Its like saying a German Shepard and a Golden Retriever don't think alike lol same species different breeds
They both want bacon...
And now I want bacon...
19th century pseudo-science.
Opinion
20Opinion
Well you make a great effort to sound intelligent here... and try to sound scientific. But your augment is actually not very science based in the least.
Phenotype - the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
So obliviously people of dark skin, is due to the "fact" that their skin holds higher level of eumelanin as result of their ethnic and racial backgrounds direct interaction with its environment over time. So even though all humans are part of the same genome there are different genotypes within the the same genome... i. e. races of people.
The scientific observation would take ones skin color into consideration and measure of how one is perceived, interacts and associates with its genotype within a given environment or society. So if one group is discriminated against due to skin color, they will response to their social environment different and therefore yield a different result.
Race - is defined as “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.” The term ethnicities is more broadly defined as “large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background.”
So in the United States we have a common ethnic background as American, made of different races, all apart of the same genome, but of different genotypes. Because we a hail from or have different physical (Race) traits.
So your post is highly none science base, and flatly irrational and non-logical and sensical.
Given your presumed scientific approach to your post... it obvious there is different race of people so I will assume you have concede that point.
No race does not dictate or effect intelligence.
Given your Phenotype how you interacted with your environment will effect or influence your abilities to learn... so since race is a constant that can not be changed, then you need to consider what factors with the social environment can be affect to produce a more effective learning environment.
So don't try to back door me into a losing argument I have already picked your post apart so incase you have not figure it out yet... I am a little smarter than you. And I do not buy into your racial stereotypes, or red heron (false) of a an argument of attempt to side step real discussion about race in America.
Guess what moron? Besides some semantics we largely agree. Yes, there are differences but how the public imagines race is nothing like what actual science portrays. Ding ding! Fuck, the way you approached this was so autistic.
I don't like your attitude either, you're one of those smug know-it-alls who try to outdo people who have never once insulted you just because you're insecure. You misinterpreted what I said in such a stupid way.
Yeah, maybe but your post was totally in accurate and overtly gave the impression of a racist tone... so sorry if you got your feelings hurt... but I still think you used words that you did not understand and frankly was misuse or intentionally misleading. Even to imply race does not exist and that science laughs the concept of race out the door... come on maybe some cronies like you will get on board with it... but the only laughable thing about it is how sad it is. The education system has failed you. Maybe there is something to do with your Phenotype about that... think about that last statement... something Phenotype about have you interact with your genotype.
Lastly, pretending to be color blind, is overtly racist... it just a way to deny facts and side step the real conversation about race in America. So once again your resorting to insults because you are either incapable of true intellectual conversation, or because you have tired to match wits and failed.
But I have done my duty as a GAG member and call out racism where I see it... even if it unintentionally implied and bluntly said. No matter how you intended this post to read... you totally missed the mark.
Wait what? But the races are different, even scientifically. The reason that the races exist is because of cross breeding between human millions of years ago. Caucasoids are a mix of Sapiens and Neanderthal. Mongloids are a mix of Sapiens and Erectus. Africoids are I think the closest to a pure Sapien. In short, the three have unique genes that make them look they way they are. There is a difference.
However, that difference is not one that we should suppress. It should be one that we celebrate. Celebrate our differences, but as equals, not saying that one race is better than any of the others.
Yes, correct, race doesn't effect intelligence, but how does that make it so that race isn't real? Your countering yourself here.
Let's just say what you think is right, that race doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, what drove you to say that race doesn't effect intelligence? if there is no race then it cannot effect, so you saying that race doesn't effect intelligence suggests that you think race does exist, but it only effects out physical appearance, nothing else. Or do you think race doesn't exist? Which one?
Because the horrible things done in the name of those arbitrary delineations (phenotypes are, by definition, not arbitrary, but the way the lines are drawn is) create a social atmosphere where people can be manipulated into or out of specific courses of action by playing on the sympathies they generate. It's political manipulation, pure and simple.
