Shanemac requests you put your scientific arguments here

shanemac

Okay Skyeirl, you keep saying I'm dodging your arguments. Well, so as not to confuse other threads, please place them here and I'll do my best to answer them.

Of course anyone else that's got something relevant to say...and they actually know what they're talking about...please join in. But I don't want to see a bunch of posts like this "You talk a lot of ****, so you get called on a lot of ****", just take that stuff to another thread & have fun making fun of the nazis (mods....I'll leave that up to you)...

BigCon

And what exactly is this thread about?

shanemac

I'll start by going back to some refutations from another thread you say I ignored...

You realise that only 500 generations ago your direct lineage came from dark skinned (initially we were all black) africans.

Well a generation is normally taken as 25 years for humans. Given the fact that the Out of Africa theory argues that our ancestors left Africa some 100,000 years ago, this equates to 4,000 generations.

But this is a trivial point. The fact is that speciation can occur quite rapidly given a relatively strong selective pressure on a population. For evidence of this have a look at the dog...which has been bred into ...how many...500? different breeds, mostly within the space of a couple of hundred years.

If you go back far enough, you can say that we are really all apes, because we have only relatively recently separated off from the apes on the evolutionay tree (some 7 million years ago for Ramapithecus). Or you could go back a bit further, and say there's no real difference between us and the single-celled Amoebae, with whom we also share a common heritage.

The fact is that we are now fairly distinct races (sub-species) and, along with skin colour and hair-type, we have inherited certain racial characteristics, which may have some influence on patterns of thought and behaviour.

MiCr0

The fact is that we are now fairly distinct races (sub-species) and, along with skin colour and hair-type, we have inherited certain racial characteristics, which may have some influence on patterns of thought and behaviour.

there's very little actual difference's between your "sub-species"

shanemac

Altrusism, is again something that is learned from a community point of view its not an instint, its a learned behavioural trait. And so is racism. Its nothing to do with anything we inherited or is instintive. We learn it or aquire it directly from out environment or community.

I don't believe you can really totally isolate culture from genetics. Our genes give us certain framework within which societal influences can have an influence, but the basic framework is hard-wired. No doubt both genes and environment are important, but you can't say a certain phenomenon is 100% culturally learned or 100% biologically inherited.

I would say altruism is to a large degree inherited from genetics. Every human society on earth independently came upon the concept of altruism (I don't think such a coincidence is possible, if it was just a cultural phenomenon). As well as this, animals exhibit a great degree of altruism (eg lions not eating each other; monkeys in a troup calling out to each other when they hear predators coming despite putting themselves in danger, etc).

However, the altruism shown by primitive tribes is an altruism based on tribal recognition. They may save each other from drowning, or from the jaws of a wild animal....but they may then go to war and kill the members of another tribe. Similarly, animals do not often exhibit much altruism towards other species (eg a pack of lions will seek out the old and the young in a herd of wildebeest, because they are the easiest prey).

In a pride of lions that is taken over by a new pair of males, the new pride males will systematically kill all the young that were sired by the previous male (as they would be wasting effort raising someone else's offspring).

This can be better understood having read Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene".




There are a couple of points to note in here....

1 The real biological motivation for altruism is based on the factor of protecting people/animals with similar genetics....thus ensuring the profligation of your genes....because all of your behaviour is programmed to increase the population of your selfish genes.

This means that in a multicultural society (where you will have very little genetic similarity with the other members of the society) there is a lower motivation for altruism. This must mean a lowering in absolute incidence of altruistic behaviour in multicultural societies.

shanemac

Micro, are you going to back that statement up?

shanemac

To summarise, there is no genetic relation that I have ever seen published that relates to tribal behaviour. Genetics doesn't work like that. Sociological development is based on observed or learned traits and move from generation to generation through the community. Dawkins coined the term meme for this. Humans transfer memes everyday by conversation, mass media, books, the Internet, and any other way an idea can be conveyed. Your idea of tribalism is a meme. Racism is a meme.

