[419]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Race denialism is just the loon quack fringe, its equivilant in science to young earth creationism...

(Original post by Zürich)
Races clearly exist. To pretend otherwise is ignorant, deceitful or both and is not constructive to any kind of reasonable debate.

What to you defines race?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Race denialism is just the loon quack fringe, its equivilant in science to young earth creationism...

[Zürich]

(Original post by 419)
What to you defines race?

If Race does not exist then this begs the question 'What is racism?'

[Zürich]

(Original post by Reformed2010)
The way the science community understands race is not the same as people on this thread and generally in society have shown to (Graves 2001). The majority of scientists do not link their understanding of race to explain IQ and behavioural differences for example (Lee et al. 2008). We are all part of the same race, and there is no real great significance between us (Keita et al. 2004). Especially not enough to justify arguing people of African origin are likely to be dumber because of their genetics.

Comments on this thread are guilty of racism (Reformed2010. 2012)

I trust you are not accusing me of racism as I have not said anything even close to it.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Zürich)
Races clearly exist. To pretend otherwise is ignorant, deceitful or both and is not constructive to any kind of reasonable debate.

The biological, genetic and anthropological evidence and academic consensus states otherwise. Do you have recent sources that refute all of the people I have presented above?

[Pyramidologist]

whyumadtho most scientists who you have quoted support racial reality, they just constantly shift or change their views for political reasons...

Lets look at Cavalli-Sforza:

Cavalli-Sforza (1994, p. 19) states:

''[...]the concept of race has failed to gain any acceptance''

However, Cavilli-Sforza notes that: "we can identify 'clusters' of populations."

These clusters turn out to be the same as the races of anthropology and later in Cavilli-Sforza's own book we find him using racial terminology (for example p. 167).

Thus as Lynn (2006) remarks:

''These clusters turn out to be the same as the races of classical anthropology and later in their book we find the authors using the classical racial terminology.''

NOTE: It therefore appears 'cluster' is a euphemism for races, used by race deniers...

This is found also throughout Keita.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
whyumadtho most scientists who you have quoted support racial reality, they just constantly shift or change their views for political reasons...

Lets look at Cavalli-Sforza:

Cavalli-Sforza (1994, p. 19) states:

''[...]the concept of race has failed to gain any acceptance''

However, Cavilli-Sforza notes that: "we can identify 'clusters' of populations."

These clusters turn out to be the same as the races of anthropology and later in Cavilli-Sforza's own book we find him using racial terminology (for example p. 167).

Thus as Lynn (2006) remarks:

''These clusters turn out to be the same as the races of classical anthropology and later in their book we find the authors using the classical racial terminology.''

NOTE: It therefore appears 'cluster' is a euphemism for races, used by race deniers...

This is found also throughout Keita.

I've already told you that any scientist who has credibility changes their view in light of new evidence. Technology and biological/genetic understanding has improved substantially since the 1990s.

What book is this? Where is it found throughout Keita?

[Zürich]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
The biological, genetic and anthropological evidence and academic consensus states otherwise. Do you have recent sources that refute all of the people I have presented above?

I've never studied the subject and have little interest in the matter. I'm not sure how one defines race but it seems obvious to me that certain groups have different physical characteristics. Dutch people tend to be rather tall, Swedes to be rather blonde and the Irish to have freckles for example.

I may be imagining these differences but to say that different groups don't exist seems rather odd to me.

[HermesTrismegistus]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
Well it was bound to happen sometime. Congrats, you have managed to completely ignore what i've written, whilst making a claim that was written by one single person with no direct proof that it is true. Bravo sir.

You just said that Australian aboriginals have a higher visual intelligence because it gave them a higher ability to survive in their environment. But now you are presented with a similar argument as to why Caucasoids and Mongoloids have a higher spatial I.Q. and reject it. What's the relevant difference that leads you to accept one but not the other?

Also, the other poster provided a source for his claims whereas you limited yourself to saying 'it has been proven'.

[JTingle]

(Original post by Zürich)
1) What about entirely new patterns?
2)Can someone with an IQ of 70 adopt Einsteins reasoning process? Not in a million years.
3)What makes me incapable of beating Usain Bolt over 100m, given that I have a vested interest in doing it and have the resources to do so?

A savant with incredible mathematical proficiency and scientific understanding but an inability to read (or to learn how to) could quite possibly do so.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Zürich)
I've never studied the subject and have little interest in the matter. I'm not sure how one defines race but it seems obvious to me that certain groups have different physical characteristics. Dutch people tend to be rather tall, Swedes to be rather blonde and the Irish to have freckles for example.

I may be imagining these differences but to say that different groups don't exist seems rather odd to me.

There is variation in the frequency of various alleles, but this variance is distributed in a non-coterminous, continuous, and overlapping fashion. Any attempt to apportion these traits into rigid groups (especially something as large as 'race') is arbitrary:

"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).

[superfoggy]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
There has been a study that showed that black people have a lower IQ than white people and that Jews have higher IQs than white people.

This does not mean that anyone is genetically more intelligent than the other and i'll explain why:

- Intelligence is more complicated than you think and there are MANY factors that determine intelligence, that have not been taken into account. For example, wealth. The wealthier the people, the more likely they are to be educated better and hang around with other more educated people and thus become more intelligent individuals. Black people are generally much much poorer than white and even more so than Jews. African countries are among the poorest in the world and even the black people in developed countries are generally the poorest in society. Jews on the other hand are richer than whites on average and have higher IQs, get my drift?

If there is a study done that compares the IQs of rich black people with rich white people and one that compares poor white people with poor black people, i guarantee you that the results would be much closer. There are many other factors of intelligence and it's widely agreed upon that genetics dont play a major role at all. So by simply stating that one people are more intelligent than the other because of their average IQ, is just ridiculous, because there are sooo many important factors that haven't been considered.

- IQ is a poor measurement of intelligence. Intelligence is more complicated than that. There are different kinds of intelligence, like cognitive and emotional intelligence. Some people are musical geniuses, but cant count for squat and vice versa. They're apples and oranges, you cant just bung them all in and create an average, you have to look at them individually.

So please, stop saying that whites are smarter than blacks or that any race of people is more intelligent than the other, because you cannot conclude such a big statement from one simple statistic. The only solid evidence there is of anyone being smarter than any else, is the study done that shows that aboriginals have a better visual memory than other people on average. Peace out.

If intelligence clearly varies in each specific part, be it in spatial awareness or numerical reasoning as in IQ tests, between races on average (which even you admit, as you claim that aboriginals have greater visual memory than other races on average). Clearly then, intelligence, however you define it, varies between races on average. That is, unless of course, you define it by some arbitrary standard that when summed, these parts all add up to exactly the same amount for every race (on average).

So if you admit that specific parts of intelligence vary between races, then unless we all have some arbitrary total intelligence like an rpg with 100 points to allocate, say 5 to visual memory, 10 to spatial awareness etc... then surely intelligence must vary overall between races (on average).

Even if by some odd chance, all the races have equal overall intelligence, would not some types of intelligence be more valuable than others. The standard IQ test is a good indicator of job performance, so then these parts of intelligence, which are measured as greater for certain races, result in some races performing better in jobs say?

tl:dr If, as you have also stated, and has been measured countless times, there is variation in certain types of intelligence between races, then whether you believe this is a good general indicator of overall intelligence or not, it shows differences nonetheless.

[Zürich]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
There is variation in the frequency of various alleles, but this variance is distributed in a non-coterminous, continuous, and overlapping fashion. Any attempt to apportion these traits into rigid groups (especially something as large as 'race') is arbitrary:

"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).

Perhaps arbitrary, I can not say one way or the other for lack of knowledge on the subject, but clearly distinguishable. If certain groups have certain traits then clearly there is some difference, even if 'race' does not exist.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
There has been a study that showed that black people have a lower IQ than white people and that Jews have higher IQs than white people.

This does not mean that anyone is genetically more intelligent than the other and i'll explain why:

- Intelligence is more complicated than you think and there are MANY factors that determine intelligence, that have not been taken into account. For example, wealth. The wealthier the people, the more likely they are to be educated better and hang around with other more educated people and thus become more intelligent individuals. Black people are generally much much poorer than white and even more so than Jews. African countries are among the poorest in the world and even the black people in developed countries are generally the poorest in society. Jews on the other hand are richer than whites on average and have higher IQs, get my drift?

If there is a study done that compares the IQs of rich black people with rich white people and one that compares poor white people with poor black people, i guarantee you that the results would be much closer. There are many other factors of intelligence and it's widely agreed upon that genetics dont play a major role at all. So by simply stating that one people are more intelligent than the other because of their average IQ, is just ridiculous, because there are sooo many important factors that haven't been considered.

- IQ is a poor measurement of intelligence. Intelligence is more complicated than that. There are different kinds of intelligence, like cognitive and emotional intelligence. Some people are musical geniuses, but cant count for squat and vice versa. They're apples and oranges, you cant just bung them all in and create an average, you have to look at them individually.

So please, stop saying that whites are smarter than blacks or that any race of people is more intelligent than the other, because you cannot conclude such a big statement from one simple statistic. The only solid evidence there is of anyone being smarter than any else, is the study done that shows that aboriginals have a better visual memory than other people on average. Peace out.

I would agree, done a few test across the board an average IQ of 128, failed my a levels :L, but that was when I moved from private to grammar school, private school I scored significantly higher

[dgeorge]

(Original post by 4realblud)
there has been a study that showed that black people have a lower iq than white people and that jews have higher iqs than white people.

this does not mean that anyone is genetically more intelligent than the other and i'll explain why:

- intelligence is more complicated than you think and there are many factors that determine intelligence, that have not been taken into account. For example, wealth. The wealthier the people, the more likely they are to be educated better and hang around with other more educated people and thus become more intelligent individuals. Black people are generally much much poorer than white and even more so than jews. African countries are among the poorest in the world and even the black people in developed countries are generally the poorest in society. Jews on the other hand are richer than whites on average and have higher iqs, get my drift?

If there is a study done that compares the iqs of rich black people with rich white people and one that compares poor white people with poor black people, i guarantee you that the results would be much closer. There are many other factors of intelligence and it's widely agreed upon that genetics dont play a major role at all. So by simply stating that one people are more intelligent than the other because of their average iq, is just ridiculous, because there are sooo many important factors that haven't been considered.

- iq is a poor measurement of intelligence. Intelligence is more complicated than that. There are different kinds of intelligence, like cognitive and emotional intelligence. Some people are musical geniuses, but cant count for squat and vice versa. They're apples and oranges, you cant just bung them all in and create an average, you have to look at them individually.

So please, stop saying that whites are smarter than blacks or that any race of people is more intelligent than the other, because you cannot conclude such a big statement from one simple statistic. The only solid evidence there is of anyone being smarter than any else, is the study done that shows that aboriginals have a better visual memory than other people on average. Peace out.

there has been a study that showed that black people have a lower iq than white people and that jews have higher iqs than white people

And WHAT STUDY IS THAT?

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Higher IQ, obviously relates to progession. It is confirmed by the historical record, for example all ancient civilizations were created by Caucasoids (Rome, Sumeria, Egypt) and Mongoloids (China). Negroids never created one. 97% of major figures in science between 800 BC and 1950 AD were European Caucasoid (Murray, 2003). The other 3% West Asian Caucasoid or East Asian Mongoloid.

Blatantly wrong.

Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, were all great American ancient civilizations.

And before you tell me that these civilizations were Mongoloid, stop, because that is wrong as well.

In 1984, Roger J. Lederer Professor of Biological Sciences at the California State University at Chico,[15] separately listed the "Mongoloid" race from Pacific islanders and American Indians

In 1983, Douglas J. Futuyma, professor of evolutionary processes at the University of Michigan, said that the inclusion of Native Americans and Pacific Islanders under the Mongoloid race was not recognized by "many anthropologists" who consider them "distinct races"

Great African civilizations include the Mali and Kush empires

[Lamps08]

(Original post by Nizza123)
A black man and a white man run away from a bear. The black man has an advantage in the early stages, as he has superior genetic characteristics that provide him with more fast twitch muscle fibers. "Michael Johnson. Why descendants of slaves will take the medals in the London 2012 sprint finals".
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1zNCEps87
However the white man was cunning, his superior thinking skills made him realise that he needed to climb a tree, so he did. The black man eventually got tired and the bear caught him.

That's one for the grand-kids.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
There is variation in the frequency of various alleles, but this variance is distributed in a non-coterminous, continuous, and overlapping fashion. Any attempt to apportion these traits into rigid groups (especially something as large as 'race') is arbitrary:

"Our results show that when individuals are sampled homogeneously from around the globe, the pattern seen is one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or “races.”" (Serre & Pääbo, 2004).

You've already been schooled on this before, there are no in situ clines or gradients in skeletal biology.

''Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the 'race denial' faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all'' (Gill, 2000)

There are no imaginary overlaps or gradients. In contrast, races fall in distinct clusters based on their craniofacial traits and anthropometric measurements. A forensic anthropologist can easily distinguish between a Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid skull.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
You've already been schooled on this before, there are no in situ clines or gradients in skeletal biology.

''Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the 'race denial' faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all'' (Gill, 2000)

There are no imaginary overlaps or gradients. In contrast, races fall in distinct clusters based on their craniofacial traits and anthropometric measurements. A forensic anthropologist can easily distinguish between a Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid skull.

These are all cranial and/or forensic anthropologists who have all been published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology:

"The points of agreement in the following articles reflect a shared evolutionary perspective that focuses on describing and interpreting the apportionment of biological variation between individuals both within and among groups (see also Lee et al., 2008). We agreed that:

• There is substantial variation among individuals within populations.
• Some biological variation is apportioned between individuals in different populations and among larger population groupings.
• Patterns of within- and among-group variation have been substantially shaped by culture, language, ecology, and geography.
• Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation.
• Human variation research has important social, biomedical, and forensic implications."

"There was really only one fundamental difference of opinion among the symposium participants, which was about the precise nature of the geographic patterning of human biological variation" (Edgar and Hunley, 2009; Caspari, 2009; Edgar, 2009; Gravlee, 2009; Hunley et al., 2009; Konigsberg et al., 2009; Long et al., 2009; Ousley et al., 2009; Relethford, 2009; Wolpoff, 2009).

I'm not going to take your unsubstantiated word over theirs.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Zürich)
Perhaps arbitrary, I can not say one way or the other for lack of knowledge on the subject, but clearly distinguishable. If certain groups have certain traits then clearly there is some difference, even if 'race' does not exist.

"Visible physical differences do not correlate with one another, leading to the possibility of different classifications for the same individual organisms (Keita et al., 1997)."

The incidence of freckles, blonde hair and tall height are not coterminous or exclusive to Europe.