And given what the "scientific community" has said- unanimously, sometimes- about such matters as geocentrism, internal combustion engines, spaceflight, and Covid, they're hardly in a position to consider their ideas unquestionable these days.
Really it's a serious of physical adaptations that early humans made in order to adapt to a given climate as we spread out from what would become Africa. Many other animal species adapted as well and that is very true of other mammals. Comparing a Sun Bear to a Polar Bear is a good example of this.
I think race is just a term to identify our lineage. It is just a word to describe someone or somebody.
Nothing serious. If nobody invent or added the word race to the dictionary then it will not exist. It is just their so we can identify or tell something apart.
Scientifically it is the term to different species of humans.
@Juxtapose Maybe she just didn't know the correct term. But it IS a pretty serious difference (with quite serious implications.). So I'm glad you corrected her.
I think race is nothing more than categorisation
As humans, we tend to find like minded individuals. People who are similar to us yet a little different. When enough of those people combine (like having common skin color, common language, common culture etc) they give themselves a category
All humans are not equal so therefore, there will be a categorisation. Now the question is: why does one category (race) thinks that it is better than other category (race)
I think race is more like homo sapien/neanderthal other hominids rather so than black/white/Asian there's minor differences between say an African and an Asian but nothing massive to cause anyone treat differently
Firstly, they're biological and expressed genetically. Obviously they're scientific, so let's drop that right off the bat.
Second, being scientific has nothing to do with it anyway. Most decisions people make are personal, not science based. Really the only place people look at this stuff anymore is when it comes to dating preferences, which is subjective and not the result of scientific deductive reasoning.
I understand it very well, but thank you for your concern.
@Guffrus I do have an education, and in the sciences no less.
You being more aggressive doesn't equate to you being any more correct.
@Guffrus I was tempted to go into an explanation about melanin, but with that response of yours I have a strong feeling that you're just trolling. So well played, you had me going for a bit there.
I am demonstrating that you dont know what you are talking about.
Red, Blue, Green, these are just catagorisations, none of it is real, it is a human construct.
Black, white, Asian, same thing.
But at least with the colours we are at least referencing parts of a scale, but race? That is based on nothing but external appearances, which is what pheneotype means.
Which is why people say that genetically speaking there are no races.
As you just heard about all this for the first time in your life from me I will return you to the original comment; dont answer questions which you do not understand.
@Guffrus Your desired for neatly defined categories innate to the world is the problem. Even though there is no "true" red, blue, green, how do you manage to recognize them? You wouldn't even be able to make the argument if you couldn't see it. You're looking for some Boolean description for the world which is not quite how the world works. Elliptical galaxies are on a continuous scale with spiral galaxies, there is no discrete defined difference yet you can tell the difference. This happens for lots of things, and many people have tried using this same "there is no colour" argument for sex, gender, sexuality, lots of things. It's just a semantic game used to try buttressing a particular political perspective.
"Phenotype" isn't "just" external appearance, and it's informed by genotype, among other things. Just because you'd prefer reality to be neater doesn't mean these categories aren't tools for objective discourse.
Wow, you really are dumb.
They aren't my fucking catagories you stupid cunt.
I dont have any more desire for catagorisation than the next man.
People have also tried to explain catagorisation to you previously without success because you are too fucking dumb to understand what is being said to you?
That doesn't surprise me.
Listen to me very carefully.
You are completely failing to grasp the core concept.
If you look at human beings from a genetic point of view and you start grouping them into catagories based on shared genes there is no relationship what so ever with the pheontype.
Now please, shut your ignorant cunt mouth and fuck off out of my face.
@Guffrus @Guffrus "They aren't my fucking catagories"
I don’t give a shit about whatever you think “your” categories are. We’re talking about what has been observed in nature. I can look at Melanesian people, who look Melanesian and who will have genes consistent with Melanesian people. Weird how that works. I can look at Germanic people, who look Germanic and weirdly enough have genes consistent with Germanic people. These are the kinds of fucking categories humans are in. I would love to hear the argument as to why these people’s don’t exist.
"If you look at human beings from a genetic point of view and you start grouping them into catagories based on shared genes there is no relationship what so ever with the pheontype."
They will have *some* correlation as I've already explained because phenotypes are definitionally influenced by genotypes. To say otherwise is to objectively lose the argument right there.
Do you have any science education?
There's obviously a distinction between male and female. You acting like there’s not is not a credit to your position. Don’t try to use things like that to talk smack when they don’t agree with you at all. When you talk so much smack and still completely flop on your face you look 100x more impotent.
I am raging at you because you are either too stupid to understand or you are deliberately refusing to understand.
You are taking preexisting catagorisations and then saying there are genetic markers which link to those catagories.
But the point is that sharing a phenotype or nationality with someone else does not mean that you share more genes which are the same than you would with someone from a different phenotype or nationality.
You may or may not share a little or a lot of genes.
If you look at it from genetic perspective, meaning without any preexisting catagories and only look at how many genes are shared, what groups or catagories can you put people into you will find that you just can't really do that, its all just soup or if you say well all of these people have x, y, z whatever genes they dont fit into of these other catagories like phenotype or nationality etc.
Which is why you are being told that race is meaningless, its a tiny part of a much better whole and it is given significance only because of the preexisting catagories.
Now please, take the fucking point already and shut the fuck up.
“You are taking preexisting catagorisations and then saying there are genetic markers which link to those catagories.”
You mean like “Germanic people”, yes they existed already and yes they have genetic markers. Children and parents looking alike gives away the existence of the genetic connection.
“sharing a phenotype or nationality with someone else does not mean that you share more genes which are the same than you would with someone from a different phenotype or nationality.”
I’m not going to touch nationality because that’s a different thing and it’s conflating the terms. But otherwise, the having similar physical features of your phenotype are to another person, is to be more likely to share in the genes that express themselves in that way.
“You may or may not share a little or a lot of genes.”
It varies but an absence of correlation is ridiculous.
“what groups or catagories can you put people into you will find that you just can't really do that”
Sure we can, people can share some genes, but every region’s completed “soup” is different. We can identify groupings of genes in Europe, Africa, the Americas, South East Asia, etc. You’d be hard-pressed to find two genetic soups which match but don’t share in the physical traits of their phenotype. The soups correlate with the “pre-existing categories” for this reason. That’s what makes these categories recognizable and not dismissible as “non-scientific”.
@Guffrus I mean... seems like I'm the person with the science and biology training in the room. So objectively my opinion is the one we're going to be trusting. Come back when you have an education or any shred of something to support your drivel.
I don't give a rats ass what you think your educational background is or how you think it stacks up against mine because it isn't relevant but considering that your education evidently did not include logical fallacies I personally am not impressed.
However as an argument from authority is good enough for you here is a short video featuring Dr Daniel Fairbanks, he is a professor of biology at the Utah Valley University.
I didn't do any searching around or cherry picking, this is literally the first video i came across on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNP2eAxLraA
I never asked you to take my word for anything by the way, what I told you is that you didn't understand the conversation and that you should educate yourself because it was obvious to me that you weren't playing with a full deck of cards from the beginning.
You decided instead to be an ungrateful arrogant prick about it but hopefully this is the last chapter in your latest humiliation.
“However as an argument from authority is good enough for you”
It’s not, you spoke about education *first* and then ended up having less in the subject. That’s you talking shit only to choke on it.
Okay, let me show your goofy ass how to do this.
First problem is, notice how he never stipulated to his use of the word “race”? That alone would defeat the source under strict adherence to argumentative principles. But I’m going to keep going because it’s going to end up supporting me.
And without defining it anywhere it’s simply assumed as being in adequate, effectively a strawman.
Yet, he conceded that you can tell where a person’s ancestry is from based on their phenotype, that the characteristics of the phenotype are “inherited” (genetically). Which is what I have been saying the whole time. And therein lies a definition of race I would stipulate to: A people who share in phenotype and ancestry.
