Re: So, are there races of men?

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:10:36 +0000 (UTC), "Alexander"
<alexanderhudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Jeff" <guitar0633@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:rissl1hhb8r8pv2c79kqpasl06tjofa7ha@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:46:40 +0000 (UTC), "Alexander"
>> <alexanderhudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jeff" <guitar0633@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:sqosl1l5rvj305lem12rou1fc530rkrrnt@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On 25 Oct 2005 16:38:36 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff <guitar0633@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Seems to me that there are some serious hypocrites in the scientific
>>>>>> world. While they rightfully take apart believers (I am an atheist)
>>>>>> for refusing to go where truth leads them where gods are concerned,
>>>>>> they themselves allow egalitarians to claim that there are no races of
>>>>>> men, with silly statements about race being a socially constructed
>>>>>> idea. A scientist follows the truth WHEREVER IT MAY LEAD.
>>>>>
>>>>>And the truth is: the common, social idea of races is completely
>>>>>unscientific.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are clearly white men and black men.
>>>>>
>>>>>And there are men with blue eyes and men with brown eyes. It's a
>>>>>superficial feature, and no basis for some fundamental scientific
>>>>>classification.
>>>>>
>>>>>Point is, if you take two random black men, chances are they're more
>>>>>genetically different than a random caucasian and a random asian.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This argument has been defeated long ago. There is no predictive
>>>> value in your dividing lined inside a certain population. Let's mak4e
>>>> this simple. If I have ten men who have kinky hair, thick lips[and
>>>> wide nostrils, I can predict to a high degree that these men would be
>>>> black Africans. When you have Ten men and half have blue eyes and
>>>> half have brown eyes, yet there are no differences in any other ways,
>>>> then there is no predictive value. It is you who must show NO
>>>> DIFFERENCES in predictive value. You are saying that differences
>>>> between populations and within populations are EXACTLY the same, and
>>>> that neither can predict anything more than the other, and this is
>>>> simply not the case. We cannot find a correlation between crime and
>>>> eye color in the same population, but we can between those with black
>>>> skin and white skin. Same for many other aspects of human
>>>> populations. Differences within populations ARE NOT EQUAL to
>>>> differences in Populations. For example People of west African
>>>> descent hold *494* of the top 500 100-meter times in the world. They
>>>> make up 8% of the world's population.
>>>>
>>>> 8% of the population holds 98.8% of the fastest 100-meter
>>>> times...that's staggering and it has nothing to do with training or
>>>> culture. The best ever time by a white person at the 100 meter isn't
>>>> even in the top 200 times. West Africans have broken the 10 second
>>>> barrier well over 100 times. No one from any other race has ever
>>>> broken it. On the other hand how many west Africans do you see winning
>>>> at distance running? None. They're not built for it. Distance running
>>>> is dominated by Kenyans who have totally different, basically opposite
>>>> genetics. How many west Africans do you see in strong man
>>>> competitions? Basically none. It's dominated by white people of
>>>> northern European descent.
>>>>
>>>> West Africans have skinnier calfs with higher insertion points,
>>>> narrower hips, longer legs, less body fat, higher ratios of fast
>>>> twitch muscles to slow twitch muscles, smaller more efficient lungs,
>>>> and differences in mitochondrial DNA that gear their energy systems
>>>> more towards short bursts of explosiveness.
>>>>
>>>> And as far as basketball goes...they have longer wingspans.
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't even begin to touch the differences in IQ testing that we
>>>> have seen ever since we have been testing it. Again, no predictive
>>>> value trying to test between people in a certain population who have
>>>> different color eyes, or hair, or taller vs shorter, but plenty of
>>>> predictive value between whites and blacks. Really, your argument is
>>>> old and has been trounced long ago. In fact, I would say shame on you
>>>> for trying to equate differences within populations to differences in
>>>> differing populations. The problems with that are very clear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>
>>>I call troll - a really vicious maladjusted troll - but troll nonetheless
>>
>> Translation: I have no argument for his statement.
>
>I have a vast amount of information relating to this exact argument. I
>notice you've ignored all the salient posts raised by myself and others with
>no evidence, no citations, no basis for your assertions. So I see no
>rational argument for wasting time with a vicious racist troll.
>
>Thanks for playing - come back when you have anything of substance to
>discuss.
>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>


"with a vicious racist troll" hahaha, you are too funny. This
statement alone shows your politics and how you attempt to warp your
science to fit it. Clearly there is some emotion in this statement,
yet you expect me to believe that it won't effect your science, right?

Laughable. How about you start off by telling me if there are
differences in bone structure, muscles and such, or if it is skin
color, hair texture ONLY. Half you egalitarians can't even get on the
same page. Some say there is no differences other than skin color
alone, others say there are differences in skeletal comparisons which
would effect running speed, jumping and other factors. Let's get it
straight, where do you stand, eh?

Jeff
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So, are there races of men?
    ... >>> Jeff ... > statement alone shows your politics and how you attempt to warp your ... > yet you expect me to believe that it won't effect your science, ... Some say there is no differences other than skin color ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: So, are there races of men?
    ... >>> unhesitatingly groups Powel with Rice, ... >>purely European descent, mainly from early English settlers in the ... > religion and politics overruled real science. ... Jeff: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... >> What does this have to do with science, medicine or cardiology? ... > Jesus Christ is the greatest physician the world has ever known: ... This is religion, not science. ... Jeff ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... >> What does this have to do with science, medicine or cardiology? ... > Jesus Christ is the greatest physician the world has ever known: ... This is religion, not science. ... Jeff ...
    (sci.med)