CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black

[Smallcock]

The thing is that Jew is not a race, in some circumstances it can be treated as race but when it comes to pure genetics Jews are arabs. IMHO Jews in Israel are genetically most identical to Iranians and how many Iranian's have won nobels?

Another issue to consider is that if Jews are genetically more gifted in terms of IQ, then you can attribute other characteristics to their genetics. Are Jews more money hungry than other races? Are they cheaper than other races? Are they more ruthless when it comes to business? Was hitler right in measuring the noses of Jews as a measure their Jewishness?

To me IQ is not the metric that we should use but so far it is best measurement we have, if we could quantify creativity then that should be what we should use but no such test exists. It is the creative spark that drives all great things, not IQ.

Well there are two types of Jews... Sephardic (indistinguishable from Arabs) and Ashkenazi (lots of European admixture). The latter is over represented in academic endeavors and achievement (part of their over- representation in Noble Prize winners is due to in-group preference - e.g. Jewish academics citing other Jewish academics rather than non-Jews which bolsters their distinction, however the fact that they're over represented in academics speaks to their above average IQ as a group). Creativity is important but IQ is also essential for certain advances. Without creative high IQ individuals, we wouldn't be communicating on a thing called the internet right now.

 

[Frankfooter]

Not buying it. Consider two isolated groups of people such as the Inuit and some jungle dwellers from Borneo. How can you still make this claim?

You confuse traits of appearance with genetic differences.

Take a handful of Inuit and swap them out with a handful of Borneo natives, come back in a couple of generations and they'll be blending in with the crowds.

Pschology today puts it well:

There is no genetic sequence unique to blacks or whites or Asians. In fact, these categories don’t reflect biological groupings at all. There is more genetic variation in the diverse populations from the continent of Africa (who some would lump into a “black” category) than exists in ALL populations from outside of Africa (the rest of the world) combined!

There are no specific racial genes. There are no genes that make blacks in the USA more susceptible to high blood pressure, just as there are no genes for particular kinds of cancers that can be assigned to only one racial grouping. There is no neurological patterning that distinguishes races from one another, nor are there patterns in muscle development and structure, digestive tracts, hand-eye coordination, or any other such measures.

Even something thought to be so ubiquitous as skin color works only in a limited way as dark or light skin tells us only about a human’s amount of ancestry relative to the equator, not anything about the specific population or part of the planet they might be descended from.

There is not a single biological element unique to any of the groups we call white, black, Asian, Latino, etc. In fact, no matter how hard people try, there has never been a successful scientific way to justify any racial classification, in biology. This is not to say that humans don’t vary biologically, we do, a lot. But rather that the variation is not racially distributed. If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself by having a look at some of the references below. Seriously, there are no biological races in humans today, period.

Why is busting this myth of a biological basis of race important in a blog for Psychology Today? Because, if you look across the USA you can see that there are patterns of racial difference, such as income inequalities, health disparities, differences in academic achievement and representation in professional sports. If one thinks that these patterns of racial differences have a biological basis, if we see them as “natural,” racial inequality becomes just part of the human experience (remember a book called The Bell Curve?). This fallacy influences people to see racism and inequality not as the products of economic, social, and political histories but more as a natural state of affairs.


While race is not biology, racism can certainly affect our biology, especially our health. Recent work has clearly demonstrated that racial social structures, from access to health care to one’s own racialized self-image, can impact the ways our bodies and immune systems develop. This means that race, while not a biological unit, can have important biological implications because of the effects of racism. This is extremely important for those of us interested in cognition, development, education, and health; anyone who wants to use knowledge to make a difference in their own and in others’ lives. Solutions to racial inequalities and the problems of race relations in the USA are not going to emerge as long as a large percentage of the public holds on to the myth of biological races.

There is no inherently biological reason that most starting running backs in the NFL are black or most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are white. Nor is there a “natural” explanation for why race relations are often difficult, but there are lots of interesting social, political, psychological, and historical ones. Go find out what they are, and bust some myths for yourself.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think

 

[Smallcock]

You confuse traits of appearance with genetic differences.

Take a handful of Inuit and swap them out with a handful of Borneo natives, come back in a couple of generations and they'll be blending in with the crowds.

Pschology today puts it well:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think

The article simply states that there are no distinct races. Nobody is denying that. We are all human and various populations overlap in virtually all traits. This doesn't mean race doesn't exist and that various groups on average express different traits and strengths such as in intelligence, athleticism, and so on. This is like saying that dog breeds don't exist and that one dog breed cannot express certain traits greater or less than other dog breeds.

 

[Frankfooter]

The article simply states that there are no distinct races.

If there are no distinct races then there can be no 'races' with different IQ's, since you can't even define what your 'race' or group is.

