These are also in your link.
It’s very very simple. I’ll tell you again. If race is a biologically meaningful construct, then we would expect that members of each putative race are more closely related, genetically, to other members of that race than they are to people outside of that race. Got that so far? In other words, any two random black people would be more closely related genetically than, say, one of the black people would be to a white person. That’s a prediction. It’s a testable prediction. It’s a scientific question. And, as has been pointed out to you dozens of times, that test has been done. The prediction has been tested.
And it has proven to be false. Completely and utterly false. Black people, as a whole, are NOT more closely related to each other than they are to members of other races. Results for other races vary, but as the black race seems to be the focus of your, ahem, “theory”, that is sufficient. The prediction failed the test. Thus, the hypothesis has been scientifically proven to be false.
I will make a further prediction: you will ignore or deliberately misinterpret this post, because you simply cannot get around this fact.
Damn few people of any race do. But there are many talented black authors and poets nonetheless.
You are rather ignorant of history. There were numerous civilizations indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa prior to colonial times. Just off the top of my head- Nubia/Meroe (which conquered mighty Egypt for about a hundred years), the Kingdom of Kongo, the Kingdom of Zimbwabwe, the Ethiopian Empire, and the Kingdom of Nri (in Nigeria). It’s true that most of these civilizations (that still existed) could not compete militarily with the European colonial powers (except for Ethiopia, which retained independence), but neither could most East Asian civilizations. The Europeans just happened to have better military technology at the time. Of course, at various other times in history, African civilizations could have dominated Europe in any military conflict. If the Haya of Tanzania had had the inclination 2000 years ago, they could have become a dominant military power with the world’s first carbon-steel tools and weapons.
You are applying reason here, but apparently **NDD **does not have the necessary intelligence gene, required to follow reason.
**It **(NDD) is just a racist scumbag, that makes stuff up as **it **goes along and cannot comprehend anything other than it’s warped opinion.
Is it too much to ask NDD to read Guns, Germs and Steel?
Guns, Germs, and Steel explains why agriculture and civilization began where it did. In the Near East there happened to be plants and animals that were easy to domesticate.
What the book overlooks is that once agriculture and civilization begin they have different population pressures than hunting and gathering. Over a period of ten thousand years these population pressures result in racial groups that have lower crime rates, and higher average IQs.
The stupid… it burns!!
So all we gotta do to get the blacks up to par with whites is teach them agriculture? We could always use more cotton.
Obviously, insofar as any difference whatsoever could be produced in such a short period (i.e. not terriby far at all), it would incline toward reducing the physical and intellectual capacities of populations that lived in areas where basic civilizational challenges (e.g. domesticating plants and animals) were easy relative to populations where these challenges were hard.
As John F. Kennedy famously pointed out, it is that hard things, not the easy things, which put a nation to the touchstone.
This explains why China, which had a long history of agricultural civilization, retained its independence while Japan, a johnny-come-lately to that concept, was quickly divvied up into competing imperial spheres of influence by the Europeans.
Oh. Wait. That’s not how it happened at all. Ah, well, so much for the OP’s theory…
It always amuses me to hear some perfectly ordinary human being say that a computer “can’t compose a symphony”, as though he himself could.
–Isaac Asimov
Naturally, you arrived at this conclusion by poring over, comparing and contrasting the yearly crime stats dutifully published by the Roman Empire, the Aztlan Department of Social Research and Genocidal Sacrifice (3rd ziggurath on the right, 5th floor), the Egyptian Pyramidal Science Society, the Caliphate Statistical Office for Public Beheadings and/or the Jade Palace of Infinite Celestial Sociological Studies ? And their equivalents in the IQ assessment departments ?
Oh wait, no, I’m sorry. Just pulling stuff out your arse, as usual. Carry on, O bringer of rectal enlightenment !
Yeah, and that’s after spotting him 30 points* to begin with:
I think ignorance is like a black hole. Some people fly very near its gravity well, but by some miracle, are eventually able to achieve escape velocity, course correct and soar into the depths of knowledge.
Unlike NDD and b84 here, who seem to have crossed the event horizon, achieving the ill fated Ignorance Singularity: infinitely unlimited in their own capacity for ignorance.
They are beyond any reach or hope. They are destined to view the world from their warped bubble, screaming at us from beyond the barrier as they wonder how dumb we could be, because our views are so misaligned, it’s we who must be wrong. Meanwhile, the rest of us carry on in reality and reason.
Do not attempt rescue; that way lies madness.
And don’t give me any guff on white holes being more intelligent than black holes. There hasn’t been enough research in that area.
