Population of Blacks/Whites in US by IQ

[George S]

Funny how in threads like this (i.e. differences in IQ/abilities among races) people go to great lengths to minimize or even deny that there are actually different races. Yet in other threads, people go to great lengths to distinguish between the races (i.e. threads on affirmative action, increasing diversity, Black Lives Matter, "Dear White America", etc, etc.).

"funny" ... if not sad.

You miss the distinction.

There are human conceptions of race but no scientific definition of race.

And ignorant humans use their conceptions to harm many based on very superficial differences.

Were race totally superficial differences you would be right. 84% of NFL lineman would be white if the differences were superficial. Black-American Nobel laureates would be more common than Jewish-American ones since Blacks outnumber Jews in the US.
Obama and Kaepernick are 50:50 and self-identify as "Black." Jeter, also 50:50, does not. As an army x-ray tech I learned that Blacks have thicker skulls. I also learned that different races reject organ transplants (including blood) more frequency than when the donor is the same race. There may not be one scientific definition of race. There is no scientific definition of breed of dog either, yet we can recognize breeds.

 

[iolo]

Those who enslaved millions of people want now to discriminate against their descendants and project their self-hatred on others. Thus the right-wing American obsession with 'race'.

 

[untermensche]

"funny" ... if not sad.

You miss the distinction.

There are human conceptions of race but no scientific definition of race.

And ignorant humans use their conceptions to harm many based on very superficial differences.

Were race totally superficial differences you would be right. 84% of NFL lineman would be white if the differences were superficial. Black-American Nobel laureates would be more common than Jewish-American ones since Blacks outnumber Jews in the US.
Obama and Kaepernick are 50:50 and self-identify as "Black." Jeter, also 50:50, does not. As an army x-ray tech I learned that Blacks have thicker skulls. I also learned that different races reject organ transplants (including blood) more frequency than when the donor is the same race. There may not be one scientific definition of race. There is no scientific definition of breed of dog either, yet we can recognize breeds.

This is simply ignorance to the fact that humans are products of their environments. All of them.

And strength differences ARE superficial differences.

And talking about some rare phenomena like Nobel Prize winners and claiming it has something to do with the human conceptions of race is more ignorance.

Logic 101: You can't form general rules from incredibly rare phenomena.

There is no scientific definition of "black" or "white". As far as science is concerned these things do not exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Funny how in threads like this (i.e. differences in IQ/abilities among races) people go to great lengths to minimize or even deny that there are actually different races. Yet in other threads, people go to great lengths to distinguish between the races (i.e. threads on affirmative action, increasing diversity, Black Lives Matter, "Dear White America", etc, etc.).

You miss the distinction.

There are human conceptions of race but no scientific definition of race.

And ignorant humans use their conceptions to harm many based on very superficial differences.

Sure there are human races!

Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisovan that we know of.

 

[untermensche]

You miss the distinction.

There are human conceptions of race but no scientific definition of race.

And ignorant humans use their conceptions to harm many based on very superficial differences.

Sure there are human races!

Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisovan that we know of.

Humans and Neanderthal share a common ancestor.

So do Humans and Gorillas.

So do Humans and all life on earth.

You have said nothing.

 

[Trausti]

Sure there are human races!

Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisovan that we know of.

Humans and Neanderthal share a common ancestor.

So do Humans and Gorillas.

So do Humans and all life on earth.

You have said nothing.

Well, yeah. That's what happens when a species has geographical and, more importantly, reproductive separation over a period of time. What's bewildering is why some here reject that this applies to humans, too. If the human species is impervious to change over time, then evolution and natural selection cannot be true.

 

[Trausti]

Race doesn't exist. Expect when it does.

Lara Casalotti, from Hampstead, needs a stem cell transplant but her "unique" Thai and Italian heritage meant a mixed-race donor was needed.
Just 3% of worldwide stem cell donors on the register are mixed-race.
Charity Anthony Nolan searched in Italy, Thailand and the US to find a match with a similar ethnic background.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35523890

It seems every couple weeks there's a new medical article out reporting on how disease risk and treatment modalities differ between races. But race doesn't exist, so how can that be?

 

[untermensche]

Race doesn't exist. Expect when it does.

Lara Casalotti, from Hampstead, needs a stem cell transplant but her "unique" Thai and Italian heritage meant a mixed-race donor was needed.
Just 3% of worldwide stem cell donors on the register are mixed-race.
Charity Anthony Nolan searched in Italy, Thailand and the US to find a match with a similar ethnic background.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35523890

It seems every couple weeks there's a new medical article out reporting on how disease risk and treatment modalities differ between races. But race doesn't exist, so how can that be?

This is not based on the human conception "race" that has no scientific existence.

It is based on some shared genes. Shared proteins on cells.

Humans do not divide into any discrete non-overlapping categories.

Human differences are superficial. And of course superficial differences like blood type differences have medical significance.

Beware of those who talk about "race" as if it is something real. They have ulterior motives.

 

[Trausti]

Race doesn't exist. Expect when it does.



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35523890

It seems every couple weeks there's a new medical article out reporting on how disease risk and treatment modalities differ between races. But race doesn't exist, so how can that be?

This is not based on the human conception "race" that has no scientific existence.

It is based on some shared genes. Shared proteins on cells.

Humans do not divide into any discrete non-overlapping categories.

Human differences are superficial. And of course superficial differences like blood type differences have medical significance.

Beware of those who talk about "race" as if it is something real. They have ulterior motives.

Call it "race," "breed," "subgroup," or "population group," but humans - like all life on this plant unless you're a creationist - form discrete groups based on geographic and reproductive separation over time. I mean, you seem wiling to accept that humans and Neanderthals once shared a common ancestor. Do you think that the difference between human and Neanderthal happened gradually, after geographic and reproductive separation, or suddenly, like a supernatural deity snapped his finders.

No overlapping.

The tree makes it clear: all non-Africans form their own independent branch from Africans.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/which-population-is-most-genetically-distant-from-africans/#.V9XXYPorKUk

 

[untermensche]

The tree makes it clear: all non-Africans form their own independent branch from Africans.

Independent branch of what?

Yes there are superficial differences in humans due to periods of isolation.

But there is no such thing as "race".

 

[Bomb#20]

Sorry - AFAIK there is no purely scientific means of assigning an individual as black or white or red, yellow or brown. I could be underinformed...

You are.

Scientifically, what is "black"?

If by "black" you mean "Negroid", it means most of the individual's ancestors 30,000 years ago lived in Sub-Saharan Africa.

What is the scientific test for "black"?

Get your genome sequenced and compare it with Yale Medical School's online database.

Scientifically there is no such thing as a "white" kid.

There is no scientific definition of "white" or "black".

There is no such thing as "black" or "white".

Humans cannot scientifically be divided in this manner.

In the words of Rob Corddry: Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to, buddy.

Look, I get it. You joined a religion that adopted race denialism as one of its many loyalty oaths. You aren't willing to apply critical thought to the doctrines of the religion because you might find out you're wrong, and then you'd have to either live a lie or express your doubts. And if you expressed doubts then your in-group would start to see you as out-group. H. sapiens has evolved powerful instincts for avoiding behavior that causes your in-group to see you as out-group. Evolutionarily speaking, there is much stronger selective pressure for wanting to be seen as one of "us" than there is for wanting to be right. Being right when those around you are wrong has been a recipe for getting yourself killed too many times over the course of human history for humans to have a strong instinct for caring whether our beliefs are true. Truth is an acquired taste. So if you aren't willing to learn the answer to a question that's a sensitive matter to your in-group, don't ask the damn question!

There is no scientific definition of "white" or "black".

Humans do not divide into any discrete non-overlapping categories.

