--
G. Conrad@MCI2000.com
Ron Kephart <rkephart@osprey.unf.edu> wrote in article
<5amd0p$6s2@pelican.unf.edu>...
> 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
Great Lie
> > anymore.
>
> No, that's not the point. The point is that the differences you
refer
> to can be explained entirely without reference to biology. The point
> is that differential access to education, jobs, etc. in a society
will
> 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
>