Fighting racism

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Darorinag [B]Now now now, aren't you jumping to conclusions here, loseyeourname?

Relax, man. I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I'm just putting forth a hypothesis. It's only speculation. The point still stands that far enough back, all races are descended from a single group of humans. None had an intellectual head start on another. I don't know exactly why Africans didn't develop the way other races did, but I do know living in the jungle, where there is a great deal of competition from non-humans, not to mention a higher incidence of disease, would have made it more difficult to develop civilization.

What about Russia? What about the Scandinavian countries? What about Egypt, Lebanon, the crade of civilisations? Are you telling me it was hardEST to survive in Africa?

The topography of Africa makes it impossible to develop agriculture, which was the precursor to all civilizations.

That's a huge assumption right there.... what about the natives in America? They had civilisation. The Aztecs and the Incas. Are we to generalise now and assume that geography treated the blacks unfairly?

Geography doesn't treat anybody in any way. It is unconscious and completely indifferent. There is nothing unfair about it. It's just luck of the draw. The only thing I can say to your second point is that Native Americans are probably just inherently superior to all other races (that's meant to be cute, by the way).

Oh really... so are you saying that.... those peoples who were subjected to daily enemy attacks from neighbouring countries, etc. did nothing but fight them, in order to survive? If that were the case, there would be NO civilisation today.

That's not what I said. I said the challenges of natural environment were stacked against them. Dealing with enemies is one thing; dealing with tropical diseases and hungry tigers is quite another. Still, the most important factor, presumably, would have been the fact that their jungle environment made agriculture impossible. They never advanced past the hunter-gatherer phase.

The Natives had their own medicine, healing processes. That is civilisation. The Europeans did too. So did the Chinese (herbs, etc.). Africans (mostly non-Northern-Africans, as North Africa is close to Europe and hugely benefited from Europe and the Middle East) did not.

Of course. This all goes back to agriculture. Once you have agriculture, you have enough leisure time to develop civilization. Good luck trying to farm in a rainforest or domesticate a wildebeest or a lion.

But of course, that could always be attributed to SOMETHING. ANYTHING. As long as we can find a justification for it, we're fine, aren't we? Even if the justification is unbased... Africa was more of an exception rather than a universal thing amongst those who lived in tough circumstances. After all, didn't our primitive ancestors too? Are you saying then that they had absolutely no chances of building a civilisation? Where did it all come from then? Appeared just like magic?

When did I say any of that? I don't know all of the factors that went into it. Again, I'm only putting forth a hypothesis. I think I have addressed most of your points. The only one I can't really hit on is the fact that ancient Mayans, Olmecs, and Incas all developed fairly advanced civilizations despite living in jungles. Actually, Incas were able to domesticate llamas and could farm at the high altitudes they lived at, but I don't know what to say about the Mayas or Olmecs.

Really... hmmm.. what about Russia? What about the COLD Scandinavian countries? Surely they were not cold, were they...? Only heat counts, doesn't it? Surely the Vikings don't count...

Russian and Nordic civilizations did not initially develop in Scandinavia or Russia, and neither were very advanced in ancient times. The major ones were Sumerian, Aryan, Greek, Egyptian, and Native American civilizations. All others were descended from these. No pre-existing civilized people ever moved to the jungles of Africa.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by loseyourname I know I'm kind of just jumping in here, but as a relatively impartial third party, Fadix is not attacking you guys, at least not in this thread. He is posting genuine evidence to back up his assertion, and neither of you has either begun to address it, nor have you posted any evidence to support your own view that he hasn't effectively debunked. Now keep in mind, I'm saying this as someone who is pretty firmly wedded to the idea that intelligence is genetically determined.

It would be nice if a discussion could be conducted here where people genuinely address each other's points instead of going haywire when they have nothing of substance to say. I hate to say it, Mousy, but you are showing an extreme lack of knowledge regarding statistical analysis and the conduction of controlled studies.

And to Fadix: I know this is off-topic, but nothing you've posted does anything to debunk a genetic basis for intelligence. Keep in mind that there is just as much genetic variation between members of the same racial population as there is between members of different populations. Furthermore, a black living in North America, whose descendents have been in North America for some time, will have more in common genetically with other Americans than he will with Africans who are still living in Africa. This is because he shares the environmental factors favoring certain alleles over others with his fellow Americans, not with Africans. Skin color and facial structure will fall into line at a far slower rate than other traits because these particular traits are controlled by a very large number of genes. Other traits that are controlled by fewer genes will drift in the same direction as geographic analogs at a much faster rate.