History does record indigenous “Negro” civilizations. Sub-saharan Africa had plenty of major nation-states. You just don’t know this because you’re ignorant.
Wow, European culture recognizes European artists. Insightful of you to notice this.
If China was the dominant culture in the world, we’d all be asking how come Europe never produced any giants like Qu Yuan or Su Shi or Sima Guang. And if it had been Africa, we’d all be studying the Epic of Sundiata and the Kebra Negast rather than the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Illiad.
You have deformed the statement.
And of course you are playing rhetoric as the testable hypothesis is that Race can be reliably defined by identifiable genetic characteristics.
Your article in fact demonstrates the contrary. It demonstrates that descendence can be traced. But it also renders more incoherent your argumentations on the meaning of your races as these children are otherwise culturally the whites.
Tracing descendence is not an issue of controversy.
[URL=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/us/12genes.html?pagewanted=all”]
No, it demonstrates that it is possible to trace descent. That is not controversial in any fashion.
It does not demonstrate that there is any genetic coherence in the archaic 19e century races you are so married with, so as to demonstrate that any of the traits you assert even exist genetically - and these we have no proofs at all they even have clear genetical connections - can be said to vary coherently to these archaic ideas of race.
You make layer upon layer of the assumptions and then declare proof. It is sad.
This entire comment is a political comment that has not one thing to do with genetics, or capacities or anything of an interest to the genetical questions.
It is a political and a party political lament that only is about politics. It also reveals what your real motivations are. They have no thing to do with science, but they are about your political resentments as about american politics.
Amusing since all you do is assert relationships.
It has been shown, even in cites with graphical presentations for those who can not read the science, that the mapping of the genetic traits and the clusters of the genetic traits in populations - this is the structuring of populations - does not cohere with the archaic race concept you are dragging from the grave of the 19e century. That is not, by the very defintion, a priori. It is the proofs.
It is you who keeps making a priori assertions.
It is not necessary to believe that all individuals are genetically equal. It is not necessary to believe that all populations are equal. What is necessary and clear from the incredible weight of genetic data is to abandon your stupid and archaic ideas about those 3 races. they have no sense or logic. There is no doubt that they are not coherent and genetical ways of seeing human population.
Of course since you continue to argument by assertions and make hand waving, and ignore any piont that contradicts you, I expect only some stupidity in reply. Bon chance.
^Post 748.
Intelligence, unlike, say brown or blue eyes, is an incredibly complex thing to define and quantify. We barely understand the brain, let alone try to come up with some determining factors in genomics that will attempt to define, predict or somehow explain intelligence.
In that sense, while there are things our brains have become hardwired for through natural selection and evolution, human intelligence in the most general sense, is an elastic and adaptable manifestation of our cognition. Intelligence is a developmental gradient from infancy through adulthood and there are myriad factors that can stunt it, or allow it to flourish, not just genes alone.
This notion that intelligence has some ceiling based on some shared set of genes between race (which still hasn’t been sufficiently defined), totally breaks down on the individual level.
IQ tests are just one angle of trying to measure intelligence. It can tell you a lot about someone, but it will also leave out much, much more.
That is of course false taking your incoherent and illogical 19e century race defintion.
There are many of course. The west african empires that are documented by the islamic writings and in the early period by europeans, the kingdoms of the kongo in what is now Anglola that the Portuguese encountered and treated as equals in their first century. The kingdoms of Eithiopia (Axum, etc) the civilisation that created the Great Zimbabwe. The very early kingdoms with the iron working that existed in the Sahel and then the kingdoms
It is only possible to write such a thing if you are deliberately ignorant and such a primitive racist that you can not even admit real data.
But this is not news, you are a primitive.
We can understand this as “no one I can read or I have learned about when in my schooling”
Of course if you are Francophone there is in fact some very important writings by authors that in your scheme are black that are respected by even the most culturally conservative. Also in the Portuguese. And in the Arabic some of the most celebrated poets of the classical poetry are known in history as being Habashine, that is black.
Your very primitive knowledge and very provincial anglophone knowledge, it says nothing of writing and one must be frank, it only embarasses yourself.
It is more embarassing for you that among the Russians, the poetry of Poushkin is considered a national treasure, and Pouchkin was notably very proud of his Eithiopian grandfather. By the internally incoherent logic of race you promote, Pouchkin like Dumas and other authors that your provincial american education would not let you know about, must be considered as Negro as you say. And it is already pointed out, you do not make coherent differences on descent - as we have seen in your citation to the new article on descendence.
Your standards, they are incoherent. They are only ad hoc and they change simply to fit the prejudices that are derived from some archaic ideas that have no scientific logic or coherence.
This says better what I wanted to say.