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

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Yarn [Rockingham] Yes. And would you agree that the physical differences that have emerged over that time are quite significant, despite having evolved over the last 70 000 years?[Rockingham] 1a)Yes. By the time the west began conquering the rest of the world, massive discrepencies in immune systems had evolved into being between Eurasians and Africans on the one hand, and Americans and Polynesians on the other. These discrepencies grew as a consequence of Eurasians and Africans being hit with a lot more epidemics and plagues than other humans. These diseases caused population shock events that allowed significant amounts of evolution to occur over very short time frames. b)It therefore does not follow that evolution which lacked such shock events could take place as quickly. However, superior strength among Africans suggests that it can. At least through degeneration. [IRockingham] The most adaptable of all... the cream of the crop, you might say... would have been the ones to survive the migrations into Eurasia. Given that Europe is closer then China, it would explain why Mongoloids are smarter then Caucasians- their ancestors had to travel over a larger distance, thus necessitating greater adaptability.[Rockingham] 2a)I have read that native Americans colonized the entire American super-continent within a 1000 year timeframe. Long distance migrations can occur fairly quickly. That isn't say that significant evolution can't occur during them. But it could only occur if there were fairly intense pressure pushing for them. b)I don't see how it is vastly harder to live as a hunter and gatherer on a, in human timescales, very gradual trip North or East than it is to live as a hunter and gatherer in Africa. c)Since humans first evolved in Africa, it is easier for us to survive there in someways. In much of Africa for example, you would not need as much clothing as you would in moderate and sub-arctic environments. On the other hand though, African wild life has posed a danger to Africans for as long as humans have existed. In other continents, humans did away with the most dangerous wild life fairly quickly because such wild life didn't have time to evolve to be cautious around people. Africa's most dangerous animals evolved along side proto-humans and so had time to adapt. [Rockingham]If we assume that greater difficulty faced the Mongoloid ancestors, we can assume they have fewer “founding fathers” which would explain their homogenity relative to Caucasians.[Rockingham] 3a) I can certainly see how the steppe environment awards intelligence to hunter and gatherers. But does it do so much more so than does the sub-Saharan African environment? True, the steppes are a more marginal environment. But that itself doesn't insinuate anything relevant. If there is less food and less people, ceteris paribus, the importance of intelligence doesn't increase. It is the ability to cope with complexity that must be promoted in order for intelligence to be promoted. However, it also has flaws. And it makes the assumption that technology, geography, and the resultant civilisation(or lack thereof) has no effect on our genes.

1a) The physical differences are significantly greater than that- some are listed on page 4.

b) I would consider the immigration of people physically suited to Sub-Saharan Africa into Europe and the Steppe (without today’s technology and clothing which ease this) something of a shock. Of course, the immigration was typically far more gradual then that…

2a) The American migration is the subject of some debate according to my(rather limited) understanding. For one thing, it is theorized to have taken place in multiple waves. The first are theorized to have been related to modern-day Australian Aboriginals, although the last remnants of these went extinct in 1999. They are known as the Fuegians. Next, it is theorized that Caucasians/Proto Caucasians immigrated, though this is debated. Thirdly, a wave of Mongoloid immigrants came. Fourthly, a second wave of Mongoloid immigrants came.

So, which of these migrations are you reffering to? If it was one of the latter ones, the fact that humans were already present may have allowed for speedier movement. Also, the latter “waves” were probably more technologically advanced and thus able to move faster.

b)Maybe not so much difficult as difficult in different ways. Also, as you said, migration can occur somewhat faster. Also, as you yourself said, humans migrants were physically adapted for Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, to survive in a different environment, they needed intelligence to compensate for physical incompetence.

Besides that, migrants couldn’t rely on knowledge passed down by parents or tribe, but instead had to figure out what plants could be eaten, what needed to be done to survive, etc… and quickly, else they would not survive.

Besides this, the climate of Africa has remained largelly unchanged for millions of years and there were no environmental changes other than dryer and wetter periods that corresponded with the ice ages taking place in the temperate zones. The evolution of the Sub-Saharan races took an entirely different direction than that of the European and Northern Asian races.

In Africa clothing was essentially optional and more ornamental than necessary. Shelter could consist of the most rudimentary hut of intertwined branches and twigs, food was available year round and easily foraged. Contrast that with our ancestors need to withstand brutally cold winters when food sources were scarce or virtually non-existent, where finely tailored clothing and shelter made the difference between life or death. Dinner was large and difficult to hunt and kill, mammoths, elk, aurochs and other herd animals. Survival required highly cooperative and organized hunting as opposed to digging up edible roots, catching small mammals and reptiles or picking fruit as was the case in Africa.

So, without any environmental pressure to do otherwise the hominids in Africa evolved laterally, if at all, while the hominids in the harsher conditions found in temperate or ice age Europe and Asia were forced to evolve into what we are today

c) Environments with dangerous animals select more for testosterone and physical strength then intelligence and cooperation.

Whereas environments were the threat is environmental and climactic select more for co-operation and intelligence.

3) Firstly, the migrants weren’t physically suited for the environment, so they had to rely on “technology” and each other to compensate. Those that failed this died.

Secondly sparsity of food…. Whereas in Africa food is plentiful.
So among the proto-“Negroids” competition was among each other for the continuation of genetic line…. But among proto-Asians and proto-Europeans(to a lesser extent) competition was with the environment.

The former situation rewarded high testosterone, selfishness and physical strength. The latter situation rewarded restraint, selflessness and high intelligence.

[RealRockingham]

4)Not quite. In the book's introduction, Diamond speculates that New Guinaens are genetically more intelligent than Europeans.

5)Rule-following requires less thinking. It dissaudes intelligence by punishing innovation and deneccessitating it.

6)Lets talk about Ethiopia. Ethiopia is out of the way and difficult to conquer owing to its strong natural defenses. The Hykosos didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Egyptians didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Assyrians didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Persians didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Greeks didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Romans didn't conquer Ethiopia. The Muslims didn't conquer Ethiopia. Yet all of these peoples conquered Egypt, and few of them didn't benefit the territories they conquered by spurring technological advancement. Ethiopia was never conquered until the Italians took it in the 30s. Ancient Ethiopia conquered Egypt. If Ethiopia exchanged so much with Eurasia, then why didn't coffee didn't spread further than Yemen until the 15th century?


7a)You could argue that Central America offered a more competitive environment for civilizations than West Africa. During the Mayan era, Mayan civilization was was comprised of a number of competing sovereign city states. When the Aztecs were at the peak of their power, Mexico was divided into a number of strong independent states.

b) vaguely recollect that the Incans conquered cities to create their empire. This suggests that city state competition may have played a part in their development.

c)I don't know of any West African competition. But it seems to me perfectly plausible there was some.

8)What is it precisely about the steppe environment that is supposed to have so greatly boosted intelligence?

9)I meant the latter. Though the former is also true at the moment. The science of genomics is a rapidly developing field, but we still don't know what most genes do.
[/QUOTE]

4) In regards to that piece of wisdom, I provide a link: The two villages where mothers killed EVERY baby born a boy for ten years | Mail Online

Suffice to say, he has little to no understanding of the evolutionary situation of early mankind if he claims New Guinean intellectual superiority.

5) I disagree. The most rule-following societies on Earth(those of East Asia) are also the most intelligent. And as for your statement that rule following dissuades intelligence… wrong. Rule following requires, above all else, discipline and self control. Discipline and self-control are necessary for a culture that enables learning, intelligence and success. Discipline and self-control are traits promoted by the positive feedback loops of Eurasia.

6) Firstly, let me clarify something… when we talk about ancient “Ethiopia” we are not talking about Ethiopia at its present borders. Rather, we a reffering to a civilization that looked a bit like this: Image:LocationAksumiteEmpire.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Much of its territories were in fact conquered by both the Egyptians and Muslims.

Also, I disagree with the conquest thesis- if it were true, why are Japan, Norway and Iceland perhaps the most advanced and modernized countries on the planet? They have virtually never been conquered. Nubia(the Sudan Area) on the other hand, was conquered multiple times. Ethiopia as we currently define it has not been conquered, you are right. But the Japanese and Scandinavians have barely ever been conquered either. On the other hand, the Middle East has been conquered multiple times. China has been conquered multiple times. Yet neither region is doing so well as their European and Jewish counterparts who were conquered less or not at all.

As to coffee…. It was discovered after the golden era of Aksum, a period in which the Caliphate was actively isolating it. Also, the coffee plant of 800 AD was probably different to that of the period in which it spread through the Muslim world… simply, it took a while for it to be selectively bred into its current form. Once it was, it spread quite rapidly.

7) Black Africans built rather few cities, other then those at the center of trade routes. Similarly, very few black African states emerged other then those in the middle of trade routes. You say their was not much completion… but why not? Possibly because blacks are not well suited/inclined for city or state systems… to the extent that Eurasian civilizations are?

But in any case, competition was not non-existant in West Africa- History of West Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8) I elaborated on this in 2b and 3.

9) Even when Blacks and Whites have the same backgrounds, in terms of family income and childhood advantages, Blacks still have average I.Q. scores 12 to 15 points lower than comparable Whites. This includes cases where Black children have been adopted by White parents. Their I.Q.s may be improved by environment, but they are still closer to their biological parents than their adoptive parents. My sources for this statement are below:

-American Renaissance, Dec. '90, Box 2504, Menlo Park, CA 94026
-Jensen, Arthur R. Bias in Mental Testing, The Free Press, New York 1980
-Shuey, Audrey H., The Testing of Negro Intelligence, Social Science Press, New York, 1966

Thus, socio-economic issues cannot alone explain the gap. Their must be another factor. Care to guess what that is?

[grandpa]

"The preponderance of evidence is on the side of superiority of
opportunity rather than superiority of inborn race equipment." -Page 256
_American Journal Of Sociology_ Vol.33 1927-1928, Chapter: "The Negro: Is
he a biological inferior?" by James M. Reinhardt-Assistant Professor of
Sociology, University of North Dakota.

Go ahead and look into this book.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Once again, genetic engineering can readapt us to another niche within a ganeration- faster then natural processes can. Plus, efficiency need not come at the cost of flexibility- genetic engineering is not limited like natural evolution is. In any case, technology can overcome those few difficulties a genetically engineered creature would face in terms of flexibility.

And if we lose access to that technology, we're screwed, or if a natural disaster hits where everyones been genetically programmed into specialized bodies we're doomed. Our natural variability is a strength that we have benefited from e en more than our technology, I see no reason to breed it out of us.

Trust me, theirs absolutely no chance of me ever reproducing.

As in your testes are no longer attached to your body (or you are in some other way incapable of reproduction) or even the drunkest girl will see you as the hypocrite you are for simultaneously espousing a genetic cleansing program and not ensuring that the only (self admittedly) unworthy genes you currently have control over are physically incapable of being passed on?

[barts]

Quote by: RealRockingham 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?

Of course, humans who inhabit different climes, cultures, and times can exhibit different characteristics. Every aspect of human biology, including neurological function, is plastic and can be shaped by natural and applied selection. So?

Specifically, what of the many thousands of "mental capacities" are you referring to? And if you detect statistically significant variations in some mental characteristics between races, how do you explain differences within races?

[JJ58]

i didnt know there were any albino blacks left in africa. i thought they were all chopped up and used by witch doctors. oh but that would mean maybe they are a bit more backward. but i could be wrong

[JJ58]

the aborigines of australia didnt seem too bright. oh i know they could survive in the bush but the didnt really move any further forward did they. so i guess there cud be some truth in it. after all if we came from east africa originally why did we get so far in front technologically. living in the more northern climes. i guess some smart ass leftie bearded, sandal wearing tree hugging let's get rid of cars and all use bicycles to get around in person will tell me why

[Nono]

Quote by: JJ i didnt know there were any albino blacks left in africa.

Well, we learn sumthin every day, don't we, J?

i guess some smart ass leftie bearded, sandal wearing tree hugging let's get rid of cars and all use bicycles to get around in person will tell me why

With any luck, your descendants will evolve to the point where they can put together a coherent sentence.

So what's your point, J? Apart from an overpowering urge to spew racist rant of course?

[JJ58]

ah yes NONO of course u resort to exactly wat your kind do. racist,racist, burn the racist. just a typical answer. i guess u r politically correct right up to your rectum. but if u say they dont hunt down albino blacks and kill and mutilate them for the purpose of black magic rituals performed by witchdoctors then i am wrong. but i dont like to listen to your incoherent spewing of loony left ideas and how everybody shud behave. i guess u r one of those who thinks all white europeans shud apologise for slavery too.

[EscVelocity]

Quote by: Piscean 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.

To expand on your post Piscean; Alot of our modern medicine today is derived from the native peoples intelligence of the plants of the in the world. Heh, it was the native Americans that helped the colonist survive when they first settled America, because of their knowledge.

