Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least three black people in this thread, including me, have acknowledged the difference.
So what fear are you talking about? Fear isn't what's at work here. But I know exactly what is. You do too.
But now that we have the acknowledgement and confirmations, where do we go from here? Tell us?
And don't drop a load of disengenous b.s. either.
They probably think that we are too genetically inferior to understand what their talking about.
Funny thing is as far as I know the smartest whites have been the least racist, Shakespeare (wrote a play with a black protagonist), Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci etcetera or at least if they were they didn't constantly try to insert race into their work. Even Darwin said next to nothing about how this proved his race was superior and was all about birds himself (correct me if I'm wrong).
This study and this thread help to dispel the myth that all humans are genetically the same. That's it. You say you already believed in genetic differences between human populations. That's nice. Eat another cookie.
In humans intelligence, before the welfare state, matters.
If the Amerindians were quite smart, they were still doomed because of their immune systems. Did they die off because they were stupid? The Finns are quite smart. Their populations were at crisis levels a few times in recorded history. Are cockroaches smart?
Quote:
Neanderthals had bigger teeth and more muscle and were more acclimated to cold. The dumb brutes still all died off. A few rapists left their genes behind.
Yeah the Mammoths were more acclimated to the cold, a big advantage during an ice age. Not so much during a warm period.
Why do you think intelligence is all it takes? A lot human progress only has intelligence as an ingredient. Without humans being social, most of it would be lost.
There are several popular races of honey bees raised in North American for honey. There are others around the world but we will just talk about the ones that are here. I will preface this with this observation. I have not seen dramatic differences in the races of bees. They all do well when managed well. They all do poorly when they are not managed well. The differences noted are slight. When a race is mentioned as "swarmy", keep in mind that all bees swarm if crowded. A "swarmy" race is just a little more prone, not a lot more prone to swarm. Differences of individual colonies is often greater than the generalizations mentioned here. Another example is a race that is known for being gentle may not be any more gentle than any other gentle hive of some other race, but are less likely to have a hot one.
This is cool and all, but who's really gonna care? Well, from my research, only 2 people besides anthropologists will care: those trying to justify their anti-blackness, and those trying to justify their Asian and non-African Latina fetishes, the 2 types of women that alt-right white men go after as "substitute whites" because white women are "too free" and "butchy feminists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers
This isn't really surprising at all if you know about evolutionary bottlenecks, except I'm not really sure you can break them down into two groups. The DNA found in non-Africans can also be found in African populations, but there's just a lot more genetic diversity there.
I'd bet you'd find that all Native Americans have DNA from a small group of Northeast Asian people as well.
Well, in my case, my non-white genome is spread from Mongolia to Japan to Kamatchaka.
They probably think that we are too genetically inferior to understand what their talking about.
Funny thing is as far as I know the smartest whites have been the least racist, Shakespeare (wrote a play with a black protagonist), Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci etcetera or at least if they were they didn't constantly try to insert race into their work. Even Darwin said next to nothing about how this proved his race was superior and was all about birds himself (correct me if I'm wrong).
You know how it is...he'll carry a copy of this study in his pocket.
Then he'll pick an argument with some black dude about something racial. Then, when the brother inevitably says "hey brother, it's cool...we're all the same," this guy will scream "no we aren't...I'm superior," then he'll pull the study out to prove his point.
The guy needs to have his ego stroked about how superior he is genetically. So hey, let him have it.
There are several popular races of honey bees raised in North American for honey. There are others around the world but we will just talk about the ones that are here. I will preface this with this observation. I have not seen dramatic differences in the races of bees. They all do well when managed well. They all do poorly when they are not managed well. The differences noted are slight. When a race is mentioned as "swarmy", keep in mind that all bees swarm if crowded. A "swarmy" race is just a little more prone, not a lot more prone to swarm. Differences of individual colonies is often greater than the generalizations mentioned here. Another example is a race that is known for being gentle may not be any more gentle than any other gentle hive of some other race, but are less likely to have a hot one.
Exactly while you can make broad generations about a race, culture isn't based on race it is based more on ethnic group and even then their are differences between urban and rural and different regions said ethnic group might live in.
There are several popular races of honey bees raised in North American for honey. There are others around the world but we will just talk about the ones that are here. I will preface this with this observation. I have not seen dramatic differences in the races of bees. They all do well when managed well. They all do poorly when they are not managed well. The differences noted are slight. When a race is mentioned as "swarmy", keep in mind that all bees swarm if crowded. A "swarmy" race is just a little more prone, not a lot more prone to swarm. Differences of individual colonies is often greater than the generalizations mentioned here. Another example is a race that is known for being gentle may not be any more gentle than any other gentle hive of some other race, but are less likely to have a hot one.
Humans are absolutely a fluke. A fluke with just as much right to be here as any other species, but a fluke just the same.
Soon enough, we're gonna find out just how well the Earth can get by without us.
Neanderthals and homo sapiens are separate species. Many species do interbreed with one another, like the wolf and coyote and polar bears and brown bears. The inability to interbreed is not a strict rule for separate species classification, but more a general rule of thumb. Neanderthals and homo sapiens had lower inter-fertility and genetic compatibility than would be expected from members of the same species. This is one reason that Neanderthals are classified as a different species from homo sapiens.
If you argue that Neanderthals are a different species, and not just a different race and subspecies, that produced fertile offspring when mating with anatomically modern Eurasians, then you could argue that Africans and non-Africans are different species. The separation time is almost as long. Or put another way Neanderthal were not much more diverged in time from other human groups than they were from each other..
It's laughable that armchair anthropologists (I have my BA in this) think what Homo sapiens were doing 200,000 years ago should dictate politics in 21 century America. We don't have two groups of humans we have one group, or otherwise we could not mate and produce viable offspring. Meat eating has also been linked to brain size and intelligence, which could explain the rapid intellectual development of Neanderthals and other humans from Europe. And the details of the out-of-African migration have still not been filled in. The science is not settled on whether groups simultaneously headed for Europe and Asia, or whether they later spread into Europe from Asia instead of Africa. Also, the allele (you armchair anthropologists can look that up) that controls for skin color is the same in Africans and Asians but different in Europeans. So when you people with obvious political agendas look to cherry pick data, you run into other things that go against your beliefs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
