Look, treis. You made a statement early on in our discussion that “looks black” is a good, scientific proxy for DNA analysis, If you have cited anything that supports that, I’m going to ask you to cite it again, because I didn’t see it. In one post, cite it and quote the part that supports it.
You seem to be shifting the debate to “self-reported” from “looks black”. You do realize that those are not the same thing. Right?
I certainly do. I believe in giving my kid the truth, not some PC version of it.
I’d tell her that West Africans are built for sudden bursts of movement and speed. I’d also tell her that East Africans are build for long distance endurance movement, and that’s why they dominate distance running. I’d ALSO tell her (but she’d be bored out of her gourd by this point, and giving me the usual teenager attitude) that Northern Europeans are built for brute force, and that’s why they dominate powerlifting, the hammer throw, and the shotput.
I’d ALSO tell her, should she ask, that there doesn’t appear to be solid evidence that race has any clear effect on intelligence.
I’m a realist, not a racist.
There’s a difference between a Clydesdale and a quarter horse. Each has its strengths. Don’t expect one to do the job of the other, though. It’s not a good idea.
But it’s obvious you have no idea what the truth is. So you’re going to be telling her your bullshit “realism” based on nothing but your personal fantasies.
Clydesdales and quarter horses have been subject to very organized and extensive breeding programs, very well documented. That is not the case with human groupings such as Kenyans or Northern Europeans. So what you’re telling her is simply your personal fantasy.
Except there is no bullshit. And you make a mistake by thinking that speed and playing hockey are comparable. One is an acquired skill the other not. Or do you disagree with that? I can take a good athlete who has never played hockey and turn him into a pretty good hockey player in a pretty quick time. You can’t take a slow athlete and turn him into a fast one.
If those breeding programs had been unorganized and undocumented, do you think the Clydesdale would be able to run as fast as a Quarter Horse?
Considering how many powerlifters aren’t “Northern Europeans” this a rather bizarre claim.
Nobody has accused you of being a racist, but if you don’t wish people to think of you as one, I’d recommend not suggesting that an appropriate analogy for comparisons between “Northern Europeans” and “East Africans” is a comparison between “a Clydesdale and a quarter horse.”
For the record, I don’t think it would be fair to call your arguments “racist”, though I can certainly understand people doing so. I’d say that a better and more appropriate phrase would be “pseudo-scientific bullshit.”
No, you can’t.
Yes, you can.
You’re right, there is a difference. Because they were selectively bred to be different. Can you point to the human population that was selectively bred in a similar manner?
If you’re going to use an analogy, it has to be a good one. Otherwise, it’s a fallacious bad analogy. Which is what we have here.
I’ll say it again:
Think about what you just posted. You’ve devolved to the kind of crap kids say to each other on the school bus.
Insulting people by calling their arguments bullshit doesn’t convince anyone of anything. It’s rude, I’ll say that. Hopefully that’s the effect you were going for.
The point is that such human races, nationalities, and broad groupings—such as white, black, Kenyan, or Northern European—are not the result of any kind of breeding program
Selectively-bred?
Not intentionally, no. But there’s a clear difference between the terrain of East and West Africa, and the plains of East Africa reward distance running ability much more than more varied environments. When you’re hunting in a group on a plain, or running from predators on a plain, you are able to see long distances, and use that fact to run more slowly and evenly, instead of getting caught off-guard and having to sprint like mad to the nearest safe spot.
Northern Europe is a whole other situation. I’m not sure humans have been in that area long enough for selective pressures to create much divergence, but the fact that Europeans are now shown to have some Neanderthal DNA shows how they might have gotten the brute strength ability by interbreeding with the tremendously powerful Neanderthals.
It really is factual that Africans have more muscle in their limbs, and less in their torsos, whereas Europeans are the opposite. Would you like a cite?
Wouldn’t you agree that the relative skeletal muscle distribution difference might contribute to variations in athletic ability between these two roughly-defined groups?
Why are you drawing a false distinction between intentional selection versus natural selection? They both create pressures on specific genetic traits.
Don’t confuse him with facts.
Not intentional ones. But isn’t that what evolution is? Isn’t that how we get different flavor of finches?
Yes they are. They’re the result of the same breeding program that diverged the dinosaurs, primates, fish, etc. into all the different types of each of those animal types.
It’s nature’s breeding program. Humans may not be AKC-registered, but our morphology varies with geography just like any other group of living things. It’s a pretty fundamental principle, you know?
Yeah, and there are no groups of humans that are sufficiently genetically divergent from each other so as to be considered different varieties or breeds, not to mention different species of finch. The human species has (1) not been around long enough to diverge (2) has a very recent common ancestor and (3) is constantly interbreeding. No population of humans has been isolated long enough from other humans to significnatly diverge in any significantly genetic degree to make races a genetic phenomenon rather than just a cultural and social one.
Even dog breeds, which are constantly and rigorously monitored by breeders, disappear in a very small number of generations after uncontrolled breeding, and humans aren’t even as divergent from each other as dogs or other domesticated animals.
Leave the loaded language aside. Yet we have groups that consistently have darker skin and kinky hair, and another with fair skin, and yet another with epicanthic folds of skin around the eye.
What loaded language?
And?
You did get #2 right.
#1 is just scary crazy. Populations can diverge very quickly, the fossil record shows this.
Not only that, but you actually proved my point by mentioning #2. #2 goes very well with the whole idea of ‘genetic drift’. Please feel free to wiki genetic drift.
#3? Really? So Kenyans have been constantly interbreeding with Russians? Is THAT why so many Russians have kinky hair, and so many Kenyans have blue eyes?
You’re forcing me to make racist-sounding arguments, just to prove you wrong. Please stop.
All you’ve shown is that certain phenotypes can appear in short times. There’s no showing that such superficial characteristics indicate any kind of significant biological divergence. As I said, even dog breeds, which are much more physically divergent than any human groupings, are largely superficial groupings that disappear almost immediately upon uncontrolled breeding.