What ecology can tell us about racial cohabitation

I don't put much credence in the Bible, the Bible has played a dreadful role in our history. It is full of errors, contradictions and absurdities. The problems we have overcome have been in spite of, not because of the Bible. It has been through the application of reason and science that we have overcome the things it has condoned, even demanded. Pretending otherwise is plain silly.

 

I understand that but...If a person uses it to make a point...he should get it right.

 

Yes your right and I do apologize for my ignorance of the scriptures....lesson learned.

 

For a graph of racial IQ test distribution differences:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qsxtlJ8gr...aSv_o/s1600/race-and-iq_bell_curve_shift.jpeg

It has been well known since the large-scale intelligence testing of U.S. Army recruits in World War I that the average Negro IQ is approximately 15 per cent below that of the average White. Apologists for the Blacks have tried to explain away the earlier test scores as being due to the effects of segregated schools and Black poverty; in other words they claimed the tests were "culturally biased."

Later IQ tests, however, showed essentially the same degree of Black deficiency in IQ: whether Black graduates of integrated high schools were tested against White graduates of the same schools, or Blacks in a certain socio-economic category against similarly categorized Whites, the Blacks always scored substantially lower, even though standard IQ tests measure memory skills as well as purely associative ability. Tests which focus on the latter type of mental function show a much larger difference between Black and White scores.


The 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica states:

"...Other characteristics appear to be hypertrophy of the organs of excretion, a more developed venous system, and a less voluminous brain, as compared with the White races."

"In certain of the characteristics mentioned above the Negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the White man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids ...."

"Mentally the Negro is inferior to the White ... While with the latter the volume of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in the former the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by the premature closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure of the frontal bone."

From the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana:

"African weight of brain, 35 ounces (in gorilla 20 ounces, average Caucasian 45 ounces) ...."

"exceedingly thick cranium, enabling him to use the head as a weapon of attack ...."

"The cranial sutures, which close much earlier in the Negro than in other races."

Of course, after the rise of multiculturalism in the academic world, such information was deemed "racist" and removed from later additions of the Encyclopedia.

 

shush, adults are talking.

 

we may have a past historical example with the extinction of neanderthal man but as anyone should know homo sapiens is the only living example of the Homo genus existing, there are no human subspecies.

 

Absolute nonsense, cuturally unbiased IQ testing shows a very small difference between black and white IQ and one which may very well be accounted for by environmental factors. Your post here is a lie.

If you are trying to say that the 1932 entry in the Encylopedia Brittanica was without racial bias then you are in cloud cuckoo land. This just shows how desperate your argument is and how bereft of actual knowledge you are.

 

Actually there is a human subspecies.

 

What is that "human subspecies"?

 

Please show your scientific evidence of this.

 

crickets. Another thread Albert has had to run away from.

 

30,000 years ago the divergent evolutionary branching or dividing of the human species had produced five main lines or subspecies which are still extant-- the Congoid of West Africa; the Capoid of East and South Africa (later replaced in East Africa by the Congoid); the Australoid of India, Burma, Malaya, Indonesia, New Guinea and Australia; the Mongoloid of East Asia (later expanding to the southwest into Burma, Malaya and Indonesia, largely replacing the indigenous Australoids) and the Caucasoid of Europe, North Africa and West Asia (partly replacing the Mongoloids in the Americas after A.D. 1492 and the Australoids in Australia after A.D. 178. These subspecies branched or divided in turn into separate races, and these races branched in their turn into subraces, as part of the continuing process of divergent evolution.

 

I want to mention another phenomena, that can be observed in both subspecies of warblers, and the human races that inhabit overlapping regions.

Even if there is gradual interbreeding between two different subspecies/races, the genetic separation between the subspecies will continue to remain distinct.

What is meant by this is, for example, that if people with black skin have lived for hundreds of years among people of white skin, they will remain two distinct separate races, even if there are no longer any "pure" blacks or "pure" whites left. A black-white hybrid will tend to be assimilated within the black population, rather than breeding with other hybrids.

+++++=+++++++++++++++++++=+++++++++++
+++++==+++++++++++++++======+++++++++
++++====++++++++++++=========++++++++
+++=======++++++++=============++++++
++===========+++==================+++
====================================+
white <---------------------------------> black

the white/black population distribution of genetic traits would likely look something like this above, where the two populations remain distinct, despite most of the people being of somewhat mixed genetic lineage. This is because more distinct subspecies typically have higher reproductive success than more hybrid subspecies, thus precluding more "even" genetic mixing.
The different subspecies of warblers have remained distinct for thousands of years, despite a small degree of interbreeding.

So although there might not necessarily be any "clearly defined" racial distinctions among humans in different regions of the world, this in no way implies that races do not exist. You would not try to use this argument to say that the color "orange" is the same as "red" just because a "redish-orange" color exists in the rainbow.

This type of patern can be observed in Brazil, most of the population is not of any "pure" race, but despite this, there are clear racial distinctions in the society, with those of more portugese ethnicity tending to live in their own separate communities, while those with more "native" blood tending to be poorer.

 

Wrong. Anything else?

 

Complete crap pseudo science. You must spend a lot of time making this stuff up Anders.

 

..

Saying "wrong" doesn't prove that your right.What you need to do is to show proof that your right and I'm wrong....with out proof to the contrary your credibility should be questioned.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/09/of-beasts-and-men/#more-13796
http://books.google.com/books/about/Race_in_another_America.html?id=YwJoyyXm7ZkC
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2096204
http://www.wemba-music.org/color,_class,_and_descendancy.htm

Here is the coloration distribution for two subspecies of warblers that cohabit the same region. You can see that although there has been intermixing, the two subspecies remain distinct:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1649/2363/F4.small.gif

 

The first link does an awful lot of conjecture about the mangani (fictional apes created by Edgar Rice Burroughs). It's hardly science

 

First off, if you want to do biological science, learn about the biological species concept. If you can breed two populations and produce fertile offspring, you are dealing with ONE SPECIES. history has more than shown that humans are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. African Americans almost all possess some white ancestor. Latinos are the decendents of American first nations and white spaniards. So we are all hybrids of various subspecies of humans if we choose to use such terms. But biologically, we are all humans homo sapiens.

I do think niche conflicts do occur, but it's basicly what we call economics. Competition occurs between all kinds of groups. Corperations, nations, civilizations, tribes, and families and frankly individuals. I've suspected for a long time that economics was basicly ecology in human societies.

 

Granny says we need the street light out front so's we can keep an eye on what dem Hispexicans 3 doors down are doin' at night...

Street lights 'changing ecology on the ground'
23 May 2012 - The study could have big implications for a shifting of the ecology in urban and suburban areas

 

You have nothing of vaue to contribute to this discussion on grounds of total ignorance of biology.

 

Linking to a book written by an ignorant turd does prove your point.

 

Cow cookies. Humans tend to find mixed-race people attractive unless they are culturally conditioned against it.

(Halle Berry, Beyonce, Liya Kebede. Point made.)

Problem is that we are not sub-species. The last sub-species contributed a bit of their genetic material to the whole species and disappeared after spawning Europeans.

The division is ecconomic, rather than biological. White people continue to own more of the resources, thus to maintain their status.

 

It should be obvious humans are so successful through supreme adapatability to any circumstances and ability to collaborate with diverse species, including the dogs you drag into it and even horses, birds, cows...

How do ya think the "forest pygmies" came to live beside the big men? We adapt. Species, subspecies, ethnicity, tolerance, intolerance, racism, propagandism...sillyism...all irrelevant.

We are all human, despite your laughable efforts to assert otherwise and collaboration is how we progress and evolve.

It is also, for most people, 100% preferable to war or genocide. Is that your proposal to improve on multiculturalism? If not, what is it that you are trying to propose?

 

The effects of military deployment are significant, as is the military life style. Sexual availability is a turn-on, and Asians were very sexually available to the conquering armies.

We do not see a lot of men trying to bring back Arab wives from the current conflict because the local women are not sexually available.

I spent a year and a half in Libya, with pleanty of liesure time, and I cannot even tell you whether the Libyan women were, on the average, attractive or not. Ididn't know anybody in my unit even consiidering marrying a Libyan, regardless of their own race. The few Arabs I knew, mostly Lebanese, were not even that interested.

It was once part of the meme that mixng black and white was unnatural, based on the fact that white men did not marry black women.

With the integration of our armed forces, and with the introduction of women into formerly all-male career fields within the military, I am seeing an increasing number of white men with black women in the military community. Credit that to the fact that black women are more socially, thus sexually, available to white men.

THe difference in intermarriage was the result of an artifical construct of centuries-long standing.