# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

## Logan13

Regardless of your individual thoughts about this article, would there be such an outrage if another scientist said that Africans on average run faster than Westerners.......? Although a Nobel Prize winner, his past is littered with such statements. Discuss........the article.
*Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners* 
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_te...cle3067222.ece

Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really" 

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion. 

*James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner* for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London. 

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade. 

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours  whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". 

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "*There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so*." 

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism". 

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism. 

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices. 

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels." 

The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins. 

But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script." 

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great." 

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks. 

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically." 

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Shouldnt be so hard, just measure IQ among all races and se if there is any deviations. As far as I have seen blacks on avarage are below whites and whites are below jews and japanese. 

If IQ is even a important or relevant messure of intelligence and how it is related to education is a better question.

----------


## scriptfactory

> Shouldnt be so hard, just measure IQ among all races and se if there is any deviations. As far as I have seen blacks on avarage are below whites and whites are below jews and japanese. 
> 
> *If IQ is even a important or relevant messure of intelligence and how it is related to education is a better question.*


Spot on as always.

----------


## BWhitaker

> Shouldnt be so hard, just measure IQ among all races and se if there is any deviations. As far as I have seen blacks on avarage are below whites and whites are below jews and japanese.


Actually, it would not be that easy. Unfortunately, that would yeild an experiment with so many confounds that it would be impossible to see how the variable of race affects intelligence. For example, socio economic factors would play a huge role in the test, and would be skewed againt blacks but this would not help in determining genetic potential and abilities.

----------


## Tock

Eggheads who study intelligence for a living can't even agree on what it is, much less agree on how to measure it. 

This article is just a bit of presumptive BS.

----------


## Logan13

> Shouldnt be so hard, just measure IQ among all races and se if there is any deviations. As far as I have seen blacks on avarage are below whites and whites are below jews and japanese. 
> 
> If IQ is even a important or relevant messure of intelligence and how it is related to education is a better question.


IQ does not determine success, just aptitude.

----------


## Act of God

The question is, does he really deserve to be branded with the scarlet letter of this generation..."Racist"?

I submit no. The search for answers should not be PC, nor should it fear liberalism.

----------


## AandF6969

> answers should not be PC, nor should it fear liberalism.


+1

If it turns out that his observations are actually scientifically proven... through DNA or whatever other means... is it still racist? I'm pretty sure people wouldn't want to hear the truth.

What if someone were to take surveys of black families, white families, hispanics, asians, etc. and asked them what foods they ate the most? If fried chicken and watermelon were more prevalent among blacks, would this scientific data be racist?

----------


## scriptfactory

> Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. *If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically.*"


*Watson's words disowned by own institute*



> "Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory does not engage in any research that could even form the basis of the statements attributed to Dr Watson," the institute's president, Bruce Stillman, said. Dr Watson's comments were entirely his own and "in no way reflect the mission, goals, or principles of [the laboratory's] board, administration or faculty".


http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_te...cle3075661.ece

He made these statement without any kind of research at all. He basically just made a guess. It's not surprising, this was the same man that said homosexual babies should be allowed to be aborted by their mothers...

----------


## Logan13

> +1
> 
> If it turns out that his observations are actually scientifically proven... through DNA or whatever other means... is it still racist? I'm pretty sure people wouldn't want to hear the truth.
> 
> What if someone were to take surveys of black families, white families, hispanics, asians, etc. and asked them what foods they ate the most? If fried chicken and watermelon were more prevalent among blacks, would this scientific data be racist?


The reality of this is that there are several species of humans, just like any other animal. Each species has it's own traits, some good and some not so good. Sickle cell anemia and male pattern baldness are two examples of the latter. It is not PC to make such a statement, but this does not change the fact that it is true.

----------


## scriptfactory

> *The reality of this is that there are several species of humans, just like any other animal*. Each species has it's own traits, some good and some not so good. Sickle cell anemia and male pattern baldness are two examples of the latter. It is not PC to make such a statement, but this does not change the fact that it is true.


No there isn't. There is only one living species of human, _homo sapiens sapiens_.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Actually, it would not be that easy. Unfortunately, that would yeild an experiment with so many confounds that it would be impossible to see how the variable of race affects intelligence. For example, socio economic factors would play a huge role in the test, and would be skewed againt blacks but this would not help in determining genetic potential and abilities.


Well yeah it would be hell. But it would be a good first step to determine if there is a IQ difference betwen populations in say africa and usa. Then the tests can always be refined to try and even out socioeconomic factors ect.




> IQ does not determine success, just aptitude.


Im not familiar with the word aptitude??  :Hmmmm:  


To return to the orginal article posted by logan. I dont find the quoute 

_"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."_

offensive. He is just saying there might be a difference and there there is no real reason to assume that a difference doesnt exist. Its not like he is saying blacks are stupid in that quoute. I wonder if the sunday times has missquoted him in the article?

----------


## BgMc31

The question that need be asked is what type of IQ testing was used? Was it an IQ test based on western educational norms? Was it administered to peoples with similar access to education that western people have? Why do recent AFrican immigrants generally do better on standardized testing than all others except certain Asian groups when given the same exposure to western education?

This is obviously skewed.

----------


## Tock

> The question that need be asked is what type of IQ testing was used? Was it an IQ test based on western educational norms? Was it administered to peoples with similar access to education that western people have? Why do recent AFrican immigrants generally do better on standardized testing than all others except certain Asian groups when given the same exposure to western education?
> 
> This is obviously skewed.


Skewed for sure.

Shrinks have discovered several hundred different aspects of human intelligence. Some aspects include:

short-term and long-term memory
abstract reasoning
social abilities
mathematical ability
general knowledge
athletic ability
musical ability
spatial comprehension

etc, etc, etc. Most IQ tests cover 5 or 10 aspects, and don't touch on the hundreds of other aspects. This is why when you score high on an IQ test, it doesn't really mean much. 

I had my IQ tested years ago . . . the sort of questions they asked me on the "General Knowledge" section didn't include anything that most folks mired in rural poverty would know about. I scored well on the short-term memory part because the test used the same sort of numbers I encountered all day long at work, so I was accustomed to that sort of test.

IQ tests don't mean much. And the professionals who traffic in them will admit as much.

----------


## scriptfactory

> Skewed for sure.
> 
> Shrinks have discovered several hundred different aspects of human intelligence. Some aspects include:
> 
> short-term and long-term memory
> abstract reasoning
> social abilities
> mathematical ability
> general knowledge
> ...


The fact that people are trying to quantify something as incredible and diverse as human intelligence is mystifying. MENSA is like the ultimate pseudo-intellectual "circle jerk." Wannabe polymaths getting together and masturbating each others' brains...

----------


## scriptfactory

> *The reality of this is that there are several species of humans, just like any other animal.* Each species has it's own traits, some good and some not so good. Sickle cell anemia and male pattern baldness are two examples of the latter. It is not PC to make such a statement, but this does not change the fact that it is true.


No response to my post, Logan?

----------


## Chuck_R

[QUOTE=Kärnfysikern]Shouldnt be so hard, just measure IQ among all races and se if there is any deviations. *As far as I have seen blacks on avarage are below whites and whites are below jews and japanese.* 

Ok, but what are you going to do w/ the Black Ethiopian Jews...where do they fit in? and the last time I checked JEWS are White and Black.

There ain't but one race, THE HUMAN RACE! :Hmmmm:

----------


## Logan13

> The fact that people are trying to quantify something as incredible and diverse as human intelligence is mystifying. MENSA is like the ultimate pseudo-intellectual "circle jerk." Wannabe polymaths getting together and masturbating each others' brains...


Have you ever attended a MENSA meeting?

----------


## Logan13

> No response to my post, Logan?


What is there to say? Have you had any formal education with which to form your opinion, or is your opinion based on PC feelings alone? Science should not be hindered by political correctnes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
Nevertheless, Darwin wrote that man had "diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species" and that "some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species."

----------


## Logan13

[QUOTE=Kärnfysikern]
Im not familiar with the word aptitude??  :Hmmmm:  
[QUOTE]
wikpedia:
An aptitude is an innate ability to do a certain kind of work. Aptitudes may be physical or mental.