He proceeded to acknowledge genetic groups which necessarily share both phenotype and genotype within each group, and even have names otherwise recognizable as “pre-existing categories”.
He superficially sounds like he supports you, but all of the substance supports what I’ve been saying. Practice those listening comprehension and critical thinking skills.
Now, I’m going to go ahead and not engage with your prickly self anymore lest you make a fool of yourself again.
Sorry, my brother, but that's simply not true. It's solidly biological. But as you know, I'm a heavy procrastinator. So here's a video and and the transcript on the next link from American Renaissance instead:https://www. bitchute. com/video/eEHfbWjmMFc5/https://www. amren. com/videos/2021/08/the-evil-that-men-do/
I already explained, you're not going to get that in Leftist dominated Academia. Have you watched the video?
That is where peer review comes in. Scientists all over the globe, conservative or otherwise can review the results. If the results cannot be replicated, then they are thrown out.
The scientific method usually works wonders.. it is a shame organizations like the CDC are making people less trusting in science because of how they lie.
The reason the mainstream scientific community rejects the Biological concept of race is because it prevents the history that Blacks in America and Jews in Europe experienced from ever happening again. If there is no race, then there's no justification in treating them differently. It's done, essentially, because it's moral and ethical to do so.
Those who often say that race is a social construct constantly repeat "Lewontin's Fallacy", that "There's more genetic variation within the races than between them", so race isn't real. But how does this prove that race is mythical? The genetic variation in humans is 85% identical, by the way; so it's 15% different. The genetic variation among dog breeds is 73% identical, and 27% different. So it's also correct to say that there's more genetic variation within the dog breeds than there is between them, yet I never hear anybody calling dog breeds a "social construct."
Another argument comes in the form of DNA. Those in mainstream Anthropology say that the races are 99.5% similar. So there can't be significant differences between the "races" at such a high identical degree, and certainly not enough to identify the existence of races. However, this 0.5% difference, even though it's infinitesimal, can still translate to huge differences. The genetic similarity between humans and gorillas/chimpanzees is in the order of 99%. Look at the enormous differences that 1% makes! We also share 90% of our DNA with mice, 70% with slugs, and 50% with bananas, by the way.
Your phenotype argument can also be made regarding the different subspecies of tigers as well. In that they also exhibit phenotypes by way of their coat colors and patterns, which can be comparable to skin color in humans.
I'm going to dig up some more stuff, procrastination hasn't hit me hard enough yet, stand by...
If race isn't biological then how can you tell race simply from DNA? A classic 2005 study lead by Dr Neil Risch of UC San Francisco took the DNA of 3,636 people from black, Asian, white, and Hispanic backgrounds. His team was able to distinguish their race using only a tiny percent of the genome with startling 100 percent accuracy.
Ousley, Stephen D. "Understanding Race and Human Variation: Why Forensic Anthropologists Are Good at Identifying Race." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139 (2009): 68-76
Consider the differences between the sexes: there are 46 chromosomes that make up the human genome. Men have a Y-Chromosome but women don't. Aside from this, they're genetically identical. That's an infinitesimal genetic difference. However, look at the physical differences between men and women. Women have organs that men don't have and vice versa. Other difference are like the differences between the human races. Height for example is controlled entirely by genes, and we know men are on average taller than women. However, the range of heights among men from the shortest man to the tallest man is much greater than the differences in height between the average man and the average woman. So there's greater variation within the sexes than between them. But that doesn't make the sex differences in average height go away now does it?
Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, highly renowned Anthropologists who pioneered the "Out of Africa" Theory, made this point all the more clear in their book 'The 10,000 year explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution' in which they point out that:
"The chances of every population group having evolved into a state of equality is as likely as tossing a handful of silver dollars on the floor and having everyone of them land on its edge".
In other words, it's nearly impossible. The human races are NOT equal, so it's only natural that they would've evolved to have "superior" inherited traits such as intelligence or athletic ability.
