Race

[Fadix]

(my answer continued)

“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). ”

What about the Blacks from East Africa decent, South Africa descent? Are they of the same “race” as Whites?

“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.”

Ibid

“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.”

Ibid

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

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The only thing those things above shows is that there is no biological reasons that would justify the existence of races among humans.

“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.”

What an absurd and dumb oversimplified way of seeing things. What this individual implies is that it takes a socially-defined races, and that if we find genetic differences among those two groups it would mean that biologically races exist. Hmmm! OK then! I can start separating Whites randomly based on some sort of socially-defined races, and later on to “prove” that I have correctly separated them as races, I will search a genetic difference among those two groups. Problem! Problem! Problem! What if I find out that there are people in the same group that are more different genetically compared with the other group? Will I create more races until I end up defining each individual as being a race alone?

“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."”

This is BS, but what do you expect from Glade Whitney a racist psychologist that self-proclaim himself geneticist. Only the fact that the author uses him speak volume of his intentions (beside the fact that he uses Rushton and even plagiate from him (I will show that later)). Glade Whitney wrote the forward of the racist autobiographical book “My Awakening” by the ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, where the author tries to demonstrate Blacks as being inferiors and ask Whites (that he call “Aryans”) to become warriors and prepare to maintain the White “race” purity and isolate the Blacks and give them a separate homeland to maintain that purity.

Let see what real scientists says:

“There’s no genetic basis for any kind of rigid ethnic or racial classification at all.” –Bryan Sykes, Geneticist.

“There is no such thing as a biological entity that warrants the term ‘race.’” –C. Loring Brace, Anthropologist.

“…race is a social construct, not a scientific classification,…” American Journal of Ophthalmology Volume 132, Issue 3, September 2001, p. 453

etc… etc…

I can continue and continue like this Danny boy… while I present references and references and support my claim, your side will just answer to my presented facts by rejecting them without presenting factual evidences or quoting from researches to support the claims. Calling me ignorant in genomic won’t do Danny boy.

The problem is that your side is acting from emotion and racist belief, and not from logic.

A forum that is so obviously plagued by two malicious racists is about the worst place for a scientific discussion I could see.

Beside that, we don't know much more than you already wrote. A discussion is completely useless without new scientific findings.

And more, why don't you worry at least as much about the variations within one “race”? These are certainly a very real problem there. Right?

I will tell you why. Because some people are looking for an enemy, somebody they can step on. If their (lack of) intelligence doesn't allow them to do that, they search for a replacement, and they believe they found it in race. Truly intelligent people have no need for that.

Beside that, I have a better study to conduct. Let me make a prediction, and let Mr. Rushton do a study on it.

I predict that people who use generalizations as a basis for dealing with individuals (example, "black people are dumb" etc…)have far lower IQ's than the rest of humanity, had a poor background by uneducated and possibly abusive parents, and have led an unsatisfying life and like to blame others for their failures.

[Anonymouse]

Amazing how article posting continues to be the norm, and avoiding my questions.

[Darorinag]

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.

Where it was taken from is irrelevant. Those were studies conducted scientifically. The fact that they were posted on supremacist websites makes no difference. Again, supremacists might use it, but that doesn't mean the results were supremacist. They simply show that there are differences.

And which "specialists" are you talking about? Aren't they anti-racists? They too, then, are biased. Personal views and biases have no place in scientific experimentation.

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.

Genetic variances AMONG different ethnicities within a certain race are smaller than genetic variances BETWEEN races. Genetically, the Irish are closer to Germans than the Asians are.

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.

Your "proofs" don't qualify as "proofs" because they don't prove what you're claiming. You haven't proven anything YET.
Genotype is behind the phenotypes. And I am not just talking about phenotype here.

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.

Indeed. And that's what you do all the time and are in fact doing now. Remember, you have researched the genocide for 3 years. anthropology for 3 years, this for 3 years, that for 3 years... how old are you really? I am not claiming to have "researched" anything for 3 years. I am using solid scientific results to back my claims. Facts are facts and no matter how much wishful thinking you might have, it's not gonna change the fact that Negroids are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia than whites or asians.

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?

Hispanics are mixed. I am not talking about how well mixed people do. Turks have also been mixed with Semites and Whites. Armenians to some extent have also been mixed with Mongoloids. The IQs for Armenians and Turks are about the same, with maybe a 1 point gap in favour of either one. Please, are you saying that Armenians are smarter than Turks? How biased of you! What's all this hatred of Turks? I mean yeah, they deny the genocide, but this bias has no place in scientific experiments or debates. You just proved that you are biased.

Coming to IQ, Dan, it is even worthless to continue with this discussion, you are a bonehead.

Yes, you're right, it's worthless to continue this "discussion" because you keep attacking the person rather than the arguments the person makes.

Now explain me how come IQ increases if knowledge has nothing to do with IQ?

You are not taking into account that the brain further develops (neurons, etc.) as people grow older. That is why a child who is 2 years old doesn't have the same mental capabilities as a child who's 6 years old. The difference is not that of education, because arguably, the child who is 2 years old is undergoing a process of education too, acquiring the language.

We do not only learn from others, but we learn by “non-social” observations as well, which is part of knowledge.

What do you mean? Yes, we learn from others, but there is no proof that ingtelligence is effected by education. Have you seen a genius kid who has received his PhD in Chemistry at the age of 12? Are you saying that this kid has just had tremendous exposure to education, and that everyone else can do it if they wanted to? That's just a load of BS!!! THAT is intelligence. Being skilled is one thing, being intelligent is another. You are clearly confusing the two.

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.

That the brains were "rewired" in itself implies that they needed that to be on par with the rest of the people. Surely you can rewire a black person's brain, but we're not talking about artificial intelligence here.

And no, I am not claiming blacks to be superiors; I am not Danny boy classifying races.

WHo cares if blacks are superior or if whites are superior? That's not the point!!! Go beyond that! We're not talking about political bias here. We're talking about objective scientific results!

I never claimed colour = race. Meds are darker in colour. That doesn't mean I'm biased against them. The whole thing about colour you're mentioning is irrelevant.

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).

You are making assumptions. But I am not surprised. Your entire belief and "proof' system is based on assumptions.

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?

That would be because South Africans have in many cases, mixed with whites in the apartheid years. Just like many slaves in USA had babies from their masters. That still doesn't prove anything. You are taking an exception as the norm. South Africa is also significantly more advanced than the other countries in Africa. Are you going to attribute that to South Africans' superiority and ignore the fact that whites brought their civilisation to the country?

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.

Please, Fadix, don't get me started on mouths. Blacks have bigger and "fuller" lips than whites, and whites relatively have thicker lips than Asians. There are always exceptions, but we're talking about averages, Fadi.

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.

We can base our experiments on what we know, not what we don't know. If, at one point, we do have input on civilisations 100,000 years ago, we would have to revise our results, but as it stands, it is a very relevant observation.

I wondered why you did not include his name (which BTW is a copyright infringement), but later on I understood.

Oh please, do you think I care about what you think of my sources? I simply forgot, because not only was I copying and pasting it, I was also editing the line structure because it was totally f*cked up when I copied it. And to add to that, I was at the school lab and in a hurry to post it.

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.”

That's his thesis statement. He proves it in his article. In a standard essay, you make a claim, then in the body of your essay, you prove your claim.

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.

Yes, I suppose you would consider anyone who doesn't agree with you or express the same points as you do is "ignorant" and doesn't know what he's talking about!!

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.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? That is irrelevant. It's not plagiarism to check out the sources from another article and include them in your article.

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.

Oh please, just because it was in 1993 doesn't mean it was BS!! It doesn't mean that all scientific results HAVE BEEN revised! Some things have been true for 50 years and are still true! And please, income and cardiac arrest? Heh.. that's hilarious. Scientific revisionism has been the result of political correctness.

Date of the research? 1993

Again, see above point. Your citations come from sociological sources rather than strictly biological ones.

I don’t think I have even to answer to that.

Oh, please do. I am interested in what's so funny in that. Black newborns develop more quickly than white newborns. they can hold their heads straight after 2 days even. This has been observed by scientists, researchers, doctors, psychologists. Say what you will, but there are biological/genetic differences that have been observed and that are now being revised due to the tides of political correctness and pressurization by such.

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

Oh, do they? I never knew they made waiting lists based on race...

[Darorinag]

A more recent research contradicts this.

So what makes you sure that the new research has more validity than the old one? Simply because it's more recent? That's bullsh*t. In fact, I can say that what I posted contradicts your new research results, and YOU would be in the same position then. There have been medical errors in research even recently.

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 differences for ethnicities AMONG a specific race are smaller.

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.

Please, Fadix, try to say something more logical than that. We're not strictly talking about African blacks here, we're talking about "African-Americans" too.

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

That is b.s. Yes, results show that the holocaust took place. that doesn't mean it took place. just because someone said so doesn't mean that it happened. You need proof. This is very similar to believers of the holocaust. if you can't prove, you can't say that it's "widely know" or that "results show"... please.. I expected much more from you.

“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.”

Again, that's a load of revisionist b.s. attributing everything to income and "delay" and blaming others for their differences doesn't help them at all. In fact, it would do them good if they admitted to the existence of racial differences, because it would further enhance medical research in that direction rather than putting a halt to it due to political and social pressure.

Again, anti-racist medicine and science started AFTER anti-racism started, not the other way around. Now science is trying to "prove" that there are no races, to support the cause of anti-racism.

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

Meds have been mixed more than Nords or other whites. They've been mixed with Arabs and north africans through years of trade and interaction with them.

Why would that be dependent of ones skin colour?

Again, we're not talking about skin colour. What I'm trying to prove here is not that there are differences based on skin colour. I'm talking about genetic differences in races. Like I said, Med Cauc. have considerably darker skin colour.

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…

There is no evidence that it isn't. There is no evidence that on average, everyone perceives pain differently.

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

And?

And - that is one of the proofs that your "researches" haven't been able to debunk.

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

That's irrelevant. We're talking about relativity. Blacks on average have wider shoulders than whites. We're not talking about absolutes and specific cases.

“Black athletes have less body fat than whites.”

What about comparing Russians with Americans?

What about it?

“Black athletes have more muscle than whites.”

Ibid

Again, the differences between black and white athletes have been recorded and accepted as correct. by making the claim, we mean "on average", doesn't matter if there are exceptions. there are exceptions in everything.

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

Haha... same levels of testosterone as African-Caribbeans? PLEASE!!! read more research results. I will try to find one for you. Will post it later on. Remind me cos I forget. And as I said, and I keep repeating this, racial differences are larger than ethnic differences WITHIN a specific race.

furthermore American Africans and White Americans testosterones level only vary on the serum levels of total testosterone but not free testosterone.

That's irrelevant. They vary. Period.

by 40 years of age, an African American and White American will have the same serum levels of testosterone.

Again, irrelevant. that they weren't the same from the beginning goes to show that they are different. That they are similar at one point doesn't mean that they have always been similar or in general are similar.

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

You're losing credibility here. I am talking about average here. You're talking about exceptions.

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

See above.

“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.

So? repetition disqualifies it as correct? prove that it's incorrect.

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

That they are more recent doesn't make them any more right than the older ones. if it's scientifically incorrect, it doesn't matter when it took place.

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?

Again, applying exceptions to the average does not apply. You're talking about exceptions, I'm talking about averages. Even in IQ measurements, a national IQ is taken on the bases of the average, not the exceptional few.

“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?

Which Indians are you talking about? Asian? The paper deals with differences between whites and blacks, it doesn't deal with differences between asians and whites. but i would think that the arm span, etc. vary between all races ON AVERAGE. Even for the Amerindians.

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

And you proved what? It still doesn't mean that what he said is wrong.

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.

Doesn't that mean that they are bigger "risk-takers"? Or dumber? And doesn't the testosterone level come in for the use of condoms? There are a lot of whites who can't "afford" condoms...

“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?

So that means that forensics don't lie, unlike some of your very non-scientific scientists.

“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?

And that means that there are differences in bone traits, etc between races, that osteologists can find...

So what? Some may be more vulnerable than others? What about those Whites whom develop heart disease as a result? Or those Blacks who don’t?

Again, talking about average. You are obsessed with exceptions.

What about the Blacks from East Africa decent, South Africa descent? Are they of the same “race” as Whites?

No, but East Africans and South Africans were more influenced by the white race. Example, Eriterea and Somal.

“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.”

Why aren't you claiming that they suffer from malnutrition? Have you seen the African sprinters? You could almost see their bones...

What if I find out that there are people in the same group that are more different genetically compared with the other group? Will I create more races until I end up defining each individual as being a race alone?

That's just a dumb generalisation. Just because there is one small difference in one aspect doesn't mean that you must "create" a race. WHen we talk about blacks, whites, and asians, we're talking about differences on many grounds, not just one or two.

Again, you are disqualifying my sources based on their "political" inclinations. Doesn't that disqualify yours too, they being anti-racists?

Glade Whitney wrote the forward of the racist autobiographical book “My Awakening” by the ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, where the author tries to demonstrate Blacks as being inferiors and ask Whites (that he call “Aryans”) to become warriors and prepare to maintain the White “race” purity and isolate the Blacks and give them a separate homeland to maintain that purity.

And? You base your anti-racist views on anti-racist sources, why can't I race my "racist" views on "racist" sources?

Bryan Sykes, Loring Brace, American Journal of Ophthalmology

And just because Prof. Bryan Sykes said so, it must be correct? My sources contradict what he says. So who's right? Just because a majority says something, doesn't mean it's right. Remember, they believed the world was flat, it was up to one person to prove them all wrong. he was the minority. they were the majority. he was right, they were wrong. they "claimed" they had proof. their proof was taken into account for years. their proof was that, when you walk, the ground is flat, therefore the world must be flat. simple and logical, isn't it?

I can continue and continue like this Danny boy… while I present references and references and support my claim, your side will just answer to my presented facts by rejecting them without presenting factual evidences or quoting from researches to support the claims. Calling me ignorant in genomic won’t do Danny boy.

You are a manipulator, that's what you are. Not ignorant. Just downright manipulative. You are refusing whatever references I present. And of course you will, after all, I'm disagreeing with you. ANd of course, I can "refuse" your sources too, for their ideological bias. BUt of course, I am debunking your claims. All you're doing is taking exceptions to prove that the theories i'm presenting are wrong. exceptions don't prove that something is wrong. that's why they're called "exceptions."

The problem is that your side is acting from emotion and racist belief, and not from logic.

The problem is that your side is acting from emotion and anti-racist belief, and not from logic. It's easier to be an anti-racist in this day and time than it is being a racist. It's easier to believe in the holocaust than to be a revisionist (refer to Zundel). Just pointing out similarities.

A forum that is so obviously plagued by two malicious racists is about the worst place for a scientific discussion I could see.

YET, those "racists" didn't call you by names until you started doing so. SO what does that make you? Even worse than us?

Beside that, we don't know much more than you already wrote. A discussion is completely useless without new scientific findings.

No it is not. We have a whole history of racial differences in levels of achievement. New scientific "findings" are not necessarily correct ones. they might be debunk the following year. that still doesn't mean that the "older" results are wrong. there have been many cases of going back to the older results after years of false belief that the newer results were the correct ones.

And more, why don't you worry at least as much about the variations within one “race”? These are certainly a very real problem there. Right?

The question is about race, not ethnicities. There are bigger differences between races than among ethnicities in a specific race. For ethnic differences, you can start a different thread. This thread deals with race and solely race.

Because some people are looking for an enemy, somebody they can step on. If their (lack of) intelligence doesn't allow them to do that, they search for a replacement, and they believe they found it in race. Truly intelligent people have no need for that.

Oh, what a psychological analysis!!! I am not looking for enemies. I have enough of them. Your claim that we're not "intelligent" because our views are in opposition to mainstream views about race is just a nasty, cheap, lowly attack.

I predict that people who use generalizations as a basis for dealing with individuals (example, "black people are dumb" etc…)have far lower IQ's than the rest of humanity, had a poor background by uneducated and possibly abusive parents, and have led an unsatisfying life and like to blame others for their failures.

Rushton never claimed that black people are "dumb." Way to twist his words. <Fadi mode> But what can you expect from an anti-racist!! </Fadi mode>

You still haven't answered Anon's question.

[Darorinag]

I must add that even if there are differences between, for example, the Dutch and the French, that doesn't prove that race doesn't exist... it only proves that nations aren't formed on the bases of race. South Africa is an example of that.

[Sip]

Originally posted by Darorinag Is there any thread in which you don't bring up White supremacy?

Well, it seems like whites are generally superior to others in being white.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Seapahn Well, it seems like whites are generally superior to others in being white.

Albinos, of any race, are best at being white.

[Fadix]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Everyone can see the difference in substance between your post and mine Danny. While I support my claims with references you claim you are debunking me by using what? References? NO! Danny boys own words.

Danny boy, not only was that article posted in a white supremacist site, but the author of the article is one of the author of the site in question. Which results are you talking about? This article will never get published in any scientific journals because it isn’t science. And here don’t start your B.S because it is not politically correct, because Rushton stupid articles still get published. And more, what you did is to copy and past my reply and quotes them one by one and attaching your replies on mines. A little kid of 5 years old can do that. You did even not bother reading my entire post once before answering. Danny boy, you repeated the same argument and asked for evidences when later on the same articles I bring evidences for what I affirmed previously.

And no, I have not researched anthropology for 3 years, what you are doing is an intellectual intimidation the only thing your body does right. Which scientific results are you using Danny boy? I have presented countless numbers of research, and you are like a Turk with nothing at hand trying to support his unsupported claims. Your claims you have changed them from the start. First you have started with the brain size and all those bullcrap, when I have demonstrated that that was B.S. you changed the subject and started discussing about other things, and now you are here trying to “prove” what? That races exist? OK! Still I asked you, if they exist, what will we use as reference to classify races? You were not able to tell me.

And no, the difference among ethnicities within the same “race” is not smaller than the genetic variance between “races”… I have provided abound documentations that show that to be not true and you still repeat this claim, there is no one geneticist that will claim that. And I dare you to just find ONE! that claims that the difference among different ethnicities within a certain “race” are smaller than genetic variance between “races.” Go ahead, quote any geneticist that claims so, quote any biologist that claim so… this is known to be untrue. Stop writing pseudo-science and support your claims with evidences like I have done.

BTW! Nice try with the Turkish comment Danny boy, but go try that elsewhere. I have never claimed Turks being inferior, but again I am not surprised of Dannys intellectual intimidations.

Coming to the IQ story, Dan, this is the last time that I will discuss about this matter, no matter what I write, you are writing and writing only for the pleasure of saying the contrary of what I affirm, in another platform you might say the contrary of what you affirm here because there would be someone whom you would want to disagree with. So for the last time Danny boy, education has a role in IQ, education is not necessarily what one learn in school, education is about learning, and here STOP contradicting and try to understand someone for once in your life Dan. I have presented you two studies, as well as the Lynn effect which is observed by every recent studies without exception… so stop telling me there is no “proof” when I am smashing your face with evidences after evidences, you look like a total bonehead when you do that… and stop playing the mirror game and redirect my accusations against me. A little kid process the limited knowledge he has while an adult process more knowledge, this is one of the reasons why IQ tests are passed preferable as soon as possible. As for rewired, you are totally out of the track here Dan. “Rewiring” of the brain has nothing to do with artificial intelligence, the rewiring here has been entirely done by environment, Schwartz experiment was behavioural therapy which does not require surgery or medication. If the environment can modify the brain with such an extent, you have yet to provide evidences here that environment and society etc… are not responsible of the difference of IQ between blacks and whites. And here, beside telling me you have “proved” this or that, bring evidences here and stop asking evidences from my side, when I was the only here backing my claims with one study after the other, while you just copy past anything you can find from the web.

You say that all my claims are based on assumption(funny since I am the one supporting my claims with studies not you), while you do that practically every time. Just one example I present you the fact that the cranial capacity of Blacks from South Africa is the same as Whites, and you claim that it is because they have mixed with Whites. You see, you did even not bother searching the source or anything, you just assumed because you consider Blacks having a smaller Cranial capacity. Danny boy, the study in question measured Cranial capacity of human remains predating the colonisation. So you see how stupid you sound in your assumptions, another example is that the Zulu Cranial measures were done in late 19 century. While I bring clear examples of you assuming because of a preestablished belief, you on the other hand just claim without being able to back what you claim.

“We can base our experiments on what we know, not what we don't know. If, at one point, we do have input on civilisations 100,000 years ago, we would have to revise our results, but as it stands, it is a very relevant observation.”

Coming from you, this is rather amazing, so what you tell us is that there might be White civilisations prior to what is recorded that might change this? But Danny boy, here your claim is a paradox, you are saying that we must not base our experiments on what we don’t know, but the we “don’t know” in this affirmation contain a supposition of something. This is a contradiction, better yet! A paradox. Since my numbers reject what we don’t know, while you reject my numbers here based on a “we don’t know” that supposes that something before happened, even if we do not have evidences, and that you yourself admit that we must not include things we don’t know…. Etc…

“That's his thesis statement. He proves it in his article. In a standard essay, you make a claim, then in the body of your essay, you prove your claim.”

No, in a scientific article you do not “prove” something, you bring “evidences” to “support” your claim. Both are different, only in math you do “prove” in science.

“Yes, I suppose you would consider anyone who doesn't agree with you or express the same points as you do is "ignorant" and doesn't know what he's talking about!!”

You see Dan, this is an example of answer without relevancy, you just quote me and answer just to show you have said something, I have called him an ignorant, but what I presented in my post shows that in fact he was an ignorant… while on the other hand your side will call ignorant without actually supporting with materials.

“It's not plagiarism to check out the sources from another article and include them in your article.”

You see again you assume. I did not accuse him of plagiating because he used the same sources, but rather because he has copied entire sentences and made them pass as his. Do you want examples here Danny boy?

“Oh please, just because it was in 1993 doesn't mean it was BS!! It doesn't mean that all scientific results HAVE BEEN revised! Some things have been true for 50 years and are still true! And please, income and cardiac arrest? Heh.. that's hilarious. Scientific revisionism has been the result of political correctness.”

I did not claim it was BS, medical trials become more efficient, bigger samples, meta-analysis etc… smaller margin of errors, … And beside that, again you are assuming, the trial compared Blacks and Whites of the same area with the same income and have seen no differences, this is why they concluded that in the study. But since you have even not bothered reading and just assumed, you make as usual a ridiculous and false claim. And another thing, there is no study of “scientific revisionism” or “political correctness” in medical trials, they are made to save lives, if you do think that, sorry to say you this Dan, but I would have to suppose that you suffer of psychosis.

“Again, see above point. Your citations come from sociological sources rather than strictly biological ones.”

Assumptions again? Stop making baseless claims Dan, Lancet is a medical journal, not a sociological sources… and the study is a medical trial.

“Oh, do they? I never knew they made waiting lists based on race...”

I have referred to two different studies to support what I claim, while your answer is an assumption based on no references. There are many reasons for that, but given that you do not know what The Lancet is (one of the most credible and known medical journal) referring you to studies from those same medical journals won’t change anything.

“So what makes you sure that the new research has more validity than the old one? Simply because it's more recent? That's bullsh*t. In fact, I can say that what I posted contradicts your new research results, and YOU would be in the same position then. There have been medical errors in research even recently.”

Again you repeat yourself Dan, like I said previously, new studies uses meta-analysis, and bigger samples, with more financing, with better materials and with a lot smaller margin of error… so no! you can not reject what I affirm by presenting me studies dating 10 years prior or so unless the two studies measured two different things, different doses(if it applies) etc… in this cases it does not apply.

“The differences for ethnicities AMONG a specific race are smaller.”

I am waiting you present me evidences to support this claim.

“Please, Fadix, try to say something more logical than that. We're not strictly talking about African blacks here, we're talking about "African-Americans" too.”

Oh boy, Danny boy… this does not come from me, I have referred to the study published in the Human Immunology, Volume 44, 1995, and it refers to the African-Americans not African blacks. Do you want that I post the study?

“That is b.s. Yes, results show that the holocaust took place. that doesn't mean it took place. just because someone said so doesn't mean that it happened. You need proof. This is very similar to believers of the holocaust. if you can't prove, you can't say that it's "widely know" or that "results show"... please.. I expected much more from you. ”

Danny, what I posted was the result of a trial with a sample which was published in the Annals of Epidemiology, Volume 12, Issue 7, October 2002.


“Again, that's a load of revisionist b.s. attributing everything to income and "delay" and blaming others for their differences doesn't help them at all. In fact, it would do them good if they admitted to the existence of racial differences, because it would further enhance medical research in that direction rather than putting a halt to it due to political and social pressure.

Again, anti-racist medicine and science started AFTER anti-racism started, not the other way around. Now science is trying to "prove" that there are no races, to support the cause of anti-racism.”

Danny quite this psychosis will you? Why have you to think that the entire medical community is in some sort of conspiration war for politically correctness? You must be a total schizophrenic in acute phases of psychosis to believe so. The study was published in the respected American Journal of Ophthalmology, Volume 136, Issue 4, October 2003.

“There is no evidence that it isn't. There is no evidence that on average, everyone perceives pain differently.”

OK then, what are your evidences that it is physiologic?

“And - that is one of the proofs that your "researches" haven't been able to debunk.”

This refers to the P450, run a search regarding this. Or start a thread if you want to discuss about that(it is a universe of its own and a very interesting subject)

“That's irrelevant. We're talking about relativity. Blacks on average have wider shoulders than whites. We're not talking about absolutes and specific cases. ”

This is irrelevant, East Africans and West Africans will vary as well, Indians(White) compared with Americans will vary as well, if you take the average Indian and compare it with the average American you will find a difference. If you compare West and Eastern Africans you will find a difference as well, the difference find here has nothing to do with blackness but rather attributed to the fact that you are measuring “average” parameters between two groups coming from different locations.

“Again, the differences between black and white athletes have been recorded and accepted as correct. by making the claim, we mean "on average", doesn't matter if there are exceptions. there are exceptions in everything.”

Who told you I was referring to exceptions, if you compare Blacks from some regions of Africa with other Blacks you will find differences as well.

“Haha... same levels of testosterone as African-Caribbeans? PLEASE!!! read more research results. I will try to find one for you. Will post it later on. Remind me cos I forget. And as I said, and I keep repeating this, racial differences are larger than ethnic differences WITHIN a specific race.”

I have referred to three studies Dan, the one comparing African-Caribbean was published in “Significant ethnic variation in circulating total bound and free testosterone,” Endoctrine Abstracts 3, P266, there is significant differences on Testosterone levels among Whites from different regions, as well as Blacks from different regions.

“You're losing credibility here. I am talking about average here. You're talking about exceptions. ”

Exceptions? Danny boy, White babies that are born one week before term are VERY common, far from being exceptions.

“Doesn't that mean that they are bigger "risk-takers"? Or dumber? And doesn't the testosterone level come in for the use of condoms? There are a lot of whites who can't "afford" condoms...”

It is cultural, what has ones behaviour to do with ones colour here?

“Again, talking about average. You are obsessed with exceptions.”

You have no clue of what you are talking about here, we are not talking about exceptions, but different Blacks from different places being different one from the other, of course you will find differences when you compare Blacks from a region with Whites from a region, like you will find differences when you compare Blacks from one region with other Blacks with another region. It is obvious that they won’t be the same… but again this has to do with adaptation, still you were not able to tell me what are the standards for indexing human “races.”

[Fadix]

(continuation of my reply)

“No, but East Africans and South Africans were more influenced by the white race. Example, Eriterea and Somal. ”

Before writing something just to contradict me take a look if you are making sense. You would find more Africans from Central Africa, South Africa and East Africa that were not mixed(as you would call) with Whites than West Africans, still those stand no chances against West Africans… so again they are Africans from other regions, the fact that you will find Blacks from one region outperforming other Blacks is adaptations, but you can not use this exception over the large majority of the Blacks to claim what you claim.

“That's just a dumb generalisation. Just because there is one small difference in one aspect doesn't mean that you must "create" a race. WHen we talk about blacks, whites, and asians, we're talking about differences on many grounds, not just one or two.

