User Tag List

Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Racial differences are SUPERFICIAL16 days old

  1. #1
    Wiki Editor
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist ApostateAbe's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 19:33
    Join Date
    United States
    White American
    no religion
    United States

    Default Racial differences are SUPERFICIAL

    Genetic differences among races exist, but they are no more than superficial, according to a bunch of antiracist scientists and writers. Here are examples of the assertion:

    • "Ultimately, while there certainly are some biological differences between different populations, these differences are few and superficial." -- Vivian Chou, 2017, "How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century," via
    • "...the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic traits and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection." -- Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, The History and Geography of Human Genes, page 19, via
    • "As it turns out, scientists say, the human species is so evolutionarily young, and its migratory patterns so wide, restless and rococo, that it has simply not had a chance to divide itself into separate biological groups or 'races' in any but the most superficial ways." -- Natalie Angier, 2000, "Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show" via
    • "There just hasn't been time for the development of much genetic variation, except that which regulates some very superficial features like skin color and hair form. For once, the old cliché is true. Under the skin, we really are effectively the same. And we get fooled, because some of the visual differences are quite noticeable." -- Stephen J. Gould, 2003, interview within "Race: The Power of an Illusion," via
    • "But to date, no scientific research has been able to show any average genetic differences between population groups that go further than the superficial, such as skin color, or that are linked to hard survival, such as those that prevent a geographically linked disease." -- Angela Saini, 2019, Superior: The Return of Race Science

    It should come off as an odd scientific claim to make, because nature does not know the difference between what is "superficial" and what isn't. The quality of "superficial" is no more than a subjective human value judgment. Skin color, for example, may be considered "superficial" in the context of deciding whether or not some races should be slaves, but protection from sun burns and skin cancer is not at all superficial; it is a matter of survival.

    So how is it, then, that evolutionary divergence among races was limited only to what is "superficial" according to the subjective judgments of modern liberals? Like maybe evolution decided that anything inside the skull cavity was off limits, but anything on the outside was fair game? Dr. Gould seemed to think that it is a matter of limited time, like there was time for anything on the outside of the skull cavity to differentially evolve but not enough time for anything on the inside. He never supplied the math to back this claim before he died, and it should come off as unlikely. Evolution does not distinguish between the inside and the outside of the skull cavity, and enough variation exists for any trait on the inside of any population's skull cavities such as intelligence (a standard deviation of 15 IQ) just at any single point in time that large differential evolution can happen in only one generation, after a selective bottleneck such as war or migration, in which only the more intelligent members tend to effectively reproduce.

    My lines of argument would not prove that differential racial evolution inside the skull cavity really did happen, but only that it is plausible, and the highly confident assertions that nothing but "superficial" evolution happened need to have much less confidence, especially given that intelligence differences most certainly exist among the races, be those differences genetic or not, and given that the genetic variants for intelligence or educational success really do vary in frequency among the races as expected from the racial IQ hierarchy (see the papers of Davide Piffer listed at The antiracist position does not even have plausibility on its side, much less the direct evidence.
    Last edited by ApostateAbe; 2019-09-29 at 17:22.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    All threads

Similar Threads

  1. Racial differences in diabetes
    By ApostateAbe in forum Ancestry & Health
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2019-07-10, 15:24
  2. Racial differences in Body Odour
    By Litvin in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 2017-07-13, 22:16
  3. What causes racial differences in aggression?
    By eddy in forum Behavioural Neuroscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2017-03-12, 01:59
  4. Revisiting Racial IQ Differences
    By DragonRouge in forum Behavioural Neuroscience
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2015-01-26, 23:57
  5. Racial/Ethnic Sleep Pattern Differences in US
    By JackKnightstick in forum Behavioural Neuroscience
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2010-03-10, 03:20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts