You can’t beat a thesis with fallacious ad hominems.
Liberal race-mixers who pose as conservatives need to consider the two points made in this and the connecting post, and then refute them without using their cop-out “racist,” “bigot,” “Nazi,” or “white-supremacist” rhetoric. So read this slowly and remember that in debate no one cares for your feelings, and you will be awarded no points for visceral responses. What is valued most is critical thinking–clear theses, arguments and rebuttals.
Races Exist
Despite Hank Hanegraaff’s classic line that “there is no such thing as race in the Bible aside from ‘running the race’ (Heb 12:1),” races do indeed exist, both in the Bible and in our world. This post demonstrates two points:
- that there are clearly demarcated genetic races, and
- that there are also notable behavioral marks among the races, things such as appearance, propensity (crime), and intelligence, and cultural ingenuity, that follow smoothly along the genetic markers.
Genetic Distance
Races are clusters that develop from populations who for a substantial period breed healthily among themselves. This shakes out genetic mismatches by natural selection that can arise from race-crossings which nearly all conservatives and Christians advocate/practice. Such lust gives their mulatto children recessive genes which may or may not show in those immediate children, but will eventually show in their descendants. Race mixing unties the natural process of genetic mismatch culling, and rewinds the normal genetic pattern (established by centuries of their ancestors) at least a dozen generations. To clean the oil spill off their family tree it will take at least this many generations of proper breeding with the original homogeneous parent’s race. If such race mixers are content with this rage against their history and genotype harmony then they must say so; but they may not pretend that they are doing something normal and that we who point out their deviant and novel actions are the abnormal, evil racists.
click to enlarge
The Belgium people are typically seen as the starting point for measuring similarity and dissimilarity among these racial clumps. Among all white cluster groups, they have the least amount of genetic variance and thus the shortest genetic distance space. All white groups combined are about .008 genetic distant units wide. For the purposes of other racial comparisons, we can round up to .01 GDU for the generic white race. Persians are just off the fringe of being white, measuring at .02 GDU. Ashkenazi Jews are .05; Turks, .08; Chinese .012; and Negros (African), .245.
The Scattered Genetic Distance chart to the right shows a visual comparison of the genetic divergence among a few common races, the distance between them relevant to the dissimilarity of genetic make-up. The farther apart the distance, the more likely these two races would produce recessive genes and Mendelian mismatches among their mulatto offspring. Such genetic mis-pairing can create life-threatening conditions, the loss of reproductive ability, and plain ugliness seen in most mongrels. Notice also that Jews are a racial cluster distinct from whites.
So, contrary to most Christians and conservatives, there are races with real difference–as even our eyeballs can verify. Notice in this next chart, where distance is translated into size, that we can (usually) visually differentiate races as easily as we can see the how larger or smaller another ball is compared to our own. As a white, I can tell a Jew has different physical characteristics than I, a Chinaman even more, and a Negro far more. But this difference is not just skin color as most believe.
Underneath the skin color of a racially distinct people are other physical traits such as different digestive systems and levels of resistance to certain diseases. Moreover, and most controversial, there are differences of levels of intelligence, propensity to crime, quality of culture building and inculturation. IQ scores between races have maintained a steady gap for as long as we have measured them; crime rates the same. European cultures are very different from Chinese cultures, and even far more different than primitive African cultures. We also see differences in the way races assimilate into other cultures or religions: compare the culture of American assimilation between a (Messianic) Jew’s church, such as Steve Schlissel’s Messiah’s Congregation, and the average black church. Why do so many recognize these patent differences, yet deny that race is anything but skin pigment?
Our forthcoming post will expand on the racial differences, and show why practically and theologically it is wrong to integrate and amalgamate.
Note: Thanks to Jerry Abbott for his assistance in understanding Genetic Distance
Greetings from an “evasive race-denying conservative Christian.” I was put onto your posting by a link from over at the Confederate Gray site. (I’m not sure whether to call him “your friend Confederate Gray” or not, since I don’t know whether you and he are actually personally acquainted with each other.) I wasn’t sure whether I should try to throw my hat into a discussion here when I am already ensconced in a discussion there as well.
You advise well when you warn against making statements of passion or emotion in what should be a calm and reasoned setting, and so I assure you that this statement is genuinely driven by my intellect and not my viscera: I find all of this very silly.
“Races are clusters that develop from populations who for a substantial period breed healthily among themselves.” This is a true statement. But your follow-up is puzzling: “This shakes out genetic mismatches by natural selection that can arise from race-crossings.”
I’m not exactly sure what a genetic mismatch is, but I presume from context that you mean the “recessive genes.” This is a plain misuse of the idea of dominant and recessive traits. Recessive traits are not the result of genetic mismatches, any more than dominant traits are. In fact, recessive traits could be taken as a sign of good genetic matching, since both parents’ genes have to match in order for a recessive trait to filter down to the children in a visible form.
If you’re trying to assert by this that recessive traits are somehow intrinsically inferior to dominant ones, that’s an assertion too rich for me to buy. Blue eyes are a recessive trait, as are five-fingered hands.
If by “recessive gene” you mean “minor allele,” then obviously the rates at which alleles occur differ from group to group. But this merely suggests genetic separation among various groups of humans — the very nature of “populations who for a substantial period breed healthily among themselves.” It requires some additional evidence to support the contention that minor alleles (even if defined across the entire scope of humanity) are intrinsically inferior, evidence that you do not provide.
“If such race mixers are okay with this rage against their history and genotype harmony then they must say so.” Very well, I say so. “May they not pretend that they are doing something normal and that we who point out their deviant and novel actions are evil racists.” I’m unaware of why “history and genotype harmony” are to be taken as marks of personal identity and pride, or, indeed, why my lack of such identity and pride is “deviant and novel.” You have, after all, an unstated premise here that the races SHOULD be separated, not only that they ARE and HAVE BEEN separated in history. The latter premise is one that I think is unobjectionable, but the former, normative one is another that is beyond my price range to buy. I expect that you will address the normative reasons in your upcoming theological post, though, and therefore I await the appearance of that post.
In the meantime, I would ask that you use more care in presenting your theological evidence than you have used in presenting your scientific evidence. It is on the nature of this evidence, I admit, that I am most stirred — and it is the scientist in me that is stirred up by this, not the integrationist.
When you investigate a matter of interest, you absolutely must choose measurements that relate to it. This is one of the most important principles of research. Your matter of interest is the size of genetic gulf separating the different races from each other, as stated in Point #1 at the beginning of your post. Fair enough. But the measurements you use are for the size of the genetic gulf within each race. There is a staggering disconnect here. Your point graph (along with the accompanying ball graph, if I may call it that) shows that whites are more homogeneous than Persians, who are more homogeneous than Ashkenazim, Turks, Chinese, and Africans, in descending order. This is all it shows. Crucially, it does not show “a visual comparison of the genetic divergence among a few common races, the distance between them relevant to the dissimilarity of genetic make-up.” Not in any way. It also has nothing to say about whether or not “Persians are just off the fringe of being white.” Now, I’m not accusing you of abusing the facts intentionally — I’m more than willing to chalk it up to a good-faith mistake — but I feel compelled to point out the fact that it is a mistake. Most importantly, it is one that leaves Point #1 (“there are clearly demarcated genetic races”) without concrete evidential support. (The fact that I happen to agree with a considerably softened version of Point #1 cannot alter the fact that your quantitative evidence fails to support it.)
Your additional points of support are also suspect. Your best one is that “even our eyeballs can verify” genetic distinctions. This is true, to an extent. But it’s another case of using the wrong measurement. If you are trying to assert genotypic harmony and disparity, which you plainly are, phenotypic similarities and differences can only serve as indirect evidence. You have to go into the DNA itself for direct evidence — in a certain sense, you have to do a paternity test. Additionally, even if you were to produce the DNA evidence (and I think it’s probably out there, to a certain extent), you would still be left with having to justify the attached, but unstated premise to which I alluded earlier, namely, that the races SHOULD be separated, not only that they ARE and HAVE BEEN separated in history.
