Sure some of it exists but its NOT as important as you think.
Its not my friend and I don't care about that definition. I think the whole armenoid thing is a bunch of bullcrap.You are the one who comes up with that shit.
Sure. the fact remains.
You take a cat to Antarctica - that's not it's natural climate, but it can SURVIVE if you keep it nice and warm in a shelter and feed it.
So basing your life on "fitness" and claiming mixed racses are "less fit" is totally moot.
I believe some races are more adapted to the CLIMATE of their natural home, yet that's not really part of my NS/WN ideals.
Inidividuality is MORE important than WHICH race(s) you belong to.
I NEVER said that there was no variation INSIDE of race - but that doesn't mean race doesn't biologically exist.
And the other traits than skin color don't make much difference either.
But your friend Coon did - he said Negroes are 200,000 years behind in evolution - and you trust his definition of Armenoid.
Because they had necessities like a roof over their head.
And?
it's more so towards individuality.
BETWEEN HUMANS http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
So any genetics linked to race or ethnicity can be used just as well to note difference between individuals within the same race. Therfore basing your whole theories on race differences is stupid nd unscientific.
So you cannot say that one race is "more evolved" than the other.
And yet they lived there for a long while.
Sure but then the fitness argument doesn't work anymore TODAY or even for the past thousands of years.
The only reason to be worried is if theres a major nuclear disaster and everything crumbles down.
Well, I'm not going to expect my cat to fetch or my dog to meow
The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region. Because of a history of extensive migration and gene flow, however, human genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous fashion and seldom has marked geographic discontinuities19, 42. Thus, populations are never 'pure' in a genetic sense, and definite boundaries between individuals or populations (e.g., 'races') will be necessarily somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary.
But race and ancestry are not equivalent. Many polymorphisms are required to estimate an individual's ancestry, whereas the number of genes involved in mediating a specific drug response may be relatively small50. If disease-associated alleles are common (and thus of clinical significance), they are likely to be relatively ancient and therefore shared among multiple populations. Consequently, an individual's population affiliation would often be a faulty indicator of the presence or absence of an allele related to diagnosis or drug response
Well, the sun is the main reason skin is different among races - but sunlight isn't the only difference between Europe, Africa, and Asia - is it?
Yes, of course - not much evolution has gone on since the EMH arrived (Early modern humans).
The British wouldn't have been as adapted to India as the Indians.
Go back a few hundred years before people had houses and air conditioning.
But then all bets will be off.
{ I'll not take the first paragraph at face value so provide a link that says the average Black from any given African population has a shorter sitting height. Yes, that means the 7ft Bantu as well. If we have one group of people with so many differing traits, I don't see how this is possible. If there is so much genetic diversity in African blacks, how can they all have the same sitting height? When they don't even share the same average height? And again, my point of the Scandinavian example is that you group Whites into a class that doesn't give ability to differentiate. Scandinavians differentiate. I am aware of the twitch fibre phenomenon for explosive power.}
Remember, it is BUILT OFF OF AVERAGES.
Firstly, not Italy, I meant to say Spain, which has Arab admixture. And more melanin = greater protection. Some have more melanin, so some will have greater protection. Again, common sense. Red hair and paler skin in northern populations = more cancer.
You should've quoted this "common sense" when you gave the disadvantages of having darker skin and none of the disadvantages for having lighter skin. Why pick and choose what best suits your vision when it isn't even relevant to the issue at hand?
All humans are genetically different and mutations constantly occur. The "significance" is whether or not these mutations warrant much concern or new classification.
The overwhelming answer is that NO, they do not.
There are many SMALL differences between all peoples. These are insignificant. You once said that Blacks think differently. But you cannot prove that, so that statement was purely conjecture.
Minute differences in human genetics stemming from mutation represent a NORMAL part of the human genome.
You imply a certain homogeneity between peoples of specific regions - Europe, Asia, Africa, etc and it is not universally true. That is where my statement came from.
Scandinavians aren't inherently born with spectacular skill in sport yet excel above that of other Europeans due to more suitable genetics. They are a group of people that excel where other Europeans don't. They can be defined as that "one group of people" that dominate. But they are nevertheless white, and according to your logic, therefore cannot dominate.
But, I ASSUME you are taking the GENETIC route and implying NORDICS.
But, the AVERAGE (we can only use averages) Nordic is different than the average person of another race.
I do not see the logic in this quote. Darker skin = better than you described and classification of Australoids is irrelevant. I never stated a classification of Australoids but my statement remains true because of how UV rays interact with the human epidermis.
White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.
Genetic diversity correlates with genetic weakness. So, therefore, more genetically diverse populations have less genetic weakness and are more genetically fit as a result. If I am using the term, "genetically fit", wrongly, then please inform me. Its a pet peeve of mine that I sometimes misuse the term. I also may have misinterpreted "diversity" with "variance", and I would've liked to have a black African population and a European population, but this'll suffice as it provides evidence for my point.
Also,
Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans...
THERE YOU GO
1 - They tested only 35 people. 2 - The negro Gene pool (in the USA) is about 30% White as it is.
They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African
Now, I wish to view more about this study - were the "Europeans" tested of one racial group (Nordics, Meds, Alpines, ect.)? What about the Africans - were they just the Western Africans that are common in the USA or did they have 7ft tall Bantus and 4ft tall Pygmies mixed in?
The issue is not whether or not people are "different", it is how much of a difference they is between peoples and whether or not it is significant.Significant for What? And blacks don't have stronger legs.Compared to Whites, Blacks have narrower hips which gives them a more efficient stride. They have a shorter sitting height which provides a higher center of gravity and a better balance. They have wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle. Their muscles include more fast twitch muscles which produce power. Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. The testosterone translates into more explosive energy One becomes an athlete because one is able to do so. Whites, all over Europe, are able to produce such athletes but it is rarer than in places such as Scandinavia and Kenya. Most sports that require more than skill, but POWER, are dominated by one group of people. And the mere fact that not all whites have the same characteristics and not all blacks - (which have the greatest array of genetic diversity) definitely don't share the same characteristics, your assertion that perceived racial traits somehow marry to all individuals of a certain "race" is false.I didn't say that. And for the record, darker skin among humans (Indians, Black Africans, etc) lends itself to better protection from the sun and the genetic diversity among Black Africans mean they are the most genetically fit people on our planet. Genetic diversity ≠ genetic fitness. Most of their "diversity" is from junk genes or the broad classification. the 3ft tall Pygmies and 7ft tall Bantus are a good example of this. The only disadvantage to dark skin is a lack of Vitamin D, which can be supplemented by staying outside for longer periods of time.Well, dark skin is present in Australoids too - which AREN'T Negroes. A disadvantage for lighter skin, and this mostly applies to those of European descent, is that it doesn't provide as much protection from UV rays and is easily burned, thus meaning a higher rate of skin cancer.Common sense. Of course, this isn't universal, even for Europeans. There are some with greater genetic variance originated from admixture and they are given extra protection. This is evident in places such as Italy. Your Italy example is a failure. Obviously you don't know the racial history of Italy... There are MANY MANY MANY differences among races, skin color is just one, small difference.
And blacks don't have stronger legs.Compared to Whites, Blacks have narrower hips which gives them a more efficient stride. They have a shorter sitting height which provides a higher center of gravity and a better balance. They have wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle. Their muscles include more fast twitch muscles which produce power. Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. The testosterone translates into more explosive energy
One becomes an athlete because one is able to do so. Whites, all over Europe, are able to produce such athletes but it is rarer than in places such as Scandinavia and Kenya. Most sports that require more than skill, but POWER, are dominated by one group of people.
And the mere fact that not all whites have the same characteristics and not all blacks - (which have the greatest array of genetic diversity) definitely don't share the same characteristics, your assertion that perceived racial traits somehow marry to all individuals of a certain "race" is false.I didn't say that.
And for the record, darker skin among humans (Indians, Black Africans, etc) lends itself to better protection from the sun and the genetic diversity among Black Africans mean they are the most genetically fit people on our planet. Genetic diversity ≠ genetic fitness. Most of their "diversity" is from junk genes or the broad classification. the 3ft tall Pygmies and 7ft tall Bantus are a good example of this.
The only disadvantage to dark skin is a lack of Vitamin D, which can be supplemented by staying outside for longer periods of time.Well, dark skin is present in Australoids too - which AREN'T Negroes.
A disadvantage for lighter skin, and this mostly applies to those of European descent, is that it doesn't provide as much protection from UV rays and is easily burned, thus meaning a higher rate of skin cancer.Common sense.
Of course, this isn't universal, even for Europeans. There are some with greater genetic variance originated from admixture and they are given extra protection. This is evident in places such as Italy. Your Italy example is a failure. Obviously you don't know the racial history of Italy...
There are MANY MANY MANY differences among races, skin color is just one, small difference.
{ I'll not take the first paragraph at face value so provide a link that says the average Black from any given African population has a shorter sitting height. Yes, that means the 7ft Bantu as well. If we have one group of people with so many differing traits, I don't see how this is possible. If there is so much genetic diversity in African blacks, how can they all have the same sitting height? When they don't even share the same average height? And again, my point of the Scandinavian example is that you group Whites into a class that doesn't give ability to differentiate. Scandinavians differentiate. I am aware of the twitch fibre phenomenon for explosive power.} =-= Obviously you don't know the racial history of Italy... { Firstly, not Italy, I meant to say Spain, which has Arab admixture. And more melanin = greater protection. Some have more melanin, so some will have greater protection. Again, common sense. Red hair and paler skin in northern populations = more cancer.} =-= Common sense.
{You should've quoted this "common sense" when you gave the disadvantages of having darker skin and none of the disadvantages for having lighter skin. Why pick and choose what best suits your vision when it isn't even relevant to the issue at hand?} =-= There are MANY MANY MANY differences among races, skin color is just one, small difference
{All humans are genetically different and mutations constantly occur. The "significance" is whether or not these mutations warrant much concern or new classification. The overwhelming answer is that NO, they do not. There are many SMALL differences between all peoples. These are insignificant. You once said that Blacks think differently. But you cannot prove that, so that statement was purely conjecture.
Minute differences in human genetics stemming from mutation represent a NORMAL part of the human genome.} =-= I didn't say that.
Most sports that require more than skill, but POWER, are dominated by one group of people.
{You imply a certain homogeneity between peoples of specific regions - Europe, Asia, Africa, etc and it is not universally true. That is where my statement came from.
Scandinavians aren't inherently born with spectacular skill in sport yet excel above that of other Europeans due to more suitable genetics. They are a group of people that excel where other Europeans don't. They can be defined as that "one group of people" that dominate. But they are nevertheless white, and according to your logic, therefore cannot dominate. } =-= Well, dark skin is present in Australoids too - which AREN'T Negroes
{I do not see the logic in this quote. Darker skin = better than you described and classification of Australoids is irrelevant. I never stated a classification of Australoids but my statement remains true because of how UV rays interact with the human epidermis. }
And lastly.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331949,00.html
" White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds. "
Genetic differences are not that great.
The same traits you use to claim difference betwen races can be used within races.
The variation is sometimes greater inside race thant outside it.
Fitness to enviroment is more than just sunshine right? So what OTHER fitness ae you wrorried about.
As I said "fitness" has not been that important for where humans live in the past 3,000 years at least.
Otherwise British would not have been able to live and survive in India and Indians would not be able to live and survive in England.
Go back a few hundred years before people had houses and air conditioning. Now, stick a 20 Nordic men in sub-Saharan Africa and 20 Sudanic men in Sweden. Remember, they have none of the inventions of today.
Do you think they're going to live as well as if they didn't move around?
The Brits in India had houses they could go in to shade them from the sun as well as other inventions to aid them.
