one type of intelligence or a general intelligence. There are seven types of intelligence.

Ambience or heredity?

Hot argues go on between the ones who believe is the social context and the other party that firmly believes it is determined in the moment of the birth. This discussion boils because it touches the controverted cuestions of education, social classes and racial relationships.

My position facing this hot debate is that the conditioning of the environment are a decissive factor. An example:If the day I was born the nursery switched babies. The baby who took my place in my familiy could have large possibilities to develop his skills freely. Of course, not necessarily he would become a mathematician and journalist. But what it is clear to me is he could exploit his inborn abilities and dreams to a large extent.

I don't want to sound an expert in the subject because I am not one. I just want to make an opinion to this and it is as valuable as anyones.

But I want to do it anyway: I am convinced with every child is born with a set of skills, a taste for something in particular, with a talent or easyness to perform a task. But if a child has no economic possibilities, or adecquate stimulus then It is very likely he never finds out what he likes and enjoys.


If we could give to every child the possibility to live in the right conditions to develop ot its full potential then we could analize who is intelligent and who is not. Even if we manage to agree what is intelligence.

Adrian Paenza.

I hope you liked..



kaytie
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 270

10 May 2008, 9:27 am

it's not conclusive...i doubt if it's the actual truth



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

10 May 2008, 10:31 am

rdos wrote:
An even bigger problem when doing these things on children is that they are normed to "typical development". Children that don't develop according to the typical norm will get useless results.


Yes, or even worse, they will, in many countries, be placed into a lower educational track. In the U.S., the lower tracks are disproportionately populated by African Americans and Latino Americans. That is why I have difficulties with claims that Negroids have lower average IQs than Caucasoids (no matter how one parses it). Similarly, many nonverbal autistics, who have subsequently continued on as university students, will present on those tests as intellectually disabled (mentally ret*d). The problem is that the IQ testing process is not isomorphic with all subpopulations.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

10 May 2008, 11:45 am

Actually, I think it is significant that the third factor in Aspie-quiz seems to be the well-known "g-factor". It explains around 1% of the variance (compare that to 70% of the Aspie-NT aspect). The main problem I see in measuring intelligence based on this 1% of human variation is that whatever the tests measure they will be heavily messed-up with the Aspie-NT aspect. This is clearly the case for the personality-tests. Big Five has the extraversion factor that is indistinguishable from the NT social & compulsion aspect (IOW it loads high on the Aspie-NT aspect) and another factor that is almost entirely related to secondary problems many autistics have (neuroticism). The third factor clusters to "Aspie activity" (and thus ADD/ADHD). The other two factors, although they don't cluster on any specific aspect in Aspie-quiz, still correlates about 0.2-0.3 to the neurotypical factor. So, I think it is both meaningless and impossible to construct a general IQ-test, since there is no significant factor in factor-analysis of broad questionaries that actually can be said to be the IQ-factor. The entire concept of the "g-factor" is grounded in factor-analysis of IQ-tests with too small variation and without first eliminating the much more significant Aspie and NT factors.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

10 May 2008, 12:05 pm

rdos wrote:
Actually, I think it is significant that the third factor in Aspie-quiz seems to be the well-known "g-factor". It explains around 1% of the variance (compare that to 70% of the Aspie-NT aspect).


General intelligence (g-factor) is widely criticized by cognitive and educational psychologists as presenting an overly mechanistic view of intelligence. It also attempts to bracket culture and socialization.

Quote:
So, I think it is both meaningless and impossible to construct a general IQ-test, since there is no significant factor in factor-analysis of broad questionaries that actually can be said to be the IQ-factor. The entire concept of the "g-factor" is grounded in factor-analysis of IQ-tests with too small variation and without first eliminating the much more significant Aspie and NT factors.


They also generally result in small eta squared values, indicating that little of the variance is explained.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute