Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes

[SteveCook]

At the risk of sounding tautologous....

I define "perfrect" by the only standard that matters evolutionary outcomes. I will attempt to illustrate my point by virtue of what is arguably a self evident truth....

Each and every human that exists must be comprised of a set of phenotypic chartacteristics that makes them extremely well suited to staying alive and prospering at least to the extent that they have what it takes to stay alive long enough to pro-create. So must all of their ancesters all the weay back to the very beginning of life....long before humans ever walked the earth. Each and every one of their ancesters must have had what it takes to survive.....if only one of them didn't, their descendant living today would never have existed. So....tautologically speaking all racial groups must have very nearly the optimum set of characteristics (cognitive or otherwise) that the environment in which their ancesters evolved required.

[softwareNerd]

Across generations organisms tend to retain the characteristics that some ancestor had quite by chance, if that characteristic somehow ends up helping them live to procreation age and to procreate. What's optimal and perfect about this. If one were looking for perfection, one would end up with a single species.

The fact that almost all the features had some purpose in no way means that they were ideal or perfect. An intelligent designer wouild probably have done far better.

[RationalBiker]

Hi Biker,

I found it interesting and somewhat surprising that you find no value in racial profiling

This is not an accurate extrapolation of what I said and I never addressed my thoughts on "racial profiling" as a specific technique for combating crime and terrorism. What I have specifically addressed is my thoughts of judging a person's trustworthiness based on race as the EXCLUSIVE criteria (in contrast to the primary criteria accompanied by other known factors) by which to judge them as represented in the hypothetical. I hope you see a significant difference between those two ideas.

I cannot speak for the techniques or "rules" of racial profiling in airports, but as it relates to policing I can explain to you how it is frequently used. It's a mistake to think that "race" is the only factor in racial profiling in policing. Rather, "race" is only one factor, albeit the primary factor, being considered in addition to a number of factors. Also keep in mind that in policing racial profiling is predominantly used as a tool for drug enforcement which I oppose to begin with.

When I have more time, I will provide an example of racial profiling as it would be used in police work.

[aequalsa]

This is not an accurate extrapolation of what I said and I never addressed my thoughts on "racial profiling" as a specific technique for combating crime and terrorism. What I have specifically addressed is my thoughts of judging a person's trustworthiness based on race as the EXCLUSIVE criteria (in contrast to the primary criteria accompanied by other known factors) by which to judge them as represented in the hypothetical. I hope you see a significant difference between those two ideas.

Fair enough.

I think that I understand the difference between primary and exclusive. For clarification, do I understand correctly that you do believe it is(or should be) Ok to use race as a primary criteria for further investigation but not proper as the only criteria? Or do you believe, rather, that it is impossible for race, in actuality to be the only criteria available?

[Viking]

Fair enough.

I think that I understand the difference between primary and exclusive. For clarification, do I understand correctly that you do believe it is(or should be) Ok to use race as a primary criteria for further investigation but not proper as the only criteria? Or do you believe, rather, that it is impossible for race, in actuality to be the only criteria available?

What he said may be fair, but it has nothing to do with the discussion: it is a complete strawman. It is a completely distorted representation of what I have said.

As for your question, I think you would find this quote enlightening:

I have a problem with hypotheticals in general. Now you are posing another hypothetical with such scant context that I can't believe you actually expect me to answer it. That's just too funny.

---------------------------

Back to racism, I think the definition is the belief that Character is genetically/racially determined, not intelligence. Rand argued that even if it were proven that a particular race had a higher intelligence, it would mean nothing because what applies to the race as a statistical whole does not apply to the individual. Achievement is ultimately the only real test of intelligence.

That is like saying probabilities are meaningless, because they don't always happen. I think you'll find that you will have more success if you take them into account regardless.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Viking

[RationalBiker]

What he said may be fair, but it has nothing to do with the discussion: it is a complete strawman. It is a completely distorted representation of what I have said.

Well, if you intend to comment on me and use my quotes, it's safe to assume I'm going to respond to you again if I find value in it.

Here's your original "hypothetical";

"Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males."

Based on this information, if you had to trust either a black man or a white man, and you knew nothing about them except their skin color, who would you choose to trust? Would you still claim that the information above is "unimportant," and pull out a quarter instead? Give me a break.

- (my bold, italic, underlining)

There is no strawman and now you are adding dishonesty to your list of transgressions. You won't be adding to that list anymore.

