1 question that should convince you of mental differences among races...

[Night]

Quote by: tinybear Name one famous black scientist.

Wow...how ignorant of you. There are several famous examples...in fact today, one of the world's post prominent astrophysicists is black, named Neil Tyson.

[Rortykiller]

Quote by: RealRockingham OK, I get the idea that my former "90 facts" thread might have been too extensive, in that 90 facts were too many for people to give a damn about. So let me challenge you with just one question: Given that all living humans are all descended from an initial "prototype" of human, that is a single race, and given that such significant differences are emerged among humans in physical terms through the process of evolution, how can such differences not also have emerged in mental capacities as part of the process of evolution?

The evolution of the brain occurred before we became white/asian. It took 100million years for our 1lb brains to turn into a 3lb brain capable of thought. And more time after that for us to even realize its capacity. Needless to say, if this is the case, why would minds evolve into something stupider? And in addition, there is no correlation with intelligence and mating, so there is no drive. This is just simply bad evolution. In addition, race emerged over a relatively small period of time and is relegated to results caused by only the most extreme elements of an environment. Namely, black people evolved into white people to absorb more vitamin D in cold weather to prevent rickets. And they evolved into mongoloids because of extreme temperature variations and wind. There is no other isolated leap of intelligence like what you're describing in our history.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Night Wow...how ignorant of you. There are several famous examples...in fact today, one of the world's post prominent astrophysicists is black, named Neil Tyson.

And since when does fame dictate intellect?

[tinybear]

Quote by: Night Wow...how ignorant of you. There are several famous examples...in fact today, one of the world's post prominent astrophysicists is black, named Neil Tyson.

Name a few more.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: tinybear Name a few more.

How about jesus. If he existed at all, he definitely couldn't be referred to as Caucasian white.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Then again, the whole Mediterranean world is so turbulent, can anyone living around there really be referred to as a single race?

[Night]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary And since when does fame dictate intellect?

Since when did I use the term "famous" to imply that he had intellect? I did not...so please, before making another stupid comment, read my post a bit more carefully.

[Night]

Quote by: tinybear Name a few more.

Daniel Hale Williams, George Washington Carver, Lloyd Quarterman, Percy Julian, Charles Drew, Patricia Bath , just to name a few. What is your point?

Edit: Oh right, and they're all very famous.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: tinybear Name one famous black scientist.

Even if it were the case that there were no "famous" black scientists at all - which it clearly isn't - the foolish error of the racist is to assume that this is solely and exclusively determined by genetic racial differences. This is to overlook other, crucially important, factors. For example, at the time when most of the "famous" scientists of history were working, black people were all but totally excluded from any kind of education. If they didn't become scientists it was due to lack of opportunity more than lack of ability. Now that the opportunities are there... Well! There is no need to repeat the list of black people now making their mark in every field of human endeavour.

I noted also that when one example was given the immediate response was to ask for more. Why? It only takes one to prove the theory of racial inferiority completely false.

[Piscean]

Quote by: tinybear Name a few more.

Name one unevolved primate scientist..........thats the point.

[Piscean]

Quote by: Electric Hermit Even if it were the case that there were no "famous" black scientists at all - which it clearly isn't - the foolish error of the racist is to assume that this is solely and exclusively determined by genetic racial differences. This is to overlook other, crucially important, factors. For example, at the time when most of the "famous" scientists of history were working, black people were all but totally excluded from any kind of education. If they didn't become scientists it was due to lack of opportunity more than lack of ability. Now that the opportunities are there... Well! There is no need to repeat the list of black people now making their mark in every field of human endeavour. I noted also that when one example was given the immediate response was to ask for more. Why? It only takes one to prove the theory of racial inferiority completely false.

Good points. I don't know of any native american scientists yet noone is accusing them of being unevolved. It's for cultural reasons of circumstance that certain races aren't holding a lot of certain positions....yet.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Night Since when did I use the term "famous" to imply that he had intellect? I did not...so please, before making another stupid comment, read my post a bit more carefully.

Well before you insult someone, try realizing I was talking to the person suggesting that fame suggested intellect. not every comment revolves around you.

[Chris]

Also bear in mind that that native jungle tribesman from Brazil knows a lot more about surviving in the jungle than any skinny whiteboy from Nebraska could know.

