Ron Kephart <email@example.com> wrote in article
> Duncan@drmac.demon.co.uk ("Duncan R. MacMillan") wrote:
> > But the point is the relative numbers contributed by the different
> > races to crime and to hi-tech jobs. I won't play along with The
> > anymore.
> No, that's not the point. The point is that the differences you
> to can be explained entirely without reference to biology. The point
> is that differential access to education, jobs, etc. in a society
> produce differential representation in areas such as crime, and high
> tech jobs.
> The same is true for differences in so-called "IQ".
> When will you people get a grip and understand that the folk
> categories of "white", "black", "asian" etc. do not reflect
> underlying biological unities?
>These are not biological races, and
> socially defined differences between them, such as what sorts of jobs
> they end up with or performance on socioculturally biased tests,
> cannot be attributed to biology.
According to almost all research, the three groups you mentioned are
biologically different on average. Most of the differences are related
to their differing geographic environments. I suggest you read my
posting "The logical guess" on the sci.anthropology.paleo newsgroup; It
may interest you. Glenn
> Ronald Kephart
> University of North Florida