Racial superiority

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2003-01-11 07:45pm

Right now it is generally accpeted fact that no one race is superior to another, and that race does not have any determening factor when it comes to ability.

But has there been any objective scientific study proving this fact? Note, I am NOT saying that one race is superior, just asking a question.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-11 07:47pm

Yogi wrote:But has there been any objective scientific study proving this fact?

Yes, there have been. It has been shown that one's race has no impact on intelligence, and there are greater genetic differences within the races than between them.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2003-01-11 07:55pm

Then why are the starting blocks of the Olympics 100m sprint finals composed entirely of blacks? If there are more variation within races than between races, then we should at least see more variety on the starting blocks...not that I'm KKK or anything, just curious.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-11 07:56pm

Once level of education is accounted for, all races are equal for intelligence. The seeming incongruity comes from the focus some ethinicities tend to have, and also from income. Most Asian parents I've met have been determined that their son/daughter will be a doctor or scientist, so they pressure their children in math. The poorer a family is, particularly if both parents HAVE to work, the more likely the children will do poorly in school. It all comes down to family life.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-11 08:08pm

kheegan wrote:Then why are the starting blocks of the Olympics 100m sprint finals composed entirely of blacks? If there are more variation within races than between races, then we should at least see more variety on the starting blocks...

There are obvious physical differenced between the races. Peoples from sub-Sahara Africa tend to run better than peoples from Europe for example. They are on average slimmer, and taller, giving them an advantage. These physical differences are trivial for most people, but in the Olympics, trivial can mean a split second, which can mean winning or defeat. When it comes down to important traits like intelligence, there is no difference.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-11 08:11pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
kheegan wrote:Then why are the starting blocks of the Olympics 100m sprint finals composed entirely of blacks? If there are more variation within races than between races, then we should at least see more variety on the starting blocks...
There are obvious physical differenced between the races. Peoples from sub-Sahara Africa tend to run better than peoples from Europe for example. They are on average slimmer, and taller, giving them an advantage. These physical differences are trivial for most people, but in the Olympics, trivial can mean a split second, which can mean winning or defeat. When it comes down to important traits like intelligence, there is no difference.

I believe there's also a difference in leg muscle density, which is also why most sub-Saharan Africans can run longer faster, and why most Americans of African descent in basketball jump better. I forget all the physiological differences, but there are a decent number, which overall are fairly insignificant in normal life.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-01-11 08:38pm

The Dark wrote:I believe there's also a difference in leg muscle density, which is also why most sub-Saharan Africans can run longer faster, and why most Americans of African descent in basketball jump better. I forget all the physiological differences, but there are a decent number, which overall are fairly insignificant in normal life.

This comes from evolution itself, they are have traits like better legs and stronger muscles because their region means that if you can't learn to walk 30-40 miles a day to get water then you probably won't have the social ability to father children, unless you know when the men will be 30-40 miles away that is. The fact is if you gave extensive sewer and well systems to the african nations that have olympic runners, then there would be a lot fewer, because they would not have to gain these abilities through daily life.
I'm not saying that the strength of the parents is hereditary, it isn't, but the potential for that muscle mass is hereditary. And after several thousand years as farmers or herders people with the better likely-hood to survive will have more kids.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-01-11 09:54pm

There is an objective study that shows there is NO different races of Human, no race at all actually. Pigmentation difference is irrelevant and not enough to biology claims a different specie.
Why many black dudes in the 100 m ? Social-Cultural selection. Nothing else.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-01-12 12:50am

lgot wrote:There is an objective study that shows there is NO different races of Human, no race at all actually. Pigmentation difference is irrelevant and not enough to biology claims a different specie.
Why many black dudes in the 100 m ? Social-Cultural selection. Nothing else.

Balderdash. Show me the study. There are different races, and they display distictly different physical characteristics, which are the result of thousands of years of adapting to different climates. Sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines, for example, evolved darkly pigmented skin because it resists the harsh sun of their homelands better. Africans generally have broad, flat noses with wide nostrils to deal with breathing hot air better. Europeans have narrower noses to deal better with colder air, and light skin so their bodies can process enough vitamin D under pale sunlight and cloudy skies. Mongolians generally have short, stocky bodies so their proportion of volume to surface area is higher, and they deal with extreme cold better. For the same reason, they have an epicanthic eye fold and flatter noses and cheekbones - protruding facial features get frostbitten faster.

