The Decreasing White Majority in the US

[shonagon53]

Hey, what's more, there's more genetic difference within human "races" than between them.

This is evidenced by the fact that White Western Europeans score far higher than White Americans not only on IQ tests, but also on life expectancy.

White Western Europeans on average live 3 years longer than White Americans (both sexes). WOW! That's amazing! This is such big fat proof that White Western European are so incredibly WOW biologically superior to White Americans!

Wow help the sky is falling, White Americans are a dying race!

 

[Physicist5]

I repeat that only less than one percent of Whites were the great geniuses that White Nationalists use as examples to "prove" that ALL whites are great. I meet average white people everyday and they are not intelligent, not rational, not creative, they are just intellectually mediocre "mindless" sheep, who in my opinion have no reason to be alive. perhaps we can take all the one percent of white geniuses and then clone them millions of times over or something similar.

 

[Physicist5]

Hey, what's more, there's more genetic difference within human "races" than between them.

There is more genetic difference within a wolf and within a terrier than between a wolf and terrior, does that mean you will bring home a wolf to you kids? No, because you know that there are still meaningful differences between the behaviors of wolves and terriers. Same with races.

 

[shonagon53]

There is more genetic difference within a wolf and within a terrier than between a wolf and terrior, does that mean you will bring home a wolf to you kids? No, because you know that there are still meaningful differences between the behaviors of wolves and terriers. Same with races.

Dude, really, get a grip! You haven't understood a thing. Your comparison is completely flawed. Get a 101 in something, in ANYTHING!

The point (and the fact is) that there is more genetic variance within say a group of "white" people ("within a group of wolves" - NOT within one wolve, hihi), than between say the whites of the group of whites and the blacks of a group of blacks ("than between wolves and terriers" - but that doesn't make sense since the difference between say black people and white people is far far smaller than that between wolves and terriers).

Do you understand?

No you don't.

That's what makes you a mediocre Unterhuman.


So yes, I would take any Papuan over an underaverage whitey like you. Chances are that the Papuan has more genetic similarity with the average white (which you are not), than you have, since you obviously belong to the lesser intelligent layer of humanity.

 

[Monique]

Shonagon53, we are here to discuss with arguments and not to play a childish game of provocation. I know it can get heated, but there's a time to cool down.

 

[shonagon53]

Shonagon53, we are here to discuss with arguments and not to play a childish game of provocation. I know it can get heated, but there's a time to cool down.

Well, Monique, I have a natural aversion against sheer stupidity, although I'm having loads of fun. Anyway, I will cool it. I think I've made my point.

 

[Monique]

I think you did thanks

 

[plus]

I don't believe an effort should be made to prevent Whites from going extinct because I consider Whites to be intellectually mediocre, very superstitious, and emotionally unbalanced.

And this is against which standard race you are basing this on?
Intellectually mediocre does not stand in my opinion. Sure there are some stupid people, but this is just a result of the high standard deviation in IQ amongst the white race, meaning that there are many bright people.
I am not sure where the superstition comes from, considering that the whites are nowhere the most religiously obsessed people in the world, with the blacks/ american indians/ aborigines believing in the rain god and witch doctors, and the orientals having buddhism, and the indians worshipping multiple gods etc.
Why do you think that whites are emotionally unbalanced? Maybe this is because you see that the orientals do not show their emotions as much as whites. But this is to do with culture.

As to the extinction of the white race:- There should be some large effort to stop this happening. However, the same result will be facing both the orientals and the jews. The number of jews in the world is decreasing faster than any other religion, and religion is the only reasong why jews marry jews.
When china becomes a rich superpower, there will be lots of immigrants wanting to immigrate into china, and it will be too difficult to watch those huge borders. Those little thin submissive oriental girls will not be able to stop themselves falling at the feet of the macho negro immigrants.

 

[Physicist5]

Some genes have higher frequencies within a race than between them. Blacks on average produce more melanin than Whites, this is genetic. Blacks have a higher case of Sickle Cell anemia, Jews have more Tay Sachs disease, both which are genetic. Asians are shorter. Same with intelligence and behavior, races differ in these as well.

