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.
Isn't the point of having a forum like this is to debate. Unless of course one does not have any evidence to back up one's arguments.
I am merely not desiring a war of words between you and I, I would much rather just hand you off to other websites that can provide you with the information you desire. Because you will not believe me if I was to tell you myself, because you don't want to believe me.
Quote:
As if random internet sites are always full of accurate information.
Why don't you post a peer reviewed source from an accredited medical and/or scientific publication. Particularly one within the last 10-15 years (at least around the Civil Rights Movement when pseudo-scientific racism was being challenged).
"This result is not evident in Africans originating from lowland regions of west Africa, showing a much higher preponderance of fast twitch fibers in their muscles."
Quote:
Your arguments and the little evidence you have provided thus far and the fact that you are deliberately evading answering my replies to you are making your claims look weaker and weaker.
I don't know, I just know that West Africans hold 494 out of 500 records in the 100m. If you don't believe what I have to say, why don't you just go verify the facts for yourself, and prove me wrong.
I agree with most of what you say. You have touched on two sides of the spectrum. Allow me to touch on them also. Both types of couples you touched on, will have problems and issues, the entire relationship. The couple that goes into the relationship with paranoia, will bring their fears to life in self manifestation. It will be unhealthy for them as a couple, and also, be unhealthy to their children if they are this way. I mean honestly, what kind of life can a child have when they are being told by their own parents, by example, words and actions, that people are going to not like them. Being told that they will not be accepted etc...
Then you have those that walk around trying to say hey look at me, I did this and you can't stop me. These couples are in some ways just as bad, because they are, so it appears in the relationship, not out of love and commitment, but rather out of "sticking it to the man". When the obsession in the relationship is about showing off, it is unhealthy because it means there is a lack of obsession for the partner.
But alas, thankfully there are those in IR relationships, that live their lives in the same manner as non IR relationships. They don't live in paranoia, nor exist to show off. These are the couples that have the greatest chance in life and relationship, because they are letting their love for one another guide them, rather then an agenda. These couples will have the healthiest relationship, and will more then likely have children that will have a better success in life.
In my experience opposition to IR is cultural. Being Latino, I never experienced difficulty dating White women (my wife is White). In fact, the idea never crossed my mind and I never actively thought I was in an "interracial relationship" when I was in California and Arizona. When I moved to the South, I was suddenly made aware of that because many women wouldn't date me because they were afraid of how their family would perceive them. I would still fool around with some of these women but dating was off-limits. It was the perception more than anything. And with Blacks, it was strictly off limits in the South. That was a taboo that both Blacks and Whites didn't cross. And this was particularly true of the upper classes like the wealthy and highly educated. The only mixed couples i saw in the South were among the lower socioeconomic classes. If you ask minorities living in the South they will confirm much of what I said.
I see a lot of white/black couples in Florida, Texas and even Louisiana (that's a historic place of mixing).
Why do some people oppose interracial relationships?
It is the same group of people who are still trying to ban the slingshot as a weapon of mass destruction. Evolution works better in some folks than others, there are those who constantly wade in the shallow end of the gene pool.
I'm all for it, helps keep the gene pool healthy...prevents inbreeding.
However....there is a shocking double standard at work.
It's O.K. for Black men to date/marry White women....but not so much the other way round.
I dated a girl from Ethiopia for a quite a while (both of us were in the States at the time) and I received NO END of very negative attention from Black American males....I had transgressed some "law" of theirs that prohibits White men from dating/marrying Black women....
So, no there is nothing wrong with "inter-racial relationships"....but society needs to learn to accept ALL of them...not just a few.....in order to be truly tolerant...
I'm all for it, helps keep the gene pool healthy...prevents inbreeding.
However....there is a shocking double standard at work.
It's O.K. for Black men to date/marry White women....but not so much the other way round.
I dated a girl from Ethiopia for a quite a while (both of us were in the States at the time) and I received NO END of very negative attention from Black American males....I had transgressed some "law" of theirs that prohibits White men from dating/marrying Black women....
