I’m reluctant to click on a link by a necromancer who has nothing more to say than “Came across this site… interesting… re difference.”
Especially when compared to the Norwegians!
Hey! It get real cold in Scandinavia. Just sayin’.
Hey, great first post here! From the main page of that site.
Consider establishing in your own mind what a “race” or “ethnic group” is.
Once you do that, all you have to do is google for the search terms, and you’ll find plenty of differences. But don’t forget that the crudeness of these categories renders an assumption about a given individual very suspect. Men might be–on average–stronger than women, but there are plenty of women out there who can kick my ass.
For some folks, these categories are purely social constructs. By definition for them, then, physiological differences do not exist. If Navin Johnson gets to be black, then it’s silly to talk about (genetically driven) physiological differences.
Having said that, a Self Identified Race Ethnicity does create groups inside of which you will find average differences for the prevalence of certain genes which drive physiologic differences. We can say that cystic fibrosis genesare more prevalent–on average–in white SIRE groups than black SIRE groups, or that creatine kinase levels are, on average, higher in blacks than whites. And so on.
It’s true that an argument for greater genetic variation within a SIRE group than between SIRE groups can be made, but this is completely irrelevant to whether or not SIRE groups can have average physiologic differences based on genes. I could define a group of self-identified Talls and self-identified Shorts, and the average difference between those two groups would be genetically based regardless of which group otherwise had greater genetic variation.
It’s all about what gene pool your particular SIRE group has (on average) access to, and our history of human migration has created gene pools that are nowhere near completely intermingled.
Yeah, that link is crap.
Just for starters, there’s this little gem:
Uh…since different peoples have held entirely contrary views on race, and “classified” the “races” very differently, and that’s known historical fact, that in itself contradicts such claims.
For example, the Irish were definitely once considered a “race.” The fact that the pinheads pushing this trash (no specific poster is being singled out here, I mean websites like that) consider persons of Celtic Irish descent now the same race as persons of Saxon descent in itself immediately, completely, and permanently debunks that argument (that race is NOT a social construct) even if they are able to find physical differences in what they NOW call races.
Australian Aborigines tend to do well on tests of spatial memory and it turns out they tend to have a particularly large visual cortex.
Note this is the Lewontin Fallacy.
A friend of mine told me Australian Aborigines are missing a muscle in their legs. I have no idea if it is true. My Okinawan friend insists his teeth have special ridges. Okinawans are usually very hairy too. So some say.
Well there’s this (Not completely safe for work)
No, I don’t think it does. I mean, I don’t disagree with the substantive point, but I believe your logic fails to hold up.
Consider: “those scientists! first they thought that the sun revolved around the earth, now they say the earth revolves around the sun. It just proves that the whole concept of movement of heavenly bodies is nonsense.”
It is possible for many people to hold contradictory views, and for one of them to be right.