Genetic differences aren't important
Well, differences INSIDE of races are different than differences BETWEEN races.
Only for the sunshine.
As I said "fitness" has not been that important for where humans live in the past 3,000 years at least. Otherwise British would not have been able to live and survive in India and Indians would not be able to live and survive in England.
For genetics.
If YOU agreed you would not try to try to clam that blacks are THAT different from whites.
So it IS about SKIN.
For what?
we've all agreed.
Yet lack of sunshine harms the health of dark skinned individuals, and, as you should know, light skinned individuals can get burnt by the sun.
And overall the differences other than skin color aren't THAT important.
Theres a lot of variations WITHIN the same race for traits not related to skin color. Thats a PROVEN fact.
And fitness to environment was maybe important thousands years ago. Now, not so much. Whites can live in pretty hot and sunny climates (British in India) Nonwhites can live in pretty cold climates (Indians in England).
Stop comparing the human genome to that of the dog. It does nothing to further your point as dogs are different. All perceived humans are equal because no particular group of humans possesses unequivocal traits that make them superior to others. Blonde hair and blue eyes aren't traits that make you "better". Takinam, the fact that people are different because of evolution is PROOF that people are different. Many people play the "if you think race exists and is different then since one is different one must be superior, and if you think that you're a racist nazi skinhead blond hitler" That couldn't be further from retardation. Each race developed traits that help them survive in their own location. Negroes tend to have stronger legs for sprinting, as that skill would be very useful in sub-Saharan Africa. Whites tend to have lighter skin to soak up UV rays from the sun easier - a lack of which harms the health of the Negro. Each race is "superior" in different ways, but I don't believe one race is superior over all.
Stop comparing the human genome to that of the dog. It does nothing to further your point as dogs are different. All perceived humans are equal because no particular group of humans possesses unequivocal traits that make them superior to others. Blonde hair and blue eyes aren't traits that make you "better".
All perceived humans are equal because no particular group of humans possesses unequivocal traits that make them superior to others. Blonde hair and blue eyes aren't traits that make you "better".
Many people play the "if you think race exists and is different then since one is different one must be superior, and if you think that you're a racist nazi skinhead blond hitler" That couldn't be further from retardation.
Each race developed traits that help them survive in their own location. Negroes tend to have stronger legs for sprinting, as that skill would be very useful in sub-Saharan Africa. Whites tend to have lighter skin to soak up UV rays from the sun easier - a lack of which harms the health of the Negro.
Each race is "superior" in different ways, but I don't believe one race is superior over all.
The issue is not whether or not people are "different", it is how much of a difference they is between peoples and whether or not it is significant. And blacks don't have stronger legs. Scandinavians, Kenyans, and some West African people have a better chance of producing those with good twitch fibres. This contributes to the high percentage of exceptional athletes present in sports such as running and skiing for each of the people. One becomes an athlete because one is able to do so. Whites, all over Europe, are able to produce such athletes but it is rarer than in places such as Scandinavia and Kenya.
And the mere fact that not all whites have the same characteristics and not all blacks - (which have the greatest array of genetic diversity) definitely don't share the same characteristics, your assertion that perceived racial traits somehow marry to all individuals of a certain "race" is false. And for the record, darker skin among humans (Indians, Black Africans, etc) lends itself to better protection from the sun and the genetic diversity among Black Africans mean they are the most genetically fit people on our planet. The only disadvantage to dark skin is a lack of Vitamin D, which can be supplemented by staying outside for longer periods of time. A disadvantage for lighter skin, and this mostly applies to those of European descent, is that it doesn't provide as much protection from UV rays and is easily burned, thus meaning a higher rate of skin cancer. Of course, this isn't universal, even for Europeans. There are some with greater genetic variance originated from admixture and they are given extra protection. This is evident in places such as Italy.
The "nazis" didnt even have a requirement for blond hair and blue eyes
506 users online 
223079 members 610 active today Advertise Here
506 users online 223079 members 610 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
