Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

[bambu]

From your source....

"People commonly assume that our species has evolved very little since prehistoric times. Yet new studies using genetic information from populations around the globe suggest that the pace of human evolution increased with the advent of agriculture and cities."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-man

Keep running from the research lil' nigga.....

'Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population'

Abstract

Edited by Peter T. Ellison, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved August 30, 2011 (received for review March 17, 2011)

"It is often claimed that modern humans have stopped evolving because cultural and technological advancements have annihilated natural selection. In contrast, recent studies show that selection can be strong in contemporary populations.....

Our results show that microevolution can be detectable over relatively few generations in humans and underscore the need for studies of human demography and reproductive ecology to consider the role of evolutionary processes."

Again, stupid nigga....

Your own theory disagrees with that assertion.....

"Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles

Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,

Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To

deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and

White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social

organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ. p.41"(2001)



Funny how you niggas want to redefine evolution when it comes to humans.....

 

[bambu]

I take the middle ground and say that we have not stopped evolving but are evolving slowly(I think the first prediction is right and wrong at the same time).

Yeah, that's pretty much the bitch route.....

Typical, once your science fails....

Continue the theory off of assumptions and speculation....

More of your own reference.....

If you cant see what these researchers are doing .... nigga you stupid.....

"But according to anthropologist Peter McAllister, author of Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man, the contemporary male has evolved, at least physically, into "the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet." Thanks to genetic differences, an average Neanderthal woman, McAllister notes, could have whupped Arnold Schwarzenegger at his muscular peak in an arm-wrestling match. And prehistoric Australian Aborigines, who typically built up great strength in their joints and muscles through childhood and adolescence, could have easily beat Usain Bolt in a 100-m dash."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931757,00.html

SMH at niggas attempting to combine eglatarian principles and evolution.....

oil & water....

 

[Bodhi]

1. We have evolved a lot since prehistoric times but evolution still occurs slowly.

2. Neanderthals are known for their strength; thats nothing new. They reached a dead end, modern humans may not be as strong but are more evolved.

3. It's called thinking for yourself. You should try it sometime. Basically, if you read the nat. Geo. Article, the first scientist says that we have stopped evolving and gives a reason as to why he thinks so. Although I agree with his reasoning, and would use the same to come to the conclusion that evolution could not happen RAPIDLY. I agree with the first two links.. Evolution is happening, but slowly within the entire race.

 

[Bodhi]

It looks like you're the stupid one, Bimbo

 

[bambu]

1. We have evolved a lot since prehistoric times but evolution still occurs slowly.

2. Neanderthals are known for their strength; thats nothing new. They reached a dead end, modern humans may not be as strong but are more evolved.

3. It's called thinking for yourself. You should try it sometime. Basically, if you read the nat. Geo. Article, the first scientist says that we have stopped evolving and gives a reason as to why he thinks so. Although I agree with his reasoning, and would use the same to come to the conclusion that evolution could not happen RAPIDLY. I agree with the first two links.. Evolution is happening, but slowly within the entire race.

Nigga please....


1. I already provided evidence that contradicts this assumption....



'Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population'

2. this is a no-point.....

3. your first and third links disagree with you....The Nat. Geo article posts my exact argument and research documents that I have been posting here already...

From your source....

"People commonly assume that our species has evolved very little since prehistoric times. Yet new studies using genetic information from populations around the globe suggest that the pace of human evolution increased with the advent of agriculture and cities."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-man

Like I said.... you can continue to make up your own theories.....

However, the majority of your scientists disagree with you.....

"Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles

Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,

Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To

deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and

White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social

organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ. p.41"(2001)



Funny how you niggas want to redefine evolution when it comes to humans.....

 

[Bodhi]

1. So you agree with evolution? Cool. If you agree with evolution, which is really the point of the thread, then it's pretty obvious that evolution occurs slowly in human populations. If you don't agree with the fact that we've experienced significant change since prehistoric times, research fossil finds in Malapa.

2. Then don't bring it up.

3. Yes, evolution is happening. I already told you one of the scientists in the article disagrees and thinks evolution is dead so it was no point in you trying to use that against me. Although I agree with his reasoning and would use that same reasoning to explain why evolution isn't occurring rapidly, or more in one race and not another, I agree with the other articles, evolution is happening.

4. I don't agree with that passage. You would have to provide evidence that the European and Asian brain is larger than the African brain, and there is no proof of that because it is false.

5. I don't have to support or cosign white supremacy in order to cosign evolution. Hell, you cosign evolution; that was your first point in your last post--but do you agree with white supremacy? I hope not. Neither do I. So we agree.

 

[bambu]

1. So you agree with evolution? Cool. If you agree with evolution, which is really the point of the thread, then it's pretty obvious that evolution occurs slowly in human populations. If you don't agree with the fact that we've experienced significant change since prehistoric times, research fossil finds in Malapa.

You sound stupid again nigga.... I provided evidence from your own camp that shatters this illusion....

2. Then don't bring it up.

Nigga please...

3. Yes, evolution is happening. I already told you one of the scientists in the article disagrees and thinks evolution is dead so it was no point in you trying to use that against me. Although I agree with his reasoning and would use that same reasoning to explain why evolution isn't occurring rapidly, or more in one race and not another, I agree with the other articles, evolution is happening.

So you cosign this....

" The human population will become more alike as races merge, he said, but "Darwin's machine has lost its power."

That's because natural selection—Darwin's "survival of the fittest" concept—is being sidelined in humans, according to Jones. The fittest will no longer spearhead evolutionary change, because, thanks to medical advances, the weakest also live on and pass down their genes. When On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, only about half of British children survived to 21. Today that number has swelled to 99 percent.

In developed countries, "the fact that everybody stays alive, at least until they're sexually mature, means ['survival of the fittest' has] got nothing to work with," Jones said. "That part of the Darwinian fuel has gone."

How do you not see "survival of the fittest" in the access to medical advances and overall wealth ???

4. I don't agree with that passage. You would have to provide evidence that the European and Asian brain is larger than the African brain, and there is no proof of that because it is false.

5. I don't have to support or cosign white supremacy in order to cosign evolution. Hell, you cosign evolution; that was your first point in your last post--but do you agree with white supremacy? I hope not. Neither do I. So we agree.

I guess we agree on not supporting white supremacy....

However, I think that cosigning evolution is a way of supporting it on the low.....

I do not cosign evolution....I used the argument to illustrate that your understanding of the theory was flawed....

Funny how you niggas want to redefine evolution when it comes to humans.....

 

[Bodhi]

RESEARCH SHOWS BLACKS TO HAVE LARGER BRAINS

The majority of empirical studies on the matter of racial differences in Brain size suggest that blacks have larger brains than do others groups. Brain sizes vary considerably within any species, but this variation is not usually related to intelligence. Instead, it correlates loosely with body size: large people tend to have larger brains (Gould, 1981). As a result, women on average will have smaller brains than men (Peters, 1991). However, this does not indicate that the level of male intelligence is higher than female intelligence; Neanderthals had on average larger brains than do anatomically modern humans (Tattersall, 1995; Gould, 1981) but most would agree that they were considerably less intelligent than Homo sapiens (Tattersal, 1995, 2004; Gould, 1981; Mithen 1998).

Tobias (1970) compared 7 racial and national groups in a study on brain size, in which he reported that the brain size of American blacks was larger than any white group, (which included American, English and French whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample (who had the largest brains of any of the groups measured), and American blacks were also estimated to have some 200 million more neurons than American whites (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et al. 1990). While Gould (1981) discovered upon recalculating Morton’s skull data that the skulls of blacks in his sample were on average larger than those of whites. Morton included in his sample of black skulls more females than he included in the white sample. After correcting this error it was shown that the black sample had larger skulls (and presumably, larger brains) than did whites.

Interestingly, during the time periods in which the data for the above mentioned studies was collected anthropomorphic research has shown that blacks were on average physically smaller in stature than whites and received poorer nutrition (e.g. Alan, 2006). Indicating that in spite of relatively lower anthropomorphic measurements, blacks still demonstrated larger brain volume.

Other physical Anthropological research has shown that the skulls of Sub-Saharan Africans are generally wider and more robust than that of European/North African samples. For example sub-Saharan specimens show a generalized vertical facial flattening, with consequent widening of the entire structure (Bruner and Manzi, 2004). This pattern involves interorbital and orbital enlargement, widening and flattening of the nasal bones and aperture, maxillary development and upper rotation (Ibid). Keita (2004) found that European crania, relative to sub-Saharan African crania tend to have narrower faces in relationship to vault length. In this study significant variation among all measured groups was found, with African samples showing the most variation.

Genetic studies of human brainsize have discovered two genes that when mutated can result in a severely reduced brain volume, or ‘Autosomal recessive primary microcephaly’. The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development and has experienced positive selection in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens (Zhang, 2003; Evans et al, 2005). Within modern humans a group of closely related haplotypes, known as ‘haplogroup D’ arose from a single copy at this locus (Evans, 2006). Globally, D alleles are young and first appeared about 37,000 years ago; with high frequency haplotypes being rare in Asia, and particularly Africa. The highest frequencies are seen in Europe/Eurasia. The second microcephalin gene, ‘ASPM’ (abnormal spindle like Microcephaly associated), went an episode of positive selection that ended some time ago (between 6–7 million and 100,000 B.P.), with newer D variants showing positive selection arising about 5,800 years ago (Evans et al, 2005; Zhang, 2003).

Microcephaly genetic researchers believe that D alleles may have first arisen in an archaic homo species about 1.1 million years ago before introgression into modern Homo sapien sapiens about 37, 000 years ago; possibly as the result of interspecies breeding (Evans et al, 2006). In fact, microcephalin shows by far the most compelling evidence of admixture among the human loci examined thus far (Evans et al, 2006). Modern humans arose only 100,000 years ago in Africa (Horan et al, 2005), which would make D alleles more than 1million years “older” than modern humans, and certainly very primitive by any stretch.

 

[Bodhi]

Normal D variants of both ‘MCPH1’ and ‘ASPM’ genes have been shown to have mild affects on human brainsize with empirical evidence demonstrating the alleles to reduce brain volume, slightly (Woods et al, 2006). For example, each additional ASPM allele was associated with a non significant 10.9 cc decrease in brain volume. For MCPH1, each additional allele was associated with a non significant 19.5 cc decrease in brain volume (Woods et al, 2006).

While selective pressure in favor of smaller brain volume might seem counterintuitive, it should be noted that the fossil records suggest that brain size in humans - particularly Europeans - has decreased over the past 35,000 years, and on through the Neolithic period (Frayer, 1984; Ruff et al, 1997; Woods, et al, 2006). Interestingly, the selected variant of MCPH1 is thought to have arisen about 37,000 years ago (Evans et al, 2006) making it a candidate gene responsible for this general decline (Woods et al, 2006), while the ASPM variant is thought to have arisen only 5,800 years ago. These archaeological changes in brain size are paralleled by changes in body size (Ruff et al, 1997; Woods et al., 2006), and it is possible that decreases in brain size may have exerted selective pressure for corresponding decreases in body size in Europeans (Ruff et al, 1997; Frayer, 1984; see also, Woods et al., 2006).

The rate of selection for these particular variant MCPH1 and ASPM alleles might also indicate that the genes are relatively unexpressed in the human brain, outside of causing ‘Autosomal recessive primary microcephaly.’ In one study it was shown that genes with maximal expression in the human brain tend to show little or no evidence for positive selection (Nielsen et al, 2006). For example, the microcephaly genes in question have also been implicated in the development of breast cancer (Xu et al, 2004), and other non brain related conditions (Trimborn et al, 2004). Implying that the mild brain volume reductions observed with each additional variant of ASPM and MCPH1 may in fact be adaptively unimportant. It should be further noted that one microcephalin gene (CDK5RAP2) has shown evidence of positive selection in West African Yoruba (Voight, 2006; bond et al, 2005), however, this gene at the MCPH3 locus has been least involved in causing a microcephalin phenotype (Hassan et al, 2007), and is not believed to have arisen in an archaic homo species.

S.O.Y. KEITA (2006) in his principal components analysis on male crania from the northeast quadrant of Africa and selected European and other African series found no consistent size differences in the skulls he measured. Stating: “The plots are immediately striking in that sharp patterns of segregation of individuals by group origin do not emerge in the two dimensional plots. It is striking how much ‘‘size’’ varies by individual within the European and African regions, assuming that PC 1 captures primarily this quality; Bergman’s rule is not demonstrated in these data in any easily recognizable way, since individuals from all regions exhibit variation.” Herskovits’s (1930) data also suggest that there is no consistent Black/ White difference with respect to stature or crania.

Cernovsky (1990), however, reported that American blacks were superior in brain weight when compared with American whites. It is also known that the largest portions of the human brain are devoted to sensory and motor functions, which would mean that people with especially acute senses or strong motor skills can be expected to have larger brains than do others (Allen, 2002). It has been shown in several studies that blacks in general possess superior motor skills when compared to whites (Super, 1976; Wilson 1978; DiNucci, 1975); some believe that this may be the result of environmental and cultural factors (Super, 1976). The overall implications are the same, however, and suggest that blacks have larger brains.

Testosterone, Brain size and Penis size…?

Some of the more desperate claims for racial differences in brain size are accompanied by unusual arguments suggesting racial differences in penis size (that they are inversely correlated). Thorough investigation of the formal neuroscience, anthropology, paleontology, anatomy, physiology, and ‘sex psychology’ literature reveal that legitimate references to this - ridiculous (?) - notion are not only remote, but in fact, “nonexistent.” The development and size of one’s penis tend to be controlled by testosterone levels during puberty; and it is testosterone (and body size) that determine penis size. Testosterone: “Primary male hormone, causes the reproductive organs to grow and develop; responsible for secondary sexual characteristics, and promotes erections and sexual behavior.” Definition from: University of Michigan comprehensive Cancer Center; Fertility & Cryopreservation Glossary.

With this in mind; employing elementary logic one may safely arrive at the conclusion that because men tend to have dramatically higher levels of testosterone than do women (about 10 times the level), and on average have larger brains (due mostly to body size); that testosterone not only increases body and penis size, but also brain size! In fact, the relationship between brain size and testosterone is one of common knowledge, and is well documented in the literature (e.g. Solms and Turnbull, 2002).

Moreover, low testosterone has been associated with smaller penises and testes, failure to go through full normal puberty, poor muscle development, reduced muscle strength, low interest in sex (decreased libido), osteoporosis (thinning of bones common in whites and Asians), poor concentration, difficulty getting and keeping erections, low semen volume, longer time to recover from exercise, and easy fatigue, in men (McLachlan and Allan, 2005). On the flipside, high testosterone has been associated with improved health, superior motor abilities, increased reproductive value (in men), increased mental focus, larger brain volume, superior bone density and “boldness” (Dabbs and Dabbs, 2000; Solms and Turnbull, 2002; ).

It has also been documented by prostate cancer researchers that American blacks may possess levels of testosterone that are as much as 10% higher than American whites (Ross and Henderson, 1994; Bernstein et al, 1986; Ross et al, 1995), while East Asians have been shown to possess lower levels.

 

[Bodhi]

Referenced:

Alan S.A. (2006). African-American and White living standards in the 19th centrury American south; a biological comparison. CESifo Working Paper No. 1696

Allen B.P. (2006). If No “Races,” No Relevance to Brain Size, and No Consensus on Intelligence, Then No Scientific Meaning to Relationships Among These Notions: Reply to Rushton11. General Psychologist, Summer, 2003 Volume 38:2 Pages 31-32.

Bernstein L, Ross RK, Judd H, et al (1986). Serum testosterone levels in young black and white men. J Natl Cancer Inst 76:45—48, 1986

Bond J, Roberts E, Springell K, Lizarraga SB, Scott S, et al. (2005) A centrosomal mechanism involving CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ controls brain size. Nat Genet 37: 353–355.

Bruner E., Manzi G. (2004).Variability in facial size and shape among North and East African human populations. Ital. J. Zool., 71: 51-56 (2004)

Cernovsky Z.Z. (1990). Race and Brain Weight: A note on Rushton’s conclusions. Psychological Reports 66:337-38

Dabbs,J.M, Dabbs M.G. (2000). Heroes, Rogues and Lovers: Testosterone and Behavior. McGraw-Hill Companies (July 25, 2000)

Douglas B. (2008). Race, Intelligence and IQ: Are People of African Decent More Intelligent? Africaresource: educational, arts and research materials.

DiNucci, James M. (1975). Motor Performance Age and Race Differences between Black and Caucasian Boys Six to Nine Years of Age. The ERIC database, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education. 1975-02-00

Evan P., Mekel-Bobrov N., Vallender E., Hudson R., Lahn B., (2006). Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage. 18178–18183, PNAS November 28, 2006, vol. 103, no. 48

Frayer, D.W. (1984). In The Origins of Modern Humans: A world survey of the Fossil Evidence (eds Smith, F.H. & Spencer, f.) 211-250 (Liss, New York, 1984)

Gould, S. J. (1981). Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.

Hassan M.J., Khurshid M, Azeem Z., John P, Ali G., Chishti M.S. and Ahmad W. Previously described sequence variant in CDK5RAP2 gene in a Pakistani family with autosomal recessive primary microcephaly. BMC Medical Genetics 2007, 8:58

Horan R.D., Bulte E., Shogren J.F. (2005). How trade saved humanity from biological exclusion: an economic theory of Neanderthal extinction. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Volume 58, Issue 1, September 2005, Pages 1-29

Mithen, S., 1998 (Ed). Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory, London: Routledge

Murphy, N. B. (1968). Carotid cerebral angiography in Uganda: review of boo consecutive cases. East African M. 7.,1968,45,47-60.