It is common knowledge that different races (breeds) of dogs have different intelligence levels and temperaments/personality. Only when discussing human breeds does the whole subjective ideology of "racism" come into play.

 

[BlackVision]

When china becomes a rich superpower, there will be lots of immigrants wanting to immigrate into china, and it will be too difficult to watch those huge borders. Those little thin submissive oriental girls will not be able to stop themselves falling at the feet of the macho negro immigrants.

If you were any bit familiar with asian history, you would know that asians have always had closed door policies when it comes to immigration. China, Korea, and Japan have all been hermit countries in their history.

Japan is certainly a very rich country. Nonetheless, Japan is still 99% Japanese. Hong Kong is certainly 1st world in living standards. Still nonetheless it is 98% Chinese. South Korea, certainly a very prosperous country in the Asian continent is very close to 100% Korean. Now the reasons why these asian countries are so homogeneous is not because there isn't a high immigration demand because believe me most Southeast asians would kill to be in any of these countries, it's because Asians by far of any race, believe in the purity of their race and the preservation of their culture. It's so extreme, to the point that even Koreans will face extreme prejudice in Japan, and Chinese will face extreme prejudice in Korea, etc. So extreme that it's extremely taboo for even Koreans and Japanese to marry and mix.

You will never see Korea, China, or Japan ever even be 5% non national no matter how propersous these countries become and how much immigration demand there is. The people of these countries will not allow immigration. The view toward immigration in Asian countries is VERY different than the perspective that Europeans and America have of immigration. Asian countries view immigration like it's a virus.

 

[Monique]

Some genes have higher frequencies within a race than between them. Blacks on average produce more melanin than Whites, this is genetic. Blacks have a higher case of Sickle Cell anemia, Jews have more Tay Sachs disease, both which are genetic. Asians are shorter. Same with intelligence and behavior, races differ in these as well.

Are finns a racial group? Are eskimos a racial group? Are mormons? Blacks and whites don't exist, it is too symplistic. Sure, population histories determine gene frequencies and population genetics. I am very aware of that since I attended a week long conference on the subject. The point being, that in between all these population groups the differences can be large and you need to take those into account rather than making huge generalizations.

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will. Asians are not shorter, people with a diet lacking enough nutrients do.

 

[BlackVision]

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Non-blacks getting sickle cell would be less than 1%.

Asians are not shorter, people with a diet lacking enough nutrients do.

Not true. Asians are shorter in height no matter what the diet. I would not say Japan has any nutritional or diet problems yet the average Japanese person is shorter than average heights of African countries which many do have nutritional problems.

The main reason why Whites and Asians are shorter than Blacks is probably due to the fact that their ancestry is in much colder environments where food was more scarce and harder to come across. Smaller size also means less food intake would be needed in ordered to maintain survival and would have been a survival advantage.

 

[Monique]

Would that than be genetic though or environmental? Have you ever seen American born asians? They are two heads larger than their parents. I agree, if you look at inuits they are short and round, if you look at africans (not blacks) they are tall and lean in the areas not westernized. I'm not sure though what would happen if you ask african parents to conceive of a child on the north pole and inuit parents to conceive of a child in africa.

 

[plus]

If you were any bit familiar with asian history, you would know that asians have always had closed door policies when it comes to immigration. China, Korea, and Japan have all been hermit countries in their history.

Japan is certainly a very rich country. Nonetheless, Japan is still 99% Japanese. Hong Kong is certainly 1st world in living standards. Still nonetheless it is 98% Chinese. South Korea, certainly a very prosperous country in the Asian continent is very close to 100% Korean. Now the reasons why these asian countries are so homogeneous is not because there isn't a high immigration demand because believe me most Southeast asians would kill to be in any of these countries, it's because Asians by far of any race, believe in the purity of their race and the preservation of their culture. It's so extreme, to the point that even Koreans will face extreme prejudice in Japan, and Chinese will face extreme prejudice in Korea, etc. So extreme that it's extremely taboo for even Koreans and Japanese to marry and mix.

You will never see Korea, China, or Japan ever even be 5% non national no matter how propersous these countries become and how much immigration demand there is. The people of these countries will not allow immigration. The view toward immigration in Asian countries is VERY different than the perspective that Europeans and America have of immigration. Asian countries view immigration like it's a virus.

Well China is perhaps not the best example, given that the 93% of the population Han Chinese are generally restricted to the 1 child rule, whereas the ethnic minorities such as the tibetans are allowed 3 children. If the japanese are so conscious about preserving their race, why are the Japanese girls when they move to USA or Canada very likely to marry outside of their racial group? All it will take will be a momentary drop of policy and it will be all over for orientals. Maybe immigration will not occur as quickly as in USA and Europe, but it will occur. Especially with the internet and TV. With the rapidly aging population, they will be more than tempted to give work visas to other non nationals.

 

[plus]

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia,

Tell this to all of the people suffering from this disease and they will be disgusted.

 

[BlackVision]

Would that than be genetic though or environmental?

I believe we can all agree that height has both genetic and environment links. A decent amount of both. However, even after weighing for any environmental differences, you should still find Africans with the highest average height and Asians with the lowest average height.

I'm not sure though what would happen if you ask african parents to conceive of a child on the north pole and inuit parents to conceive of a child in africa.

Is this in response to ancestry in colder environments? If so, evolution takes quite longer than 1 generation for a decent amount of a genetic pool to get altered. :tongue2:

 

[Monique]

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia,

Tell this to all of the people suffering from this disease and they will be disgusted.

You took away half of my sentence :grumpy:

Tell me, where do these blacks live suffering from sickle cell anemia. Then tell me which regions of the world suffer from the malaria carrying mosquito. Overlay these two maps and then tell me what you see.

 

[Monique]

I believe we can all agree that height has both genetic and environment links. A decent amount of both. However, even after weighing for any environmental differences, you should still find Africans with the highest average height and Asians with the lowest average height.


Is this in response to ancestry in colder environments? If so, evolution takes quite longer than 1 generation for a decent amount of a genetic pool to get altered. :tongue2:

Isn't it funny though that the Dutch are the tallest of the world? It is funny though too the growth occurred after WOII.

 

[BlackVision]

Isn't it funny though that the Dutch are the tallest of the world? It is funny though too the growth occurred after WOII.

Source?

Of all the studies I've seen, the heights of African, Caucasian, Asian seems very consistent in that order.

 

[Monique]

http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/taller.htm

In studies by various researchers of men born about 1950, the Norwegians and Dutch are the tallest in the world, with an average height of 178 centimeters(about 5 feet 10 inches), followed by Swedes at 177 centimeters. Americans are next at 175 centimeters (about 5 feet 9 inches).

Preliminary government research suggests that not much has changed recently, according to Steckel. "The average height of Americans has been pretty much stagnant for 25 years," he said.

But American men born in 1850 were tallest in the world, averaging 171 centimeters, compared to 169 centimeters for Norwegians, 168 for Swedes and 164 for the Dutch.

"I think the countries that have surpassed the United States have done well in reaching nearly everyone with complete health and nutrition services," said Steckel. "The success of the Scandinavian countries in health care shows up in many measures, not just height, such as mortality rates and life expectancy."

Immigration to the United States by people with shorter average heights -- such as Asians -- can't explain why other countries have moved ahead in average stature, according to Steckel. "In the past half century, the change in ethnic composition hasn't been enough to make a significant difference in the country's average height."

And while genes play an important role in determining how tall individual people grow, that doesn't negate the results of this international research. "Overall, genetic differences cancel each other out when you compare averages across most populations. So, in general, average height is accurate in assessing a nation's health status," Steckel said.

 

[Tasthius]

Study asian history a bit and you will run into quite a lot of names of "universal geniuses"

How about naming one? Name a Korean that can be fairly compared to Newton or Leibniz or Euclid or Plato.

Also keep in mind that the person with the highest adult IQ alive today is Korean.

Although IQ is a good indicator of academic success and real world acheivement, it is hardly the only factor in defining something as elusive as genius. When I speak of genius, I speak of accomplishments recognized by the scientific and/or academic community as having changed the entire focus or direction of a certain discipline (In Newton's case, he changed the direction of several.) As I said above, name a Korean who has done more than simply knock the ceiling off of an IQ test.

You must also remember that for much of the Middle Ages, East Asians were AHEAD of Europeans in technology and development. Simply because whites pulled ahead 400 years ago does not mean they "submerge" every race.

Whites were far ahead before the Middle Ages ever began. All the talk you hear about "brilliant Arab mathematicians" after the Classical white civilizations declined is a bit misleading considering the Arabs borrowed their basic premises of algebra and trigonometry from the Greeks. Copernicus may have put forth the heliocentric model of the universe during the Enlightenment, but he simply rediscovered what Aristarchus and the Greek mathematicians and natural philosophers knew long, long ago. He even intentionally deleted the name of Aristarchus as a reference from his works so that he wouldn't have to give the Greek any credit, in a vain hope that few were familiar with Classical acheivement.

The fact that the heliocentric model was discovered by the Greeks (and probably the Babylonians and Persians too) yet forgotten by the intellectual heirs of the classical civlization (a la middle age Europe) shows just how cyclic civilization can be.

China was considered the most advanced civilization for hundreds of years. It certainly took creative geniuses to build such an empire.

Which century span are we talking here?

Many analysts expect China to become more powerful than either the US or the European Union.

With over a billion people shouldn't they be powerful? A billion people with Western bought nuclear technology and the advent of Western ideals of government.

Korea was having their own problems of constant invasion of both China and Japan. That peninsula has been invaded about 10,000 times. When you're busy trying to constantly fight out invaders, I assure you playing the piano like Mozart is the last thing you're worried about.

You seem to forget about all of the European internal conflicts as with Rome and the "barbarians", as well as the onslaught of the Huns, the Mongols, and the Moors (all of which were eventually defeated or at least driven out), not to mention the great plague (which killed 25% of all whites in Europe) and two world wars (this is not to mention all of the major internal wars that occurred during the Enlightenment and henceforth), yet Europe still preserveres and is still the most advanced continent on Earth. What continent has been more colonial than Europe? The sun never sat on the British empire. The Dutch had numerous outposts, as did the Belgians, and the Austrio-Hungarians and the Spanish (America) and the French (Americas)

Also you must remember that while Jews make up only 2% of the US population and 0.25% of the world population, they have won 25% of Nobel Prizes. 60% of Yale is Jewish. The odds of a person of Jewish descent is certainly about a 100 times more likely to win a Nobel Prize than any another person of White descent. If anything Jews would "submerge" any other race and/or group in creative genius. That 15 IQ points higher than Caucasians does have weight.

This is one of the few places where I might agree with you. I was going to mention the "Jews" in the previous post, but went the way of most anthropologists and lumped them into the 'caucasian" category. It is true that Jews make up less than 3% of the population and it is true that Jews have an inordinate amount of Nobel Prizes to their name, however, it is also true that the Jews have practiced what effectively amounts to eugenics for millennia, while Whites have usually practiced nothing but dysgenic trends. The Jews by their very nomadic nature are the epitomy of natural selection and "only the strong survive." It is also interesting to note that the average Jew has quite a large discrepency in verbal and performance IQ (with verbal being much higher). This data fit in well with the fact that Jews have primarily had to use verbal skills over the millennia to survive, as in their skillfull manner of buying and selling and trading which kept them afloat in Europe for millennia.

But I'll try it your way. If "whites" submerge every other race in geniuses, why do whites score lower than both asians and jews on academic tests?

Academic test scores does not a genius make, hence why genius is a rather elusive term and transcends mere academic potential. I do not agree with defining genius based on psychometric test results alone. There are many extremely high IQed people (Savant comes to mind) who will not be rememberd much beyond their lifetime. No, there is something else intangible about a Newton, more than a mere high IQ.