From the beginning of the your part of the thread, the concept of "black" has been debated as to it's legitimacy. However, even when it was agreed upon for the sake of argument to go with your "definition" of "black", the singular aspect of trustworthiness that you chose to gauge "black" people by was an estimated incarceration rate. Whatever other knowledge any given individual might have about "black" people and their trustworthiness appears to be irrelevant to you because you tried to establish as part of your incomplete hypothetical that "all other factors are equal". As I rightfully pointed out, in this scenario it's unrealistic to claim that all other factors can be equal. If you find two people that have the exact same knowledge and experiences, let me know (with proof of course). It's also been brought up that not all the factors involving a given person being incarcerated necessarily impact their ability to be otherwise trustworthy or honest. When I advised you that it was your responsibility to establish the relationship between incarceration and trustworthiness and the extent to which they impact each other (since it was your premise to begin with), you refused to answer that because it would be long and complicated. At that same time you accused me of being incapable of rational debate because (and I quote you again)

Do you honestly think there is 0 correlation between the two factors? If you do, I don't think any rational debate is possible with you, because you will slow me to an absurd degree, forcing me to prove everything that I think is common knowledge.

You question me on something I never said nor implied, and then you say I'm irrational because you have a lot to explain to prove your point (something that has nothing to do with my rationality).

You are the one distorting things here.

Note: I didn't forget about you aequalsa.

[SteveCook]

Across generations organisms tend to retain the characteristics that some ancestor had quite by chance, if that characteristic somehow ends up helping them live to procreation age and to procreate. What's optimal and perfect about this. If one were looking for perfection, one would end up with a single species.

The fact that almost all the features had some purpose in no way means that they were ideal or perfect. An intelligent designer wouild probably have done far better.

I use the word "optimum" to describe various features of an organiosm precisely because envoronments change. what is "perfectly" fitted in one place and time is inlikely to be so in another place and time. We would never end up with one perfect species precisely because the environment is constantly changing. To assume that just because natural selection is always pushing organisms to a theoretical level of perfection does not mean they will ever reach it. To think that is to have a naive understanding of Darwinian evolution.

[softwareNerd]

Steve, Your whole method of arguing is purely deductive and therefore invalid. For instance, some tribes in Africa are very tall while others are pygmy-like. If you are going to argue for less variation within a racial group, you're going to have to do better than deduce from some theory. You're going to have to point to reality.

Epistemologically, your method is the opposite of the one that Viking is using. On the one hand, one cannot simply pick up a few facts and call that proof; knowledge has to be integrated. On the other hand, one cannot start with a theory (even a true factual one like Darwin's) and start to wander down a deductive chain without checking back with reality. Both methods lead to false conclusions.

Anyway, back to the particular topic at hand, nobody has argued that people of one race (so far as one can define that) may not be taller than another, have stiffer hair than another, have large brains than another, and so on. They may. (There is no way to get to "they will" deductively.) Secondly, going from that to IQ is a step that has to be observed and proven in reality. Finally, going from that to everyday required IQ ranges is a huge leap that is contradicted by anecdotal evidence.

[SteveCook]

Steve, Your whole method of arguing is purely deductive and therefore invalid. For instance, some tribes in Africa are very tall while others are pygmy-like. If you are going to argue for less variation within a racial group, you're going to have to do better than deduce from some theory. You're going to have to point to reality.

Epistemologically, your method is the opposite of the one that Viking is using. On the one hand, one cannot simply pick up a few facts and call that proof; knowledge has to be integrated. On the other hand, one cannot start with a theory (even a true factual one like Darwin's) and start to wander down a deductive chain without checking back with reality. Both methods lead to false conclusions.

Anyway, back to the particular topic at hand, nobody has argued that people of one race (so far as one can define that) may not be taller than another, have stiffer hair than another, have large brains than another, and so on. They may. (There is no way to get to "they will" deductively.) Secondly, going from that to IQ is a step that has to be observed and proven in reality. Finally, going from that to everyday required IQ ranges is a huge leap that is contradicted by anecdotal evidence.

You're correct. It is too deductive. I need to provide evidence. I will....

One more bit of deductive reasoning before I go though...hehe

In response to your your point about some tribes in Africa being very tall whilst others are pygmy like. I would reply by pointing out that the "environment" a species exists in is not merely the inorganic world around them. It is comprised of all of the environment around them, including other life forms. What I mean by this is that if one type of species has evolved to exploit an environment by having certain characteristics, any other species that "wishes" to exist in the same environment is forced to evolve different characteristics that allow them to exploit the environment in another way. It may well be the case that had the first species not existed, the second might have taken a similar evolutionary path to them. This opportunity was not available to them, though. Thus, they a forced down another evolutionary trajectory that ends up somehwere else. Obviously, all of the above would similarly apply to sub-sets within a given species also.

