What does science have to say about some people being genetically inferior to other people?

If you’re referring to the superiority or inferiority of an ethnic or racial group see the link. There is ample historical and scientific proof that this is bunk.

If you’re referring to individuals on a bell curve continuum of IQ and learning ability, that’s a different story.

One has only to encounter Down Syndrome individuals and similar other categories to know that IQ and speed of learning abilities cover a wide range.

But one has to ask whether that is the only criteria by which a persons value should be calculated.

There are ineffable qualities such as a loving trusting nature, cheerfulness in life’s circumstances, loyalty, etc etc. whose worth is incalculable.

My sister adopted a child with Down Syndrome in infancy. She was told by the Dept. of Social Services that the parents gave her up for adoption because they just didn’t think they could cope with this.

(They were both business professionals, the father a lawyer. So it wasn’t for lack of financial resources.)

Well, that was their loss. She has added so much to our family with her loving nature. They have no idea how profound a loss for them when they passed up the opportunity to be loved by this child.

That’s not necessarily science but it is fact nonetheless. Those who think that culling the race of those deemed “genetically inferior” need to re-evaluate their priorities.

Should parents now abort a fetus who will inherit deafness or Down Syndrome or any of a number of handicaps? Will it really improve society as a whole?

Profound questions worth asking.

eugenicsarchive.org

A tour around this site should provide interesting info. to elucidate the issue.

Exactly how would an entire society of geniuses function? Would there be anyone left willing to do the mundane tasks AND find satisfaction in doing so?

Here is some evidence regarding IQ.

On a personal note: I’d like to add, that my son has high IQ, which is most likely due to genetics.

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say. Looks like it’s going to be a long haul, figuring this out.

You’re talking about two different things. On the ‘big letter’ Question you’re addressing the idea of “genetic inferiority”, and in the ‘details’ section you’re talking about the influence of DNA on behavior and intelligence.

It seems to be an invalid question to me. How would anyone say that any ‘genetic influence’ on someone’s thinking processes would, could, should or might result in “inferiority” of any aspect of a person?

First, it seems that you need to define what you mean by “inferiority”, because there are different types of intelligence: spatial, verbal, mathematical and artistic to name a few off the top of my head, and being “better” or “worse” (more terms that need to be defined) in one type of intelligence may not lead to “inferiority” somewhere else.

Really, I don’t see how an intelligent person can make heads or tails out of this question.

@WasCy I took a long time before adding my answer. I agree the actual question is confusing and backwards.

Oh sorry, I see, you were just clarifying that the inferiority must only be due to genetics, rather than environmental variables… Okay, that’s really obvious, which is why people got confused about this question…

The study posted by @SpatzieLover – I would not give two blinks of attention. The experiment is set up incorrectly and the conclusions arrived at are baseless. Take a peek at the abstract:

“General cognitive ability (intelligence, often indexed by IQ scores) is one of the most highly heritable behavioral dimensions. In an attempt to identify some of the many genes (quantitative trait loci; QTL) responsible for the substantial heritability of this quantitative trait, the IQ QTL Project uses an allelic association strategy. Allelic frequencies are compared for the high and low extremes of the IQ dimension using DNA markers in or near genes that are likely to be relevant to neural functioning. Permanent cell lines have been established for low-IQ (mean IQ = 82; N = 18), middle-IQ (mean IQ = 105; N = 21), and high-IQ (mean IQ = 130; N = 24) groups and for a replication sample consisting of even more extreme low-IQ (mean IQ = 59; N = 17) and high-IQ (mean IQ = 142; N = 27) groups. Subjects are Caucasian children tested from 6 to 12 years of age. This first report of the IQ QTL Project presents allelic association results for 46 two-allele markers and for 26 comparisons for 14 multiple-allele markers. Two markers yielded significant (p < .01) allelic frequency differences between the high- and the low-IQ groups in the combined sample-a new HLA marker for a gene unique to the human species and a new brain-expressed triplet repeat marker (CTGB33). The prospects for harnessing the power of molecular genetic techniques to identify QTL for quantitative dimensions of human behavior are discussed.”

