Human races are real according to evolution

[Aqueous Id]

Ernst Mayr wrote:



Ernst Mayr has been described as "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", and was one of the key figures in the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis.

So denying that human races exist is ignorant of biology and anti-evolution, yet it appears users on this forum deny human races. Interesting.

You are a nut.

I mean to say that the global spread of Caucasian peoples could possibly be contributed to evolutionary advantages - and because of the increased spread of people and technology in the modern era, they might be more adaptable than others who may have not had said evolutionary traits. Human history, particularly human evolution, is something that everyone is able to speculate about. Negroid and mongoloid peoples had the same sorts of traits, but with differences that might not be as suitable.


* These posts are written with the expressed point of explaining subspecies diversity - I don't want to deviate from that.

A good example of the isolation, and evolution of subspecies in humans is the ability for middle eastern/African peoples to adapt sickle trait (which is an advantage for them to have). This means that some individuals will have an immunity to malaria, which can be ravaging to these areas. Now this is an important trait for them to have, but not so much for Europeans who have a much lower risk of contraction. I believe that it is entirely likely that similar advantages exist in Caucasians that might make them more suitable for the technological era. I could be wrong, and am willing to be proven wrong, but I've yet to hear different.

White people are not biologically superior to any other people for any reason whatsoever. The fact that Europeans spread globally after 1492 is irrelevant to adaptation. The conquistadores carried the blood of Moors farther and deeper than their fair complected northern competitors ever did. Furthermore, the innocent Africans who were brutally kidnapped into slavery also ended up having "superior adaptations" - especially after being subject to artificial selection, whether through murder or another horror equivalent to breeding livestock.

The notion that Caucasians are technically superior to other populations is BS. Tell me one technology that originated in the Caucusus Mountains. QED

 

[Enoc]

Actually DNA evidence shows that there are different human races but there is no evidence that one race is superior to another.

Saying that human races exist is an entirely different thing than saying that one human race is superior to another.

What I mean by this is that there are different human races in some sense but that there is no scientific evidence that shows that one race is in some way superior to another.

See this scientific American article for example:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1023558/posts

 

[Jake Arave]

Thanks for the information, as previously stated - I was more phishing for info and playing with a statement than actually making a coherent argument. I appreciate all those who politely refuted my statements. As soon as you take a side on an argument you have to stick with it to be proven wrong/right - by taking an alternative stance I think that I've received adequate feedback, and furthered my knowledge on the subject.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Advantages aside and stripping down to the biology, which, need I remind, is the topic of conversation - You can't really go so far as to say that in a modern era (I'll call this 1900-present) that Caucasians haven't done the best job of dominating every other race regardless of their obvious geographic (And evolutionary) advantages. I would implore you to believe that this isn't something based solely on Guns, Germs and Steel - though, their uses have made the largest impact. I think that the geographic needs of Caucasians have prepared them more for what the "Modern Era" has become, coincidentally. I do understand your meaning, though, but you must understand mine - there is little evidence to support these claims except recent history, which, as you pointed out, can also be attributed to Guns, Germs, and Steel.

It's also worth mentioning - that any subspecies could be just as dominant based on their particular advantages. It was more playing with an idea that could be perceived as quantifiable - rather than a blatant support of social Darwinism. I would also like to say that Environmental Determinism is arguably a less proven science than evolution. So, in all "technicality" neither of us are "fucking wrong"

This really doesn't have much to do with anything pertaining to races. Moreover, it appears that your premise is wrong. China has done a 'great job' of dominating the peoples of that region, and they are for the most part not 'caucasoid'. Likewise, India has dominated many peoples, though it might be argued they are 'caucasoid'. Indeed, the areas of domination are due to historical events/natural resources, not race.

That having been said, it is likely that the Neanderthals were not a 'sub-species' but rather a race of humans, that freely interbred with homo sapiens sapiens (the modern race), and in particular the caucsaoid sub-race, in that their DNA is widely prevalent in caucasoids, but not in other sub-races.

As noted elsewhere, the human species was dominated about 50,000 years ago by two groups of San who left Africa, interbreeding-with/dominating other races, and colonizing most of the world outside of Africa, as they separated into various sub-races.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I appreciate all those who politely refuted my statements.

Maybe if all the white boys got together on the veranda for mint juleps and Cuban cigars, Al Jolson could come out for a few refrains of "Mammy" and we'd have a fine time exchanging pleasantries while the pickers tend to their raw knuckles and the boss man cracks that whip.

Seriously dude, are you for real?

As soon as you take a side on an argument you have to stick with it to be proven wrong/right - by taking an alternative stance I think that I've received adequate feedback, and furthered my knowledge on the subject.

This was only a test. If this were an actual emergency, all hell would be breaking loose.

 

[sculptor]

Objectivity seems to replicate neutrality .....but, only for the moment.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Actually DNA evidence shows that there are different human races but there is no evidence that one race is superior to another.

Most scientists are reluctant to use the word "race" when studying humans. "Race" is just another word for "subspecies," and the alleged "races" of humans simply do not satisfy the definition. The "white," "black" and "yellow" populations may each dominate their own region, but there are plenty of migrants and visitors from the other regions who, especially since the invention of fast, fast, sophisticated transportation technology with large carrying capacity in the Bronze Age, have turned every gene pool into a melange.

Sure, if you look hard enough you can probably find a Norwegian and an inhabitant of New Guinea who have starkly distinguishing DNA. But if you go to the house next door, or the village over the hill, you'll find dozens of their neighbors who are not so clearly distinguished.

We're more like dog breeds, all of which taken together only comprise a fairly small fraction of the world's dog population. Most dogs are mongrels, and it's fair to say that most humans are too.

In other animals, subspecies are separated by geography. They don't have ships, trains and airlines.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

That having been said, it is likely that the Neanderthals were not a 'sub-species' but rather a race of humans, that freely interbred with homo sapiens sapiens (the modern race), and in particular the caucsaoid sub-race, in that their DNA is widely prevalent in caucasoids, but not in other sub-races.

Today it's almost universally agreed that the Neanderthals were not merely a subspecies but a distinct species: Homo neanderthalensis. Their DNA was compatible with ours (which, actually, used to be the definition of a genus) so in Europe, where the two species encountered each other, there was considerable hybridization. Today it's said that the average European (of Indo-European ancestry, excluding the Basques, Finns, Saami, Magyars, Jews, Moors, Turks, etc.) has five percent Neanderthal DNA.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Today it's almost universally agreed that the Neanderthals were not merely a subspecies but a distinct species: Homo neanderthalensis. Their DNA was compatible with ours (which, actually, used to be the definition of a genus) so in Europe, where the two species encountered each other, there was considerable hybridization. Today it's said that the average European (of Indo-European ancestry, excluding the Basques, Finns, Saami, Magyars, Jews, Moors, Turks, etc.) has five percent Neanderthal DNA.

Yes, but the definition of two separate species would require that they seldom, if ever, routinely breed; and most breeding would end up as sterile off-spring, if any. It appears that H sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens were two races (sub-species can interbreed, but usually don't) that interbred extensively when the Hs.s. migrated to regions where H.s.s. had already colonized. But this is more a question of semantic scientific distinction. The fact of the matter is that H.s.n. contributed about 3-5% of the genes for almost all indo-Europeans before they (H.s.n.) vanished as a separate race; lesser percentages to other Asian races; and virtually none to the original San race who migrated to S. Africa, and none to the other African races.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/10/dna-pinpoints-homo-sapiens-neanderthal-interbreeding/

 

[iceaura]

"The only one anybody has noticed is that Caucasians carry a lot of diseases that kill other people but not them"

It's certainly one way to interpret it.

One way to interpret what?

Is that your notion of "superiority" - that white people can reproduce more successfully while living with their own feces and domestic animal waste, getting sick all the time from colds, flus, poxes, cholera, hookworm, and the other diseases of filth and hovel dwelling survival - ?

Notice that where that advantage has not held ( India, China, central Africa) white people have not been doing so well - not even after diluting their purity by incorporating the southern Europeans, Irish, and Swedes into the "white race".

 

[PhysBang]

Objectivity seems to replicate neutrality .....but, only for the moment.

Of course another resident racist chimes in.

 

[Jake Arave]

Of course another resident racist chimes in.

Creating a defense for social Darwinism ain't easy pal, I'd like to see you try it. I did it for the sake of argument - and I got what I wanted. If you have a problem with that, or me, this ain't your place.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Yes, but the definition of two separate species would require that they seldom, if ever, routinely breed . . . .