----------


## Flagg

I don't believe MENSA tests are an accurate way of measuring intelligence. For example someone with Aspergers or types of autism could fly through a MENSA test, yet can't understand the basic concept of human emotion. Einstien didn't even know how to tie his own shoelaces. 

I do agree with Logan on how there is a divergence in the human race. If science could prove whites as more intelligent than blacks, japs and jews are more intelligent than whites, then what's the big deal? So it proves that one part of the human race is smarter than the other. 

Dogs are all part of the Canis lupus familiaris family, yet you can't teach a pitbull or a St.Bernard how to help a blind person around town.

----------


## RA

Im still trying to figure out how this research could be beneficial to anyone...

----------


## Logan13

> Im still trying to figure out how this research could be beneficial to anyone...


Science is always evolving, this is but a snapshot of the larger picture.
At least this research did not cost us millions of dollars..........

----------


## scriptfactory

> What is there to say? Have you had any formal education with which to form your opinion, or is your opinion based on PC feelings alone? Science should not be hindered by political correctnes.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
> Nevertheless, Darwin wrote that man had "diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species" and that "some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species."


Actually, I've studied anthropology. There are no such thing as a human "sub-species". The problem is the human animal is too diverse. An asian and a caucasian might have more in common than two asians. It isn't as simple as dog breeding...

----------


## scriptfactory

> I don't believe MENSA tests are an accurate way of measuring intelligence. For example someone with Aspergers or types of autism could fly through a MENSA test, yet can't understand the basic concept of human emotion. Einstien didn't even know how to tie his own shoelaces. 
> 
> I do agree with Logan on how there is a divergence in the human race. *If science could prove whites as more intelligent than blacks, japs and jews are more intelligent than whites, then what's the big deal? So it proves that one part of the human race is smarter than the other.* 
> 
> Dogs are all part of the Canis lupus familiaris family, yet you can't teach a pitbull or a St.Bernard how to help a blind person around town.


Homo sapiens isn't the same as a breed of dog. I, as a black man, might have more in common genetically with a Mexican than with another black dude. Skin color isn't an accurate way of defining a species or subspecies. This is why so much of the work done in this area has been dismissed as pseudo-science. I think there was a guy named, get this, Carlton Coon that did some work on the subject. Scientifically, the whole idea of "race" as we know it (white, black, asian, latino, etc.) is bullshit. It's too difficult to say a whole race of people has one specific character trait...

----------


## scriptfactory

> Im still trying to figure out how this research could be beneficial to anyone...


It isn't.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I don't believe MENSA tests are an accurate way of measuring intelligence. For example someone with Aspergers or types of autism could fly through a MENSA test, yet can't understand the basic concept of human emotion. *Einstien didn't even know how to tie his own shoelaces*.


I wish people would stop using einstein as a example since he was quite the opposit to the "wierd geniouse". He was fit, social, a womenizer and active in alot more than his research.

I agree with the rest you wrote though.




> Ok, but what are you going to do w/ the Black Ethiopian Jews...where do they fit in? and the last time I checked JEWS are White and Black.
> 
> There ain't but one race, THE HUMAN RACE!


No idea.




> An aptitude is an innate ability to do a certain kind of work. Aptitudes may be physical or mental.


Ok, so basicly the same as talent or potential then I guess?

----------


## RA

> Science is always evolving, this is but a snapshot of the larger picture.
> *At least this research did not cost us millions of dollars*..........


 
Thank god. Now if we can just get our govt to stop studying the mating rituals of every obsure animal on the planet we will be all set.

----------


## Flagg

> I wish people would stop using einstein as a example since he was quite the opposit to the "wierd geniouse". He was fit, social, a womenizer and active in alot more than his research.



I know it's a bit of a cliche to use Einstein in debates such as this but I just wanted to illustrate that having a high IQ doesnt mean you're infaliable.

----------


## Flagg

> Homo sapiens isn't the same as a breed of dog. I, as a black man, might have more in common genetically with a Mexican than with another black dude. Skin color isn't an accurate way of defining a species or subspecies. This is why so much of the work done in this area has been dismissed as pseudo-science. I think there was a guy named, get this, Carlton Coon that did some work on the subject. Scientifically, the whole idea of "race" as we know it (white, black, asian, latino, etc.) is bullshit. It's too difficult to say a whole race of people has one specific character trait...


Yes but my point still stands. Whites, blacks, Mex, Japs...we're all homo sapiens. But wolves, chiuaua's, pitbulls, poodles are all canus lupus. It's the same thing.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I know it's a bit of a cliche to use Einstein in debates such as this but I just wanted to illustrate that having a high IQ doesnt mean you're infaliable.


I know  :Smilie:  Its to bad that Einstein has the image as a wierd and recluse genious though.

----------


## scriptfactory

> Yes but my point still stands. Whites, blacks, Mex, Japs...we're all homo sapiens. But wolves, chiuaua's, pitbulls, poodles are all canus lupus. It's the same thing.


No it isn't. Wolves and pitbulls are totally dissimilar. They are two unique species of dog. A better comparison would be a black persian cat vs. a white persian cat. They are the same species, they just look different. Their noses might be different. Their fur color. Their eye color/shape/etc. They are still the same damn species.  :LOL: 

Edit: BTW, all dogs belong to the genus "canis" which is equivalent to the human genus "homo". The species for wolves is "lupus" which is the equivalent of "sapiens". There are wolf subspecies (which I don't know off the top of my head) but the only living human subspecies is "sapiens". We are _homo sapiens sapiens_. There was also another human subspecies called "idaltu". There is no such thing as a sub-subspecies.

----------


## thegodfather

To add to what scriptfactory is saying....Genetically, humans are VERY similar to a starfish....

----------


## Carlos_E

> No it isn't. Wolves and pitbulls are totally dissimilar. They are two unique species of dog. A better comparison would be a black persian cat vs. a white persian cat. They are the same species, they just look different. Their noses might be different. Their fur color. Their eye color/shape/etc. They are still the same damn species. 
> 
> Edit: BTW, all dogs belong to the genus "canis" which is equivalent to the human genus "homo". The species for wolves is "lupus" which is the equivalent of "sapiens". There are wolf subspecies (which I don't know off the top of my head) but the only living human subspecies is "sapiens". We are _homo sapiens sapiens_. There was also another human subspecies called "idaltu". There is no such thing as a sub-subspecies.


One would think a MENSA member would understand that.  :1laugh:

----------


## Flagg

In what way are starfish and humans genetically similiar? The only thing we share with starfish in the scientific classification is Kingdom and Phylum. I mean if you really want to split ends, we are 95% similair to chimpanzees, but go back another 20% and we share 75% the same DNA as a worm. Does this make us in any way similiar to that worm, of course not. So in essence, according to the Scientific Classification, even though we share the same grouping as worms/starfishes in group Phylum, as do 80% of all other complex organisms on earth, does not imply any sort of evolutionary relationship. It's long debated wether primates and monkeys even share the same Genus as us. 

I still say the divergent races in the human race are slightly different to each other, I mean most races are physically different looking to each other. Why does being intellectually different have to be such a PC crime?

----------


## Logan13

> Actually, I've studied anthropology. There are no such thing as a human "sub-species". The problem is the human animal is too diverse. An asian and a caucasian might have more in common than two asians. It isn't as simple as dog breeding...


if there is no such thing as a human sub species, what do you call "race"?

----------


## Logan13

> Ok, so basicly the same as talent or potential then I guess?


Yes.

----------


## Logan13

> No it isn't. Wolves and pitbulls are totally dissimilar. They are two unique species of dog. A better comparison would be a black persian cat vs. a white persian cat. They are the same species, they just look different. Their noses might be different. Their fur color. Their eye color/shape/etc. They are still the same damn species. 
> 
> Edit: BTW, all dogs belong to the genus "canis" which is equivalent to the human genus "homo". The species for wolves is "lupus" which is the equivalent of "sapiens". There are wolf subspecies (which I don't know off the top of my head) but the only living human subspecies is "sapiens". We are _homo sapiens sapiens_. There was also another human subspecies called "idaltu". There is no such thing as a sub-subspecies.