I was talking it over with a black friend of mine,
and he insisted that the inferiority of my afro is definitely genetic.

@WasCy, @SpatzieLover,

I don’t know if this makes sense, but here goes…

If one’s DNA influences him/her to behave and think like a monkey, while another one’s DNA influences him/her to use brain power (logic, reasoning) and behave more appropriately such as with morals and ethics, and you can see the comparison, where the one that behaves and thinks like a monkey does not progress much in life, does not create much, and behaves in a way that causes a disturbance, etc.. (Primitive), while the other one supersedes in all aspects of life, intellectually creating ideas, advancing life, behaving in a well rounded manner so as to not offend others, etc..(advanced)

So, with this example, both are bound to their DNA, accept that one DNA is more beneficial then the other.

I would like to know if science confirms this.

@cackle there is no way to tell. its called the nature/nurture problem

Are moron kids of moron parents morons because of the parents’ genetics? Or because of their upbringing?

Basically there is genetic predisposition to any kind of behaviour/trait, but the environment determines the extent to which it manifests.

As I like to say:
Nature creates the potential,
Nurture defines the actual.

Oh dear! Science mostly has nothing to say about these qualities. For a start genetics doesn’t have a scale of ‘better’ or ‘worse’, merely relational proximity. That’s not a scientific distinction. It’s like asking if electrons are ‘better’ than protons. You could get an answer by arbitrarily deciding that less mass is ‘better’ than more mass, so that electrons become ‘better’, but that has no scientific validity, it’s just a personal bias.

Well, actually, genetic superiority is the ability to survive and reproduce the most effectively. i.e. the best genetics propagate themselves the most.

So the most superior kind of person, genetically, is someone who gains the most in life from the least amount of effort, and has loads and loads of kids, who they then enable to do the same.

Of course, genetics is not the most important thing to us, we are deeper than that now.

Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Unless you understand the idea of privilege in society, you can’t critically analyze any of that research, which I’d venture to guess most of the researchers themselves didn’t.

@The_Idler wrote, “Basically there is genetic predisposition to any kind of behaviour/trait, but the environment determines the extent to which it manifests.”

If there is predisposition to behaving and thinking primitively then why would the environment have any role in this? It wouldn’t matter what the environment is because the person has primitiveness hard-coded in him/her while another one has advancement coded in him/her which automatically puts one intellectually and behaviorally superior. How can an environment change someones internal hard coding?

This is strictly a scientific question on genetics.

@cackle

“primitiveness hard coded”

What on earth does that even mean?

Care to give some concrete examples of specific people who share this supposed “trait”? I can’t think of any.

But since you are the one proposing this theory, it’s on you to explain it more concretely. If it does really exist, that shouldn’t be too difficult now, should it?

I await your explanation for this dubious characteristic.

“advancement coded in him/her”

What? Give some examples of what you are referencing please?

@Buttonstc,

Scroll up, I did.

@The_Idler – as soon as you use pejorative terms such as ‘superiority’ and ‘best’, you are not talking scientifically. Science itself has no mechanism for ranking any attributes that science measures. There are scales of measurements but science is not about inferring meaning on those values. Is more velocity ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than less velocity? Is a larger population number better than a smaller number? It has no meaning beyond a human determination based on specific human constraints. If we measure ‘better’ on the basis of population numbers, humanity is far from the ‘best’ that evolution has to offer, so sub-dividing humans on this basis is, frankly, pissing in the wind.

@cackle

I don’t see any names of specific people or groups.

If they exist, surely that shouldn’t present a problem.

I didn’t mention any specific people or groups. I gave you an example of one individuals DNA compared to another one’s DNA.

There is no way for that not be true since we all come from different parents. By inferior I’m thinking intelligence, personality, etc.

@cackle

You assert that it’s DNA. I say it’s environment (nurture or the lack of it.)

I have no difficulty citing specific examples to back up the environmental claim.

What do you have to back up you claim that it’s DNA?

Would a feral child be that way due to DNA or due to horrendous deprivation? I would maintain that it’s the latter rather than the former. So, prove me wrong if you can.