According to Harvard's Ernst Mayr, one of the 20th Century's leading Biologists and a Titan of Science:
"There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races". Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 'subspecies' and 'geographic race' are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature."
Geneticist Bruce T. Lahn and Economist Lanny Ebenstein published this piece in a 2009 issue of Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/461726a
They begin by pointing out the problem and then they state their position.
"The current moral position is a sort of 'biological egalitarianism'. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless."
"We believe that this position, although well-intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind's common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data."
Lahn, B. T. and Ebenstein, L. (2009) Let's celebrate human genetic diversity. Nature 461:726-728
Let me introduce you to Jerry Coyne. Jerry Coyne is one of the world's foremost experts on Genetics, Species, and Evolution, and author of the standard text 'Speciation,' and the bestselling science popularization titled "Why Evolution Is True," in which he also maintains a website by the same name.
He is an American Professor of Biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. A prolific scientist, he has published dozens of papers, elucidating on the theory of evolution. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly as they involve the fruit fly, Drosophila.
Coyne graduated with a B. S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications forced a hiatus.
He then earned a Ph. D. in biology at Harvard University, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout.
He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.
Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985–1988; 1994–2000) and The American Naturalist (1990–1993). He currently teaches Evolutionary biology, Speciation, Genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing.
His work is Widely published in scientific journals as well as in such mainstream venues as The New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement, and The New Republic. His research interests include population and Evolutionary Genetics, Speciation, Ecological and Quantitative Genetics, Chromosome evolution, and sperm competition.
Coyne is a critic of creationism including theistic evolution and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."
This is from his said website:
whyevolutionistrue.com/.../
Are there human Races?
"One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology — or human biology in general — is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only “yes,” but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know it’s flawed).
But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo.
*And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies* (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology).
Racial delimitation could, critics say, lead to a resurgence of racism, racial profiling, or even eugenics.
Well, if that’s the consensus, I am an outlier. I do think that human races exist in the sense that biologists apply the term to animals, though I don’t think the genetic differences between those races are profound, nor do I think there is a finite and easily delimitable number of human races. Let me give my view as responses to a series of questions. I discuss much of this in chapter 8 of WEIT."
What are Races?
"In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i. e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.
Under that criterion, are there human Races?
"Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups."
How many human Races are there?
"That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, Southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30."
How different are the Races genetically?
"Not very different... But since the delimitation of Races has historically depended Not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but Only on the existence of Some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of Races Does Not mean that they Don’t exist..."
I recommend reading the book "Making Sense of Race" by Dr. Edward Dutton. It can be purchased on Amazon.
www.amazon.com/.../ref=mp_s_a_1_1
I also recommend
"Race Differences in Intelligence" by Richard Lynn
"Why Race Matters" by Michael Levin
"Race: The Reality of Human Differences" by Vincent Sarich
"The 10,000 year explosion: How civilization accelerated human evolution by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending
"In the know" by Russell T Warner
"A Troublesome Inheritance" by Nicholas Wade
"Human Diversity" by Charles Murray
"Intelligence, Race, And Genetics: Conversations With Arthur R. Jensen" by Frank Miele
"The nature of intelligence" by Robert Sternberg
To finish for now, remember to also watch the video!
Nope, race is a very real phenomena, just not in today's humans.
Probably will be again with space travel unless we discover some form of FTL.
Probably even then, given the scales.
Nope, a few clades bellow. Between identical twins and different species, there's a few clades between those and more than just clades. And it's not like much of the terminology is standardized.
Race is like bellow subspecies, but depending to who's talking, they might use interchangeably.
Ecotypes/haplogroups are like sub clades, not enough to even be a clade.
Race isn't real, but racism is.
You might like to chat with @TheSpartan (who likes @Physics-Man)
I already destroyed you countless times in that thread. Do you really want to come back for more?
Lefties always project. Or, this could just be sadomasochism for you.
@TheSpartan So, to ask once more: How should "biological differences between groups" affect, say, someone's hiring practices?