There are differences in bone structure among the races. A good biologist can look at a skeleton and tell you what race the person was. These differences make some people better adapted physically to certain tasks. Most of the best sprinters these days are of west African ancestry, while most of the best distance runners are of east African ancestry. This is largely because of subtle differences in things like leg structure, muscle density, lung capacity, etc. The differences are subtle, so subtle that they only tell at the Olympic level, where fractions of a second count, but they are no less real. They are also the reason that you will likely never see a Mongolian Olympic sprinter - with short, stocky limbs, the average Mongolian will never be able to sprint with the average Nigerian. That's just the way it is. Only an idiot would try to contend that there is no difference between the races.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-01-12 10:03am

Not, it is not.
Race is something for horse and dogs creators.
Just go and get a good book that a biologist use to study and shows all the philos, orders, etc. You will not find race there because Biology does not work with race, stop in species.
Vertebrate Biology by Michael Benton, 2000, Blackwell Science.
Go in the humanide section.
If Biology does not list those differents or the concept of race to their study, is because they do not worry with this and do not reckon that.

Second: The difference you say are geographic differences, not enough to change the species. This pigmentation difference is found among a lot of other animals and that is not enough to make them different species. (Enough prove, Lucy Liu can have a child with Michael Jordan and their child can have a child with the child of Beckham and his spice girl).
There is bone differences ? Yes, but not enough. (After it is needed variety to survive and preserve one specie)

Also DNA studies of Cann, Zischler, Vigilant showed the low variation of mtDNA of only 0.3-0.4% among all humans groups and variety. They all belong to the same specie with that, no need and use of futher diviisions.

The concept of race is cultural and social. Have you ever noticed the Jewish race ? They can go from almost germanic looking to almost arabic looking.

This is more than enough, To Biology the concept of race is not relevant and developed.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-01-12 01:09pm

Okay, go take remedial biology. You are obviously not able to tell the difference between race and species.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-01-12 02:31pm

Personally i dis-agree with the whole concept with race. My belief is that there is only one race among us the HUMAN race. White, black or yellow we are all the same.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-01-12 03:23pm

Darth Pounder wrote:Personally i dis-agree with the whole concept with race. My belief is that there is only one race among us the HUMAN race. White, black or yellow we are all the same.

In terms of ethics, morality, equality before the law, etc. I'm inclined to agree with you. Likewise, in the area of intelligence, no one has found convincing evidence of differences among the races. But I am talking about strictly physiological differences here. They exist, and it's foolish to deny them.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2003-01-13 12:29am

Okay, go take remedial biology. You are obviously not able to tell the difference between race and species.

What is your problem ? Biology does not matter with race. they use not. I showed you evidence of it. Why should I show you the difference between something that does not exist and one that exist ?
Race and Species are not the same thing.
What you call of different Human race is a social-cultural concept or just a show of geographic differences. To biology that means a little, They reproduce between themselves, they are extremelly similar, therefore they are the same specie.
But we may claim the latin-race, which is just a geographic group, the jewish, the black people.
If you do not know in the comum sense the difference between specie and race you should not even bother to ask.
Specie: Homo Sapiens. Race: Something some claim to justify isolation of particular group of Homo Sapiens. To that people the difference between black and white people is so big the justify a new group called race. And this is bellow specie.
To Biology that knew that different is too little, that pigmentation does not represent that they can reproduce, it stop in Specie. Biology just know that we are about the same as specie, that the differences people see as race is not enough to make the mutation and is under control in the specie group...They just matter enough to say how follish race is.

Remedial biology you need. I posted for you a research that shows the difference between us is too small to matter. And I showed you a book that teaches the classificaiton of living beings and there they do not classify anything with race!
But you think they do, No idea how, since you say say say...

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-01-13 04:22am

Jeez... I am so disenchanted I cannot say.

First off, there is no scientific dispute among established, peer-reviewed studies: Race does not exist as a genetic issue. While people who live in different parts of the world may look different, their physical differences are far more indicative of the second and third rules of evolution than of the first.

Before I continue, for those who are unfamiliar, let me give you the condensed version -- Evolution is governed by 3 rules:
1) Natural Selection -- (s)he who survives longer has (barring illness or injury) more opportunity to procreate and pass on their genes to the next generation

2) Sexual Selection -- s(he) who is most attractive to the opposite gender procreates more often with more mating partners... maximizing the spread of their genes while minimizing the impact of other contributions from others of the same gender. is of particular importance to humans, with their varying cultural definitions of attractiveness.