But that skinny whiteboy can solve differential calculus, while the jungle tribesman can not. Its all about culture. The whiteboy from Nebraska may get eaten alive by a Jaguar or drink stagnant water or die of overheating, but the jungle tribesman may not understand how to cross a street and get hit by a bus.

Human intelligence is not connected to race.

[Matt W]

Tiny...Obama vs Bush...which would you describe as the most intelligent?

[tinybear]

Quote by: Matt W Tiny...Obama vs Bush...which would you describe as the most intelligent?

We're talking about the general and not the specific. Your question is therefore unfair. Besides, Obama is half-white.

[RealRockingham]

OK, their have been a lot of posts, so I'm going to respond to them as 4 different sections....

On inventions/achievements

Quote by: Jinei Are these achievements caused by the collective will of the race or talented individuals on the extremes of the bell curve? Surely it is the latter, and to say that their achievements represent the race as a whole is a classic use of the tail wagging the dog fallacy.

Yes it is the latter. But the bell-curves for each race is different. In the case of African Americans, the variations between them and whites are quite significant(white average IQ is 100, African American average IQ is 85) . That is to say, they have a lower average IQ. Besides that, Blacks have a MUCH lower percentage of gifted individuals(people with IQ of 130 or higher) then whites. So in other words, their are signifcantly lower percenage of blacks who are talented then their are whites.

This is demonstrated clearly on graph: A Tail of the Bell Curve: The Politics of Mental Retardation

As for the East Asian bell-curve, they have a higher average then whites(105), but East Asians tend to cluster closer to their average, so a lower percentage of Asians are of 130 IQ and over(and thus gifted) then whites.

The big question is whether this is on account of culture or genetics. I reckon both- given that twin adoption studies have shown empirically that ones personality and IQ is at least 50% a result of genes(and probably more).

Quote by: Piscean It would be impossible for a black person to be well educated and placed in any position where intelligence is necessary if indeed black people were un-evolved. This is clearly not true since a well educated black person can be a rocket scientist or surgeon or whatever else you can think of.

Umm, no. For several reasons.

1) The bell curve. Their are some "gifted" blacks, but not many. This is because though the races have experienced divergence, they have not diverged totally. That is to say, their is a higher chance of certain characteristics being present among blacks then whites and vice-versa. But by and large, "average" differences hold throughout most examples of a race, with a few exceptions.

2) Most "well educated, high-positioned" blacks are actually Mullato. That is to say, they have some caucasian admixture. This is true of most African Americans, who on average have at least half-white ancesrty.

Of course, if such a large percentage have white admixture a fair few are gonna have a beneficial combination of mental genes derived from their white "half", and thus be gifted.

3) Affirmative action makes it possible

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary George Washington Carver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Your kidding me, right? that was off the top of my head..

George Washington Carver's accomplishments are SERIOUSLY overstated. For one, he is refferred to as having "fathered the peanut industry". FALSE.

" Peanuts, which are native to the New World tropics, were mashed into paste by Aztecs hundreds of years ago. Evidence of modern peanut butter comes from US patent #306727 issued to Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Montreal, Quebec in 1884, for a process of milling roasted peanuts between heated surfaces until the peanuts reached "a fluid or semi-fluid state." As the product cooled, it set into what Edson described as "a consistency like that of butter, lard, or ointment." In 1890, George A. Bayle Jr., owner of a food business in St. Louis, manufactured peanut butter and sold it out of barrels. J.H. Kellogg, of cereal fame, secured US patent #580787 in 1897 for his "Process of Preparing Nutmeal," which produced a "pasty adhesive substance" that Kellogg called "nut-butter.""

"Discovered hundreds of new and important uses for the peanut? Fathered the peanut industry? Revolutionized southern US agriculture? No!
Research by Barry Mackintosh, who served as bureau historian for the National Park Service (which manages the G.W. Carver National Monument), demonstrated the following:
Most of Carver's peanut and sweet potato creations were either unoriginal, impractical, or of uncertain effectiveness. No product born in his laboratory was widely adopted.
The boom years for Southern peanut production came prior to, and not as a result of, Carver's promotion of the crop.
Carver's work to improve regional farming practices was not of pioneering scientific importance and had little demonstrable impact.
To see how Carver gained "a popular reputation far transcending the significance of his accomplishments," read Mackintosh's excellent article George Washington Carver: The Making of a Myth."

