• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Asian Americans Are Smarter, Richer, And Harder-Working Than Everyone Else

Well according to half of the biological anthropology community seems to agree with you, at least, according to your source.
and the other half agrees with me.
so where does that leave us?
That leaves YOU with the burden to post a coherent case that refutes my post above.
IOW, the person I posted not only showed WHY the other side is Wrong/that there IS Race... he USES it daily/practically in Legal cases!
One can deny for PC Reasons race exists, but in no way on any practical grounds.
I might simply add..
In a room with 300 people: 100 Pygmies, 100 Japanese, and 100 Finns.. what do you suppose your rate of error would be in telling them apart? Why?

So that leaves me picking a logical plum and you Vaguely trying to leach onto the other side without even having to elucidate why. ....

and I have previously posted much more on this: the "Edit" from my last, that hasn't even been put up yet in this particular string but in several other 'Race' strings.
That being, there is not only 'Race', but probably even justification for sub-species.
 
Last edited:
So don't blame the education system, teachers, schools, poverty, minimum wages, race etc. but blame yourself if you don't progress.
 
So don't blame the education system, teachers, schools, poverty, minimum wages, race etc. but blame yourself if you don't progress.

Thank you! The people who place responsibility on their own shoulders before looking to point at others seem few and far between. Whether it's picking up a book from the library or seeking mentors/tutors willing to help, there is plenty people can do to progress academically.
 
That leaves YOU with the burden to post a coherent case that refutes my post above.
IOW, the person I posted not only showed WHY the other side is Wrong/that there IS Race... he USES it daily/practically in Legal cases!
One can deny for PC Reasons race exists, but in no way on any practical grounds.
I might simply add..
In a room with 300 people: 100 Pygmies, 100 Japanese, and 100 Finns.. what do you suppose your rate of error would be in telling them apart? Why?

So that leaves me picking a logical plum and you Vaguely trying to leach onto the other side without even having to elucidate why. ....

and I have previously posted much more on this: the "Edit" from my last, that hasn't even been put up yet in this particular string but in several other 'Race' strings.
That being, there is not only 'Race', but probably even justification for sub-species.

What a reprehensible, racist rant. Sub species of human beings? Hardly.

Since you've challenged me to refute it, let's take a look at this:

Similarly, he notes that "almost two-thirds of the IQ gap between American-born Mexican-Americans and whites disappeared in two decades." In a follow up post, he encourages IQ skeptics to confront the issue head on, and sees an open debate on this as nothing to be frightened of:

Several other examples given in the source.
Now, if IQ is dependent on race, how is it that differences in IQ can disappear in such a short time? Evolution doesn't work that quickly, after all. There must be other factors at work, then.
 
Since you've challenged me to refute it, let's take a look at [UR=ttp://dish.andrew sullivan.com/2012/07/30/what-impacts-iq/"]this[/URL]:
Unz said:
Similarly, he notes that "almost two-thirds of the IQ gap between American-born Mexican-Americans and whites disappeared in two decades." In a follow up post, he encourages IQ skeptics to confront the issue head on, and sees an open debate on this as nothing to be frightened of:


Several other examples given in the source.
Now, if IQ is dependent on race, how is it that differences in IQ can disappear in such a short time? Evolution doesn't work that quickly, after all. There must be other factors at work, then.
Lynn Replies to all examples:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...-replies-to-ron-unz+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(Scroll down about 12 inches. I use 'cache' because site is temporarily down)
You particularly excerpted Mexicans.

Mexicans

Unz writes:

Sharp critics of our heavy recent immigration from Mexico sometimes claim—or at least hint—that the intellectual weakness of these millions of newcomers may constitute a disastrous long-term burden to American society. On anonymous Internet forums such voices are often more explicit and directly cite Lynn and Vanhanen in placing the Mexican IQ at just 87, far below the white American average, and a worrisome indicator given that as much as one quarter of all Americans may be of Mexican ancestry by around the middle of this century.

The IQ figure of 87 that they quote from Lynn/Vanhanen is correct, though admittedly based on a single 1961 study of Mexican schoolchildren in the most impoverished southern part of that country.​

Lynn replies: In our 2012 book we give two more IQs of 88 for Mexico. This is almost Identical to the IQ of 89 of Hispanics in the United States given by Roth et al. (2001) in a meta-analysis of a number of studies.