3) Artificial Selection -- the deliberate breeding of individuals by outside influences for the express purpose of enhancing traits found desirable by said outside influences... examples cats, dogs, cattle, horses etc. historically practiced by humans on other animals, recently has become viable for extensive use on ourselves as well.

Natural selection has for the most part ceased to be a significant factor in human evolution, and has been on the decline since the end of the last ice age -- ever since we started to become 'civilized'. At the same time, we began to experience an increase in the influence of Sexual selection on our evolutionary processes. Now we have also begun to see a rise in Artificial selection as well.

I have a few posts to cover here, so I ask for patience.

Kheegan:

Then why are the starting blocks of the Olympics 100m sprint finals composed entirely of blacks? If there are more variation within races than between races, then we should at least see more variety on the starting blocks...not that I'm KKK or anything, just curious.

easy... the phenomenon are known as diet, training, technique & comittment.

Diet has an enormous impact on physical development and in particular it is the determining factor in how much energy one can utilize in any given athletic endeavour, but it pales in comparison to the following.

Technique is also an area of major concern -- if you ever watch those same sprinters in the run (in slo-mo), you will notice that those who are fastest run in a very particular way... they never allow their heels to hit the ground, thereby minimizing impact stresses on the knees, hips and spine while maximizing energy return into the stride pattern. This technique is by no means limited to 'blacks', but it is something that is widely ignored even by most runners... joggers & other distance runners in particular. Note that gymnasts do the exact same thing when on floor & vault excercises, although they should probably do it as well when on beam. The importance of this technique cannot be understated!!!
As an example of the importance of proper technique let me cite personal experience: even though I am of 'mixed' lineage, I was never even close to being fast enough to run sprints (fastest time of 11.7sec in the 100yd dash - this was before the switch to meters at the HS level - when everybody else was low 11's to high 10's), or had enough endurance for intermediate/long distances, and thus was relegated to jumping events -- particularly long jump -- where I was still only marginally competitive (a 17' average jump when everybody else in the district was typically in the 18-20' range - was still the best on my team at the time). During the last practice before the District meet, I injured my lead (right) foot by hitting the board wrong on a run-up -- heel hit ground well before the rest of my foot, actually crushing some of the tissue there. needless to say I couldnt even walk without intense pain whenever my heel hit, and it affected my running even more. I went to districts anyway, as I was the best chance for our school to get a spot in states in the LJ even with my injury. My first 2 jumps were really crappy, not even being able to clear 17' even with the heel taped like crazy, and the cut-off for finals was at 18'6". With my feet to the fire, I decided to try something different on my last attampt, and consciously changed my stride and launch from the board so that my heels didnt touch ground -- the only way to avoid the pain -- and subsequently set a personal best of 18'4"!!! I was still below the cut, but that little change caused me to break 18' for only the 2nd time in my high-school career! After that I took a closer look at biomechanics, and finally figured it all out over a year later. If I had trained myself that way from the start, 20' in the LJ wouldnt have been a problem, and I would have easily been in the 10's in the 100, which brings me to the last and most important factor in athletic perormance:

Comittment... this is self explanatory: Train, Train & then Train some more!!! who cares if you have a life or not... you wanna be the best? TRAIN!!! who cares if you can use words with more than 3 syllables??? TRAIN!!! hell, who cares if you even know what 'syllable' means???

Wicked Pilot:

There are obvious physical differenced between the races. Peoples from sub-Sahara Africa tend to run better than peoples from Europe for example. They are on average slimmer, and taller, giving them an advantage. These physical differences are trivial for most people, but in the Olympics, trivial can mean a split second, which can mean winning or defeat. When it comes down to important traits like intelligence, there is no difference.

Actually, I should just refer you to the above, but I need to ask what physical differences you are talking about? Being slimmer doesnt translate into better running -- it is a by-product of the running itself (and this applies almost exclusively to distance runners) combined with diet... it is by no means an issue of genetics. Height is also a non-issue with regards to running -- at best, and in fact is more likely detrimental, due to increased body mass and considerably longer blood transport distances. Likewise being too short is also a bad thing for running, as a more rapid stride pattern is needed to maintain a given speed. Either way, you cant get the O2 to your muscles or brain fast enough
I wholeheartedly agree on the intelligence part though.