Separate populations of related species usually exist because of topographical phenomena. It's not at all unusual for members of closely related species to have similar courtship rituals and compatible DNA, which results in live, healthy offspring on occasions when they meet.

As an amateur ornithologist, I find the most amazing example of this to be the Black-Headed Grosbeak and the Rose-Breasted Grosbeak. In the past, the territory of the black was North America west of the Mississippi River, and the rose lived on the other side of the river. There was a huge forest on both sides which served as a buffer to keep them apart.

Then the White Man came, cutting down the trees and planting crops yielding fruit that both species of birds love. They descended on the farms and orchards, co-flocking with virtually no animosity. Grosbeaks are precocious birds (we had one as a pet for several years, a foundling who had fallen out of her nest) and quickly learned to enjoy the charms of inter-species dating. By the middle of the 20th century, ornithologists and amateur bird-watchers began seeing hybrids of the two species near the river.

Fifty years later we found a hybrid grosbeak at our feeder... in Humboldt County, California, a few miles from the Pacific shore. It took us a while to realize what it was, because it had perfect rose-breasted color patterns on one side, and perfect black-headed patterns on the other. Only when we were lucky enough to see it head on did we understand what we were seeing: a population of hybrid birds that had flown over the Rocky Mountains and found satisfactory food on the other side... in a mere 50 generations of cross-breeding.

. . . . and most breeding would end up as sterile off-spring, if any.

Of course many mixed-species matings do not result in viable offspring, or in sterile offspring--often called "mules" because the horse x donkey pairing almost always results in sterile offspring, much to the disappointment of farmers who would love to be able to establish bloodlines for breeding "better" mules, who have many of the most desirable traits of both species (from the standpoint of using them for work).

However, many mixed-species matings do indeed produce offspring who can breed with each other, or back to the original species. The mixed-species offspring of wolves and coyotes have no trouble breeding a second generation. Being considerably larger than coyotes, they are slowly pushing the non-hybrid coyote population out of the northeastern USA.

This may be a godsend for those of us who live in that region. Coyotes tend to drive the fox population out of their habitat, resulting in an explosion of the population of small rodents--who are the primary vector for the deer ticks that have caused the epidemic of Lyme disease. Coy-wolves are too large to be a threat to the foxes, whose population is rebounding... and whose favorite food is small rodents.

It appears that H sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens were two races (sub-species can interbreed, but usually don't . . . .

This is absolutely wrong. Since the separation of subspecies is often the result of climate changes which can create new rivers and new barren spots, (and in the modern era is simply the work of man, clearing the native fauna out of our farmlands) the difference in the DNA is often not great enough to impair cross-breeding.

Considering the number of distinct species whose DNA is close enough for breeding, the much smaller DNA difference between subspecies is often no barrier. Lions and tigers have vastly different courtship rituals; tigers need to be clawed by their mates to rouse their desire in intercourse, whereas lions find it to be a big turn-off. Yet a couple of centuries ago when lions still roamed Asia, lion-tiger hybrids were spotted often enough to vouch for the success of the process. Today they are still bred in captivity.

The fact of the matter is that H. sapiens neanderthalensis. . . .

As I noted above, Neanderthal man is now acknowledged as a distinct species.

. . . . contributed about 3-5% of the genes for almost all indo-Europeans before they (H.s.n.) vanished as a separate race; lesser percentages to other Asian races; and virtually none to the original San race who migrated to S. Africa, and none to the other African races.

The Neanderthals evolved to thrive in cold climates, so it's no surprise that they did not live in Africa or southern Asia. Once H. sapiens successfully expanded out of Africa, they were still rather slow to spread out. The arrival of modern humans in Europe (the Cro-Magnon) occurred rather early so the two species lived there together for many thousands of years. But H. sapiens did not arrive in the cold northern regions of Asia until much later, and it's not clear that there was still a viable Neanderthal population in that region by the time they got there.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Ernst Mayr wrote:

Let me begin with race. 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 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.

Ernst Mayr has been described as "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", and was one of the key figures in the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis.

So denying that human races exist is ignorant of biology and anti-evolution, yet it appears users on this forum deny human races. Interesting.