On the matter of IQ scores: what are the control variables? Is race still a key factor when you assess it in light of education quality, stability of home environment, and other things that might be expected to contribute to mental development? If you consider race in isolation from these other possible factors, you may be leaving out the factors that really explain the difference. Only if you test race alongside them can you say with any degree of satisfaction that race plays a major role in determining intelligence. I’ve not read the literature in detail, but my cursory overview suggests that in fact the other factors overwhelm race in this area.
On the matter of crime rates: again, what are the control variables?
On cultural differences: if distinct cultures occur along the same lines of genetic differences (a point that I suspect is a good deal more nuanced than that, but which I will accept in full for the sake of argument), is it not credible to suppose that the same physical separation that led to the genetic differences in the first place also contributed heavily to the cultural differences?
The evidence that you have put together has a number of components to it, but all of them require a good deal more support than you have given them. The overall picture is VERY circumstantial and FAR from compelling — especially for your strong claim that the separation of the races must be maintained for the future benefit of humanity. The other claim, equally strong though also not explicitly stated, is that some races are intrinsically superior to others by virtue of their genetics. This you have also failed to demonstrate. Indeed, as I stated at the outset, and for reasons that I hope are clear, I find it all very silly.
I hope I have provided the “critical thinking-clear theses, arguments and rebuttals” that you asked for. If not, please be assured, nevertheless, that I am not seeking to give offense by the structuring of my words, or by the response in general.
Welcome aboard, Drew. Let me try to elaborate where you have questions.
“I’m not exactly sure what a genetic mismatch is, but I presume from context that you mean the "recessive genes." This is a plain misuse of the idea of dominant and recessive traits.”
When two distinct races mix, genetic mismatches can occur in the offspring by the presence of recessive genes. These mismatches may not always be harmful. I’m not trying to prove that all recessive genes are inferior, per se; but it is unassailable that the further apart two people are in GD, the greater likelihood for Mendelian mismatches that can indeed be harmful, such as the loss of infertility. Therefore, race-mixing ipso facto produces a greater likelihood of infertility, and I’m reticent to deny that as inferior. BTW, a future post is on its way about the notion of a superior race–a very precarious position to defend in my view.
"I’m unaware of why "history and genotype harmony" are to be taken as marks of personal identity and pride, or, indeed, why my lack of such identity and pride is "deviant and novel." You have, after all, an unstated premise here that the races SHOULD be separated, not only that they ARE and HAVE BEEN separated in history.”
Good catch, the old naturalistic fallacy. I’ll draw the moral link in the next post. Quick point and question, though: if racial harmony is not to be taken as a token of personal identify, then that too is a moral statement. So, was this ubiquitous practice for millennia before MLK a moral failure? Or a grand coincidence?
“When you investigate a matter of interest, you absolutely must choose measurements that relate to it. This is one of the most important principles of research. Your matter of interest is the size of genetic gulf separating the different races from each other, as stated in Point #1 at the beginning of your post. Fair enough. But the measurements you use are for the size of the genetic gulf within each race. There is a staggering disconnect here.”
GD approximates the proportion of genetic variance between separate genetic clusters/populations. So it does indeed relate to my matter of interest.
“Your point graph (along with the accompanying ball graph, if I may call it that) shows that whites are more homogeneous than Persians, who are more homogeneous than Ashkenazim, Turks, Chinese, and Africans, in descending order. This is all it shows. Crucially, it does not show "a visual comparison of the genetic divergence among a few common races, the distance between them relevant to the dissimilarity of genetic make-up." Not in any way.”
Um, yes it does. These charts offer a visual of the inverse of homogeneity.
It also has nothing to say about whether or not "Persians are just off the fringe of being white." Now, I’m not accusing you of abusing the facts intentionally — I’m more than willing to chalk it up to a good-faith mistake — but I feel compelled to point out the fact that it is a mistake. Most importantly, it is one that leaves Point #1 ("there are clearly demarcated genetic races") without concrete evidential support. (The fact that I happen to agree with a considerably softened version of Point #1 cannot alter the fact that your quantitative evidence fails to support it.)”
The distance (or size in the ball graph) corresponds to the standard distribution of each cluster. If the Persian ball is bigger than the White ball, then it is at genetic variance with it.
“On the matter of IQ scores: what are the control variables? Is race still a key factor when you assess it in light of education quality, stability of home environment, and other things that might be expected to contribute to mental development? If you consider race in isolation from these other possible factors, you may be leaving out the factors that really explain the difference. Only if you test race alongside them can you say with any degree of satisfaction that race plays a major role in determining intelligence. I’ve not read the literature in detail, but my cursory overview suggests that in fact the other factors overwhelm race in this area.”
You must read literature produced before the fraudulent Boas theory of historic accident. There can never be enough nurture-based control variables to appease egalitarians by showing them that the steady gap in all the accomplishments and traits mentioned are nothing but mishap. Radom draws of blacks produce a Gaussian shape that is then compared with that of randomly drawn whites. You may reply that this creates a larger collection of poor, uneducated blacks than white. Exactly, Drew; it always will. But admittedly, the education level of blacks in the European-created countries is far higher than the education level of blacks in the Congo where the average IQ is 68-70. I also admit that their IQ scores would definitely rise should self-educated whites go teach them a bit.
Innate ingenuity and enterprise beget quality of education, stable homes, and other things; not vice versa.
“On the matter of crime rates: again, what are the control variables?”
The FBI doesn’t conduct controlled studies; it merely records volume of crime with common demographics.
“On cultural differences: if distinct cultures occur along the same lines of genetic differences (a point that I suspect is a good deal more nuanced than that, but which I will accept in full for the sake of argument), is it not credible to suppose that the same physical separation that led to the genetic differences in the first place also contributed heavily to the cultural differences?”
Yes, I affirm modus ponens, but are you saying the differences between Asian and European cultures are to be chalked up to arbitrary migration and breeding patterns?
“The evidence that you have put together has a number of components to it, but all of them require a good deal more support than you have given them. The overall picture is VERY circumstantial and FAR from compelling …”
Sorry you aren’t compelled. We’ll try harder to get every nuance ironed out and every particular in order, so that we can have a more air tight case against this:
I’m going to reply specifically to the point on genetic distance — and concentrate on it solely — because it touches on a very fundamental point of research, and it requires a good deal of clarity. For the record, I am completely satisfied that you are not trying to abuse the facts on this matter; but you are nevertheless incorrect in your assertion of what those facts show. Or, put another way, my original complaint still stands. Bear with me while I explain why.
Your reply states, in line with the original, that “GD approximates the proportion of genetic variance between separate genetic clusters/populations. So it does indeed relate to my matter of interest.” Yes, genetic distance (or drift) IS related to your matter of interest. This is a true statement, and I completely agree with it.
But there are two categories of genetic distance measurements (there may be more than two, I don’t know, but two are relevant here), which I will for the sake of convenience call intra-racial and inter-racial. INTRA-racial genetic distance is based on the genetic variation within a single population. INTER-racial genetic distance is based on the genetic variation between different populations.
In order to support your claim #1 from the original post, you need to have an INTER-racial measurement. What you have provided is an INTRA-racial measurement. The two graphs both represent this intra-racial measure, show the distance WITHIN each of the 6 races you describe. They are therefore not good supports for claim #1.
One sign that you are using intra-racial measurements is that you have shown a single point-estimate for each of the 6 races. If you were giving inter-racial measurements, you would show estimates for the respective distances between whites and Persians, whites and Ashkenazim, whites and Turks, whites and Chinese, and whites and blacks (it would also be advisable, for the sake of completeness, to include the distances between Persians and Ashkenazim, Persians and Turks, Persians and Chinese, Persians and blacks, Ashkenazim and Turks, Ashkenazim and Chinese, Ashkenazim and blacks, Turks and Chinese, Turks and blacks, and Chinese and blacks). I’m not saying that you CANNOT provide such evidence, or that there are not data available that would give this information, I am simply saying that you DID NOT provide what you say (and think) you provided.
The other sign that you are using an intra-racial measure is your description, in the original post, that “The Belgium people are typically seen as the starting point for measuring similarity and dissimilarity among these racial clumps. Among all white cluster groups, they have the least amount of genetic variance and thus the shortest genetic distance space. All white groups combined are about .008 genetic distant units wide. For the purposes of other racial comparisons, we can round up to .01 GDU for the generic white race.” You then go on to give estimates for each of the other 5 races. By this description, the process of arriving at the .01 estimate for the white race consists entirely of comparing WITHIN the white race (or across ONLY its INTERNAL sub-races, such as the Belgians). I presume that the same process was used for each of the other 5 races. This means that, although you should be able to use this self-same data to derive inter-racial distance measurements, you have not actually done so. What you have actually done is to describe, with the visual assistance of two graphs, the size of distance separating one end of the whites from the other end of the whites, one end of the Persians from the other end of the Persians, one end of the Ashkenazim from the other end of the Ashkenazim, one end of the Turks from the other end of the Turks, one end of the Chinese from the other end of the Chinese, and one end of the blacks from the other end of the blacks. These measures clearly fall into the intra-racial category. And therein lies the “staggering disconnect” that I noted between your measurements and claim #1 in your original post.
I hope I’m being clear here.
I should add, in relation to my most recent response, that the inter-racial measurements are NOT (except by some monstrous coincidence) going to be: whites-Persians, .01; whites-Ashkenazim, .04; whites-Turks, .07; whites-Chinese, .11; whites-blacks, .235. That would be taking the intra-racial measurements, subtracting them from each other, and plopping them down as if they were the needed inter-racial measurements. Even if these numbers should somehow happen to agree with the truth in this instance, they would only do so on the same principle that a stopped analog clock agrees with the truth — and these sorts of numbers are likely to be right far less frequently than the twice-a-day accuracy of the clocks. The point is: the simple-subtraction method is not a successful way to “convert” intra-racial measurements into inter-racial measurements. In fact, given my (admittedly limited) understanding of how genetic variations are measured, I’m not sure that a direct conversion from intra-racial figures to inter-racial figures is even possible. I think they have to be derived independently of each other, and their only commonality is the data underlying them and the means by which those data are turned into point estimates. But even if some direct intra-to-inter conversion is possible, I am quite sure that it is not accomplished by simple subtraction of one intra-racial estimate from another intra-racial estimate.
Drew,
You wrote: “By this description, the process of arriving at the .01 estimate for the white race consists entirely of comparing WITHIN the white race (or across ONLY its INTERNAL sub-races, such as the Belgians). I presume that the same process was used for each of the other 5 races.”
No, it was not. Genetic Distance is a gauge that measures certain genetic traits, implemented (of course) by Whites. Naturally, the first group measured was the Caucasian. The Caucasian sub group that contained the highest frequency of those traits was the Belgium. From that starting point, all race groups have a GD measurement that is relevant to the Belgium: White, German…Jew…Negro.
I appreciate your critical eye, but on this point I’m afraid it’s too pedantic. You’re interpretation of my analysis would suggest I’m saying that within the Negro group we have the largest (diverse/healthiest) genetic variation, whereas within the Belgium we have something pretty close to incest.
Remember my thesis: that there are physically different groups of people, and that these groups generally show distinct non-physical differences, namely behavior ones.
If you have evidence that these groups contain (in general) the same genetic make-up, and/or similar measurable behavior, please provide it. I’d be happy to further the dialogue along those lines.
I apologize for misinterpreting your discussion of genetic drift. I supposed it to have, and thought your description was describing, a basis in the common method of determining the degree of diversity present within a certain population.
I now see that it is based on degree of distance from a pre-defined genetic benchmark — rather like Parra’s studies of Brazilians, Portuguese, and Africans. What study are your particular results drawn from? I’m curious to go and have a look, since I was unaware that multiple-group studies using that particular approach were extant — though perhaps I should not have been surprised. At any rate, having now come to see the light, I would say that this scaling does in fact qualify as reasonable evidence supporting Point #1. I’m sorry for giving you a disproportionately hard time about it.
Now then, on to your main thesis, that “there are physically different groups of people, and that these groups generally show distinct non-physical differences, namely behavior ones.” I will certainly not dispute that there are average behavioral differences (particularly in the area of crime) between what are commonly thought of as races in America, nor that the distribution of educational success among blacks will find its mode and mean in a rather lower place than that of whites.
But I think your statement, “Innate ingenuity and enterprise beget quality of education, stable homes, and other things; not vice versa,” while literally true, needs to be considered carefully. (Note: I’m not trying to split hairs here; I think there’s an important point to be made.) I would expect capacity for certain kinds of thinking, i.e. “innate ingenuity,” to be highly related to genetics. However, I would expect the amount of effort put into developing that capacity, i.e. “enterprise,” to be highly dependent on influence, discipline, and environment than on innate qualities. At any rate, I would be hesitant to posit such a thing as “innate enterprise.” Native talent and “smarts” may be genetically heritable, but I would surely think that laziness and industry (or, on another plane, standards of morality and adherence to those standards) are much more subject to non-genetic factors.
A key question, then, when it comes to actual expressed behavior or behavior patterns is (to the extent that one can simplify into these terms): should enterprise or innate ingenuity be considered more important? I would presume enterprise, but so far as I know, the scientific jury is still out.
“[I said:] ‘On the matter of crime rates: again, what are the control variables?’ [You responded:] The FBI doesn’t conduct controlled studies; it merely records volume of crime with common demographics.” The FBI should learn to collect more information that’s relevant! 🙂
“[I said:] ‘On cultural differences: if distinct cultures occur along the same lines of genetic differences (a point that I suspect is a good deal more nuanced than that, but which I will accept in full for the sake of argument), is it not credible to suppose that the same physical separation that led to the genetic differences in the first place also contributed heavily to the cultural differences?’ [You responded:] Yes, I affirm modus ponens, but are you saying the differences between Asian and European cultures are to be chalked up to arbitrary migration and breeding patterns?” I’m only saying that a lack of interaction between two groups of people seems sufficient to produce a lack of both cultural exchange and intermarriage. The longer and more complete the division, the more intense the divergence on both cultural and genetic counts. If this qualifies as reasoning from “arbitrary migration and breeding patterns,” then I suppose you have characterized my position correctly.
I don’t usually like this website–I’m not even exactly a kinist or anything–but I do believe in the reality of race, and accept that the Bible teaches that it is real and meaningful in both the new and old testaments. As an amatuer ornithologist, I know that to be consistent an honest scientist must put people into different subspecies, if not different species. As evolutionist Richard Mccullough noted, the genetic difference between an English man and a nigerian is 8% of that between a man and a chimpanzee. That’s at least enough to make different subspecies, since men and apes are in different families. As Adi Schlebusch at Faith and Heritage noted, the races would have to have been created by God in some miracle, as there are at least three, perhaps five or even six, races, rather than just white and black. But if one is firmly convinced race is a myth, even the ressurection of Emily Haddock, Marcia Trimble, Aaron Sander, Christopher Newsom, Tiffany Long, Esme Kenney, Brian Harvey, and whoever else you might name who was murdered by blacks will not convince them, just as the ressurection of Lazarus would not convince the rich man’s brothers.