Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 2:29 AM
19 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,784 Year: 8,820/19,786 Month: 1,242/2,119 Week: 2/576 Day: 2/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   PRIMATES, AFRICANS, EUROPEANS, EVOLUTION IN REVERSE?
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 33 (33020)
02-24-2003 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peter
02-24-2003 2:25 AM


Re: PRIMATES, AFRICANS, EUROPEANS, EVOLUTION IN REVERSE?.... my search continues
There have been so-called 'unbiased' IQ tests that test a person's ability to recognise patterns in shapes. These tests have shown that the IQs of adopted children are closer to those of their biological parents than their foster parents indicating some predisposition to certain levels of intelligence.Supposedly, these testsw outlined differences in IQ across races. (although I can't remember where the hell i got this info from! I might just be talking out of my arse)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 02-24-2003 2:25 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Peter, posted 02-24-2003 7:47 AM Gzus has responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 17 of 33 (33029)
02-24-2003 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Gzus
02-24-2003 6:03 AM


Re: PRIMATES, AFRICANS, EUROPEANS, EVOLUTION IN REVERSE?.... my search continues
Was that lower or higher IQ than the adopted parents,
or a mixture of both?

Has similar research been conducted with natural children too?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Gzus, posted 02-24-2003 6:03 AM Gzus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Gzus, posted 02-24-2003 8:10 AM Peter has responded

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 33 (33034)
02-24-2003 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peter
02-24-2003 7:47 AM


Re: PRIMATES, AFRICANS, EUROPEANS, EVOLUTION IN REVERSE?.... my search continues
i have absolutely no idea
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peter, posted 02-24-2003 7:47 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Peter, posted 02-24-2003 8:40 AM Gzus has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 19 of 33 (33039)
02-24-2003 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Gzus
02-24-2003 8:10 AM


Re: PRIMATES, AFRICANS, EUROPEANS, EVOLUTION IN REVERSE?.... my search continues
Fair enough ... I'll have to stop being lazy and look it
up myself
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Gzus, posted 02-24-2003 8:10 AM Gzus has not yet responded

  
jimmyevolution
Unregistered


Message 20 of 33 (33062)
02-24-2003 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peter
02-24-2003 2:25 AM


A LIST OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES
Peter, you said that most Creationalists accept speciation. According to (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) most Creationalist do not accept speciation. Futhermore, speciation is the foundation of evolution which is counter to the Creationalist's belief that god created everything after it's likeness and it's kind like Genesis proclaims.

Below are a list of differences of Blacks and Whites. These cannot be disputed, they are facts which can be verified scientifically. However,I know matters of intelligence are harder to verify due to the intangible, non physical nature of the mind. The two best books on the matter, pro and con are, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" by J.Philippe Rushton and "The Miseasure of man by Steven" J. Goould. "The Bell Curve" is also a stellar work on this subject.

Two Separate Articles Listing Racial Differences Between Blacks and Whites

1. Some Physical Differences Between Blacks and Whites

Compiled by J. R. Colson

---

Blacks have:

-Longer shin bone (tibia) than Whites, making the muscle longer as well, resulting in Black women not having as shapely legs as Whites;
-Longer arms/legs in general (proportionately speaking);
-Heel bone (calcaneus) longer than Whites;
-Hips (Ilium) narrower than Whites;
-Center of gravity located lower than in Whites;
-More muscle, less fat than Whites (overall);
-Muscle fiber make-up different (ratio of fast twitch/slow twitch muscle fibers different than in Whites, giving Blacks more speed);
-Teeth somewhat different (e. g. molars have more cusps [points]);
-More high-blood pressure, diabetes and other diseases, per capita;
-Lower IQ (cognitive ability) on any IQ test, regardless of who gives/writes the test;
-Quicker pulse during activity than Whites;
-Sicle-cell anemia/sicle-cell trait (Whites rarely get it);
-Larger gluteus maximus muscle (bigger asses) than Whites;
-Broader shoulders than Whites;
-Smaller chest cavity than Whites;
-Reaction to various medication more, or less, severe than in Whites;
-Various bones heavier and thicker (e. g., eyebrow, jaw) than in Whites;
-Eye/nostril openings larger than in Whites;
-Hair different than Whites (ãtriangularä cross-section when viewed under microscope);

Some of the above information comes from J. Philippe Rushton's 2000 book Race, Evolution and Behavior; some comes from Jon Entine's 2000 book Taboo.

------------------------------------------------

2. Outtakes from the essay "Whites & Blacks, 100 Facts (and One Lie)"

by Roger Roots

FACT #24: The Negro skull, in addition to having a smaller brain volume and thicker cranial bones than that of the White, is prognathous; i.e., the lower face projects forward, rather in the manner of an animal's muzzle. In consequence, the Negro jaw is substantially longer, relative to its width, than the White jaw. A feature of the Negro lower jaw is its retention of a vestige of the "simian shelf," a bony region immediately behind the incisors. The simian shelf is a distinguishing characteristic of apes, and it is absent in Whites. (9) (12) (39)

FACT #25: The skin of the Negro is thicker and possibly superior to the White's in the way it impedes the penetration of germs and in its protection from the ultraviolet rays of the sun. (39) (14)

FACT #26: The dark color of the Negro is due to melanin pigment which is spread through every layer of the skin and is found even in the muscles and brain. (9) (27)

FACT #27: An African dentist can tell a Negro's tooth from a white man's at a glance. (14)

FACT #28: Negroes have arms which are longer, relative to body height, than those of Whites. This feature, together with their much thicker cranial bones, gives Black athletes an advantage over Whites in boxing. The skeletal and muscular peculiarities of Negroes' lower limbs have given them considerable success as sprinters, but have left them relative undistinguished as distance runners. (39) (27)

FACT #29: ADDITIONAL DIFFERENCES

The hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in texture, it is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of Europeans.

The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.

The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively longer than the European. The humerus is a trifle shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.

The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.

The Negro has a shorter trunk the cross-section of the chest is more circular than whites. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.

The mouth is wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.

Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.

The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin to that of anthropoids.

The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type and close together earlier.

The ears are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.

The Negro is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the white more powerfully developed in the chest.

The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Europeans.

The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.

The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.

The brain of the Negro on the average is 9 to 20% smaller than whites.

The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the white race.

The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Negro than in the white and thus more characteristic of an ape.

The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.

The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the white.

The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.

FACT #30: Blood group studies made during WWII suggest the American Negro gene pool is about 28% white. --This despite all manner of institutional discrimination, social segregation, etc. Keep in mind that the results of test from true Black Africans would show even bigger differences from Whites. (32) (14)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 02-24-2003 2:25 AM Peter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 02-24-2003 12:50 PM You have not yet responded
 Message 31 by David unfamous, posted 02-25-2003 9:00 AM You have not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 21 of 33 (33064)
02-24-2003 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jimmyevolution
02-24-2003 12:19 PM


Considering Closing This Thread
Roger Roots is a well known racist and white supremicist. I see no reason why EvC Forum should provide a soap box for racists. Unless someone can make a strong case for keeping this thread open, I will soon close it.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jimmyevolution, posted 02-24-2003 12:19 PM jimmyevolution has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2003 1:12 PM Admin has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3723
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 22 of 33 (33066)
02-24-2003 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Admin
02-24-2003 12:50 PM


"Breeds" of various animals
It is considered acceptable to discuss the differences between the "breeds" of the various non-human animals (ie horses, dogs), but we certainly get into socially dicey territory when we discuss the various human "breeds".

I have pondered if the harsh environments involved, in the history of African-American slave trade and use, might have had the potential of a semi-natural selection process leading to a geneticly stronger population. This line of thought tends to focus toward concepts of physical superiority, which can then be erroniously tied to a concept of intellectual inferiority.

But I'm starting to sound like Brad.

A very socially tense topic to explore - Probibly best stayed clear of.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 02-24-2003 12:50 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Admin, posted 02-24-2003 1:23 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12600
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 23 of 33 (33068)
02-24-2003 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2003 1:12 PM


Re: "Breeds" of various animals
I have no problem with the topic, but the originator of the thread is promoting the views of at least one well known racist and white supremicist as scientific, and I suspect he is a racist himself. An academic discussion of racial differences? Fine. Promotion of racist viewpoints and the views of known racists? Someone's going to have to do a whale of job to convince me that that's not what's happening here.

PS - Your use of quotes has uncovered a bug in the new message subject feature - it doesn't propagaate in replies and previews. I'll fix it tonight.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2003 1:12 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jimmyevolution, posted 02-24-2003 10:37 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 33 (33075)
02-24-2003 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jimmyevolution
02-23-2003 7:11 PM


Re: PRIMATES, AFRICANS, EUROPEANS, EVOLUTION IN REVERSE?.... my search continues
There is no need to assume that differences in test scores are due to innate differences in intelligence.
Partly it's to do with access to schooling.
As for the rest, I'd say it's a way of measuring institutionalised racism. Note that this does not just measure the racism of the testers, but of teachers, officials and neighbours.

When you say things like

-Longer shin bone (tibia) than Whites, making the muscle longer as well, resulting in Black women not having as shapely legs as Whites
(my bold) you expose a subjective bias, forfeit claims to fairness and impartiality, and make yourself look ridiculous.

[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 02-24-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jimmyevolution, posted 02-23-2003 7:11 PM jimmyevolution has not yet responded

jimmyevolution
Unregistered


Message 25 of 33 (33107)
02-24-2003 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Admin
02-24-2003 1:23 PM


Let Science guide us to truth and ultimately to God
Firstly, Chavalon, you have narrowly interpreted the word "shapely" as having an intent of bias but it can mean, "1. Having a distinct shape." You can find this at, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shapely Furthermore, concerning the Administrator's comments, if you want to scare people away by using the race card that is your decision but it is my belief that whether someone is racist or not ultimately should not matter, only the merits of the argument should matter, the scientific validity, and the level of scrutiny invested in the assertions.

Moreover, I do not consider myself to be racist, only a person who thinks that the differences in race are trivialized and reduced to red neck bigotry talk in most main stream media outlets.
The unmalicious debate of race that I'm discussing here should not be reduced to this level of scare tatics and ad hominum attacks. It can only be healthy to allow people to voice their opinions and concerns about matters they feel are important. Defeat me on the merits and all who read will benefit from your wisdom and knowledge. If anyone finds unscientific claims in the remarks I have posted then point them out but do not silence a debate with the race card. Lastly, I come here with only pure intentions of seeking truth and I would not intentionally mislead anyone and do not desire to demean or hurt any human being.

Jimmy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Admin, posted 02-24-2003 1:23 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-25-2003 2:23 AM You have responded
 Message 27 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2003 4:26 AM You have responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3723
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 26 of 33 (33121)
02-25-2003 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jimmyevolution
02-24-2003 10:37 PM


Re: Let Science guide us to truth and ultimately to God
You may be a sincere non-racist, but at least some of your sources are not. A Google search for {"J. R. Colson" + white + black} will get you here.

The top cites there, no longer exist, but can be found in the Google caches.

Mr. Colson seems to have some sort of association with http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/default.asp. Not a pretty picture.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jimmyevolution, posted 02-24-2003 10:37 PM jimmyevolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jimmyevolution, posted 02-25-2003 5:03 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 27 of 33 (33128)
02-25-2003 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jimmyevolution
02-24-2003 10:37 PM


Re: Let Science guide us to truth and ultimately to God
And to add a third critique of jimmy's sources, one of his most copiously cited reference (JP Rushton's "Race, Evolution and Behavior") has also received a great deal of fire from evolutionary biologists, geneticists, etc. An interesting expose of the poor scientific methodology and questionable results published in that book can be found in Douglas Wahlsten's review here. What can you expect from an author who got his start on fame on "Geraldo"? I'm not sure what the intent of the OP was, but the sources cited all along seem to be somewhat questionable.

Fundamentally - not one single "difference" cited anywhere on this thread can be used as diagnostic (which I would consider crucial for valid science).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jimmyevolution, posted 02-24-2003 10:37 PM jimmyevolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jimmyevolution, posted 02-25-2003 5:47 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

jimmyevolution
Unregistered


Message 28 of 33 (33131)
02-25-2003 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Minnemooseus
02-25-2003 2:23 AM


A further clarification in my defense
Moose, thankyou for expressing your feelings without insinuating that I am a racist. Furthermore, I'd like to state, the reason I am not a racist is because I do not believe one race is superior to another race, only different.

I found this document in entitled, "Two Seperarate Articles Listing Differences Between Blacks And Whites" on the web while doing research on this topic. I was already familiar with Dr. Rushton's work and of Jon Entine's work as well. From their books (cited on the document) the first half of differences were compiled. The second half of the document consisted of outtakes,(as cited) from Roger Roots of whom I was not at all familiar.
I was also unfamiliar with J. R. Colson the compiler of the document.
Of the four individuals associated with this document, I know Phillippe Rushton and Jon Entine are people of high caliber and respectable credentials. The other two I can not vouch for.
Therefore, it is only the second grouping of differences complied from Roger Roots that may have (in my opinion) been formulated with biased motives. Whatever J.R. Colson's feelings toward race are, they should be irrelevant here because he only complied the material he did not express his views directly.
However, all this being stated, I still feel that the entirety of this document, should be scrutinized unbiasedly, with an objective analysis. It shouldn't matter where these differences came from in my opinion, a foundation in truth will either be verifed or denied by the investigation of other objective people. Prove the assertions wrong on the merits.

Jimmy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-25-2003 2:23 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
jimmyevolution
Unregistered


Message 29 of 33 (33132)
02-25-2003 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Quetzal
02-25-2003 4:26 AM


A futher rebuttal
J. Philippe Rushton is a Professor University of Western Ontario. Rushton holds two doctorates from the Unversity of London, is a fellow of the Guggenheim Foundation, and of the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is the author of six books, and hundreds of scholarly articles. Between 1986 and 1990, he was the 11th most cited psychologist in the world. He is undoubtedly the world's foremost authority on racial differences--and what does Quetzal (Author of message 27) say about him? That he got his start on "Geraldo". A distortion as crude as this can only be deliberate, as a visit to Prof. Rushton's www.charlesdarwinresearch.org will demonstrate.
Furthermore, I must admit that when I stated this comment about "Two Seperate Articles Listing Racial Differences Between Whites And Blacks" in a previous post, "These cannot be disputed, they are facts which can be verified scientifically" I was refering to Philippe Rushton and Jon Entine's Books, not to Roger Roots, who I'm not familiar with, as I stated in my last post. That was an unitentional error. If any of you question Dr. Rushton's intellectual honesty, scientific methodology, or "diagnostic" methods, techniques, or tests, please give him the an objective consideration you would give anyone with his credentials before you accept Douglas Wahlsten's review (suggested by Quetzal) as complete, unerroneous testimony.

Jimmy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2003 4:26 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2003 7:29 AM You have responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 33 (33136)
02-25-2003 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jimmyevolution
02-25-2003 5:47 AM


Re: A futher rebuttal
Well well well. Struck a nerve, eh? Hmm, since we're being told Dr. Rushton "...is undoubtedly the world's foremost authority on racial differences...", and that he has unquestionable "intellectual honesty", etc, perhaps we might just take a quick look at some background information before deciding, no? After all, if we're to take this person as a stellar scientist, it might be worthwhile looking at how stellar he really is. Argument from authority allows a look at the alleged "authority". Let's see, jimmy, perhaps you could answer a few questions:

1. Have you ever heard of the Pioneer Fund? Perhaps you know what this organization is based upon?

2. Is there any truth to the rumor that the Pioneer Fund was founded by Wickliffe Draper in 1937 to promote eugenics and the “procreation of white racial stock”, and that they funded the distribution of the Nazi film “Hereditary Defective” in the US? Do you know what recent publications and/or "scientists" have been supported by the Fund? Are you aware of the content of "Mankind Quarterly", published by the fund?

3. Is there any truth to the rumor that Rushton received US$473,875 from the Pioneer Fund in 2000? How about the rumor that he is on the editorial board of the Fund?

4. Would you care to comment on this article in "The Scientist", Genetic Indexing Of Race Groups Is Irresponsible And Unscientific, wherein he is taken to task by Frederic Weizmann (U. of Guelph)?

5. Is it true that 30-35,000 copies of an abridged version of the book were mailed to ASA and APA members, paid for by the Pioneer Fund?

Of course, it can be argued (as Rushton apparently has), that the Fund is no longer a fascist or supremacist front org, and that just 'cause he received money from it doesn't mean it influenced his science. I will say I find it highly suggestive. Interesting, in any event.

Oh, and btw, I didn't say he got his start on Geraldo. I said he got his start on fame on Geraldo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jimmyevolution, posted 02-25-2003 5:47 AM jimmyevolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jimmyevolution, posted 02-25-2003 9:55 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019