Neandertals are our ancestors

[CardiacCoug]

Right. He rather promptly dispensed wiht the notion fo superiority of color or other physical feature.

I love Guns, Germs, and Steel -- one of my all-time favorite books.

But as was pointed out, his book is not a study -- merely an interesting and convincing argument. Diamond's anecdote about the intelligence and ingenuity of the Papua New Guinean proves nothing, correct?

Obviously there is no logical reason to think that intelligence would differ between different races, since race is not really a genetically-defined entity.

But is it unthinkable that one cultural group could be on average more intelligent than another group (say that Papua New Guineans could be more intelligent on average than native Sri Lankans)?

Potential intelligence differences between groups of humans don't really matter, since the differences would certainly be very small and very difficult if not impossible to quantify. But it seems like political correctness in the extreme to claim that there could not possibly be any difference whatsoever in intelligence between different ethnic/cultural groups. Diamond certainly didn't prove the intellectual equivalence of ethnic/cultural groups in any way, shape or form in his excellent book.

[SeattleUte]

I love Guns, Germs, and Steel -- one of my all-time favorite books.

But as was pointed out, his book is not a study -- merely an interesting and convincing argument. Diamond's anecdote about the intelligence and ingenuity of the Papua New Guinean proves nothing, correct?

Obviously there is no logical reason to think that intelligence would differ between different races, since race is not really a genetically-defined entity.

But is it unthinkable that one cultural group could be on average more intelligent than another group (say that Papua New Guineans could be more intelligent on average than native Sri Lankans)?

Potential intelligence differences between groups of humans don't really matter, since the differences would certainly be very small and very difficult if not impossible to quantify. But it seems like political correctness in the extreme to claim that there could not possibly be any difference whatsoever in intelligence between different ethnic/cultural groups. Diamond certainly didn't prove the intellectual equivalence of ethnic/cultural groups in any way, shape or form in his excellent book.

Diamond (yes, Creek and I have been misspelling his name) convincingly shows why Europeans and Asians had the wheel, steel, great ships, and gunpowder, and New World aborigines had none of those things. By logical extension, he shows why Sioux Indians are underepresented in the professions today. His conclusions are empirically supported, never overstated, and are absent even an ideological tint.

This is no smoke and mirrors show. In terms of intelligence between the races, there is really nothing to speculate about after his argument is finished. If you understand how a proposition is proven in reality, he has "proven" equivence of intelligence between the races insofar as that is possible to do, particularly bearing in mind evolutionary biology. His book is a great service to humanity. His arguments are totally convincing, and really aren't that original. He has done the best job of marshalling them into a one volume popular history.

By the way, there is much about Diamond's world view with which I disagree. His books since Guns Germs and Steel haven't interested me in the least, and have had an ideological bent, apparently (I haven't read them). Personally, I think that elimination of famine and greatly reducing infant mortality in vast parts of the world is indubitably a good thing, and we know where that comes from--Western techology. Diamond's work seems blind to that fact.

To me, the interesting question, and something that PC sensitivity often does obscure, is why are there now such huge disparities in levels of prosperity, liberty and simple decency--in a word, virtue--between places that have had similar environmental advantages for centuries. Why is Saudi Arabia the way it is and the United Kingdom the way it is? Diamond will never write about that, I venture.

[woot]

Diamond (yes, Creek and I have been misspelling his name) convincingly shows why Europeans and Asians had the wheel, steel, great ships, and gunpowder, and New World aborigines had none of those things. By logical extension, he shows why Sioux Indians are underepresented in the professions today. His conclusions are empirically supported, never overstated, and are absent even an ideological tint.

This is no smoke and mirrors show. In terms of intelligence between the races, there is really nothing to speculate about after his argument is finished. If you understand how a proposition is proven in reality, he has "proven" equivence of intelligence between the races insofar as that is possible to do, particularly bearing in mind evolutionary biology. His book is a great service to humanity. His arguments are totally convincing, and really aren't that original. He has done the best job of marshalling them into a one volume popular history.

