Race

[Darorinag]

This paper will start by making an assertion that many politically correct academics would consider frustrating, alarming and infuriating: “Race exists as a biological concept.” Despite the unpopularity of the idea that race exists, slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the view that human races are biologically valid and real.1

Although the simple statement “race exists as a biological concept” might make many feel uncomfortable and want to bury their heads in the sand, this paper will attempt to prove that the statement is true. Before doing so, however, it should be noted that this paper focuses only on the question of whether there is such a thing as race. It will not discuss concepts of racial inferiority or superiority and nor will it even attempt to examine the scientific utility of classifying humans by race. The focus of this paper, as stated upfront, is entirely limited to whether race exists as a biological concept.

Definition of Race

First, there are easily-perceived traits such as hair and eye color, body build, and facial traits which vary among human population groups; these differences are easily perceived by the layman; and these traits are determined at least partially (and perhaps wholly) by ancestry (genetics).2 Race then is simply the label given to that human population grouping. In other words, as population geneticist Steve Sailer has put it, race is a lineage; it is a very extended family that inbreeds to some extent.3 Under this definition, race and ancestry are synonyms. Other synonyms for race are cluster, population, statistical collections of alleles, cline, clinal grouping, lineage, and regional pattern. The aforementioned are all terms that many population geneticists use instead of race;4 however, these terms all mean the exact same thing as race.

Note that race does not mean the same thing as “species,” if the word species is defined as a biologically distinct breeding unit.5 Because it is possible for members of different racial groups to breed with one another, the races are not separate species. Also, it is not possible to take any given human and unambiguously classify him or her as belonging to one particular race (as would be required with species classification). Race in the biological sense therefore is more a statistical concept. It is, to put it plainly, simply a major division of the human species grouped by ancestry.

Racial Traits

race is distinguished by a particular combination of inherited features. Anthropologists such as University of Wyoming Professor George Gill--who, as a forensic anthropologist, determines race scientifically by analyzing the bone structure of skeletons--recognize three major discernable racial groups: Caucasoid (white), Mongoloid (yellow), and Negroid (black).6 Basically, all people on Earth can be classified into one of or a mixture of these three ancestries (races).7

Skin color is only one of many phenotypic traits that make up the three major racial groups. Stanford University Professor Luigi Cavalli-Sforza describes those of the Caucasoid ancestral group as having a strong chin, light to dark hair that can be straight or slightly wavy, blue to brown eyes, thin lips, and a pasty white to tan complexion.8 Geographically, whites are native to the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. One of the other races, the Negroid ancestral group, is characterized by a prominent jaw, broad nose, curly to frizzy hair, dark brown eyes, generally large lips, and a yellow-brown to bluish-black complexion.9 Black Negroids are native to Africa.10 In the words of Cavalli-Sforza, “There are clear biological differences between populations in the visual characteristics that we use to classify races.”11

Classification of humans into different racial groups is essentially arbitrary, since the lines can be drawn anywhere.12 However, when humans are grouped into the traditional Caucasoid- Mongoloid-Negroid classifications, it can, as J. Philippe Rushton has concluded based on the hundreds of inherited clusters that are unique to each group, have much predictive and explanatory power.13

These inherited features run deep. No one can seriously deny that there is great diversity within the human genome, and differences are significant enough that the term “race” can be used to describe the different ancestral clusterings of populations. Below is a listing of some racial differences between just the white race and the black race. In delineating these differences, this paper focuses only on physical biological differences. The question of differing intelligence and psychology between the black race and white race is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be intentionally ignored.

It should also be noted that race is based on ancestry, not on any arbitrary combination of traits. A white person is racially similar to another white person simply because the two of them have a great deal more recent ancestors in common than they do with blacks. As geneticist Steve Sailer noted, “Race starts with boy meets girl, followed by baby.“14 However, implicit in discussions of whether there is such a thing as race is the question of whether racial differences are merely skin deep; therefore, this listing will show that racial traits include far more than superficial skin color. The listing is not intended to define race by traits; it is instead intended to show ways in which two of the three main ancestral groups--the black race and white race--differ genetically.

Nicotine processing differs in blacks and whites. Blacks appear to absorb 30% more nicotine from each cigarette than Whites do. 15

A CPR Chicago Project study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the black community was at higher risk for cardiac arrest and subsequent death than the white community, even after controlling for other variables. [Note: there are a couple ways to interpret this disparity. It might be caused by nothing more than racism (as the race deniers would point out), and/or it might be caused by genetic differences in the way heart attacks affect blacks vs. whites.] 16

Elderly blacks have a lower life expectancy than elderly whites, even after researchers controlled for significant factors such as educational status.17

In a study comparing birthrates of blacks (both American-born and African-born) and American-born whites, slight differences were found. [Note: this indicates that differing birthrates might be caused at least partially by genetics.]18

White patients who receive kidney transplants have a higher survival rate than black patients.19

Black men and women with the highest body-mass index have a much lower death rate than white men and women with the highest body-mass index.20

Treatment with the drug Enalapril results in a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among white patients with left ventricular dysfunction, a heart ailment, but no such reduction among black patients with the same disorder.21

“Black Americans and Africans have a high frequency of a CYP2D6 allele that encodes an enzyme with impaired activity. This allele is virtually absent in whites.22

“There are marked differences between whites and blacks in the frequency of polymorphisms of adrenergic receptors, including the (beta)1-, (beta)2-, and (alpha)1-adrenergic receptors.”23

The distribution of drug receptor polymorphisms differs among populations of different racial backgrounds, which causes people of differing racial backgrounds to have different responses to drugs.24

Although blacks tend to receive lower doses of hemodialysis kidney treatment than whites, their survival when receiving dialysis treatment is better than that for whites.25

Breast cancer mortality is higher among black women than among white women in the United States, even when controlling for socioeconomic factors.26

Black patients and white glaucoma patients respond differently to different surgical treatments.27

One in 400 blacks inherits sickle cell, versus only 1 in 1,000,000 whites.28

Physicians tend to prescribe more calcium channel blockers for blacks than whites because studies have indicated they work better to lower high blood pressure in that racial group.29

For blacks with mild kidney disease linked to hypertension, the drug ramipril, an ACE inhibitor (the most commonly prescribed blood pressure medicine) is not the best at protecting against kidney failure as it is with whites, a new study has found.30

Blacks are more sensitive to pain than whites.31

Blacks respond more poorly to certain chemotherapy drugs than whites.32

Compared to whites, blacks have narrower hips.33

Blacks have wider shoulders than whites.34

Black athletes have less body fat than whites.35

Black athletes have more muscle than whites.36

Black males have 3% to 19% more testosterone than white males.37

Black babies are born on average one week earlier than white babies.38

Black infants, although born on average one week earlier than white babies, are more mature than white infants are when born, as measured by bone development, amniotic fluid and other indices.39