It’s obvious that the child’s parents were not feral but merely horribly neglectful.

There is no indication that the parents were “primitive” but the child sure ended up that way.

That tosses DNA out of the equation as far as I’m concerned.

@Buttonstc,

I don’t have anything to back up that it’s DNA, hence the question in the topic… I’m just clarifying what I’m asking.

First question is, is one’s intelligence and behavior bound to his/her DNA, and second question is, are certain DNA inferior to other DNA’s?

This question has nothing to do with the environment. It’s just asking what geneticists have to say.

@markferg well if you reckon genetic superiority is not real, then I suppose you take natural selection to be impossible?

DNA – and by extension Life – actually only has one purpose: to reproduce itself.

Surely you can’t believe that my conclusion – “genetic superiority is the ability to survive and reproduce the most effectively” – is unscientific?

You can’t compare it to mechanics or chemistry… Life has a point, a purpose…

You might say “well what if NOT reproducing is actually ‘better’?” But that’s philosophy.
The fact is – some genes are superior to others, when it comes to survivability and reproduction, and this scientific fact defines the history of Life on Earth & the study of genetics and evolution.

@cackle “If there is predisposition to…... It wouldn’t matter what the environment is because the person has primitiveness hard-coded”

look up “predisposition”

Genetic predisposition certainly exists. Basically no serious scientist would tell you that “this man is rude because he has such-and-such gene” That’s a very, very outdated idea.

Another example.

You might have a genetic predisposition to run quickly. Do you expect to pop out of the womb and break world records? No. You have to dedicate your life to training, and whether you do that depends on your environment. So you might call that genetic superiority, but nobody is genetically hard-coded to break sprinting world records.

Likewise, you might have a genetic predisposition to anger quickly, but if you happen to come across a philosophy or mind-set that puts you at total ease with the world around you, you may never become angry. You might call that genetic inferiority, but if there is no manifestation of it in the individual’s behaviour, what meaning is there in his “inferiority”...?

@The_Idler,

If I’m correct, DNA is genetic code. If your genetic code has instructions to avoid all intelligence, or use only some intelligence, or avoid philosophy all together, then even if you come across a philosophy that has a potential to change your thoughts, your genetic code would guide you to disregard philosophy all together, or only accept some knowledge, or disregarded it all. Instead you would focus on moron instructions and disruptive behavior, or whatever the genetic code instructions are.

@cackle

Of course one’s intelligence is influenced by DNA. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s “bound” to it as if behavior has nothing to do with it.

That would mean that “biology is destiny”. That is most certainly not true.

I have encountered hundreds of children during my years as an Elem. teacher. Their IQ levels spanned almost the entire spectrum of the bell curve.

Some were blessed genetically with a high level of intelligence and ability to learn quickly.

Others less so (average) while the bottom third were below average and had to work so much harder to keep up.

But I certainly would never call that bottom third “primitive”.

And you’d be amazed at what hard work and study can do to offset the limitations of their DNA. it’s pretty amazing.

“Primitive” is a behavioural term totally unrelated to intelligence. There are certainly plenty of highly intelligent criminals, blessed by their genetics, and yet very “primitive” morally speaking.

I’ll cite Bernie Madoff. A highly intelligent man who had plenty of IQ but lacking in morality and conscience. Think of how many lives he ruined of those who trusted him.

With his intelligence (the influence of his DNA) he would have had no difficulty earning a really good living honestly.

But he chose (behavior) instead to defraud others and deprive them of a happy life.

Total selfishness is about as primitive as it gets and I can’t think of a better example of that point.

More intelligence does not necessarily equate to superiority.

You seem to be equating less intelligence with “primitive” and greater inherited intelligence as “advancement.”

It depends entirely upon how someone blessed by DNA chooses to use that gift as to whether they are “primitive” or “advanced”.

I don’t consider a clever intelligent criminal to be very advanced at all and definitely a detriment to society.

Madoff was most certainly a detriment to his own family as well. His son recently committee suicide.

