The blatantly false liberal mantra "Races differ ONLY in skin color"

This thread is on a distinct topic.

 

Specifically regarding race---what type of interpetation does a specific race dictate according to their genes.

 

Genetic scientists do not break down genetic differences based upon race but instead find the differences based upon three major old world populations groups established by the geographic locations of Africa, Asia and Europe. Skeletal remains cannot determine skin color as there are "whites" from Africa just as there are "blacks" from Asia but the skeletal remains genetic testing can determine where the continental origin of the person came from but it cannot determine "race" per se.

What is important to note is that genetically there is very little difference between all human beings. The genetic code indicates that there is only a 0.1% difference across the entire human genome. There is are as many differences within the shared geographical groups as there are between when comparing them. The actual genetic differences between an Asian and an African are so insignificant from a biological perspective that they aren't even worthy of note. Yes, the differences can be identified just like we can tell the source of 24 ct gold based upon it's molecular impurities but gold is still gold regardless of where it comes from and the differences are insignificant.

The real problem is that the forensic databases in the US are typically organized according to traditional racial and ethnic categories as opposed to genetic differences. A so-called "black" person's skeletal remains based upon forensic evidence might really relate to a "white" person that has an African genetic code. In fact we find the African genetic code in virtually all humans as human evolution originated in Africa. We're basically all African in origin based upon genetic mapping regardless of skin color.

This is why racists are fundamentally idiots. They ignore the genetic evidence which indicates there are fundamentally no differences between the so-called races. The differences between a Northern European and a Southern European are greater than than the differences between an African and a European and the Europeans share well over 99% of the identical genetic traits as an African.

The misrepresentation of the facts by racists, whether intentional or based upon pure ignorance, is solely intended to influence "white" individuals with low IQ. They prey on stupid people typically because the racist is either a stupid or manipulative individual. Science has established that there are no fundamental differences between the so-called "races" and, in fact, science has stopped using racial terms except to dispute the foundation for racism as they aren't applicable from a scientific standpoint. There are no significant genetic differences based upon "racial" criteria.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Let me repeat that one more time, "Of special importance to discussions of race, our species has a recent, common origin."

The racists can lie about this all they want but all "modern humans" are the same with a recent common origin which is from Africa.

 

And that is the end of the thread.

 

Yes it does. It's is specifically about promoting invidious racism based upon the scientific ignorance of racists. That was not hard to figure out.

Perhaps I missed it but it wouldn't be unlikely for a racist to address disparities in IQ test results between the races because the racist doesn't know that IQ tests are very limited to identifying the intelligent quotient solely related to Western education and enterprise and that they don't measure most of the traits of human intelligence. Racist arguments are always based upon ignorance which is why they are so easy to address by informed and intelligent individuals.

 

Wait, are you saying that the I.Q. testing is rigged and that we should be giving preference to those people who only know how to speak in Ebonics and were perhaps unduly subjected to living life in a ghetto?

 

Yeah humans have differences, but not enough to classify it as different races. Point. Like women and men have differences.

 

Then explain why, on average, Asians have a higher IQ than whites.

 

Interpretation of what?

Are you seriously disputing that culture is shaped in part by the personalities of its original creators as well as though who modify it?

 

Yeah? Go to India then tell me how smart they are.

 

As is well known, IQ is a cultural test: those with inadequate intelligence believe in it.

 

I was there last Summer for work ... I'll have to be paid triple to ever go back

 

I dont put great store in IQ tests actually being a true indicator of anyones intelligence, after all they were only developed by the military as aptitude tests intially in order to classify recruits for employment.

 

Then you know what Im saying. I think everyone should visit the place once in their life.

 

Because I wanted to discuss this with you, nitwit. So, you have no citation of someone saying the only differnce is skin color and you readily admit it is a strawman. You take lessons from your hero of the strawman, Barack Obama?

Oh, and the only people who are "experienced" at racial debates would be black and white racists?

 

This is completely untrue. There are genetic scientists who break genetic differences based on race:

" The geneticist, Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University, says that genetic differences have arisen among people living on different continents and that race, referring to geographically based ancestry, is a valid way of categorizing these differences.

Dr. Risch's position was prompted by an editorial last year in The New England Journal of Medicine asserting that '' 'race' is biologically meaningless,'' and one in Nature Genetics warning of the ''confusion and potential harmful effects of using 'race' as a variable in medical research.''

Dr. Risch's assertion, in a paper in the online journal Genome Biology, comes as researchers and physicians are trying to interpret the DNA data streaming from the Human Genome Project and to make sense of the fact that the pattern of data differs among ethnic groups."

[emphasis mine]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/s...k-roots-of-disease.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

I can provide plenty of other examples. Face it, your assertion is incorrect.

