Bearcat (
Thu, 9 Feb 1995 17:19:52 GMT

Martin Hutchison ( wrote:
: In article <3gmnj7$>, (Phil Nicholls) writes...
: First of all, I AM a physical anthropologist. More precisely I am what
: would be call an advanced graduate student (i.e., have the masters degree
: and working on the doctorate).

: Racial typologies are not based on the analysis of historical patterns of
: gene flow as you suggest. Such criteria would be the only valid basis
: for a biologically meaningful approach to race but this is not what is
: done. Racial typology is STILL based on phenotypes and superficial
: phenotypes at that. You did it yourself above ("do i come from a
: gene pool significantly different from a BLACK man?").

: The problem with racial typology is that it IS a typology and we know
: that typology is an outdated concept. Similiar characteristics can
: exist because of common descent OR because of evolutionary convegence.
: Until you can construct a concept of race that can effectively
: deal with this fact you will never have anything approaching biological
: reality.

: ****
: What does this have to do with any-god-damned-thing?

Oh, sorry Martin. Too many big words again?

: All this talk and nobody has the balls to get to the point.

Well at least you've got balls. To get up in front of Xnumber
of people and reveal both your intellectual inferiority as well as
your vicious bile, and manage not to make any statements other
than this:
: However you want to fill in the boxes, blacks scored lower than whites.
: Period.

: It matters not how you classify people, whether races exist, whatever,
: just the FACTS.

Nope. No information here. Just illogical, semi-coherent

: Can you contribute something here or not? Or would you rather
: mumble on about how "the is no such thing as a black/white difference".
: Your school must be under the PC gun bigtime.

At least you have one consistent theme. If anyone disagrees
with you, they must be reacting out of PC.

What a lizard.

- Bearcat