Why sub-species (races) should not interbreed ~Truth~

Should Races Mix?

  • No
  • If the individual falls in love, why not?
  • We should all mix and become one happy family.
0 voters

Note: This thread is a continuance from the thread ‘definition of species?’
Which Noel posted.
First off I would like to thank Noel for his consideration on the matter, for me and Pragmatist got off the topic that Noel was enquiring about. Second of all I would like to thank Pragmatist for supplying a “more authoritative voice”. The views expressed in that link support Truth. Let’s observe what I said and what the “authoritative voice said”.

 First off I said that species [i]do[/i] mix from time to time but that it is a sign of sickness. When species mix lose their unique adaptations. Please find a list of all the species that do mix and look at the situation they are in when they do. In the end it weakens the gene pool of the superior specie and lessens the unique adaptations that Nature has endowed both organisms with. Also staying with one's own kind is the most important element in evolution. I will touch on almost every topic that pragmatist brought to the forum except the classification of sub-species, because Pragmatist was correct when he said, 

Taxonomists are not the only scientists that disagree, so do zoologists, botanists, and many more. So for me to state what makes a specie separate from another would in the end just be my opinion, and not Truth.

Now let’s continue to the link that pragmatist provided.

So what is they keystone of evolution? That species don’t mix. Reproductive isolation is the keystone to evolution once species have adapted differently.
And yes they do mix occasionally as Mr. Stephen J. O’Brien indicated in the link that Pragmatist provided. Let’s observe.

and in the next sentence he says…

So we see what is being safeguarded, the genetic pool. Against what? Mongrelization. To read the rest the link can be found here 

http://lynx.uio.no/catfolk/mjissues/mjchp_3n.htm

Before I continue I would like to address something that Pragmatist said, 

It’s too bad he was not African, or a Mongol because had he been than I am sure every one would have believed his findings. For any Aryan who says people are different and not equal is called a racist, bigot, hater, and every other malicious insult that stems from ignorance and weakness. Coon’s findings are fact and obvious to anyone who is honest.

  Pragmatist said:
On Pragmatist's polite request I will provide him with Truth. 

First I will tell you what is wrong with mixing and then I will provide you with the links you will want. Please do your own research, and forget about what pragmatist and I have said. But please when you search make sure you seek Truth.
What is wrong with mixing? Everything. Nature is continuously trying to upgrade life into more advanced organisms. One of the ways it does this is by dividing the species into sub-species. The sub-species with inherit new adaptations, which make them more advanced. Scientists say that birds stem from the same parent. But now we have puffins, eagles, pigeons, and ducks. We see adaptations in each one, and these adaptations make each specie unique. The puffin can dive 100 feet under water, the whole time collecting fish for itself and family. The razorbill which occupies Holy island, which is a puffin breeding area, will swoop down on the puffin and scare it into letting go of some of its fish. Then the puffin will run into its burrows and feed its family. The Pigeon has an adaptation that many birds don’t have, it knows that most people are harmless and that they throw a lot of their food away. The Eagle can swoop down at 80 mph and grab a Rabbit and even a small Sheep. It is obvious that these birds all have there unique adaptations and are beautiful for them. I repeat, their adaptations make them beautiful. Now let’s suppose they never split, but every time they did they came back and mongrelized again, what would have been the result? Well you would have only one kind of bird. Furthermore if the 350 sub-species of Humming bird, or the 175 sub-species of Woodpecker, or the 87 sub-species of King-fishers, or the 100 sub-species of Jay started mongrelizing with one another each would lose it’s unique adaptations and became one mongrelized bird. This is not how nature would have it, as we can see with all the variety in nature. Here is a link that you might find of interest, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1217_021226_tvinterbreeding.html
Now let’s continue to people and race. Now I will first say that most the people that read this will ignore the scientific data and continue being prejudiced. Perhaps if I were to say we are all equal, people would like how that tastes. But that is not Truth, Truth is just that, it is Truth. Equality does not exist, it’s a word used to calm the masses. It’s a word that those in power in the U.S. like, because ‘peace’ makes the economy run smoother.
Now it is Truth that the races are different, each with its unique biological adaptations and we even differ in our genetic make-up. We differ just as much as the black, brown, and polar bear do from each other. We differ just as much as the different sub-species of Jay do. We differ enough to know we are different, and these differences are what gives each of us our advantages. As I said in the beginning of this topic, “Had Michael Jordan had my mom he wouldn’t have been the best basketball player in the world.” This is because the African has more muscle mass on average than any other race, the Aryan second, the Mongol (Asian) last. This is also the reason why women find them attractive, because they have more muscle naturally. People won’t argue with that but they will feel obligated to argue with what I am about to say.
Well here are a couple links that will tell you about the genetic differences of the races, [/url]http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2002/pd073002a.html[url]&[/url]http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007/?mail=0000130#B2[url]
And since our genes determine our physical and mental make-up I will now focus on the biological differences of the brain amongst two races.
In his book, ‘The Story of Man’, Professor Coon (former president of the American Association of Anthropologists, coon also taught at Harvard and was president of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania) stated these findings on the brain.