Using your wolves example:
http://www.alaska.net/~wolfsong/wolf_species.html
*There are 32 subspecies of wolf in the world*. Twenty-four in North America and eight in Eurasia. In order to distinguish wolves in the world from one area to another, Goldman (1944) considers the following characteristics important: "Gross average size; general color, whether light or dark, plain grayish overlaid with black, or mixed varying shades of pinkish buff to tawny; general form and massiveness of skull, including weight of the braincase, frontal profile, posterior extension (width of the back of the skull), length of rostrum (nose), and size of auditory bullae (ears) size, and relative length and breadth of molar teeth"...."Interbreeding occurs frequently where subspecies meet."

Race takes the place of sub species for humans. Since it is not PC to classify them accordingly, as the rest of the animal kingdom is.
If there are no DNA differences between the races, these guys are screwed.....
http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/

----------


## Superhuman

OMFG!!!!! For years I have been saying that, similar to animals, different human ethnicities are in reality different sub-species of human, much like Boxers to Pittbulls. Each race, or sub-species, has its strength and weaknesses. Why is that so f*cking hard to accept???? It's so obvious to me.

----------


## Flagg

> OMFG!!!!! For years I have been saying that, similar to animals, different human ethnicities are in reality different sub-species of human, much like Boxers to Pittbulls. Each race, or sub-species, has its strength and weaknesses. Why is that so f*cking hard to accept???? It's so obvious to me.



Oh I agree but to accept that is to apparantly be politically incorrect. And so the list grows..

----------


## scriptfactory

> Using your wolves example:
> http://www.alaska.net/~wolfsong/wolf_species.html
> *There are 32 subspecies of wolf in the world*. Twenty-four in North America and eight in Eurasia. In order to distinguish wolves in the world from one area to another, Goldman (1944) considers the following characteristics important: "Gross average size; general color, whether light or dark, plain grayish overlaid with black, or mixed varying shades of pinkish buff to tawny; general form and massiveness of skull, including weight of the braincase, frontal profile, posterior extension (width of the back of the skull), length of rostrum (nose), and size of auditory bullae (ears) size, and relative length and breadth of molar teeth"...."Interbreeding occurs frequently where subspecies meet."
> 
> Race takes the place of sub species for humans. Since it is not PC to classify them accordingly, as the rest of the animal kingdom is.
> If there are no DNA differences between the races, these guys are screwed.....
> http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/


Canis lupis subspecies have certain characteristics that are kept from one generation to the next. Humans do not maintain these characteristics by race. We are just too similar to each other. As I said before, an asian and a caucasian can be more similar that two asians. It is absolutely no argument. Study a little bit more and I think you'll understand what I mean.

----------


## scriptfactory

> if there is no such thing as a human sub species, what do you call "race"?


Black persian cat vs. white persian cat. Think about it.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Black persian cat vs. white persian cat. Think about it.


...Is still a fuckin' persian cat.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## scriptfactory

> OMFG!!!!! For years I have been saying that, similar to animals, different human ethnicities are in reality different sub-species of human, much like Boxers to Pittbulls. *Each race, or sub-species, has its strength and weaknesses.* Why is that so f*cking hard to accept???? It's so obvious to me.


That is the exact problem! A person of West African descent might have more in common genetically with an Eskimo than with another person of West African descent. There is no way to determine characteristics that will be specific to a person based solely on appearance. My sister has eyes like an asian yet we come from the exact same genetic stock. My aunt and uncle have red hair and freckles, my mother has mocha skin and dark hair yet they have the same father and mother... Humans cannot be viewed in the same way as wolves. It's impossible.

Edit: Some smart guy once said, "Never assume the obvious is true."

----------


## scriptfactory

http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/anth372.html



> The term race was first applied to humans in the eighteenth century by Buffon, a French naturalist (Molnar 1998: 19). Various and sundry definitions of human races have been proposed, but in general race is seen to represent a population that is biologically distinct according to some defined parameter. It is also used interchangeably with the term subspecies by most researchers when race is defined by biological parameters (versus sociocultural parameters, which would more accurately define ethnic groups). The question of whether or not various groupings of Homo sapiens are separate species entirely will not be addressed here since it is utterly ridiculous. The idea of subspecies, however, is perfectly reasonable in theory since subspecies are geographic segments of a species, which differ morphologically to some degree from other such segments (Groves 1989: 6). Thus, a subspecies demarcation is a division of a species into segments with arbitrary physical boundaries. Their boundaries are based more on degree of the variation of specific traits that do not usually prevent interbreeding.
> 
> The degree of difference needed in the specified traits to allow a subspecies delineation is usually the 75 per cent rule. The 75 per cent rule states that, 75 per cent of the individuals classified in one subspecies are distinguishable from 100 per cent of the individuals belonging to the other subspecies of the same species, which is statistically equivalent to 90 per cent joint non-overlap (Groves 1989: 7). Therefore, a particular subspecies may have no functional differences in their genetic makeup or their anatomical makeup, and the only difference may be something as simple as a different color. This means that if there are definable differences between definable populations, then a separation of humans into separate races is theoretically sound. The problem is that there are no populations that have 100 per cent definable boundaries. There are no functional RIMs (Reproductive Isolation Mechanisms) to prevent interbreeding between human groups, which does not allow definable populations to form that can be uncritically separated into races. *The ambiguity is great enough that no real taxonomic basis for subspecies can be supported, which is why the trinomen (which demarcates through subspecies) for all humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, regardless of ones perceived race (Keita & Kittles 1997: 535).*


While I am the first to agree that on average certain ethnic groups may excel in certain areas ON AVERAGE (mostly due to cultural and socioeconomic differences), the idea of race and a _homo sapiens sapiens_ subspecies is ridiculous and unsubstantiated BS. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with science.

----------


## Superhuman

> That is the exact problem! A person of West African descent might have more in common genetically with an Eskimo than with another person of West African descent. There is no way to determine characteristics that will be specific to a person based solely on appearance. My sister has eyes like an asian yet we come from the exact same genetic stock. My aunt and uncle have red hair and freckles, my mother has mocha skin and dark hair yet they have the same father and mother... Humans cannot be viewed in the same way as wolves. It's impossible.
> 
> Edit: Some smart guy once said, "Never assume the obvious is true."


That's bullshit, dogs can have a variety of eye colors just as humans. MOST huskies have blue eyes, just like most asians have brown eyes - whooptiefukkindo that doesn't falsify the whole theory. 

You find me a geographic Asian with an Asian bloodline who doesn't have thin and/or slanted eyes - and if you find one that's .00001% of the population there and it's an anomoly.

You find me an African (not a South African European transplant) who doesn't have curly (nappy) hair and dark complexion. 

You find me a Briton without fukked-up teeth! j/k 



So a scientist says that blacks aren't as intelligent as whites. How can you disprove that? 

If someone says black people can dance is that disputed? NO

If someone says black people excel at sports is that condemned? NO

If someone says white people have no rythm do people get upset? NO

If you say black people have nappy hair do you attacked? YES 

WHAT THE ****??? I'M SO SICK OF THIS PC CRAP. I can say that on average, Asian people are smarter than Caucasians. I'm Caucasian... does that offend me? NO

TO ALL THE UPSET BLACK PEOPLE: I'm so sick of you whining about this shit. Cry me a river, Boohoo God didn't make you as smart as us ON AVERAGE.... But guess what, you can do a sub-4 minute mile and I can't so it all evens out. If I wear clothes that are 4 times to big on me, sag my pants past my ass, drive a POS chevy on 24's, and wear polka dots people laugh at me, but you can sport that shit all you want and get props. You may not be as intelligent, but your genetic potential to jump higher is probably much greater than mine.

----------


## Superhuman

Border Collie - Compare to ASIAN - Smartest, but not as Large or as Strong as Whites and Blacks



German Shepherd - Compare to WHITE PEOPLE - Not as Smart as Asians, but Smarter than Blacks. Larger and Faster than Asians, but Not as Strong as Blacks

----------


## Act of God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

This is a decent read on the subject. Clearly science is divided on the issue, but it does seem that most lab types (biologists) believe that there are differences.

----------


## Superhuman

English Mastiff - Compare to BLACK PEOPLE - Not as Smart as Asians or Caucasians, but MUCH MUCH Stronger

----------


## Superhuman

DOES ANYBODY UNDERSTAND ME??????? I think it's painfully obvious

----------

