From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 64750
Date: 2009-08-15
> Likewise, some racial distinctions are so elementary that I doubt anyone has cared to put them to the test. Thus, most laymen will be ready to take a bet that the chances for a black couple to have a white child are rather smaller than those of a white couple to have a white child. Skin colour *predicts* (as a scientific law should) the skin colour of the progeny. If there are no racial characteristics, i.e. collective hereditary traits, then the chances would be equal, or would be dependent on non-genetic factors. If you can prove that the chances of having a white baby are equal for parents of all colours (on condition that they, let's say, eat spinach), then you can say that racial distinctions are "unsupported by scientific evidence".The same argument applies to dark (as opposed to black) and white skin. But under Coon's racial classification, there are true-breeding white-skinned Caucasoids and dark-skinned Caucasoids, and true-breeding white-skinned Mongoloids and dark-skinned Mongoloids. There's then no *racial* distinction in either case.
> I don't believe in that "BS", but anti-racists do. They invest a lot in tests showing that even liberals have a more negative brain reaction when shown pictures of blacks.Does the converse appply? I thought there was evidence of a general preference for people like oneself. I suppose there may even be a genetic benefit in such a tendency, in that it increases the chances of favouring a relative over a genetic stranger.