CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
So when you said:
You were claiming that all humans are genetically different through evolution (which is false) but no one group is any more or less evolved then any other?
Frank, of course human groups have evolved differently. That's not even up for debate. The reason Chinese look different from Russians is due to evolution.
I'm not sure that you even understand evolutionary theory. Humans are ALWAYS evolving regardless of where they are. To state that some humans are more evolved than others makes no sense, and that's why I would never argue that.
Eskimos live in the frigid cold and have evolved to better withstand those weather conditions differently than you or I. That doesn't make them "more evolved" than us. It makes their evolutionary path different from ours.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/31/12829094/inuit-greenland-denisovan-genome-cold-brown-fat
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_and_heat_adaptations_in_humans
The question came up because according to the latest, humans aren't different enough genetically to qualify as different races. Difference in hair, eye or skin colour don't make people different races.
Yes, evolution is ongoing, and genetically all humans are a mix of three earlier species, but even so genetically there isn't that much difference, even less so confirmed as 'evolution differences'.
Populations differ in things other than hair, eye, or skin colour. Everything from reproductive strategies to test scores express average differences. The average differences are indeed small, but they exist, whether you own it or not.
Depends on which genetic markers you use and how many.
It's safe to say that much remains to be studied and discovered. Humans are complex. However, the "there is no such thing as [population groups]" is a silly PC game of cat and mouse that will eventually be put to rest.
Given that no one has yet managed to sort out any rational, objective science to support the million year old myth of race, I marvel at your confidence.
That's not to say it has no role in human thought-processes and decision-making, but it belongs in the same grouping as superstitions and religions, not science.
Test score differences are cultural, IQ tests in particular have inherent cultural biases.
No, they do not.
This has been teased out with adoption studies, twin studies, and so on.
Think about it in terms of dog breeds but much less specified - due to natural environmental pressures rather than artificial selective pressures. You do believe dog breeds exist?
As I said elsewhere, the Kennel Clubs argue that stuff endlessly. If dog-breeds are settled science, you'll have no trouble quoting the precise definition of a pit bull.
That's not to say race — or dog breeding — has no role in human thought-processes and decision-making, but it belongs in the same grouping as superstitions and religions, not science. Or in the case of my cousins who breed and sell black labs, the art/business and sport/hobby which they pay the AKC to regulate.
The price of the puppy with the papers is exactly the same fiction as the 'drop of Negro blood' that made one baby a slave and another her master. And it was the same fiction that filled the death-camps. Phony then, phony now.
Some saying about "…content of their character" comes to mind as the part you're leaving out.
Your race theory only makes sense if you do NOT believe dog breeds exist, and if you deny evolutionary theory.
Categorization has nothing to do with superstitions or religions. It's actually a cornerstone of science.
The standard interpretation for this is that it is indeed environmental. Settlers from northern, protestant countries had different attitudes towards native populations and black populations than southern European Catholic settlers. Dutch and British colonies - i.e. Jamaica, South Africa - were strictly segregated. OTOH, Brazil was racially mixed.
Although I guess you might say that all populations were racially mixed, but the Protestant settlers did not legitimize mixed race children. After all, Thomas Jefferson for example produced numerous mixed race bastards.
The sheer number of white settlers in north America and also Argentina caused wars with the natives which lead to extermination of the latter. In Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, there was a far smaller influx of Europeans and so the native and white settlers populations interbred.
None of this is biologically predetermined. It's all environment, cultural and driven by circumstances.
If you're referring to scientific and economic advances, again those are going to be explained by capital pools, available markets, investment choices, etc. For example, despite having a far smaller population that France in the 1700's, Britain was wealthier and had a far more developed trading network. Why? Because the lack of internal investment opportunities in Britain led businessmen to invest in ships and colonies abroad.
If you're trying to suggest that colonists of British extraction are smarter or more scientific than those of Spanish extraction by reason of biological superiority, you're going to have very, very big problems. The least controversial of those problems is trying to explain why New York was an economic and scientific powerhouse and the Confederacy was stagnant, unindustrial and socially very stratified and backward. They are both populated from the same emigrant areas of Europe, although you could say the North had many more Irish and Germans than the South in the mid 1800's.
Dragging dog-breeeds in was your idea. I notice you haven't provided evidence there's a 'scientific category' we objectively label a 'pit bull', or any other breed. Like I said, we have other ways we talk about stuff, but race (and dog-breeds) aren't science. If science knows that's a King Charles Spaniel, then I don't need the AKC to judge whether it is. But in fact human judgement-calls are still all we've got for your dog-breeds.
Science stops at measuring and categorizing skin-tone, or height or weight and doesn't attach other subjective qualities like 'untrustworthy, honest, natural rhythm, born to obey', to genetics, like nose shape or hair colour. Prejudiced people do that, then try to justify it by calling it science. But what makes real science is that everyone gets the same results, and that's what defines the categories, for everyone, everywhere.
If race is science where can I find the authoritative texts? Or the high-school level introduction?
Like I said, we have other ways than science, we use to talk about and arrange relationships between groups and individuals. Race is one of the first we hit upon because even the simple minded see differences, but no one has yet managed to attach enough system and 'categories' to race to make it even as useful as talking about 'dog breeds'. As we usually use race terminology, it's as dopey as arguing which car is the most likely to run a red light based on paint-colour.
You just have to walk down the street to know there are favourite car colours; it's only with people that we try to pretend that first impression actually determines value.
Dog genetics is unique. Dogs have uniquely mutatable DNA. Thus, dogs can be selectively bred to a far greater extent than cats, monkeys, cows, pigs and..... people.
And there is no decent evidence that great danes are smarter / dumber than poodles or vice versa in any event.
Next you'll be telling us that you conduct intelligence tests on cats and Siamese cats are 10 IQ points smarter than Maine Coons and that makes them the Master Race of cats!!!
This is all fine and good however it obfuscates what this discussion is about. The notion that peoples that have lived in different regions under different environmental pressures for thousands of years, are all exactly the same, is anti-evolutionary. You can't pick and choose to use evolutionary theory when it's convenient and then discount the theory when it's not politically correct.
Right, all dog breeds are identical in pre-dispositions, behavior, and intelligence. Even you don't believe that.
It's the science of selective breeding that produced different dog breeds.
"Science stops at categorizing skin-tone, or height or weight" only according to you, because it's convenient and PC, if completely arbitrary. Your limit on where science stops has no validity.
Authoritative texts on the subject fell out of favor post-WWII with the decline of Darwinism in favor of the Boasian School of Anthropology. This was due to a shift in social mores, rather than the underlying science. Still, many texts and research looks at race, though they use terms like populations instead.
Re read the post. Dogs can be selectively bred FAR MORE EASILY AND TO A MORE EXTREME DEGREE THAN ANY OTHER MAMMALIAN FAMILY. I can get a generic dog and produce a great dane or a chihuahua in 20 generations by selective breeding. You can't do that with cats, pigs, donkeys or people. You can only do it with dogs. Scientific fact.
Are great danes smarter than poodles or French bulldogs? I've never seen any real proof that they are. Do they have different behaviours? Yup. Because great danes are physically larger and the physics of being a large dog and the psychology of being a large dog are different than the same aspects of being a chihuahua. The chihuahua is more excitable - because it's scared a lot of the time - and it runs around a lot more because moving that great dane body takes a lot of energy.
Now take a less mutable animal family like the cat. All cats do pretty much the same shit in the same way and sort of look the same. They are not genetically mutatable like dogs.
Now ask yourself: "Are people like dogs? Or cats?" in terms of being mutatable. People are clearly a lot more like cats. There are relatively few differences between different sub species of human.