Black children physically mature faster than white children, as demonstrated by the fact that black infants hold their necks erect earlier by an average of two weeks, walk an average of one month earlier, and enter puberty an average of about one year earlier.40

Brains of whites are on average five cubic inches larger than brains of blacks.41

White men have brains 8.2% larger than black men do.42

Twenty percent of whites have a gene that prevents their bodies from producing alpha-actinin-3, a muscle protein that provides the explosive power in fast-twitch muscles. Only 3% of blacks have that gene.43

Blacks have a longer arm span than whites, and the hand of a black is relatively longer than the forearm, compared with a white.44

Teenage blacks demonstrate a significantly faster patellar (knee) tendon reflex time than white teenagers.45

In 1999, even though they only made up 12% of the total US population, blacks accounted for 47% of all new AIDS cases in the United States. [This indicates that either blacks are more biologically susceptible to HIV, they are more sexually active, or both. Even the latter explanation, however, arguably is based on biology.]46

Forensic anthropologists can identify the racial origin of a skeleton with a higher degree of accuracy than an eyewitness looking at the living person.47

To a trained osteologist, the bone traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium can reveal a person’s race just as well as skin color, hair, nose form, and lips can.48

When the gene that controls production of thrombomodulin--a protein found in the walls of blood vessels-- mutates, it causes blacks to have six times the risk of developing heart disease than for whites with the exact same gene mutation. This means that the gene may act differently in blacks than in whites.49

In the 2000 Olympics, for the fifth consecutive Olympics, the eight men who reached the final of the 100-meter dash were all blacks of predominantly West African descent. Given that blacks of West African descent constitute only 7.5% of the world’s population, the probability of this occurring by chance is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. Therefore, unless this phenomenon can be demonstrated to have occurred due to the social environment blacks live in, the only explanation other than happenstance is that the races differ genetically (and thus race exists as a biological concept). 50

Although they dominate at the 100-meter and 400 meter dashes, blacks of West African descent are marginal at running races of 1,500 meters and higher. This is either a coincidence, is explained by social factors, or is caused by genetics.51

As of 1997, 134 out of the 134 times the 100-meter dash had been sprinted in under 10 seconds, a black of West African descent did it.52

The sheer number of differences listed above shows that racial differences are profound; the existence of race is self-evident.

Of course, any racial differences are average. Individuals within races have their own traits, which can differ from the norm of their racial background. However, when one compares the racial groups with one another in each of the above traits, no purely cultural or society-based explanation suffices. Genetic and biological explanations are required; therefore, race must exist as a biological concept. Genes play a role in athletic ability, bone structure, susceptibility to various diseases, and even tolerance for pain--differences that go far beyond skin color.

Racial differences have an evolutionary explanation. According to the currently accepted theory of human evolution, Africans and non-Africans split about 110,000 years ago when non- Africans (the ancestors of Mongoloids and Caucasoids) left Africa. Yellows and whites split around 70,000 years ago.53 Natural selection then carried itself out over hundreds and thousands of generations.

[Darorinag]

Genetic Differences Between the Races

The Human Genome Project so far has shown that human populations (races) share 99% of their genes in common.54 However (and ignoring the fact that this paper uses the word “race” as a synonym for “populations”), tiny genetic differences can translate into vast differences on the macro level. Human genes and chimpanzee genes are 98.4% similar,55 yet any claim that there aren’t biological differences between humans as a group and chimpanzees as a group is absurd. Additionally, under the working definition of race used by this paper, any genetic difference whatsoever between the socially-defined races would imply that the races exist biologically.

There are 30,000 human genes, a number that includes 3.1 billion base pairs.56 Population groups (i.e., races) differ in roughly 1 in 500 (or 60 million) of the base pairs.57 When viewed in these terms, the genetic differences among the races are profound. It is therefore possible for a small number of genes to account for racial differences in looks, physical abilities, and perhaps even in such traits as personality.

According to one estimate, roughly six percent of genetic variation between any two human individuals on the planet is caused by known racial groupings.58 The genetic code of blacks and whites differs by a full 3.2%.59 Furthermore, population geneticists have demonstrated that even an infinitesimal bit of genetic variation can cause differences in traits such as skin color--indicating that even the slightest genetic variations between populations (races) can cause vast differences.60

To further illustrate the reality of race on the genetic level, population geneticists such as Cavalli Sfroza are able to calculate a person’s ancestry (race) from different parts of the world to the percentage point.61 Forensic anthropologists can determine a suspect's racial background from DNA evidence left at the scene of a crime. The Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences even has a web site at http://www.csfs.ca/pplus/profiler.htm which police can use to enter a suspect's DNA data--compiled from such sources as blood and hair samples--in order to figure out the suspect's race.

Sometimes it is pointed out by race deniers that there is as much or more genetic diversity between people of the same race from different parts of the globe as there is between people of different races.62 Although this statement is true, it is irrelevant to the question of whether race exists as a biological concept. To put it into perspective, as Florida State University Professor Glade Whitney has pointed out, this statement is also true when the subjects are humans and macaque monkeys, a close primate relative: "When comparing humans with macaque monkeys, there is as much or more genetic diversity between individuals of the same species as there is between humans as a group and macaque monkeys as a group."63

Obviously, all the statement about vastly greater similarities among races than among individuals within races really means is that there is a wide amount of diversity within the human gene pool--just as there is wide diversity within the macaque gene pool. Similarly, there is a vast amount of diversity within the gene pool of each of the racial groups. Genetic differences among racial and ethnic groups usually reflect differences in the distribution of polymorphic traits, which occur at different frequencies in different populations, rather than a trait unique to a particular racial or ethnic group. Overlap of many traits would obviously occur, then, and would not be relevant to the question of whether they tend to occur more in some groups than others.

Cavalli-Sforza in his The History and Geography of Human Genes compiled tables depicting “genetic distances” of the various sub-races around the world. The genetic distance between English and Danes, two populations that are part of the white race, is equal to 7 according to his classification system.64 Then, Cavalli-Sforza’s team found, the separation between the English and the Italians, another white population, was 51.65 The genetic distance between the Japanese (who are part of the yellow race) and the English was 1,24466, and the distance between English and Bantus (the largest population group of Sub-Saharan Africa that is part of the black race) was 2,288. 67

Irrelevance of Racial Purity

On the question of racial purity, Cavalli-Sforza has found, based on DNA studies, that none can be considered pure.68 Race, then, exists as populations separated by intergrading zones instead of sharp lines. Racial groups are made by unique clusterings of gene frequencies and physical and other differences--as one might naturally expect to find among geographical ancestral groups. As psychologist J. Philippe Rushton concludes, “Races are recognized by a combination of geographic, ecological, and morphological factors and gene frequencies of biochemical components.”69 Under this definition, purity is irrelevant. Either there are inherited physical differences among peoples (whom we call “races“) around the world, or there are not. Saying that lack of purity nullifies the concept of race, as many race deniers do, is like saying that a border collie is not really a border collie because she has a poodle 10 generations back in her ancestral background.

In fact, though, recent evidence suggests that, at least with respect to the white race, the degree of admixture that race-deniers claim for human populations has largely not taken place. According to a genetic recent study of Britons, only 1% of the native British population has anything other than white ancestry. The remaining 99% of native Britons are “pure” white.70 The study itself, however, begs the question of how the researchers could determine African or Asian ancestry if such a concept is a myth. (Remember that the basic definition of “race,” for purposes of this paper, is ancestry.) This lack of “negroes in the woodpile,” so to speak, among white people suggests that the white race might have been totally separated from the other races long enough for significant genetic differentiation to occur.

The Role of Hybrids in the Racial Model

A common argument put out by race deniers is that due to significant interracial breeding in the past, there are so many racially mixed individuals that different societies interpret race differently, and therefore race must not exist as a biological concept.71 For example, there are people classified as “black” in the United States who can simply by virtue of getting on a plane and flying to Brazil, find themselves in a society where they are classified as “white.“72 This is taken by race-deniers as proof that race cannot be rooted in biology, since it appears to render scientifically meaningless the question of who is black and who is white.

However, this argument is fallacious because it confuses culture with biology. It is too much of a jump to say that race does not exist because certain societies have conflicting or “wrong” interpretations of it in their cultures. This argument boils down to saying that race doesn’t exist because no pure races exist--which in itself is a common tactic of race deniers.73 But this is a strawman, because there is no such thing as a “pure” race anyway, as discussed above. Whether there are individuals who are hybrids or combinations of races or not, one can still make the true statement that various human populations are phenotypically and genetically (ancestrally) different from one another. Thus, they make up different races.

The idea that because there is hybridization--that the various races merge together instead of having distinct boundaries--begs the question. Suppose all mixed-race individuals were ferried off to another planet, in order to create a situation in which the human populations left on earth did not overlap. Would race deniers then acknowledge the existence of race? Using the criteria of, for example, the American Anthropological Association in its policy statement on race, if human populations, through the theoretical removal of racially mixed people from the equation, were unambiguous and clearly demarcated, then the existence of race (using the reasoning of the American Anthropological Association) must be acknowledged.74

Another way to look at this problem is to turn it around. Suppose there were a situation in which there were definable differences between definable populations and no interracial breeding had ever occurred. In this hypothetical situation, all individuals could be unambiguously classified as Caucasoid, Negroid, or Mongoloid. Then blend the populations at the edges. Would this then invalidate the theoretical truth that the populations could be classified by race? Obviously not. If someone had both Mongoloid and Caucasoid ancestry, then that would make him bi-racial, not a- racial.

There are several areas where significant racial mixing has occurred, such as India and Latin America.75 The existence of racially mixed populations in those areas, however, in no way disproves the notion that the populations of Europe, East Asia, and Africa can be differentiated genetically and ancestrally.76

Calling a Race a Race

Ultimately, the question of whether race exists as a biological concept is little more than a word game. Race-deniers will claim some problematic definition for the word “race,” such as the untenable notion that race means a group of individuals that is biologically different from the rest (i.e., like a separate species).77 Then, while trying as hard as they can to deny that race exists, the race deniers will come up with some other word that really describes the exact same thing that race-proponents mean when they use the word “race.” Cavalli-Sforza for example uses terms such as “population,” “clinal variations,” “collection of alleles,“ and “cluster,” all the while religiously avoiding the taboo word “race.” All throughout his monumental tome The History and Geography of Human Genes, Cavalli-Sforza examines racial groups, yet he simply refuses to call a race a race. Human beings, as described by Cavalli-Sforza, are a continuum of variations among “populations.”78 If one substituted the word “race” for “populations,“ however, it would fit.

Conclusion

Possibly, opponents of the idea of race might argue, there is no good that can come from even discussing the realities of race, and a great deal of harm. This, although it may be true, has no logical bearing whatsoever on whether concepts surrounding race are true or not. Only evidence and reason, not right or wrong, can determine the truth.

If differences among populations are small, yet still there, then they are open for further examination. If racial differences in athletic ability exist, for example, then might there also be racial differences in intelligences and emotion, and/or in behavior and temperament? How deep racial differences go, as well as their implications for society and the future, must be confronted.

Indeed, if it is acknowledged that race exists, then some earth-shattering questions might pop up. Does the existence of race as a biological concept mean that racial harmony is impossible without complete racial separation? And is complete racial separation also the only way to maintain the rich diversity contained in the human genome? Or is there some other solution? Those questions, and many more, will no doubt be discussed in upcoming editions of Racial Dialectics.

To sum up, there is indeed such a thing as race. Race exists not only as a social and cultural concept but as a biological one as well. The basic reasoning, as demonstrated above, begins with the premise that certain biological traits exist in human populations (e.g., skin color). These traits manifest themselves in a statistical collection of alleles, which are caused by ancestry. The label given to this collection is “race.” Therefore, race, by that definition, exists as a biological construct. One’s race is no more, and no less, than one’s very extended family.

[Darorinag]

Notes:

1 Gill, George W., “Does race exist? A proponent’s perspective,” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

2 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza, History and Geography of Human Genes, Princeton University Press, 1994: 3.

3 Sailer, Steve, “Cavalli-Sforza's Ink Cloud”, http://www.vdare.com/sailer_may_24.htm

4 See, e.g., CAVALLI-SFORZA, et al.: History and Geography of Human Genes

5 See, e.g., Mayr, Dr. Ernst, “What is a species, and what is not?”, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, VOL. 63, JUNE 1996: 262-277.

6 Gill, George W., “Craniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race.” In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains ed. by Kathleen J. Reichs. Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd., 1998: 293-317.

7 Gill, George W., “Craniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race.”: 293-317.

8 CAVALLI-SFORZA, et al.: History and Geography of Human Genes: 266-267.

9 CAVALLI-SFORZA, et al.: History and Geography of Human Genes: 161-168.

10 Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, Genes, Peoples, and Languages, North Point Press, 2000: 9.