This comes from: Black Invention Myths... you have to scroll down a bit.

Quote by: Night Wow...how ignorant of you. There are several famous examples...in fact today, one of the world's post prominent astrophysicists is black, named Neil Tyson.

Mullato. Plus, his importance exaggerated- if he was white, he would not likely be so emphasized and well-known.

Quote by: Night Daniel Hale Williams, George Washington Carver, Lloyd Quarterman, Percy Julian, Charles Drew, Patricia Bath , just to name a few. What is your point?

-"Did Dr. Daniel Hale Williams perform the first succesful heart surgery in 1893? No!
Dr. Williams repaired a wound not in the heart muscle itself, but in the sac surrounding it, the pericardium. This operation was not the first of its type: Henry Dalton of St. Louis performed a nearly identical operation two years earlier, with the patient fully recovering. Decades before that, the Spaniard Francisco Romero carried out the first successful pericardial surgery of any type, incising the pericardium to drain fluid compressing the heart.
Surgery on the actual human heart muscle, and not just the pericardium, was first successfully accomplished by Ludwig Rehn of Germany when he repaired a wounded right ventricle in 1896. More than 50 years later came surgery on the open heart, pioneered by John Lewis, C. Walton Lillehei (often called the "father of open heart surgery") and John Gibbon (who invented the heart-lung machine)."

-I have already addressed George Washington Carver

-Lloyd Quarterman: He participated in the Manhattan project. I see. Big whoop, he wasn't major, and their were a lot of participants. Plus, most likely Mullatoe(most African-Americans are)

-Charles Drew: Achievements? He is commonly recognized as the inventor of the bloodbank, but even Wikipedia acknowledges this as false(Charles R. Drew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Also, Mullato

Quote by: Electric Hermit Even if it were the case that there were no "famous" black scientists at all - which it clearly isn't - the foolish error of the racist is to assume that this is solely and exclusively determined by genetic racial differences. This is to overlook other, crucially important, factors. For example, at the time when most of the "famous" scientists of history were working, black people were all but totally excluded from any kind of education. If they didn't become scientists it was due to lack of opportunity more than lack of ability. Now that the opportunities are there... Well! There is no need to repeat the list of black people now making their mark in every field of human endeavour. I noted also that when one example was given the immediate response was to ask for more. Why? It only takes one to prove the theory of racial inferiority completely false.

Black countries by and large failed to educate their population as well though... and don't try to pull "environment" on me. The Mayans existed in a comparable environment, and without access to Eurasian technologies(man of which drifted through and were adopted by Sub-Saharan Africans, such as the wheel). The Mayans didn't have the advantage of Eurasian technology and crops, and yet had a well enough educated population that they were at one point further ahead then any other country in the world in terms of astronomy and mathematics. Black Africans never eve got close to that, even when they had the access to European/Islamic civilisation and vast gold resources of the Mali era.

Quote by: Piscean Name one unevolved primate scientist..........thats the point.

1) Most "Black Achievers" are actually Mullatoe(African Americans are on average half white)
2)Primates have diverged to a far greater extent from us then blacks have. Still doesn't mean their ain't differences, on average. But their is rather more overlap on account of the occasional exception. If Neanderthals existed today they may well have had scientists as well. And people would be proclaiming that they were "the same" much like people do with the existing human races.

Quote by: Matt W Tiny...Obama vs Bush...which would you describe as the most intelligent?

Both are little more then the face of their party anyway- I mean really, the role of the president is to a great extent that of a figurehead. I doubt ever of them are autonomous in the decisions they make.

Quote by: SoylentGreen How about jesus. If he existed at all, he definitely couldn't be referred to as Caucasian white.

Your point being? I regard the white race as intellectually "lower" then the Jewish one anyhow.

[RealRockingham]

This will be the last from me tonight. Expect me to rebut the rest of your anti-racialism arguments tommorow

. Oh, BTW, I have realised I am Racialist NOT racist. A racist is someone who beleives their race is superior and wants to preserve it. I, OTOH, recognize superiority as a subjective term, do not regard the white race as intellectually superior to Jews, Japanese/East Asians and Upper Caste Indians. Besides that, I want to see my and all other races replaced by a genetically engineered one.

Quote by: tinybear We're talking about the general and not the specific. Your question is therefore unfair. Besides, Obama is half-white.

(slightly under)80% actually. I did the math.