So, no there is nothing wrong with "inter-racial relationships"....but society needs to learn to accept ALL of them...not just a few.....in order to be truly tolerant...
The double-standard goes all the way around, but black men get typically get the worst of it from both sides.
White men would go to great lengths to ensure that "their women" were off-limits to black men, and many today make it clear to their daughters not to even think about "bringing one home", lest they face ostracism or worse. And of course there is the resentment on the part of black women whenever they see "one of their own" hand-in-hand with a non-black woman. People on all sides seriously need to get over this mentality of ownership and entitlement. How could one possibly be taking something from you that wasn't yours to begin with? Black women no more "belong" to black men than white women to white men, and vice versa.
A key point to emphasize is that environmental vs. genetic contributions to the above kinds of physiological character traits are hard to quantify. Most physiological studies of indigenous highlanders, including those involving prolonged (up to a generation of) deacclimation (8, 39, 47, 55, 56), actually are not designed properly to evaluate this issue (sample numbers are small, genotype is usually unknown, or genetic effects are lost in the “signal/noise”).
First, it suggests that the last time Caucasians, Sherpas, and Quechuas shared common ancestors was over one-half the age of our species. Second, the last time the Himalayan highlanders (Sherpas and Tibetans) and the Andean highlanders (Quechuas and Aymaras) shared common ancestors was in the range of 30,000 years ago—a time equivalent to approximately one-third of our species’ history. Third, divergence times between these groups and east Africans from medium altitude environments are even greater. Despite the distant divergences of the latter three—the Andean, the Himalayan, and the east African—lineages, many of their metabolic and physiological responses to hypobaric hypoxia are similar. And, fourth, numerous other lineages (including intermediate branches in the Fig. Fig.33 phylogenetic tree) are known absolutely not to show these characteristics. These phylogenetic data are consistent with two possible scenarios.
One plausible hypothesis (i) is that, with only modest differences, the same metabolic and physiological solution arose independently by positive natural selection in the two high altitude lineages (Andean and Himalayan) for which we have the most data and possibly in a third east African lineage for which the data are not as extensive.
Finally, because common descent of an ancestral physiological framework is a key mechanism leading to similar physiology in rather disparate (east African, Andean, and Himalayan) lineages, this phenotype should be distributed widely within different branches of our species phylogeny, as indeed seems to be the case (2, 3, 33, 44, 45), although this question has not been examined exhaustively and systematically . Indeed, some representatives of this phenotype may be expected in essentially all branches of our phylogeny because populations often differ in percentages of alleles rather than in the total absence (or complete fixation of) specific alleles (57). Be that as it may, in the beginning, apparently most of us were naturally good endurance performers.
Once again the traits that may favor East Africans as endurance runners are likewise found in those of the "East Asian race" who live in a similar environment to medium altitude Kenyans. This, my friend looks like another case of epigenetics my friend. Also note that populations differ ONLY in percentages of alleles. This is not helping your case of disparate human "races".
The exceptional lung function of the New Guinea highlanders is not closely related to altitude and is probably determined at least in part by their present mode of life entailing a high level of habitual activity. This factor needs to be taken into account when considering `normal values'.
Another case for epigenetics, whose case are you arguing for mine or yours? By the way, Many Pacific Islanders, Australian Aborigines, Negritos and what's left of their remnants on the Asian mainland, along with the southern Indians are as dark as equatorial sub-Saharan Africans and much darker than probably most Afro-Americans. (Page 150 once again my man Brace) Yet their genotype are dissimilar from Africans but related to those of other Asians.
So my query to you, does their phenotype over ride their genotype and give them advantages in sports or as you claim their genotype makes them intellectually superior or the does the two opposing forces of their color and genes cancel out the positives of both?
Oh and since to you genes determine destiny, how is it these groups are similar in phenotype to Africans yet be genetically Asian ("Mongoloid as I believe you would put it").
It is concluded that there may be a role for genetics in the success of East African athletes; however, any genetic component to their success is unlikely to be limited to East Africans and is more likely to be found in other populations. At present it is unjustified to implicate a role for genetics in the success of East African runners when no genes have been identified as being important to their performance.
Once again, are you purposely contradicting your own arguments?
First off the person writing the review is a PHILOSOPHY professor and not a medical doctor or biologist at all. Secondly here are some reviews of those that have read the book.
Something else also comes to mind. I find it quite amazing how people are always quick to point out that the high proportion of African-Americans in the NBA is scientific proof that blacks are genetically gifted basketball players. However, those folks must remain oblivious to the fact that after the United States, the basketball powerhouse nations are found in Eastern Europe...NOT western Africa! If African-Americans' ancestry to equatorial west Africa was responsible for their basketball abilities, then we should expect to find the nations of Nigeria, Ghana, and Zaire winning international basketball medals over the likes of Lithuania, Germany, Russia, Croatia, and Serbia. The fact of the matter is that growing numbers of NBA players are comming out of the former communist bloc of Europe. In 20 years, I believe the NBA will be 50 percent European. Even sports reporter Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star has bemoaned the fact that African-American players are "losing their jobs" to foreign players.
Also, Entine attributes the pheonomenal success of Brazil in World Cup Soccer to the African ancestry of most players on the national roster. This is quite ironic, since Germany, Italy, and Argentina are also soccer powerhouses and have accomplished this with few African-descent players on their respective clubs. England, Colombia, and Mexico each have far superior soccer squads than any national teams from West Africa (the area of the world where the nature's most gifted athletes trace their ancestry, according to Entine). And if any sport ever relied on speed, quickness, explosiveness and agility, certainly it is soccer.
I bring up these points to illustrate the absurdity and inconsistencies in attributing innate racial abilities of any particular group of people with regards to any particular sport. If African-descended players dominate basketball and baseball for their superior speed and agility, then why does this fail to yield results in soccer? "Racial realists" can not have their cake and eat it to.
I bought this book expecting to hear some scientific research as to why black athletes dominate sports and whether there is any statistically significant data proving the point or not. Although there are few pieces of macro scientific information included, I learned nothing new. There was virtually no data comparing similar white and black athletes on reaction time, vertical leaping distance, 100 meter dash times etc.I also expected to see some data comparing anthropometric differences that may explain better athletic performance, such as the average thigh length or ratio of thigh length to lower leg length. The book is devoted 90% to the "why we're afraid to talk about it" aspects, that is, the political correctness issue in talking about racial differences. Frankly, this was not why I bought the book so I was mostly disappointed.
Thirdly the author of the book is also neither a medical doctor or biologist according to this source.
There is some evidence to suggest that psychosocial factors, and family problems in particular, may influence truncal length (7) and height (8) in childhood. The factors influencing lung growth are not fully understood but may include prenatal exposures, such as in utero growth and maternal smoking during pregnancy (9–14), and postnatal exposures, such as poverty in childhood (15–17). Socioeconomic status (SES) contributes to ethnic differences in adult health (18), but little is known about its influence on ethnic differences in lung function. A recent study in the United States found that anthropometric differences explain about 50 to 60%; low birth weight about 3 to 5%; and SES, nutrition, and tobacco exposure about 10% of the black–white difference in FEV1 and FVC in childhood (age, 8–17 yr) (6).
Wow, you've made a much stronger case for epigenetics with your sources than I have. Good looking out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Are those reputable enough sources?
Were you aware your sources actually supported my arguments over yours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
"This result is not evident in Africans originating from lowland regions of west Africa, showing a much higher preponderance of fast twitch fibers in their muscles."
What the hell is a "fast twitch fiber"? West Africans and their slave descendants in the Americas were overwhelmingly sedentary farmers for most of their existence.
Call me crazy but I would think the nomadic, warrior tribes of East and Saharan Africa would have the most developed "twitch muscles" if such a thing exists.