Unz writes:

Ron Guhname … decided to explore the Wordsum-implied IQ of American-born Mexican-Americans and discovered a remarkable result. These IQs were quite low, 84–85, in the 1970s and 1980s, a result consistent with the IQ samples reported by Lynn/Vanhanen for that era. But the Mexican-American IQ then jumped 7 points by the 1990s and an additional 3 points by the 2000s, a rise of 10 full points in just 20 years, while the Wordsum-implied IQ values for white Americans rose merely 2 points during that same period, presumably as an aspect of the regular Flynn Effect.
In actual values, the Mexican-American Wordsum-IQ increased from 84.4 in the 1980s to 95.1 in the 2000s, while the rise for American whites was from 99.2 to 101.3. In addition, the late 1990s IQ of U.S.-born Mexican-Americans has been separately estimated at 92.4 from the large data set contained in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY-97), a figure consistent with these Wordsum-IQ findings.
Thus, almost two-thirds of the IQ gap between American-born Mexican-Americans and whites disappeared in two decades, with these results being based on nationally-representative American samples of statistically significant size.​

Lynn replies: Contrary to these claims, there was No increase in the IQ of Hispanics relative to whites over the years 1986-2004 in a study by Ang, Rogers and Wanstrom (2010). However, I do not dispute that when people who do not speak English move from an impoverished country to the affluent United States, the IQs of their children increase a bit as a result of learning the English language and improved environmental conditions"..."

Reply cont'd in next post.
 
Last edited:
DittoheadNot said:
What a reprehensible, racist rant. Sub species of human beings? Hardly.

1.
The Reality of Human Differences by Sarich and Miele
[........]
Sarich and Miele then address Gould's race-does-not-exist mantra: "The basic reason Gould gives for his no-race position is this: 'Homo sapiens is a young species, its division into races even more recent. This historical context has not supplied enough time for the evolution of substantial differences.' (This from the man famous for his theory [with Niles Eldridge] of punctuated equilibria.)" They then go on to explain why Gould is wrong.

They looked at differences between human races, between males and females, and differences between primates—particularly chimpanzees and gorillas. What is astounding is that there is greater morphological distance between human races than there are between the two chimpanzee species or between gorilla species/subspecies.

That is, the differences between human Races are Real, they are Substantial, and they did not take millions of years to diverge. Humans, rapidly occupying every available niche after leaving Africa 50,000 years ago, has been under enormous pressure to adapt. To do this meant selection for morphological, pharmacogenetic, behavioral, and cognitive traits. Not only are there many human races, but there are at least as many races as there are ecological niches, and only humans can create their own niches with forethought. What this means is not only Are there human Races, but humans have evolved uniquely to alter there own cultures or ecologies, further increasing unique selection pressures....

Sarich and Miele explain: "Molecular data suggest that the two chimpanzee lineages separated around 1.5 million years ago; the comparable human figure is on the order of 15,000 years. In other words, the two chimp lineages are 100-fold older, yet show the same amount of variation. That is a remarkable result, the implications of which take a while to sink in. The implications follow this logic: Human races are very strongly marked morphologically; human races are very young; so much variation developing in so short a period of time implies, indeed almost certainly requires, functionality; there is no good reason to think that behavior should somehow be exempt from this pattern of functional variability. [...….]

We are the "same race" not because there Aren't Genetically and Morphologically Identifiable Group differences.
We are Only the 'same race' because of an easily debatable political-type decision, Not a purely scientific/taxonomic one.
Other Animals with the same or Less distance Do get subspecies.
'Science' has identified these differences and even a 10 year old can with good accuracy.
*See my next post on this point*
 
Last edited:
1.
The Reality of Human Differences by Sarich and Miele


We are the "same race" not because there AREN'T Genetically and Morphologically Identifiable Group differences.
We are Only the 'same race' because of an easily debatable political-type decision, Not a purely scientific/taxonomic one.
Other Animals with the same or Less distance Do get subspecies.
'Science' has identified these differences and even a 10 year old can with good accuracy.
*See my next post on this point*

Interesting stuff, Mbig.