Nielsen,R., Bustamante,C., Clark,A.G., Glanowski,S., Sackton,T.B., Hubisz,M.J., Fledel-Alon,A.,

Tanenbaum,D.M., Civello,D., White,T.J., et al. (2005). A scan for positively selected genes in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. PLoS Biol. 3,

Ross, R.K., Coetzee, G. A., Reichardt, J., Skinner, E, and Henderson, B.E. (1995). Does the Racial-Ethnic Variation in Prostate Cancer Risk Have a Hormonal Basis? Cancer, Volume 75, Issue S7 (p 1778-1782)

Ross R.K., Henderson B.E. (1994). Do diet and androgens alter prostate cancer risk via a common etiologic pathway? / Natl Cancer lnst 1994; 86:252-4.

Ruff C.B., Trinkaus E., and Holliday T.W. (1997). Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. Nature Vol. 387, 8 May 1997

Solms M. and, Turnbull O. (2002). The brain and the inner world. Other Press, New York

S.O.Y. KEITA (2004). Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 16:679–689 (2004)

Super, C. M. (1976). Environmental effects on motor development: The case of African infant precocity. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 18, 561–567.

Tattersall, I. and J.H. Schwartz (2000). Extinct Humans, New York: Westview Press.

Tattersall (1995) The Fossil Trail (Ev)

Tobias, T.V. (1970). Brain Size, Grey matter and Race – Fact or Fiction? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 32:3-26

Trimborn,M., Bell,S.M., Felix,C., Rashid,Y., Jafri,H., Griffiths,P.D., Neumann,L.M., Krebs,A., Reis,A., Sperling,K., et al. (2004). Mutations in Microcephalin cause aberrant regulation of chromosome condensation. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75, 261-266.

Voight BF, Kudaravalli S, Wen X, Pritchard JK (2006) A map of recent positive selection in the human genome. PLoS Biol 4(3): e72

Wilson A. (1978). Developmental Psychology of the Black Child. Africana Research Publications (December 1978).

Woods R., Freimer N., Young J., Fears S, Sicotte N., Service S., Valentino D., Toga A., Mazziotta J. (2006). Normal Variants of Microcephalin and ASPM Do Not Account for Brain Size Variability. Human Molecular Genetics, Volume 15, Number 12, 15 June 2006, pp. 2025-2029(5)

Xu X., Lee J., and Stern D.F. (2004). Microcephalin Is a DNA Damage Response Protein Involved in Regulation of CHK1 and BRCA1. THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY Vol. 279, No. 33, Issue of August 13, pp. 34091–34094, 2004

Zhang J. (2003). Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size. Genetics 165: 2063–2070

(December 2003)

 

[Bodhi]

So you cosign this....

" The human population will become more alike as races merge, he said, but "Darwin's machine has lost its power."

That's because natural selection—Darwin's "survival of the fittest" concept—is being sidelined in humans, according to Jones. The fittest will no longer spearhead evolutionary change, because, thanks to medical advances, the weakest also live on and pass down their genes. When On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, only about half of British children survived to 21. Today that number has swelled to 99 percent.

In developed countries, "the fact that everybody stays alive, at least until they're sexually mature, means ['survival of the fittest' has] got nothing to work with," Jones said. "That part of the Darwinian fuel has gone."

I already told you I don't agree with him. I agree with his reasoning as far as coming to the conclusion that major changes aren't going to occur quickly but I don't agree that evolution has stopped for human beings. And that makes 3 times that I've said that to you. You need to start reading what I'm saying to you if you're going to have a conversation with me. It makes no sense to be as stupid as you seem to be.

 

[bambu]

SMH....No citation or link...
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Reply to Weizmann et al.pdf

 

[bambu]

"Weizmann et al. conclude that it is "logically impossible to prove that there are no fundamental genetically based differences....Propositions of human equality, therefore, always remain fragile..."(p.11). This is a misleading sentiment.

While it may not be possible to test whether genetically based differences occur when these are predicted in the pattern shown in table 1, which generates numerous opportunities for refutation"

 

[bambu]

Testosterone, Brain size and Penis size…?

Moreover, low testosterone has been associated with smaller penises and testes, failure to go through full normal puberty, poor muscle development, reduced muscle strength, low interest in sex (decreased libido), osteoporosis (thinning of bones common in whites and Asians), poor concentration, difficulty getting and keeping erections, low semen volume, longer time to recover from exercise, and easy fatigue, in men (McLachlan and Allan, 2005). On the flipside, high testosterone has been associated with improved health, superior motor abilities, increased reproductive value (in men), increased mental focus, larger brain volume, superior bone density and “boldness” (Dabbs and Dabbs, 2000; Solms and Turnbull, 2002; ).