@cackle
”If one’s DNA influences him/her to behave and think like a monkey, while another one’s DNA influences him/her to use brain power (logic, reasoning) and behave more appropriately such as with morals and ethics, and you can see the comparison, where the one that behaves and thinks like a monkey does not progress much in life, does not create much, and behaves in a way that causes a disturbance, etc.. (Primitive), while the other one supersedes in all aspects of life, intellectually creating ideas, advancing life, behaving in a well rounded manner so as to not offend others, etc..(advanced)”

What do you have against monkeys?
They do too create—they make tools, I know for sure. And it’ll vary from species to species, but they do make things that allow them to “progress” in their life.

Calling them primitive? What does that even mean, that they’re not like humans? Of course they’re not. Just like of course we’re not like them. (Although we are related.) Not acting “human” doesn’t make them lesser.

And our minds are much more than simply logic and reason (an important part, but not nearly the only way or “best” way to think). Logic and reason don’t create, they assess. If that’s the only one-up the second person has, then they won’t do much “better” in the sense of the word as you’re using it.

But echoing what many have already said: superiority is extremely subjective. So are the things you’ve used to define it: “being well rounded”, “progressing” “advancing life”.
I’m not sure what the first is supposed to mean, or really the second, either, but the third—If you’re meaning reproducing…—monkeys can do it too!. If you’re meaning make the world better, there’s that extremely subjective word again. No one will ever entirely agree on what’s “better” for the world.

@The_Idler
”Well, actually, genetic superiority is the ability to survive and reproduce the most effectively. i.e. the best genetics propagate themselves the most.
So the most superior kind of person, genetically, is someone who gains the most in life from the least amount of effort, and has loads and loads of kids, who they then enable to do the same.”

…That’s only true in a specific shot of time, at an individual level. And the ‘least amount of effort’ part isn’t true at all: surviving means working hard, struggling, perservering.

Any lifeform that continues to endlessly propagate becomes unable to sustain their population, because no matter how big the limits are, there are limits. So the most “superior” will eventually, collapse, if it’s superior because it can reproduce the most.

Aside from that extreme, the “superiority” of a species is constantly changing as obstacles (weather, disease, etc) confront the current living. What was once “superior” will no longer be “superior”, eventually. This is what we see in mass extinctions—the environment changes, and suddenly the “weaker” are found to be the “stronger”.

From a population standpoint, genetic “superiority” comes from genetic variety. If there are one, or a few, that are propagating on and on, they are actually weakening the line. No one is individually the most superior. Populations that become very similar in DNA, become so specific and alike, are the most weak; simply because there’s less chance that some one will have DNA to survive should the circumstances change—which they do and will.

@all trying to define a sort of Superiority Ultimatum—it doesn’t exist.

@The_Idler – I suppose the ‘human’ element is the crux of the matter. I don’t think that, scientifically, life has a purpose or a meaning, that is a human concept. Natural selection exists, but it doesn’t follow any set of ‘human’ rules. Selection occurs, that’s it. Done & dusted. If you want to relate it to a personal belief system then that’s your choice.

You use the word ‘superiority’ and that is the point I digress from. That has no scientific meaning. It presumes a human value ranking which is not scientific. Remove the pejorative terms and then we can discuss the science. Otherwise you are wanting to discuss politics.

If science has any use to humanity, it has no concerns as to the ‘meaning’ of anything. Attributing ‘meaning’ is not scientific. It seems to me you have a political agenda cloaked in pseudo-scientific rhetoric.

You are sliding down a very slippery slope.

@markferg how absurdly presumptuous…

All I said is that genetic “superiority” can have scientific meaning, in specific context.

If you don’t think a gene that survives is better at surviving than a gene that doesn’t, I don’t know how I’m even going to begin explaining what the word “better” means.

I never said that anything could scientifically be inherently superior or inferior, there is no such thing, its just human judgment and opinion. In fact, my original point was to clarify this. That a gene could be superior in the sense of survivability, but have no absolute superiority (as such a thing does not exist).