I don't think the problems begin with acknowledging that there are different human races. The problems begin when certain people start drawing the wrong conclusions from these facts. Such as assuming that just because, say, the African American average IQ is considerably lower than that of whites, that this justifies a different treatment of blacks, or that the next African American they meet is probably not smart. Not even mentioning people who go down the route of justifying segregation or even fewer rights for certain races.

Probably that's where the "PC" uncomfortable feelings stems from when it comes to this topic. After all, there are enough historical examples for anti-individualist and inhumane policies based on such biologist assumptions.

Regardless of the existence of different races and different attributes, in the end, every individual is unique. And it should be obvious that all members of different races enjoy the same rights, value and are provided with the same opportunities. As long as this is the basis we're discussing on, I see no problem.
 
DittoheadNot said:
What a reprehensible, racist rant. Sub species of human beings? Hardly.
Response 2 on the "Subspecie" point:
Credentials:
Why Evolution is True: About the Author

Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology.
Coyne received a B.S. in Biology from the College of William and Mary.
He then earned a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University in 1978, working in the laboratory of Richard Lewontin.
After a postdoctoral fellowship in Timothy Prout's laboratory at The University of California at Davis, he took his first academic position as assistant professor in the Department of Zoology at The University of Maryland.
In 1996 he joined the faculty of The University of Chicago.
Coyne's work is focused on understanding the origin of species.."
Credentials II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne said:
Jerry Allen Coyne (born December 30, 1949[2]) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. A prolific scientist, he has published dozens of papers, elucidating on the theory of evolution. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly as they involve the fruit fly, Drosophila.[3] He is the author of the standard text Speciation and the bestselling science popularization Why Evolution Is True and maintains a website by the same name.

Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (draft) forced a hiatus.
He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout.

He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.

Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985–1988; 1994–2000) and The American Naturalist (1990–1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing.

His work is widely published in scientific journals as well as in such mainstream venues as 'The New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement', and The New Republic. His research interests include population and evolutionary genetics, speciation, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution, and sperm competition.
Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

The Ecuadoran frog Atelopus coynei is named after Coyne. He collected the holotype in a swamp on a frogging trip to western Ecuador as a student in the late 1970s.[8][...]
Article
Are there human races? « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne

Are there human Races?

One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology —o r human biology in general — is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only “yes,” but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know it’s flawed).

But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology). Racial delimitation could, critics say, lead to a resurgence of racism, racial profiling, or even eugenics.

So do races exist? The answer of Jan Sapp, a biology professor at York University in Toronto, is a firm “no”, as given in his new American Scientistpiece “Race finished,” a review of two new books on human races (Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth by Ian Tattersall and Rob DeSalle and Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture, edited by Sheldon Krimsky and Kathleen Sloan). As Sapp notes, and supports his conclusion throughout the review:

Although biologists and cultural anthropologists long supposed that human races—genetically distinct populations within the same species—have a true existence in nature, many social scientists and geneticists maintain today that there simply is no valid biological basis for the concept. The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs.

Well, if that’s the consensus, I am an outlier. I do think that human races exist in the sense that biologists apply the term to animals, though I don’t think the genetic differences between those races are profound, nor do I think there is a finite and easily delimitable number of human races. Let me give my view as responses to a series of questions. I discuss much of this in chapter 8 of WEIT.

What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human Races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

How many human races are there?
That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.

How different are the races genetically?
Not very different. As has been known for a while, DNA and other genetic analyses have shown that most of the variation in the human species occurs within a given human ethnic group, and only a small fraction between different races. That means that on average, there is more genetic difference between individuals within a race than there is between races themselves. Nevertheless, there are some genes (including the genes for morphological differences such as body shape, facial features, skin pigmentation, hair texture, and the like) that have not yet been subject to DNA sequencing, and if one looked only at those genes, one would obviously find more genetic differences. But since the delimitation of races has historically depended Not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but Only on the existence of Some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of races Does Not mean that they Don’t exist...."
So because we are humans and have an unfortunate 20th C politics/history, the human species has avoided what certainly would qualify as Race/subspecie in other animals.
As someone who collects seashells, I can assure what is said above is true. You add an extra spot and move over ten miles.. they'll pop another sub-species or even species.
There are Many subspecies much closer than human one-specie. See my previous post.
 
Last edited:
We are the same species, we are not the same race.

The human species has several races, or several subspecies. Subspecies doesn't mean "inferior" species, it means variation within the species.