                          Weight                    &               Cubic Capacity

African 1249 Grams 1316 cubic centimetres
Aryan 1380 Grams 1481 cubic centimetres
Dr. Coon was not alone in his findings, Todd(1923), Simmons(1942), Pearl (1934)and Connoly (1950) all showed the difference on average to be between 2.6% to 7.9% . Kuang-Cheng Ho and associates working at the Case Institute of Pathology found the Aryan to have 8.2% more brain size.
More importantly the Brain of the Aryan and African differed in the number of pyramidal neurons, supra-grandular layer thickness, and the depth of fissuration. The depth of fissuration has been shown to greatly influence intelligence. The fissuration of the Aryan is deeper than all the other races, while the African’s is the shallowest.
Studies by Ho (1980 & 1981), Connoly (1950), and Simmons (1942) show that the average I.Q. between the Aryan and the African differs between 15-23%, the Aryan being superior. (uh oh- there’s that word, ‘superior’.) It is not my aim here to say one race is ‘better’ than the other, but to focus on the differences. I already stated that the African on average had more muscle mass. So if it makes everyone happy…the African on Average has more muscle mass.
The difference in IQ has been found over and over again in every test given by every branch of the armed forces, the U.S. Department of Education, and all the state and public schools. The African, in these studies, averaged 15% lower on their I.Q. tests. The previous findings can be found in the best selling book “The Bell Curve”, where Steven Fraser analyses race, intelligence, and has thoughts on the future of America. The information he provides was collected from 20 scientists.
Furthermore, recently here in Britain Trevor Phillips (he’s African) the chairman of the Commision for Racial Equality said that black children should be segregated from the rest of the school population…

They avoid the Truth of the matter. Here is the link if you would like to read it. http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/08/nboys08.xml I wonder what would of happened had Trevor Philips been an Aryan. But that is an issue for another thread.

It's too bad people don't seek Truth, for Truth is so beautiful. For many who read this, even if they KNEW it was true, would disagree. They lie as a matter of principle, and convince themselves of their lies. 

                                        In Truth, 
                                       ~Truth~

Truth,

You clearly have no understanding of what the terms “species” and “sub-species” mean, nor do you understand evolutionary theory or genetics in general.

I see no point in arguing against any of your presented “facts,” as you will no doubt continue to come up with new ones, and you will persistently avoid dealing with the fact that your argument is fundamentally illogical and unscientific. I will note, however, that your sources are suspect, and your conclusions are largely unfounded. I leave it to the general reader to investigate as he or she sees fit. It should be pointed out that the history and nature of I.Q. tests are highly suspect, and that the book The Bell Curve is hardly authoritative. It’s flaws have been made clear by many, including the notable and late Stephen Jay Gould. Our understanding of human intelligence is small.

But, again, discussing such specifics will only distract us from the real issue, which has to do with how we define “species” and “sub-species,” and what sorts of prescriptive conclusions we can make about them.

I would have to say, this is some interesting information you have provided here. My question is, how can you say that the combining of the sub-species is necessarily a bad thing? I mean each sub-species adapted to their own environment. Well, what happens when those species enter a new environment(The United States)? They would ultimately adapt into the same sub-species anyway right? Loosing the advantages they had for their specific environment, and gaining new ones for their new environment.

Truth,

Hello. We meet again!

I shall not reply to all the details in your long post - I am sure our friend Pragmatist will do that quite happily (despite his post).

Anyway.

You are wrong in one important aspect of your argument: “Nature is continuously trying to upgrade life into more advanced organisms.”

This is not true.

Nature has no concept of ‘upgrade’ or trying to improve. Neither is it true that Nature (or evolution) tends to create improved versions of organisms.

What happens is that evolution churns out new organisms (species, if you like) and some will be better adapted to their environment than their parents. Most, I repeat, ‘most’ will not.

The vast majority of adaptations will be worse. That being so, they will not survive. The ones that do survive are those that, purely by chance, had a better feature than their parents.

A corollary of this is that if mongrelization occurs, the mongrels will survive only if they are better adapted.

If the mongrels are not better, they will tend to not survive. If they are better, then they are ‘better’ (between quotes).

Even if there is mixing, not all will mix. Only part of the next generation will be mongrelized.

Also, evolution is a continuous process. It has not stopped; it is such a slow process that to us it appears halted. We cannot claim to have reached the optimum stage - it is not all downhill from here!

Mongrelization did not start now. It has always been the way of the world. It will not stop now either.

Darwinism has produced the organisms of today, and it will produce the organisms of tomorrow. We are, today, on part of the slope, not on a plateau or at the summit (or in the abyss).

Lastly, the human race is but a blip on the evolutionary scale: it has been around for what? 20 000 years. Nothing, really. Do not draw any conclusions from that little period (and draw even less from the history of the past 2 000 years!).

well if black people have muscles strong enough to lift a car, and we need people to lift cars, and my brain is strong enough to do calc 3, and we need people to do calc 3, and then we all interbreed so that everyone can lift half a car and and do calc 1, none of that stuff that needs to be done is going to get done.

heres an interestingly ironic twist. assuming that those brain and muscle statistics are meaningful, the people who object to separating the races are actually the ones who are working against human equality and community. assuming those stats are accurate, the best way to run this society is to have the blacks in the factories and the whites running the show. of course this would be horrible if factory workers were allowed less luxuries than the whites, but if all people can be treated the same, and we can automate all the jobs that would never get done in a communist society today, separating the races is the key to efficiency for sure.

[size=150]I’m going to keep an eye on this… just encase its needed![/size]

FutureMan wrote:

I think that your statement might have some validity if we werent all living in the same society. Just as I stated above, if the Africans have more muscle mass in “Africa”, after living in a new environment, would further adaptation not occur? If the whites have deeper fissures or whatever, would not new adaptations, or the reduction of former ones occur? It seems that in your pseudo-society that you are going off the assumption that adaptation is not occuring now.

Evolution will take it’s own course, theres no need to interfere.

Anyways all I wanted to say really was that Truth you should stop using the word truth so much, and stop implying that its an absolute. Truth is undefinable.

Truth,

I’m sure that you’re convinced of your ‘findings’, but you really need to look at your sources. Most of the sources quoted have either been repudiated or are in the process. The IQ sourcing has been discredited for years now. Only the tiniest fraction of serious scholars give any credence to the so-called ‘intelligence tests’ of the past or present.

Your assumptions about nature and evolutionary change should be revisited. As noel pointed out, there just might be some serious flaws in those assumptions, and anything constructed out of them.

It is true that I disagree with your conclusions, but not because I don’t want the truth. Rather, your selective argument, narrow group of ‘authoritative’ sources, and loosely constructed conclusions encourage skepticism. Perhaps a bit of time looking at the other side of the coin would be of use.

JT

I will not answer all 8 of the replies at this moment.

First of all to Pragmatist.
Thats a very easy cop out pragmatist. Its like saying ‘whatever’. They usually do this when they know they are wrong or when they just don’t want to spend the time proving themselves, nonetheless, Truth is. I expected more from you pragmatist and was hoping you could enlighten me and take off this track of falsehood that I have been told I am on. Up top date you have challenged me most, and I like how supply evidence for your conclusions unlike so many others who haven’t supplied anything except by saying,“thats wrong because I say it is.” Please be so kind as to correct me.

Noel,
you are right. When I said nature was always trying to upgrade itself, what I meant by Nature is all the living organisms in it. Something in each organism tends to adapt to try to overcome some sort of resistance. It is interesting what you said,

I have never studied or seen an adaptation that is bad for an organism. Perhaps they get out dated and are no longer of use, but I don’t ever recall seeing an adaptation that was useless. Please Noel enlighten me on this perhaps with a source.

From what I have studied Noel, there are many organisms that have mongrelized themselves into extinction. The article from the national Geographic is one of a few articles that I have read, and reflect the knowledge that Scientists have given me. Here is the link again, but there are many more like it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1217_021226_tvinterbreeding.html

 Well Noel, please find something for me about adaptations that are useless or even prove to be a handicap. I am very interested.

                                         ~Truth~

Tentative

Of course the are repudiated. The ideal of American society is ‘equality’, no matter what the truth is. This is obvious because never once in my lifetime has an Aryan said something that showed he was superior without being repudiated, never once. So why would it change now?

This is not true. IQ tests are an important tool. They have always come up with the same result. This probably is why they have been refuted, simply on the basis that they show the Aryan to be superior in intelligence. But as I said most people would smile happily and sing songs if there were tests on muscle mass and speed in school, and the African proved stronger every time. Who would argue with that? But with American Football and Basketball we can see the odvious advantages of the African.

The other side of Truth? I have been there, perhaps at one stage of my life I was the other side. Perhaps Nature taught me Truth, and anyone that spends a good amount of time camping and observing Her will be enlightened. I doubt many people here have done this, for I know few who do. They read books for Truth and deny the whole world. But the whole world, all of Nature has a motive and a goal.

                                     ~Truth~

Ah, I see now. pragmatist is right.

Truth, whatever you say, have it your way.

JT

Truth,

First, the examination should be done on a long time scale. There are no thin-furred polar bears - those chidren that were born with thinner fur will have died, and therefore not passed on their genes.

Adaptations that are bad will tend to die out, andso it is not surprising that we cannot see them!

Adaptation can be viewed as simply a genetic change. It can be ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

An example I can think of is cancer (those types that are gene-based). Cancer that strikes young will kill the host before or she has reproduced; that gene will tend not to be propagated. Cancer that strikes later in life will have passed on its gene (if I may express it that way), and so will be propagated.

We see, now, that cancer strikes later in life. A direct consequence of the above mechanism.

So, one can say that ‘young striking cancer’ is an adaptation that is bad for the organism (= does not survive many generations).

So our British friend doesn’t want us to mingle with those who are different.
And I suppose mutations must be, all in all, a good thing.

Is that why rednecks go for their sisters?

Also, I’ve heard that intelligence has more to do with how twisty the brain matter is (cortical folding) – not so much the total mass.

Reference here for example: serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int1.html

If intelligence were merely corespondent to brain size, Shamu would be teaching it’s trainers!

My real name, you are correct. That is why I said.

However brain mass and size have a lot to due with overall mental capacity. The dinosaurs are said to of had a brain as big as a baseball, they are said (and we don’t know this for certain), that they were stupid. However in species with the biggest brains in relation to body size, dolphins, humans, etc, we see a high level of intelligence.

 Noel. It seems to me that every adaptation when it is developed is useful [i]at the time.[/i] However, after a few generations perhaps the adaptation will have grown useless due to geographical change. E.G. The tonsils (I have heard many times) have no value to us and that they become infected easily which is even harmful. But when we developed them I am sure they were of some use, for it seems to me that every adaptation has it's value at the time of its development.
                                        ~Truth~

Dear Truth, and indeed, everybody else on this thread - you are forgetting something. :frowning:

Evolution in the human species, at least in the developed countries is effectively at a stand-still.

For evolution to exist it needs a driving force, in nature (ie before the invention of TV, etc.) this is death/sterillity, before offspring has been produced/reduction in number of offspring. In this way detrimental genes/mutations get weeded out, the species evolves.

However, with our technology, particularly medical tech. we preserve/conserve unfavourable genes by extenting artificially the life-spans of the owners to sexual maturity and beyond. It doesn’t matter if different phenotypes marry - the human race isn’t evolving anyway - indeed the more successful/educated people in developed countries are marrying later and producing fewer children, so if anything the human race is de-volving, as we keep unfavourable gene-structures in our genepool - allowing them to reproduce themselves, and socially restrict offspring (China for example) And as tech. improves, as it does almost exponentially, genetically homosapiens will only get ‘worse’…

:unamused:

Truth,

Here’s the thing. You dismiss any scientific evidence or logic which contradicts your position, because you assume that any contrary evidence or argument must be wrong by virtue of the fact that it is contrary to your position. That attitude makes you stubbornly dogmatic, and wholly irrational.

In the other thread I gave a clear argument for why people of different ethnic backgrounds aren’t members of distinct sub-species. Rather than deal with that argument, you have carried on without a clear definition of “sub-species” or even “species.” You also throw the term “race” around as if it really meant something.

You also throw around the term “sick,” as though there were some known disease which leads members of distinct sub-species to interbreed. There is no such disease. The only thing preventing sub-species from mixing is geography. The reason they do breed when they have the chance is very simple: they’re members of the same species.

Sure, people are different. As I said in the other thread, all people are different, and many differences can be traced to geographical origins. That doesn’t mean that people from Africa are members of a different species, sub-species or race. It only means that they are likely to have particular characteristics which are common among people from Africa.

Now, if the whole point of your argument is that Aryans and Africans shouldn’t mix, and all of this stuff about species and sub-species is just a poor attempt to lend credence to your socio-political agenda, I have some advice: be more direct. Just come out and say what you are thinking, because all of this pseudo-scientific, holier-than-thou crap is just a waste of everybody’s time.

As for the issue of IQ, there seems to be evidence that it tests abstract problem solving abilities, but there is no evidence that it does so very accurately, or that the results don’t depend largely on cultural factors, like education and upbringing. Also, there is evidence that there are aspects to intelligence which are not covered by intelligence tests.

Pragmatist wrote:

Yes, intelligence test do not test but for one type of intelligence. At the time IQ test were invented, psychologist did not have a clear view of intelligence. At this time they were attempting to measure logic/mathematical intelligence. There was a psychologist, I believe his name was Gardner who expressed that there were more than just this one intelligence. In fact 7 in all. These include musical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, body-kinesthetic intelligence, spatial intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, and intrapersonal intelligence. Each intelligence has a particular funtion in certain areas of life. Just as mentioned earlier, people are different and these intelligencies allude to the large spectrum of abilities one may posses.

Pragmatist.
Let me ask you, let’s say you belonged to a race of people, lets call them the superyans, and these people were 5 time more intelligent and 5 times stronger than all the races of man, would you still mix with us? Would you be able to say, " I am superior and my race will be protected." Let’s say you were able to mix with Aryans, and Dravidians, and Africans, would you not teach it to your people that it is wrong? Would you be able to throw away the lie of equality and defend yourself even when all the little people called you names because you, and your people shined brighter than any of them? Are you capable of this? Now of course the little people will be mad and call you a racist because your woman won’t mix with them, but they all love your women and chase them. See you will never know Truth because you are not capable of accepting we are different, and superior in different ways. Up until this present age this has always been the thinking amongst the superior races. And still, many people teach their children never to mix, amongst Orthodox Jews for example. I have known many Orthodox Jews in my life, and I find their people to be very intelligent, and in many ways they serve the meaning of life. They work to propagate and promote their own kind, only. Their communities are strong and for the most part healthy. Orthodox Jews will never mix with Gentiles. Furthermore when one of their children mixes with a gentile the parents say a prayer of mourning, because to them their child just died. I agree with this, for their is no bigger crime then transgresing your own blood no matter what race you are. You are your body, nothing more. And your body is handed down to you in a form, whether your are a Black bear, Brown bear, or Polar bear. You are the traits you have inherited, they influence how you see things, how you move, how you think, and what you find of value. An eagle will have a different reality then a human because it has wings, it can see for miles, it can fly at 80mph, these adaptations and capabilities put it in a whole different reality. And with sub-species we also think differently, we are different.

 Now to your response:

Pragmatist said,

Pragmatist, I thought we agreed when you said.

Ok, let me make it clearer to you. I can say so and so makes a species, or sub species, and noel can say something else, and then concordant can say something else, and then ben can say something else. We would be arguing over opinion. Would it make you happy if I stated what a sub-species is? Or a species? That is not my concern here, I have shown you in great detail how different the different races of man are.
Pragmatist said:

Ok, so if I were to move to africa with my wife and son would his children become strong as an African? Or if an African moves to france, will his children be born with 3-8% more brain mass? No.
Pragmatist Said:

We are different. We have unique adaptations and advantages over each other. We are genetically different. We are aceptible to different diseases, and immune to others. What makes a sub-species different? That they won't mix? That they can't mix? Or that they are different. Did you know a chimpanzee can get pregnant by a human sperm? What if they talked, and drove cars, and were able to donate their share to 'society' and the economy, is it them ok to mix with them? Why not? Perhaps you fall in love with a chimpanzee, she's cute, can peel well, and can jump into trees! But hey! Why not, you love her, and isn't love the most important thing.

Jesus said:

Paul said:

    What I would love to see is a chimpanzee with a lot of money, able to speak english, and work. He could buy some designer clothes and boom! There you go! We could have more 'diversity' in our gene pool, he would prbably be good on the basketball courts as well, no? Maybe gymnastics?

Enough sarcasm, but this generation is blind to that which they are. They believe in equality, sacrifice their children for world wide democracy, are very ‘spiritual’, but they forget their own blood. Ha! But they bathe in the Blood of Christ! A Crucified nothing.
Pragmatist said:

And what would you like me to say? I think you want me to say what you think I am, so just by my label I will be ignored, but in Truth I am not what you suppose I am. I am Truth.
Pragmatist Said:

Pragmatist gave this link earlier which stated the following:

Pragmatist you really have to keep you line of thinking straight if you are going to debate with Truth. As you said earlier, just come out with what you want. All people to mix. Perhaps you fancy a girl of another race and could never accept Truth. Or perhaps equality is higher on your list than your own blood. Or perhaps you are mixed, and on that basis you must disagree with Truth.
Unfortuanatly I will be absent for some time after this message unless the internet becomes available where I am going. I know the tears will be streaming down and the violins playing, but it’s ok boys and girls, Truth will return, matter of fact it’s all around you. Where man isn’t, where Nature reigns, Truth is.