I’m struggling to see how you’ve come to the conclusion that me saying that one gene can be more effective at something than another means I “have a political agenda cloaked in pseudo-scientific rhetoric.”

I’ll say it about DNA. It makes copies of itself. It’s what it does.
If one piece of DNA makes more copies than another, what exactly is unscientific or “political” about saying that the first piece of DNA is better than the other at making copies of itself!?

I’ll say it about stars. Stellar nucleogenesis proceeds through various processes, one of which is neutron-addition. There are two types, slow & rapid. I won’t go into the details, but basically the r-process is required to synthesize most of the neutron-rich transferrous isotopes. The r-process only occurs in the intense energies of supernovae, which themselves only occurs in high mass stars (above about 8 Solar masses). So, most of the heavy-element content of the universe was produced by large mass starts.
Now, are you going to tell me that it is unscientific or “political” to say that large mass stars are better at creating heavy elements than small mass stars!?

Are large mass stars not ‘superior’ to low mass stars, with regards to synthesis of heavy elements!?
Go on, ask any astrophysicist….

Now maybe you’d prefer it if we said “contextually more effective” instead of better? Well, we know what we’re talking about, when we say one gene is better at surviving than another, nobody in the room imagines that this means it is afforded a higher place in the Universe. It is all just bits of matter and energy after all, we all know that, that’s why we don’t have to clarify every time, that by “better” we mean “more effective in one sense”.

The funniest thing about your post is that I’m actually the most nihilistic, apolitical scientist you’ve spoken to all day.

Now tell me what my political agenda is please.

@markferg

You are correct.

And I think that at the end of that slippery slope of the OP lies the same pseudo-science as was found at the turn of the century, namely the fallacy of the Eugenics movement.

But I doubt that anyone with an agenda would bother to read the link I posted.

That contains all the info to answer his (the OP’s) “scientific” questions.

But I think that this Q is just another example of the old saying that: “The majority of questions are actually statements in disguise”

I could be wrong on that, of course, but that’s the impression with which I’m left.

OH LAWDY!

Did he just say the word “superior” in the context of stellar nucleogenesis!?
Pfft, remove the pejorative terms and then we can discuss the science. Otherwise you are wanting to discuss politics.

Oh shit, I did use a pejorative against that great ball of fire several trillion miles away. I hope he didnt get offended! But, yeah I do actually want to discuss the politics of heavy-element production in stars.

Don’t get me wrong, by the way, I share your feelings about the OP, I definitly get the same sense about his Qs, but don’t jump on me with this accusatory bullshit!

If @markferg‘s post had started with @cackle and not @The_Idler, I would be 100% agreeing!

My God! My original point was that, if you’re going to talk scientifically about superiority in nature, you have to make explicit definitions, rather than generalized judgments as the OP did…

Wow you guys are way too sensitive. All these assumptions about my original intents for asking the question.

Anyway, I just needed a starting point so thanks for the info. I’ll check it out on my own. This does sound like a philosophical question rather then a scientific one.

@cackle

When one is asked to (or challenged to) more precisely define the terms he is using and repeatedly refuses to do that, then others are left with nothing but assumptions.

Since you won’t be clear about what you are asserting, what else is left for others to do?

You had every opportunity to provide clarification, but didn’t.

I have little idea what you meant when using the term “primitive” (as a matter of fact that was my first query to you)

You kept avoiding precision of terminology backed up by specific examples, and NOW you’re complaining about others making assumptions?

Huh?

And just a little hint for the future. Those of us who have studied history enough to see the direct correlation between the principles and “pseudo science” of the Eugenics movement and the Holocaust, do tend to be on the sensitive side when the same ideas are being presented gussied up in a new outfit and slightly more nebulous language. Yes, I hope I never get so callous that I lose that sensitivity.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…...it’s a duck.

Eugenics wasn’t science back then and it’s not science now. They tried to make it sound scientific but it was anything but.

Since I have no idea how familiar you are with the correlation between Eugenics and the Holocaust, or even how young or old you are, so I’m not going to town on your ideas yet.

For all I know you could be a very bright articulate young teen not yet familiar enough with all of this to realize why people are this sensitive about the subject.

