lictor616

I'm no the one who is ignoring taxonomic descriptive terms. You,re the one who called humans A RACE... duh huuuh. Evolution is a pretty devastating refutation to the nonsense you just spouted: Homo Sapiens are EVOLVING, and HAVE EVOLVED since they were first introduced 200 000 years ago... http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2.../mn_skull01.jpg http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...t%3D42%26um%3D1 A 160,000-year-old skull found in Ethiopia is the oldest known modern human fossil, there are craniometrical differences (the skull is larger) and many other dissimilarites... this is what a Homo Sapien of that time would have looked like (reconstructed): http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...t%3D42%26um%3D1 Many traits and mtDNA markers disappear and are replaced... that's evolution... slow change... the evolution happens through increased differentiation. The silly Christian and liberal war-cry that "all men are created equal" has no basis in science. Many genetic drift separates us between these old remains and ourselves... yet we still call them Homo Sapiens...

stop the willful knavery for a moment and please reason with me... Humans are one SPECIE.... race and SPECIE are not the same... no matter how many times you repeat it... repeating a non-fact will not make it fact... even if you repeated yourself 1000 times: 1000 X 0= 0 Dogs are one specie ... and they are multiple races and sub-races.... Humans are one specie and have multiple races and sub races... and even more damning: the amount of genetic difference between any two breeds of dogs will be LESS then any two humans of different cline /race/ethnicity: To quote James Serpell’s The Domestic Dog: ”Recently using genetic and biochemical methods researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical . . . to other members of the genus . . . Results using mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) data . . . reveal startling similarities among canids . . . Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman Pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves . . . to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.” (pp. 32-33)

completely wrong, once again: Wolves and Foxes CAN REPRODUCE, DOGS AND WOLVES CAN REPRODUCE, Coyotes and DOGS CAN REPRODUCE, and in these cases they aren't even considered to be the same SPECIE. And wrong: Hominoidea is the order or FAMILY our genus is HOMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus) is does NOT INCLUDE chimps or apes (VERY close relatives to be sure though) And there have been experiments conducted in Stalinist Russia, when Communists where trying to impregnate Nigerian women with various primate/gorilla semen... and were reportedly successful and produced hybrid monsters that were (thankfully) not viable (the Communists where perhaps trying to create a new breed of humans that were better suited to life under communism). Race is a CLUSTER of genetic markers... therefore one trait is not likely to be categorized as a race (just as races of dogs can display various fur shades and patterns... look at the great dane). But it would be even taxonomically accurate to decree that red, straight haired people with light eyes comprise separate races... how many blacks you know fit that bill? then again how many asians? The overwhelming majority of people fitting that definition are "white" nordic indo europeans. see?

My god you can feel the animosity in this one... "Provincial way of teaching"... that's an awkward way to put it but in essence are you suggesting that race based eduction are an approved and universal method of instruction in Canada? I mean to compare language schools (french and english) to RACE BASED SCHOOLS, that exclude non-blacks for instance and teach a bizarre race based and racially fused curriculum is quite a new development. And i'm sorry, but it isn't the ENTIRE provincial curricula that's being amended, its "an exception" made to people on the basis of their race! and exactly!!!! "who cares about the colour of the cat's fur".,.. why should black people be exempt from this ? You realize that this is precisely a case where a mouse's fur is a determining factor right? Seems like your impudence and anger are clouding your ability to reason.

again Dancer: who are YOU to decide where the "races end" and what faculties and mtDNA markers are "meaningless"??... there is no such thing as "meaningless" differences in biology. Calling me an idiot for recognizing these differences and not subscribing to the silly Christian myth of "all men are created equal" doesn't do much for your argument... And of course, you could be a bit less ingenuous when you talk of SUPERIOR or BETTER or INFERIOR races. No one was specifically talking about that except to point out performance differences in all manner of areas. Sprinting, Basketball etc... To call me a clown is just proof of your emotionalism and irrationality with this topic... you get so palpably hysterical when anyone talks about race... its obvious that you have a commitment to NOT talking honestly about this topic.

no, be reasonable, compare comparable terms in biology: The human race is one SPECIE. The Genus Canidae, the Big cats constitute unique species as well. But INSIDE these species are innumerable SUBSPECIES (or rather races). You're just arbitrarily deciding where the races end, confsuing genus/specie and sub specie and applying double taxonomical standards. In effect you're just "deciding" that humans are the only specie on this planet that are incapable of producing sub species... and that humans are subject to different laws of nature...

most of these provide citations to sociological and even Marxist authors... Many of these cited materials are egregious deceptions. None of the books or essays mentionned the American Psychological Association's 1995 task force report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns." Many of them talk about the now debunked "Flynn Effect" as if it is true, while ignoring a book by APA entitled "The Rising Curve dismisses the Flynn Effect" of rising intelligence stating that: it is an anomaly that to date has very little meaning. Other disgusting omissions (though they occur on almost every page of the book) is the treatment of intelligence and brain size. Like Gould, they only mentions the studies carried out over 100 years ago (and now known to be fairly accurate after all). In the last few years, MRI and other imaging studies have shown solid correlations between intelligence and the neocortex, as well as convolutions, density, etc. How could any of these sources not be aware of these numerous studies? Either they are liars or they are very selective in their readings.

I will focus on the initial two quotes who cite such authors as Joseph L. Graves. Most of these sources approach the subject (which is necessarily SCIENTIFIC) in a very amateur or innapropriate manner... For instance Graves approaches the subject of races as a sociologist... He PRESUMES that racism is some sort of sin... and that race is therefore not real and from that he bases his opinion on many social superstitions (equality and other fictions of the mind). First, noting only the nuttier notions about race 400 years ago, he disengenuously provides a clumsy example involving greater genetic variation between chimpanzees. Graves also says that the typical European and African share 99.61 % of their genes in common. Genetic effects tend to be nonlinear; even minute genetic differences can bear large phenotypic consequences. Chimpanzees and humans, for example, have 98.9 to 99.3 percent of their genes in common. But one cannot reason a priori that an absolute difference of 0.39 percent is too small to support genetic divergence in IQ. The American Society for Cell Biology revealed their discovery that the prostate tumour found in black men have more than 20 times the level of a certain cancer-promoting substance as the tumours found in white men. Then there are BiDil and other race specific medicines ... which graves of course ignores outright (because it would obliterate his point).. In essence Graves adopts the attitude of a cowardly scientist, being careful to misrepresent the case for racial differences... His book therefore is less then worthless... and anything this man says is suspect... Most of the "race doesn't exist camp" try to attack the archaic definition of "pure race." As anyone in science understands, races are mere taxonomies that look at the infrequencies or frequencies of differentiating genetic alleles between population groups. As I said most of the speudo intellectuals that claim to attack the concept of race ... argue against old and etiolated notions of purity and other sophisticated pollameré. the arguments of most of your posts Rue are perhaps valid and interesting for 1895. You can see the bias written all over the fake talk of the reality of races... as soon as you hear words such as "racism" "class warfare" "the underprivileged" "hitler" "nazi" or the like... you know that these are only used to cloud reason and to excite the glands of liberals who have Political Correctness as a religion and use scholarship to go against the purpose of scholarship.

the same scientific bases that distinguishes different species and sub-races of a any given species is the same for the different races of mankind... what don't you understand?! Your out of hand rejection is just a head-in-sand tactic... mtDNA markers are apparent often to HUMAN EYES... you can see their genetic expressions in eye color, eye shapes, nose shapes, skin tone, done structure, hairtype, facial angle, craniometry etc... You're right of course in saying that there are more then just the broadly defined races (black, white, yellow) etc... There are doubtless hundreds... if not outright THOUSANDS of sub races ... in the same way that genetic drift expresses itself in races of dogs. But to go from the notion (that you yourself concede) that there are "dozens of different races within a race" and that therefore "races don't exist" and "have no scientific basis" is obviously a pretty inane not to mention hopelessly absurd... If you can't see the difference between a black person and an inuit... then goodbye and good luck... but please stop imposing your hogwash on people who aren't fugitives from reality.

that's doubtlessly true..

conservatives or right wingers when they don,t cheat are called sterile closet homosexual bores. I don't think that REAL rightwing politics needs necessarily a bunch of flannel shirt wearing faithful family guy's, I much prefer the brand of Berlusconi right wing platform... where people are expected to have sexual urges and "heaven forbid!" respond to their impulses. I respect parties that don't shy away from celebrating female beauty: http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...sa%3DN%26um%3D1

that's the second time you say that... you said the same to "oleg bach"... and what do you want me to do with your comment... what part of my comment are you addressing exactly?

black african history (west african and sub saharan black history) stops at the Ghana Empire (which was a muslim arab caliphate) as well as perhaps Songhai (which was mainly Berber) and Nubia. Anyone suggesting that ancient egypt was a sub saharan nation, or any part of the middle east is simply ignorant of history and trying to steal the history of other people to make blacks seem the superior... the fraudulent scribbling of Chekh Anta Diop should impose on NO ONE ...

welcome to the socialist nightmare of tomorrow... a global plantation. the name of the currency will be the Amero.

precisely accurate.

the word "katz" appears NOWHERE in the text.

no... we are of nature... we are related to nature... to every aspect of it... we are subject to ALL OF ITS LAWS. Its true that we can temporarily delay the ramifications and consequences of nature... the consequence of flouting ITS laws, but eventually we will be called to account for our transgressions (such as INSANELY rejecting the eugenics necessary for survival)

you're right about that... neither are owed ANYTHING. Canada is the property of Western People so long as they are willing and ABLE to defend it as such... that's the law of life and nations.

where is this quote from.. it looks like you copoy pasted a bunch of run on sentences together... the article on "even babies dscriminate" d says nothignof a doctor katz

well then where is your opposition to this ? So far as I can tell this is the first time you said anything remotely unfaltering about black people.. but you're so quick to throw muck around at the OTHER SIDE of the racial spectrum... Again: double standard... you say you're equally astounded how any person could be proud of their race... yet you ONLY attack one side... the white one... nonsense!

what did we say about anecdotes... anyways so you're a telephone tough guy... and um pardon my rudeness and racism... but how did you know they where black from just talking on the phone with them?

why even bother with Dancer? he obviously KNOWS what he is doing... no need in reminding him of the obvious inadequacies and gaping double standards... he understand full well that they are what they are...

yech!! that's a pretty disgusting capitulation Dancer... I was expecting a little more then just admitting to your barefaced hypocrisy... anyhoozle! yeah if only doctors knew as much as you Dancer... They'd stop prescribing Bidil (a race specific miracle drug that works only on blacks!) And I guess you know better then scientists when they discover such tidbits as lactose intolerance rates (2% for nordic Europeans, 90% for sub saharan africans!) in other words I guess you just DECIDED that races are figments of the imagination and are simply "a useless concept" ... but of course ... blacks should have the right to a black history month... some pretty intense flip flopping there.

yes yes my "ilk". now back to the topic at hand perhaps?

I named Juan Peron.. you didn't..