Sorry, Mormons.

Your origin myth is just that — a myth.

There was no "God" or "Heavenly Father" or "Elohim" or other deified white man who created you in his image.

There were no white people on Earth until humans migrated into Europe very recently in human history.

You aren't "special."

You evolved.

Too bad.

Deal with it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-evolution-and-the-science-of-human-origins/


Race, Evolution and the Science of Human Origins
As museums reopen let’s introduce ourselves, and our children, to the original Black ancestors of all human beings

By Allison Hopper on July 5, 2021

After a year of lockdown, museums, libraries and bookstores across America are reopening. This cultural reawakening’s beginning coincided with both the Juneteenth holiday and the one-year anniversary of the one of the largest protests in American history against racial injustice. As bookstores reopen, many are organizing displays of children's books that celebrate Black history. What you won’t find in even the biggest collections of books is the story of the dark-skinned early people who launched human civilization.

The global scientific community overwhelmingly accepts that all living humans are of African descent. Most scientific articles about our African origins focus on genetics. The part of the story that is not widely shared is about the creation of human culture. We are all descended genetically, and also culturally, from dark-skinned ancestors. Early humans from the African continent are the ones who first invented tools; the use of fire; language; and religion. These dark skinned early people laid down the foundation for human culture. Considering the short life span of our early ancestors, these original innovators were probably also very young. No one who follows artistic trends will be surprised to learn that, from the beginning, human culture was essentially invented by teenagers. And by culture I don’t just mean the arts, I mean the whole shebang.

I want to unmask the lie that evolution denial is about religion and recognize that at its core, it is a form of white supremacy that perpetuates segregation and violence against Black bodies. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” the legalistic wing of creationists loudly insists that their point of view deserves equal time in the classroom. Science education in the U.S. is constantly on the defensive against antievolution activists who want biblical stories to be taught as fact. In fact, the first wave of legal fights against evolution was supported by the Klan in the 1920s. Ever since then, entrenched racism and the ban on teaching evolution in the schools have gone hand in hand. In his piece, What We Get Wrong About the Evolution Debate, Adam Shapiro argues that “the history of American controversies over evolution has long been entangled with the history of American educational racism.”

At the heart of white evangelical creationism is the mythology of an unbroken white lineage that stretches back to a light-skinned Adam and Eve. In literal interpretations of the Christian Bible, white skin was created in God's image. Dark skin has a different, more problematic origin. As the biblical story goes, the curse or mark of Cain for killing his brother was a darkening of his descendants' skin. Historically, many congregations in the U.S. pointed to this story of Cain as evidence that Black skin was created as a punishment.

The fantasy of a continuous line of white descendants segregates white heritage from Black bodies. In the real world, this mythology translates into lethal effects on people who are Black. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible are part of the “fake news” epidemic that feeds the racial divide in our country.

For too long, a vocal minority of creationists has hijacked children’s education, media and book publishing. Statistics on creationist beliefs in the US vary. Depending on the poll, up to 40 percent of percent of adults believe that humans have always existed in their present form (i.e., they believe in an unbroken human lineage stretching back to Adam and Eve).

We have seen some progress in the classroom. From 2007 to 2019, the percentage of teachers who present evolution without a creationist alternative grew dramatically, from only 51 percent to 67 percent. But it’s still not enough. My hope is that if we make the connection between creationism and racist ideology clearer, we will provide more ammunition to get science into the classroom—and into our culture at large.

It’s common knowledge that some school boards, especially in the South, have fought long and hard to keep evolution out of school textbooks. What you might not know is how the policing of educational content morphs into what might be called “self-censorship” within the children’s book industry as a whole. Scientific findings about human origins have been slow to trickle down into books written for young people. This major omission reflects the outsize effect that science-denying voices have on the books that find their ways not just into classrooms, but also into libraries, bookstores and children's homes. Fear of economic punishment within the publishing industry creates a self-perpetuating lack of teaching materials about evolution."

Except that evangelical Christianity does not believe that God had skin of any color for them to be made in likeness of.

HERE WE GO AGAIN
In the translation of ancient sumarian cunieform tablets by Zecharia Sitchen we discover from the sixth tablet of the Book of Enki that the skin color of the newly created homo sapien was"like dark red blood was its' color" Thus giving credence to the concept of negroid origin.This is a genetic thing not a "racial"thing
However other genetic skin coloring did show up throughout the planet but that is another discussion entirely.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2021 11:31AM by thedesertrat1.

I just spent 5 days going through Diversity, Equity and Inclusion training and my feedback was this, What gets left out of nearly every discussion about race, including the past 5 days of DEI training, is that we are 1/5th of the way through the 21st Century, yet we still act as if we are living in the 20th Century, with no mention of the scientific discoveries we’ve made in terms of genetics. Now that we have mapped the human genome we’ve discovered we are 99.9% genetically identical, which should have ended racism. Why that social division over race has only deepened since we made that discovery, is key to understanding and resolving the problem of racism tearing us apart.
Why are we not teaching kids this scientific fact in school, starting in pre-kindergarten?
Why do we not teach children about the contributions of Neanderthals and Denisovans to our genetic makeup as Non-Africans? Why do we not teach them that we are all hybrids? That the only such thing as a purebred Homo sapiens sapiens, is an African and that there were at least 16 different kinds of humans before we came along and consolidated all of them into one hybrid species? And we are discovering new species of ancient humans on a regular basis?
Because it doesn’t fit the (racist) narrative we inherited.
So now that we have the technical ability to read the story of our family tree and origins, written on our DNA, why not forget the narratives we inherited and tell the story nature has to tell?
Because it doesn’t fit the (racist) narrative.
Maintaining (racist) order means keeping those (racist) narratives we inherited alive and well. IOW, we as a society, have decided we are more committed to conserving systemic racism than we are to progress.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2021 12:10PM by schrodingerscat.

> IOW, we as a society, have
> decided we are more committed
> to conserving systemic racism
> than we are to progress.


"Whachuu mean, 'we', White Boy?"

--Frank Frankly, aka Frankly Frank

You are right about the genetic part, but not about the social and religious part.

Dogs and wolves are the same species with a common ancestor.

All domestic dogs are the same animal and there are different breeds of dogs that have similar traits because they were bred in isolation from other dogs. Same goes for humans.

I remeber the big ruckus over Kennewick Man. So what if he looked like Patrick Stewart or an Ainu. His descendants look different but they are still Native Americans. The same goes for Cheddar Man. His people were dark skinned, blue or green eyed curly haired hunters who lived a harsh existence hunting mammoths and other big animals in icy Northern Europe at the end of the last ice age. His people's descendants don't look like that anymore either.

My doberman/german shepard mix dog was regarded as potentially "violent" even though she was the nicest dog on Earth and wouldn't hurt anyone. Why? Why do people make blanket assumptions like that? Culture is not part of DNA and vice-versa. But that doesn't stop people from thinking that it is.

As I've said before, racism as we know it began in the late 17th Century and intensified throught the 19th Century --- culminating with things like The White Man's Burden, Social Darwinism, Jim Crow etc. Why spend all the time, effort and money for total racial segregation as was the case in America between 1890 and 1950? What social need, desire, or fear would that serve?

The ancient Romans were ultra-nationalistic and noticed racial differences, but were not "racist" in the modern white supremacist ethnonationalistic sense. They didn't care what you looked like, only that you were "Roman." Even the Greeks thought Romans were weird in that respect. They didn't get how someone from Britannia, Numidia, Gaul, or Lydia could be "Roman" when they weren't from Italy. Our society doesn't have to be racist if we don't want it to be.

So, SC, you are missing the point. Yes, more schools are teaching human evolution but a lot of people still need this idea of inate racial superiority. There is also the question about how to make up for past wrongdoing but that's a whole 'nother question. Go read "Guns, Germs And Steel" if you haven't. It answers a lot of these questions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2021 01:57PM by anybody.

I agree with you, Anybody. People are not "naturally racist". My children all went to mixed (state-run) schools which they were assigned to because of where we live - and we live in a town with a very varied population (we'e talking Malians, Senegalese, Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Chinese, Tibetans like my neighbours, Vietnamese, etc. (and even the occasional Englishman;-).

Their classes were about 50/50 people of French origin and people of other origins (of whom many were also French ;-)

There were never any conflicts that might be termed "racial" (a word I hate for the scientific reasons alluded to in posts above this one). My children never had any racist interactions.

I did see one or two occasions where children whose PARENTS were racist tried to create an incident, but they never found the necessary tinder for the fire to take because the vast majority of children are naturally NOT racist.

Racism is a learned cultural behaviour/attitude set. Personally, when I see/meet someone different from me, it just makes me more interested in them and what they have to say. But then, I'm a dreamer ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2021 02:22PM by Soft Machine.

+1.0x10^10

I share that dream too :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2021 02:28PM by anybody.

A great post, Tom, as always.

Not true.
According to studies Designed to test that theory, Babies are born racist and we need to train them to not be racist.

“Your Baby Is a Racist—and Why You Can Live With That“ Time Magazine

https://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/

“You always suspected babies were no good, didn’t you? They’re loud, narcissistic, spoiled, volatile and not exactly possessed of good table manners. Now it turns out that they’re racists too.

The latest evidence for that decidedly unlovely trait comes from research out of the University of Washington that actually sought to explore one of babies’ more admirable characteristics: their basic sense of fairness. In the study, 15-month-old toddlers watched an experimenter with a collection of four small toys share them either evenly or unevenly with two other adult volunteers. When allowed to choose which experimenters the babies wanted to play with later, 70% of them preferred the ones who had divided the toys evenly..
Nice, but there was an exception: when the two adults who were receiving the evenly or unevenly divided toys were of different races and the race of the one who got more toys matched the babies’ own, the 70% preference for the fair distributor dropped and the share of babies wanting to play with the unfair one rose. The implication: unfairness is bad, unless someone from your clan is getting the extra goodies.

“If all babies care about is fairness, they would always pick the fair distributor,” said University of Washington associate professor psychology of Jessica Somerville, in a statement that accompanied the study. “But we’re also seeing that they’re interested in consequences for their own group members.”….
. OK, so that doesn’t speak well of human nature at even its sweetest and most ingenuous stage. But here’s the thing: if we weren’t rank racists when we were very little, the species probably never would have survived. The idea of in-group bias is well established in behavioral science, and it has its roots long ago, in humanity’s tribal era. The fact is, the people in your own band are more likely to nurture you, care for you and protect you from harm, while the people from the tribe over the hill are more likely to, well, eat you.”

All 3 of my children went to municipally-run crêches. I never saw any evidence of this.

Did you have to learn all this just to dig your way out of the Mormon church? Wasn’t the stone in the hat enough to throw in the towel?

It only seems logical that given equatorial weather conditions and everyone spending most of their waking hours working outside (as our ancestors did), that those conditions will turn anyone's lineage black, given enough time and many generations.

The same holds true for white skin. When living in mostly overcast skies and winter conditions much of the year, that anyone's decendents will eventually turn white, given enough time and many generations.

It is always possible that some races could theoretically experience brain development at different rates from one race to the next. But this doesn't appear to be the case amongst any humans that we know of. We all appear to have the same collective level of intelligence within any group of humans from one race to a group of humans of a different race. Some individuals are brighter than others without regard to their race. This causes me to believe that racial differences happened very late in the evolutionary process, after our brain development was close to, or the same to what it is today. When removing cultural issues, average IQ scores from one race to another seem to all be the same, regardless of anyone's color. It's not like white and black people as a rule tend to have test scores in different ranges because of their race.

So the whole racial prejudice issue seems to come down to cultural differences and skin color alone. It's hard for me to believe that our ancestors lived as fish in the sea and eventually climbed out of the sea as lower-level animals, who eventually grew over millions of years, to become humans. But this seems to be the most plausible explanation as to how we all got here. However we got here, there doesn't seem to exist, a logical reason for racial prejudice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2021 09:29PM by azsteve.

az:

Why do U chose / use the word 'fish'? isn't that to prejudice your POV?

why not 'organized cells' or something less specific?

Once you lose the abililty to make melanin, you can't get it back, so light-skinned people living in places with lots of UV are just going to get skin cancer if they don't cover up... :|


Sub-Saharan Africans have the most genetic diversity of all humans and have the highest rates of albinism and the greatest skin tone variation.

There were no "white" people on Earth until around six to four thousand years ago. As humans migrated out of Africa and spent lots of time in places with less UV, they began to suffer from Vitamin D deficiency and other problems, any lighter skinned, more clothes wearing offspring were able to get more Vitamin D in that environment. Humans were still relatively dark skinned until the advent of agriculture. Hunter gatherers were still able to get Vitamin D by eating game and fish, but farmers got a lot less in their diet. This is one reason why many people from the Mediterranean and the Arctic were able to keep their darker skin as they got Vitamin D in their seafood and didn't have to adapt to make up for the loss of UV.

So, people are "white" by chance. Their ancestors moved into cold, wet, damp, and cloudy Europe and adapted to live in those conditions. People from the Eurasian Steppes and north India moved in and brought their culture and animals (like domestic cattle -- milk is a good source of Vitamin D) with them and got lighter to survive. That's all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2021 02:15PM by anybody.

How do you know Neanderthals we’re not “white”?
They lived in Europe for 300,000 years before we (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) came from Africa and started interbreeding with them.
By doing so they could have rapidly adapted to the Northern climate Neanderthals adapted to hundreds of thousands of years before the arrival of ‘modern humans’.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/05/555592707/neanderthal-genes-help-shape-how-many-modern-humans-look

But....

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22308-europeans-did-not-inherit-pale-skins-from-neanderthals/

The finding agrees with earlier studies suggesting that modern humans did not lose their dark skins immediately on reaching Europe, says Katerina Harvati at the University of Tübingen in Germany. “[The new study] is interesting because it suggests a very late differentiation of skin pigmentation among modern humans,” she says.

An earlier analysis of ancient DNA in 40,000 and 50,000-year-old Neanderthal bones, respectively from Spain and Italy, suggested that our extinct cousins had light-coloured skin and reddish hair in their European heartland. But the Neanderthals went extinct around 28,000 years ago – long before modern humans in Europe gained a pale skin. Evidently Neanderthals did not pass these useful local adaptations on to modern humans, despite genetic evidence that the two species interbred.

Here's a very interesting article about the evolution of skin color:

New gene variants reveal the evolution of skin color.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/new-gene-variants-reveal-evolution-human-skin-color

From the article:

"The team also found variants of two neighboring genes, HERC2 and OCA2, which are associated with light skin, eyes, and hair in Europeans but arose in Africa; these variants are ancient and common in the light-skinned San people. The team proposes that the variants arose in Africa as early as 1 million years ago and spread later to Europeans and Asians. “Many of the gene variants that cause light skin in Europe have origins in Africa,” Tishkoff says."

So it appears that some of the genes responsible for light skin and eyes found in Europeans originated in Africa one million years ago, debunking the theory that light skin originated outside of Africa in sunless climates where vitamin D absorption was crucial. So white people are white "by chance" as much dark skinned people are dark "by chance."

Our early ancestors had fury pelts. Under those pelts was light skin that evolved into a variety of colors from light to dark. Do a google search to see what a shaved chimpanzee looks like. Maybe that's what our early furless ancestors looked like.

Skin color is not responsible for intelligence or creativity. It did not create stone tools or civilizations.

Let's celebrate what humans have in common: intelligence. Skin color isn't what makes us human.

Yes, but if you look at today's San people you'll see that while their skin is lighter than some Africans', it is substantially darker than northern Europeans'. Recall that the people of Sardinia and even the earliest known HSS in Great Britain were people with dark skin and blue eyes.

It's not a binary issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2021 10:33PM by Lot's Wife.

the Really Great Myth is impervious to fact, evidence, and reason.

https://www.mpg.de/11533845/neandertal-dna

"Inspired by an earlier study that found associations between Neandertal DNA and disease risk, Janet Kelso at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany says her team got interested in exploring connections between Neandertal DNA and characteristics unrelated to disease. Because Neandertal alleles are relatively rare, the researchers needed data representing a really large number of people. They found what they were looking for in data representing more than 112,000 participants in the UK Biobank pilot study. The database includes genetic information along with information on many traits related to physical appearance, diet, sun exposure, behaviour, and disease.

“We can now show that it is skin tone, and the ease with which one tans, as well as hair colour that are affected,” Kelso said. The researchers observe multiple different Neandertal alleles contributing to skin and hair tones. What they found somewhat surprising is that some Neandertal alleles were found in association with lighter skin tones and others with darker skin tones. The same was true for hair colour. “These findings suggest that Neandertals might have differed in their hair and skin tones, much as people now do,” adds Michael Dannemann, first author of the study."

One should always be just a little bit cautious here when considering black and white peoples. Original homo sapiens sapiens were not necessarily black, but they certainly weren't white. Northern Africans were part of the Mediterranean brown-skinned people now considered "white"; southern Italians are white, no matter how dark their skin or tightly coiled their hair.

Regarding black-skinned people, there were ancient and millennia-long migrations, with black-skinned Bantu peoples migrating from West Africa into the equatorial interior, and beyond, that include the familiar black people who were captured and forced into slavery in the United States. But despite all the black skin and Bantu languages, there are so many other black and near-black-skinned people from far different stock and language groups; some African language, for instance, contain Indonesian influences. It is a complicated and almost impossible thing to ponder, let alone figure out. But the main lesson is that it is not what most of us think. Not all black, widely dispersed languages, cultures, and histories, with differences similar to those of Scandinavians and Chinese. (End of rant.)