So, I’ll just leave it alone for now. I truly hope you do a little research and perhaps re-think your positions. Perhaps you may also get to the point of being over sensitive to the line of thought that disabilities (mental or physical) necessarily equal inferiority.

Long before the SS began marching Jewish folks off to gas chambers, they perfected their killing techniques on the retarded and those in mental institutions by rigging up crude gas chambers with the carbon monoxide of truck exhaust fumes.

The most defenseless were killed off first. Now you may view that as “survival of the superior”.

Most of rest of the civilized world views it as heinous murder.

Had my niece been born in Germany during that time period, she wouldn’t be alive. Her “inferiority” would have been a death warrant.

I don’t think that’s the kind of world any of us wish to live in.

Yeah, we are a sensitive bunch here at Fluther.

And we make no apology for it.

I’ll try one more time to clarify. “The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells.”

If we have these set of rules in us, then we’re programmed a certain way. Our intelligence and behavior are bound by these set of instructions. Or do you disagree with this part? If you agree, then the inferiority questions come in when one is programmed with beneficiary set of rules which is helpful for life such as intelligence, physicality, a sense of morality and ethics, while another is programmed in a handicap way which is unhelpful for life such as minor intelligence, weak physicality, little to no sense of morality and ethics. Does this not make the one that has handicap DNA inferior to the one that has beneficiary DNA? In the sense of survivability, or living a good life as oppose to a mediocre to poor life. Perhaps even become depended on the beneficiary DNA in order to survive and achieve some decent level of living. Can one change the set of instructions that he/she was programmed with? Can he/she change his/her DNA via new experiences? Could he/she achieve or even surpass one who had been programmed with a set of rules that are beneficiary?

By the way, in regards to the rest of your comments, if you want to get technical then you’ve stated two logical fallacies which are…
1. correlation proves causation
2. guilt by association

Yes. I strongly disagree with that first part.

Behavior is not “programmed” into us. Neither are ethics or morality. These are learned behaviors. This is why parental influence is so critical to a “good life” NOT DNA.

As for intelligence, there is no “fixed point” of IQ with which a human being is born. It’s not “hardcoded” as you seem to think. I don’t know where you get that idea, but you’ve obviously never worked with significant numbers of children in their formative years.

While it’s true that some kids have an easier time learning than others if they’ve been blessed with native intelligence, there are so many variables after that one would be hard pressed to count them all.

As I said, biology is not destiny. A far better predictor of success in life is what’s termed “emotional IQ”. Pop that into search and prepare to be surprised. I’m not going to do your research for you.

And there are tons of kids with average or slightly below average IQ (as measured by standard testing methods) who grow into happy and successful adults because THEY WORKED HARD at studying and/or maximizing the limited potential with which they began.

Sure, they may not have gotten a Masters degree or Phd, or even any college at all. They may not be a college professor or Doctor, Lawyer or corporate executive, but who’s to say that the epitome of accomplishment in life is a professional career?

My BIL works as a janitor (not a professor) at a local college and loves his job. So is he less “advantaged” as the profs. simply because his IQ isn’t as high?

I hardly think so. Plus they recently discovered that his salary is significantly higher than the social worker who makes regular supervisory visits to the kids.

You have some very strange ideas about superior, inferior, advantaged etc. The problem is that they bear little relationship to reality where the rubber meets the road.

So, yes. I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise contained in your first paragraph. On what basis do I state that so confidentally?

For one thing, on the basis of personal observations and concrete examples of the malleability of children’s intelligence levels vs. their perceived intelligence levels.

And the idea that our behavior is determined by DNA is ludicrous to say the least.

But if you’ve convinced yourself otherwise, there’s little I can do to change that except to challenge you to provide me with any study showing that behavior is immutably determined by one’s DNA.

I’d be really interested in seeing that ~~

@Buttonstc,

You seem to forget that I’m the one asking for help, not giving my viewpoints. I’m providing clarification, not stating a claim. I’m asking you for the information because I can’t find it. If you say that behavior is not part of DNA, then can you please provide me with a link that has scientific evidence to backup this claim?

