Sorry for the delay.
>>130
The 'human race' meaning human species -- LOL. While it has been used for other non-scientific intents and purposes, in this discussion it only displays ignorance. You can use 'human races' (note the s) as a replacement for 'human species' but using 'human race' for defining the human species is as bad as saying 'dog breed' is for all of the 'Canis lupus familiaris.' Your usage just indicates a lame attempt of race denial, especially in the midst of a discussion on race. If you think race is irrelevant, you should just fucking say human species.
Human Race (From the dictionary)
Your dictionary seems to be an unreliable source.
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/human_race
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human+race
Either way, I explained why it is wrong. 4chan board != all of 4chan etc.
Blacks do not suck at everything. There is a supposed difference in muscle type composition that allows them to have better performance in some physical activities.
Huh? We were talking about intelligence, not physical activities (which a cheetah can do better). This is a non-sequitur. But I agree with your point, and that is obviously because of racial differences.
The IQ test was formulated using random people and thus represents the IQ of everyone including blacks. More studies are needed that duplicate the results in order to have any standing.
You have to be joking. Read the link again. It wasn't. LOL.
More IQ test studies are due once people accept my earlier points about IQ and so on. Spoiler: They essentially show the same order, as you well know. :-)
Take some biological psychology, read a dictionary, and gtfo.
Actually, NO U.
-
>>131
>>132
You have yet again done nothing to debunk my points, just showed your ignorance.
I talk about current DNA (!) studies, and you claim:
Because alot of the data presented here is regurgitated from Nazi-era german science.
This alone should show most people (excluding rednecks like
>>132) how ignorant you are.
Protip: Check the studies I linked earlier, it should answer all your on-topic questions.
-
>>134
Oh, and the genetic differences between all people? Less than the variation in domestic dogs.
Haha, typical Gould bullshit.
1) First of all, dogs show more variation in size, appearance, and behaviour than any other animal subspecies.
2) Dogs evolved DIFFERENTLY THAN HUMANS (in case you don't know, dogs have a single ancestral species, the gray wolf) through artificial human selection rather than natural selection. They have thus escaped its pressures, hence 1).
3) They have suffered severe inbreeding due to artificial, selective breeding, because of 2) thus leading to 1).
4) Dog breeds (and they ARE classified as breeds), as of late, can be identified by DNA tests with high accuracy. Dog breeds differ in behaviour heavily, and it is well known, as I said earlier. So I don't really see your overall point.
You should have known these things if you went through high school, really (Maybe not 4) though).
More than almost any species on Earth, humans are ALL ALIKE.
Not really. Animals have been grouped into 'races' based on a lot less phenotypic variation than seen in humans. Seems there are different rules for humans when it comes to butthurt Creationists or Marxists.
Read:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/lewontindebunked.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020
and the studies I linked to earlier.
-
When
>>116 said:
If you're impressed by this display you need to LURK MOAR. Better arguments than this have been presently more eloquently and defeated far more soundly.
I thought I would enter a proper debate. Seems not. Can anyone link me the older discussion? Seems interesting. I agree with him on the 'far more soundly' bit, since he prefers to talk about Nazis and minutiae rather than race. Protip: What the Nazis supposedly did does not change science.