Replies

Agamemnon, you obviously haven't kept up with evolutionists. The leading lights of Darwinism - Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and most evolutionary biologists agree with you that all races are the same. In fact they don't even admit to the existence of "races".

But one has to be as blind as a bat or delusional to deny the existence of races, or to disagree with what Huxley said...

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the AVERAGE Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the {AVERAGE} white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites."

Following is one of the facts that Huxley didn't know in his time, but that we know today, (though he deduced it simply by believing his lying eyes)

It is tragic that this is reality, but denying it doesn't solve the problem.

which “negros” are they talking about? Those descended from slaves? The average IQ of innner city kids in a cohort that includes kids with brain damage from lead poisoning/fetal alcohol syndrome? (if ten percent of the kids have brain damage, the average IQ goes down... get rid of the cause and the average IQ is more accurate).

Malnutrition causes a lot of low IQ’s in Africa, so don't use a cohort from there either.

The leading lights of Darwinism all used the same argument against the Irish and Jews in the early 20th century.

and of course, IQ measurement only measures one type of intelligence and is culturally biased.

Care to do some real science here - beginning with at least labeling your x-axis and y-axis, and sourcing the diagram?

I could draw the same thing as you may have and communicate something equally as meaningless.

The leading lights of Darwinism - Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and most evolutionary biologists agree with you that all races are the same. In fact they don't even admit to the existence of "races".

Care to provide quotations to back yourself up, particularly where those sorry asses Gould and Dawkins are concerned?

Gould was about as racist an asshole as any "evolutionary biologist" must be who shares his views. I quoted Gould directly. Racism is at the heart of what they pass off as the basis for their "science." Care to show how anyone of these "leading lights" decries or decried his former writings in this regard?

Only evolutionary indoctrinated idiots still connect one's jaw structure, brain size, and melanin content with a subject's intelligence.

Some consider Stephan Hawking to be quite intelligent, but by yours and Huxley's coarse metric his jaw structure should suggest otherwise. Neandertals whose brains were 150 to 200 cm3 larger on average than today's average humans by Huxley's coarse metric should by his and Darwin's own logic have been intelligent enough to figure out a way to preserve their "race."

Huxley and Darwin together are simply disreputable. Suggest you step away from endorsing anything Huxley ever espoused in his Lay Sermons and in other examples of his personal embellishments.

As for Gould - and to his credit - all I can say is that he was unashamedly and intellectually honest about his core racism.

Whoever came up with that silly diagram you posted should be as intellectually honest about their core racism as well.

FReegards!