Why do both asians and jews have higher rates of college degrees than whites?

There are intangibles in obtaining a college degree such as perserverence, study habits, means of paying tuition, family life, job situation etc.. Though IQ is important, I think it has been shown in more than one study that about 25% of all high school drop-outs have superior IQ's. Many "super high IQ" people currently living in America today do not have any academic degrees whatsoever. Academic degrees, while perhaps good for comparing groups on a wide scale, are not very good for determining what individuals might have the highest intellectual potential. Up to about IQ 150, the frequency of academic degrees may follow a curve, but beyond that it is interesting to note that the incidence of academic degrees falls off dramatically.

It is also interesting to note how very bright people have a difficult time adjusting to standard life. Lewis Terman in his study of the gifted, found that when his Termites became adults, the degree of their http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html " to society was directly proportional to their measured IQ. Basically, the smarter the person, the more screwed up their life had become. He found that the most successful people were no more than about 150 IQ, while the 150+ crowd tended to be extremely maladjusted (especially when one climbs up the ladder to four sigma scores and beyond). In essence it appears that literally one can be too smart to achieve very much.

Please click on the above link and read Mr. Towers excellent article concerning this topic. I think anyone interested in "genius" or psychometrics will find it worth their while.

Why are whites significantly less likely to win a Nobel Prize than jews? Why have the mathematical abilities of asian countries been considered unrivaled compared to the Western World?

I wouldn't say the mathematical abilities of the Orient have been unrivaled. See the Greeks with Euclid, or perhaps the Enlightenment with Gauss, Descartes, Pascal, Reimann, Euler, or the modern day with folks such as Ed Witten (superstring theorist who happens to be Jewish).

 

[Tasthius]

I repeat that only less than one percent of Whites were the great geniuses that White Nationalists use as examples to "prove" that ALL whites are great. I meet average white people everyday and they are not intelligent, not rational, not creative, they are just intellectually mediocre "mindless" sheep, who in my opinion have no reason to be alive. perhaps we can take all the one percent of white geniuses and then clone them millions of times over or something similar.

No one I have seen here on these boards has proclaimed that "all Whites are great." I certainly don't think so. However, to suggest that since it is apparent that only a small proportion of Whites contribute anything significant to society, therefore the world would be better off if they perished is akin to suggesting that the Wright brothers should have given up on flight since the vast majority of their early models were failures.

The fact is genius is rather capricious and can evince itself in children who have rather mediocre parents. Thus the reason for the continuation of white people.

It is also rather idiotic to suggest that the majority of the White populace is worthless, as if the same doesn't hold true for Asians or Africans or Indians.

 

[BlackVision]

http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/taller.htm

Interesting. But it still does not refute what I have stated.

 

[BlackVision]

How about naming one? Name a Korean that can be fairly compared to Newton or Leibniz or Euclid or Plato.

King Sejong. While he may not appear in Western History books, I assure you he exists in every Korean History Book and is proclaimed as an absolute genius.

Although IQ is a good indicator of academic success and real world acheivement, it is hardly the only factor in defining something as elusive as genius. When I speak of genius, I speak of accomplishments recognized by the scientific and/or academic community as having changed the entire focus or direction of a certain discipline (In Newton's case, he changed the direction of several.)

The proper environmental setting is crucial in the full development of a "universal genius" Note that the US has won more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world combined. Is this because the US has more universal geniuses than the rest of the world combined? Or would the structure in the educational system contribute to this enormous surplus or scientific acheivements?

Whites were far ahead before the Middle Ages ever began.

Not true. Even Western History books will note the superb empires built by the Chinese. Europeans sent diplomats to China to exchange inventions and for trade, only for China to block themselves out because they viewed themselves as superior that did not need outside influence. The period of history in the heights of the Chinese empires surpass that of Europe.