By the way, there is much about Diamond's world view with which I disagree. His books since Guns Germs and Steel haven't interested me in the least, and have had an ideological bent, apparently (I haven't read them). Personally, I think that elimination of famine and greatly reducing infant mortality in vast parts of the world is indubitably a good thing, and we know where that comes from--Western techology. Diamond's work seems blind to that fact.

To me, the interesting question, and something that PC sensitivity often does obscure, is why are there now such huge disparities in levels of prosperity, liberty and simple decency--in a word, virtue--between places that have had similar environmental advantages for centuries. Why is Saudi Arabia the way it is and the United Kingdom the way it is? Diamond will never write about that, I venture.

This is borderline fellatio. I like GG&S too, but you're drastically overstating the book's value here. There are a number of reviews that discuss how his book is really a just-so story that happens to fit with what we would like to believe. Incidentally, Diamond interviewed one of my professors for the book, and subsequently ignored everything he was told because it didn't fit his narrative.

It's a good book, but Cardiac's got it right. It is an argument. A well-stated one, but just an argument.

[SeattleUte]

This is borderline fellatio. I like GG&S too, but you're drastically overstating the book's value here. There are a number of reviews that discuss how his book is really a just-so story that happens to fit with what we would like to believe. Incidentally, Diamond interviewed one of my professors for the book, and subsequently ignored everything he was told because it didn't fit his narrative.

It's a good book, but Cardiac's got it right. It is an argument. A well-stated one, but just an argument.

Historians have long recognized the relationship between farming and the rise of civilization. Diamond's thesis was not original, nor is it controversial or really in question. Farming occurred in any part of the world to the extent domesticable plants and animals were available. It was more developed and sophisticated in the Middle East and in Greece, where Western civilization began, because of the fertile crescent. Eurasia was also hospitable to movement of technology and domesticable plants and animals over large distances, which wasn't true in the Americas or elsewhere in the New World. Is any of this debatable? Indeed, recorded history describes the process in Europe. See, e.g., Tacitus.
That is his thesis in a nutshell, and as far as the argument goes. What is your argument against his? I doubt you have one (I recognize that, as with the Civil War, we are outside your field here). However, apparently many people have needed to have the argument presented to them as he did.

He interviewed someone from BYU?

By the way, I challenge you to link reviews that call the book a "just so story". I don't believe you. (I trust we can agree that the book was widely praised, even won the Pulitzer Prize.)

[woot]

Historians have long recognized the relationship between farming and the rise of civilization. Diamond's thesis was not original, nor is it controversial or really in question. Farming occurred in any part of the world to the extent domesticable plants and animals were available. It was more developed and sophisticated in the Middle East and in Greece, where Western civilization began, because of the fertile crescent. Eurasia was also hospitable to movement of technology and domesticable plants and animals over large distances, which wasn't true in the Americas or elsewhere in the New World. Is any of this debatable? Indeed, recorded history describes the process in Europe. See, e.g., Tacitus.
That is his thesis in a nutshell, and as far as the argument goes. What is your argument against his? I doubt you have one (I recognize that, as with the Civil War, we are outside your field here). However, apparently many people have needed to have the argument presented to them as he did.

He interviewed someone from BYU?

By the way, I challenge you to link reviews that call the book a "just so story". I don't believe you. (I trust we can agree that the book was widely praised, even won the Pulitzer Prize.)

You don't need to restate his thesis; I buy it. It's basically just the basics of biological evolution applied to civilizations. His book is good because he argues for it well, not because it proves anything. I'm not interested in dredging up reviews for it, but criticism of it shouldn't be hard to find.

I'm not a student at BYU.

[SeattleUte]

You don't need to restate his thesis; I buy it. It's basically just the basics of biological evolution applied to civilizations. His book is good because he argues for it well, not because it proves anything. I'm not interested in dredging up reviews for it, but criticism of it shouldn't be hard to find.

I'm not a student at BYU.

Thank you, no further questions.

Edit: I don't think we have a common understanding of the word proof.