To be more accurate, you’re using a question format as a platform to state your views.

I’ve got to be up early tomorrow so I’m done with this.

I disagree. You asked for clarification and I gave it to you, but either way, when you have time, if you want to backup your claim that behavior is not part of DNA, then please link me scientific evidence for it.

If anyone else wishes to help find an answer for this, it would be appreciated.

@The_Idler,

You seem to know this topic pretty well, do you have any evidence for this? ^

Science has discovered genetic triggers. There are genes that do not do anything until the proper environmental conditions are set up (genetic expression), which is another way of saying that it is both nature and nurture. I came across this book on the subject.

We aren’t just our genes.
Science has yet to really study intelligence, creativity or genetics!

Inferiority and superiority are relative, subjective terms, aren’t they? And as far as intelligence is concerned, I must refer you to some of Sir Ken Robinson’s -*thoughts -on the matter.

IQ tests don’t really measure intelligence and frankly neither do SATs or other standardized tests. So now what? We don’t know what intelligence or creativity is. Let alone what is “best,” or “superior” for the human species. Isn’t it a little early to compare unknowns? We have yet to figure out the complexities of DNA.

Now it’s entirely possible that someone could be epigenetically ‘superior,’ but I don’t know.

What does science have to say about some people being genetically inferior to other people?
… As far as I can tell, nothing substantial.

Science does have a clear answer when it comes to comparing DNA of different species of the homo genus. Homo erectus invented distinctive oval and pear-shaped hand axes also called Acheulean hand axes about 1.6 million years ago. It’s remarkable that over a course of a million years this invention hasn’t changed much. We can find artefacts almost everywhere in Africa, Europe and Asia. Scientists believe that the homo erectus brain wasn’t capable of supporting rapid cultural evolution. The story is entirely different for homo sapiens when they first appeared in Africa. Some scientists believe that their key invention was exchange (trade) which accelerated cultural evolution. Genetically all homo sapiens are more or less identical.

So we can say that homo erectus is genetically inferior to homo sapiens, but we can’t say determine this when we compare two homo sapiens, but just looking at their two genomes.

Thanks, @mattbrowne.

In fact, the only real reason we could make the qualitative judgment that homo erectus is ‘inferior’ to homo sapiens is… that species is extinct. In evolutionary terms, that’s all that ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ mean.

Evaluations of intelligence, strength, speed, hunting ability, pleasing good looks, manners, schooling, income, religion, “family history” and any other measure to determine “superiority” in genetic / evolutionary terms don’t mean a thing. The only things that matter in evolution are ability to procreate, and long-term survival of the species. Even “short life span” for individuals doesn’t really matter, as long as the breeding is done and the succeeding generation achieves sexual maturity and ability to generate another generation.

That long list of attributes may help in the main “process” of breeding and living, but they aren’t sure determiners. No scientist would make those claims of “superior” or “inferior” attributes; those are purely political and other value judgments.

@WasCy – Yes, I see your point. Brain size of homo erectus was 750 – 1225 ccm with significant higher energy requirements than that of chimpanzees with a brain size between 300 and 500 ccm. The chimps survived while homo erectus didn’t. This means that relatively “expensive” energy-hungry brains can be a problem when dealing with environmental pressure.

But can we argue that the DNA for the chimps’ brain is superior to that of an homo erectus? Are extinction and survival the only valid criteria here?

I’d say those are the only criteria that matter in evolutionary terms, which was how the question seems to have been posed. (At least, our best guess as to what the question means.) Anyone is free to make any other value judgments for whatever other reasons appeal to them, but if the purpose of the brain is to aid survival, and for whatever reason the body / brain combination didn’t successfully support the evolutionary goal over time, then we’d have to say that the organism ultimately failed. “Superior brain” in that case is a value judgement made from a standpoint of something other than “successful evolution”.

Maybe that’s the same road that we’re on as a species, if we can’t find better ways to cooperate.

