Quote:
Quote by: Gods_Mercenary  1)This sites a little too racially fixated for my taste, but then so is this debate.
2)Oh, and not to resort to a fallacy of authority, but I tend to trust these guys, given that I have no background in this sort of anthropology, in their opinions on race over guys I communicate with over the internet. AAA Statement on "Race" |
1) LOL, I think the guy that created that site is from some alternate dimension or summat. Among other things, he claims that:
-Carthage was a black civilisation
-Ancient Egypt was a black civilisation
-That Carthage defeated Rome.
-That the "blacks" of India(who are actually Caucasian, with some theorised Australoid influences) are negroid/African black.
Oh, and he claims the existence of a "Zingh Empire" 20 000 years ago. This Afrocentric myth is based upon the beleif that Australian Aborigines, Dravidians(the "blacks" of India) and Negroids(black Africans) are of the same race..... any site claiming the existance of the "Zingh Empire" is unreliable. To say the least.
2) You are resorting to the fallacy of authority, and a very PC authority at that. Nonetheless, I will rebut their statement.
". Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that
there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. "
The idea of their being greater variation within racial groupings then between them is either a deliberate or accidental misinterpretation of the data- I assume the former, given that people of intellect have written this.
After all, if you were to compare Chimpanzee and human DNA, you would probably find that their is greater variation within the two species then between them.
I will post a more thorough rebuttal tomorrow.