The Dark:

I believe there's also a difference in leg muscle density, which is also why most sub-Saharan Africans can run longer faster, and why most Americans of African descent in basketball jump better. I forget all the physiological differences, but there are a decent number, which overall are fairly insignificant in normal life.

sorry... hate to bust your bubble. muscle density doesnt vary that way. It all comes down to my response to Kheegan above. Also, while physiological differences (predominantly in the skull) can give clues as to the environment in which a person lived, and even of the cultural standards of 'attractiveness' it is a poor indicator of 'race'. next thing I know somebody will be saying that they can tell the racial differnce between 2 otherwise identical skulls just by the fact that 1 is on a pedestal while the other is not (without drawing attention to the pedestal of course... it was a common bit of trickery used in the 1800's & 1900's to illustrate 'inferiority' of african stock).

SyntaxVorlon:

This comes from evolution itself, they are have traits like better legs and stronger muscles because their region means that if you can't learn to walk 30-40 miles a day to get water then you probably won't have the social ability to father children, unless you know when the men will be 30-40 miles away that is. The fact is if you gave extensive sewer and well systems to the african nations that have olympic runners, then there would be a lot fewer, because they would not have to gain these abilities through daily life.
I'm not saying that the strength of the parents is hereditary, it isn't, but the potential for that muscle mass is hereditary. And after several thousand years as farmers or herders people with the better likely-hood to survive will have more kids.

everyone has that potential for muscle mass. if you cant walk that far to get water... hell... if you have to walk that far to get water... live somewhere closer to water!!! I dont think you quite appreciate that distance, and challenge you to either walk or run it while carrying a couple gallons (see if you can make such a round trip inside of one 12 hour period). Really... some of the nonsensical things I read on the boards amaze me.

I will address Peringus in another post.

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-01-13 05:28am

Perinquus wrote:
lgot wrote:There is an objective study that shows there is NO different races of Human, no race at all actually. Pigmentation difference is irrelevant and not enough to biology claims a different specie.
Why many black dudes in the 100 m ? Social-Cultural selection. Nothing else.
Balderdash. Show me the study.

well, here is a news story on one such:
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/848323.asp

There are different races, and they display distictly different physical characteristics, which are the result of thousands of years of adapting to different climates. Sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines, for example, evolved darkly pigmented skin because it resists the harsh sun of their homelands better.

I see you seem to have read that recent article in SciAm... too bad you didnt finish it. As humans spread out from Africa to other parts of the world, our skin color changed to better allow for the production of vitamin D while still preventing serious skin damage and more importantly safeguarding our folate stores... this is of monumental import to women's health but affects men as well. Even within Africa, UV levels vary so much by latitude that skin color varies significantly, and is most obvious when comparing long-term natives to recent migrants. In those populations that would come to inhabit the northern climes where UV is scarce and vitamin D not easily acquired through diet, skin color became lighter to make the most use of what UV there was. In populations able to get a ready supply of vitamin D, such as the inuit, skin color has remained relatively unchanged (ie DARK).

Africans generally have broad, flat noses with wide nostrils to deal with breathing hot air better. Europeans have narrower noses to deal better with colder air, and light skin so their bodies can process enough vitamin D under pale sunlight and cloudy skies. Mongolians generally have short, stocky bodies so their proportion of volume to surface area is higher, and they deal with extreme cold better. For the same reason, they have an epicanthic eye fold and flatter noses and cheekbones - protruding facial features get frostbitten faster.

Skin is dealt with above. Nasal style doesnt have any real effect on ability to breathe air in a particular temperature range, and along with other facial features and body structure is likely due far more to diet and lifestyle than environment. The rest can be easily explained by Sexual selection and genetic drift while in comparative isolation from other groups -- and the mongols certainly were isolated.

There are differences in bone structure among the races. A good biologist can look at a skeleton and tell you what race the person was.

no they cant... they can determine the environment/lifestyle/diet and from there infer what the individual looked like. it is not as precise a thing as most people (even forensic anthropologists) would like to think, and is often marred by politics and wishful thinking.

These differences make some people better adapted physically to certain tasks. Most of the best sprinters these days are of west African ancestry, while most of the best distance runners are of east African ancestry. This is largely because of subtle differences in things like leg structure, muscle density, lung capacity, etc. The differences are subtle, so subtle that they only tell at the Olympic level, where fractions of a second count, but they are no less real. They are also the reason that you will likely never see a Mongolian Olympic sprinter - with short, stocky limbs, the average Mongolian will never be able to sprint with the average Nigerian. That's just the way it is. Only an idiot would try to contend that there is no difference between the races.

take a mongolian baby. raise and train him under the same conditions and diet as the nigerians, and he will be able to keep up with them -- simply because he will develop in a manner much more similar to them (his kids will do even better)... the same holds true in reverse. You are woefully underestimating the import of diet and lifestyle on physical development. Genetics is only a third of the equation here, and you are conveniently ignoring the other 2 thirds. Humans have not existed in genetically isolated social groups long enough for evolution to significantly impact our physicality, and if it had, we would no longer be able to properly interbreed... we arent even as differentiated as domesticated dogs, yet they can still fully interbreed.