After reading Ernst Mayr's article in its totality there is a lot that I agree with. However the quote above is not one of them. Human populations do not meet the criteria for classification as subspecies or races. This biological fact is appreciated by many evolutionary biologists and geneticists who are knowledgeable of modern biology. The word race is used in biological literature but many scientists agree that it is not applicable to humans. The reason is because we do not have enough genetic differentiation within our geographic populations to classify them as different subspecies.

Conceptualizing human variation Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)

I mean to say that the global spread of Caucasian peoples could possibly be contributed to evolutionary advantages - and because of the increased spread of people and technology in the modern era, they might be more adaptable than others who may have not had said evolutionary traits. Human history, particularly human evolution, is something that everyone is able to speculate about. Negroid and mongoloid peoples had the same sorts of traits, but with differences that might not be as suitable.


* These posts are written with the expressed point of explaining subspecies diversity - I don't want to deviate from that.

A good example of the isolation, and evolution of subspecies in humans is the ability for middle eastern/African peoples to adapt sickle trait (which is an advantage for them to have). This means that some individuals will have an immunity to malaria, which can be ravaging to these areas. Now this is an important trait for them to have, but not so much for Europeans who have a much lower risk of contraction. I believe that it is entirely likely that similar advantages exist in Caucasians that might make them more suitable for the technological era. I could be wrong, and am willing to be proven wrong, but I've yet to hear different.

The genetic traits that cause sickle cell anemia are not racial characteristics. They are genetic variants that spread throughout certain populations due to a mutation that created an immunity to malaria. Only a few populations in Africa, the Middle East and Southern Europe have the mutation. Others do not. Traits like this are very different from traits that are part of our evolutionary lineage like intelligence. For people of European descent to have evolved higher intelligence, explaining their cultural advancement, they must have under gone a selection pressure for favoring high intelligence. Some scholars have proposed evolutionary theories attempting to explain the evolution of intelligence and why certain populations are smarter than others but they amount to little more than just-so stories.

For example the late Canadian Psychologist J Philippe Rushton advanced the theory that after humans migrated out of Africa they encountered the cold winters of Eurasia and were forced to adapt to their new environment, developing greater cognitive abilities to survive the harsh conditions. Rushton's theory is very popular with racialists including the topic starter but it was proven wrong by an evolutionary biologist named Joseph Graves. You can see a rebuttal to his arguments in the video below.

In addition to refuting Rushton's argument in that panel discussion Graves also wrote articles critiquing Rushton's overall theory.

What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory Anthropological Theory 2002; 2; 131

Rushton also based his claims of racial differences in intelligences on IQ test scores and brain size which he claimed have a strong correlation. Graves also refuted that argument in this email:

EgalitarianJay: Do you have any studies that directly address Rushton's claims of brain size differences between races?


Graves: The evolutionary arguments are more important than any physical measurements because they address why and how any physical difference could exist. If Rushton cannot explain the mechanism that is responsible for any reputed difference, then his argument collapses like a house of cards. This is why his 1994 book was entitled Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. Its goal was to explain using evolutionary theory (the only scientific means to explain human variation) why racial differences in intelligence exist. As I point out in my work, evolutionary science does not support this conclusion.

As for supposed physical differences in head (or brain size). First, there has been no systematic measurement of cranial sizes for sufficient numbers of populations in humans. This is important because Africa and Asia are huge continents with many populations/ethnic groups. No physical measurement taken from 1 or a few populations could be expected to represent all Africans or Asians.

Second, the relationship between "intelligence" and brain size/body ratio holds broadly over species level, but not within a species. So we can infer that Velociraptor was more intelligent than T. Rex, but we cannot infer that any specific raptor was more intelligent than another due to differences in that ratio. In the same way we cannot infer that a larger brain gives more cognitive power in humans. Frederich Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, had an incredibly small head and brain. Autopsy of his brain did reveal that his cerebral cortex had an incredibly high number of folds. But even if we could determine that there was a difference in cerebral cortex folding between Africans and Asians, we could not determine that that difference was due to genetic differences.