Yes, Dawkins came up with the word "Meme"...as a kind of simile with "gene"....ie some ideas get passed down through the generations like genes also do.

Memes are things like religion, language, music, culture....

However, the fact that a meme exists, does not preclude the fact that genetics has some influence on these cultural phenomena. In other words, genes and memes are not mutually exclusive.

As I said before, culture is learned from ancestors (and society), but the kind of culture that we adopt is basically determined by the hormones in our bodies and our brain formation.

Hormone effect on culture
Different races of people have different levels of hormones. This is a biological fact, and has a major genetic factor. (look at sports.... Africans dominate high-testosterone sports...sprinting, boxing), whereas Europeans tend to be better suited to pursuits where high testosterone is not an advantage...long-distance running (not including Kenyans, who come from high altitudes), fishing, tiddlywinks (j/k). Asians have even lower testosterone than Europeans.

Women are attracted to high-testosterone males...so you see a lot of white women who like black men, and you see a lot of Asian women who like White men. You do not see a great deal of white male/black female or Asian male/White female attraction. (of course there are exceptions...so don't throw in any red herrings). (The logical conclusion to this would be black male/Asian female would be the most common, but you don't see this....why? I think it's because the two opposite ends of the spectrum are too far apart)

A certain amount of testosterone is a good thing...it gives us motivation to get up and give the world a shake. But too much testosterone makes us do a lot of crazy things, like start revolutions, like commit crime, and detracts from our ability to cooperate and quietly work together for a common good. I believe that's why Africa has always been, and will always be in turmoil.

The North Asian cultures (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) are at the other end of the spectrum. Their lack of testosterone makes them prone to accept a situation that they really should do something about and change...that's why they've allowed themselves to be controlled by tyrants (including of the communist kind in latter days) for thousands of years.

I think a lot of racially stereotypically behaviour is in fact due to different levels of testosterone.

Meh

Originally posted by shanemac
Hormone effect on culture
Different races of people have different levels of hormones. This is a biological fact, and has a major genetic factor. (look at sports.... Africans dominate high-testosterone sports...sprinting, boxing),

Wrong. I can't think of a single African who has won a sprinting/boxing title. I can think of lots of African-Americans, but the vast majority of African-Americans have partly European ancestry, so according to your "theory", they should be worse at sports than native Africans.

whereas Europeans tend to be better suited to pursuits where high testosterone is not an advantage...long-distance running (not including Kenyans, who come from high altitudes), fishing, tiddlywinks (j/k).

What about weightlifting, which is a) full of testosterone and b) dominated by Eastern European whites? What about the Williams sisters and the distinctly non-agressive sport of tennis?

Women are attracted to high-testosterone males...so you see a lot of white women who like black men, and you see a lot of Asian women who like White men. You do not see a great deal of white male/black female or Asian male/White female attraction. (of course there are exceptions...so don't throw in any red herrings). (The logical conclusion to this would be black male/Asian female would be the most common, but you don't see this....why? I think it's because the two opposite ends of the spectrum are too far apart)

A certain amount of testosterone is a good thing...it gives us motivation to get up and give the world a shake. But too much testosterone makes us do a lot of crazy things, like start revolutions, like commit crime, and detracts from our ability to cooperate and quietly work together for a common good. I believe that's why Africa has always been, and will always be in turmoil.

The North Asian cultures (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) are at the other end of the spectrum. Their lack of testosterone makes them prone to accept a situation that they really should do something about and change...that's why they've allowed themselves to be controlled by tyrants (including of the communist kind in latter days) for thousands of years.

Ahahahahahaha that's hilarious, did you come up with that yourself? I don't suppose you can provide even one piece of hard evidence to back this "theory" up?

DeVore

Originally posted by shanemac
<snip a bunch of utter tosh about altruism...

This can be better understood having read Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene".




There are a couple of points to note in here....