First, I never said that skeletal remains can be used to determine "skin color". I said that skeletal remains can be used to determine race. That's the whole point of this thread: that races differ physically in ways other than skin color.

Second, the rest of this looks awfully like doublespeak: scientists cannot determine race from genes, but scientists can determine continent of origin from genes.

Third, why are you bringing genotype into a discussion (not that I'm not happy to discuss it, and not that it helps your argument at all, but this thread is clearly about phenotype and not genotype) that is clearly about phenotype (reread the OP)?

Just as there is very little genetic difference between us and chimps, dogs, and geckos.

Since a single gene can make the difference between you looking normal and you being an extreme circus freak, I fail to see how thus old, tired, stake, oft repeated red herring is germane.

The fact that there are strong correlations in the differences is what makes race a valid concept, as Richard Dawkins extensively explained in his book The Ancestor's Tale.

Once again, race does not equal skin color. How can you continue to make this connection when the content of the OP clearly demonstrates that this is not the case?

As for example, that can be explained by racial mixing. Of course you can cherry pick a person from northern Africa who is morphologically essentially Caucasoid, but who has genetic markers from sub-Saharan Africa due to miscegenation.

And yes, we all have a genetic link to sub-Saharan Africans because we are all from there. So? That has precisely zero relevance to the fact that various out-of-Africa lineages accumulated mutations after leaving.

The irony here is so thick that there is a danger of choking. Racial egalitarians are some of the most conformist, intellectually lazy, group think dolts whom you'll ever enconter.

No, it is racial egalitarians who throw temper tantrums when facts are presented, ignore evidence, use a plethora of logical fallacies, etc. Just look at the shameful reactions to James Watson's statements of October 2007 (quoted in my signature): essentially no one refuted the facts that he referenced, but instead, they merely resorted to moral indignation and name calling. Saying that an idea is not true because it is offensive is an utterly retarded way to behave, and the scientists who treated Watson this way should have known better.

Source, please. In any case, "southern European" is rather broad.

Just as all hominids share ~ 98% of their genomes with chimps.

Racial egalitarians misrepresent facts all the time. Lewontin and Gould were notorious for this. Many of them are the ones with low IQs. Saying that race doesn't exist, and then engaging in endless race baiting (such as lying and saying that the mestizo Zimmerman is white, moaning that the innocent black "keed" Martin was murdered, etc.), calls for more race-based discrimination and racial reparations, IS NOT indicative of a low IQ?!?!?! Please.....

Racial egalitarians prey on gullible, trendy young people who are desperate to be cool and who love to follow the herd and, like, take another hit from that totally awesome joint, man.

Because ~ 100,000 years isn't enough time for significant differences in intelligence and behavior (not to mention behavior) to accumulate between various continental populations. No, uh uh.

 

I think not, LOL.

 

In my post before last, I outline why your camp is the one ignorant of science (and also guilty of faith-based quasi-religious dogma).

I address the issue of intelligence differences in another thread.

 

He was referring to northeastern Asians.

 

Those with inadequate intelligence make this argument, in light of the FACT that those whom IQ tests are allegedly biased in favor of have a slightly lower average score than northeastern Asians.

 

Actually...I'm disputing that culture is created and shaped through genetic differences between the races.

All races have many different types of personalities.

I'm just looking for some sort of specific example from you---that makes your point.

 

As noted [emphasis mine in bold] there is no such thing as race but there are very minor genetic differences related to geographically based ancestry. As I've noted there is no "black" or "white" race. They simply don't exist from a genetic standpoint. It is also true that even the geographical differences are fundamentally insignificant accounting for only a small percentage of 1% of genetic difference.

As I correctly noted there are more genetic variations between individuals within the "Asian" geographical group than there far are differences between the general categories of the "African" and "Asian" geographical groups and in both cases there is funadamentally no significance difference. Overwhelmingly most of the genetic differences originated in modern man well before there was any migration out of Africa to the other continents.

Ultimately all modern humans are of African descent and fundamentally the differences are as meaningless as the color of our eyes, hair or skin.

 

Cultural differences have absolutely nothing to do with the genetic differences between individuals.

 

No it wasn't. It's basically the same thing.

And you still didn't reply back to my comments on that thread that refuted this statement.

Like this andthis.

 

It would appear that your argument hinges on several things.

The first is inventing a position.

the second is assigning the position you invented to another group.

The third is arguing against the position that you invented and assigned to another group.

I have never heard anyone state that the only difference between blacks and white is the skin tone in a manner that would lead me to believe they do not think there are other physical differences. Have you a citation of some leading "retarded person" that would indicate this is a widespread belief?