Thanks for confirming the utter emptiness of your skull yet again.
Posted on 10/17/2007 1:36:52 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Thanks for confirming the utter emptiness of your skull yet again.
b). Average compared to other humans, of varying 'races.' As the post stated, have seen stupid people of European, Latino, African, Asian descent, and have seen intelligent people from multiple 'races,' too. Those groups seem to have their smart, stupid, and normal people in roughly the same proportions. This is from observation. The European evolution theory would have men more intelligent than average. Observation is that the 'average' European descendants with whom have interacted have been similar in intelligence to 'average' Asian, Latino, African descendants. There is not a very noticeable variance in intelligence--again, from observation.
c). The tendency in populations of African descendants and European descendants is for the European descendants to take the leading role. However, it is a long stretch to conclude that this is because of genetics. Rather, it is traceable to history. In non-African places, Africans were imported as slaves. In Africa, Europeans arrived with more advanced technology which allowed them not only to thrive, but suppress the natives. This happened relatively recently. European were given leadership roles, because Europeans formed the colonies. Is it surprising (from a non-genetic view) that in the Americas, European descendants still have a leading role? People generally covet power and don't relinquish it willingly unless they have to (see South Africa). So far, especially in Latin America, those of less European descent have allowed for a tiny European elite to rule over them. But the European advantage was conferred by history and the technology (much of it bootlegged from Asia) used to establish European rule, not by particularly 'intelligent' genes. Hopefully in the future the 'races' won't exist, and humanity will be more homogeneous, but if they do, it is conceivable that 'Afroids' might be ruling over 'Caucasoids' at some point.
d). Already went over this in c)., but much of European technology is descended from Asia. Columbus may not have made it to the Americas without Arab technology for his galleons, a Chinese compass and paper--and if you are a proponent of 1453, Chinese maps of the world, a southwestern Asian (Middle Eastern) astrolabe. Even your mention, the steam engine, was invented by the Greeks, who had a civilization that is traceable to both Levant and Egyptian (see, African) civilization. The point is, European technology--or civilization--did not develop in isolation. Europe--particularly southern Europe--southwestern Asia, India, China, northeast Africa, and smaller states in between, took and transferred technology among their peoples. Peoples outside this group--such as sub-Saharan Africans, and until recently northern Europeans were comparably primitive since they did not have the populations to come up with more advanced technology. During the Roman Empire, when the Romans pressed north, and during the fall of the western part of that empire, northern Europe came into more contact with the more advanced Mediterraneans (the idea of continents are relatively new, if you were to ask an Italian citizen of the Roman Empire who he associated with more, an African (Tunisia area) or a German, he would probably pick African; during the rise of Islam, the idea of Christendom, which corresponded roughly to Europe since Ethiopia was cut off, morphed into Europe, and the lands to the east became Asia (after the Roman, Anatolian province) while the lands to the south became Africa (after the Roman, North African province)). You ('you' in a general sense) should look at history, upbringing, nutrition, etc. for why some people are more intelligent than others rather than immediately come to the conclusion that disparities in their genomes are the primary cause.
And to show that racist 'science' is not new, nor is it exclusively targeted at Africans, read the writings of this esteemed historian about a group of people. You will find some striking similarities to some of the comments leveled at those of African descent on this thread, and that you have probably heard/read before. And this historian is noted for taking a particularly kindly view in comparison to his peers toward the subject 'race.'
> Ah, but it looks like your “Common Sense Quotent” is higher ‘n most!!
(grin) Cheers!
I equate IQ with common sense. I’ve know quite a few college educated idiots.
Being pointy headed doesn’t make people sharp, amirite? ;)
LOL! Nice one!
Hahaha, you sure?
Look, we “white Celtic folks” were ignorant savages before the Romans came in and sorted us out, and set up the kind of civic society that fosters science and the accumulation of knowledge. Likewise, the Romans were ignorant savages before they encountered Greeks. The Greeks were ignorant yahoos before the Minoans, and the Minoans were the same before they met the Egyptians. The Egyptians were the same until some bright guy came up with the idea to assign phonetic sounds to his squiggly bird and feather pictures instead of using them as pictograms, thus beginning the era of recorded history in the West.