1 The real biological motivation for altruism is based on the factor of protecting people/animals with similar genetics....thus ensuring the profligation of your genes....because all of your behaviour is programmed to increase the population of your selfish genes.

This means that in a multicultural society (where you will have very little genetic similarity with the other members of the society) there is a lower motivation for altruism. This must mean a lowering in absolute incidence of altruistic behaviour in multicultural societies.

You obviously either havent read The Selfish Gene or you failed to understand its basic premise.

You're similarity with the rest of your tribe is irrelevant. Only the bloodlines matter. Tribes wider then a single family arose simply because of the maths. safety in numbers and being greater then the sum of their parts.

A bunch of other stuff you are trying to contort into an argument is not supported by The Selfish Gene either... the basic premise of the entire book was that there is NO SUCH THING as altruism.

You're final paragraph contains so many presumptions and "leaps" of logic that its difficult to understand where to begin to deconstruct it.

DeV.

shanemac

Originally posted by DeVore
You obviously either havent read The Selfish Gene or you failed to understand its basic premise.

You're similarity with the rest of your tribe is irrelevant. Only the bloodlines matter. Tribes wider then a single family arose simply because of the maths. safety in numbers and being greater then the sum of their parts.

A bunch of other stuff you are trying to contort into an argument is not supported by The Selfish Gene either... the basic premise of the entire book was that there is NO SUCH THING as altruism.

You're final paragraph contains so many presumptions and "leaps" of logic that its difficult to understand where to begin to deconstruct it.

DeV.

Your general abusive tone speaks volumes DeV (any relation to the original Dev I wonder). The phrase "the lady doth protest too much" comes to mind.

Anyway, many of the same genes will be shared amongst the individuals in a "population". Taking a tribe as a small, interbreeding population (which it is), many individuals within a tribe will have very similar genes.

From the perspective of the selfish gene, this makes the survival of the other members of your tribe a useful thing, because there is an aggregate better chance of survival for the genes (whichever organism they happen to currently reside in). This is what makes altruistic behaviour viable within the tribe. However, the less related the members of a particular society, the fewer genes the people share in common, so the lower the motivation for altruism on the whole. Do you find this overly complicated?

Meh

Originally posted by shanemac
From the perspective of the selfish gene, this makes the survival of the other members of your tribe a useful thing, because there is an aggregate better chance of survival for the genes (whichever organism they happen to currently reside in). This is what makes altruistic behaviour viable within the tribe. However, the less related the members of a particular society, the fewer genes the people share in common, so the lower the motivation for altruism on the whole. Do you find this overly complicated?

So who is my tribe? Is it just my immediate family? Does it extend to my close relatives as well? Or is everyone who has the same colour skin as me in my tribe? Keep in mind that the genetic variation between individuals far outweighs the genetic variation between "races".

From Scientific American
Those techniques have revealed that race is minor at the DNA level. The genetic differences between any two randomly selected individuals in one socially recognized population account for 85 percent of the variation one might find between people of separate populations. Put another way, the genetic difference between two individuals of the same race can be greater than those between individuals of different races--table sugar may look like salt, but it has more similarities with corn syrup.

Zombrex

Originally posted by shanemac
I believe that's why Africa has always been, and will always be in turmoil.
Their lack of testosterone makes them [Asians] prone to accept a situation that they really should do something about and change

oh my ... that is one of the most naive posts on Boards I have ever read

For a start .. at actually I am not sure where to start .. there is so much wrong with that statement.

1 - Europe has gone through many many series of unstablity and turmoil? Actually so has the rest of the world. You point doesn't make sense when viewed on a world stage looking back further than 50 years.

2- There is no evidence (afaik) that African men are more prone to violence and aggression than any other men. You are making a huge and rather distastlful leap there.

3- How do you explain the fact the Japanise fighters in WW2 were very aggressive, prone to suicide missions, very brutal in treatment of prisonners. In fact some of the most bloody wars have been fought in Asia and Japan has a long histroy of being a warrior culture going back to the Samurai. Again your statements don't make sense when looking at history passed 50 years.