The thing is that Anon made an affirmation, it is to him to back his claims, since there is no actual valid evidences to support any race « superiority » the only alternative left is environmental –sociocultural model to explain such a variation. Even genes markers are not evidences. For instance if we were to find a gene of intelligence, and that the marker is found more among whites and practically none among blacks, it could still not be a valid evidences. Geneticists that research links between diseases and genes will be the first to affirm it. Some human leukocyte antigens, or haplotypes will be good indicators for some diseases among whites, but they won’t among blacks and vice versa. This could be one of the reasons that one of the most serious studies that researched European ancestries among blacks found a negative correlation. Which gives a genetic advantage for blacks. Why I provide this example, it is because there is no reason why those blacks having “white” ancestries would have a lower IQ, unless “blacks” and “whites” would have different gene markers for intelligence. If that is the cases, a mixture of the genes could end up that from the white part of their ancestry they lacked of the gene which for the whites does not correlate with intelligence, while for the blacks it does. Genetic is very complex, there is no one gene for intelligence, there might be some genes that could favour some types of intelligence, but still intelligence is something very vague, the past few decades IQ tests have been changed, we have to keep in mind the first tests which did not have correction equation for ones variation of age. This means, that decades ago a man of 40 years old that would pass the test would obtain about 70 in the IQ test if he does as well as someone of 17 years of age. There are other factors, for instance, we know that blacks culturally have been conditioned to have a lesser attention spam, which would disadvantages them a lot during IQ tests. Studies have been done among black kids where the IQ test has been slightly changed in order for them to have a better concentration. The level of difficulty was left as the standard one, the only difference is that boys loving cartoons etc… had in their IQ tests cartoon figures etc… things that would interest them, as a result their IQ during the test jumped significantly. Intelligence is not like muscles, genitals size etc… intelligence is something very vague, there are many types of intelligences, some cultures favour some types against others, in Japan, mathematical thinking is very favoured, among black culture in general it is not.

There is the argument of brain sizes as well brought here. Yes! whites brain is a little bigger, but still, a brain density, cerebral activities of about 3% differences does not account for the difference of IQ here, if it were, blacks and whites would have nearly the same IQ (97-100). In fact, the differences between a blacks and whites brain size is nearly as much as the differences between the mass of the brain of a man and a woman brain. Still, there are no evidences that a man is more intelligent than woman.

There is as well a problem when we classify whites and blacks as races. Whatever or not there exist really races among humans is still debated, the fact that we can find among many in the population more genetic similarities between a white and a black than two blacks is very uncommon in nature, unless we talk about some birds like canaries, which are only different by the colour of their feather and other such insignificant differences. The categorisation of species have changed many times in the past with sub-categories, we know now, and have clear evidences that homo Sapiens Sapiens genetically could have been mixed with homo Sapiens Neanderthals, some classes them as two distinct species because they consider that races already exist among humans(Caucasoid, mongoloid etc…), but there are as much differences between those two(Neanderthals and Sapiens) as there is between other races in the rest of the animal kingdom which are really considered as races. If in fact, those two types of Homo sapiens are of different races; this would invalidate the theses that there exist different human races in present time, because the differences between blacks and whites is smaller than the differences between other races of humans. (Neanderthals and Sapiens) Applying the same standards for humans as we apply for the rest of the species, we are forced to conclude that the differences between blacks, whites, yellows etc… are too small to consider them as races. The categorisation of races among humans has been invented in a time where people were trying to justify the mistreatment of the blacks, the apartheid etc… because if independently without biases we had to use the same exact standards, like I said, that we apply to classify other species, we are forced to conclude races among humans is non-existent.

Civilisation, yet! Dan brings this up again. There are many factors, MANY, that explains why in Africa civilisation was not developed, humanity started from there, humans acquire experiences while they move on… some stayed there, others moved elsewhere, those that moved evolved, they faced a new echo-system they had to adapt to it, build new tools, eat new things etc… it is this adaptation the environment that made the differences, while those in Africa were left there in the middle of the jungle fighting to survive, this was their typical life, they had no time to think about mathematics, physics etc…, those are needs that come after, first you must satisfy your primary needs, when they are entirely satisfied, then the rest follows. But here again, in order that this “rest” follows, conditions exist, if you take a baby and you leave it in the jungle, and only give him what he needs to survive, this baby has all the basic needs to survive, when he become a child, and that he still has all he need to survive, this kid will start playing with things, and will have other needs that are not directly linked with survival. On the other hand, if a kid is left in the jungle and he must fight to survive, and that he need to find food all by himself, find where to live etc… this kid is occupied by the needs he has, those basic needs.

The same goes with the said “lack of black civilisation.” The fact that there is not similar black civilisation as there is found among others, has nothing to do with them being black, but rather with the fact that those people live where humanity has originated, they have not moved much, while those that moved, had to face new echo systems, find new ways of survivals, those life experiences were transmitted as knowledge from generation to generation, while people moved on, it was becoming more easier for them to adaptate because they had knowledge, and more knowledge you have more questions you start asking. Kind of: “This wood here, is not of the same colour, why?” “It is cold on north, why?” “Here the vegetation is not the same, why?” And later on, trying to answer them… this spark and evolution become exponential, they start having other needs, trying to solve questions, answering questions, etc… philosophy emerges etc…

Now, regarding Anon, do you agree with me that when someone wants to discuss about something and claim that you are in the wrong, the basic should be that this individual know of what he is talking about? It becomes really stupid to discuss about things with someone that has only beliefs to support his beliefs. I was discussing with this individual in another board, the guy start shouting books, and by chance I had read one of those books, to discover later that from the answers he gave it was evident that he did even not read the book he proposed. Not only this, he reject anything scientifical. How can you even try to support your point when you face such a person, when that person doesn’t even accept “methodology,” “logic” etc…? When that person reject basic known observed, measured, calculated, expected realities? Tell me how could you even try to have an intellectual debate with such a person? And the amazing in all this, is that he claims to have provided evidences, and he post even articles written by said “scientists.” How can you answer such a person? I mean, he accept no scientific bases, and later on try to uses “science” to support his point. How ironic is that? Was I in the wrong, telling this guy to go and learn what he want to discuss about, before coming and discussing about it? Here an example, he still maintains that error margin are arbitrary figures? With him words don’t have any sense at all, because he could change the entire significance o a word, and write even a thesis to explain us why saying that the sky is red is not wrong. The same goes with the word racist; he accuses me of attacking him. I am only applying the original definition of the word, nothing more or less. Am I not doing that?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Fadix The thing is that Anon made an affirmation, it is to him to back his claims, since there is no actual valid evidences to support any race « superiority » the only alternative left is environmental –sociocultural model to explain such a variation.

Actually, Fadix, even if the negroid race is only less intelligent because of cultural factors, that doesn't change the fact that the average black man is not as intelligent as the average white man. I'm not saying that is a fact, but if it is, it doesn't make any difference why that is the case.

Even genes markers are not evidences. For instance if we were to find a gene of intelligence, and that the marker is found more among whites and practically none among blacks, it could still not be a valid evidences.

One gene would not constitute proof, but it would certainly constitute evidence.

Geneticists that research links between diseases and genes will be the first to affirm it. Some human leukocyte antigens, or haplotypes will be good indicators for some diseases among whites, but they won’t among blacks and vice versa.

You do realize that the different immune responses you point to are evidence that blacks are a separate race than whites, do you not? Also, leukocytes have nothing to do with genetic diseases. Genetic predisposition to a certain disease is usually caused by a mutation in a gene coding for a transmembrane enzyme, not for leukocytes.

This could be one of the reasons that one of the most serious studies that researched European ancestries among blacks found a negative correlation. Which gives a genetic advantage for blacks.

That statement doesn't make any sense, Fadix. A negative correlation was found between what and what?

Genetic is very complex, there is no one gene for intelligence, there might be some genes that could favour some types of intelligence, but still intelligence is something very vague, the past few decades IQ tests have been changed, we have to keep in mind the first tests which did not have correction equation for ones variation of age.

I never said intelligence is not a polygenetic trait. Skin color is also a polygenetic trait. That doesn't change the fact that the hundreds of genes coding for the development of dark skin is found more prevalently in Ethiopians than in Norwegians.

The level of difficulty was left as the standard one, the only difference is that boys loving cartoons etc… had in their IQ tests cartoon figures etc… things that would interest them, as a result their IQ during the test jumped significantly. Intelligence is not like muscles, genitals size etc… intelligence is something very vague, there are many types of intelligences, some cultures favour some types against others, in Japan, mathematical thinking is very favoured, among black culture in general it is not.

This still doesn't do anything to debunk a genetic basis of intelligence. Sure, there are probably thousands of genes at least that go into coding for neuronal enzymes that can lead to the development of more advanced intelligence. The fact that we haven't identified all of them doesn't mean they aren't there. Sure, a certain culture might favor the use of one kind of intelligence over another, and most Asians will have the requisite mathematical knowledge necessary to perform well on a test. Nonetheless, a child prodigy would still learn mathematical concepts faster than the average Asian and would more fully grasp the concepts. If he has not received the same level of instruction, he will be out-performed by the Asian, but that is only because the Asian's knowledge level is much greater, not because the Asian is more intelligent. Knowledge should not be mistaken for intelligence.

There is as well a problem when we classify whites and blacks as races. Whatever or not there exist really races among humans is still debated, the fact that we can find among many in the population more genetic similarities between a white and a black than two blacks is very uncommon in nature, unless we talk about some birds like canaries, which are only different by the colour of their feather and other such insignificant differences. The categorisation of species have changed many times in the past with sub-categories, we know now, and have clear evidences that homo Sapiens Sapiens genetically could have been mixed with homo Sapiens Neanderthals, some classes them as two distinct species because they consider that races already exist among humans(Caucasoid, mongoloid etc…), but there are as much differences between those two(Neanderthals and Sapiens) as there is between other races in the rest of the animal kingdom which are really considered as races. If in fact, those two types of Homo sapiens are of different races; this would invalidate the theses that there exist different human races in present time, because the differences between blacks and whites is smaller than the differences between other races of humans. (Neanderthals and Sapiens) Applying the same standards for humans as we apply for the rest of the species, we are forced to conclude that the differences between blacks, whites, yellows etc… are too small to consider them as races.

That is so jumbled up, I don't even know where to begin. First off, if the difference between a modern day African and a modern day European is less than the difference between a Neanderthal and the precursor of modern day homo sapiens, so what? The difference between a poodle and a chihuahua is less than the difference between a poodle and a great dane. Poodles and chihuahuas are still different kinds of domestic dogs. Same species, but difference race, if you will.

Second, I've already addressed the fact that you are likely to find more similarities between an African American and a European American whose ancestors have both been on this land for hundreds of years than you will between an African American and an African. I've also demonstrated why this is, as the environmental stimuli responsible for the direction of genetic drift will have been shared by the two former groups for a long enough time to negate the earlier sharing of factors between the two latter groups. Plus, there has also been a good deal of interbreeding that has blurred the differences. Almost no black whose family has been in the states for several hundred years is a pure negro. The blurring of lines between races doesn't negate the fact that there existed lines in the first place.

Regarding what you said to Dan, I've already addressed his points. If anything, it was the lack of agriculture that did in the Africans. Agriculture is a necessary precursor to civilization. No advanced civilization ever developed in a group of people who still hunted all of their food.

[Darorinag]

Of course. This all goes back to agriculture. Once you have agriculture, you have enough leisure time to develop civilization.

Leisure time to develop civilisation? So you mean they sit down and decide, "hey, let's develop a civilisation!"? Civilisation doesn't happen overnight, and it isn't a decision that one arrives to. And it almost always isn't a result of leisure time. You have trouble with lions, you THINK about what might help you in reducing the risk. You can't gather enough food, you THINK about solutions to it. You feel cold, you THINK about solutions for it. On the contrary, the struggle for survival seems to be a PREREQUISITE for civilisation and improvement.

[Fadix]

Loseyourname, don’t forget that the whole discussion is about race vs IQ. So yes! it makes a lot of differences if the lower IQ is caused by the environment rather than being an issue of difference of races. So here, I do not see how you can say that it does not make a difference.

Secondly, the differences I provide are not enough to conclude that whites and blacks are of different races. If it were a bases, we would have hundreds of races. As for leukocytes, leukocytes are not but Human Leukocyte antigens are genetic markers, and the most widely used in the medical community to study the predisposition of one to a particular disease. And genetic diseases here could mean two things, in the common sense it could be caused by a mutation, in other cases, people have the marker, and those markers show a predisposition to certain type of diseases and not other, other markers could indicate a protection against some diseases etc…

Your question regarding the negative correlation, the answer is in the article I posted in this thread, one of the studies was regarding blacks with European ancestry, and how that would influence IQ. It would be too long to rewrite what is already written on that article, I may copy past that part, but will I not.

Thirdly, knowledge is very important and has a direct role in the determination of intelligence. It is by learning that a child brain makes connections, it is about interacting with the environment. Learning is knowledge. Yes gifted child exist, yes some genes could play a role here, but their role does not account for the difference of IQ between blacks and whites. Don’t forget that we are not talking about exceptions, we are not talking about the minority, we are talking about blacks and whites in general.

Fourthly, I think I was not clear enough in my point regarding the non-existence of races. Neanderthals are believed to be Homo sapiens, the same numbers of chromosomes, with compatible corresponding genes. So here we have two different races of Homo sapiens, if both are different races, blacks and whites are both Homo sapiens sapiens as opposed to Homo sapiens Neanderthals. In the classification of races, the third words indicate the race. This is what I mean; of course some searchers classify Neanderthals as homo Neanderthals, without the sapiens, which would indicate that they are different sub-species rather than races. But the most recent research suggests both to be Sapiens. Nothing is black and white when classifying groups in races, this is why they uses the term “sub” and even in some cases “sub-sub.” Even then, if we have two Homo sapiens, we would have two races. In this case one would be Neanderthals and the other Sapiens. Now, blacks and whites are Sapiens, here sapiens is the third word, the third word indicate the race. We are forced to conclude that there should be at least sub-races… so we have pushed the race barrier now, since blacks and whites would be at least sub-races of the same race. But again, sub-races are classified by similar genetic makeup’s, which means that if we find out that there could be more similarities between one black and a white and two whites, we would be forced to classify the black and the white in the same sub-race. This is how sub-races are differentiated. Where are we now? Sub-sub races? At that point, I think it is useless to even continue further.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Fadix Loseyourname, don’t forget that the whole discussion is about race vs IQ. So yes! it makes a lot of differences if the lower IQ is caused by the environment rather than being an issue of difference of races. So here, I do not see how you can say that it does not make a difference.

It doesn't make a difference if the average black still has a lower IQ than the average white. It doesn't matter how this came to be. It only matters that it is.

Secondly, the differences I provide are not enough to conclude that whites and blacks are of different races. If it were a bases, we would have hundreds of races.

Who says? What is your standard for what constitutes a distinct race? The only significant difference is in appearance, but so what? The only significant difference between a poodle and a great dane is appearance. They are still separate breeds.

As for leukocytes, leukocytes are not but Human Leukocyte antigens are genetic markers, and the most widely used in the medical community to study the predisposition of one to a particular disease.

Leukocytes indicate the presence of a disease, not a genetic predisposition to a disease.

And genetic diseases here could mean two things, in the common sense it could be caused by a mutation, in other cases, people have the marker, and those markers show a predisposition to certain type of diseases and not other, other markers could indicate a protection against some diseases etc…

A genetic disease is a disease caused, in part, by the presence of a gene that makes one vulnerable to that particular disease. I'm not talking about mutations that take place during the lifespan of the patient; I mean an inherited mutated gene that does not perform the function that a non-mutated gene would.

Thirdly, knowledge is very important and has a direct role in the determination of intelligence. It is by learning that a child brain makes connections, interaction with the environment. Learning is knowledge.

Knowledge has no role in the determination of intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to learn, not the fact that one has learned. If that were the case, George Bush would have to be considered more intelligent than Mozart at age 5. Obviously, this is not the case.

Yes gifted child exist, yes some genes could play a role here, but their role does not account for the difference of IQ between blacks and whites. Don’t forget that we are not talking about exceptions, we are not talking about the minority, we are talking about blacks and whites in general.

You don't know that genes do not account for the deficit. I have already explained exactly why that may be the case, how physically advantageous traits would have been selected in Africa, where brute strength was the most important factor in one's survival, whereas in Europe, intellect and cunning would have been selected, because these factors were more important.

Lastly, I think I was not clear enough in my point regarding the non-existence of races. Neanderthals are believed to be Homo sapiens, the same numbers of chromosomes, with compatible corresponding genes. So here we have two different races of Homo sapiens, if both are different races, blacks and whites are both Homo sapiens sapiens as opposed to Homo sapiens Neanderthals. In the classification of races, the third words indicate the race. This is what I mean; of course some searchers classify Neanderthals as homo Neanderthals, without the sapiens, which would indicate that they are different sub-species rather than races.

