Do you believe in a superior race?

I find it hard to believe that through evolution of humans the only thing that has changed is skin colour, and to a lesser extent, bone structures. Is it not plausible that the intellectual capacity of certain races has evolved beyond those of others, creating an intellectually superior race?

Because everyone- including scientists- have their prejudices of the world. And it is from these prejudices that they develop their models and test their hypotheses. Some might call them inklings, clues or hypotheses but until they are validated they are just prejudices Sometimes these prejudices. Sometimes these prejudices are validated by facts and elevated to the state of a scientific law, but other times the scientists have setup models that are so riven with prejudice that any experiment will validate their opinions. I believe this is the case with most of the literature on IQ tests and race.

As I am no genetic scientist, I feel I may as well offer my own prejudices an opinions to bring to bear on the issue and persuade as many who are willing to listen.

Yes different races evolved with different attributes being more prevalent amongst their masses. It is pointless to argue which attributes favor which group because when such information is applied to the individual it means nothing.

The inevitable truth is that as we mix our races more and more those lines will become blurred anyway. Ultimately it is for the better because if we do believe in evolution then we should believe that mixing races will ultimately select the most survivable traits from each race and combine them into the next "superior race".

So to answer your question, the next superior race will be the mixed race.

A handful of heart-warming anecdotes will not, and should not, influence any scientifically-minded person's views of this sort of thin.

These terms are not scientific. Science recognises five major racial stocks: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Capoid and Australoid (Coon, 1962).

You can be geographically ''Asian'', but a different race (Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Australoid). Furthermore ''white'', ''black'', ''yellow'' are outdated pigmentation terms used only during pre-18th century attempts at racial classification. Science has come a long way since then, as we now know of course skin colour is not the sole difference in races, in fact it is a completely useless marker because of pigmentation gradient overlap (some Mongoloids for example are lighter than some Caucasoids, yet no one of course would call a light skinned Oriental male a ''white man''). The features that don't overlap are mainly morphological (such as craniometrics) which is why a forensic scientist can just look at the skull of someone and determine its race with an accuracy of 100%.

I'm saying that anyone with a basic grasp on evolution knows that the humans species has existed for a fragment of a second on the evolutionary scale. Biological differences are aesthetic, there is no such thing as race... only different combinations of physical characteristics.

Your half-baked ramblings belong in a stupider time.

So to answer your question, the next superior race will be the mixed race.

There is physical diversity in all races. The point is though such diversity within races is minor. The races themselves are distinguished by the major differences. Minor diversity within races creates subraces, and then subraces are further split into microraces. Example:

Caucasoid (Race) - Mediterranid (Subrace) - Atlanto-Mediterranid (Microrace)

My own race is Caucasoid, my subrace is Mediterranid, while my Microrace is Atlantid.

Everyone falls into three categories: Race, Subrace, Microrace.

source:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/alas_poor_yorick_or_is_it_othello.html


Racial classification is an inexact science, if that's even the right word for it. Forensic anthropologists never make definitive ancestry pronouncements. They say a bone is "consistent with" European ancestry or "likely" of Asian ancestry. And practitioners say it takes years of experience to achieve mastery, since you have to see piles and piles of disembodied mandibles to be able to recognize the sometimes subtle differences among them. (Although one study (PDF) has suggested that the grizzled veterans of forensic anthropology are no better at surmising race than their bright-eyed protégés.)
The practice of inferring race from bones is also somewhat controversial. While today's forensic anthropologists don't like to talk about it, the discipline has its roots in the pseudoscientific 19th-century practice of using skull measurements to prove Caucasian intellectual superiority. The methodology has improved since then. When researchers develop a hypothesis about racial variation, they conduct blind tests on hundreds or thousands of skulls of known ancestry to test its reliability. They also test their own consistency, looking at the same skulls several times in different orders to make sure they usually make the same call on its structures and shapes.

There are people who think even the modern techniques are bunk. They argue that more physical variability exists between individuals of the same race than between races and point out that less than 15 percent of physical variation can be attributed to race. In addition, marriage between people of differing ancestries has become so common that forensic racial determinations can actually hinder an investigation. If someone had his mother's African jaw and his father's light skin, investigators would be sent out looking for the wrong person, since his neighbors might have considered him white.

These terms are not scientific. Science recognises five major racial stocks: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Capoid and Australoid (Coon, 1962).

You can be geographically ''Asian'', but a different race (Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Australoid). Furthermore ''white'', ''black'', ''yellow'' are outdated pigmentation terms used only during pre-18th century attempts at racial classification. Science has come a long way since then, as we now know of course skin colour is not the sole difference in races, in fact it is a completely useless marker because of pigmentation gradient overlap (some Mongoloids for example are lighter than some Caucasoids, yet no one of course would call a light skinned Oriental male a ''white man''). The features that don't overlap are mainly morphological (such as craniometrics) which is why a forensic scientist can just look at the skull of someone and determine its race with an accuracy of 100%.

There is physical diversity in all races. The point is though such diversity within races is minor. The races themselves are distinguished by the major differences. Minor diversity within races creates subraces, and then subraces are further split into microraces. Example:

Caucasoid (Race) - Mediterranid (Subrace) - Atlanto-Mediterranid (Microrace)

My own race is Caucasoid, my subrace is Mediterranid, while my Microrace is Atlantid.

Everyone falls into three categories: Race, Subrace, Microrace.

An ignorant article. Leave science to the scientists. Within forensic anthropology there is no doubt race exists. You can identify the race based on crania or post-crania with a very high accuracy, the same for sex.

Race denialism is mainly fueled by PC and ''anti-racist'' agendas. Politics should be kept out of science.

What about mixed race people? Or what about people who look a bit Atlantid, but also look a bit Nordic. How can you know without a genetic test whether you are Atlantid, or are you basing these assertions on the way you look? Physical appearance only constitutes a small percentage of your genetic makeup- you are aware of this? You could easily be deceived by a hooked nose or green eyes, when most of your genetic markers are in line with pheno/genotype x or z.

Mixed race people are hybrids. They fit into no race.

Microraces are only seperated and defined by very minor phenotype variations, for example pigmentation. The only difference for example between an Atlanto-Med and an Atlantid is eye colour. What this means is that most family members are a mixture of different microraces, based on the fact they are just local variants of subraces.