None of these events had a thing to do with genetics, though. If Africa had been a more hospitable environment, it’s easy to imagine the Romans setting up camp, and modern western Civilization, there as well. (Or, heck, just imagine the Carthaginians) winning the Punic Wars. The differences between Europe and Africa are an accident of history, not anything biological.
“...most efficient and most thorough way to squeeze out the old genetic juice.”
I LOL’D
Watson is a racist because he denies that every single human being who has ever lived, or ever will live, is descended from one single solitary pair of humans, Adam and Eve, who were created directly by the Hand of G-d.
Because that way every single human being would not be literally related to each other.
An evolutionist Hunter supporter? Isn't that a little . . . weird? You must be a Randian.
Watson is arguably the greatest scientist of the 20th century. Many regard the discovery of DNA to be more important, say than relativity. And while Crick did make a contribution, note that Watson’s name was listed prior.
HD
Vishwanathan Anand
People have tried to make bastardized racist ideologies out of both Evolution and the Bible. Some see evolution as survival of the fittest, yet somehow think that people who are adapted to an African climate are somehow not fit or less fit. Some say that there were ‘multiple Adams’ to get around the complete interrelatedness of mankind as told in the Bible; or that black skin was the ‘Mark of Cain’ or that black are the ‘son’s of Ham’ destined to serve other men as slaves.
Both Biblical Creationism and Biological Evolution are perfectly compatible with the assumption of the complete interrelatedness of mankind.
I don’t believe Hunter raised his hand when Chrissy boy said ‘Raise your hand if you don’t believe in evolution’. Tancredo, Brownback and Huckabee were the three. And even if he didn’t personally accept the Science behind biological evolution, as long as his political stance was that Science should be taught in Science class then I wouldn’t have a problem with it at all.
rose-—— beyond contempt
I’m sorry I disagree about the Jews.
They have been prominant everywhere they go from the disapora on. Maybe not like they are here but still prominant.
From the Khazars to the Czars.
From Spain to England to the Indian Sassoons.
Jews have a culture and a genetic base that suits them to succeed in their host nation....whioc often led to jealousy or them picking the wrong side and ultimately to at times horrible consequences.
I don’t argue though that they have mproved since they came here IQ wise since it appears everyone does.
I think though what we have today with IQ in the US is not smarter folks overall but just more of them. We are larger and have more folks who have been “learned” than before.
Just 75 years ago high school was out of reach for a majority.
American Indian IQs have improved because they have left hunter-gatherer primitive and joined modern educated life. That uses one’s brain more.
There are not so bright Asians....usual the more primitive ones.
Why don’t you just post your homepage. I’ve read it ...a long read.
Your notion that folks who challenge your noble naive race views are racist is self serving nonsense.
Let me make it clear for you or any of the other racism obsessed here.
I do not think racism is the biggest problem today or in human history.....not by a long shot.
I think those who whine on and on about it are either very young, weak or often minorities spouting platitudes that suit them.
I think racism argument is used to diminish the political power and culture of “whites” although Asians who achieve catch some of that resentment too.
I think white on black racism is negligible today while black on white racism is huge and ingrained.
I believe whites who prostrate themselves over this non-stop are the weakest Caucasians the planet has ever seen and actually harm those they think they are helping as well as themselves.
White Christian culture the world over is on the run. I see this plain as day and everywhere they have capitulated it has led or is leading to ruin so far.
I do not want to see that happen here. Yes Virginia, we are a predominately white Christian nation and I know that just kills the politically correct amongst us.
I say tough. I’m not rolling over and I’m teaching my kids not to either.
And unlike many of the brainwashed mush that posts on this forum I have lived all over the world almost two decades and have boots on the ground experience with all this multiculturalism relativism.
I could give a damn if you call that racism or not. Folks like you are part of the problem.
Then I may disagree with both you and Dr. Bates. But I suspect Dr. Bates and I would agree.
Average ability of a group tells us nothing about the ability of any individual within that group.
Useful information can be provided by assuming group characteristics apply until you are able to acquire information about the individual. But only a fool continues to judge an individual on group characteristics when individualized information is available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.