Again, you are disqualifying my sources based on their "political" inclinations. Doesn't that disqualify yours too, they being anti-racists? ”

What you say has no scientific ground here Danny. As for your sources? Which one?

“And? You base your anti-racist views on anti-racist sources, why can't I race my "racist" views on "racist" sources?”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Danny boy, to know about genetic I read geneticists, to learn about biology I read biologists… this has nothing to do with racism and anti-racism… but of course coming from someone that sound to be in an acute phases of psychosis believing in some sort of international Scientifics conspiration, nothing surprising.

“And just because Prof. Bryan Sykes said so, it must be correct? My sources contradict what he says. So who's right? Just because a majority says something, doesn't mean it's right. Remember, they believed the world was flat, it was up to one person to prove them all wrong. he was the minority. they were the majority. he was right, they were wrong. they "claimed" they had proof. their proof was taken into account for years. their proof was that, when you walk, the ground is flat, therefore the world must be flat. simple and logical, isn't it? ”

Again, you have no clue of what you are talking about. The reason I referred to him is because the writer of your article has referred to his study which he refer to insinuate something which the actual author of the study did not insinuate. This is unscientific and ill-fated. As for your “world was round” argument. I laugh every time someone uses this trash as argument…

“You are a manipulator, that's what you are. Not ignorant. Just downright manipulative. You are refusing whatever references I present. And of course you will, after all, I'm disagreeing with you. ANd of course, I can "refuse" your sources too, for their ideological bias. BUt of course, I am debunking your claims. All you're doing is taking exceptions to prove that the theories i'm presenting are wrong. exceptions don't prove that something is wrong. that's why they're called "exceptions."”

BWAHaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Which references you present Danny boy? You still keep repeating the same thing, while I present sources and references from the most credible scientific journals, what you do is posting articles coming from know it alls that have no qualification to write about the subject. If you think that you can compare the documentation I present with yours… then that would further confirm my belief that you are in an acute phases of psychosis.

“The problem is that your side is acting from emotion and anti-racist belief, and not from logic. It's easier to be an anti-racist in this day and time than it is being a racist. It's easier to believe in the holocaust than to be a revisionist (refer to Zundel). Just pointing out similarities. ”

Amazing, that I am the one documenting, while you are the one just claiming things which you can NOT support.

“YET, those "racists" didn't call you by names until you started doing so. SO what does that make you? Even worse than us?”

I call racists by their names.

“The question is about race, not ethnicities. There are bigger differences between races than among ethnicities in a specific race. For ethnic differences, you can start a different thread. This thread deals with race and solely race.”

Again, this is fallacy.

“Oh, what a psychological analysis!!! I am not looking for enemies. I have enough of them. Your claim that we're not "intelligent" because our views are in opposition to mainstream views about race is just a nasty, cheap, lowly attack.”

Yes! You have many enemies, have you thought that maybe you have a share in this?

[Anonymouse]

It should be mentioned that no research has shown that intelligence is not highly heritable. The naive environmentalist position is moribund and going nowhere. Behavior geneticists have the last word, so one must accept the most parsimonious explanations with regards to intelligence and racial differences.

Studies on intelligence have been going on for over 100 years, and there is no indication that drug abuse, alcohol, or nutrition is a determinant of differences in average intelligence, of for individuals as far as that is concerned. There are damaged children from mothers, who are abusing drugs or alcohol, but they are a small minority and it occurs in every race. But also, it has nothing to do with genetics. A child could be intellectually damaged, say from a soccer head injury, but that debility is not passed onto the children. Intelligence is still primarily genetic. The naive egalitarians have never shown that "pockets" of alcohol, drugs or nutrition can account for differences in average intelligence between races.

But one cannot veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences, for it threatens to peel away the veneer of falsity which surrounds the illusion known as "egalitarianism", underlying a much broader concept of "multiculturalism" and "diversity is our strength". You cannot state things that are taboo or contrary to the established social norms, just like one cannot criticize the Holocaust in Canada or in Europe and not face the odious hate crime laws. As George Orwell said it best, "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

I am still awaiting for answeres regarding my questions:

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 will North America, Europe be majority non-white in the end of this century? 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?