I understood your post perfectly. My only point was the fact that the difference between blacks and whites is less than the difference between modern humans and Neanderthals doesn't mean there isn't a significant enough difference to consider blacks and whites a separate race. I even gave an example to illustrate, of difference breeds of dogs. A labrador has more in common with a German shepherd than it does with a xxxxzu, but labrador's and shepherds are still separate breeds. They are all the same species, they can all interbreed, but they are not the same.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Darorinag Leisure time to develop civilisation? So you mean they sit down and decide, "hey, let's develop a civilisation!"? Civilisation doesn't happen overnight, and it isn't a decision that one arrives to. And it almost always isn't a result of leisure time. You have trouble with lions, you THINK about what might help you in reducing the risk. You can't gather enough food, you THINK about solutions to it. You feel cold, you THINK about solutions for it. On the contrary, the struggle for survival seems to be a PREREQUISITE for civilisation and improvement.

Dan, however you want to cut it up, the development of agriculture is a necessary prerequisite for civilization. It wasn't possible to develop agriculture in Africa; they remained hunters and so didn't have the energy resources to devote to writing poetry and building temples. I think it should be interesting to note, however, that several African civilizations did exist. I forget the name, but there was as city on the Ivory Coast that existed in the times just before the Portuguese began the slave trade. It had a university and a library and all that.

[Fadix]

Loseyourname, the thread is about IQ and races; I don’t see how you can say it does not matter, when the thread in question is about this « matter. » How can you ask me to develop about this issue when you tell me that it does not matter at all why blacks have a lower IQ. The whole point here is to demonstrate that the lower IQ is due to environmental reasons and to bring evidences that since races do not exist, giving races as reasons for the lower IQ is irrelevant in the first point.

louseyourname, two times I have written human leukocyte antigens, and two times you have answered me “leukocytes.” I am talking about the antigen, the human leukocyte “antigens,” referred as HLA. They do not show the presence of a disease, but rather the predisposition. There is no HLA that shows the presence of any disease. Human leukocyte antigens are glycoproteins that are found in high concentration on the surface of leukocytes and they are the major histocompatibility antigens for tissue recognition. They are considered as genetic markers. And don’t worry, I know what a genetic disease is.

Intelligence is subjective, at age 5, Mozart had most of his brain neurons, and the most important interconnections between those neurons completed. Knowledge is VERY important here, like I said it has to do with learning, making connections, this is how the brain works. Depending what you learn, how you learn, your environment, this will modify your brain. The most important years are during the first few years. So intelligence is influenced with the way the brain has developed, and the environment has a MAJOR role in this developpement.

Now coming to races, if we were to use your logic, we could separate humans in hundreds types of races, depending of the minor physical differences. The fact is that, blacks and whites are classified as part of the Homo Sapiens sapiens, the scientific term for humans, in every scientifical classification of species, the third word indicate the race, I have not invented that, it is like that. So, here again, from the scientific term, blacks and whites are of the races of the sapiens.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix The thing is that Anon made an affirmation, it is to him to back his claims, since there is no actual valid evidences to support any race « superiority » the only alternative left is environmental –sociocultural model to explain such a variation.

This is unsubstantiated and a twisting of the facts, and what I posted. I claimed races are different on a biological level. Scientific fact will not say who is superior or inferior it will only put out differences on a biological level. When put into a historical context, it is evident that the differences are responsible for the backwards of one group, compared to another.

Originally posted by Fadix There is the argument of brain sizes as well brought here. Yes! whites brain is a little bigger, but still, a brain density, cerebral activities of about 3% differences does not account for the difference of IQ here if it were, blacks and whites would have nearly the same IQ (97-100). In fact, the differences between a blacks and whites brain size is nearly as much as the differences between the mass of the brain of a man and a woman brain. Still, there are no evidences that a man is more intelligent than woman.

That brain size and IQ form a correlation is indeed valid. To argue that "3 % differences" shouldn't make it so, is fallacious, for the margin of error is arbitrary as already pointed out. The only alternative position you can take is "even if correlations are valid, they account for only a small percentage of differences" or in this case trying to marginalize it by stating "it is only 3%", nevermind where you got that figure from.

Originally posted by Fadix Whatever or not there exist really races among humans is still debated, the fact that we can find among many in the population more genetic similarities between a white and a black than two blacks is very uncommon in nature

The only way you can find genetics similarities in between populations is by measuring gene frequencies which are similar in all races, but failing to measure gene frequencies which do vary widely and are different between the races. This is how data gets twisted and skewed, by any scientist in his egalitarian wisdom deciding to skew the facts to favor one world view. Moreover, criminologists and forensics rely on DNA testing, which obviously relies on different races for it work, for capturing criminals, or establishing a body, or what have you. Any forensic anthropologist will tell you the cranio morphological differences are real between the races.

