Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Biological Case Against Race
American Outlook, publication of the Hudson Institute ^ | Spring 2002 | Joseph L. Graves Jr.

Posted on 06/04/2002 5:24:31 PM PDT by cornelis

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-331 next last
To: Poohbah
Are there any IQ tests that do not require some sort of basic cultural awareness on the test-taker's part?

Yep, the The Biology “g”.

201 posted on 06/04/2002 9:52:51 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I need proof on that one...please.
202 posted on 06/04/2002 9:53:42 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Those IQ tests floating around FR last fall didn't seem to have any cultural bias like the ACT or SAT or LSAT or GMAT or GRE etc. They were more about arithmetic and discerning differences in patterns whether visual or written word.
203 posted on 06/04/2002 9:59:50 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Let's put the same hypothesis to work to explain the surprising lack of genetic vatriation between humans and apes.

There is also the same difference between chimps and mice. Which means that genetic variation does not prove very much. One of the discoveries of the genome project was that some 95% of DNA is not part of a gene. These comparisons were made only with respect to genes, not with respect to the rest of the DNA so they are but a small part of what makes an organism. We have known for a while that the DNA which was not in genes played an important role in development of an organism, however we did not realize how large a part of the genome it was. So it seems that evolutionists have been proven wrong again by real scientists. They should be used to it by now.

204 posted on 06/04/2002 10:06:41 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
So I geuss its purely coincidental that the NBA is nearly all black.
205 posted on 06/04/2002 10:35:47 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mortin Sult
No. The absense of biological differences sufficient to distinguish two completely distinct and separate races does not imply the absense of statistically significant biological differences and does not imply that any such discernable differences are essentially cultural.

There clearly are racial differences, as groups, that are genetic, and not just cosmetic ones. Individually, it's one person at a time.

But myself and several others have already said that, six ways from Sunday. So I guess I should start using as an example the lower reading comprehension level of the politically correct crowd.

206 posted on 06/04/2002 10:47:59 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
Your comment translates thus: "I am rational, you are emotional.

No. It does not translate to that. It is that. No translation necessary.

On this issue you are saying the Earth is the center of the universe.

It saddens me to see such irrationality and defensiveness on something so straighforward.

207 posted on 06/04/2002 10:56:46 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I need proof on that one...please.

On what?

Anyhow, you bozos try one's patience.

Like talking to dyed in the wool Clintonites.

I got your proof right here, Delbert.

208 posted on 06/04/2002 10:58:30 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Pushi
I don't think you are correct.

On what?

Rest assured, I am correct.

209 posted on 06/04/2002 11:00:45 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

OK.

If race has a biological basis, please list all the races and the specific genes and traits defining the races.

Otherwise do us and your overtaxed miniscule gray matter all a favor and shut your ignorant blathering babbling boring mouths.

That will be all.

Best fishes all. Look forward to your tables with the info you of xourse can provide.

210 posted on 06/04/2002 11:05:41 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

Comment #211 Removed by Moderator

To: Poohbah
On blacks having up to 20% higher testosterone levels in college: I wonder how many of this pool of blacks are in college due to the soul...er..sole fact that they were recruited into sports? This might prove a sociological difference and possibly not a genetic difference. Also...did anyone read the Bell Curve? It was very fascinating. But, in the end, we are all made in the image of God regardless of whether this issue comes down to socialization, environment, genetics or some combo.
212 posted on 06/04/2002 11:06:56 PM PDT by trevorjohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Just because the human races are not as biologically distinct as species doesn't mean that there are no biological differences, as a statistical group.

Just because there are examples of dominance in a sport that is apparently not due to biology (Russian chess) doesn't mean that it never happens (West African sprinters).

Just because some racial differences (skin color, eye shape, average size, ...) are cosmetic doesn't mean that all racial differences are cosmetic.

Just because this is a conservative forum doesn't mean there aren't some participants here trapped in Politically Correct thinking.

Just because I've read two articles by Mr. Graves today doesn't mean I ever want to read another word of his.

213 posted on 06/04/2002 11:07:52 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
There clearly are racial differences, as groups, that are genetic, and not just cosmetic ones

Then list them.

214 posted on 06/04/2002 11:07:55 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
That there are biological differences between the races is easy to determine by simply observing your neighbors.

List the biological differences you refer to.

215 posted on 06/04/2002 11:08:53 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Here is a strange question: If blacks have higher testosterone levels (10-20% higher) and blacks committ over 50% of the violent crimes...and higher testosterone is linked to higher propensities to crime...should they be punished less? These statisitcs are fascinating, if they are correct...but what implications can we draw for society from them? And what is the solution to "racial inequities" and "racial inequalities" if these inequalities are rooted in biology and not oppressive power structures?
216 posted on 06/04/2002 11:13:58 PM PDT by trevorjohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Comment #217 Removed by Moderator

To: weikel
So I geuss its purely coincidental that the NBA is nearly all black.

Coincidental? No, it's cultural.

218 posted on 06/04/2002 11:27:44 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

Comment #219 Removed by Moderator

To: tallhappy
Intentionally overstating, as if sometimes slight differences were black and white:
  1. White men can't jump (trust me on this one, I know).
  2. I'd sooner have a Turk than a Frenchman beside me in battle.
  3. West African for sprints, East African for marathons.
  4. I'd sooner eat at a French restaurant than a Turkisk restaurant, and either beats British.
These are all group distinctions. I'd sooner have a black than a white for my basketball team, right until the moment that Larry Bird and Clarence Thomas show up, then its sorry, Clarence, back to the Supreme Court you go (and thank God you're there).

My presumption is that in all manner of human endeavors, there are measurable differences, by race, age, gender, and just about any other classification. None of which does me any good when I'm hiring -- then it's the best person for the position in question, of what ever stripe. Group statistical differences are useless in sorting out job candidates, unless perhaps one has to deal in bulk with thousands or millions at a time (as applies in the case of our airport screeners, not that the liberal powers that be would admit it). The P.C. crowd makes it rough on people who point this out. It makes it difficult for people to even be honest with themselves on this subject.

An essential part of the liberal ideology is that we all deserve the same result, that differences in outcome are signs of social, cultural, racial or economic bias that should be corrected, and that we can build heaven on earth. We're not all equal. We're different, however you slice us. I can code better, sing worse, and play worse basketball than perhaps anyone on this thread. And short of my forgetting how to code (program computers) there ain't a damn thing anyone here can do about any of this. There is a higher authority -- it is our destiny and responsibility to each live our lives as best we can. Saying that manifest differences in outcome (more of this race is succeeding in some way than another) are due to cultural bias is a dangerous sign of the prejudice of reduced expectations, and an invitation to more federal and world centralization of power to correct such errors of human planning. Only the tyrants of the world benefit from such excessive centralization of power.

God grants us equality of opportunity, to reach for our own best, to strive to understand and act in harmony with the order of the universe. The only equality of outcome is lowest common denominator for all -- which puts us all in prison or the gas chamber last I looked.

Humans don't get to build heaven -- we get to search for it.

220 posted on 06/04/2002 11:52:55 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Arleigh
Twin studies show that genetics accounts for... 50% of sexual behavior

If you're referring to a twin study that claims that 50% of the identical twins who are themselves homosexual, have a homosexual twin, there are some serious problems with that study. The first is that the sample population was self-selected by responding to adds in the back of homosexual publications.

Other less-skewed twin studies have given numbers between 10% and 20%.

But there's a problem even calling those 10% to 20% evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality... because the nature vs. nurture debate is a false dilemma. There is a third possibility...

Pre-natal.

Numerous factors can affect pre-natal development. One particulary vulnerable phase occurs when that XY chromosome kicks in the hormones and turns an externally female fetus into the male it was genetically destined to be.

What if pre-natal conditions are somehow less than optimal during that hormone surge? What is the impact on the later sexual preference of that fetus?

We don't really know, but we know that identical twins share an identical pre-natal environment.

Basically, what the twin studies of homosexuals indicates is that the cause is most likely not genetic. Here's why...

Eye color is genetic. 100% of the identical twins with blue eyes have a blue eyed twin. But when twin studies of homosexuality give an identical correlation of 10% or 20% (heck, even 50%), then we know for a fact that homosexuality isn't genetic in 50% to 90% of the cases. The bottom line is that nurture and pre-natal probably account for the bulk of the rest.

After all, wouldn't a "gay gene" have a hard time perpetuating itself?

Hard to escape the fact that homosexuals are absolutely always procreated heterosexually.




221 posted on 06/05/2002 12:08:04 AM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Whether or not we ever find a causal relationship between two traits is irrelevant and unimportant. It may be a limitation of our knowledge which time may or may not resolve.

But we don't need to wait. If we see with our own eyes that two traits almost always appear together, why isn't that sufficient proof that the two are related? And thus make a strong statistical inference that with A I almost always get B?

Denying the existence of races in human is comparable to denying the existence of breeds in dogs - as well as their differences.

222 posted on 06/05/2002 12:50:32 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
Thanks for the bump! :-)
223 posted on 06/05/2002 5:05:51 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LWalk18
Are Jews supposed to be a racial group or a religion? Why would Jews from Eastern Europre than those from Western Europe. Are they different races? In fact, how many races are there- if racial differences are clear cut, then this question should be easy.

When you have

Then you would have a group of people who would be accumulating characteristics that tended to support survival in their particular environment. After a while, the set of evolved characteristics would define a "race"

For Eastern European Jews, a common factor was that their occupations were limited to things like merchant, tradesman, and money-lender -- all of which have people surviving better if they are intelligent, with strength and speed being not that relevant.

Life in sub-Saharan Africa was such that hunting large critters paid a big part of it, and defending against hostile critters and other tribes was another big factor. Athletic ability, combined with an ability to remain aware of your buddies' position in the hunt/fight, combined with an ability to make quick decisions in a rapidly moving and chaotic situation were big survival factors. These characteristics also come in very handy in sports like basketball and football.

224 posted on 06/05/2002 6:21:53 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Your response is laughable.

But I will set you straight.

This is not a political issue.

To the extent it is and can be politicized, the absence of objective consistent biological definition of race does not coinicide with the liberal worldview. Liberal thought places categorization, including race as a number one, of people as important and essential.

You boys are very very mixed up as to what conservatism is and unaware of how you share the liberal worldview with all the victims and Jesse Jacksons and social engineers etc...

225 posted on 06/05/2002 6:51:18 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Sorry to have bothered you.
226 posted on 06/05/2002 9:46:33 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Strictly cultural ???.....please...
227 posted on 06/05/2002 9:49:41 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: trevorjohnson
If blacks have higher testosterone levels (10-20% higher) and blacks committ (sic) over 50% of the violent crimes...and higher testosterone is linked to higher propensities to crime...should they be punished less?

No. If you do the crime, you do the time. No exceptions. Get the criminals off the street. The three strikes approach has been exceptionally effective in reducing crime by removing the repeat offenders from the streets.

228 posted on 06/05/2002 10:03:11 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow, tallhappy, all,Surfin
Ok ..I'm bothering you again. You offered statements with no data or backup. I have a link below from Rushton who is arguably the leader(amongst Anthropologists) of the non-politically correct view that there are biological differences between races and even amongst sub groups within particular races. He and Graves go at it regularly. Anyone may indeed make up their own mind as it suits them. There is as well a plethora of work out there from Graves point of view reducing biological differences down to phenotypes and "biocultural" and beyond. Conclusions one wishes to make from such studies or data is the real issue isn't it, rather than the data itself? I am only opining from my layman's observations that there are indeed differences.

The link is HERE

I will gladly peruse contrary articles anyone has to offer.

Regards

229 posted on 06/05/2002 10:10:22 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Christian nations thrive, pagan nations fall.

Tell that to Taiwan
Religion: mixture of Buddhist, Confucian, and Taoist - 93%

And Japan
Religion: observe both Shinto and Buddhist - 84%

For starters....

Source: CIA World FactBook

230 posted on 06/05/2002 10:16:14 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Thanks for the link.
231 posted on 06/05/2002 10:20:48 AM PDT by Billy_bob_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
The most charitable interpretation is that there's some genetic marker for skin pigmentation that is also responsible for one being fleet footed. Ie, the skin pigmentation the running ability have a common genetic cause. A genetic vindication of a folk theory of race would find those common causes. But when we look, they're not there.

If you'll pardon me, you seem to display a rather limited understanding of genetic inheritance and statistical analysis. Mebbe, instead requiring that skin tone and athleticism be being gentically linked, we merely hypothesize that they are correlated.

There is certainly a significant amount of evidence for such, as reported here. People of east African descent dominate endurance running. People of west African descent dominate the sprints. (By memory, of the 300 fastest sprinters in the world, 297 are of west African descent.)

All of which can be summed up as follows:

"BDF" and "So what?"

232 posted on 06/05/2002 10:32:14 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow; All
Sorry, didn't realize that link had already been posted.
233 posted on 06/05/2002 10:33:44 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
Anybody can go to Google and simply type in "biological differences between Races". One could spend months examining all the hits. Everything from extremely PC perspectives to Neo-Nazi eugenics. Like most issues, the "truth" is somewhere in the middle. The real issue gets started when one goes beyond using racial classification to describe physical characteristics. There are trends to be sure with everyone getting some pros and cons. There is no super-race. I am only interested in the truth and I rely mostly on a lot of observation from around the world.

The canard that human genetic studies show that we all share a 99% identical genetic pattern is exactly that...a canard in my view. We also share a 98% identical genetic pattern with chimps. That 1 percent between us and chimps obviously accounts for some serious differences. If so, then why would not the same 1% variations between human race and even amongst the sub groups of said races also account for some undeniable differences? We are 90% identical genetically with mice as well? LOL....now that's a 10% diference I'm glad we were granted.

234 posted on 06/05/2002 10:40:20 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I am only opining from my layman's observations that there are indeed differences.

That's rather obvious.

235 posted on 06/05/2002 10:41:31 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Condorman, William Tell
I'm assuming you meant BFD...and yes you are right....except many folks are denying the existence of biological differences between races and racial sub groups because it doesn't fit their ideology. I am only interested in the truth that there are differences. Aside from physical differences, I believe most negative behavior patterns are cultural. Of course then one will invariably ask as William Tell did last night: Isn't culture a product to some degree of race in addition to many many other factors?
236 posted on 06/05/2002 10:47:26 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
You have offered no links to anything. Why don't you attempt to join in with some data or backup? It would be much more enjoyable for all of us if you could do more than simply deny or sling personal attacks. Give us something with which to discuss. You claim there are no biological differences between races. I disagree. Show me something.
237 posted on 06/05/2002 10:50:37 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Yeah, right. We both know that's b.s.

Both liberal and conservative thought must deal with the self evident differences amongst peoples. The key difference is the conclusion they reach, whether or not it justifies centrally mandated and enforced homogenization of outcomes.

Liberal thought blames social, cultural and economic inequities for causing these categorizations, which is exactly what Graves is doing. Then liberals can justify more centralized power to address these inequities. In their view, these inequities (and other calamities, such as global warming) are man made, and we (the collective we, really meaning them, the would be tyrants) should fix them. The collective improperly assumes the role of God. Hubris.

Conservative thought recognizes that there are God given or natural categorizations and differences. It is fitting and proper that there will be a wide variety of outcomes, depending on our individual capabilities, energy, resolve, genetics, upbringing, situation and a bit of luck. We each individually have the responsibility to be the best we can be. Central government has a limited role to provide for the common defense and provide a fair legal and economic framework. Fairness not measured by equal outcomes, but by equal opportunity, within practical limits. A moral authority beyond our understanding, or at least beyond our power to manipulate, determines the outcomes.

238 posted on 06/05/2002 10:57:03 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Is that the same as "BFD"?
239 posted on 06/05/2002 10:58:38 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
No sweat - bears repeating.
240 posted on 06/05/2002 10:59:22 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
The article in this page is sufficient.

It states it well.

I am not interested in the author's other views.

The fellow you link to is, to be nice, a bit eccentric.

(And of most importance, not correct in his assertions of fact).

This issue is not like evolution or other matters. It observed and clear cut.

There is no reason to argue about it.

You mistake these obvious facts about biology with the greater questions of race that are social and poltical.

241 posted on 06/05/2002 11:01:01 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Further, you all failed the simple test -- define race and list the biological attributes that define it.

You can't do it.

242 posted on 06/05/2002 11:01:46 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Both liberal and conservative thought must deal with the self evident differences amongst peoples.

Of course. And they are not biologically defined in most cases (except in genetic diseases or conditions -- but that's not what you mean).

As a side note, for perspective, this is a basic teaching of the Bible as well that the differences you speak of and I agree exist are not biologically defined.

243 posted on 06/05/2002 11:03:53 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
wardaddy said: "Of course then one will invariably ask as William Tell did last night: Isn't culture a product to some degree of race in addition to many many other factors?"

Would you be kind enough to point out where you saw that comment? I do not recognize it as something I said. Thanks. - William Tell

244 posted on 06/05/2002 11:09:47 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Good link - thanks. One other link was posted with evidence of genetic biological differences amongst the human races. See the more recent Post 232 or the earlier Post 75.
245 posted on 06/05/2002 11:10:33 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Race is a strong self-association factor -- we grow up with our own race, we tend to hand around with our own race, hence cultural identity tends to break along racial groupings.

Bingo...and the author washes right over "race as genetic" vs. "race as typical of culture", and blends them together then claims that they are claimed to be gene-based.

246 posted on 06/05/2002 11:11:39 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Maybe that's in your Bible.
247 posted on 06/05/2002 11:13:34 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Maybe that's in your Bible.

What Bible do you use?

Mine is the one with the Old and New Testaments.

248 posted on 06/05/2002 11:18:27 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Human races are not distinct separately defined groups. Your question is not a simple question, but a transparent rhetorical device.
249 posted on 06/05/2002 11:18:53 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth

A combination of one or two "gay genes" could very easily define a predisposition towards homosexuality. It would then be possible to define a person not as gay or straight but as relatively gayer or straighter than the population. People on either extreme would hard-pressed to choose the opposite of their natural inclination. People closer towards the middle would be more fluid in their attractions and choice of partners.

There are straights with one or two past homosexual experiences who go on to marry and raise a family. These might be people who are mostly straight, but near enough to the boundry that a cross-over isn't unthinkable.

Conversly there are individuals gay of center who try to follow conventional norms, marry, and have a family only to later realize that they are morbidly unhappy in a hetero lifestyle.

Not really; it's basic genetics. Remember high school biology class? There are two allels for every gene. If there is a gay gene, and if it is recessive (a reasonable assumption), you will never be able to "breed it out of existence" because a person with the Gay/Straight combination will be indistinguishable from a Straight/Straight individual, but will be a "carrier" for homosexual tendencies.

Disclaimer: All of the above is conjecture and hypothesis on my part, but it does seem to fit the annecdotal facts and observations.

250 posted on 06/05/2002 11:20:58 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-331 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson