Racial differences?

iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Racial differences?

Since this is a very politically incorrect thing to bring up!

 

Do you think there is any biological difference between the races? Or are you sure there is not?

Physically?

Emotionally?

Intellectually?

 

I often wonder this.  I think it is irrational to assume all races are exactly the same since we have diverged for a very long period of time.  There are some obvious differences...skin color...eye color.   Some are debatable...it seems obvious that black guys are, on average, faster than white guys in America...is that true? Is there a reason for it?  Does that carry over to Africans and Europeans? 

 

So you know my stance, I am sure I will thought of as racist for even bringing this up...I am 100% not racist.  I don't think any race is logically better than any other race. But I do think there are differences and it bothers me when people just act like there isnt.

 

 

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There does seem to be a

There does seem to be a standard for black basketball players. A job for which the Japanese tend to be shunned. Beyond that, I don't see much of a difference between different ethnicities beyond culture.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote:

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Since this is a very politically incorrect thing to bring up!

 

Do you think there is any biological difference between the races? Or are you sure there is not?

Physically?

Emotionally?

Intellectually?

 

I often wonder this. I think it is irrational to assume all races are exactly the same since we have diverged for a very long period of time. There are some obvious differences...skin color...eye color. Some are debatable...it seems obvious that black guys are, on average, faster than white guys in America...is that true? Is there a reason for it? Does that carry over to Africans and Europeans?

 

So you know my stance, I am sure I will thought of as racist for even bringing this up...I am 100% not racist. I don't think any race is logically better than any other race. But I do think there are differences and it bothers me when people just act like there isnt.

 

Biological differences? Outside of some (possible) resistances and suceptabilities to particular diseases, and obviously differing tolerances towards the sun due to skin colour, I'd say no.

 A word on the athletics issue: It's almost wholly cultural there, too. As an example, one should notice that, in general, african americans dominate basketball. African americans are descended directly from western Africa, which is where the Atlantic Slave Trade stole its property from. Now, if it were the west african black genetic structure that gave these American blacks their skill, or at least an advantage over whites, we can logically assume that the more "pure" west Africans would be better than the blacks in the Americas, most of whom have a white person in their ancestry somewhere. If this were true, logically we'd see every Summer Olympics have countries like Nigeria, Cameroon, Cote'd'Ivore, Sierra Leone, Ghana, etc. dominating basketball, and countries like the U.S.A. only succeeding against them by fluke. This is not the case, however. They don't have basketball courts in every neighbourhood in those countries, whereas most black people in the U.S. are within walking distance of a basketball court. Also, a lot of blacks have it drilled into their heads that without sports, they'll never get into college. Couple that with the huge salaries of the pro sports stars, and you will have kids whose future depends on sports, and who will work harder than the typical recreational athlete. On the flip side, most African nations are rebuilding, and therefore most see sport as recreation only, not something you can or should be professional at given the circumstances. Thus, black americans dominate particular sports due to culture. And it is like that with all things that one group seems to dominate more than others.

Canadians are another example. We love our hockey. We dominate hockey on an international level. Most of us are descended from British or French people. I'd say that French Canadians are more talented than English Canadians, Gretzky notwithstanding. So it should stand to reason that the French and British would be major threats to Canadian dominance of hockey...but they seem to prefer sports like soccer and rugby to hockey. Thus, we whallop most countries in hockey consistently.

One last example of racial differences being purely cultural is in academics. East Asians, Indians and Jews seem to always outscore every other race. However, each of these cultures places more emphasis on learning than African, European, pacific island and American cultures seem to. In the case of the Indians and Jews, it's at least partially due to religion (Hinduism encourages debate amongst other faiths, which is refreshing for someone immersed in interdenominational christian and muslim bickering; Jewish literacy has always been high because of their need to read their scriptures) and in east Asia, it is due largely to their public school systems and the strictness of them. It's not racial superiority here, simply differing emphases in differing cultures.