It has also been documented by prostate cancer researchers that American blacks may possess levels of testosterone that are as much as 10% higher than American whites (Ross and Henderson, 1994; Bernstein et al, 1986; Ross et al, 1995), while East Asians have been shown to possess lower levels.

Good article....

However, it looks like a copy & paste.... If so, you should provide a link or reveal the author.....

Conflicting evolutionary "evidence"?????.....

You disagree with the scientists about brain size, but it appears that you are both on the same page concerning penis sizing *no homo*

Interesting that you refute the authors research concerning brain size, but your arguments are so similar surrounding penises *no homo*
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files....-k-life-history-theory-in-113-populations.pdf

Table 2.

Penis length Blacks Hispanics Whites Asians

Measured 6.9, 6.5, 6.1, 5.3

Self-reported 7.9, 7.7, 7.8, 6.7

No homo at you bringing penises into this argument....

And LOL at ethering yourself at the same damn time.....

 

[Bodhi]

The point is that, regardless of the author, information can be produced to conclude the opposite, which is why I told you that it hasn't been proven whether or not one race is generally superior over another. I don't follow or believe in racist "science" and tests that are twisted to reach an agenda. We don't know how the author of that single book you continue to reference came to those results or even if tests were ran in a legit way at all. Reputable scientific study has shown that humans are 99% the same genetically. If that weren't true, and it was concretely PROVEN that Asians are smarter than whites and whites are more intelligent than blacks, we wouldn't even be having this debate about evolution, because if that were the case, regardless of how it happened, it would be true. Even if evolution turned out to be false tomorrow, if it were PROVEN that blacks are inferior to whites and asians, that fact would remain true and racists could claim that the Creator made whites to be superior so evolution is not at fault. The racism and biased research is to blame.

Life was created by an intelligent designer >>>>>>> Whites are superior to blacks

Life evolved from common ancestor >>>>>>>>>>> Whites are superior to blacks

If "Whites are superior to blacks" has been proven, then it doesn't matter what happened to get to that point. That's why I tell you it hasn't been proven yet and it hasn't.

 

[Bodhi]

Jean Philippe Rushton (born December 3, 1943) is a Canadian psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario who is most widely known for his work on racial group differences, such as research on race and intelligence, race and crime, and the application of r/K selection theory to humans in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior (1995). His work has been heavily criticised by the scientific community,[2] and it has been widely described as racist,[3] as has the Pioneer Fund, the research foundation he has been head of since 2002.[4]

The book was generally received negatively, its methodology and conclusions being criticized by many experts. The aggressive marketing strategy also received a lot of criticism. The book received positive reviews by some researchers, many of whom were personally associated with Rushton and with the Pioneer Fund which funded much of Rushton's research.[2] The book has been examined as an example of Pioneer's funding of "scientific racist" research,[2][3] while psychologist Michael Howe has identified the book as part of a movement, begun in the 1990s, to promote a racial agenda in social policy.[4]According to Richard R. Valencia, the response to the first edition of Rushton's book was "overwhelmingly negative", with only a small number of supporters, many being, like Rushton, Pioneer Fund grantees, such as Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin and Richard Lynn.[7]

Valencia identified the main areas of criticism as focusing on Rushton's use of "race" as a biological concept, a failure to appreciate the extent of variation within populations compared with that between populations, a false separation of genetics and environment, poor statistical methodology, a failure to consider alternative hypotheses, and the use of unreliable and inappropriate data to draw conclusions about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. According to Valencia, "experts in life history conclude that Rushton's (1995) work is pseudoscientific and racist."

Richard Lewontin (1996) argued that in claiming the existence of "major races", and that these categories reflected large biological differences, "Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation."[8] The anthropologist C. Loring Brace (1996) concurred, stating that the book was an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'"[9]In the book, Rushton uses a methodology he calls "aggregation" of evidence. This approach involves taking hundreds of studies, both modern and historical, giving them equal weight regardless of the quality of the data or the size sample in each study, to produce averages that demonstrate the racial patterns he asserts. The expectation is that the law of large numbers will make individual flawed results cancel one another out.