The brain's development (and hence that of the intellect) is profoundly influenced by environmental and developmental factors. Genetically identical groups of rats deprived of environmental stimuli were measured as less intelligent and had less cerebral folding than rats given environmental stimuli. In the modern world, there is no equivalence of social and physical environments between Africans/African Americans and Europeans/Euro- and Asian Americans. Therefore any intelligence difference one might measure (say in mean SAT scores, AFQT Tests etc.) cannot be shown to have anything to do with genetic differences between groups. There are far easier explanations for these differences, including social discrimination (stereotype threat), toxic environment, and malnutrition (which are all differentially visited upon African Americans). The heritability of intelligence (how much the trait is determined by genes or environment) has been estimated at around 0.50. This means that intelligence is about 50% genes and 50% environment. With this much environmental contribution, only experimental or observational designs that can equalize environment can give you any reasonable explanations. For the most part, this is impossible in racially stratified societies.

I made all these points to Rushton directly in our 1997 debate at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. To say the least he really had no cogent response.

Dr. Joseph L. Graves, Jr.
Associate Dean for Research
Professor of Biological Sciences
Joint School of Nanosciences & Nanoengineering
Suite 2200, Rm 104
North Carolina A&T State University
UNC Greensboro
2901 E. Lee St.
Greensboro, NC 27401

This should give you a good idea of why racialist arguments are invalid.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The word "race" is used in biological literature but many scientists agree that it is not applicable to humans. The reason is because we do not have enough genetic differentiation within our geographic populations to classify them as different subspecies.

The word "race" is widely used simply because it is widely used. Scientists struggle to communicate with laymen so they can be forgiven for adopting the vocabulary of laymen.

Just look at their muddled use of the word "theory." In science, a theory is a hypothesis which, by diligent application of the scientific method (evidence, testing, peer review, etc.), has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet scientists spend so much time out here in the world of laymen that they have gotten sloppy and use "theory" almost in the same way we do. The most offensive misuse of that word, if you ask me, is String Theory, which is nothing more than some really interesting math "supported" by a lot of arm-waving. Contrast this with the Theory of Evolution, one of the most solid, unassailable theories in the entire canon of science, supported by evidence from two different sciences: paleontology and genetics.

U.S. demographic units are not '"races."

Indeed. But the government has to be able to communicate with its citizens, and the vast majority of them still use the word.

For people of European descent to have evolved higher intelligence, explaining their cultural advancement, they must have undergone a selection pressure for favoring high intelligence.

Never underestimate the power of sheer chance. Organisms end up with new colors and many other traits just because of a mutation in their parents' DNA. Some of these traits turn out to be survival advantages so they eventually become widespread or even universal. Others have no impact on survival and survive side-by-side with the original DNA. And of course others are detrimental to survival and are not propagated.

For example the late Canadian Psychologist J Philippe Rushton advanced the theory that after humans migrated out of Africa they encountered the cold winters of Eurasia and were forced to adapt to their new environment, developing greater cognitive abilities to survive the harsh conditions.

With only their feet and extremely primitive boats for transportation, they did not spread out so quickly. The San explorers left Africa ca. 60KYA and slowly spread across southern Asia--where the weather wasn't tremendously harsher than north Africa, but they didn't arrive in Europe until about 30KYA.

The biggest problem that the San explorers had to deal with was the drought caused by global cooling, which trapped much of the planet's water in glaciers and the polar ice caps, lowering sea level considerably and making food scarce. And of course their families back in Africa had the same problem. In fact this may be why they went exploring in the first place, hoping to find better weather. They eventually did find it, in (of all places!) Australia, which, due to capricious weather patterns, was a paradise.

 

[iceaura]

Contrast this with the Theory of Evolution, one of the most solid, unassailable theories in the entire canon of science, supported by evidence from two different sciences: paleontology and genetics

Three, at least: taxonomy/landscape ecology considered as "biology".

That third one was the one used to inspire, develop, and support the theory originally - neither Darwin or Wallace were well grounded in paleontology or genetics.

 

[sculptor]

Of course another resident racist chimes in.

lol

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Here are some email conversations I had with two scientists regarding the evolution of human intelligence. Both believe that there was not enough time for evolution to create racial differences in intelligence. I have discussed this topic with Mikemikev on another message board and shown him these emails.

From: enquiry-form-no-reply@nhm.ac.uk [enquiry-form-no-reply@nhm.ac.uk]
Sent: 14 September 2014 03:17
To: Chris Stringer
Subject: Questions about human origins and intelligence

The following message was submitted by email form.

Title: Questions about human origins and intelligence
Submitted by: (EgalitarianJay02)
Message:

Hello Dr. Stringer,

I am writing to you to ask you about the origin and nature of humanity. I had a debate with a person online who says that you agree with his views on the origin of humans. He claims that humans evolved in the "Eurasian ecozone", either North Africa or the Near East/Caucasus.

I have read an interview where you say that humans evolved in Sub-Saharan Africa, possibly different parts of Africa. Where do you believe that humans originated?

Also I should tell you that this individual who claims you agree with him is extremely racist. He is a supporter of J. Philippe Rushton and believes that there are separate races of humans that evolved separately and became modern after interbreeding with archaic humans such as Neanderthal and Homo rhodesiensis. Like Rushton he believes that there are differences in intelligence and behavior between races as well as a host of other differences.

In the interview I read you said that humans became behaviorally modern in Africa. Does that mean you believe that all human populations have the same intelligence? What do you believe about the work of Rushton, assuming you are familiar with him and the claims about interbreeding with archaic humans having evolutionary significance?

I would appreciate an answer to all of these questions. Thank you for your time.


From: Chris Stringer
Sent: 15 September 2014 06:32
To: (EgalitarianJay02)
Subject: Questions about human origins and intelligence

Hello (EgalitarianJay02), Only time for a short answer now, I'm afraid, but both you and your discussant should try and get hold of my book The Origin of our Species (UK)/Lone Survivors (USA) for a full presentation of my views. But the attached gives a summary of some aspects - in essence, our species is mostly (but not entirely, given the interbreeding) of recent African origin. This means that there cannot have been time for *major* genetic differences to have evolved within our species, unless the introgressed DNA introduced such major differences, something for which there is no evidence at the moment, since the introgressed DNA seems rather limited in its phenotypic expressions. I think it is highly unlikely that cognitive differences at the level presented by Rushton are present in our species, although I do not rule out that evolution within the last 100,000 years could have produced *some* differences in cognition between regional populations...Best Chris

From: (EgalitarianJay02)
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 8:54 PM
To: gravesjl@ncat.edu
Subject: Intelligence and evolutionary time scales

Dear Dr. Graves,

A couple of months ago I emailed Chris Stringer about human origins and intelligence. He said that he did not believe that major genetic differences in our species could have emerged given the estimated age of humans. I have heard you say in interviews as well that we are a young species and there hasn't been enough time for human populations to differentiate racially. Do you agree with Stringer that this also applies to cognitive differences? If so could you explain in a little more detail why the estimated time of human emergence would not be long enough for cognitive differences to develop?


Sincerely,

(EgalitarianJay02)


From: Dr. Joseph L Graves Jr (gravesjl@ncat.edu)
Sent: Tue 1/27/15 2:05 PM
To: (EgalitarianJay02)

Dear (EgalitarianJay02), Again sorry for the delay. Yes I agree that it is unlikely that there was time for selection to have created continental level differences in human groups since our species left Africa. This is simply because of the huge number of genes that contribute to the phenotype we call intelligence. Across the genome humans are much more alike than they are different. I explain some of this in the attached paper. Also as in my work on Rushton, none of the people who claim these differences can propose a selection based mechanism that could account for how this would happen. The paper is published so go ahead and cite it.



Sincerely,



Dr. Joseph L. Graves Jr.

 

[iceaura]

Trying to compare different sociological "races" on evolutionary or biological grounds is a basic error - they are not evolutionary or biological classifications.

It's something like trying to compare "gophers" with "squirrels" on evolutionary grounds when your classification system is based on common names - so pocket gophers and striped gophers are both in your "gopher" category, and your "squirrel" category omits prairie dogs and chipmunks. You are hopelessly muddled, and the only approach is to start over with a different initial classification system.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

As I noted earlier, it is ridiculous (not to mention completely unscientific) to refer to the various human populations as "races." "Race" is a popular word for "subspecies" that is shunned by scientists. Subspecies are populations of one species that have significant and consistent differences in DNA. The differences in DNA between, say, the "white race" and the "black race" are not consistent. Since Bronze Age technology (the wheel and domesticated draft animals, not to mention sailing ships, followed in the Industrial Era by railroads and aircraft) made it possible for humans to travel large distances and mate with the humans at the other end of the journey, the human gene pool has been stirred to many times to be divided into subspecies.