11 Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Peoples, and Languages: 9.

12 Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Peoples, and Languages: 29.

13 Rushton, J. Phillipe, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Transaction Publishers, 1995: xiii.

14 Sailer, Steve, “Making sense of the concept of race: A race is an extremely extended family,” 1998: http://isteve.com/makingsense.htm

15 http://www.healthcentral.com/news/ne...pe=ReutersNews

16 Becker, Lance B., Han, Ben H., Meyer, Peter M., Wright, Fred A., Rhodes, Karin V., Smith, David W., Barrett, John, The CPR Chicago Project, “Racial Differences in the Incidence of Cardiac Arrest and Subsequent Survival,” N Engl J Med 1993 329: 600-606

17 Guralnik, Jack M., et al., “Educational Status and Active Life Expectancy among Older Blacks and Whites,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 329, 1993:110-116.

18David, Richard J., et al., “Differing Birth Weight among Infants of U.S.-Born Blacks, African-Born Blacks, and U.S.-Born Whites,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 337, 1997: 1209-1214

19 Wolfe, Robert A., Ashby, Valarie B., Milford, Edgar L., Ojo, Akinlolu O., Ettenger, Robert E., Agodoa, Lawrence Y.C., Held, Philip J., Port, Friedrich K. “Comparison of Mortality in All Patients on Dialysis, Patients on Dialysis Awaiting Transplantation, and Recipients of a First Cadaveric Transplant,” N Engl J Med 1999 341: 1725-1730

20 Calle, Eugenia E., Thun, Michael J., Petrelli, Jennifer M., Rodriguez, Carmen, Heath, Clark W. “Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults,” N Engl J Med 1999 341: 1097-1105.

21 Exner, Derek V., Dries, Daniel L., Domanski, Michael J., Cohn, Jay N. “Lesser Response to Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy in Black as Compared with White Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction,” N Engl J Med 2001 344: 1351-1357.

22 Wood, Alastair J.J. “Racial Differences in the Response to Drugs -- Pointers to Genetic Differences,” N Engl J Med 2001 344: 1393-1396.

23 Exner, Derek V., Dries, Daniel L., Domanski, Michael J., Cohn, Jay N. “Lesser Response to Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy in Black as Compared with White Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction,” N Engl J Med 2001 344: 1351-1357

24 Wood, Alastair J.J. “Racial Differences in the Response to Drugs -- Pointers to Genetic Differences,” N Engl J Med 2001 344: 1393-1396.

25 William F. Owen, Jr; Glenn M. Chertow; J. Michael Lazarus; Edmund G. Lowrie; “Dose of Hemodialysis and Survival: Differences by Race and Sex,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 280 No. 20, 1998: 1764-1768.

26 Donald R. Lannin, Holly F. Mathews, Jim Mitchell, Melvin S. Swanson, Frances H. Swanson, Maxine S. Edwards; “Influence of Socioeconomic and Cultural Factors on Racial Differences in Late-Stage Presentation of Breast Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1998: 1801-1807.

27 Doctor's Guide, “Blacks, Whites Benefit From Different Surgical Glaucoma Treatments,” 1998: http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/8CC7E.htm

28Gary Sumner, “Eckman makes sickle cell disease a top priority,” Atlanta Business Chronicle, 1998: http://atlanta.bcentral.com/atlanta/...7/focus10.html

29 Susan Duerksen, “Study touts ACE inhibitor for blacks,” San Diego Union Tribune, June 6, 2001: http://www.uniontrib.com/news/metro/...7m6kidney.html

30 Susan Duerksen, “Study touts ACE inhibitor for blacks,” http://www.uniontrib.com/news/metro/...7m6kidney.html

31 Robert R. Edwards, Daniel M. Doleys, Roger B. Fillingim, and Daniel Lowery; “Ethnic Differences in Pain Tolerance: Clinical Implications in a Chronic Pain Population,” Journal of the American Psychosomatic Society, Vol 3 Number 2, 2001: 316.

32 Washington University School of Medicine, ScienceDaily, 2001: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0327080620.htm

33 Jaques Samson and Madeline Yerles, “Racial Differences in Sports Performance,” Canadian Journal of Sports Science 13, 1988: 110-111.

34 J. Jordan, “Physiological and Anthropometric Comparisons of Negroes and Whites,” Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 40, 1969: 93-99.

35 Stanley M. Garn, “Human Biology and Research in Body Composition,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 110, 1963: 429-446

36 Garn, “Human Biology and Research in Body Composition,” 429-446.

37 J.A. Cauley et al., “Black-White Differences in Serum Sex Hormones and Bone Mineral Density,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 139. 1994: 1035-1046.

38 Holly M. Cintos, “Cross-Cultural Variation in Infant Motor Development,” Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 8, 1998: 1-20.

39 Holly M. Cintos, “Cross-Cultural Variation in Infant Motor Development,” 1-20.

40 J. E. Kilbride et al., “The Comparative Motor Development of Baganda, American White, and American Black Infants,” An Anthropologist, 72, 1970: 1422-1428.

41 Ho, Khang-cheng, Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J.V., & Monroe, G. (1980), “Analysis of brain weight,“ Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 104, 635-645.

42 Ho, Khang-cheng, Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J.V., & Monroe, G. (1980), “Analysis of brain weight,“ Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 104, 635-645.

43 Kathryn N. North et al., “A Common Nonsense Mutation Results in a-actinin-3 Deficiency in the General Population,” Nature Genetics 21, 1999: 353-354.

44 Jaques Samson and Madeline Yerles, “Racial Differences in Sports Performance,” 110-111.

45 J. Dunn and M. Lupfer, “A Comparison of Black and White Boys’ Performance in Self-Paced and Reactive Sports Activities,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 4, 1974, 25-35.

46 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “HIV/AIDS Among African Americans,” http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/afam.htm

47 Gill, George W., “Does race exist? A proponent’s perspective,” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

48 Gill, George W., “Does race exist? A proponent’s perspective,” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

49 “Black people vulnerable to heart gene,“ Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association, April, 2001.

50 Sailer, Steve, “Angier’s wager and the Olympics,“ http://www.vdare.com/sailer_olympics_2.htm

51 Sailer, Steve, “Angier’s wager and the Olympics,“ http://www.vdare.com/sailer_olympics_2.htm

52 Sailer, Steve, “Making sense of the concept of race: A race is an extremely extended family,” 1998, http://isteve.com/makingsense.htm

53 Rushton, J. Phillippe, “Race as a biological concept,” November 4, 1996, http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu...tonracebio.htm

54 Talbot, Chris, “Human Genome Project: First scientific milestone of the twenty-first century”, July 11, 2000, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jul2000/gen-j11.shtml

55 Talbot, Chris, “Human Genome Project: First scientific milestone of the twenty-first century”, July 11, 2000, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jul2000/gen-j11.shtml

56 National Center for Biotechnology Information, “Genes and disease,” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/

57 CAVALLI-SFORZA, et al.: History and Geography of Human Genes: 7.

58 Blum, Deborah. “Race: many biologists argue for discarding the whole concept,” The Sacramento Bee, October 18, 1995, p. A12.