But yeah, I think you're right on about the religiously pumped up white supremacy, which gives us white Adams and Eves, a lily white (and effeminate) Jebus, and so on. Really stupid, now that we look at it, but there you are. Humans are idiots. But if there was an actual Jebus (and it's unlikely there was), he'd have been very Mediterranean, with brown skin and tightly coiled hair, and not white at all.

There are still people living in Southern Indian islands that are darker than almost all Africans, who have been there for at least 70,000 years.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens only went to Europe about 35,000 years ago, about the time we domesticated dogs.
There were Homo Sapiens Sapiens in Australia by that point for over 35,000 years.
Aborigines are the world's oldest civilization, but everybody kinda ignores that.
They mated with Densivovans in Asia, along the way, long before we ever left Africa for Europe to mate with Neanderthals and absorb all of the more ancient types of humans sub species into one sub species, with many different types, just like different breeds of dogs have different characteristics.
We are all hybrids.
Just like dogs and cats and birds.

https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2021 08:22PM by schrodingerscat.

Indeed.

It's astounding, isn't it? Claiming humans are all mongrels on the one hand but embracing Murray's claims that the races have different intellectual endowments on the other. . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2021 08:53PM by Lot's Wife.

You still have yet to produce the results of an IQ test that proved the opposite of the SAT results.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

Sex and race/ethnicity Mean score1
Total SAT score Evidence-based reading and writing (ERW) Math
All students 1059 531 528
Sex
Male 1066 529 537
Female 1053 534 519
Race/ethnicity
White 1114 562 553
Black 933 476 457
Hispanic 978 495 483
Asian 1223 586 637
Pacific Islander 964 487 478
American Indian/Alaska Native 912 461 451
Two or more races 1095 554 540
No response 959 472 487

The results Murray lists are identical to the SAT scores and practically every other IQ test.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics


There is not a single example of a group difference in any complex human behavioral trait that has been shown to be environmental or genetic, in any proportion, on the basis of scientific evidence. Ethically, in the absence of a valid scientific methodology, speculations about innate differences between the complex behavior of groups remain just that, inseparable from the legacy of unsupported views about race and behavior that are as old as human history. The scientific futility and dubious ethical status of the enterprise are two sides of the same coin.

To convince the reader that there is no scientifically valid or ethically defensible foundation for the project of assigning group differences in complex behavior to genetic and environmental causes, I have to move the discussion in an even more uncomfortable direction. Consider the assertion that Jews are more materialistic than non-Jews. (I am Jewish, I have used a version of this example before, and I am not accusing anyone involved in this discussion of anti-Semitism. My point is to interrogate the scientific difference between assertions about blacks and assertions about Jews.)


One could try to avoid the question by hoping that materialism isn’t a measurable trait like IQ, except that it is; or that materialism might not be heritable in individuals, except that it is nearly certain it would be if someone bothered to check; or perhaps that Jews aren’t really a race, although they certainly differ ancestrally from non-Jews; or that one wouldn’t actually find an average difference in materialism, but it seems perfectly plausible that one might. (In case anyone is interested, a biological theory of Jewish behavior, by the white nationalist psychologist Kevin MacDonald, actually exists.)

If you were persuaded by Murray and Harris’s conclusion that the black-white IQ gap is partially genetic, but uncomfortable with the idea that the same kind of thinking might apply to the personality traits of Jews, I have one question: Why? Couldn’t there just as easily be a science of whether Jews are genetically “tuned to” (Harris’s phrase) different levels of materialism than gentiles?

On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.

If Murray and Harris want to make a science out of their intuitions about how different groups of people have been “tuned” to behave, they will need to come up with a coherent biological account of what exactly genetic “tuning” of behavior entails and how it might be assessed empirically. It is, I acknowledge, a deeply complex question, both philosophically and scientifically.

In fact, I will close by noting that not even the three of us are completely in agreement about it: I (Turkheimer) am convinced that the question is irredeemably unscientific; Nisbett accepts it as a legitimate scientific question, and thinks evidence points fairly strongly in the direction of the black-white gap being entirely environmental in origin; while Harden questions the quality of the existing evidence, but thinks more determinative data may be found in future genetic knowledge.

We agree on this, however: Murray and Harris’s current endorsement of a genetic contribution to the black-white IQ gap is based on a weak brew of unexamined intuition and sketchy empirical evidence. In a free country and a free academy, scientists can speculate about whatever they want, but their speculations should not be mistaken for a scientific consensus or a legitimate basis for social policy.

Eric Turkheimer is the Hugh Scott Hamilton professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. Twitter: @ent3c. Kathryn Paige Harden (@kph3k) is associate professor in the department of psychology at the University of Texas Austin. Richard E. Nisbett is the Theodore M. Newcomb distinguished university professor at the University of Michigan.

Your entire thread was deleted because the OP and every restatement of it that you offered was infused by racism. You can't redeem that racism by reposting the same thing.


ETA: What's really noteworthy is you went from arguing that race was biologically real: that the white race was a combination of HSS and Neanderthals while Asians were a combination of HSS and Denisovans. After a couple of years of explanations that that was incorrect, you started acting as if humans are all "mutts" in your words and race was not a sound biological concept. But now you are back to presenting the same racism in new clothes.

What can we conclude from this? That you have an instinctual bias in favor of racism and are intellectually incapable of learning why your views are factually wrong. Racism is often like that: a matter of gut rather than rational thought.

So give that King stuff a rest already. You have nothing in common with him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2021 10:27PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indeed.
>
> It's astounding, isn't it? Claiming humans are
> all mongrels on the one hand but embracing
> Murray's claims that the races have different
> intellectual endowments on the other. . .


Certain breeds of dogs are known for being more intelligent than others. Like Border collies, poodles and German Shepherds.
https://www.sciencealert.com/smartest-dog-breeds-canine-psychologist-intelligence-pets
That doesn’t make them better, but if you need a dog to herd your sheep, they’re the best suited. But if you want a happy dog get a golden retriever, not the most intelligent, but the best family dog.
But just because a golden is more popular to own doesn’t mean that they are better.
Just because Asians and Jews are more intelligent than the rest of us, doesn’t make them better, just better at taking tests. But like Charles Murray says, “Would every child do better Simferopol they had an Asian Tiger Mom? Well sure, but how do you give every kid an Asian Tiger Mom?”

I've tried to have a rational argument with you, but I just give up.

I've presented tons of evidence that you have totally dissmissed and/or ignored.

You can believe in the hierarchy of (biologically irrelevant) human races all you want, but it's total garbage and it's not true.

And it's flat out wrong.

That's how I feel too. The gulf between SC's philosophical pretensions and his willingness to read and think makes the Pacific Ocean look small.

He is what he sounds like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2021 02:25AM by Lot's Wife.

Notice also how he went from trumpeting the virtual identity of all humans above to describing various human groups as "breeds" here. He doesn't even realize he's contradicting himself.

I guess that's what happens when, by one's own reckoning, s/he is neither Jewish nor Asian and hence belongs to one of the less intelligent breeds. And yes, we are now firmly if obliviously in Richard Spencer territory.

Statistics don’t lie.
You’re calling the SAT scores racist.
That’s absurd.

Give an SAT to a dozen Phillips Andover students and to a dozen non-English speaking students in your favorite African country, Nambia. Your results will show that the PA students are vastly more intelligent than the Nambians, and your data will be entirely misleading. So yes, statistics can deceive.

You'd know that if you were a Collie and not a Mastiff. You'd also know it if you bothered to read the mountains of books written about Murray's research. But Mastiffs don't read.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2021 01:59PM by Lot's Wife.

It's also highly indicative of the WEIRDness of most of our research. What population is most of our social research drawn from? Historically, US/Europe college students.

Western
Educated
Industrial
Rich
Democratic

Each of those is a bias of its own and we are now beginning to understand that slant of our "research". In reality, it was mostly navel gazing.

Sheep dogs want to herd, it’s in their blood. And Black people of a certain hue want to lift bales of cotton, it’s in their blood!

Me? I just want to wear a big hat and snooze under a tree. It’s in my blood.

Few of us can escape our biological imperatives, and so The Cat will rule us; it’s in his blood.

Too bad about his kids, though, tainted as they are with that Native American blood … doomed to be lazy, PLUS alcoholics. Oh well . . .

Thank ghawd for the White man’s science and racial clarity!

I have no idea how chihuahuas rank in canine intelligence but I suspect they don't often achieve high SAT scores.

and they are all well-educated professionals with advanced degrees....

Oh, I totally understand and agree. I just used Trump's neologism since it's the sort of ignorance SC constantly evinces.

As I said before, people like SC and NormaRae's dad have some kind of psychological or emotional problem...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/

https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/a-psychiatrist-s-perspective-on-racism-2020


What makes an individual racist? Carl Bell, MD,3 described these individuals having a psychopathological defect/narcissistic personality disorder which allows for dehumanization of others. Other psychiatrists have opined that racism may meet the criteria for a full psychotic disorder. Alvin Poussaint, MD,4 explains that “extreme racism” is a type of delusional disorder. I think, racism is a multifaceted construct. In my experience as a Forensic Psychiatrist, Psychiatric disorders cause functional impairment. This is not the case in most racist individuals. I believe racism is intentional. For example, an African American athlete/celebrity is cherished, only because of their achievements. Whereas a typical person of color may not be given the same treatment. One thing we can agree on is the psychological effects racism has on its victims.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2021 03:35AM by anybody.

I chose Nambia to avoid using the name of an actual country because I didn't want to offend any group of real people. I thought about some place in Latin America or Oceania or Eastern Europe and concluded that a non-existent country would be best. I might have chosen Narnia but its inhabitants appear to speak English.

Anyway, I've defended SC in the past on a couple of scores, most recently when I said he's not racist and simply doesn't understand what he's saying. But this Murray nonsense is the final straw. His choice of evidence changes but the conclusion does not.

Both of you can’t face reality, that none of Murray’s statistics differ from standard SAT Scores.
That’s called delusion: maintaining erroneous beliefs despite superior evidence to the contrary.

> That’s called delusion: maintaining erroneous
> beliefs despite superior evidence to the contrary.

And that, Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, is the product of a guilty conscience.

One would think that it would be really hard for people who consider themselves to be scientists to accept the Biblical narrative of the 6,000 or so-year-old human species creationism, let alone want to believe that when the creation happened, God put two white people on Earth to start it.

So I'm in college in 1973, taking vertebrate zoology (at the community college where my father taught physics and math), and we had an incredible professor teaching us the evolutionary process. I'd taken invertebrate zoology the previous semester from the same person. So by this time I had a real hard time with what I was learning--basically the origins of species and the African origins of the human species. I talked to my father about how hard the class was for that reason. I was doing well and getting all As on the tests, but I felt like either I was lying in my answers or I was being lied to.

Dear ol Dad put my mind at ease. First of all, he said that after I go to the temple I will understand it better and it won't cause me concern anymore. Then he praised my professor and said that I should feel sorry for him because he's the best biologist my father had known, but that he doesn't have the understanding that even I had. Because science HAD to come up with some theory for Black skin, so that's what they teach. It's only a theory. But it actually PROVES the church is true because they are right--without the knowledge the mormons have, there is no way but the evolution from Africa, to explain the skin. But we know that God created Adam and Even who had white skin and placed them in Missouri. Biologically, the Black skin comes from the curse placed on Cain. There is probably some chance that Africa was the Lord's lab where he was working on that last day of creation (one day in His time) to create man--the man who would inherit the bodies of his spirit children when he'd gotten it down to perfection. The bones found there were just, you know, lab waste. It's all these confused scientists had--so they built a theory around it. Like the theory of God's garbage pail of lab waste, I guess. But Dad was good with it.

So, yeah, it all made perfect sense. He told me that if it bothered me to answer the test questions with the theory I was learning, to put "Accepted theory:" before the answer and he would talk to Mr. V. if he had any problem with it. Mr. V. was fine--I'm sure he'd blown my father's religious quackery off long before that as they were good friends. So he humored me. I was good with that and just felt so sorry for this wonderful biologist who studied so hard to figure something out when the answer was a few hours away. In Los Angeles. At the temple.

Imagine my shock when a few years later, the temple didn't explain shit about where the Black skin came from. Just that we saw in a video that Adam and Eve were white. Ding, ding, ding...proof! But by that time, I was doing my mormon women duty of waiting on a man and popping out kids, having droped out of college, so it just didn't come up in my thoughts anymore. But I've wondered recently if my father ever accepted that the church disclaimed the curse of Cain thing. I doubt it. Afterall, it was what proved the church true because it was the ONLY explanation for the dark skin, without having to admit there was credence to the theory that we ALL (including his racist self) originated from Black-skinned humans. I doubt he ever even read anything the church said on the subject during the last 20 years of his life. Because it was a long time after the 1978 change that they started walking back the curse of Cain thing. He could accept that maybe they weren't fence-sitters in the pre-existence, maybe it was just plain luck of birth of who was born to descendants of Cain and later that Black woman who survived the flood.

I think it's time for another plug for "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

Item: This claim amounts to a simplistic generalization: "...We are all descended genetically, and also culturally, from dark-skinned ancestors" and to make the statement, "the original Black ancestors of all human beings" ignores the scientific consensus that race is a not a viable, scientific distinction.

From my friend, Jennifer Raff, an anthropologist at the University of Kansas:

https://violentmetaphors.com/author/batgirlraff/

>>Describing race as a social construct does not undermine its existence, nor its importance; it merely points out that there is no fundamental biological basis for race.

The truly "black-skinned" individuals were actually relative latecomers on the anthropology scene, and one reason we know humans evolved in Africa is because of the genetic variability in that region of the world. It's certain they were "darker" than Northern Europeans in general, but they also carried recessive genetic traits that had "survival value."

>>The history of our species is complex and convoluted, and our genomes reflect that. As we delve deeper into the DNA of the people of the world, the science of genetics becomes even more complex too. But we see no scientifically sound evidence that contemporary genetics can be used to recapitulate biological or historical concepts for race. It is our duty and wish that this understanding is spread far and wide.

We are so used to thiking in black vs. white terms that things get misconstrued.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the idea that "people" (i.e. only European whites) were not created by "majick" in 4004 BCE from a white "Adam" and a white "Eve" in the image of a white Sky Daddy and there's nothing "special" or "superior" at all about being white and I tried to outline what we know from history, genetics, and anthropology to explain how people who migrated to Europe got to be light skinned. This concept of white "supremacy" is used to justify the treament of everyone else who isn't as sub-human or "less than." There's no "master race" or master human anything. Racism is just bunk. We're all the same.


Only trouble is that some people really *need* this idea and can't live in a world without it. They (Mormons, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Nazis et. al.) have created this nexus of religion, society, and politics to maintain it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2021 07:53AM by anybody.

No, I evolved from homo erectus that left Africa (2 million years ago, give or take a couple days) who weren't white. Homo erectus were not "humans."

Social Darwinism led to the Eugenics Movement true enough, but how is the basic theory of evolution racist?


Neanderthals died out because the climate changed and they weren't adapted to run and chase after their food like modern humans. That's not racist. That's life.

All modern humans are the same genetically and have the same range of potentialities. There is no "master race."

Far right Evangelicalism and Mormonism have racist theology to support what type of social mores they believe in and that is what the author is saying.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2021 06:25PM by anybody.

White supremacists had it backwards all along.
Africans are the only ‘purebred’ Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
The rest of us are mutts, hybrid mixes of HSS and Neanderthals and Denisovans.

And yet some idiot wrote this racist nonsense above. You should talk some sense into him.


> Certain breeds of dogs are known for being more
> intelligent than others. Like Border collies,
> poodles and German Shepherds.
> https://www.sciencealert.com/smartest-dog-breeds-c
> anine-psychologist-intelligence-pets
> That doesn’t make them better, but if you need a
> dog to herd your sheep, they’re the best suited.
> But if you want a happy dog get a golden
> retriever, not the most intelligent, but the best
> family dog.
> But just because a golden is more popular to own
> doesn’t mean that they are better.
> Just because Asians and Jews are more intelligent
> than the rest of us, doesn’t make them better,
> just better at taking tests.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yet some idiot wrote this racist nonsense
> above. You should talk some sense into him.

If you were not such a delusional racist, maybe you’d see statistics are not racist, you are just a delusional racist!

https://youtu.be/5r_E0bXF54U

Anyone in the first course of statistics learns that statistics are easily biased, even without intent.

Any stats that fit SC’s opinion are true even if the stats are false. And if you disagree, he’ll send you a joe Rogan clip.

Because that’s how science works.

Joe Rogan again. Yeah, that’s science.

Listen, SC, tell us again how there are human “breeds” and Jews and Asians are the smartest breeds. Because that says it all.

Incorrect.

http://ancientnews.net/2018/02/04/homo-sapiens-direct-ancestors-migrated-out-of-africa-2-million-years-ago/

Read "Human Diversity" by Charles Murray, and you will soon come to understand that modern humans are not all basically the same.

Look into the MUC7 mutation in subsaharan Africans that is not possessed by any other race.

Look into the 2-repeat of the allele that causes low monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) in certain racial populations, and see how it affects a propensity toward violence.

Vortigern wrote:

>>Read "Human Diversity" by Charles Murray, and you will soon come to understand that modern humans are not all basically the same.

Charles Murray is a political scientist and hardly qualified to be seen as an authority on this subject.

You beat me to it.

HH =)