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

Exactly! Gene variants and mutations in cells due to genetic drift do not directly explain the differences in race. In other words, genetically all races are exactly the same and minor variations in genetics structures are due to millions of years of changing climates, food abundance, natural defense from infections and diseases, etc. Physical characteristics of the races we see today are merely the byproduct of millions of years of polymorphism where two or more different phenotypes exist within the same species. In fact, I suppose we could even go so far as to say that major and minor genetic polymorphisms exist to ensure that biodiversity amongst a species is always maintained (preservation of the species if you will). We can easily see that these small variants in the races, which are more visible than genetic, were simply ways for the human population to adapt to differing environments, situations, and conditions. Thus, one could almost compare this as akin to Cystic Fibrosis, which first appeared as genetic mutations brought on by changing conditions in the supply of nourishment and food abundance.

We don't call people with Cystic Fibrosis anything less than equal humans even though some of their genetic material is different than others. Therefore, anyone calling for the denigration of someone based upon their race (which has less genetic variation) is simply basing their stance upon tired stereotypes and prejudices that have no scientific basis.

 

Modern man has not existed for millions of years so there can't be genetic differences based upon long periods of evolution related to modern man. Modern man has only existed for perhaps 100,000 to 150,000 years and has been fully developed genetically during that entire time period. The oldest known fossil of modern man only dates back to about 34-36,000 years ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/scitech/SciTechRepublish_951449.htm

Only very minor changes exist in the genetic code of man and they account for less than 1% of our genetic code. For example as noted in the above article the jaw bone reflects larger teeth than we have today and that has changed but this is a very minor genetic change.

 

Only one of those links addresses what you believe to be "races".

It attempts to differentiate between African and Asian so- called races.

Taking this as an example, what race do you consider modern egyptians or modern somalians or modern Maori's or modern Fijians or modern Fillipinos etc etc. ?

The source you provided doesn't even use your own definitions of race so why are you even using contradictory links? Do you have any idea what you are on about?

 

Shiva, my bad. I should have mentioned I was referring to genetic factors attributed to all hominids in the Homo genus. Usually when talking about evolutionary genetics I think it's more important to show how biological factors over millions of years influence traits that we see in both ourselves and our ancestors. That's not to say that variations cannot occur in smaller timeframes (such as 150,000 to 200,000 years), but there are more distinct genetic changes that have occured if we look at a longer timescale.

Yes, I agree that genetic changes only account for a small percentage of our comprised genetic code today, but larger variations have occured through evolutionary processes that generally take longer than the mere 200,000 years that "modern" man has existed. It's important to take into account the entire history of the genus, and to show these minor changes really are as you say..."minor". This shows that skin pigmentation and other factors in race distribution are due to very minor changes, rather than the large scale changes we see in the Homo genus over millions of years.

 

Are people from India who you think of when someone refers to "Asians"?

 

Shiva said that IQ tests are biased towards people of Western culture. I was asking to explain why Asians typically do better than whites on IQ tests, if it is so biased towards Western culture.

And how does the "Western culture" excuse work for blacks, anyway? Are they not part of Western culture?

 

Of course you don't put great store in IQ tests. The results they generate do not conform to your preconceived notions about how the world works, so therefore, they must be deeply flawed and irrelevant.

 

Debatable assumption removed.​

 

It bwas the end of yoru argument, you just dont know it yet.

 

Really? I think the poster was just repeating something he read somewhere.

 

Its an example of one Asian country, and in this context a very good example in fact as there are a number of diverse cultures and racial types on the Indian subcontinent. But we will go with whatever Asian country or countries you want to name, Ive been to most of them.

 

Dont be ridiculous. I work in the real world, not your fantasy world. I have had to employ or refuse employment to people based on these type of tests, I have more experience of how "the world works" in my little finger than you would ever hope to have.

 

Your answer here is emphasis on education, this is not intelligence but is often confused so by those with little knowledge on the subject. Its why Chinese and Japanese score so high on these tests.

 

This is a misrepresentation of what I stated. Standardized IQ tests are focused on intelligence related education and enterprise and those are very limited criteria when the issue of "intelligence" are addressed. They are certainly important related to both Western and Eastern cultures because we don't typically need other forms of intelligence such as the intelligence to live in hostile environments or to live off of the land but there are certainly "intelligence" measurements that would be applicable to those forms of intelligence as well.

Standardized IQ tests have limited measuring capabilities related to intellegence because they only measure specific forms of intelligence but they do not measure overall human intelligence. They were never intended for that purpose.

We could, by analogy, compare them to a driving test for a drivers license which only measures certian knowledge and skills.

Standardized IQ tests provide a limited measure of that which we think are important in today's society and that overwhelmingly relates to education and enterprise. The don't measure anything else and are not a good gauge for measuring overall human intelligence which isn't even definable under any criteria known to science. There isn't a consensus on what "intelligence" is in the scientific community and never has been.

 

Well actually it would be Pakistani's and second maybe Indians, after that maybe Chinese but in general I don't regard Chinese as Asians although they are. They are almost their own definition. I don't see many similarities between Chinese and Indian other than Tibet.

 

I think what they mean when they say this is that, in aggregate, races differ only in their physical attributes. Nobody is saying that Asians' eyes look just like Caucasians' do.

I believe the point they're trying to make is that behavioral norms, societal attitudes, political views, etc., are cultural. And intelligence follows the same bell curve regardless of who you're sampling.

 

Stop spreading Lewontin's fallacy, as it's already been debunked. The amount of in-group variation relative to between-group variation is irrelevant, because as Richard Dawkins pointed out, the between-group differences correlate with each other. The division of humans into sub-specific groups is as valid as the division of other species into sub-specifc groups. If you maintain that humans are an exception just because you said so, then you're as bad as creationists.

 

Explain why.

I have refuted Lewontin's fallacy by linking to an article that explains why it is a fallacy to begin with.

 

The OP does not contain a strawman. This mantra is heard everywhere, and if you haven't heard it, then you're living under a rock. Refuting the opposition's actual point != strawman argument

Have you never heard this mantra?

 

Which is why Shiva_TD has not addressed my detailed, point-by-point refutation, from several days ago, of of his lengthy post.

 

You appear to not be from the U.S. In this country, "Asian" has a colloquial meaning that relates to only a portion of the Asian continent.

 

FINALLY, this thread is getting somewhere. Yes, when confronted, many who repeat this mantra will say "It's only an expression. I meant physical differences when I said skin color." Others vehemently insist on the validity of the statement.

So what's so hard about using a few extra syllables and claiming [incorrectly, but that is a subject for another thread] "Races differ only in physical traits."?

 

It must suck to live such a hate-filled pointless existence.

 

For some, their hatred is the point of their existence and, you're right, that would suck but it's all they've got. Think of Howard Dean and his, "I hate all Republicans." I guess that sustains him.

 

Funny how I don't see much if any hate on this race forum. Constructive criticism is not hate. Hate of itself is very destructive to the individual doing the hating. As much as I hate the ideology or philosophoies of femanazis, socialists, marxists, liberals, commies, progressives, centrists, totalitarians, statists, pacifists, doves, OWSers, do-gooders, mamma
's boys, democraps etc, I do not hate the individual, for GOD himself will cater to these people in his own way. I do however like the bumper sticker...."shoot em all, let GOD sort em out."