Originally posted by Fadix The categorisation of races among humans has been invented in a time where people were trying to justify the mistreatment of the blacks, the apartheid etc… because if independently without biases we had to use the same exact standards, like I said, that we apply to classify other species, we are forced to conclude races among humans is non-existent.

This is simply Marxian-lite politically correct history. While not capable of doing genetics studies, the world of antiquity readily recognized differing racial groups as evidenced from their writings. No one was justifying "mistreatment of blacks", you act as if blacks are somehow the most downtrodden people of the world. Why is it that blacks could not defend against the evil European? Could it be because they were inferior? And could it be that they were inferior in civilization, in technology, in military, that they were ultimately subjugated? Could this be because of racial differences? How dare we veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences.

Originally posted by Fadix Civilisation, yet! Dan brings this up again. There are many factors, MANY, that explains why in Africa civilisation was not developed, humanity started from there

This is an assumption that humanity started from "Africa". The "African Eve" theory isn't a holy law. It is based on the assumption of evolution being true. It is accepted as fact that all women are descended from the African "Eve". This conclusion was based upon mtDNA studies which assume that its only inherited only from mothers. This assumption has been repeated so much now that it has become a sort of "holy law", and it is disseminated in egalitarian and other media circles. Recent studies would suggest that some paternal mtDNA actually does get into eggs and recombines with maternal mtDNA. Moreover, the "African Eve" theory has been challenged so much that it is believed that it is only the mother of sub-Saharan black Africans.

Originally posted by Fadix it is this adaptation the environment that made the differences,

This may sound like a nice explanation, but it is only an assumption, and one that is further based on the assumption of evolution.

Originally posted by Fadix The same goes with the said “lack of black civilisation.” The fact that there is not similar black civilisation as there is found among others, has nothing to do with them being black, but rather with the fact that those people live where humanity has originated, they have not moved much, while those that moved,,

The idea that "they have not moved much" is an assumption based on evolutionary theory. The fact that there is no black or Negroid civilization only shows that that particular group has a far less limited potential, than the other racial groups, for civilization, rather culture, is only an outward manifestation of that given people. It reflects the people that create it. Culture does not create people, but any given people create the culture that reflects those people. This is simply logical, you can argue against it all you want, and you can justify it as "they didn't move much", doesn't change the fact that they produced no civilization, that would rival the "Mongoloids" or the "Caucasoids".

Originally posted by Fadix Now, regarding Anon, do you agree with me that when someone wants to discuss about something and claim that you are in the wrong, the basic should be that this individual know of what he is talking about?

You speak as if you yourself know what you're talking about, always quick to point out the "lack of knowledge" of those that threaten your matrix, and in the haze of your conceit, both here and in the other forum, react like a child by speaking down on others because they dare question or disagree with you.

Originally posted by Fadix It becomes really stupid to discuss about things with someone that has only beliefs to support his beliefs. I was discussing with this individual in another board, the guy start shouting books, and by chance I had read one of those books, to discover later that from the answers he gave it was evident that he did even not read the book he proposed.?

It becomes really tiresome arguing with adults who act like children and who themselves have their beliefs based on beliefs. Your assumption that because my answer didn't sit well with your conception of how things should be and that means I didn't read the book is unfounded. The only shouting that has ever occured has been by you here and on the other board when someone dares to critique the great Fadix.

Originally posted by Fadix Not only this, he reject anything scientifical.

When did I reject anything "scientifical"? "Theories" are not concrete proofs and are open to discussions. If you don't like someone questioning the theory you hold dear, you might as well not be on a forum.

Originally posted by Fadix How can you even try to support your point when you face such a person, when that person doesn’t even accept “methodology,” “logic” etc…? When that person reject basic known observed, measured, calculated, expected realities? Tell me how could you even try to have an intellectual debate with such a person? And the amazing in all this, is that he claims to have provided evidences, and he post even articles written by said “scientists.” How can you answer such a person? I mean, he accept no scientific bases, and later on try to uses “science” to support his point. How ironic is that? Was I in the wrong, telling this guy to go and learn what he want to discuss about, before coming and discussing about it? Here an example, he still maintains that error margin are arbitrary figures? With him words don’t have any sense at all, because he could change the entire significance o a word, and write even a thesis to explain us why saying that the sky is red is not wrong. The same goes with the word racist; he accuses me of attacking him. I am only applying the original definition of the word, nothing more or less. Am I not doing that?

I am really amazed at your hang up with me, since you hate me so much you have made me the topic, and can't get enough of replying about me. You are infuriated that someone dares to question the great Fadix, and reveal his conceit both here and on the other board. When his theories are subjected to scrutiny he simply starts to name call and resort to childish remarks "He doesn't know what he is talking about, he should go learn before he talks about something", and that coming from the Fadix that thinks margin of errors are not arbitrary depending upon a given study. It's indeed a shame you are a Fadix and not Unix. This is all to be expected from the nerfbrain who first came to the "Race" thread and demanded to see my credentials since he was so horrified that I actually posted a contrarian thread. Of course, Fadix first came and registered, and I saw his name hovering around in the users browsing this forum bracket. He perhaps thought to himself "Hmmm Anonymouse really made me feel inferior and gave me a crack in my thinking in the other forum, should I take my chances and respond? Maybe I can somehow get him this time!". And thus he began to justify his ignorance with constant whining and name calling, and here it continues. Isn't the internet the best thing ever? Where else would one find so many conceit freaks without having to pay to see them in movies? I am not going to insult you anymore. I assume that you have suffered enough in life and in the other forum and here by me. Besides, I never insult people, I only reveal to them the truth, and they mistake it for an insult.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Fadix Loseyourname, the thread is about IQ and races; I don’t see how you can say it does not matter, when the thread in question is about this « matter. » How can you ask me to develop about this issue when you tell me that it does not matter at all why blacks have a lower IQ. The whole point here is to demonstrate that the lower IQ is due to environmental reasons and to bring evidences that since races do not exist, giving races as reasons for the lower IQ is irrelevant in the first point.

Look, Fadix, I've explained how environmental factors, over a long span of time, can lead to a genetic predisposition for lower intelligence in a particular group of people. Are you going to address that or not?

loseyourname, two times I have written human leukocyte antigens, and two times you have answered my “leukocytes.” I am talking about the antigen, the human leukocyte “antigens,” referred as HLA. They do not show the presence of a disease, but rather the predisposition. There is no HLA that shows the presence of any disease. Human leukocyte antigens are glycoproteins that are found in high concentration on the surface of leukocytes and they are the major histocompatibility antigens for tissue recognition. They are considered as genetic markers.

Sorry. I misunderstood you. Never mind what I said about that then. Nonetheless, HLA markers indicate a predisposition to a certain disease, not necessarily a genetic disease. But forget this anyway, because it's way off the point. The part about disease, not about genetic markers. I see what you're saying now.

Intelligence is subjective, at age 5, Mozart had most of his brain neurons, and the most important interconnections between those neurons completed. Knowledge is VERY important here, like I said it has to do with learning, making connections, this is how the brain works. Depending what you learn, how you learn, your environment, this will modify your brain. The most important years are during the first few years. So intelligence is influenced with the way the brain has developed, and the environment has a MAJOR role in this developpement.

This doesn't change the fact that some people are born with a greater capacity for learning. Sure, the first several years of your life are important for actually developing this capacity, but the capacity is either there or it isn't. A human isn't more intelligent than a bird because a human possesses more knowledge than a bird. In fact, a two-month old child probably possesses less knowledge than a several year-old bird, in particular song birds with cognitive mapping capabilities. Nonetheless, the human child is more intelligent, because he has a greater capacity to comprehend and to attain knowledge in a way that is usable. An aneuploid person can read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica; he still isn't going to more intelligent than I am.

Now coming to races, if we were to use your logic, we could separate humans in hundreds types of races, depending of the minor physical differences.

Of course you could. The degree to which you assign certain individuals to certain groups is completely arbitrary. The fact that they are different is not.

The fact is that, blacks and whites are classified as part of the Homo Sapiens sapiens, the scientific term for humans, in every scientifical classification of species, the third word indicate the race, I have not invented that, it is like that. So, here again, from the scientific term, blacks and whites are of the races of the sapiens.

First off, there is no such word as "scientifical." Second, taxonomy isn't exactly an exact science. Phylogenic classification changes by the time the ink is dry on a new textbook. You act as if the jury has handed in its verdict.