Aggression does not equate intelligence, and neither does what possessions you have. Mental differences do exist because of culture, but it doesn't put any race as being more inferior to another. We have people of color that fit in just fine with predominantly Caucasian culture; even in the face of many disadvantages they suffer in order to excel, according to our cultures standards.

[JJ58]

in britain we cannot any longer question colour or mass immigration because of your type. if we do we r shouted down and yet many immigrants in this country say there is too many immigrants here, so how do u label those ppl? as racists? get your head out of that perfect world u seem to dwell in and wake up to certain realities. and dont call me a racist. my parents were both born in africa u stupid person lol

[Nono]

Such rant, J.

just a typical answer

Yeah, J. Make a typical statement, you'll get a typical answer.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: JJ58 the aborigines of australia didnt seem too bright. oh i know they could survive in the bush but the didnt really move any further forward did they. so i guess there cud be some truth in it. after all if we came from east africa originally why did we get so far in front technologically. living in the more northern climes. i guess some smart ass leftie bearded, sandal wearing tree hugging let's get rid of cars and all use bicycles to get around in person will tell me why

The environment, quite simply. Their were domesticable crops in Australia that were suitable for sustaining civilisation. Which meant genetic traits favouring intelligence were not selected for.

Also they were isolated from the trans-Eurasian geneflow- which allowed the transfer of genetic traits from East to West and vice-versa, thus speeding up evolution...

I'm not quite willing to hypothesize in detail how climate and evironment effected the Aboriginal evolutionary development, given the environmental conditions varied so much from place to place. Accordingly, Aboriginals from Central Australia show some variation(in both physical and mental terms) with those of the tropics.

Quote by: JJ58 ah yes NONO of course u resort to exactly wat your kind do. racist,racist, burn the racist. just a typical answer. i guess u r politically correct right up to your rectum. but if u say they dont hunt down albino blacks and kill and mutilate them for the purpose of black magic rituals performed by witchdoctors then i am wrong. but i dont like to listen to your incoherent spewing of loony left ideas and how everybody shud behave. i guess u r one of those who thinks all white europeans shud apologise for slavery too.

Man, its not a witch hunt. People have been perfectly happy to debate me rationally. You know why? Because, despite my opinions being "racist", I put them across politely and intelligently. I also avoided mindless bigotry and delusions of superiority.

You on the other hand... seem to be the typical loony Stormfront-style racist that people think of when they say the term.

Oh, and in regards to the PM you sent me.... no, I do not see you as a friend or compatriot, nor do I agree with your political views... in all honesty, I consider myself Leftist.

Quote by: JJ58 in britain we cannot any longer question colour or mass immigration because of your type. if we do we r shouted down and yet many immigrants in this country say there is too many immigrants here, so how do u label those ppl? as racists? get your head out of that perfect world u seem to dwell in and wake up to certain realities. and dont call me a racist. my parents were both born in africa u stupid person lol

Man, any adverse affects that may occur on account of mass immigration can be easily overcome with genetic engineering, so I wouldn't worry about it. Your white nationalist views are antiqated....look at Hawaii for an example of a thriving multicultaral society.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: JJ58 ah yes NONO of course u resort to exactly wat your kind do. racist,racist, burn the racist. just a typical answer. i guess u r politically correct right up to your rectum. but if u say they dont hunt down albino blacks and kill and mutilate them for the purpose of black magic rituals performed by witchdoctors then i am wrong. but i dont like to listen to your incoherent spewing of loony left ideas and how everybody shud behave. i guess u r one of those who thinks all white europeans shud apologise for slavery too.

How is not being able to express yourself in a decent paragraph proving that whites are superior? I'm sure I can find an Australian aborigine who can write a decent sentence.

edit: What does it mean to be politically correct up to your rectum? That's, like, less than half politically correct, which seems a nice balance.

[barts]

Quote by: JJ58 i didnt know there were any albino blacks left in africa. i thought they were all chopped up and used by witch doctors. oh but that would mean maybe they are a bit more backward. but i could be wrong

JJ58, on either side of your keyboard, there's a "Shift" key. If you hold it down while you press any letter key, you'll get a capital letter. Capital letters are a normal part of writing in English. With all your talk about mental capacities, I wasn't sure that you were aware of capital letters, or punctuation marks, for that matter, beyond the full stop. I hope this has been helpful.

[Zhavric]

Haven't sludged through this thread, so apologies if this has already been covered.

Quote by: RealRockingham 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?

For a variety of reasons.

First, your op assumes that humans are really really different. We're not. We have cosmetic changes, but that's about it. Genetically, we're all pretty much identical. Honestly, we can put just about anything into your argument and it still reads the same.

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 healing factor as part of the process of evolution? In other words, why can't some humans heal like Wolverine from the X-men series?

The answer is that we're not that different. Some of us have more or less pigment. Some of us have different facial structures. That's it. And those aren't huge differences. Not genetically speaking.

Next on the list is a bit of common sense. While our ancestors certainly weren't scientifically sophisticated, we can safely assume that we are not decsended from humans that were stupid. So, let's say that a race comes along that is (through genetics) mentally inferior. Why would that race survive? Why would they still be here?

Finally, there are several different types of intelligence. Memory. Reasoning. Problem solving. Awareness of one's enviroment. Consider the man with a Ph.D. in astrophysics who gets taken in by a used car salesman's scam. It's not good enough to argue "some races are dumber than others". You have to quantify and give specific examples... which in the case of your argument is impossible. Intelligence isn't something that can easily be held up against a yard stick and measured. Find a bunch of white nobel prize winners and I'll take you on a trip through a trailer park. You show me a black man that's too stupid to achieve anything in life and I'll point to Barrack Obama and Oprah Winfrey.

So, your assumption is A) wrong and B) impossible for you to prove.

So concede. It's time.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Yarn - Race and Intelligence “Studies have suggested that environmental differences that exist between races are extremely important in IQ determination. For instance, data from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study reported by Scarr and Weinberg (1983) found that when African American children were adopted by White families at an early age, their IQs were more similar to the White IQ average of 110, compared with an average of 90 for African American children reared in the Black community. However, the African American adopted children still scored 6 points below the White children in the same family. Scarr and Weinberg concluded that genetic differences between the races cannot be used exclusively to explain IQ differences” 6 points. And as Obama could testify, black culture still has a lot of environmental influence even on blacks with white parents. Meaning the 6 point figure difference is certainly an overstatement of any genetic difference. This leaves any difference in genetic IQ looking rather slim indeed.

I have my doubts about most of what is cited in that link…. In regards to much of it, the author is either dishonest or misinformed. For one, his claim that the average IQ of whites is 110 and the average IQ of blacks is 90 is FALSE.

The average white IQ is 100, and the average American black(or more accurately Mullatoe) IQ is 85. IIRC, the average IQ of “full” blacks is 70 (furthermore, the average IQ of East Asians is 105, and the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115)

Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, your wrong about the Minnesota transracial studies. Now I know that Wikipedia has a tendency to be inaccurate on controversial issues, but the fact is its inaccuracies largely support Leftist points of view- so you would expect it to favour an egalitarian POV.

According to Wikipedia (typically very Egalitarian when it comes to race), even when transracial adoption occurred, the difference between blacks and whites at age 17 were between 17 and 20 IQ (on average).

Also, these “blacks” probably have significant white ancestry- I’ve seen estimates on the white admixture among African-Americans ranging from 20% to 50%. (
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Of course, as Obama shows(though he is less than 50% black), there are frequent exceptions to genetic tendencies- because there is still very significant genetic overlap between the races. In any case, a single brilliant individual does not a rebuttal make.

Quote by: Electric Hermit Your genetic "Pick 'n' Mix" counter is a dangerous myth. Both of the things you mention are aberrations caused by some dysfunction affecting predispositions which were/are adaptive. To look for mechanistic causal relationships would tend to oversimplify, but certainly one factor in obesity is our evolved preference for the flavours which tended to indicate that food was safe to eat and/or particularly nutritious. Also, the instinctive urge to eat while the eating was good - particularly when stressed by some threat to survival. Problems arose only when humans learned to replicate those flavours artificially and thus make non-nutritious foods appealing. While at the same time creating stress-inducing social conditions and making huge amounts of junk food readily available. So, you see, it was not nature that caused the problem. It was human interference in nature. Interference of a kind which you propose to take to a whole new level.

Look, EH, Humans live in a man-made environment which we are not biologically ‘evolved” for. It will take preposterously long for as to fully adapt to the environment naturally. Thus we must, as humans, take it into our own hands(carefully).

Quote by: Piscean Maybe but all that really means is that asian culture has asian kids taking their studies more seriously than a lot of white kids do.

Perhaps, but culture is most likely partially due to the genetic trends of those who are of that particular culture.

Quote by: grandpa "The preponderance of evidence is on the side of superiority of opportunity rather than superiority of inborn race equipment." -Page 256 _American Journal Of Sociology_ Vol.33 1927-1928, Chapter: "The Negro: Is he a biological inferior?" by James M. Reinhardt-Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of North Dakota. Go ahead and look into this book

“The preponderance of evidence” may have been on the side of “opportunity rather then superiority” in 1927-1928, but that is not the case now. I have listed multiple examples throughout the thread.

[Gods_Mercenary]

The average white IQ is 100, and the average American black(or more accurately Mullatoe) IQ is 85. IIRC, the average IQ of “full” blacks is 70 (furthermore, the average IQ of East Asians is 105, and the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115)

You can't make numerical claims like this and not expect someone to ask you where you got them.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: barts 1)Of course, humans who inhabit different climes, cultures, and times can exhibit different characteristics. Every aspect of human biology, including neurological function, is plastic and can be shaped by natural and applied selection. So? 2)Specifically, what of the many thousands of "mental capacities" are you referring to? 3)And if you detect statistically significant variations in some mental characteristics between races, how do you explain differences within races?

1) This is pretty much my argument- that physical differences indicate evolution has occurred since humans separated- and that there is no reason to believe mental capacities would not have been affected
2) I am not so educated on the subject as to be able to list them. I would assume that some traits would be fairly identical from race to race, with others varying significantly.
3) Simple. The same way one explains statistically significant variations in some physical characteristics between races, despite the fact that there is also physical variation within races.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Zhavric 1)Haven't sludged through this thread, so apologies if this has already been covered.

1)A lot of what you brought up has already bbeen rebutted by myself, yes.

Quote by: Zhavric 2)First, your op assumes that humans are really really different. We're not. We have cosmetic changes, but that's about it. Genetically, we're all pretty much identical. Honestly, we can put just about anything into your argument and it still reads the same.

2) Well actually, in physical terms we are very different, as I detail below. Which exposes the “Genetically, we're all pretty much identical” argument for the fallacy it is- if (despite such genetic similarity) the physical differences between the races are so significant, then logically the mental differences can be correspondingly significant irregardless of genetic similarity.

Differences Between Races:
-their are variations in height, and you merely have to look at the pygmies of Africa to prove that

-varition in maturation rate

-variations in hair(it is possible to tell which race one belongs to based on their hair, though if they are mixed race it complicates things)

-Variations in muscle structure

- Variations in leg structure(Black Africans for example are well known for their leg structure)

-Variations in skull structure- one can easily tell, if they recieve basic training, to what race of human a skull belongs just by looking at it(assuming the skull is not belonging to a person of mixed race, which would complicate things)

-It is possible to detect what race one belongs to based on DNA(assuming they are not mixed race)

-Variation in susceptibility to diseases

-Variation in smell

-Variations in medicinal requirements

-Epicanthic folds

-Variations in extent of body hair(almost non-existant in Mongoloids)

-Variations in nose structure

-“Though they may not always be willing to say so, sports physicians have found physical differences that give different races advantages in different sports. Whites and West Africans, for example, differ in proportions of body fat, width of hips, thickness of thighs, bone density, and proportion of fast- and slow-twitch muscle. Even East and West Africans differ in important ways that explain why they excel in different sports.

Because blacks have such dense bones, they are less buoyant and less likely to be swimming champions. However, their bones are more resistant to aging. After their mid-30s, white men lose about 2.5 percent of their bone mass every year. Blacks lose less than one percent. Loss of bone mass speeds up greatly under conditions of weightlessness, so blacks could probably survive longer space voyages than whites.
Studies have repeatedly found that black men have more of the male hormone testosterone in their blood than whites do.

-“The skulls of Australian aborigines have characteristics not found in any other race, but common in fossils of pithecanthropus. The bones of the skull are twice as thick as those of any other race (10 mm v. 5 mm), and the skull has heavy frontal and parietal ridge lines typical of pithecanthropus. The teeth and lower jaws of aborigines are also larger than those of other races, and more similar to those of our remote ancestors”.(init)

-“Blacks also have shorter gestation periods than whites or Asians. By the 39th week, 51 percent of black babies have been born but only 33 percent of whites. By the 40th week, the figures are 70 percent and 55 percent. Shorter gestation seems to be a characteristic of blacks that is independent of social status or access to medicine. Prof. J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, who has probably studied maturation rates more extensively than anyone else, reports that rapid development of blacks continues after birth. Many African and black American newborns can hold their heads up whereas white and Asian newborns almost never can. The average age at which black children walk is 11 months, compared to 12 months for whites and 13 months for Asians.

