doublegunshop.com - home Forums Now Here's a Couple of True Racists

My religious beliefs are just that:
My own personal beliefs that I don't try to force on anyone else.
I was an agnostic for over 30 years and probably would still be one had I not gone through some life changing events.
I don't subscribe to the literal intreperation of the Bible school either as:
1: The Bible has been interpreted and translated into several different versions over the years. Is one version more accurate then the others?
2: My belief is that the Bible authors wrote in a vague manner and whether this was done on purpose or not is and probably will always remain unknown.
3: There are glaring errors in the Bible from a scientific perspective due to the limited understanding of the universe at that time. Here's one example: It you read the passages where the sun stands still to allow a battle to be completed in full light most people immediatley know it's wrong. The earth at that time was considered the center of the universe with the sun,stars etc. rotating around it and stopping the sun was believed would result in continuous daylight. We now know that the Earth would have had to stand still not the sun for that "miracle" to occur.
Jim



Joshua 10:13

The Sun Stands Still
12Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon." 13So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 14There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.�

I for one, am fascinated by the history of the development of the Bible. If you remember that within the context of the Latin language, it was never really designed to be read by the average citizen, always requiring interpretation by the local priest. In reality, it was a handbook designed to provide information for sermons delivered down in the local churches. You can find a justification for about any action, to be framed within the context of Christian morality. It's a handbook of Morality examples.

The Reformation was truly a pivotal occurrence within Christianity, as it removed the necessity of having the Catholic Church as an intermediary, allowing a personal relationship with one's own faith. It was this that resulted in the development of the concept of the Individual, and consequently individual freedom and equality. This is what is being attacked in the religious war between Statism and Christianity.

"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us? Here am I, send me!" Isaiah, 6:8.

Ken, although I distinctly recall reading about the 2% genetic diversity and also heard Genetics and Biology Professors repeat that number, I just did a little checking and found estimates ranging from .1% to over 10%. Here's a link reporting on some recent research claiming that the percentage is actually much higher than previously believed:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061123115741.htm

No matter though. What matters is that a very small amount of genetic variation expresses itself as almost every difference we see within races or groups or individuals that cannot be attributed to physical injury or cultural upbringing. Everything from skin color to skull shape to susceptibility to Sickle Cell Anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, or BRAC II induced breast cancer is genetic. An Eskimo infant raised from birth at the equator will still have Eskimo features and a thicker layer of subcutaneous fat. Dwarf parents are much more likely to have dwarf children even though the gene for dwarfism is highly recessive. A specific number and order of gene sequences can give a person Einstein or Stephen Hawking intelligence... or the Mongoloid intelligence level of Caitlyn SKB. I have read about the Toba volcano near-extinction event, but over 2000 generations have passed since then giving ample opportunities for natural selection and natural mutation to create radical differences among the world's human population. The Toba volcano may have been the driving force behind food shortages that compelled humans to migrate to every corner of the planet. We clearly see those resulting differences, and only uninformed and agenda driven Libtards are hell bent on blaming recognition of the facts on white Republicans who create biased I.Q. Tests designed to keep people down. Generalizations are difficult because, as I pointed out earlier, one black could have abnormally high intelligence because a recessive gene from Thomas Jefferson expressed itself. It's just as possible that Thomas Jefferson inherited his intelligence from some long ago Asiatic ancestor. The opposite could also be seen when the offspring of genius level parents turns out to be well below average because there was a clinical idiot in one or both parent's ancestry. It's mathematically unlikely, but two brown haired dark skinned parents could produce a light skinned red-headed child if that recessive gene expresses itself. But it is much more likely that highly intelligent parents will produce highly intelligent offspring, and all the nurturing and teaching in the world will not turn a low intelligence baby into a Mozart or a DaVinci.

Keith,

The significance of that study, in terms of genetic variation, focuses on number of copies and DNA sequences contained. Not "different" genes, like found in other species. True, the copies and sequencing have potential for great impact, the medical industry is attempting to use them as predictors of disease, but the differences are more on the biochemical level. I'm not aware that anyone is asserting that they impact something as general as the concept of Intelligence. Certainly not with skin color as the basis.

The sequence of our genes is what we are, but genes are only a small fraction of our DNA. It is a very long double helix chain unique to each of us consisting of pairs of only four nucleotides, adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine. It is all biochemical and it determines how, when, and where every cell in our bodies develops, lives, and functions. It determines our development from the moment of conception and determines virtually everything about us from skin color to hair texture to diseases we may be predisposed to, and it certainly includes our intelligence. If we could exactly clone Albert Einstein's brain, we would not have Albert Einstein, but the neural functioning, the synapses, and the mental capacity would be identical in every way. But if intelligence was mostly nurture vs. nature, or developed instead of inherited as you and Mike contend, we would expect to find that Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking's siblings who were raised by the same parents under virtually the same conditions and environment would also be geniuses. That just does not happen.

I just finished telling Mike I just didn't have the time tonite to provide the links to prove my contention, but for the hell of it, I just took a quick look at several articles. I noted that we could both find plenty of links to "prove" our contentions, but the majority seem to favor nature over nurture as a predictor of intelligence. Here is one good article you might enjoy. http://www.wired.com/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/

I'm sure you'll find a few gotcha's in it, but I found the ideas put forth by Steve Hsu very interesting where he feels that the genome may have as many as 10,000 different locations that determine intelligence, and that mutations on some of them, inherited or otherwise, have an additive negative effect upon our intelligence. In other words, an Albert Einstein or a Stephen Hawking has a lesser number of mutations in those estimated 10,000 locations where zero or few mutations might produce a 150 I.Q. and 100 mutations might produce a 100 or average I.Q. I do know from reading prior twin studies that nurture or upbringing has a small effect upon I.Q. which is why I strongly believe that it is mostly inherited. And the Kenyan athlete I mentioned earlier will still need training and conditioning to win Marathons despite being genetically predisposed to running long distances quickly.

And there lies the root of the evil in our country...

The significance of the Toba event was that it nearly caused the extinction of Humanity. That is why there is an identifiable "Bottleneck" in the Human Genome dated to that time. It is estimated that there may have been a 90% or more extinction of human genetic lines due to the event. Approx. 25,000 years later surviving human populations had recovered to the point that the normal paleolithic expansion/migration pattern could resume. It was due to this that our current species could once again spread across the world. The Americas being the last continents to be inhabited, consequentially the areas with the smallest genetic diversity among original (post-Toba) inhabitants. This is the reason why there were such massive die-offs when the Exploration/Colonial period occurred, as the populations had little natural immunity to diseases from the Old World.

Intelligence is spread throughout Humanity, with variations of it being similar within populations. I'm starting a new thread regarding Genetic Diversity within Humanity, so as not to continue hijacking this one.

The key word here is "similar"... which does not mean identical.

All humans have similar skulls with identifiable differences between the races. Blood can sometimes be transfused without rejection. Caucasians can successfully breed with Asians who can breed with Black Africans. In spite of 60-80,000 years of divergent evolution, there are still way more similarities than differences because 60-80,000 is a mere blink of an eye. If the entire human race was indeed reduced to only a few thousand breeding pairs by Toba, even that small number, along with divergent evolution, could absolutely explain the measurable difference in AVERAGE intelligence between the races. Smaller numbers than that are routinely used to provide statistically significant results with breeding experiments using anything from fruit flies to mice in Genetics experiments. Mendel and Darwin didn't use millions or billions of samples to prove their hypothesis'. This argument about intelligence between the races seems to disappear when you get back to a time where we don't really know the color of ancient man. There is no controversy or disagreement that there were much more significant differences and jumps in early man's INHERITED intelligence when you go back 500,00 or even 2 million years ago.

You just do not see any San Bushmen from Australia in the medical or technical fields. Not saying it isn't at all possible, but that sub-race has the lowest average I.Q. in the world closely followed by African Pygmies. Here's another good article for Mike:

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap14.html

Over the years while reading the old books of many of the famous White Hunters like Sir Samuel Baker and W.D.M. Bell, I noticed the authors often commented on the characteristics of the different tribes they encountered as they trekked all over Africa. They noted that some tribes such as primitive pygmies were suited for only the most simple tasks, others best suited for porters who could carry heavy loads of ivory and supplies for days with little food or water, while others were as quick witted as any Englishman an most suited for tracking and ambushing game. Even if there were not so many tribes and cultures in Africa, it would be difficult to generalize. We do know there was a bit of natural selection going on when some were able to be captured by smarter or stronger others and sold into slavery and exported.

Day 5 and STILL none of the Libtards who infest this forum has repudiated H. Clinton as a closet racist!! I fully intend to continue bringing this up to demonstrate the hypocracy of these Libtards!
Jim

Isolated sub-cultures, usually due to geographics, do have a tendency to inbreed to the extent that it may have an effect on characteristics. Intelligence is one characteristic, as well as physical ones. This is an exception rather than the rule, as during the Paleolithic migration was much more common throughout Humanity. I'm not aware of any data regarding the San, which were isolated in Southern Africa due to the Kalahari, but there have been studies done on others such as the Masai, tracking members activities and health once moving to modern urban areas.The aborigines of Australia is also an example of isolation, especially their physical features, but again, I'm not aware of intelligence comparisons.

All the characteristics you listed could still be explained due to sub-cultural teaching and values. Primitive cultures tended to develop behaviors and values in ways to take full advantage of the resources of their ecosystems. It is still not indicative of any real intelligence differences within Humanity.


Here's food for thought, from an article that explores both sides.

http://www.rense.com/general79/dut.htm

In Germany, a study of kids fathered by foreign soldiers and raised by German women found that kids with white biological dads scored the same as kids with biological dads of "African" origin. Hereditarians (scholars who advocate genetic explanations) complain that the sample was skewed because at least 20 percent of the "African" dads were white North Africans. I find that complaint pretty interesting, since it implies that North Africans are a lot smarter than other "whites." Their better critique is that the pool of blacks in the U.S. military had already been filtered by IQ tests. Even environmentalists (scholars who advocate nongenetic explanations) concede that this filter radically distorted the numbers. But again, the complaint teaches a lesson: In any nonrandom pool of people, you can't deduce even average IQ from race.