Originally posted by shanemac
Your general abusive tone speaks volumes DeV (any relation to the original Dev I wonder). The phrase "the lady doth protest too much" comes to mind.

Think he was just a bit annoyed that you are quoting from a book you obviously don't understand and using it to draw conclusions contary to the original conclusions of the book .. he is after all a moderator after all, its his job

Jak

Originally posted by shanemac
Hormone effect on culture
Different races of people have different levels of hormones. This is a biological fact, and has a major genetic factor. (look at sports.... Africans dominate high-testosterone sports...sprinting, boxing), whereas Europeans tend to be better suited to pursuits where high testosterone is not an advantage...long-distance running (not including Kenyans, who come from high altitudes), fishing, tiddlywinks (j/k). Asians have even lower testosterone than Europeans.

Not really interested in this discussion as a whole.

However the difference does not lie in testosterone really, the primary factor is that black people have a higher proportion of fast twitch fibers, which is an advantage for sprinting. If you are looking for 'informed' information on the differences between different races of athletes in general, I'd recommend the following ...

Jon Etine part 1

and particularly the second part ...

Part 2

The basic points are:

Fast twich fibers
Training and Funding
Greater levels of mitochondria and blood carrying capilliaries around the muscle

and regional differences in populations - Scandinavians stand as an example of this relative to other white europeans.

The difference in testosterone is modest.

JAK.

patch

Shanemac, why don't you get to your real point? What statement exactly are you building up to? Out with it.

shanemac

Originally posted by Jak
Not really interested in this discussion as a whole.

However the difference does not lie in testosterone really, the primary factor is that black people have a higher proportion of fast twitch fibers, which is an advantage for sprinting. If you are looking for 'informed' information on the differences between different races of athletes in general, I'd recommend the following ...

Jon Etine part 1

and particularly the second part ...

Part 2

The basic points are:

Fast twich fibers
Training and Funding
Greater levels of mitochondria and blood carrying capilliaries around the muscle

and regional differences in populations - Scandinavians stand as an example of this relative to other white europeans.

The difference in testosterone is modest.

JAK.

I'm not suggesting testosterone is the only difference between the different races of mankind....but it is the primary one that affects behaviour. I haven't heard of people acting in an overly aggressive way because they have too much fast-twitch muscle fibres.

bonkey

Originally posted by shanemac
Anyway,

he says, deciding not to answer the points raised, and instead just continue blithely on as though no-one had already challenged any of his assertions.

Shanemac - honestly - you keep asking people to put their "scientific challenges" to you, and then completely ignore them when they do.

You failed to address a single post of mine to you in the endire "white racialist" thread, and here you're dismissing deV's entire point (that your chosen source of reference supports the antithesis of what you would have us believe) on the "scientific" grounds that deV is being a bit aggressive.

Who are you trying to kid here? Do you think that anyone is actually failing to notice that you don't answer a single solid point raised against you, and instead flit from one contradictory stance to the next, insisting in your absolute correctness the entire time?

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by shanemac
In a pride of lions that is taken over by a new pair of males, the new pride males will systematically kill all the young that were sired by the previous male (as they would be wasting effort raising someone else's offspring).

Shanemac is a lion. Raaar!

There was a genetic anthropologist on TV3's Agenda on Sunday talking about this very subject. Did anyone see it?

shanemac

Originally posted by bonkey
he says, deciding not to answer the points raised, and instead just continue blithely on as though no-one had already challenged any of his assertions.

Shanemac - honestly - you keep asking people to put their "scientific challenges" to you, and then completely ignore them when they do.

You failed to address a single post of mine to you in the endire "white racialist" thread, and here you're dismissing deV's entire point (that your chosen source of reference supports the antithesis of what you would have us believe) on the "scientific" grounds that deV is being a bit aggressive.

Who are you trying to kid here? Do you think that anyone is actually failing to notice that you don't answer a single solid point raised against you, and instead flit from one contradictory stance to the next, insisting in your absolute correctness the entire time?

jc

The only point Dev seems to make in his little unpleasant post is this

You're similarity with the rest of your tribe is irrelevant. Only the bloodlines matter. Tribes wider then a single family arose simply because of the maths. safety in numbers and being greater then the sum of their parts.

Which is exactly what I addressed in the following post...ie it's not only immediate family that matters in altruism from a selfish gene pov because the whole of the population contains a large proportion of individuals with a similar genome.

There were so many posts addressed to me that I chose only to address those that were posted by Skyeirl (who btw has not responded here). However, if you've got something relevant to say...please do.

Meh

Originally posted by shanemac
ie it's not only immediate family that matters in altruism from a selfish gene pov because the whole of the population contains a large proportion of individuals with a similar genome.

And did you read my link to Scientific American which refuted this?

Havelock

I know you said you wanted arguements of a scientic nature shanemac but you are basing your arguementson nothing more than mis-representation of the findings of "The Selfish Gene". You have failed to provide one credable area of arguement, your testosterone theory is less than a joke. The white race is blessed with more pychotics per head than any other race, the artical on this I can't find at teh moment but it argued that the social steiro-type of the violent black man was nothing more than myth, with something close to 70% of all violent crime in America committed by white males. Will post link when I've found it again, but for the moment, please stop your ranting, have a drink, maybe smoke some pot, get off your high horse and relax. All peoples of every race, colour and creed are united in thinking that maybe you have issues here, see a couciller perhaps. I personaly (as a white person) think that most anti-black racism comes from the white mans penis size envy, personally I'm not intimaded, but think about all the usually racist types, what do they all have in commen, small dicks and no balls.

BTW: In case you missed it the end of this post is to show with exactly how much contempt I have for racism and racists, so please don't ask me to clarify.

Hobart

Originally posted by shanemac
There were so many posts addressed to me that I chose only to address those that were posted by Skyeirl (who btw has not responded here). However, if you've got something relevant to say...please do.

Ye See,

That's not the way things really work around here (And I'm going to try to explain to you why as you seem relitively new here)

You simply cannot come onto a public bulliten board, such as this one, and start typing wild inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, as you did above, and hope that the community will just let them pass. The fact is that we have listened, been patient, and some of us have even considered what you have said (myself included).

However on numerous occasions, within this thread, you have been asked to backup your claims, explain your "facts" and even re-read your reference material. And this you have failed to do. Unfortuneately, for you, this is not a forum which tolerates silly racist bigotry and silly unsubstantiated racist claims.

So why don't you put up or just shut up (Sorry if I'm being rude)

shanemac

The white race is blessed with more pychotics per head than any other race, the artical on this I can't find at teh moment but it argued that the social steiro-type of the violent black man was nothing more than myth, with something close to 70% of all violent crime in America committed by white males.

Oh really...have a look at this...color of crime report

shanemac

Originally posted by Hobart
Ye See,

That's not the way things really work around here (And I'm going to try to explain to you why as you seem relitively new here)

You simply cannot come onto a public bulliten board, such as this one, and start typing wild inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, as you did above, and hope that the community will just let them pass. The fact is that we have listened, been patient, and some of us have even considered what you have said (myself included).

However on numerous occasions, within this thread, you have been asked to backup your claims, explain your "facts" and even re-read your reference material. And this you have failed to do. Unfortuneately, for you, this is not a forum which tolerates silly racist bigotry and silly unsubstantiated racist claims.

So why don't you put up or just shut up (Sorry if I'm being rude)

Show me one fact that I have not substantiated. If there is one, then I have made it plain that it is conjecture on my part....

So why don't you take a bit of your own medicine mate....put up or shut up....

BuffyBot

Originally posted by shanemac
Oh really...have a look at this...color of crime report

Link seems broken

GuanYin

For starters, Admins and Mods I don't like my username being used in the title of a thread that is basically touting racial hatred.

Could it please be edited.


Busy at the moment but I'll read through the thread in a bit.

Jak

Originally posted by shanemac
I'm not suggesting testosterone is the only difference between the different races of mankind....but it is the primary one that affects behaviour. I haven't heard of people acting in an overly aggressive way because they have too much fast-twitch muscle fibres.

I never suggested it is the only difference either. I was simply refuting the fact that their prowess in certain events was due to raised testosterone as you suggested in your earlier post. It is not. The proven differences are in the other areas. I would be interested in seeing your evidence of the differences in testosterone as I am aware of little evidence to suggest a racial difference in levels that cannot be accounted for by age, health or lifestyle.

Testosterone varies significantly on an individual level.

There is one study from a little known journal I am aware of that claims a very loose variance of 3 to 19% in testosterone levels between whites and blacks, but before you go quoting it, there are a large number of papers which denouce the findings. If you really want to make the point on testosterone, find publications from major journals on the subject to support your point.

JAK.

Capt'n Midnight

The fact is that we are now fairly distinct races (sub-species) and, along with skin colour and hair-type, we have inherited certain racial characteristics, which may have some influence on patterns of thought and behaviour.[unquote]

So once we find the "white racist gene" we can simple apply eugenics to remove it from the population. There should be no civil right implications because such a person would be genetically programmed to agree that the race should be pure and kept free of genetic defects (if they were allowed to grow up to express such an opinion).

Hey - it should be possible to generate a retro-virus to counter act this gene by inserting itself in the middle of it (preferably with a payload of the gene to de-repress your existing copy of the latent homosexual gene.)

Hobart

OK

1) Women are attracted to high-testosterone males Where is your proof of that?

2)But too much testosterone makes us do a lot of crazy things, like start revolutions, like commit crime, and detracts from our ability to cooperate and quietly work together for a common good Give me some exclusive scientific proof that this is the case.

3)The North Asian cultures (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) are at the other end of the spectrum. Their lack of testosterone makes them prone to accept a situation that they really should do something about and change...that's why they've allowed themselves to be controlled by tyrants (including of the communist kind in latter days) for thousands of years. So what about Stalin?, Tito?, Franco?, Hitler?, To name but 4. Or are Eastern and Mid Europeans suffering form the same lack of testosterone on a less frequent basis?


4) As I said before, culture is learned from ancestors (and society), but the kind of culture that we adopt is basically determined by the hormones in our bodies and our brain formation. What are you saying here? Where is your proof?


These are just 4 totally unsubstantiated statements made by you (Which I have managed to throw together in the last 5 mins).

Meh

Originally posted by shanemac
Oh really...have a look at this...color of crime report

Do you have even one single link that's from a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal, not some far-right extremist website? If I were to quote Malcolm X or Robert Mugabe to support my position, you wouldn't be impressed. So why do you expect to get away with quoting their white equivalents?

bonkey

Originally posted by shanemac
The only point Dev seems to make in his little unpleasant post is this

I was referring to the fact that he pointed out the entire premise of Dawkin's book is that altruism does not exist, but you have been using the book to argue in favour of altruism repeatedly.

Indeed, to quote Dawkin's himself :

Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

Now, not only is he saying that altruism is something we lack (as deVore pointed out, as you ignored), he is also pointing out that we can try to learn it which also flies in the face of your long-standing argument that there is no denying our allegedly genetic traits (although to be fair, you have varied from them being unquestionably genetic to being sociological and back to being genetic again)

There were so many posts addressed to me that I chose only to address those that were posted by Skyeirl (who btw has not responded here).

Really? In the last 4 pages alone, I see replies from you to Meh, Shinji, and Gordon, as well as Skyeirl. I also see several responses which do not attribute a quote you are repsonding to,. but which are clearly in response to some of the other questions asked of you (again, by poster's other than skyeirl).

Would you like me to go through all 12+ pages, and tell you who all you did reply to, or would you like to change your mind about "only Skyeirl" ???