59 M. Nei and A. K. Roychoudhury. 1982. Genetic relationship and evolution of human races. Evolutionary Biology 14: 1-59

60 Steve Sailer, “We Know They Said ‘Created Equal.’ But They Didn’t Mean . . .” http://www.vdare.com/sailer_human_prop.htm

61 Gregory M Cochran, evolutionary biologist, quoted by Sailer, Steve, “We know they said ‘created equal.’ But they didn’t mean...”, http://www.vdare.com/sailer_human_prop.htm

62 See, e.g., Natalie Angier, “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show,” The New York Times, August 22, 2000: F1.

63 Michael Rienzi, “Race is a Myth? The left distorts science for political purposes,” American Renaissance, Dec. 2000

64 CAVALLI-SFORZA, et al.: History and Geography of Human Genes: 75

65 CAVALLI-SFORZA, et al.: History and Geography of Human Genes: 75

66 CAVALLI-SFORZA, et al.: History and Geography of Human Genes: 75

67 CAVALLI-SFORZA, et al.: History and Geography of Human Genes: 75

68 Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, Genes, Peoples, and Languages, North Point Press, 2000: 12-13.

69 Rushton, J. Phillipe, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Transaction Publishers, 1995: p. 96.

70 Reuters, “DNA shows black genes in white Britons,” May 20 2001: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2001...lack_dc_1.html

71 Charles Petit, “NO BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RACE, SCIENTISTS SAY - Distinctions prove to be skin deep,” The San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, February 23, 1998: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...=special#The%2 0San%20Francisco%20Chronicle

72 Charles Petit, “No Biological basis for race, scientists say--Distinctions prove to be skin deep,” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...=special#The%2 0San%20Francisco%20Chronicle

73 See, e.g., Paur R. Spickard, “The Illogic of American Racial Categories,” PBS Online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../spickard.html

74 American Anthropological Association, American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race", 2000: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

75 Michael Rienzi, “Race is a Myth? The left distorts science for political purposes,” American Renaissance, Dec. 2000

76 Michael Rienzi, “Race is a Myth? The left distorts science for political purposes,” American Renaissance, Dec. 2000

77 See, e.g., Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Peoples, and Languages, North Point Press, 2000: 25.

78 CAVALLI-SFORZA, et al.: History and Geography of Human Genes, Princeton University Press, 1994: 11-16.

[Anonymouse]

That was a very informative article Dan. With that said there are still some questions that beg to be answered.

If "race" doesn't exist, why is it that only "white" countries have to accept "diversity" as a strength, and accept mass immigration from the third world? Why is it that if we are "equal" and there are no differences, that we are able to highlight so many differences that can only be blamed on "unfairness" or "bias" or "stereotype"? Why is it that both similarities between races are pinpointed, but right beside it differences are pinpointed - both biological and cultural? Why is it that if we are equal, that Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids, produced differing cultures and levels of achievement? If the argument for African lagging is due to environmental factors, why is it that across the globe on the other side paralleling Africa, in virtually the same environment, the Mongoloid natives of the Americas produced vibrant civilizations?

[Darorinag]

Anon, good questions. But still no answers. Fadix seems to be evading them.

[Darorinag]

1 day and counting.

Still no answers.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag 1 day and counting.

Still no answers.

I have other things to do Dan right now, wait for tomorrow, another thing... the Turks knows well that after silence with Fadix there is storm... I have a surprise for you tomorrow...

[Darorinag]

LOL..... fine then.. I look forward to your reply. I just hope it won't be another irrelevant article.

[Fadix]

OK here is my answer, had to cut it in 3, because it was too long

Dan, you claim you can post dozens of scientific articles which “prove” your point, go ahead, post them, post anything that is not subventioned by the same supremacist organization, where the specialist conclude that there is such a thing as a race in the biological sense of the term. What your side has been able to do was to talk about genetic variances, this is NOT evidence, genetic variances are found among whites as well, the point here is that you could find more differences between two whites than a black and a white, this is a fact which you can not refute. You still were unable to tell me what the bases are in order to classify groups by races. Colors? Nose form? What? Yet! Posts after posts I bring evidences that humans are just heterogenic groups, and that there is as much differences between whites as there is between blacks and whites. Go ahead, now tell me, which are the bases to classify races? Which genetic sequence? Which markers? Everyone can hide behind the internet and claim having read this and that and think that they have mastered genetic and say how others are ignorant. Tell me Danny boy, the Turks have “Mongoloid” genes as well, from your logic they should be superior to Armenians, right? What about the Hispanics? They do worst than whites in aptitude tests and in school, yet! they have “Mongoloid” genes. Explain me how?

Coming to IQ, Dan, it is even worthless to continue with this discussion, you are a bonehead. The IQ test when it was invented it was to measure to processing of the information that was called “common knowledge.” I am not using the Lynn effect because it supports what I affirm; I use it because it is the only thing coming from Lynn that any other researchers that studied the question have concluded it exists. Now explain me how come IQ increases if knowledge has nothing to do with IQ? Claiming that learning has no implication in intelligence is ignoring the fact that information process modifies the brain. You just have to take a look in the medical literature. An example, Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz (neuropsychiatrist) treated Obsessive Compulsive patients with a behavioral therapy, when scanning the brain with PET (positron emission tomography) it was discovered that the brain of those patients had a different cerebral activities on the orbital frontal cortex, the girus and caudate nucleus, even changes at the hypothalamic/amygdale region. The brain of those patients was rewired to act like normal individuals. Neuro-plasticity, never heard about it? Of course nutrition has played as well a part in the increase of IQ points, but for sure knowledge has played an important part, it is from knowledge and information input that the brain reconnect and connect new circuitries. Furthermore, you are mixing learned knowledge from society and knowledge coming from observations. Your “miracle” argument as anti-theses does not make sense at all. We do not only learn from others, but we learn by “non-social” observations as well, which is part of knowledge. Glia which were believed to have minor roles like bringing nutriments to the neurons, now are known to play a role in intelligence, memory, learning process, and this is very very new. There is an article in the Scientific American, April 2004 issue regarding this. Glia now is believed to be a major part in the learning process and the processing of knowledge and even control the synapses. This further support the hypotheses that intelligence can be programmed not only as software but even as hardware, where the connections are entirely build by ones thoughts. Here more about environment and IQ:

“Yet, large environmentally induced IQ gains between generations suggest an important role for environment in shaping IQ.”

Source: Heritability Estimates Versus Large Environmental Effects: The IQ Paradox Resolved by William T. xxxxens and James R. Flynn. “Psychological Review, Volume 108, Issue 2, April 2001 p.346

Here, another:

“We observed 32 subjects whose biological parents were both unskilled workers. Abandoned at birth, the subjects had been placed at approximately 4 months of age into families spanning the top 13% of the socio-professional scale. The effects of this change in social class were estimated by comparisons with groups of children of unskilled workers observed in two large scale studies. An internal control group was also available for 20 of the 32 subjects: the biological half-siblings who had been reared in their `natural' environment. The effects observed are an increase of 14 IQ points in the mean IQ score estimated with 2 tests and a reduction by a factor of 4 in the probability of repeating a grade. These are significant despite the small number of subjects; we have shown that the bulk of these effects cannot be attributed to methodological biases. Our observations thus provide a direct quantitative answer to the question posed by Jensen in 1969.”

“How much could we boost scholastic achievement and IQ scores? A direct answer from a French study.” By Michel Schift, Michel Duyme, Annick Dumaret and Stanislaw Tomkiewicz. “Cognition, Volume 12, Issue 2, September 1982, p. 165

Chinese pass their test in their language, they master their language, I dough that there is a test in Zoulou for the zoulous to pass. This is the whole thing about language and IQ. This is known for decades now that the IQ test is variable depending on the preestablished “common knowledge” which you set. Adrian Dove a sociologist in 1968 published “The Chitling Test” an experiment he conducted where he showed that when using vocabularies that Blacks are familiar with they scored higher than Whites. I present you evidences after evidences, and yet! the only thing your side is able to do is to post “research” from Rushten, Jensen etc… the handful of said scientists against practically all scientists… and amazingly your “scientists” are all financed by the same foundation. You are like a Turk, take that as an offence I do not care. How much I bring evidences from every field to a Turk, he will still refer to the handful of pied scholars to support his claim.

And no, I am not claiming blacks to be superiors; I am not Danny boy classifying races. I do believe in human diversity based on where they live and the circumstances… be it their skin colors, nose forms etc… The measure of the cranial volume of the Zulus at the end of 19th centuries shows the average male Zulu to have a 1450cm3 cranial capacity, an average higher than the “White average” measured. Cranial sizes depend on the region and not the color of people, color is just skin related. So again, when you calculate an average, you do not take in account that based on locations it is expected that you will detect variations. Those variations have nothing to do with ones skin color. Just an example here, the mean of 1276cm3 found by Rushton for Blacks, when one pay a closer look at his numbers, from the samples he took, 5 of them which represent a minority of African Blacks that are known to have very small cranial capacities. Ackas have 1085cm3 as cranial capacity which are included in his sample. I guess Danny boy did not knew that. Why would he even try to search from where the numbers come from, why would he even try to learn or understand… his goal is to just support his belief(that blacks are inferior). It was not enough for Rushton to apply a “correction value” to decrease even further Blacks cranial size, but he had even to manipulate the samples by including Black tribes whom constitute a minority to further embellish his research and “prove” Blacks as being inferior. Oh another thing, I guess Danny boy as well ignored that South African Blacks had the same cranial capacity as Whites. How come Danny boy? Cranial size variances are like nose size, mouth form or whatever other variances, there is no correlation between color of the skin and cranial size, the only reason why one could find smaller cranial size in Africa is because Africa is known to be a record holder in human diversity, where you will find bigs and smalls in everything.

And Danny, you again bring Egypt; this is a none issue. Danny boy, if we consider that before the beginning of the “Out of Africa” 100,000 years ago and what we consider as “Great civilizations” that we record as 5000 years ago. It represent about 5% of the years it took from the beginning of the human migration to present time. I do not know if you understand where I am bringing you. The Great Civilizations as you might call them represent 5% in the chronology of the time from the beginning of the migration to present time. Two equally capable groups in two different locations could vary over 20%, 5% is nothing; it does not support your claim at all. Let refer to a classic work.

“4000 B.C.: Independent development of agriculture on the upper Niger River and its spread throughout the western Sudan. Introduction of Neolithic agriculture and domesticated animals into Egypt from adjacent Southwest Asia.

4000 to 3000 B.C.: Spread of Neolithic agriculture and animal husbandry westward along the Mediterranean coast of North Africa to the Atlantic. Diffusion of Sudanic agriculture eastward across the Sudan to Ethiopia and Nubia. Replacement of the indigenous Bushmanoid hunters by Negroes on the middle Nile and in western Ethiopia. Conjunction of the two agricultural civilizations at the border of Egypt and Nubia, resulting in the borrowing by the Nubian Negroes of the Neolithic domesticated animals without associated milking complex.”

“Africa: Its Peoples and Their Culture History” by George Murdock Peter, McGraw-Hill. Place of Publication: New York, 1959 p. 44

Danny boy, as you see agriculture only emerged on that region, and later on as a result a civilization emerged right afterward on that same region. Bonehead, is that hard to understand for you? And as well, statistically speaking, considering the time line, civilisation represent 5% of the chronology of humanity from the beginning of the Great migration to now, it is statistically insignificant, only randomness alone would be enough to create an inequity of civilization in two different regions of about 5%.

So here we come to the article you posted, you see Danny boy, unlike your side I answer to the materials you present by facts. I must admit having a good time reading (and laughing) what you posted, pseudo-science in the best sense of the term. First of all, the writer of the article is a “know it all” like the one we have in this board, not a specialist. I wondered why you did not include his name (which BTW is a copyright infringement), but later on I understood.

“White People Awake! …furthering Nature’s plan by striving towards the advancement and improvement of our generations.” The site is supported by a religious group whom seek the preservation of the “White race” and its purity.

But forget this for now and let examine the article.

The author right away starts by making dubious affirmations, he supposes without much evidences that scientists that do not adhere to his view are merely playing the game of “politically correctness.” Furthermore, it takes a lot of arrogance to claim that ones paper could attempt to prove that race exist, even more laughable is that one realize from his paper that he do not know of what he is talking about. Let examine how. First he start by claiming that nearly slightly over half of anthropologists consider race as being real and biologically valid, to support his point he footnote to a site, where an anthropologist claim so. Either the author of the article has no experiences in writing scientific papers either he tries to fool the reader. You can not use references from others that cite the same thing as evidences for your claim. In order to support your point, you must present factual data’s, statistics from where the allegation comes from. Here the author to support his claim that slightly over half the anthropologists claim so, he must present a statistic with a reference, a poll among anthropologists, a survey etc… he has not done so. The American Anthropological Association wrote not so long ago: “… differentiating species into biologically defined ‘race’ has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation…” So much of the so-called slightly more than a half.

Further the author present the definition of what race is. A bogus definition; from this definition I can find hundreds of races among humans. To support his definition he refers to Steve Sailer and calls him “population geneticist.” Steve Sailer is a reporter not a geneticist, the average knows it all American who write critics about subjects that he ignores about, and he is the founder of the JOKE! “Human Biodiversity Institute” to “prove” the existence of race. This twit Sailer critic Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the internationally known and famous expert geneticist, one of the fathers of modern genomic studies. One now understand why the author of your article has called the twit Sailer as a “population geneticist,” he thought that to discredit a potential Nobel prize laureate, one of the great figures in the study of human genomic, he would be needing a “specialist” in the field. The author of your article Danny boy did even not bothered studying Cavalli-Sforza works or reading his most recent (VERY INTERSTING) book, what he did is to use Sailer references of Cavalli-Sforza quotes and just reworded the same critics. But this was not enough, your article Danny boy, the author has plagiated most of it from other dubious articles from the Mr. Einsteins of the web. Here another article, compare Danny boy http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...ningofRace.htm . In this article you will find all the footnotes from where your authors took his references from the work of Cavalli-Sforza, and you will find entire sentences plagiated by rewording them. From your friends words, indeed an interesting article Danny boy.

[Fadix]

(my answer continued)

Now, just let take a look at the “differences” he find between Blacks and Whites.

I will be leaving the Nicotine at the end for some reasons.

So here, let quote the first one.

“A CPR Chicago Project study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the black community was at higher risk for cardiac arrest and subsequent death than the white community, even after controlling for other variables. [Note: there are a couple ways to interpret this disparity. It might be caused by nothing more than racism (as the race deniers would point out), and/or it might be caused by genetic differences in the way heart attacks affect blacks vs. whites.]”

The footnote reference date 1993. More recent researches demonstrate that after controlling variables such as income and cardiac arrest recognition etc… there was no difference. Here a part of the conclusion of a study:

“However, after controlling for SES and variables normally predictive of OHCA survival, in an urban and suburban environment, race and SES did not independently predict outcome after OHCA.”

Source: “Does race or socioeconomic status predict adverse outcome after out of hospital cardiac arrest: a multi-center study.” Resuscitation, Volume 40, Issue 3, May 1999 p. 146

So here we have one less differences… let come to the next one.

“Elderly blacks have a lower life expectancy than elderly whites, even after researchers controlled for significant factors such as educational status.”

Date of the research? 1993, now let quote a more recent research conclusion:

“…blacks and low [socioeconomic status] persons are at increased risk of almost everything. Teasing these two influences out and permitting some targeting of efforts is an extremely important step forward.”

Source: “Which diseases contribute to life-expectancy differences between races?” The Lancet, Volume 360, Issue 9345, 16 November 2002, p. 1571

The diseases found have nothing to do with genetic or linked with a black physiology different than whites. So again one less differences…

“In a study comparing birthrates of blacks (both American-born and African-born) and American-born whites, slight differences were found. [Note: this indicates that differing birthrates might be caused at least partially by genetics.]”

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! What a pseudo science… the less we have the more we expend. I don’t think I have even to answer to that.

Now the next one.

“White patients who receive kidney transplants have a higher survival rate than black patients.”

There are many factors here that have probably nothing to do with skin colour. One of the reasons is because Blacks have to wait more to find a match (see: Human Immunology, Volume 44, 1995 p. 97), which participate on the deterioration of their health. There are other factors such as alloimmunization and immunomodulator drug response (will come to that later) and hypertension.

“Black men and women with the highest body-mass index have a much lower death rate than white men and women with the highest body-mass index.”

And? Siberian Whites with the highest body mass have a much lower death rate than white American men and women of highest body mass. Would that mean they are of different races?

“Treatment with the drug Enalapril results in a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among white patients with left ventricular dysfunction, a heart ailment, but no such reduction among black patients with the same disorder.”

A more recent research contradicts this.

“Enalapril appears to be equally efficacious in black and white patients in reducing the risk of progression from ALVD to symptomatic HF.”

Source: “Efficacy of angiotensin-covering enzyme inhibition in reducing progression from asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction to symptomatic heart failure in black and white patients.” Journal of American College of Cardiology, Volume 40, Issue 2, 17 July 2002, p. 317

The next one.

“Black Americans and Africans have a high frequency of a CYP2D6 allele that encodes an enzyme with impaired activity. This allele is virtually absent in whites. “

What a selectivity, given that from where this fact has been taken, Wood give many such examples among Whites of different regions. The reference has been taken from “Racial Differences in the Response of Drugs – Pointers to Genetic Differences” by Alastair J.J. Wood, published in the New England Journal of Medecine, you can access to the article if you have an access permission here:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/344/18/1393.pdf

A very interesting article, here more about it and what it demonstrates.

“The genetic differences among racial and ethnic groups usually reflect differences in the distribution of polymorphic traits, which occur at different frequencies in different populations, rather than a trait unique to a particular racial or ethnic group.”

Source of the above quote: American Journal of Ophthalmology Volume 132, Issue 3, September 2001, p. 453, Dr. Thomas J. Liesegang, this article is a resume of “Racial Differences in the Response of Drugs – Pointers to Genetic Differences” by Alastair J.J. Wood, published in the New England Journal of Medecine 2001; 344:1393-1396

Now the next one presented:

“There are marked differences between whites and blacks in the frequency of polymorphisms of adrenergic receptors, including the (beta)1-, (beta)2-, and (alpha)1-adrenergic receptors.”

Yes this is true, but there is marked differences among blacks of different regions for the frequency of polymorphism or among whites from different regions as well. If we were to classify races based on genetic polymorphisms, we would have to create many “races” to classify Whites based on those genetic polymorphisms.

“The distribution of drug receptor polymorphisms differs among populations of different racial backgrounds, which causes people of differing racial backgrounds to have different responses to drugs.”

This is repetition once more; all those references regarding drug responses here refer to the cythochrome P450, CYP2D6, which the author duplicate many times to multiply the differences. I have already answered to that.

Now this one.

“Although blacks tend to receive lower doses of hemodialysis kidney treatment than whites, their survival when receiving dialysis treatment is better than that for whites.”