Finally, there is not only no difference between the races, but there is in fact no classification called 'race'. It is strictly a social construct for the purpose of engendering enmity between people. Forgive me for any brainfarts in this post... it's 5:30am here...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-13 05:49am

There are no races, there is THE human race. No others, racialists or donkey-fucking racist scum bags are uneducated in the fact that the human species is polumorphic, not polytypic.

I take great pride in knowing that their arguments are total horseshit.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-01-13 06:50am

Igot, you are still confusing the terms "race" and "species". You assert that there are no races, and it is a meaningless term. I respond that race is a term used to distinguish among certain physical types, you reply to this that there are no separate races because all people are genetically compatible and can produce offspring. The ability to produce fertile offspring is not a characterisic of race, it is a characteristic of species. How do scientists answer the question of whether ot not two organisms belong to the same species? Easy, if they can produce fertile offspring, they are the same species. That's pretty much the litmus test.

So, people of all races can produce offspring with one another. Of course they can, we are all members of the same species - homo sapiens.

Race is not the same thing. The word race has two general meanings. One meaning is linguistic/social/cultural. The other meaning is used to classify members of certain groups which share broadly similar, easily identifiable physical characteristics. In that sense, race is a meaningful term. Even if it is still true that a greater genetic diversity exists within racial classifications than between them, it still does not change the fact that these classifications exist, and are based on real, identifiable differences. Racial definitions are scientifically indefinite, owing to the large amount of intermingling that has been going on among human populations for thousands of years, but they are still based on real, identifiable differences. There are no pure races in any meaningful sense, but there are still broad general groupings, which exhibit a certain commonality of some salient genetic characteristics.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-01-13 08:11am

It should be noted here that two different, biologically distinct species can in some cases produce fertile offspring if they are closely enough related. Don't know how many such pairs there are, but one at least. Namely the Bengal cats are a cross between common house cats and Asian leopard cats. It just so happens that ALCs have one vertebrae more than common house cats, and as a consequence, so do Bengal cats, which are can and do produce fertile offspring. A piece of trivia about animal breeding worth noting is that Bengal cats are the only breed of any animal I know of that can be totally screwed up by selective breeding and then restored, because you can always take a common housecat and an ALC, cross them, and voila, you have a 1st gen Bengal.

And now back to our regular flaming, carry on!

Edi

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-13 08:18am

The Dark wrote:I believe there's also a difference in leg muscle density, which is also why most sub-Saharan Africans can run longer faster, and why most Americans of African descent in basketball jump better. I forget all the physiological differences, but there are a decent number, which overall are fairly insignificant in normal life.

Also torso/legs size proportions, this is one of the most important factors IIRC, I believe europeans simply have too long legs.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-13 08:23am

Also, yes it is biological reasons why blacks are better runners, their bodies are geared for it, suck it up or ignore it, it's science fact, there are differences, but who gives shit?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-13 08:43am

His Divine Shadow wrote:Also, yes it is biological reasons why blacks are better runners, their bodies are geared for it, suck it up or ignore it, it's science fact, there are differences, but who gives shit?

The WCotC movement and associated idiots in ignorance.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-13 08:45am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The WCotC movement and associated idiots in ignorance.

Yeah but their arguments are the equivalent of DarkStar's 35mm lens debacle.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-13 08:48am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:The WCotC movement and associated idiots in ignorance.
Yeah but their arguments are the equivalent of DarkStar's 35mm lens debacle.

Yeah, well I was pointing out they actually gave a shit, the only awards they will be winning involve certification of insanity and total loss of common sense and cognitive abilities from the health service.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-13 10:35am

Basically, just because WCotC idiots are fucktards, doesn't mean there aren't variations between human populations. Think of the range of environments we live in, for crying out loud!

But no, there isn't very much genetic variation at all within H. sap, especially outside of Africa, and the races have so much in common with each other that they don't even warrent the classification subspecies, IMO.
Of course, this depends on whether you believe in multiregional evolution or the African Exodus, but let's not confuse anthropology with racism, please.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Racial superiority

Racial superiority

Re: Racial superiority