In evolutionary terms nothing yet seems to have surpassed bacteria. It doesn’t mean that other species aren’t successful, but nothing has managed the degree of success, or longevity, that bacteria demonstrate.

@The_Idler – I don’t need to ask an astrophysicist, that was one of the topics I studied at university.

I feel that you are trying to obfuscate the original discussion by moving to the topic from genetics to astrophysics. Astrophysics, as far as I can tell, has never been used by politicians to win political power. Genetics, in its various guises, has. That’s why you can’t play fast and loose with terminology if you wish to discuss genetics as a scientific topic, as others less versed in the science will infer conclusions that have no scientific basis AND use the ill advised pronouncements of scientists as justification for their odious opinions.

As far as astrophysics is concerned you can anthropomorphize to your heart’s content and call more massive stars as more cuddly or lovely for all I care, as I couldn’t imagine that this could ever lead to unnecessary suffering to any group of people.

@markferg I guess you must be a New Worlder?

Here in Europe it’s really not necessary to make it absolutely clear, every single time, when we say one gene is better at surviving than another, that we don’t mean it is inherently better in the eyes of God than the other gene, we don’t mean it should get 10x the votes of the other gene, we don’t mean we ‘like’ it or ‘respect’ it any more than the other gene, and we don’t mean that it somehow makes it OK to discriminate against groups or individuals who have nothing to do with this gene anyway.

Because, where I’m from, saying one piece of DNA is better at reproducing than another is exactly like saying one star is better at producing heavy elements than another.
That was my point there.

Now frankly, I don’t give a shit what any idiotic redneck (not talking about the OP, talking about the people @markferg reckons will be using my posts as political ammo) thinks, when he reads what I write. I’ll explain to him in simple terms, as I did, that one piece of DNA can be considered superior or inferior to another, in a specific arbitrary context, but that any extension of this onto individual humans is now considered nonsensical, because genetic determinism died a long, long time ago.

I’ll thank others for pointing out the connections of such ideas to eugenics, but I didn’t feel I had to do that, as the issue was addressed in the first post.

I hope noone could read that and still believe in genetic determinism, and use that as justification for their prejudices, but I’m not about to go out of my way to change my manner of speaking, when I’m discussing something which is essentially statistics and chemistry, just to make sure some moron doesn’t think that he can extend the idea of “better or worse” to some fellow on the street, because, frankly, I have no faith whatsoever that my choice of words in this situation would have any effect upon the warped logic and perverse justifications of the racist mindset.

I’m not about to pretend that “true scientists” never ever say the words “better” or “superior”, just to make a political point. I’d much rather explain the facts of the matter, and the limitations of such labels. Re-iterating my point, as I did, that they cannot be extended to individual organisms.

@WasCy – Yes, agreeing on criteria is almost impossible. When we look at species life span, crocodiles are far superior to every mammal that has ever existed on Earth.

On this I have no source but I feel it’s also a revelent factor. Scientists, like other professionals work for money.. While most professionals depend on the public to pay them, some are paid through grants by the g’ment.. The g’ment always expects progress and deals out these grants in relation to that. At the beginning (of the fiscal year) these scientists aren’t pressured into creating results but as the time grows near (for the next grant period) and they haven’t come up with anything substantial, well.. Sometimes they exaggerate in certain studies knowing that it would take other studies to concur or dispute these conclusions.. What I’m trying to say is, some scientists know where their bread is buttered on and know how to acquire this butter. Are there genetically deprived individuals in the world? Actually I’m no scientist (however, some politicians do come to mind).

Fortunately, I think you’re mostly wrong in that cynicism, @chewhorse. I don’t doubt that scientists are pressured to publish something to inform the funding agencies of what progress has been made in the granted study, but hopefully they feel relatively free from publishing slanted results just to keep the money taps turned on. Richard Feynman had a lot to say about this in his excellent Cargo Cult Science address to the Caltech graduating class of 1974. Well worth the read.

Well then you explain situations where science claims that eggs (as one example) are bad for you then years later dispute this and say they aren’t bad (which scientific study can you believe?) Now, after all these decades, science says salt is not a danger anymore and does not induce high blood pressure..