Should an employer looking for short people only consider women, because they're usually shorter than men? If not, why not?
I've explicitly answered that question several times over, and you know that.
@TheSpartan Not once. (This is the sort of thing he means by "I already destroyed you countless times".) Anyway, I just thought you'd enjoy this question.
Yes, I have several times. This isn't debatable.
@TheSpartan OK, so what was that answer?
This was my answer, which I repeated several times:
1) The question is loaded and comes from a misunderstanding of my central, something you can't seem to understand.
2) When judging a group of people on their individual merits, you're inevitably going to find that your judgments will align roughly with the bell curve of that population.
3) Therefore, when placing bets, you could be 95% certain that the candidate being picked for the role would be a woman.
@TheSpartan You do realise that that doesn't answer the question at all?
I think you're trying to make the point that it's possible to end up with a workforce that's all of one group on the basis of qualification. And that's true, look at the Lakers' current line-up.
However, it matters if the pool of qualified candidates includes a large proportion of people outside that group. Because that's an indication of bigotry (conscious or not).
Your arguments always seem to me, at least, to be to provide cover for bigotry. For someone to say "Hey, it's not *my* fault all the guys on my building site are black/white" (if the site down the road is mixed or the opposite, it probably is).
My point has always been that there's so much overlap between groups of people, there's no practical point in choosing to distinguishing between them. You seem determined to disagree.
I think there are 3 races:Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. People have different levels of the traits of each race. Race is more about actual differences in bone structure than skin colour.
Lol ok
That means I can easily get overrated by Caucasoid males especially American ones 😈
Wait, no, if you're from India, then you'd be Caucasoid... Unless I'm missing something, like you're ethnically from a different area and your family moved to India or something. But if you're ethnically Indian, then you're a Caucasoid, just not a white Caucasoid.
Just trying to clarify something, to be clear. I'f anything I said is offensive, I wasn't intending for it to be.
your totally incorrect. if "series of arbitrary phenotypes" how do explain how some race are different color, shape, etc? It's GENETIC
Brain size is not linked to intelligence like you think. Why are elephants and whales stupider than us?
neuroscience.stanford.edu/.../ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter
Lol no this internet we used today was created by people of color but it could have been created by any human but a person of color did it first & genetics don't make you stupid. BAD Life choices do. Intelligence has nothing to do with skin color & everything to do with yourself as a person. If you don't know something learn it. Every human can be on the same level of intelligence but people choose not to be, which genetics only come into play if the person is born with special needs or a disability or sickness. But not a normal function human who can accumulate knowledge with no issue hence why i can reproduce with any race of people i want too
Their parents told them this but it's lies are we ALL not seeing immigrants coming from 3rd countries over stepping Americans getting full on benefits to live here undocumented & them and their children are taking over things in the US, yet your saying these people can't be smart cause of genetics but... they're taking over. Remember they're from a third world country.
@Fuentes Asians have the highest IQ's actually and I'm not Asian. Fact" They are over represented in STEM fields even though the scores for them to get into universities are weighted against them while large companies and all kinds of school programs are actively expending resources to force others into STEM fields. Conversely: Ever seen an Asian NFL linbacker?
So you don't think it has anything to do with their culture & how they're raised cause i grew up in Cali as a kid with ghetto azns and they were not as smart as everyone else? a lot of azn cultures teach their kids very very early about things and set their household up to be academically smarter, not letting them go outside and play, no having friends over or playing with friends and more like w very strict household. Which in the US could or would be called abuse if anyone caught that. Every azn kid i grew up with family was not like that only some. So explain why are their ghetto azn hood gang members in Cali if they were all born smarter?
Except that race is the basis for a lot of discrimination and bigotry.
I do agree, but aren’t some traits genetic?
The Duke
Can we stop stirring the racial pot, please?
Are you asking or making a statement?
Funny that Marion (John) Wayne was a racist.
ok, so stop talking about it.
huh? what you talkin bout' Willis?
It does exist. Different skin colors exist.
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions