Racial supremacy and separatism is correct and wise and good

[RDKirk]

But the bold type has no Scriptural basis whatsoever.

A contrivance which has no basis in Scripture.

You don't know how forums work and you don't know scripture either.

 

[The Barbarian]

In the Middle Ages, Africans and Arabs dominated the academic world, and almost all of the intellectual advances at that time were by non-Europeans. At another point, China dominated the world's intellectual growth. History teaches us to avoid smug conclusions about intelligence.

There are no biological human races. There's more genetic variability within any race you might define, than between them. Europeans dominate swimming competitions and Africans dominate running competitions for rather superficial differences in body and leg length. The fact that different human populations have dominated intellectual achievement over the ages, tells us that there is no such advantage for intelligence.

However, this is based on various assumptions

Nope. It's a fact. The reason there are so many Arabic words in the sciences and math, is because they were established by African Muslims. Would you like to learn about some of them?

but History and Archaeology Professor Ian Morris of Stanford University has said that...

That's nice that he thinks so. But the fact is, modern science is based in great growth of learning based in North Africa. When Islam declined, and Europe became a dominant force in the world, Islamic learning was taken and expanded by the West. We've done remarkably well. But we need to remember there was a time when Europe was a backwater and Africa was where learning thrived.

As you learned, none of this is racial, since there are no biological human races. You are as likely to be a good genetic match for a Rwandan as for your next door neighbor.

 

[Spiderman in Auckland]

There are no biological human races. There's more genetic variability within any race you might define, than between them. Europeans dominate swimming competitions and Africans dominate running competitions for rather superficial differences in body and leg length. The fact that different human populations have dominated intellectual achievement over the ages, tells us that there is no such advantage for intelligence.

As you learned, none of this is racial, since there are no biological human races. You are as likely to be a good genetic match for a Rwandan as for your next door neighbor.

Notwithstanding your assertions, it seems that Richard Dawkins has a different take on race, which is qualified by his background as an Oxford academic.

According to Dawkins, the "concept of race is not meaningless", but the idea of "race (Still) has genetic and taxonomic importance".

Dawkins' viewpoint is concordant with a more recent critique of "Lewontin's fallacy" - A peer reviewed scientific article, by distinguished Cambridge biologist, A.W.F. Edwards - a fallacy which has unfortunately entered into the "Near-universal orthodoxy of opinion amongst scientific circles".

Since, Professor Dawkins is a world renowned expert in Biology I would have to say that your contrary opinion is baseless, bogus, and groundless in terms of the relevant skillset, knowledge, and education which are needed to make an informed judgement on this subject.

So, pardon me if I am mistaken, but lay persons are not in the least qualified to make an informed judgement about "race"; unless of course, you can demonstrate that your skillset, knowledge, and education are in the same area as Dawkins.

You are as likely to be a good genetic match for a Rwandan as for your next door neighbor.

Genetic variation between the different races are presumed to be "inconsequential" in terms of taxonomy, as such variations amount to less than 1% of the Total human genome.

Contrast that with the 1.5% of genetic difference between humans and chimps, and you will see that such a small percentage of genetic variation is still meaningful.

Besides genetic variation between the different human populations - Which are by no means insignificant - there are also objective cultural factors, or cultural differences between the different ethnic groups, which are still meaningful and important.

 

[The Barbarian]

Notwithstanding your assertions, it seems that Richard Dawkins has a different take on race, which is qualified by his background as an Oxford academic.

According to Dawkins, the "concept of race is not meaningless", but the idea of "race (Still) has genetic and taxonomic importance".

His assertion was decisively refuted by the completely of the Human Genome Project, which removed any doubt as to where the majority of variation exists. It exists within the culturally-defined "races", not between them.

A race is a subspecies, a genetically-defined entity. All modern humans form one race. Neandertals were another. Denesovans were another.

Since, Professor Dawkins is a world renowned expert in Biology I would have to say that your contrary opinion is baseless, bogus, and groundless in terms of the relevant skillset, knowledge, and education which are needed to make an informed judgement on this subject.

Since Dawkins isn't a geneticist, his opinion, like mine is from the sidelines. But let's see what a world-class geneticist says:

For more than a century, natural and social scientists have been arguing about whether race is a useful classificatory tool in the biological sciences — can it elucidate the relationship between humans and their evolutionary history, between humans and their health. In the wake of the U.S. Human Genome Project, the answer seemed to be a pretty resounding “no.”


In 2004, for example, Francis Collins, then head of the National Human Genome Research Institute and now director of the National Institutes of Health, called race a “flawed” and “weak” concept and argued that science needed to move beyond race. Yet, as our paper highlights, the use of race persist in genetics, despite voices like Collins, like Craig Venter — leaders in the field of genomics — who have called on the field to move beyond it.
What Scientists Mean When They Say Race Is Not Genetic

Dawkins, like me, is a biologist, but he has no special qualifications in genetics. I notice that the people who do, don't agree with him.

So, pardon me if I am mistaken

It's quite all right. Biologists all know genetics to some degree, but Collins is perhaps the world's outstanding expert on human population genetics. So I defer to him on this subject, because he is more qualifiied than Dawkins to speak on it.

but lay persons are not in the least qualified to make an informed judgement about "race";

I'd have to disagree with you on that. While I do have degrees in biology, I also knew a body repairman who had done the requisite reading and learning to speak knowledgeably about the subject. So there is that.

unless of course, you can demonstrate that your skillset, knowledge, and education are in the same area as Dawkins.

Neither I nor Dawkins have enough training in genetics to challenge Collins (who happens to be a Christian evangelical,BTW) on the subject of humans and whether or not they are divided into races.

Genetic variation

between the different races are presumed to be "inconsequential" in terms of taxonomy,

Here's why:
In 1972, Richard Lewontin performed a FST statistical analysis using 17 markers (including blood-group proteins). He found that the majority of genetic differences between humans (85.4 percent) were found within a population, 8.3 percent were found between populations within a race and 6.3 percent were found to differentiate races (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and Australian Aborigines in his study). Since then, other analyses have found FST values of 6–10 percent between continental human groups, 5–15 percent between different populations on the same continent and 75–85 percent within populations. This view has been affirmed by the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists since.
Race and genetics - Wikipedia

as such variations amount to less than 1% of the Total human genome.

No two humans are genetically identical. On average, in DNA sequence, each human is 99.9% similar to any other human.
Human genetic variation - Wikipedia

So more like one-tenth of one percent. As you see, about 93% of human genetic variation can be accounted for by variation within any "race" you want to define, with only about 6.3% occuring between these "races."

Contrast that with the 1.5% of genetic difference between humans and chimps, and you will see that such a small percentage of genetic variation is still meaningful.

The relatively huge amount of variation within races means that we can't define any biological human races today. There are still things that can be defined, especially in endogamous groups like certain Jewish populations, that can help identify one's origin, but even those people are far more like the populations in which they live, than with other Jewish groups.

Tibetans have a very high frequency of a gene that allows high-altitude living, but they are nearly identical to Han Chinese.

there are also objective cultural factors, or cultural differences between the different ethnic groups, which are still meaningful and important.

Which is the point; races in humans are social constructs, not biological realities. And sequencing the human genome conclusively demonstrated this fact.

 

[Spiderman in Auckland]

You are as likely to be a good genetic match for a Rwandan as for your next door neighbor.

Which is the point; races in humans are social constructs, not biological realities. And sequencing the human genome conclusively demonstrated this fact.

That "race" is a social construct doesn't mean that this idea is neither meaningful nor important to Sociology and the social world.

That the criminal code is a social construct doesn't give anybody the right to disregard, nor disrespect the rules of society.

That the idea of stratification and the hierarchy of "race" is a social construct doesn't mean that it's neither meaningful nor important to Sociology and the social world.

Societies are invariably ordered and regulated by social rules, norms and values; but it would be a Fallacy to pretend that "Made up rules can (Still) be disregarded, since they are nothing more than a social construct".

Therefore, one's social peer group and "mate choice" is of paramount importance, just as the criminal code is important to anybody who is sane or reasonably intelligent.

That racial identity is a social construct doesn't imply that the rules of engagement are willy nilly, nor does it imply that such a hierarchy should be taken lightly, or disregarded.

 

[The Barbarian]

That "race" is a social construct doesn't mean that this idea is neither meaningful nor important to Sociology and the social world.

Of course it doesn't. It just means that "race" isn't an objective reality; it's whatever society wants to make of it. Hence, the number of "races" depends on each society, and what that particular society wants to make of it. Since it has no objective biological reality, it can be whatever you want it to be.

That the criminal code is a social construct doesn't give anybody the right to disregard, nor disrespect the rules of society.

It merely means that if (as in Brazil) there are dozens of races, that's merely what people invented, and it has no objective reality.

As St. Paul writes, none of that nonsense means anything to God.

 

[Spiderman in Auckland]

As St. Paul writes, none of that nonsense means anything to God.

Are you referring to Galatians 3:28, or some other passage in the Bible?