Prof. Rushton has found that blacks reach sexual maturity earlier than whites. By age 12, 19 percent of black girls have full development of breasts and pubic hair, whereas only two percent of white girls do. Black American women menstruate at an earlier age than white women. They then go on to have sexual intercourse for the first time at an average age that is two years younger than that of whites.

Although it has long been the subject of ribald speculation, the races do appear to differ in the size of their sex organs. The best data seems to have been gathered in 1979 by P. H. Gebhard and A. B. Johnson. They actually took measurements and found that popular myths are correct: blacks are better endowed than whites. In extensive interviews, they also found that black men at least report themselves to be less restrained than whites in their willingness to commit adultery, likelihood of frequenting prostitutes, and number of sexual partners.

Somewhat comparable differences have been found between whites and Asians. Even after controlling for body size, Danes have testes that are proportionately twice the size of those of Chinese. Whites are also estimated to produce twice the number of spermatozoa per day as Asians.” (American Renaissance News: Race And Physical Differences)

-Blacks are twice as likely as whites to have high blood pressure- perhaps due to their biological difficulty secreting sodium

-“It has long been known that blood transfusions and organ transplants work best between people of the same race. Until the Second World War, stocks of blood were routinely segregated by race for this reason. Classification by race was ended when it was discovered to be “racist,” but blood banks are reinstituting segregation.

The distribution of the common blood types is different from race to race, and some rare types are unique to certain races. Only blacks have U negative blood; only whites have Vel negative or Lan negative blood. Dr. W. Laurence Marsh of the New York Blood Center justifies racial classification: “It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U negative when no U negative white person has ever been found.”

Kidneys and other organs are classified by race for similar reasons. About 20 percent of blacks are so genetically incompatible with whites that they reject organs from all white donors.”(American Renaissance News: Race And Physical Differences)

Quote by: Zhavric 3) 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 healing factor as part of the process of evolution? In other words, why can't some humans heal like Wolverine from the X-men series?

Oh come on, you know this is not equivalent to what I said.
Their has never been any example of a Wolverine like human for one. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence, much of which I have written in this thread, suggesting possible mental differences.
BTW, I can parody your beliefs as well:
[INDENT]Given that humans and chimpanzees are genetically almost identical, and given that Chimpanzees are culturally disadvantaged, might they must be similar or nearly identical in mental capacity[INDENT]

Yes, this parody is ludicrous, but less so then your Wolverine parody of my beliefs on the matter of race...

Quote by: Zhavric 4)The answer is that we're not that different. Some of us have more or less pigment. Some of us have different facial structures. That's it. And those aren't huge differences. Not genetically speaking.

This has already been covered in exhaustive detail above, as well as on page 4.

Quote by: Zhavric 5)Next on the list is a bit of common sense. While our ancestors certainly weren't scientifically sophisticated, we can safely assume that we are not decsended from humans that were stupid. So, let's say that a race comes along that is (through genetics) mentally inferior. Why would that race survive? Why would they still be here?

The flaw in your argument is your "inferior/superior" concept, as well as the fact that you seem to be forgetting that the human races were geographically separated and in differing environments. After all, what is “superior” in one environment was not necessarily superior in another… for example, African blacks are suited to the Sub-Sahara, while whites asre suited to Europe… I am not proclaiming the superiority of any one race, but rather differences among them.

Also, I’m not saying anybody is descended from “stupid” people… but one can safely say that the IQ of whites or East Asian ancestors were higher then that of black African ancestors(for cultural AND probably genetic reasons)…

Finally, you ask why they would survive. Well… actually, certain human races HAVE been virtually wiped out. The primary example are the Capoids- a race of people that inhabits a category as distinct as the Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid categories. Prior to the Bantu expansions into the Southern half of sub-Saharan Africa, the Capoid race inhabited most of the area. On account of the Bantu expansions however, they were wiped out in all but Namibia, Botswana, and South Africa. The Dutch, British and German expansions further devastated the Capoid race… now they are left virtually extinct except in Namibia and Botswana… there is a strong argument for this being due to inferiority to Bantu invaders, in both physical, mental and technological terms.
The pygmy peoples of Africa, and the native populations of many areas that were colonized by Europeans, have also been pushed to the brink of annihilation.