You seem to forget about all of the European internal conflicts as with Rome and the "barbarians", as well as the onslaught of the Huns, the Mongols, and the Moors (all of which were eventually defeated or at least driven out), not to mention the great plague (which killed 25% of all whites in Europe) and two world wars (this is not to mention all of the major internal wars that occurred during the Enlightenment and henceforth), yet Europe still preserveres and is still the most advanced continent on Earth. What continent has been more colonial than Europe? The sun never sat on the British empire. The Dutch had numerous outposts, as did the Belgians, and the Austrio-Hungarians and the Spanish (America) and the French (Americas)

You cannot compare the invasions of Europe to the invasions of Korea. That is absolutely uncomparable. Korea has been invaded at least 100 times more often than any other country in Europe. War does halt technological progress.

I wouldn't say the mathematical abilities of the Orient have been unrivaled.

Notice that the top 5 ranked in mathematics is all asian.


TIMSS Mathematical Ranking by Country:

1. Singapore 604
2. South Korea 587
3. Taiwan 585
4. Hong Kong 582
5. Japan 579
6. Belgium-Flemish 558
7. Netherlands 540
8. Slovak Republic 534
9. Hungary 532
10. Canada 531
..
19. United States

Source: http://www.hobel.org/lwved/id51.htm

 

[hitssquad]

Carolus Linnaeus - how did he do it without knowing about DNA

population histories determine gene frequencies and population genetics.

Gene frequencies have nothing intrinsically to do with biological classification. Carolus Linnaeus published Systema Naturae in 1735 and Species Plantarum in 1753 without the aid of gene frequency survey counts.

in between all these population groups the differences can be large

Maybe Monique meant, "...within all these population groups..." Distances between general factors of phenotypic characteristics are largest between groups, not within groups. Differences in individual characteristics may have special significance, but not general significance.

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Malaria is not common in the United States.

• J Natl Med Assoc. 2003 Sep;95(9):864-7, 872-4.
  
  HCV in sickle cell disease.
  
  Hassan M, Hasan S, Castro O, Giday S, Banks A, Smoot D.
  
  Division of Gastroenterology, Howard University Hospital, 2041 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20060, USA.
  
  The sickle cell gene is common in the U.S. In fact 8% of African Americans are healthy carriers of the sickle cell trait (HbAS). People who are homozygous (HbSS) have severe disease. They have life-long anemia, chronic hemolysis, and also have at times hematological crises, which can worsen the anemia. Many patients require chronic transfusions and as a result, substantial proportions of sickle cell patients are at high risk for infection with blood-borne diseases-such as Hepatitis C Virus infection (HCV). The HCV antibody positivity is directly related to the number of transfusions given, and on average the prevalence rate in transfused patients is more than 10%. It is known that the combination of iron overload and HCV can lead to a more rapidly progressive liver disease. The treatment of HCV in sickle cell patients poses a challenge to clinicians. A novel approach described by some is the pre-treatment of these patients with hydroxyurea to increase the fetal hemoglobin, therefore decreasing the severity of Ribavirin-related hemolysis. Treatment with Peg-interferon alone has not been used to treat HCV in sickle cell patients, but in the setting of controlled clinical trials it would be feasible. This review explores the impact of HCV in sickle cell patients and the possible therapeutic options available to them.
  
  PMID: 14527056

Asians are not shorter, people with a diet lacking enough nutrients do.

• J Bone Miner Res. 1996 Oct;11(10):1545-56.
  
  Differences in bone mineral in young Asian and Caucasian Americans may reflect differences in bone size.
  
  Bhudhikanok GS, Wang MC, Eckert K, Matkin C, Marcus R, Bachrach LK.
  
  Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, USA.
  
  Bone mineral content (BMC) and areal bone mineral density (BMD) have been reported to be lower in Asian than in Caucasian adults. To determine if racial differences in bone mass are present in younger subjects and whether they reflect differences in estimated volumetric bone density or in bone size, we compared measurements of bone mineral in healthy young Asian- and Caucasian-American males and females. Bone mineral was measured at the lumbar spine (L2-L4), femoral neck (FN), and whole body (WB) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in 99 Asians (49 females, 50 males) and 103 Caucasians (54 females, 49 males) ages 9-26 years. Results were expressed as BMC, BMD, and apparent density (BMAD), an estimate of volumetric bone density that reduces the effect of bone size. Subjects were compared on the basis of chronological age as well as by Tanner stage to correct for potential differences in the timing of puberty. Habitual dietary intake and physical activity were also assessed and correlated with bone mineral. The Asian and Caucasian cohorts differed in body size, diet, and physical activity. Asian females were shorter than the Caucasian females at all stages of puberty and weighed less at pre-/early puberty (p < 0.05). Asian males were older than Caucasians at midpuberty (p < 0.01) and weighed less than the Caucasian males at pubertal maturity (p = 0.001). Asian youths also consumed less calcium and reported less weight-bearing activity. Racial differences were most apparent when comparing BMC data. Asian males had greater spine BMC at midpuberty and lower WB BMC at maturity (p < 0.05). Asian females had lower FN BMC through midpuberty and lower WB BMC in pre-/early puberty (p < 0.05). WB BMD and WB BMC/height values were significantly lower in mature Asian versus Caucasian males. No significant racial differences in BMAD were observed. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that the differences in BMD and BMAD between Asian and Caucasian subjects were largely attributable to differences in weight and pubertal stage, and, at the FN, in weight-bearing activity. Further, the explanatory variables were less strongly associated with BMAD than with BMD. In summary, no significant differences in BMD were found between Asian and Caucasian youths through midpuberty; however, WB BMD and WB BMC/height values were lower in Asian males at sexual maturity. We conclude that observed differences in bone mineral between Asians and Caucasians may be partially attributed to the smaller bone size of Asians.
  
  PMID: 8889856

 

[Monique]

Gene frequencies have nothing intrinsically to do with biological classification. Carolus Linnaeus published Systema Naturae in 1735 and Species Plantarum in 1753 without the aid of gene frequency survey counts.

I never said it has anything to do with biological classification. Isolated populations can go through bottle necks or genetic drift will cause the frequencies of certain mutations to become different from other populations. A population that went through large population bottle necks will have a very homogeneous genepool. Knowing something about population genetics, migration and immigration, geological and social position can tell you something about underlying gene structure. Founder effect is a clear demonstration.

Maybe Monique meant, "...within all these population groups..." Distances between general factors of phenotypic characteristics are largest between groups, not within groups. Differences in individual characteristics may have special significance, but not general significance.

No. And after that you make no sense.. can you clarify?

Malaria is not common in the United States.

It is in africa.. where african americans come from :duhh:

Differences in bone mineral in young Asian and Caucasian Americans may reflect differences in bone size.

And why do they have low bone mineral? Because they don't have enough mineral intake in their diet?

 

[hitssquad]

Where malaria mosquitos are vs where Black American sickle-cell anemics are

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Tell me, where do these blacks live suffering from sickle cell anemia.

Black Americans suffering from sickle cell anemia live in the United States.

Then tell me which regions of the world suffer from the malaria carrying mosquito.

Sub-Saharan Africa, for one.

Overlay these two maps and then tell me what you see.

I see zero crossover.

 

[hitssquad]

Do American Whites suffer from poor nutrition compared to American Blacks

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Malaria is not common in the United States.

It is in africa.. where african americans come from

American Blacks, right now, live in the United States where there is no malaria, yet -- conversely to your statement that sickle cell anemia only expresses where there is malaria -- they suffer from sickle cell anemia at rates disproportional to their population representation.

And why do they have low bone mineral? Because they don't have enough mineral intake in their diet?

American Whites have low bone mineral compared to American Blacks because of a racial difference which expresses itself in the shared American environment. American Whites do not suffer from poor nutrition compared to American Blacks.

 

[Monique]

American Blacks, right now, live in the United States where there is no malaria, yet -- conversely to your statement that sickle cell anemia only expresses where there is malaria -- they suffer from sickle cell anemia at rates disproportional to their population representation.

No, sickle cell anemia is caused by a mutation in a gene. The carrier frequency will be higher in people coming from regions where the malaria incidence is high too. Thus, if a carrier frequency is high.. the disease frequency will be higher too.
What I meant to say (and what you should've understood) is that not only African Americans have sickle cell anemia, but populations that come from regions where there is malaria have an increased risk. Thus: Africa, mediterranean, India and the Middle East.
It is not related to skin color, since a mediterranean american and an african american both have an increased risk over an asian american or skandinavian american. THUS grouping people by skin color is not right.

American Whites have low bone mineral compared to American Blacks because of a racial difference which expresses itself in the shared American environment. American Whites do not suffer from poor nutrition compared to American Blacks.

You mean asians and not blacks. It would all depend who classifies as an asian american (first generation, second generation), I would have to read the article.

 

[shonagon53]

This all sounds so much like 19th century anthropometry.
Does anyone in here collect skulls and measures them? I wouldn't be surprized.


The development of sickle cell anemia in malaria areas is an evolutionary process which stretched over thousands and thousands of years. It's normal that people who live there and have it, but who travel to Greenland or Iceland and go live there, will still carry it and transmit it to the next generation if they mate with a person from that same original region with sickle cell. This is a senseless debate.

It's nice to see evolution being abused again. But by weaker minds. That much is certain.

 

[shonagon53]

Black Americans suffering from sickle cell anemia live in the United States.
Sub-Saharan Africa, for one.

I see zero crossover.

Hitsquad, that's hilarious!

Is this some kind of stand up comedian message board?

Blacks come from Africa! You brought them here in ships. Remember?

I DO see the crossover.

 

[plus]

No, sickle cell anemia is caused by a mutation in a gene. The carrier frequency will be higher in people coming from regions where the malaria incidence is high too. Thus, if a carrier frequency is high.. the disease frequency will be higher too.
What I meant to say (and what you should've understood) is that not only African Americans have sickle cell anemia, but populations that come from regions where there is malaria have an increased risk. Thus: Africa, mediterranean, India and the Middle East.
It is not related to skin color, since a mediterranean american and an african american both have an increased risk over an asian american or skandinavian american. THUS grouping people by skin color is not right.


You mean asians and not blacks. It would all depend who classifies as an asian american (first generation, second generation), I would have to read the article.

You should have expressed yourself better if this is what you meant to say, because it is pretty obvious that the american blacks do not come from a high malaria environment, just some of their ancestors did.

 

[Monique]

I quote myself:

Originally posted by Monique
Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Exactly where do I state that blacks are from America? This is an issue of comprehensive reading.

 

[hitssquad]

Racial classification by traits or by general factors of traits

Earlier in this thread, Monique wrote,

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

More recently, Monique wrote,

I meant to say ... that not only African Americans have sickle cell anemia, but populations that come from regions where there is malaria have an increased risk. Thus: Africa, mediterranean, India and the Middle East.
It is not related to skin color, since a mediterranean american and an african american both have an increased risk over an asian american or skandinavian american. THUS grouping people by skin color is not right.

Just as individual mental abilities do not define Spearman's g, individual heritable population traits -- such as mean and shape of skin-color distribution, mean and shape of susceptibility-to-disease distribution, and mean and shape of IQ distribution -- do not distinguish races. Races are distinguishable by their respective distinct general factors of individual heritable population traits.

Racial classification has nothing intrinsically to do with skin color, just as gravity has nothing intrinsically to do with falling bodies.

 

[Monique]

What do you mean to say? Susceptibility-to-disease distribution is also an individual heritable population trait.

I guess you mean to say that races may be classified upon traits that are either completely present or completely absent in a population. Norwegians are all white and Nigerians are all black.

You may have defined distinct populations, but it says nothing about the differences between Nigerians and Somalians or Norwegians and Irish. Why are the Irish not a different race than the Norwegians? There may be markers hidden deeper than the skin that distinguish them.

Population is the word to be used, not race.