There are people that don't even fit into the categories of male and female.

See the article I posted in #17 above.

Seriously, I don't expect you to be willing to have a serious discussion of this topic. Since you aren't, you really just shouldn't talk about it at all. You're perfectly capable of disputing all that IQ business that's presumably what you really care about without grossly undermining your own case by bringing this race denialism idiocy into it.

That said, if you decide you do want to try to discuss the existence of human races on an intellectual level instead of just intoning your religious mantra over and over like some Christian repeating "If God could create a monkey then He could create a man." (actual quote from my grandmother), then it really ought to bother you that you make such mind-blowingly stupid arguments. Let's take this apart one by one:

'There is no scientific definition of "white" or "black".'​

There are several. I gave you one upstream.

'Humans do not divide into any discrete non-overlapping categories.'​

So what? Who the hell is claiming "white" and "black" are discrete or non-overlapping? Are you unfamiliar with the words "half-breed", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octaroon" and all the rest of the terminology that has been used for centuries to describe the category overlap in this analog world full of analog categories? Science is perfectly capable of scientifically measuring somebody to be 44% black and 56% white.

'There are people that don't even fit into the categories of male and female.'​

Duh! You know this! So what the hell is wrong with your reasoning faculties, that you don't take a hint from it? Well? Does the fact that there are people who don't even fit into the categories of male and female cause you to spew idiotic claims like "There is no such thing as men and women", or "There is no scientific definition of male or female", or "There are human conceptions of sex but no scientific definition of sex", or "There is no scientific definition of men and women; as far as science is concerned these things do not exist"?

The world is full of men and women; and it also contains some people who those categories don't describe well. The existence of some hard-to-categorize individuals evidently does not invalidate a category; neither does it magically make the inclusion of some other not-so-hard-to-categorize individual in some category unscientific. The circumstance that you might struggle to decide whether a 44% black and 50% white and 6% East Asian individual should be labeled "black" does not give you a substantive reason to claim it's unscientific for a scientist to measure some other individual to be 2% black and 97% white and 1% "other", and call him "a white kid".

And if you seriously believed it gave you a substantive reason, then you'd be off in some sexual politics thread insisting to us all there there's no such thing as men and women -- because there are people that don't even fit into the categories of male and female.

'See the article I posted in #17 above.'​

Been there, done that. Now, you go see the article you posted in #17 above. There's nothing in that article, let alone in the excerpts you quoted, contradicting the existence of scientifically recognizable races. Quite the reverse -- the article not only recognizes that races exist, but its conclusion wouldn't make a lick of sense if they didn't!

"...new genetic technologies may eventually render race largely irrelevant in the clinical setting"

For gods' sake, they come right out and stipulate that race is currently relevant in the clinical setting! If as far as science is concerned white and black did not exist, then we would obviously not need to wait for new genetic technologies to make them irrelevant! Duh!

Seriously, dude, if you want to continue pushing race denialism, get yourself some better arguments.

You miss the distinction.

There are human conceptions of race but no scientific definition of race. ...

... I also learned that different races reject organ transplants (including blood) more frequency than when the donor is the same race.

... There is no scientific definition of "black" or "white". As far as science is concerned these things do not exist.

Or, you know, recite your religious slogans some more. Your option.

 

[Trausti]

The tree makes it clear: all non-Africans form their own independent branch from Africans.

Independent branch of what?

Yes there are superficial differences in humans due to periods of isolation.

But there is no such thing as "race".

What do you call the distinct groupings in genetic differences that develop over time before full speciation? Again, do you think the divergence of human and Neanderthal happened all at once?

 

[untermensche]

'Humans do not divide into any discrete non-overlapping categories.'

So what? Who the hell is claiming "white" and "black" are discrete or non-overlapping? Are you unfamiliar with the words "half-breed", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octaroon" and all the rest of the terminology that has been used for centuries to describe the category overlap in this analog world full of analog categories? Science is perfectly capable of scientifically measuring somebody to be 44% black and 56% white.

Yes I'm familiar with those other meaningless terms. And no there is no genetic test to tell you if a person is 44% of this meaningless concept "black" and 56% of this meaningless concept "white".

You seem obsessed and desperate.

One can only wonder why.

 

[Trausti]

'Humans do not divide into any discrete non-overlapping categories.'

So what? Who the hell is claiming "white" and "black" are discrete or non-overlapping? Are you unfamiliar with the words "half-breed", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octaroon" and all the rest of the terminology that has been used for centuries to describe the category overlap in this analog world full of analog categories? Science is perfectly capable of scientifically measuring somebody to be 44% black and 56% white.

Yes I'm familiar with those other meaningless terms. And no there is no genetic test to tell you if a person is 44% of this meaningless concept "black" and 56% of this meaningless concept "white".

You seem obsessed and desperate.

One can only wonder why.

So you didn't know that the human genome has been sequenced, and can show your % relationship to different population groups? In terms of scientific literacy, you're about ~1971?

 

[untermensche]

Independent branch of what?

Yes there are superficial differences in humans due to periods of isolation.

But there is no such thing as "race".

What do you call the distinct groupings in genetic differences that develop over time before full speciation? Again, do you think the divergence of human and Neanderthal happened all at once?

Of course the divergence, in space, between the two groups happened all at once. And they were separated for longer than humans have existed.

Humans are all the same thing. Isolation has produced a few superficial differences but nothing of any significance. And isolation ended a long time ago.

But there are some who want to pretend superficial differences mean something.

 

[untermensche]

Yes I'm familiar with those other meaningless terms. And no there is no genetic test to tell you if a person is 44% of this meaningless concept "black" and 56% of this meaningless concept "white".

You seem obsessed and desperate.

One can only wonder why.

So you didn't know that human genome has been sequenced, and can show your % relationship to different population groups? So in terms of scientific literacy, you're about ~1971?

You really don't have a clue what it means that the human genome has been sequenced.

It means you can test to see if two people are closely related, that is all.

It cannot tell if a person is 44% of this imaginary category called "black".

 

[Trausti]

So you didn't know that human genome has been sequenced, and can show your % relationship to different population groups? So in terms of scientific literacy, you're about ~1971?

You really don't have a clue what it means that the human genome has been sequenced.

It means you can test to see if two people are closely related, that is all.

It cannot tell if a person is 44% of this imaginary category called "black".

But it can tell you what % a person is Sub-Saharan African. Or what % someone is East-Asian. Etc. You think it's just an uncanny coincidence that people with high % Sub-Saharan African just happen to be "black"?

 

[untermensche]

You really don't have a clue what it means that the human genome has been sequenced.

It means you can test to see if two people are closely related, that is all.

It cannot tell if a person is 44% of this imaginary category called "black".

But it can tell you what % a person is Sub-Saharan African. Or what % someone is East-Asian. Etc. You think it's just an uncanny coincidence that people with high % Sub-Saharan African just happen to be "black"?

Mitochondrial DNA.

Nothing to do with anything you could see.

 

[George S]

So you didn't know that human genome has been sequenced, and can show your % relationship to different population groups? So in terms of scientific literacy, you're about ~1971?

You really don't have a clue what it means that the human genome has been sequenced.

It means you can test to see if two people are closely related, that is all.

It cannot tell if a person is 44% of this imaginary category called "black".

They can tell you your % of various geographic locations. About 50,000 years my haplogroup migrated out of Africa. The genetic line goes around the Mediterranean eventually to Ireland, acquiring some Neanderthal DNA along the way.
It can tell if you are 44% African, 22% Ashkenazi Jew, and 33% Japanese if that is the case.

 

[George S]

"Black" has whatever meaning it has in "Black Lives Matter."