Racial differences...

Does racial differences exist?

I for one, can tell a huge difference between, say, a Bulldog and a Siberian Husky. Both when it comes to looks, of course, but also behavior. Reading newspapers and stuff, or magazines directed to dog/cat owners, the talk of race is everywhere.

But, if we talk about humans, talk about race is a no-no... "we are all one race, the human race!".

Is this really correct? I for one can see racial differences. Colour of skin, type of hair, shape of eyes... The list goes on. Is the fact that africans excel at long distance running only a cultural question? :idea2:

Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

Isn't it time to lift the taboo around this, and study it some? We have whole other techniques now than last it was tried. Hey, the science might even be beneficial in many ways in the struggle to unlock and understand the human genome.

Do we really want to know, some things are better left alone imho. What can we use it for anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Do we really want to know, some things are better left alone imho. What can we use it for anyway.

---

Some uses...

1. open up another path of human genome research.
2. check what geographical conditions alters what over time, and how.
3. general findings. it is believed (but not proven) that a wide spread of DNA will enhance the human genome. IE, a "black" and a "white" would generally produce a "stronger" offspring than two of the same colour. This is however not proven as I know, as research in the topic is forbidden.

I have a friend who is biologist, he claims that biology research could gain a lot from this lien of research at large, but that unfortunately taboo/laws stop it.

*and no, I do not want to turn this into what race is better/worse/bigger/whatever*

I doubt such research isn't done behind closed doors, blacks seem to better equiped against cancer and and so they are probably looking into that. Army is probably doing it as well. A 'better than' discussion can't be avoided when you do it in the open so we better don't, a little hypocracy isn't always a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I doubt such research isn't done behind closed doors, blacks seem to better equiped against cancer and and so they are probably looking into that. Army is probably doing it as well. A 'better than' discussion can't be avoided when you do it in the open so we better don't, a little hypocracy isn't always a bad thing.

---

This line of research is forbidden in a great many (primarily) western countries. Yours among them I might add.

I appreciate your point. However, this is laws we talk about... It is one thing that this field of studies might get out of hand on the internet (lets hope it doesnt in this topic), however, one might assume scientists would be able to dabble with this without falling into the "We are the better" trap...

Unless some race actually are better at certain things, then it might be worthwhile to learn how, and why, and how we could use that to further the human genome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

Isn't it time to lift the taboo around this, and study it some? We have whole other techniques now than last it was tried. Hey, the science might even be beneficial in many ways in the struggle to unlock and understand the human genome.

---

no

yes

otherwise hitler will be a spector that doesn't just haunt us (which it should) but also one that actually retards human development (which it shouldn't)

If anyone says that blacks are meeting athletic because they just are I will find you and kill you.

That assumption is my biggest pet peeve, probably because I'm an athlete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

If anyone says that blacks are meeting athletic because they just are I will find you and kill you.

That assumption is my biggest pet peeve, probably because I'm an athlete

---

Thank you for your time. Clearly you put a lot of thought into that reply. Rest assured though, I am fairly confident that this thread will not lead to murder. So you are an athlete, I could never have guessed. You don't by any chance also happen to be coloured in a rather darker shade, or is that too much of an assumption?

Clearly you furthered the debate here, well done you!














EDIT: Banging head against keyboard in frustration was obviously not a very successful way of typing, so I had to fix some minor spelling mistakes.

Quote:

---

Is the fact that africans excel at long distance running only a cultural question?

---

No.

Is it important? No.

Does this mean that non-blacks aren't as athletic as blacks? No, not necessarily, as Centurion1 quite eloquently explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

No.

Is it important? No.

Does this mean that non-blacks aren't as athletic as blacks? No, not necessarily, as Centurion1 quite eloquently explained.

---

So... research into the area as to how mankind can enhance their performance is not of interest?

It is not important to study the very foundation of our being?

Would you mind elaborating your point?

Quote:

---

quite eloquently explained.
So... research into the area as to how mankind can enhance their performance is not of interest?

It is not important to study the very foundation of our being?

Would you mind elaborating your point?

---

No, that's not what I meant! I think that we should research the structure of humans and the differences in race and the influence of geographic location. But what you're doing here is calling back the age-old "nature vs nurture" debate. What I meant is that we should not pay heed to those findings too much, in case we go too far and fall back in social darwinism and eugenetics.

Maybe there are some differences, but at the end of the day there don't seem to be any major differences beyond physical appearances, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Maybe there are some differences, but at the end of the day there don't seem to be any major differences beyond physical appearances, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it.

---

So, you claim that there might be some differences, but that science at large shouldn't bother.

Clearly you have a brain for science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I have a friend who is biologist, he claims that biology research could gain a lot from this lien of research at large, but that unfortunately taboo/laws stop it.

---

Hmm, I wonder what field your friend is in, 'cause in the area of medicine/pharmaceuticals, racial differences are acknowledged, researched and worked with every day. The differences between ethnic groups are not large, but they are real, and medicine has to deal with them.

Going back to your bulldog/husky comparison, one of the places where that analogy falls flat: inbreeding (or "in-line" breeding, as the dog folks euphemistically put it). Many generations of small-population inbreeding were required to achieve the distinctive look of a bulldog or a dalmation or what-have-you. This is one of the reasons purebred dogs have so many more health problems than mutts. It's also the reason you see such distinct personality differences between breeds.

Now if forty-foot-tall aliens took us as pets, divided us up according to gross facial and bodily characteristics, and then did ten to fifteen generations of inbreeding for aesthetic effect, you'd see something similar. Short of that, however, the analogy breaks down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

So, you claim that there might be some differences, but that science at large shouldn't bother.

Clearly you have a brain for science.

---

LOL, you clearly have a brain for polite, reflective and constructive debate. That's the second arbitrary put down from you in this thread, i would begin a count down to flame war (we already had a couple of Godwins) immediately if the very topic of this thread weren't so evidently provocative... The mods be watching!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Hmm, I wonder what field your friend is in, 'cause in the area of medicine/pharmaceuticals, racial differences are acknowledged, researched and worked with every day. The differences between ethnic groups are not large, but they are real, and medicine has to deal with them.

Going back to your bulldog/husky comparison, one of the places where that analogy falls flat: inbreeding (or "in-line" breeding, as the dog folks euphemistically put it). Many generations of small-population inbreeding were required to achieve the distinctive look of a bulldog or a dalmation or what-have-you. This is one of the reasons purebred dogs have so many more health problems than mutts. It's also the reason you see such distinct personality differences between breeds.

Now if forty-foot-tall aliens took us as pets, divided us up according to gross facial and bodily characteristics, and then did ten to fifteen generations of inbreeding for aesthetic effect, you'd see something similar. Short of that, however, the analogy breaks down.

---

No Lemur, racial differences is hindered by PC, and research on it is an uphill struggle. You are very much correct though, that the difference isnt all that big. But when it comes to, say, medicine, even small differences can have tremendous results, no?

As to why mutts are a stronger breed than "in-line" breeds, did you even read my second post? I seem to remember that I very specifically wrote that a black person having offspring with a white person will generally result in a stronger breed. How very racist of me.

We dont need any aliens to have races, you are aware that the genestock you are from at one point was down to about 15 individuals? Getting out of Africa wasn't ALL that easy you know (I assume you are a white westerner .





Alp_p>>> Oh, my put downs are rarely arbitrary. And yes I hope the mods are watching, if one of the better comes in he could explain your error. I do not mind a debate, it is just idiocy and PC propaganda I have a slight problem with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

So, you claim that there might be some differences, but that science at large shouldn't bother.

Clearly you have a brain for science.

---

Um... is this what I said? I'm just saying racial differences appear to be very minor, because when you take black people out the jungle they very quickly become part of white western society just like anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Alp_p>>> Oh, my put downs are rarely arbitrary. And yes I hope the mods are watching, if one of the better comes in he could explain your error. I do not mind a debate, it is just idiocy and PC propaganda I have a slight problem with.

---

Yeah, because Fragony and myself and the other people you are looking for an argument with are really your typical PC-loving leftists. :dizzy2:

Not this thread again, we had one the other week and the week before. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Not this thread again, we had one the other week and the week before. :wall:

---

Link me. We could be over and done with it then :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Link me. We could be over and done with it then :)

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...e&daysprune=60
The topic evolves into this subject.


Also, the French are modern Neanderthals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

It is interesting that "blacks" (etc) are the purest homo sapiens. So much for genetic purity arguments by white racists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...e&daysprune=60
The topic evolves into this subject.


Also, the French are modern Neanderthals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

It is interesting that "blacks" (etc) are the purest homo sapiens. So much for genetic purity.

---

I do not believe that topic quite covered this.

And no it is not interesting that "blacks" are the purest homo sapiens. It was however interesting way back in time when the research was published. Today it is just common knowledge, hence my reference to "getting out of africa wasnt that easy".

We had 2 groups moving out, that basically make up the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

No Lemur, racial differences is hindered by PC, and research on it is an uphill struggle.

---

I'd like to see a citation for that, please. And anyway, race is a rather sloppy intermediary stage between general medicine and personalized genomic medicine.