 

[Smallcock]

If there are no distinct races then there can be no 'races' with different IQ's, since you can't even define what your 'race' or group is.

Why did you avoid the dog breed analogy?

 

[Frankfooter]

Why did you avoid the dog breed analogy?

Because people aren't dogs, and the analogy incorrect.
Dog's have genetic breeds, humans don't.

 

[Smallcock]

Because people aren't dogs, and the analogy incorrect.
Dog's have genetic breeds, humans don't.

The only difference is that dog breeds were created artificially through selective breeding for specific traits while human population group differences are due to geographic restrictions/isolation. Therefore dog breeds display greater differences, that is all.

 

[Frankfooter]

The only difference is that dog breeds were created artificially through selective breeding for specific traits while human population group differences are due to geographic restrictions/isolation. Therefore dog breeds display greater differences, that is all.

False.

There is enough genetic difference between breeds of dogs that you can identify them through tests.
You cannot identify humans the same way.

 

[Smallcock]

False.

There is enough genetic difference between breeds of dogs that you can identify them through tests.
You cannot identify humans the same way.

Just like human populations belong to genetic clusters. Try again...

 

[fluffy]

You confuse traits of appearance with genetic differences.

Take a handful of Inuit and swap them out with a handful of Borneo natives, come back in a couple of generations and they'll be blending in with the crowds.

Pschology today puts it well:



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think

Oh come on. Psychology Today? Seriously? And the guy who wrote this is a professor of Anthropology. What the hell does he know about genetics? Try and find us some research from a scientist who is actually researching the human genome that supports your position.

 

[Smallcock]

Sam Harris is a Jewish philosopher and neuroscientist and here is what he had to say about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGp06vMPERE&t=229s

Here he is having a candid discussion with one of the authors of The Bell Curve:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YfEoxU82us&t=17s

 

[Frankfooter]

Just like human populations belong to genetic clusters. Try again...

False.

There are no genetically identifiable traits in any population cluster.
Try again.

 

[Frankfooter]

Oh come on. Psychology Today? Seriously? And the guy who wrote this is a professor of Anthropology. What the hell does he know about genetics? Try and find us some research from a scientist who is actually researching the human genome that supports your position.

All the legit science supports my position.
Its time for you to see if you can find any reports that don't come from smalldick's dodgy Rushton/Pioneer Fund sources that dispute those claims.
Prove your claims or admit you're wrong.

 

[Smallcock]

All the legit science supports my position.
Its time for you to see if you can find any reports that don't come from smalldick's dodgy Rushton/Pioneer Fund sources that dispute those claims.
Prove your claims or admit you're wrong.

You're not bright enough for this debate.

 

[Frankfooter]

You're not bright enough for this debate.

You keep saying that but you can't even understand the sources you bring to this debate.
Just like you ignore the fact that all your claims come from one dodgy source, Rushton.
http://racehist.blogspot.ca/2008/07/rushton-and-genital-size-one-more-time.html

 

[Frankfooter]

Just like human populations belong to genetic clusters. Try again...

No, you should go back and try to understand the science.
You are making basic errors.

Clusters exist, but they are narrower genetic pools then exist in Africa, where all humans appear to have come from.
They are the result of genetic bottlenecks, as groups migrated out of Africa.
The problem with your identification of 'race' is that there is still more genetic variation across all of Africa then there is within any 'cluster', that means that any identifiable amount of variation is also represented in the general African population's genetic variations.

Take skin colour, your favourite topic I assume. Take any population and move it closer or farther away from the equator and their skin colour will start to change over the course of 100-200 generations.

Skin has changed color in human lineages much faster than scientists had previously supposed, even without intermarriage, Jablonski says. Recent developments in comparative genomics allow scientists to sample the DNA in modern humans.


Because women build babies in their wombs, they need more vitamin D to produce extra calcium for the baby’s bones. Could that explain this difference: When scientists look at the underarm skin of men and women in every color group of humans, the women on average are always lighter than the men. Are the ladies lighter to produce a little extra Vitamin D for the babies?

By creating genetic "clocks," scientists can make fairly careful guesses about when particular groups became the color they are today. And with the help of paleontologists and anthropologists, scientists can go further: They can wind the clock back and see what colors these populations were going back tens of thousands of years, says Jablonski.

She says that for many families on the planet, if we look back only 100 or 200 generations (that's as few as 2,500 years), "almost all of us were in a different place and we had a different color."

Over the last 50,000 years, populations have gone from dark pigmented to lighter skin, and people have also gone the other way, from light skin back to darker skin, she says.

"People living now in southern parts of India [and Sri Lanka] are extremely darkly pigmented," Jablonski says. But their great, great ancestors lived much farther north, and when they migrated south, their pigmentation redarkened.

"There has probably been a redarkening of several groups of humans."

The repigmenting process is increasingly well understood.

"Humans started in Africa," Jablonski says, the part of Africa near the equator where it is intensely sunny with lots of ultraviolet light.

Ultraviolet light, or UV, in high doses can age the skin and damage the DNA molecule, which makes it harder to build a fetus. Not to mention that ultraviolet light can sometimes cause skin cancer.

On the other hand, if a human is plopped down in, say, Norway, where the days can be short and there is precious little ultraviolet light, this creates problems, too. All vertebrate animals need ultraviolet light to help produce vitamin D. Vitamin D helps us absorb calcium from our food to build strong bones. If we don't get enough ultraviolet light, we're less likely to survive to reproductive age to produce strong-boned babies.

Thus the dilemma: People who live in sunny climes around the equator have too much UV. People who move away from the equator eventually have too little UV.


The solution is what Jablonski calls "a really cool molecule": melanin. In different concentrations, melanin makes skin lighter or darker. Kind of like a Venetian blind, it can let UV light in or keep it out.

Melanin has evolved in many different animals. Humans have had it for a long, long time and what Jablonski and others have learned is that when early humans migrated from the equator, their melanin levels changed.

That doesn't mean they lost their tans. It means they had very specific genetic changes that allowed them to live and successfully reproduce in less sunny places. Darwin teaches that these changes began randomly. Somebody in the population at some point had a baby, and that baby, just by chance, had a little change in its DNA that made her skin, for example, a little lighter. When that baby moved north to Europe, lighter skin gave her an advantage as a grown-up, because it helped her produce strong-boned babies who could survive and have babies of their own.

Successive mutations created successive generations of lighter and lighter people as they moved north.

"This, in short, really created the gradation of skin color that we see in modern humans today," says Jablonski. Her map of UV radiation levels on Earth closely mirrors the array of skin colors on Earth.


The big surprise is how fast these changes can occur.

"Our original estimates were that [skin color changes] occurred perhaps at a more stately pace," Jablonski says. But now they're finding that a population can be one color (light or dark) and 100 generations later — with no intermarriage — be a very different color.

Figuring 25 years per generation (which is generous, since early humans walked naked through the world — clothes slow down the rate), that's an astonishingly short interval.

It's "a blink of an eye," she says.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100057939

That means any group could be black or white if you move their population for long enough.
That's why there are no races.

 

[fluffy]

All the legit science supports my position.
Its time for you to see if you can find any reports that don't come from smalldick's dodgy Rushton/Pioneer Fund sources that dispute those claims.
Prove your claims or admit you're wrong.

What a ridiculous claim. All the legit science definitely does not support your position. You don't know anything about legitimate science. From what I see, you are just citing pseudo scientific sources and the work of social scientists.
Why do keep blathering on about Smallcock and his supposed support of Rushton? His knowledge of this subject greatly exceeds whatever Rushton can tell us.

You keep saying that but you can't even understand the sources you bring to this debate.
Just like you ignore the fact that all your claims come from one dodgy source, Rushton.
http://racehist.blogspot.ca/2008/07/rushton-and-genital-size-one-more-time.html

Speaking of dodgy sources, what does this ridiculous blog have to do with the discussion on intelligence differences between various ethnic groups? Who are the authors? Why would anyone attach any credibility to this? All that's being discussed here is the sizes of penises, testes and vaginas.

You are like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail. You've had all your limbs severed and still you are spoiling for a fight.

 

[Frankfooter]

What a ridiculous claim. All the legit science definitely does not support your position. You don't know anything about legitimate science.

Your personal opinion has no basis in facts and remains totally unsupported.
Why don't you start with some basics and see if you can find something that supports your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

 

[oldjones]

You're being laughably obtuse. I'm embarrassed for you.

This is real life, not a movie. Suspension of disbelief need not apply.

Except when reading your fictions about what the science is.

All I ask is one single generally-accepted definition of 'race', the most basic term in this thread, and so far all you can find to offer is your grade-school invention.

"Races cluster around geographic regions - Ameridians, Asian, African, and European." A 'definition' like that won't get you into any 101, not even Creative Writing. And no self-respecting scientist would ever offer anything like it.

It seems you revived this mercifully dead thread only to dig yourself in deeper.

 

[Smallcock]

You keep saying that but you can't even understand the sources you bring to this debate.
Just like you ignore the fact that all your claims come from one dodgy source, Rushton.
http://racehist.blogspot.ca/2008/07/rushton-and-genital-size-one-more-time.html

You're a liar. To say that any of this discussion is based off anything Rushton has ever done has been disproven many times. It's a stupid claim that you keep repeating because you have no idea about the subject and it's all you have left to prop up your sad arguments.