Once more this is selectivity at its best. This is known and the major reasons for that are known as well. One of the main reasons is that since Blacks have to wait more to have a Kidney match than Whites, so more opt for the haemodialysis. (See: “Patients’ decisions for treatment of end-stage renal disease and their implications for access to transplantation,” Social Science & Medicine, Volume 53, Issue 8, October 2001, Pages 971-987), while for the White population, those having a weaker physical condition choose that option, reducing their chance of survival in comparison with the Black sample. As well, many blacks’ kidney problems are caused by hypertension which is more efficiently managed by hemodialysis.

Next one:

“Breast cancer mortality is higher among black women than among white women in the United States, even when controlling for socioeconomic factors.”

Here the conclusion of a more recent study.

“Results show that ethnic differences in breast cancer fatalism are mediated by income,…”

Source: “Ethnic differences and association with cancer screening,” Annals of Epidemiology, Volume 12, Issue 7, October 2002, p. 292

Next one:

“Black patients and white glaucoma patients respond differently to different surgical treatments.”

Yes! But why? Here is the why:

“Uncorrected GAT underreading of African Americans may lead to delay in diagnosis, inadequate treatment target setting, and higher morbidity. Goldmann applanation tonometry needs to be corrected by central corneal thickness and corneal curvature for proper diagnosis and management of glaucoma.”

Source: “Intraocular pressure, Goldmann applanation tension, corneal thickness, and corneal curvature in Caucasians, Asians, Hispanics, and African American,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, Volume 136, Issue 4, October 2003, p. 613

“One in 400 blacks inherits sickle cell, versus only 1 in 1,000,000 whites.”

Yes! OK! Then Mediterranean Caucasians are not of the same races as other Whites, because they have a lot higher risk to have thalassemia.

“Physicians tend to prescribe more calcium channel blockers for blacks than whites because studies have indicated they work better to lower high blood pressure in that racial group.”

This is still under debate with contradicting results (see my next answer); but even if it was true it has to do with the etiology of the condition, hypertension is caused by many factors, some factors are more responsible for the hypertension among Blacks compared to Whites, and medications will target such factors, Whites from Iran might respond differently than an American White. Why would that be dependent of ones skin colour?

“For blacks with mild kidney disease linked to hypertension, the drug ramipril, an ACE inhibitor (the most commonly prescribed blood pressure medicine) is not the best at protecting against kidney failure as it is with whites, a new study has found.”

This refers to the other quote, another repetition from the part of the author. This is just a continuity, believing that calcium channel blockers being better than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor for blacks, but recent studies like I said above contradict the previous ones… a recent one give ramipril an advantage over amlodipine (calcium channel blocker). (See: “Recommendations for the management of special populations: racial and ethnic populations,” American Journal of Hypertension, Volume 16, Issue 11, Supplement 1, November 2003, p. 50)

“Blacks are more sensitive to pain than whites”

There are no evidences that it is physiologic. Everyone perceives pain differently, and the copping mechanism might be different depending on many factors such as culture etc…

“Blacks respond more poorly to certain chemotherapy drugs than whites.”

And?

“Blacks have wider shoulders than whites.”

And? Should we classify Whites in other part of the world whom have wider shoulders as well?

“Black athletes have less body fat than whites.”

What about comparing Russians with Americans?

“Black athletes have more muscle than whites.”

Ibid

“Black males have 3% to 19% more testosterone than white males.”

This is an oversimplification. Testosterone levels vary among Whites from different region, from a study European Whites had the same testosterone levels as African-Caribbean and both had significantly higher testosterone level than Pakistanis(see: “Significant ethnic variation in circulating total bound and free testosterone,” Endoctrine Abstracts 3, P266), furthermore American Africans and White Americans testosterones level only vary on the serum levels of total testosterone but not free testosterone. (see: ‘Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin, and body composition in young adult African American and Caucasian men,” Metabolism, Volume 50, Issue 10, October 2001, pp. 1242-1247) by 40 years of age, an African American and White American will have the same serum levels of testosterone. (see: “Serum testosterone levels in African-American and white men undergoing prostate biopsy,” Urology, Volume 54, Issue 6, December 1999, pp. 1035-1038)

“Black babies are born on average one week earlier than white babies.”

I herby declare every White baby born one week before term is a “Negroid.” HAHAHAHAHA!!!

“Black infants, although born on average one week earlier than white babies, are more mature than white infants are when born, as measured by bone development, amniotic fluid and other indices.”

I herby declare every White baby born one week before term that is more mature than the average White baby is a “Negroid.”

“Black children physically mature faster than white children, as demonstrated by the fact that black infants hold their necks erect earlier by an average of two weeks, walk an average of one month earlier, and enter puberty an average of about one year earlier.”

Repetition.

“Brains of whites are on average five cubic inches larger than brains of blacks.”

“White men have brains 8.2% larger than black men do.”

I have demonstrated those claims are not supported when using the most recent studies.

“Twenty percent of whites have a gene that prevents their bodies from producing alpha-actinin-3, a muscle protein that provides the explosive power in fast-twitch muscles. Only 3% of blacks have that gene. ”

OK Einstein! What do you propose? That we classify Blacks that don’t have the gene as Whites, and those Whites that have it as Blacks?

“Blacks have a longer arm span than whites, and the hand of a black is relatively longer than the forearm, compared with a white.”

What about Indians compared with American Whites? Will they have the same arm span, same size of hand and forearm?

“Teenage blacks demonstrate a significantly faster patellar (knee) tendon reflex time than white teenagers.”

Ibid

“In 1999, even though they only made up 12% of the total US population, blacks accounted for 47% of all new AIDS cases in the United States. [This indicates that either blacks are more biologically susceptible to HIV, they are more sexually active, or both. Even the latter explanation, however, arguably is based on biology.]”

What an idiot! Einstein, never pied a closer look at the fact that African Americans uses condom less often than White American? Or that the socioeconomic part plays as well a big part in that? HIV virus does not discriminate, it passes in your blood and you get infected, no matter you are black or white.

“Forensic anthropologists can identify the racial origin of a skeleton with a higher degree of accuracy than an eyewitness looking at the living person.”

So?

“To a trained osteologist, the bone traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium can reveal a person’s race just as well as skin color, hair, nose form, and lips can.”

And?

“When the gene that controls production of thrombomodulin--a protein found in the walls of blood vessels-- mutates, it causes blacks to have six times the risk of developing heart disease than for whites with the exact same gene mutation. This means that the gene may act differently in blacks than in whites.”

What an idiot writing a pseudo-science paper. So what? Some might be more vulnerable than others? What about those Whites whom develop heart disease as a result? Or those Blacks who don’t?