He had a White mother. His father was 12.5% Kenyan Luo(thus black), and the rest Sudanese Arab. The Sudanese "Arabs" are 1/3 Black, 2/3 Caucasian on average. So Obama's father was about 41.5% Black, 60% Caucasian.

Thus, Obama would be approximately 20.75% black, and 79.25% caucasoid. Mullato.

[tinybear]

Let's turn the tables, shall we? Name one non-black who has won a Olympic gold medal in the 100m sprint in the last 60 years (Valery Borzov in 1980 does not count).

[SoylentGreen]

RealRockinghamYour point being? I regard the white race as intellectually "lower" then the Jewish one anyhow.

Jesus was Not A Jew

During His (jesus) lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas. Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called "Jews" throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turko-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia,

Your point being?

[RealRockingham]

Brain Capacity/IQ

Quote by: Jinei 1)We had all we needed once we left Africa. (read below) 2)So it is your contention that cooler climates cause more social cooperation, which in turn causes higher intelligence? But evidence have you to support the idea that warmer climates do not require more social cooperation? 3)But intelligence isn't something decided by some unitary factor in the genes. It is in what stock that civilization holds education that determines the intelligence within a population.

1)Our ancestors from Africa had all they needed while they were IN Africa. But the selective pressures on humans were different in, say, Europe then they were in our original homeland of the prototype humans. Thats why we have white skin for example(and many other physical differences- I listed some on the first page)- we evolved it because WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL WE NEEDED.

2) "Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes."(taken from:Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic)
In the simplest terms, the humans that left Africa essentially experienced eugenics at the hands of the environment, which led those those most able to deal with the problems mentioned above to survive. It would explain why tests have shown Caucasians to be intermediate in many ways between Blacks and East Asians- we left Africa and experienced selective pressures at the hands of the environment, but we didn't move as far as the East Asians did.
Their are to human groups which would seem to contradct this theory: Inuit and American Indians. The explanation is, Inuit and other Arctic peoples only settled those areas very recently(also the environment is probably extreme enough that their is another dynmanic of selective pressures their, different to that of Europe and East Asia.
In the case of the Amerindians-they crossed from Asia to America before the selective pressures on Asia had pushed the East Asian IQ to the level it is at now. Incidentally, Amerindians from further North(that is, Canada and the the more Northern parts of the USA) are on average more intelligent then other Amerindian groups. Selective pressure from the environment, perhaps?
3) Their are signficant differences in IQ between races that had no prior history of education, such as the Australian Aborigines and Inuit. Also, scientists are in general agreement that genetics are responsible for at least 50% of a persons characteristics(including IQ) and almost certainly more based on analysis of twins who have been separated at birth.
I'm not saying culture doesn't affect it, but genetics almost certainly do as well.

Quote by: Walrus Yes, I agree. I think the rise of what we think of as intelligent civilisation probably relates to the development of writing, in that it gave people the ability to store knowledge and with it one hell of an advantage. This appears to have evolved independently in China, Mesopotamia and South America. Our writing systems probably evolved from the early Sumerians but with the exception of the Nubian kingdom of Kush, it never got down as far as main black African continent, and this was probably down to reasons of geography.

If it could independantly evolve in the Americas, such as with the Maya(who were if anything more geographically disadvantaged then blacks), then why couldn't it in Africa. Also, why couldn't Blacks reach the peaks in maths and astronomy that the more geographically disadvantaged Mayans reached?

Quote by: Vee Not exactly on topic but the human mind can only grasp 7-9 things at a time.

And?

Quote by: Chris Also bear in mind that that native jungle tribesman from Brazil knows a lot more about surviving in the jungle than any skinny whiteboy from Nebraska could know. But that skinny whiteboy can solve differential calculus, while the jungle tribesman can not. Its all about culture. The whiteboy from Nebraska may get eaten alive by a Jaguar or drink stagnant water or die of overheating, but the jungle tribesman may not understand how to cross a street and get hit by a bus. Human intelligence is not connected to race.

Your initial argument is correct, but your conclusion is illogical. A Jaguar from Brazil knows a lot more about surviving in the jungle also.

Thats how evolution works you see. It gears people AND animals to be best suited to a particular environment, over time. Certainly, Blacks are physically better suited to their African environment and Whites to their European environment. Is it totally unreasonable that they might be better suited to their respective environments mentally as well?