[creekster]

This thread has too much pride bouncing around in it. No one claims that Diamond's book was a 'study', did they? I certainly didn't. OTOH, it did make a very convincing argument while citing to anecdotal and empirical evidence that there is simply no basis to conclude that there is any meaningful or measurable difference in the intelligence potential among people of any race or culture. Now some of you may not like Diamond as much as some others, but the fact remains that apart from the dippy Harvard LS bozo no one here is willing to take the position that this premise is untrue. That is because it is true and there is no credible contrary evidence. None. So after we are all done puffing up our chests and trying to draw distinctions that, ultimately, make no difference, this fact remains: there is no intelligence difference among the races.

[woot]

This thread has too much pride bouncing around in it. No one claims that Diamond's book was a 'study', did they? I certainly didn't. OTOH, it did make a very convincing argument while citing to anecdotal and empirical evidence that there is simply no basis to conclude that there is any meaningful or measurable difference in the intelligence potential among people of any race or culture. Now some of you may not like Diamond as much as some others, but the fact remains that apart from the dippy Harvard LS bozo no one here is willing to take the position that this premise is untrue. That is because it is true and there is no credible contrary evidence. None. So after we are all done puffing up our chests and trying to draw distinctions that, ultimately, make no difference, this fact remains: there is no intelligence difference among the races.

This is true. That doesn't mean that nuances can't be discussed profitably, however. Diamond's book is good, but it has problems, and is only one of hundreds of books that discuss the basic equality of humans.

[SeattleUte]

This is true. That doesn't mean that nuances can't be discussed profitably, however. Diamond's book is good, but it has problems, and is only one of hundreds of books that discuss the basic equality of humans.

It's a popular history. Written for lay people.

[UtahDan]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0718085329.htm

The above is in the news today but I am having a hard time figuring out what new information it adds that wasn't being discussed here last year. Woot?

[woot]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0718085329.htm

The above is in the news today but I am having a hard time figuring out what new information it adds that wasn't being discussed here last year. Woot?

It's mostly just a confirmation of the previous study using completely different methods. It's important not only because it provides independent confirmation of some really important ideas, but also because the previous study was very preliminary despite its exciting methodology. I haven't read the paper yet so there could be some more good stuff in there too but this seems to be the gist of it. I'll post here later if anything else strikes me after I read it or if I find a good review of it.

[Green Monstah]

This is not my area, but I don't think this is the first evidence of it, although it might be the most direct evidence.

It's my understanding that previous evidence consists of skeletons that have intermediate features (sort of a blend of neanderthal and modern human features).

This sheds an entirely new light on the scientific explanation for why some women are predisposed to scream "You Animal!" during consensual intercourse.

[statman]

Good question. My wording in the OP was somewhat rough, so forgive the confusion. Humans do indeed share something like 98.8% of our DNA (depending on the level under consideration) with chimps. The figure of at least 1-4% refers to the amount of the modern non-African genome that seems to have been inherited from neandertals, as opposed to non-neandertal upper paleolithic folks. This is largely figured out by looking at the areas in the genome that vary within humans and comparing them to the same loci in the neandertal genome. So, while our similarity to chimps can't be denied, we inherited that similarity through at least a couple different lines of recent ancestry.

We would share about 99% our total DNA with Neanderthals, so I'm assuming that it really means that 1% - 4% of the variation in the European human genome can be explained by breeding with Neanderthals many thousands of years ago. That's how you'd express the results of an analysis done using some kind of regression equation (R^2 = the percent of variation explained by the model you're evaluating), which is how geneticists generally start an investigation of common genes to get them started in the right direction...

[KillerDog]

I think this stuff is really interesting in its conclusions but totally baffling outside of that. I guess one biology course when I was 15 doesn't prepare me to understand haplotypes (sp). Regardless, I'm intrigued by the ability to confirm that a species formerly thought to be unrelated to us is, in actuality, an ancestor of all people not from subsaharan Africa.

[UtahDan]

By the way, this thread make me think about something I watched recently regarding humans having one less chromosome than other great apes that, at least to me, seemed absolutely devastating to any argument that humans do not share common ancestory with other apes. That is a fascinating issue for those who are unaware of it.