Well, that is an absurd comparison, never mind my initial reference. People dismiss Rushton's work because of its forthrightness and honesty.
No they dismiss it because they think he's wrong.
White people are genuinely frightened and disturbed when they read about the physical nature of blacks, and see the pictures and data, then they turn on their television sets and see blacks dominating athletics and competitive sports.
There are studies that suggest that whites have greater innate upper body strength as compared to Africans, who may have better long term endurance. There are also studies that show that black do not have greater degrees of testosterone and other sex hormones than whites, despite Rushton's belief that it *must* be the case. There again though you cannot really lump all Africans into one group, as I just did, and as Rushton has to for his work to make any sense. As I noted, by genetic diversity, it's easier to define multiple African "races" than it is to separate non-Africans.
The point is that Rushton's work is easily assailable by experts, but [to use your snide and logically fallacious argument] some people who
want him to be right are genuinely frightened and disturbed when they read about the physical nature of blacks being about the same as that of everyone else.
But of course, it's all an illusion.
I have no doubt something in the biology causes people to look one way or another, but it's not likely to be a difference in their genes, as we all have largely the same genes, and there is more variation within a group than there is across groups, even across traditional "racial" groups. Rushton was once convinced that we would discover the
genetic basis of race once the human genome was decoded; it was, we didn't.
Genetic validation of race is not required, racial differences manifest themselves openly to the senses. The true nature of humans is not found in lines of coded DNA, that is scientific reductionism and is ultimately little more than a statistical sham. It's a bit like saying different types of star do not exist because there is no atomic basis for such beliefs.
Except that there is a physical understanding of what makes stars shine and why they look the way the do and often are different from one another. The basis of that understanding is the understanding of of subatomic interactions that tale place in star, bearing in mind the heat and pressured they are under.
DNA is not some mere reductionism that sheds no light on human biology. Why even come to a
science forum, if you are so hostile to science that you do not understand that?
The arguments concerning genetic variation can be manipulated to suit any point of view. It's very hard to argue away, however, the supremacy of blacks in athletics, or whites in science. Your point of view is political, not scientific, although this is understandable in the context of contemporary American history.
Nice dodge, but you fail. Where was the "politics" in my post above? Look, it would be just as easy for me to say "Hey, some people like you are racist and reject science to further your own ideology" but I did not because that would be a fallacious argument. Your or my
motives for ascribing to a particular view, whatever they might be, do not necessarily undermine the arguments we make or the positions we hold. To ignore the arguments with a "but of course, you are blinded by your unscientific ideology" is just a bad counter-argument.
This article is typical of the kind of socialist-liberal dogma which dominates scientific inquiry as fresh young minds compete for grants and awards from private bodies only interested in the potential profits that can be made from a mixed race society.
Here's a quote from the article:
Well, of course they are, if they want to earn a living they'd better be.
Anyone who makes a cursory examination of the evolutionary record, and then compares the characteristics found there with those in present day humans, cannot fail to notice that some human groups are less evolved than others.
Genes or no genes.
Wow. "Less evolved"? You do recognize that they phrase is meaningless right? It suggests to me that you may be starting with a very different view of what "evolution" is, and it is one that Rushton's critics often accuse him of believing. Evolution is not
progressive, it's not "onwards and upwards" from "lesser" beings to "greater" (or smarter, or more sophisticated, more complicated or more moral) ones. Evolution is the process by which species adapt to their environment. That's it. There is no "destination" and no plan to it. A chimpanzee is no "less evolved" than a human, a
cyanobacterium is no "less evolved" even though their form is many billions of years older. Our species have all evolved for the same amount of time, about 3.8 billion years. As far as the biology is concerned, humans are not some "pinnacle" of some pyramid of evolution, with the light skinned races at the tippy-top. In fact, it remains to be seen whether humans will prove to be evolutionarily successful to any meaningful degree.
If the environment were to suddenly and radically start restricting the food supply, there is every reason to believe that intelligence would become a disadvantage, and "dumber" species would have a relative advantage over smarter ones (because simpler and smaller brains brains require less protein, less varied diets and consume fewer calories). In that event, the emergence of successively dumber generations of humans would not be "de-evolution" it would be evolution.
Funny that the people why make "cursory" reviews of the evolutionary record draw one conclusion, and the vast majority of scientists involved in the field and doing deep examinations come to a more complicated and view. I am curious, though, what does a cursory review of the evolutionary record show you? The genetic evidence for population migrations is there, but there is almost no evidence of the "racial" characteristics of the early out-of-Africa populations. We do not knwo if the early populations were what we would consider "black" or anythings else. We know that people woulnd up in East Asia pretty early, and went to Europe only later (much later, in fact). Still, there's no evidence of the "race" of these people along their way. There's not much archaeological evidence either, nor is there much fossil evidence for racial distinctions in an "evolutionary" sense.
The evolutionary record tells us almost nothing about the racial development of humans of which I am aware, though perhaps you care to enlighten me.