So the wolf is a species as it were. Canis Lupus.

It has about 40 or so subspecies if I am not mistaken.

The human species is just one, homo sapien. It has about 10 or so subspecies.
 
We are the same species, we are not the same race.

The human species has several races, or several subspecies. Subspecies doesn't mean "inferior" species, it means variation within the species.

So the wolf is a species as it were. Canis Lupus.

It has about 40 or so subspecies if I am not mistaken.

The human species is just one, homo sapien. It has about 10 or so subspecies.
No. Races are not subspecies. Stop. You have zero grasp of the science surrounding our species.
 
No. Races are not subspecies. Stop. You have zero grasp of the science surrounding our species.

Yes, they are.

You are out of your league here buddy. Retrace gracefully.
 
Yes, they are.
No, they are not.

Lots of animals are divided into subspecies. Why doesn't it make sense to group humans the same way?

Subspecies are animal groups that are related, can interbreed, and yet have characteristics that make them distinct from one another. Two basic ingredients are critical to the development of separate subspecies: isolation and time. Unlike most animals, humans are a relatively young species and we are extremely mobile, so we simply haven't evolved into different subspecies.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

Bye.
 
I bet you would never get a race/IQ comparative study past the IRB at any University.
 
All very interesting.

And, all covering a variety of issues regarding differences in race and ethnicity.

First observation: There is no race called "Mexican" any more than there is a race called "American." Mexico is made up of a variety of races, but is comprised of a larger portion of native American peoples than its neighbor to the North.

The interesting thing is that, when an IQ test, which relies heavily on language, is given to a group of Mexican Americans whose first language may or may not be English, they score lower than a group of people whose ancestors came to this nation a generation or two or perhaps more ago, and whose first language is English.

Moreover, give one to a group of children whose parents have little education and whose home language is limited, and you get lower scores on average than you will with the children of college grads. Follow t hose children for a generation or two, however, and you'll find that those who were educated, and who then passed language skills on to t heir offspring, show no such gap in I.Q.

There are a couple of problems with the notion of I.Q. and r ace. One is that I.Q. test scores are heavily dependent on the test taker's language skills, and those language skills are passed down not as a racial characteristic, but as a cultural tradition from parent to child.

Now, out of all of the verbiage above, some of which hints at the relationship between race and I.Q. and some of which does not, I found this one interesting:

Sharp critics of our heavy recent immigration from Mexico sometimes claim—or at least hint—that the intellectual weakness of these millions of newcomers may constitute a disastrous long-term burden to American society. On anonymous Internet forums such voices are often more explicit and directly cite Lynn and Vanhanen in placing the Mexican IQ at just 87, far below the white American average, and a worrisome indicator given that as much as one quarter of all Americans may be of Mexican ancestry by around the middle of this century.

The IQ figure of 87 that they quote from Lynn/Vanhanen is correct, though admittedly based on a single 1961 study of Mexican schoolchildren in the most impoverished southern part of that country.

Of course, any study of schoolchildren from an impoverished part of any country is going to show a lower I.Q. than the average.
What we're seeing is not an " intellectual weakness," nor is it going to be a "disastrous long-term burden to American society," as it is based in poverty, and not race. Further, as we've already seen, the I.Q. difference disappears in a couple of decades.
 
That doesn't mean that subspecies =/= race. it does. Subspecies is the scientific terminology for race.
No, the article literally says that human beings "have not evolved into subspecies." This means that there are no human subspecies. Period. Subspecies is a biological classification. Race is an anthropological or sociological classification. The terms are not interchangeable.

Homo sapiens is our species. Homo sapiens sapiens is our subspecies. Black, white, Asian, et al. are the races that we've artificially divided ourselves into.
 
No, the article literally says that human beings "have not evolved into subspecies." This means that there are no human subspecies. Period. Subspecies is a biological classification. Race is an anthropological or sociological classification. The terms are not interchangeable.

Homo sapiens is our species. Homo sapiens sapiens is our subspecies. Black, white, Asian, et al. are the races that we've artificially divided ourselves into.
The article is PC apologetics, not science.
I put up my olwn rationale and two articles refuting this. Unaddressed by you or anyone else in opposition.
I always find this tactic, Ignoring the meatiest or toughest post, Reprehensible blind partisanship and Contrary to this board's purpose.

Again, the fact that we are one race/supbspecie is a political, not purely taxonomic/scientific one.
Just a two sentence excerpt from one of my articles on the last page.

Jerry Coyne: "..the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that Must be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies."..."

The other article pointing out the Far Lesser morphological differences among Chimp and gorilla subspecies/even species than there are between the ostensible Single human sapien subspecies.

Many people deny race exists but it's ridiculous.
If you'd like to know more about yours, I suggest sending your Blood and $100 to NatGeo's 'Genographic Project' and they'll tell you what Percent of each 'indigenous people'/Race (11) you are.
 
Last edited:
No, the article literally says that human beings "have not evolved into subspecies." This means that there are no human subspecies. Period. Subspecies is a biological classification. Race is an anthropological or sociological classification. The terms are not interchangeable.

Homo sapiens is our species. Homo sapiens sapiens is our subspecies. Black, white, Asian, et al. are the races that we've artificially divided ourselves into.

How did we artificially divided ourselves into? We have no choice in regards to our race as we have no choice in regards to our gender. These aren't man made divisions. They are natural made divisions.

And yes, the terms are interchangeable because for us humans, our biological differences have made us observe anthropological differences and classify them as such. According to the observations of the human species.
 
Definitely cultural. I went to Texas A&M University which is a decidedly majority white school. However, on the times I actually went to the library to study Asians made up a disproportionate number of the students there studying.

There is always a tradeoff, though. Most of my Asian friends in school excelled at academics but they had very cold relationships with their parents. We socialized at school but they rarely attended social functions outside of school. They definitely performed better academically, but I got the impression they weren’t as happy. Fortunately, they seem to have found the proper balance later in life, though.
 
No, the article literally says that human beings "have not evolved into subspecies." This means that there are no human subspecies. Period. Subspecies is a biological classification. Race is an anthropological or sociological classification. The terms are not interchangeable.

Homo sapiens is our species. Homo sapiens sapiens is our subspecies. Black, white, Asian, et al. are the races that we've artificially divided ourselves into.

There is argument over whether or not neanderthals and modern day humans are sub species of homo sapien: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens.But yeah, currently, there is only one subspecies around.
 
I agree and as I said in the previously linked 'Racial IQ is largely genetic' string... [Me to Mr Invisible] "you never know who you're shaking hands with"
and to/Begging Infinite Chaos:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...argely-genetic-w-957-a-90.html#post1060592401

You post a post of mine which you didn't understand and I don't remember ever finishing off.

Anyhow - here's a refutation of your theory, it's peer reviewed and references a huge number of other scientists and biologists.

In short -
“A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate.

--snip--

“Human evolution and population structure have been and are characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common, long-term evolutionary fate.”
 
How did we artificially divided ourselves into? We have no choice in regards to our race as we have no choice in regards to our gender. These aren't man made divisions. They are natural made divisions.

And yes, the terms are interchangeable because for us humans, our biological differences have made us observe anthropological differences and classify them as such. According to the observations of the human species.
No. There are no subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore, races are not subspecies. You are wrong. This has been demonstrated by at least two other people. Accept it. It's not good to reject the truth.
 
My Asian American wife is smarter and works harder, but I am richer. Life is just not fair.
 
I'll only answer the relevant parts. The rest of your post was self-aggrandizing tripe.

Again, the fact that we are one race/supbspecie is a political, not purely taxonomic/scientific one.
Just a two sentence excerpt from one of my articles on the last page.

Jerry Coyne: "..the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that Must be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies."..."
I never said anything about being "one race". I said that homo sapiens sapiens is the single subspecies that we belong to. This is correct.

When it comes to Coyne's quote, Infinite Chaos already posted an adequate response his erroneous claim. Beyond that, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks dismissed Coyne's entire argument as ignorant. For the record, Coyne has also been criticized by others for veiling his uneducated opinions under the guise of science so he's not a credible source.

The fact is that races are not subspecies.

Note: It's kind of funny that one of the top results in Google for the question "are races subspecies" is stormfront and not a scientific journal or something. It's also funny that the two main people in this thread pushing the idea that races are subspecies have a history of antisemitism. Tells me all I need to know right there.
 
Back
Top Bottom