The blatantly false liberal mantra "Races differ ONLY in skin color"

I agree with you also, I think some people around here think they had a Choice on where the sperm that produced them was placed and fertilized.

 

I find it funny when egalitarians are forced into the position that evolution does not apply to humans.

 

Why?

Of course evolution applies to humans. My argument is against superiority, which is subjective. According to your reasoning and others, we must be, as humans, superior to every creature on the planet, I see this as nothing but a self-aggrandized form of human arrogance.

 

As opposed to what other species arrogance?

 

What is your point here?

 

In evolution superiority is defined as fitness. This is objective (but can usually only be determined through hindsight due to the complexity).

 

Well here we have something.

So based on survival of the fittest. As it stands with our tenuous situation... bacteria are probably the superior ones.

But also we can take some time to admire the crocodile for its 150 million years or so... reckon we'll last that long?

Doubtful.

Silly humans.

 

Sure, I agree bacteria are superior. Unless we colonise other stars. But you can understand that within a species, some are superior, and some are inferior?

 

In what respect?

Not really, doesn't it get too complicated to say? I mean the white supremacy claims are of a human nature rather than a natural one. We could look at why black slaves were so favoured for example, because they were stronger and less prone to disease than their Indian counterparts. What we are talking about is what we consider to be high culture... which has little to do with survival. People can survive without all this high culture. We could say that science has put our species under the first major existential threat we have seen. So what is superior about it, from a survival perspective? Based on survival there is equality, give or take, we all bleed, get disease etc. Is superiority based on the biggest gun? Like the white man and his genocide against the red Indian? This is superiority in effect right?


Something truly to do with a superior evolution? Yet when we look at indigenous Indian tribes we see their values:

What we see is that high western culture is crying out for an end to the madness, and has been quite notably for around 50 - 60 years at least. Look at western culture, the greed, the jingoism and hegemony, the mad vein bursting race towards oblivion, the consumerism and materialism, overconsumption. I'm not sure this is what we can term superior.

 

Yes. .............

 

Even if some groups of humans are "superior" to others, which I highly doubt, why should they change our equal treatment of them?

 

It's been proven through Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA that race is simply an adaptation to a person's environment. These are great videos that help explain.
[video=youtube;lkexKLCak5M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkexKLCak5M[/video]
[video=youtube;FUiAdGr9QE4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUiAdGr9QE4[/video]

 

Of course Race exists. It's just not politically correct to say so.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html
Two views at link above.
Here is the second
George W. Gill, a Proponents Perspective.

 

Only what foods they can eat.

 

In the Darwinian sense, the African body type is more fit for survival.

 

http://newsreel.org/guides/race/pressreleasecredit.htm

Race is a misnomer, or at least a mislabeling of genetic and/or cultural traits.

Surface genetic differences in the same "race" or species(homo sapien sapiens) are technically breeds. But no one likes to talk about human "breeds". Cultural differences are self explanatory; you live with a group, you adopt their ways. It's also obvious that this is not genetic.

In casual speech we're sloppy, and not without reason. For most of human history people have interbred with people no more than 5 miles from their place of birth. The assumption culture and genetics are the same is understandable, but incorrect.

Most people call someone with obvious African genetics as black visavis "race" without causing offense. Just beware this is incorrect on many levels("black" is a description, not a genetic group for starters. Indians and Samoans are also described as "black" in some places). The real problem comes when people attempt to legislate bs to limit human rights based on what are ultimately subjective descriptions.

At the end of the day, it's no one's business who your ancestors are.

 

There are, of course, differences in skeletal structure, especially of the face and hips that can be use to separate racial types, but little else.

Africans, generally speaking, have more advanced hip structure than Europeans and Asians. That's why African women generally have nicer butts.

 

'Race', as in the classic 3 races, has some problems. ie, American Blacks (IQ 85) are not the same as say Subsaharan Blacks. 300 years of interbreeding has left them with, on average, 25-30% 'euro' genes.
(consistent with mixed race/'Colored' IQ in South Africa, also 85, Intermediate to white 100 IQ and subsharan black 70)
makes perfect sense actually.
See below for numbers.

And Completely scientific research such as the NatGeo's Genographic project use what Can be called True Races. Subsaharan Africans, Bushmen, Australian Aboriginal, etc. If you send in your blood, you will get a percent of each you are.
It's "your own business" if you'd like to know.

"Misnomer" is only because people improperly, or for convenience sake, group to a mere (3), of what are more Races. Though the 3 are still quite useful. (see my last)

Richard Lynn uses Roughly the same REAL and Genetically Identifiable Races in his Race and IQ work.

and

So Races are now more fashionably and technically correctly called 'Indigenous People' but make no mistake, these are Genetically identifiable and distinct Groups. Races. If not the 'old' less correct, but still useful, 3.

and in answer to others there are many more Significant differences besides the straw man, "hip structure".

For instance, Black males have 20% more testosterone than whites. (15% when adjusted out for social factors).
This aggression hormone would explain alot wouldn't it? Not just in body form/athletic prowess, but in behavior/Crime stats.
Live and learn.

 

Lynn is still a racist punk and a charlatan.

It ain't genetics. It's about health and environment.

If that piece of crap did not make allowances for the percentages of populations that have suffered malaria or African sleeping sickness or childhood malnutrition, he has bugger all.

Unfortunately for your side, it is one characteristic that represents a "higher" evolutionary development. Black people are better built to walk upright.

Source?

 

Not really. People talk about race all the time.

Whether one race is better than another race seems rather pointless - how and why would such a fact, if true, change the way we treat people?

 

In the Darwinian sense the European brain type is more fit for survival. But I'm racist and you're not right?

 

I think we all agree that there is variation within races. The current assumption is that the races are "equal". So when not so many black kids pass math, it's put down to a "white racist system". This builds up a generalised resentment among blacks. When you combine this with the "cafeteria" effect, where people naturally gravitate towards and support people of their own race, you end up with racial conflict. Who hasn't seen videos of blacks jumping in to help other blacks in a fight with no idea of what the reason is? You saw it in Detroit where blacks rioted about "oppression" and drove the whites out. How's that working out for you? Blacks rioting because of "oppression" and driving whites out of their own cities = not racist. Go figure.

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*). There is no difference in brain types.

 

And your evidence is?

 

ok... so do you have an answer to my question or not? Whether one race is better than another race seems rather pointless - how and why would such a fact, if true, change the way we treat people?