As for the fact that you were getting broad-sided by a massive number of opposing views from a multitude of posters, maybe these words might ring a bell with you :

I feel a board invasion coming on....saddle up Magnus, Jay, Chain, Reverence ....

(hint : you wrote them on a different forum.).

I didn't realise an invasion, which - if you read the thread I borrowed that from - was intended to balance the representation meant that a lone ranger would come along and only respond to a handful of posters and ignore the vast majority.

But hey....if you think that a community discussion forum is all about ignoring the vast majority.....go for it. Just don't expect to get much (if any) sympathy.

However, if you've got something relevant to say...please do. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not in the habit of repeating myself after being ignored completely the first time round.

jc

GuanYin

Originally posted by shanemac
Well a generation is normally taken as 25 years for humans. Given the fact that the Out of Africa theory argues that our ancestors left Africa some 100,000 years ago, this equates to 4,000 generations.

Yes and if you read another ten journals you'll see esitimates that go further or shorter back. Genetically, we become us about 25K - 50k years ago. We decended from a group of about a few hundred humans who came out of africa. All th eother migrating species died out. Of course this isn't gospel, its merely speculation on the best scientific evidence we have to date. But I'm quoting papers published in '03 in light of discoveries in the past year.

Originally posted by shanemac
But this is a trivial point. The fact is that speciation can occur quite rapidly given a relatively strong selective pressure on a population. For evidence of this have a look at the dog...which has been bred into ...how many...500? different breeds, mostly within the space of a couple of hundred years.

If you go back far enough, you can say that we are really all apes, because we have only relatively recently separated off from the apes on the evolutionay tree (some 7 million years ago for Ramapithecus). Or you could go back a bit further, and say there's no real difference between us and the single-celled Amoebae, with whom we also share a common heritage.

The fact is that we are now fairly distinct races (sub-species) and, along with skin colour and hair-type, we have inherited certain racial characteristics, which may have some influence on patterns of thought and behaviour.

Alright, I think people have answered most of your stuff in much the same way or better than I would have so Lets start from here. Now, lets this time, try and take the facts at hand and not change the subject every time you can't answer.


Ok I'll just debunk your entire post from here on in and educate you on the fundamentals of human evolutionary genetics. Its an interesting and easy enough little course, so pay attention, ok?

Right. There is more genetic variation among any single troop of gorilla or chimanzee than in the entire human race (that includes people who are black, white, asian etc., in case you didn't know). In fact, of all the large animals on the planet, humans are the only ones with a planet-wide distribution with so little genetic variation.

This is because we went through a "genetic bottleneck" where the actual number of humans *that is homo sapiens was around 10,000 individuals. No there are billions of us, but the genetic diversity has not grown much beyond that passed on by those 10,000 ancestors.

when the guys with the white pointy hats showed up on the gentic scene, they hoped genetics would show us we had "sub-species" and they had big ideas about what made the races different and noone could really agree. However, genetics has shown that the situation is even more complex and that drawing a clear distinction between "races" is impossible.

Human races" are clines. If you want to look up the dictionary definition, it will say "a graded series of characters (as morphological or physiological differences) exhibited by a species ... along a line of environmental or geographic transition."

As such, the notion of "pure race" is a phalacy. The reality is a negligable grading of countless combinations of characteristics vaguely averaged together into another set of countless combinations of characteristics vaguely averaged together (in other words, the difference between you and me is greater, genetically speaking, than the difference between two races as a whole).

Every creature on this earth, including every single human being is a very complex mosaic of genetic traits inherited from both parents and redistributed into a new combination at conception. The new resulting genetic mix (ie. any individual) is even more complex as most characteristics and traits are not governed by one gene, but by several genes in combination. If you want to go down this genetic road you could make so many sub-classifications within the human race that in the end one has one race per individual.

If you want to look at it another way there is no human group that cannot have babies with a member of the opposite sex from any other human group.