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
This was an interesting

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I hope a biologist will

I hope a biologist will chime in later, but I've heard the difference between "races" is negligible genetically.


AnointedHeathen
Posts: 46
Joined: 2006-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Anyone who views you as

Anyone who views you as racist for asking this is clearly ignorant. While each person is capable of achieving the same goals there are clearly racial differences. Anyone who denies the differences between ethnic groups is either an overzealous apologist or retarded. The problem is when we're not able to celebrate our differences and learn to laugh at ourselves.

On the sports topic, I don't believe for a minute that one ethnicity has a genetic trait for a sport and another is deficient. I think it all ties into culture more than race. If you travel to the inner city which normally has a majority black population the main sport you will see being played is basketball. If you go to more rural areas you'll generally see more football. In colder areas you'll see hockey. If you take the average black man who grows up in the inner city and he competes against someone from, let's say, Zimbabwe in basketball the inner city man will generally win. If a white Canadian man were to play a game of hockey with someone such as myself from Mississippi, the Canadian would win.

To say that there are differences between races is not being racist, it's being factual. It's when someone says that because of someone's race they're not capable of doing something is when it becomes racist.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
AnointedHeathen

AnointedHeathen wrote:

Anyone who views you as racist for asking this is clearly ignorant. While each person is capable of achieving the same goals there are clearly racial differences. Anyone who denies the differences between ethnic groups is either an overzealous apologist or retarded. The problem is when we're not able to celebrate our differences and learn to laugh at ourselves.

On the sports topic, I don't believe for a minute that one ethnicity has a genetic trait for a sport and another is deficient. I think it all ties into culture more than race. If you travel to the inner city which normally has a majority black population the main sport you will see being played is basketball. If you go to more rural areas you'll generally see more football. In colder areas you'll see hockey. If you take the average black man who grows up in the inner city and he competes against someone from, let's say, Zimbabwe in basketball the inner city man will generally win. If a white Canadian man were to play a game of hockey with someone such as myself from Mississippi, the Canadian would win.

To say that there are differences between races is not being racist, it's being factual. It's when someone says that because of someone's race they're not capable of doing something is when it becomes racist.

So what do the racial differences mean, then? 


AnointedHeathen
Posts: 46
Joined: 2006-12-16
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: So

BenfromCanada wrote:

So what do the racial differences mean, then?

Just take a look. White people generally have thinner noses, thinner hair, smaller lips. Black people have more coarse hair, flatter noses, bigger lips. Asian people... well honestly I only pay attention to the women when it comes to them. 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
AnointedHeathen

AnointedHeathen wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:

So what do the racial differences mean, then?

Just take a look. White people generally have thinner noses, thinner hair, smaller lips. Black people have more coarse hair, flatter noses, bigger lips. Asian people... well honestly I only pay attention to the women when it comes to them.

So it's all physical, and simply appearance? Cool. We agree. 


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok...

My degree is in Bioinformatics (Genetics).  We can see no genetic difference between the races.  The problem is even was we wouldnt know what that meant...

We can't take the DNA of someone and say if they have a bad temper, if they score better on spacial tests, how fast they can run a 40. 

So to me saying we cant tell the differences genetically doenst mean they are not there.

As far as sports go.  You cant compare USA with Camroon because of population...even if Camroon loved Basketball and were biologically supirior to black Americans. USA would prob still have the better team based on numbers alone....unless you were argueing the biological difference is so vast there is not overlap, and I doubt anyone would say that.

I think there is a great deal of overlap...what I am asking is are some races better off at the starting point than others at certain tasks?

If you took 100 Black babies, 100 White Babies, 100 Asian babies...ect.  and raised them to be track runners, Engineers, artists  would there be a non random result?

THe Strong Man competition seems geared toward northern Europeans.  Sure Blacks, French and all sorts of people do well but 80% of them seem to be Scandinavian.  Do you think the enviroment they evolved in at all selected for people who could do that? 

A broad barrel-chested man would not be much use hunting in the African Savanah 50,000 years ago, just like a Tall skinny man would not be a good match for high altitute and cold weather.

Something were selected for through evolution, do those selections have any modern day implications that are not solely based on apperance.

I think they have to be.  I think where it gets sticky is trying to say why they are or if someone is better than another based on it.

 

Just a random last thought...interracial babies have the lowest incident of genetic deseases because there is less chance of getting the selected against gene from the mother and the father...so actually it could be argued that interracial are better off in that than either race alone.  So...go ahead everyoen have some hot interracial sex tonight....tell them I said it was ok not to pull out.


 

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: My

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

My degree is in Bioinformatics (Genetics). We can see no genetic difference between the races. The problem is even was we wouldnt know what that meant...

We can't take the DNA of someone and say if they have a bad temper, if they score better on spacial tests, how fast they can run a 40.

So to me saying we cant tell the differences genetically doenst mean they are not there.

True, but it might mean they don't matter if they do exist. Much like god.

 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

As far as sports go. You cant compare USA with Camroon because of population...even if Camroon loved Basketball and were biologically supirior to black Americans. USA would prob still have the better team based on numbers alone....unless you were argueing the biological difference is so vast there is not overlap, and I doubt anyone would say that.

Bollocks. Why does Canada dominate countries with lots of hockey and more numbers (like the U.S.A. and Russia, both of which have between 5 and 10 times the population of Canada)? The fact is that numbers don't matter that much.

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

I think there is a great deal of overlap...what I am asking is are some races better off at the starting point than others at certain tasks?

If you took 100 Black babies, 100 White Babies, 100 Asian babies...ect. and raised them to be track runners, Engineers, artists would there be a non random result?

THe Strong Man competition seems geared toward northern Europeans. Sure Blacks, French and all sorts of people do well but 80% of them seem to be Scandinavian. Do you think the enviroment they evolved in at all selected for people who could do that?

A broad barrel-chested man would not be much use hunting in the African Savanah 50,000 years ago, just like a Tall skinny man would not be a good match for high altitute and cold weather.

Something were selected for through evolution, do those selections have any modern day implications that are not solely based on apperance.

I think they have to be. I think where it gets sticky is trying to say why they are or if someone is better than another based on it.

Well, northern europeans have a tradition of strongman that is not found elsewhere. However, I've seen native americans who did fairly well.

I think that your hypothetical test would result in random results. 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Just a random last thought...interracial babies have the lowest incident of genetic deseases because there is less chance of getting the selected against gene from the mother and the father...so actually it could be argued that interracial are better off in that than either race alone. So...go ahead everyoen have some hot interracial sex tonight....tell them I said it was ok not to pull out.

I agree! I'm interracial, and fine! 


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
"True, but it might mean

"True, but it might mean they don't matter if they do exist. Much like god."

 

What is "they" genetic differences?

 

"Bollocks. Why does Canada dominate countries with lots of hockey and more numbers (like the U.S.A. and Russia, both of which have between 5 and 10 times the population of Canada)? The fact is that numbers don't matter that much. "

Well most of USA isnt made for Icehockey. and as for Russia I think they do well, didnt USA and Russia play for gold in the Olympics in the 80s?

The truth is hockey is a sport that is equipment dependent...Sports like soccer are not so they are a better gauge...Basketball is about as close as you can get to a sport that needs little equipment.

"Well, northern europeans have a tradition of strongman that is not found elsewhere. However, I've seen native americans who did fairly well."

 Yes but you have to agree their build is made for putting muscle on.  Ill take a Icelandic baby you take a kenyan baby lets see who can create a better powerlifter.

"I think that your hypothetical test would result in random results. "

I dont think the results would be random.  I dare not venture to say what I think the results would be, for one I have a biased veiw of races.   And I would have no proof to back up what the findings would be.

 Give me a Kenyan baby Ill give you a Icelandic baby lets see who can create a better marathon runner.