The biologist Douglas Wahlsten (2001) criticized the approach for doing "nothing to reduce bias in sampling and measurement". He notes that the studies used employ hugely varying sample sizes (and some clearly biased), methods of measuring, and environmental conditions. He wrote: "In my opinion, most of the data raked into one big pile by Rushton are worthless for scientific analysis and should be excluded. Unfortunately, Rushton has not done the hard work of separating the potentially valuable data from the trash. He misleads unwary readers by claiming that averaging many studies can overcome poor research methods."[10]

Brace in his review claimed that Rushton makes unsupported claims about sub-Saharan African societies."[9]

Race, Evolution, and Behavior has been cited as an example of the Pioneer Fund's activities in promoting "Scientific racism". Valencia notes that many of the supportive comments for the book come from Pioneer grantees like Rushton himself, and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer.[7] The book is cited by psychologist William H. Tucker as an example of the Pioneer Fund's continued role "to subsidize the creation and distribution of literature to support racial superiority and racial purity." The mass distribution of the abridged third edition he described as part of a "public relations effort", and "the latest attempt to convince the nation of 'the completely different nature' of blacks and whites." He notes that bulk rates were offered "for distribution to media figures, especially columnists who write on race issues".[3]

 

[Bodhi]

Rushton's application of r/K selection theory to explain differences among racial groups has been widely criticised. One of his many critics is the evolutionary biologist Joseph L. Graves, who has done extensive testing of the r/K selection theory with species of drosophila flies. Graves argues that not only is r/K selection theory considered to be virtually useless when applied to human life history evolution, but Rushton does not apply the theory correctly, and displays a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory in general.[29] Graves also says that Rushton misrepresented the sources for the biological data he gathered in support of his hypothesis, and that much of his social science data was collected by dubious means. Other scholars have argued against Rushton's hypothesis on the basis that the concept of race is not supported by genetic evidence about the diversity of human populations, and that his research is based on folk taxonomies.[30] A number of later studies by Rushton and other researchers have argued that there are empirical support for the theory.[31][32][33]

In 1989, geneticist David Suzuki criticized Rushton's racial theories in a live televised debate at the University of Western Ontario.[48] He said, "There will always be Rushtons in science, and we must always be prepared to root them out!" At the same occasion, when Rushton was asked if he believed in racial superiority, he said, "Oh, no!" He said, "from an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value - if it even means this. And we've got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments."[49]

Also in 1988, Rushton conducted a survey at the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto, where he paid 50 whites, 50 blacks, and 50 Asians to answer questions about their sexual habits. Because he did not clear his survey and proposed to pay for answers with the university committee at UWO, the administration reprimanded Rushton, calling his transgression "a serious breach of scholarly procedure," said University President, George Pederson.[38]

Rushton's work has been criticized in the scholarly literature; he has generally responded, sometimes in the same journal. In 1995 in the Journal of Black Studies, Zack Cernovsky wrote, "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semi-pornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse magazine's Forum."[50]

The biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace criticized Rushton in his 1996 review of the book, Race, Evolution and Behavior (1996):

Virtually every kind of anthropologist may be put in the position of being asked to comment on what is contained in this book, so, whatever our individual specialty, we should all be prepared to discuss what it represents. Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy for the promotion of "racialism." Tzvetan Todorov explains "racialism," in contrast to "racism," as belief in the existence of typological essences called "races" whose characteristics can be rated in hierarchical fashion (On Human Diversity: Nationalism, Racism, and Exoticism in French Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 31). "Racism," then, is the use of racialist assumptions to promote social or political ends, a course that Todorov regards as leading to "particularly catastrophic results." Perpetuating catastrophe is not the stated aim of Rushton's book, but current promoters of racist agendas will almost certainly regard it as a welcome weapon to apply for their noxious purposes.[51]

Robert Sussman, an evolutionary anthropologist and the editor in-chief of American Anthropologist, explained why the journal did not accept ads for Rushton's 1998 book:

 

[Bodhi]

This is an insidious attempt to legitimize Rushton’s racist propaganda and is tantamount to publishing ads for white supremacy and the neo-Nazi party. If you have any question about the validity of the "science" of Rushton’s trash you should read any one of his articles and the many rebuttals by ashamed scientists.[52]

In 2000, after Rushton had mailed a booklet on his work to psychology, sociology, and anthropology professors across North America, Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, said: "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research." Rushton responded, "It's not racist; it's a matter of science and recognizing variation in all groups of people."[53]

Since 2002, Rushton has been the president of the Pioneer Fund. Tax records from 2000 show in that year that his Charles Darwin Research Institute was awarded $473,835, or 73% of the fund's total grants that year.[54] The Southern Poverty Law Center, an American civil rights organization, characterizes the Pioneer Fund as a hate group.[55][56] Rushton has spoken on eugenics several times at conferences of the American Renaissance magazine, a monthly racialist magazine, in which he has also published a number of general articles.[57]