Europeans have a rich warrior tradition too. From the Norsemen, Vikings, Gauls, Celts right up until WWII Europeans have been fierce warriors and conquerors. They too would make better candidates for twitch muscle development.
And what about the Shaolin monks, samurai, ninja, Mongol nomads of eastern Asia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I don't know, I just know that West Africans hold 494 out of 500 records in the 100m. If you don't believe what I have to say, why don't you just go verify the facts for yourself, and prove me wrong.
How many gold, bronze and silver medalists west Africa has produced in international sprint competitions?
Now not only have you not answered any of my queries, you have posted data in support of my own arguments over yours while seemingly believing to hold onto your idea of "racially based superior and inferior traits". I wonder is schizophrenia also a inherited trait?
Now not only have you not answered any of my queries, you have posted data in support of my own arguments over yours while seemingly believing to hold onto your idea of "racially based superior and inferior traits". I wonder is schizophrenia also a inherited trait?
If you want to hypothesis on the differences of race it goes something like this.
Our species is relatively young, theres no way that huge EVOLUTIONARY changes have happened in such a short time. There are a few mutations but overall those are very superficial.
It isn't that humans are evolutionarily different across the board, it has more to do with which traits have been seen as more beneficial to that group of humans, and therefore are more likely to occur in that population group.
Think of it on the same level as height. In some areas of the world, people tend to be much taller than in other areas. Does that mean everyone is tall? Of course not. And even in countries that have relatively tall individuals(Northern Europe), there are plenty who are very short. And Vice versa.
When you talk about everything from lung size, fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles, intelligence, and disease prevalence. It really works the same way.
Every group has genetic traits of every other racial group somewhere in their bloodlines, but what makes us different is which of those traits were "important" either socially or physically. The more important traits have much higher densities in the population groups.
That is why Blacks hold most of the records in running, but not all of them. That is why there are still many intelligent blacks. And that is why there are plenty of tall East asians(Yao Ming).
The problem I have really has to do with genetic concentration of traits in certain races, and the desirability factors of each trait in modern society.
When we talk about intelligence levels in different population groups, we are really talking about "nerds vs athletes". In a society that values nerds over athletes, you will have more nerds. And a society that values athletes over nerds, will have more athletes.
I am not saying that any group is inferior to other groups as a general rule. It all has to do with averages. On AVERAGE European culture and East Asian culture(where it was cold and harsh and people lived in cities) have traditionally placed more value on "nerds". On AVERAGE African culture(where it was warm and more tribalist) have placed more value on "athletes".
Over a long enough period of time, an isolated race would become much more similar to each other, and some of the less desirable traits would be lost forever. Which is what they have been doing to battle many heritable diseases. Through basically Eugenics programs, they have been able to reduce the incidence of certain blood diseases to almost zero.
Since intelligence is largely hereditary, and some Africans are very intelligent. If you were to only "breed" those intelligent Africans with other intelligent Africans, then eventually "on average" Africans would be more intelligent than every other race.
The problem we have today has more to do with an "Idiocracy" scenario, where less intelligent people(the poor) are having more children than the more intelligent people(the wealthy). This is affecting all races, but because more blacks on average are less intelligent(and thusly poorer), their population is increasing at a much faster rate than whites. The blacks in America which are poor have the same problem that poor whites have, they have a tendency to be less intelligent. So unless more intelligent people start having large numbers of children, the only possible outcome is that we will all on average become less intelligent in the future(but it will take a while).
At last, the pseudo-scientific race expert comes clean. There is no scientific basis for your hypothesis or any of your arguments.
You have not answered any of my queries to you and the sites you did linked to either proved my points or were dubious at best.
My, there has been a definite change in the atmosphere in this forum. A very stormy front indeed.
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.
By the way, Many Pacific Islanders, Australian Aborigines, Negritos and what's left of their remnants on the Asian mainland, along with the southern Indians are as dark as equatorial sub-Saharan Africans and much darker than probably most Afro-Americans. 