I agree! I'm interracial, and fine! 

 

Well I think everyone is at least partially interracial...but congrats on that Smiling

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Asian people... well

Asian people... well honestly I only pay attention to the women when it comes to them.

I'll save my objection to this statement for another day.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Aside from things like race,

Aside from things like race, that posed a red herring to quack geneticists of the past, the appreciable difference from one genetic line to another is something I've considered. Is the elephant in the room that the infirm or the dumb are no longer subject to the culling forces of nature? For this, I'm of course grateful that the people I care about stand a better chance of survival than they would ever have before now. On the other hand, we've created more opportunities for genetic problems to propagate. In a creepier time this would have lead to advocacy of eugenics, but I'm hoping that won't rear its ugly head again, and we'll instead get better advancements in ways to remedy severe genetic flaws.


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
The problem with Eugeneics...

Who determines what should be selected for?

Honestly we dont really knows how some genes interact with others. So maybe for a small boost in one area you are making a large sacrifice in another area that we dont even know about.

 

Even though, I think Eugenics is a certainty in the near future...GATACA might be the most realistic view of this.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
The problem with Eugeneics...

[MOD EDIT - Duplicate post removed]


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
The problem with Eugeneics...

[MOD EDIT - Duplicate post removed]


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
As any biologist will tell

As any biologist will tell you, if you divide humans into races, 3 or 5 or something like that, "the genetic difference among them is greater than the difference between them."

That is, among supposed "caucasians" they are more diverse as a group than they are different from supposed "negroids" or "mongoloids".

This in itself destroys the idea of races. It makes no sense at all to define a race as "caucasian" when the difference among caucasians is greater than the difference between "caucasians" and any other race.

There are examples of what might be called "ethnic" differences that are biologically based and evolutionarily traceable. But  this does no more than isolate a group as susceptible to a particular disease or even resistant to disease (so there is no negative bias in recognizing the variance) as examples. Also there would be 1000s if not millions of such groups, depending on the attribute in question. And as time passes new groups will come along and old ones will fade away and these groups will morph into other groups with interbreeding. They'll overlap. The concept of race is simply too fascile to have any useful meaning in the dynamic environment of human genetic change.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: What is

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

What is "they" genetic differences?

Well, DNA determines appearance, for one. Also, some think that we have inherited resistances to disease, and inherited suceptibility to disease, based on race as well as genetics. I don't agree, but until it's disproven I can't say it's false. 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Well most of USA isnt made for Icehockey. and as for Russia I think they do well, didnt USA and Russia play for gold in the Olympics in the 80s?

The truth is hockey is a sport that is equipment dependent...Sports like soccer are not so they are a better gauge...Basketball is about as close as you can get to a sport that needs little equipment.

Most of the USA IS made for ice hockey, though. All you need is a winter that produces ice and/or snow, a flat enough surface, and a hose. An outdoor basketball court will do the trick. And the rest of the country has skating rinks.

That said, whether or not hockey's equipment oriented (Id argue that hockey equpiment is inexpensive, but whatever) your numbers argument is still bollocks. The top 6 countries annually in the world cup of hockey and the Winter Olympics are, in order of population size, the U.S.A. (3rd most populous worldwide), Russia (9th), Canada (37th), the Czech Republic (77th) Sweden (85th) and Finland (111th). Each has medaled (and are the only countries to have medaled), each except Finland has gotten Gold in either the World Cup, World Championships (same teams, different tournament) or Olympics. If this were simply a case of countries whose climate supported the sport combined with population, countries like Germany, France, the UK, Poland, The Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia (each of which have a few NHL allstars amongst them) as well as China and about all of the former Soviet republics would at least place somewhere in the top 6 once in a while. However, this just never happens. If your numbers argument were true, Canada would not win gold as often as it has, and Sweden and Finland would NEVER beat Russia or the U.S.A.

