Answerer

Hi guys, just a few questions. Is race being justified in biological science? Do the people of a race behaved significantly different from the people of another race? Is there links to be provided?

Dr.GH

Why do you guys post redmeat so late at night!

Oh well, somebody else gets to slap this on the coals.

Just a couple of links:

AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race
http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html

Anthropology 150 Race and Racism
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~pwilloug/anthro150.htm

Answerer

It is afternoon here and now.

God Fearing Atheist

For some overviews see:

Dr. George W. Gill, professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming, sums up the consensus on race - from PBS's "Nova".

Fathom Reference: Race

On specific racial differences:

IQ:

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2003). African-White IQ differences from Zimbabwe on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised are mainly on the g factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 177-183.

Rushton, J. P., Skuy, M., & Fridjhon, P. (2003). Performance on Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices by African, East Indian, and White engineering students in South Africa. Intelligence, 31, 123-137.

Skuy, M., Gewer, A., Osrin, Y., Khunou, D., Fridjhon, P. & Rushton, J. P. (2002). Effects of mediated learning experience on Raven’s Matrices scores of African and non-African university students in South Africa. Intelligence, 30, 221-237

Lynn, R. (1994). The intelligence of Ethipoian immigrant and Israeli adolesents. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 55-56.

Lynn, R. (1996). Racial and ethnic differences in intelligence in the United States on the Differential Ability Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 271-273.

Zindi, F. (1994). Differences in psychometric performance. The Psychologist, 7, 549-552.

Owen, K. (1992). The suitability of Raven's Standard Matricies for various groups in South Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 149-159.

Snyderman, M. & Herrnstein, R.J. (1983). Intelligence tests and the immigration act of 1924. American Psychologist, 38, 986-995.

Clark, E.A. & Hanisse, J. (1982). Intellectual and adaptive performance of Asian children in adoptive American settings. Developmental Psychology, 18, 595-599.

Maturation:

Koprowski et al. (1999). Diet, body size and menarche in a multiethnic cohort. British Journal of Cancer, 79, 1907-1911.

Hermann-Giddens, et al. (1997). Secondary sexual characteristics and menses in young girls seen in office practice. Pediatrics 99: 505-512

There are other differences as well (with respect to twinning rates, possibly average brain size, genitals, and so forth), but im too lazy to cite the sources right now. I hope this will suffice for the time being.

-GFA

Monkeybot

Answerer,

What I'd just heard was that yes, you can point to certain trends in physical differences between different populations of people... but these differences do not map onto "race", especially not the black/white/yellow/red/brown division of races we're familiar with today.

The problem is that if you're defining race by a single concept (like, say, skin color), you can make some pretty broad classifications -- but if you try to define race by a bundle of traits (like skin color, hair texture, nose size and shape, etc), you run into too much diversity within and between groups to have any sort of sensible definition of "race." There's a lot more variation within groups than between them.

So, I don't have a problem with delineating these trends in physical differences, but I don't think they can properly be called "races" -- the term just implies a sense of biological separation that's not there, IMO.

God Fearing Atheist

"Race" is defined as ancestral geographic origin. For example, a "Negroid" is someone who can trace his ancestry back to sub-Saharan Africa between 4,000 and 20 generations ago.

Despite your claim, it *is* true that geographic origin can be correlated with certain average psychological and appearance traits. While there is indeed some difference within races, this does not diminish the utility of such a taxonomy, just as variation within the sexes will not invalidate "male" and "female".

-GFA

Dr.GH

Rushton and Lynn are at the center of the new scientific racism. Before anyone considers their "evidences," I would sugest they read some of the following pieces. There is an uncanny parallel between the racists vs maintream science, and the creationists vs minstream science debates. Unfortunately, like some asspects of the E/C debate, the racists have much more web material than the mainstream.

ISAR - Foundation for Facism the New Eugenics Movement in the United States,
http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/archives/...foundation.htm

ISAR - The Context of Correctness A Comment on Rushton-Andrew S. Winston
http://www.ferris.edu/isar/archives/...n/homepage.htm

The science of racism and its consequencesby Dr Colin Groves
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/c..._of_racism.htm

"Science and Race" J. Marks
http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/race.pdf

Comments on "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns"
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ma...sser2.html#c36

And as much of the so called race science relies on IQ tests, one needs a firm understanding of the various theories of intelligence. One good place to start is :

Intelligence Theory & Testing - Introduction
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/index.html

God Fearing Atheist

Or between the politically motivated denial of scientific evidence and creationism? I think its a closer parallel.

Its terribly easy to slander legitimate scientists as "racists". Its quite another thing to make an informed critique of their *research*.

There is no scientific debate here. Scientists (that is, natural scientists, who deal with the issue) agree race exists. Psychologists almost universally accept IQ, and g as a theory of intelligence. These "racists" *are* the mainstream.

-GFA

God Fearing Atheist

I'd also like to note, GH, that the sources I cited were merely a small sample of the available research.

But given your knee-jerk response to the others, I doubt posting them would do much good.

-GFA

Dr.GH

Clearly, you have not made the effort to become familiar with these issues. You could not have even read the scant material that I linked above. Speaking as a "natural scientist(s), who deal(s) with the issue," there is a vast difference in the notion that "race exists" and just what is it that "race" is.

Race as a social/historical fact is undeniable. I have presented my conclusions as to the "race" of skeletal material in both archaeological, and forensic settings. In this, I recognise that there are select osteological features that can, under well defined (and quite limited) circumstances, be used as indicators of ethnisity.

Where Rushton and other "scientific" racists fail the "smell test" is when they associate complex social behavior, and difficult to assess concepts such as intelligence with "racial" features like penis size (Rushton).

I have read Rushton's supporters, and they are vastly outnumbered, and outargued by his mainstream critics. Personally, I would not want supporters like these:

Canadian Heritage Alliance
http://www.canadianheritagealliance....nks/links.html