A genetic allele that affects the body's response to codeine and antidepressants, for example, "is found in 9%, 17%, and 34% of the Ethiopian, Tanzanian, and Zimbabwean populations, respectively. Clearly, lumping together all of Africa obscures the differences between the populations."

The same gene varies among whites. [...] Looking at the aforementioned gene in both men, the authors point out that Watson, unlike Venter, has two copies of an allele that "is rare in the Caucasian population (3%) but prevalent in East Asian populations." They conclude: "One's ethnicity/race is, at best, a probabilistic guess at one's true genetic makeup."

In the stone age of genetics, we've often had to settle for racial medicine, such as BiDil, the heart-disease drug marketed to blacks. But technology and economics are beginning to carry us beyond that phase. "The costs of whole-genome sequencing and whole-genome genotyping are rapidly decreasing," Venter and his colleagues observe. "Companies such as Navigenics, 23andMe, and deCODE will genotype 600,000 to 1,000,000 markers in an effort to offer personalized genomics; several hundred dollars covers the cost of the technology."

Oh excuse me kadagar for not having the properly pedabtc tone you so greatly desire. A polite response can be just as insulting as a rude one. I do not need to deal with your snide little put Downs regarding my athleticism. No I am white with a small bit of Chinese. What gives you the right to give me these snide little putdowns. You always like to talk about how obnoxious Americans are and I think a little lesson in hypocrisy is necessary.

Yes my post was a Tad juvenile but I dot need your snide little comments about my post.

Edit: on further reflection I realized your just a pompous *** this is your thread why don't you promote discussion by being polite rather than a snob. You obviously share no ideological values or with me as we all know but keep your mouth shut if you can't give me a bit of respect.

I'm acing my classes and have a bright future lined up for myself. Big head, I've got. It must mean I am racially superior to you, right? You're only a ski instructor, right? :thinking:

Naw, my logic must be convoluted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

I'm acing my classes and have a bright future lined up for myself. Big head, I've got. It must mean I am racially superior to you, right? You're only a ski instructor, right? :thinking:

Naw, my logic must be convoluted.

---

You are really illustrating the argument he tries to make, genuine scientific research being made impossible by political correctness. Why do you read superiority when what written says differences, it's all in your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You are really illustrating the argument he tries to make, genuine scientific research being made impossible by political correctness. Why do you read superiority when what written says differences, it's all in your head.

---

Good, we definitely need more of society influencing the direction of science now. Any scientist who wants to do studies on racial differences, particularly and especially with respect to intelligence - (obviously as pointed out before, genetic differences that may be helpful in diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions should be looked at more) better be scrutinized a whole lot, and the pressure from the peer community better have him interpret the results in the correct fashion of differences due to ENVIRONMENTAL factors rather than any kind of biological or genetic factors which would just be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Good, we definitely need more of society influencing the direction of science now. Any scientist who wants to do studies on racial differences, particularly and especially with respect to intelligence - (obviously as pointed out before, genetic differences that may be helpful in diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions should be looked at more) better be scrutinized a whole lot, and the pressure from the peer community better have him interpret the results in the correct fashion of differences due to ENVIRONMENTAL factors rather than any kind of biological or genetic factors which would just be wrong.

---

Why take enviroment as a given? Not very scientific. Read my first post I am against such research, might be interesting, but no. Hate to open it up for a Godwin but it's too dangerous imho. We really don't want this debate, not yet we are still licking wounds.

Please people, keep everything civil. This is a touchy subject and people are toeing the line already, so I ask that people please get right away from the line.

The diffrences between "races" negligibile and the only reason people assume there are marked differences between them is becuase that myth is propagated by a zionost controlled hollywood media to further divide the Proletariat and keep the bugeriosie in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Why take enviroment as a given? Not very scientific. Read my first post I am against such research, might be interesting, but no. Hate to open it up for a Godwin but it's too dangerous imho. We really don't want this debate, not yet we are still licking wounds.

---

It is incredibly naive to think that science is not affected by the environment. Especially when you get away from Physics and Chemistry (although these too are profoundly affected by the context). In the case of incredibly vague and poorly defined attributes like "intelligence" which aren't even defined in an value neutral way let alone 'studied' in one, the environmental factors again play a huge role.

There isn't any kind of objective truth about racial differences or lack thereof for science to discover. We as a (majority - still a ton of racists :sad:) society have basically set up the fact that races are inherently equal and that environmental factors are the causes of differences. And the studies so far have overwhelmingly supported that paradigm. :yes:

Case in point, about 50ish years ago homosexuality was considered a mental illness here. With societies changing opinion on the matter, it is not anymore (though there are still those in the know that will tell you it is, but they are increasingly becoming relics of the past, and the societal pressure on them is huge).