Quote:
 

Yes but you have to agree their build is made for putting muscle on. Ill take a Icelandic baby you take a kenyan baby lets see who can create a better powerlifter.

I don't have to agree. Plenty of black people are huge, but few enter strongman competitions.

 

Quote:

I dont think the results would be random. I dare not venture to say what I think the results would be, for one [b]I have a biased veiw of races. [b/] And I would have no proof to back up what the findings would be.

Give me a Kenyan baby Ill give you a Icelandic baby lets see who can create a better marathon runner.

Yeah, see, that makes me think you might be racist. Anyway, Kenya has more need of distance running, as it's a much more rural area. And since there's more poverty, there's less chance people will be well-nourished enough to be bodybuilders and such.

Well I think everyone is at least partially interracial...but congrats on that Smiling

Yes, especially in north america. But everyone is interracial ONLY if you think that we came from a common ancestor. I think we did. I'm also a bit more explicitly mixed, shall we say.


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada

BenfromCanada wrote:
iluvc2h5oh wrote:

What is "they" genetic differences?

Well, DNA determines appearance, for one. Also, some think that we have inherited resistances to disease, and inherited suceptibility to disease, based on race as well as genetics. I don't agree, but until it's disproven I can't say it's false. 

iluvc2h5oh wrote:

Well most of USA isnt made for Icehockey. and as for Russia I think they do well, didnt USA and Russia play for gold in the Olympics in the 80s?

The truth is hockey is a sport that is equipment dependent...Sports like soccer are not so they are a better gauge...Basketball is about as close as you can get to a sport that needs little equipment.

Most of the USA IS made for ice hockey, though. All you need is a winter that produces ice and/or snow, a flat enough surface, and a hose. An outdoor basketball court will do the trick. And the rest of the country has skating rinks.

That said, whether or not hockey's equipment oriented (Id argue that hockey equpiment is inexpensive, but whatever) your numbers argument is still bollocks. The top 6 countries annually in the world cup of hockey and the Winter Olympics are, in order of population size, the U.S.A. (3rd most populous worldwide), Russia (9th), Canada (37th), the Czech Republic (77th) Sweden (85th) and Finland (111th). Each has medaled (and are the only countries to have medaled), each except Finland has gotten Gold in either the World Cup, World Championships (same teams, different tournament) or Olympics. If this were simply a case of countries whose climate supported the sport combined with population, countries like Germany, France, the UK, Poland, The Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia (each of which have a few NHL allstars amongst them) as well as China and about all of the former Soviet republics would at least place somewhere in the top 6 once in a while. However, this just never happens. If your numbers argument were true, Canada would not win gold as often as it has, and Sweden and Finland would NEVER beat Russia or the U.S.A.

Quote:
 

The main point above all else Hockey isnt a widely played enough sport to be a guage.  Ive never even touched an ice hockey stick, and the only mask I know is the one Jason wears. 

Yes but you have to agree their build is made for putting muscle on. Ill take a Icelandic baby you take a kenyan baby lets see who can create a better powerlifter.

I don't have to agree. Plenty of black people are huge, but few enter strongman competitions.

 

Again, I am not saying anything for 100% of any race.  There is more overlap than not.  I am saying if you take a random sample and equally norished both I think Icelanders would be better off from the jump off than Kenyans.  Do I have proof, nope, But I would bet on it. 

 

 

Quote:

 

I dont think the results would be random. I dare not venture to say what I think the results would be, for one [b]I have a biased veiw of races. [b/] And I would have no proof to back up what the findings would be.

Give me a Kenyan baby Ill give you a Icelandic baby lets see who can create a better marathon runner.

Yeah, see, that makes me think you might be racist. Anyway, Kenya has more need of distance running, as it's a much more rural area. And since there's more poverty, there's less chance people will be well-nourished enough to be bodybuilders and such.

 

Well, you thinking me a racist is the least of my worries.  I am just offering a stance based on my area of research and personal viewpoint....I dont have a set in stone stance here, if I did I wouldnt have brought it up for debate. But you can see my above quote for an answer to this. 

 

Well I think everyone is at least partially interracial...but congrats on that Smiling

Yes, especially in north america. But everyone is interracial ONLY if you think that we came from a common ancestor. I think we did. I'm also a bit more explicitly mixed, shall we say.

 

Well if you go back far enough we are related, and in USA they say 5-10% of children are not from the expected father. So even if you think you are White or Black, you dont konw if your REAL father was Mexican and Korean.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: As any

kmisho wrote:

As any biologist will tell you, if you divide humans into races, 3 or 5 or something like that, "the genetic difference among them is greater than the difference between them."

That is, among supposed "caucasians" they are more diverse as a group than they are different from supposed "negroids" or "mongoloids".

This in itself destroys the idea of races. It makes no sense at all to define a race as "caucasian" when the difference among caucasians is greater than the difference between "caucasians" and any other race.

There are examples of what might be called "ethnic" differences that are biologically based and evolutionarily traceable. But  this does no more than isolate a group as susceptible to a particular disease or even resistant to disease (so there is no negative bias in recognizing the variance) as examples. Also there would be 1000s if not millions of such groups, depending on the attribute in question. And as time passes new groups will come along and old ones will fade away and these groups will morph into other groups with interbreeding. They'll overlap. The concept of race is simply too fascile to have any useful meaning in the dynamic environment of human genetic change.

 

Well taht is a skew view based on numbers again.

 There is over 1 Billion caucasians in the world of course you can find a huge amount of variablity there.

But again if you take 100 randome caucasions and 100 random negroids there would be greater genetic difference between races than among them.  But you could also find a person in one group that was closer to everyone in the opposite group than in thier own group but that is the exception not the rule.

 

As far as being genetically suseptible to certain things that is fact.   Sickle Cell, Tay Sachs...they are proven to be more likey in certain groups.  Thinks liek heart desease and cancer are harder to gauge...int he USA I know it is so but that might be to dietary differences, I dont know of a study that was able to prove Blacks were more suseptible due to genetics vs enviroment.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


Supenmanu
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
Of course ther is a

Of course ther is a difference between human races. I mean just take Asians for example... not only is their skin color different, but their entire faces, skulls, and anatomy is different. If you compare the skull of an Asian with the skull of a black person, you will see that there are HUGE differences. Of course now there are only black, white, yellowand red people. Just like it was said in greek mthology that Prometheus created man by using black, white, yellow and red clay.  Now of course in the past, there might have also been different human races, that we don't even know.  So now believers in Darwin have like put a skull from a white person  at the end of a line.  So the white skull is the first. And maybe the second skull is from somene black, the third is from an asian and maybe they also found that in the past there where different human races and put those skulls into the line. And maybe they also found some ape species that don't exist anymore. And they go arrange all those skulls of different races and species from smallest to largest and say "hey look we prooved evolution". But the fact is, that all those are just skulls from different races and species and there has never been fpund a link beetween them.

So of course don't get me wrong... i might be German, but that doesn't make me a Nazi. I said human races are different yes. But i am not a social darwinist. I do not aply darwinism to human races or classes. I don't believe in survival of the fittest or natural selection. I don't think there is such a thing as a superior or inferior race, i don't believe in evolution, and i don't believe it is necessary for species or races to fight and kill each other in order to eliminate "inferior" races and make the so called "superior" race evolve. I don't believe in that at all.  


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Way to misrepresent

Way to misrepresent evolution AGAIN! Evolution says nothing about races within a species other than why it may have been adaptive to evolve that way (example - black people evolved where there was stronger sun than where white people evolved, and a darker skin was more adaptive in those areas in order to avoid sun burn/skin cancer while in areas of lesser sun a white skin may have been more adaptive to absorb more vitamin D [note this a guess why on my part.] ) Evolution does not claim superiority of one race to another within the human race.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So now believers in

Quote:
So now believers in Darwin have like put a skull from a white person  at the end of a line.  So the white skull is the first. And maybe the second skull is from somene black, the third is from an asian and maybe they also found that in the past there where different human races and put those skulls into the line. And maybe they also found some ape species that don't exist anymore. And they go arrange all those skulls of different races and species from smallest to largest and say "hey look we prooved evolution". But the fact is, that all those are just skulls from different races and species and there has never been fpund a link beetween them.
ok first off....what the hell are you talking about?  That's not how anthropologists decided hominid descent patterns.  I know someone on here has discussed this before.  if not I'll see if I can find an article or something, b/c explaining to someone, who as far as I can tell, has no education in anthropology; the intricacies of fossil record phylogeny is a task.  If you want to posit that as you belief as to how scienctist develop the sequence of human ancestors, PROVE IT.  Find me an article in peer reviewed journal.  I'll bet you fifty thousand dollars, you won't find an anthropologist that said here's a white skull that's gonna go first. 

Second, at least we can agree that assigning value judgements to something that is a social construct (race)is a bad thing.  I look at race like this; there may be differences, but we are far more similar than we will ever be different (physiologically speaking).  Most of the issues with sports are truely social aspects.  The easy way to see that is, put a euorpean that has never played american football before in the NFL and watch him get killed.  But build a social structure around it (little league footbal,HS football, college football, semi-pro football) and those that have greater abilities will be able to be groomed for playing that specific sport.  I'm 6'5", and I suck at basketball. But that is mainly due to the fact that I played soccer since I was five.  I'm good at soccer, but horrible at basketball.  Not racial or genetic, just social.

No Gods, Know Peace.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
iluvc2h5oh wrote: kmisho

iluvc2h5oh wrote:
kmisho wrote:

As any biologist will tell you, if you divide humans into races, 3 or 5 or something like that, "the genetic difference among them is greater than the difference between them."

That is, among supposed "caucasians" they are more diverse as a group than they are different from supposed "negroids" or "mongoloids".

This in itself destroys the idea of races. It makes no sense at all to define a race as "caucasian" when the difference among caucasians is greater than the difference between "caucasians" and any other race.

There are examples of what might be called "ethnic" differences that are biologically based and evolutionarily traceable. But  this does no more than isolate a group as susceptible to a particular disease or even resistant to disease (so there is no negative bias in recognizing the variance) as examples. Also there would be 1000s if not millions of such groups, depending on the attribute in question. And as time passes new groups will come along and old ones will fade away and these groups will morph into other groups with interbreeding. They'll overlap. The concept of race is simply too fascile to have any useful meaning in the dynamic environment of human genetic change.

Well taht is a skew view based on numbers again.

 There is over 1 Billion caucasians in the world of course you can find a huge amount of variablity there.

But again if you take 100 randome caucasions and 100 random negroids there would be greater genetic difference between races than among them.  But you could also find a person in one group that was closer to everyone in the opposite group than in thier own group but that is the exception not the rule.

As far as being genetically suseptible to certain things that is fact.   Sickle Cell, Tay Sachs...they are proven to be more likey in certain groups.  Thinks liek heart desease and cancer are harder to gauge...int he USA I know it is so but that might be to dietary differences, I dont know of a study that was able to prove Blacks were more suseptible due to genetics vs enviroment.

I have outlined this argument for a number of people and I am amazed at how hard it seems to be to understand. It is not an argument based on number skew.

What you say is not true. If we select a 100 'negroids' and a 100 'caucasians' the difference between the 2 groups relative differences within each group can go etiher way. It depends on the selection. If the selection is as random as possible, you will still find that the differences within each group are greater than the differences between them nearly all the time. If you SKEW the selction by comparing a 100 people who all are known to have families that lives only in Glasgow for a 1000 years and similar group whose families lived only in Cuzco for a 1000 years, you may be able to show that the difference between these 2 groups is greater than the difference among them...but that would be strictly an artifact of a biased selection procedure.