Rushton has published articles on the website VDARE, which advocates reduced immigration into the United States. Stefan Kühl wrote in his book, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (2002), that Rushton was part of the revival in the 1980s of public interest in scientific racism.[58]

William H. Tucker, a professor of psychology who writes histories of scientific racism, noted in 2002:

Rushton has not only contributed to American Renaissance publications and graced their conferences with his presence but also offered praise and support for the "scholarly" work on racial differences of Henry Garrett, who spent the last two decades of his life opposing the extension of the Constitution to blacks on the basis that the "normal" black resembled a European after frontal lobotomy. Informed of Garrett's assertion that blacks were not entitled to equality because their "ancestors were ... savages in an African jungle," Rushton dismissed the observation as quoted "selectively from Garrett's writing", finding nothing opprobrious in such sentiments because the leader of the scientific opposition to civil rights had made other statements about black inferiority that were, according to Rushton, "quite objective in tone and backed by standard social science evidence." Quite apart from the questionable logic in defending a blatant call to deprive citizens of their rights by citing Garrett's less offensive writing—as if it were evidence of Ted Bundy's innocence that there were some women he had met and not killed—there was no sense on Rushton's part that all of Garrett's assertions, whether or not "objective," were utterly irrelevant to constitutional guarantees, which are not predicated on scientific demonstrations of intellectual equality.[59]

In 2005 Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote an article noting that Rushton has ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy. He has not changed his position on this matter for 30 years.[60] Rushton replied in the same issue of the journal.[61]

In a paper for the International Journal of Selection and Assessment in 2006, Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote that psychologists need to critically examine the science used by Rushton in his "race-realist" research. Their re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias, using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper, led them to conclude that the testing methods were biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology, such as his use of non-equivalent groups in test samples.[62] Rushton responded in the next issue of the journal. He said why he believed his results were valid, and why he thought the criticisms incorrect.[63]

 

[Bodhi]

 

[bambu]

The point is that, regardless of the author, information can be produced to conclude the opposite, which is why I told you that it hasn't been proven whether or not one race is generally superior over another.

Thats understood, but then you start saying things like evolution is proven and a fact... and that we are all the same biologically.....

I don't follow or believe in racist "science" and tests that are twisted to reach an agenda. We don't know how the author of that single book you continue to reference came to those results or even if tests were ran in a legit way at all.

I dont follow or believe in racist science either...However when an individual researches the theory of evolution there is no doubt they will come across this research....

A far as the exposure of the pioneer fund, I already dropped several links that expose their fuckery dating back to the hermetic thread.....

I had already provided that information from the jump....

I do have a serious question tho'.... do you think that this research would be received any other way????

And you still have not provided information on the article you posted.... It had a flavor that could also include it in this type of genre.....

Reputable scientific study has shown that humans are 99% the same genetically. If that weren't true, and it was concretely PROVEN that Asians are smarter than whites and whites are more intelligent than blacks, we wouldn't even be having this debate about evolution, because if that were the case, regardless of how it happened, it would be true.

"Reputable scientific study has shown," as illustrated in your first comment highly depends on your own values/affiliations.....

Even if evolution turned out to be false tomorrow, if it were PROVEN that blacks are inferior to whites and asians, that fact would remain true and racists could claim that the Creator made whites to be superior so evolution is not at fault. The racism and biased research is to blame.

Life was created by an intelligent designer >>>>>>> Whites are superior to blacks

Life evolved from common ancestor >>>>>>>>>>> Whites are superior to blacks

If "Whites are superior to blacks" has been proven, then it doesn't matter what happened to get to that point. That's why I tell you it hasn't been proven yet and it hasn't.

I agree that none of this has been proven......

But the problem is that your side is quick to say evolution is a fact or proven and when that happens scientific racism is allowed to grow even larger......

I do not agree with white superiority being outside the debate.....

As I stated earlier, I do not just go around reading white supremacist literature....

I stumbled on the fuckery of the pioneer fund and others while researching evolution and eugenics.....

And I think it is inseparable from the theory......

The problem is that these racist ideas are often neatly tucked away in current evolution research.....

I told you earlier about eugenics shifting into bio-demography.....

Here is a link to the guy Steve Jones that you agreed with from the Nat. Geo. article, a video of an 8 min lecture...
http://www.sms.csx.cam.ac.uk/media/666061

I dont cosign his work, but he made some interesting/revealing points....

Particularly... the small boy electric story....

and his conclusion... "Evolution can tell you everything you need to know about yourself, except for the interesting stuff"...