There is one final thing that occurs to me....

It is very easy to dismiss an argument by either accusing it of relying merely on facts without having those facts hang within a coherent theory or to dismiss it by accusing it of being all theory and no facts. Whilst, this approach is perfectly acceptable in moderation, if used dishonourably it provides for a clever intellectual trick. It basically means that unless an argument is fully conversent with all of the facts and unless all of the facts are hung together into a watertight coherent theory, all discussion on it can be effectively be prevented from even starting.

I am not trying to excuse my own shortcomings regarding my previous post. Your critisisms are indeed valid and I need to deal with them. Nevertheless, such critisisms should not be used as a defacto method of closing down an argument.

[Moebius]

Steve, I also subscribes to an evolutionary perspective. I agree that cognitive development was possibly the most important step in the evolution of our species. However with regards to this statement:

In the paragraph above, I am trying to suggest that, of course, natural selection will have selected for certain cognitive attributes to be present in all humans because they are so essential to survival. However, in the last two to three hundred years the world has experienced an industrial revolution where quite specific and tightly defined cognitive capacities make for large differentials in people's earning capacities and life experiences. One might expect from this that otherwise small variability in brain functioning between people will have quite amplified effects on the life experiences mentioned above.

While I agree that in the post industrial society, a very specific set of cognitive attributes became highly valued, I also think that it is unlikely that these attributes are a result of natural selection. Very simply, for natural selection to work, it requires the elimination of organisms prior to the reproductive age. While there may be economic and status differences between a surgeon and a janitor, neither of them are likely to die off before procreation.

In fact, if taken further, I would argue that there really hasn't been ANY selective pressure that's based on intelligence since the advent of an agricultural society, at least based on cultures on the Eurasian continent. Most of those cultures both ancient and modern has consistently produced enough food to sustain a large enough population to tolerate people of varying intellectual capacities. As far as I can tell, the only real selective factor biologically during recorded history has been an individual's tolerance to diseases (ie. bubonic plagues, small pox, malaria), which has more to do with a body's biochemistry than its cognitive capability.

Furthermore, it would seem to me that a person living in a hunter-gatherer society, would utilize mental abilities like spatial perception, problem solving, multi-tasking, and memorization, far more often and in a life or death situation (read: naturally selected) than an average individual living in an industrialized society. Hence it seems strange to me that when we discuss "achievements", particularly of an entire race of people, that we should predicate it on the assumption that it is due to their overall intelligence.

Many of you have probably read or heard of a book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, which follows a similar line of reasoning. The central theme of the book is a discussion of how the world became dominated by Eurasian cultures, and the author essentially refutes the idea that it is based on an inherent genetic disposition, or even an cultural superiority, using evolutionary and anthropological evidence and observations. I read it far too long ago to recall all the individual themes, but for those of you interested, the book is presented in a lucid and logically coherent manner, a worthwhile read whether you agree with him or not.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Moebius

[SteveCook]

While I agree that in the post industrial society, a very specific set of cognitive attributes became highly valued, I also think that it is unlikely that these attributes are a result of natural selection

ah....I have made a very poor job of laying out my thoughts....becauseI completely agree with the above statement by you.

Absoloutly, the highly specific cognitive finctions that are valued in modern society would never have evolved in a preinductrial age and could not have evolved since the advent of the industrial revolution for two reasons:

1) not enough time

2) there is no selection force to speak of

I suspect that the cognitive abilities that are valued in our society are no more or less than genetic "noise" in our genotypes. That is to say, anything that has no effect on our survival chances just tends to persist at a low but chronic level in a population simply because it sneaks under the radar of natural selection. How very convenient, one might ask that these very arbitary characteristic shouod be the ones that are deemed most useful in our society. I think the answer to this is that we have come to vlaue those characteristics we find ourselve to possess. In other words, if other characteristics had been more preveleant then we would have valued them just as much. We may have ended up not having an industrially based society as a result.Who knows?

One might also suspect, that different racial grouping, as a result of their different evolutionary histories, would have had no particular reason to have had the same "neutral" genes drift into their populations isnce the process is essentially random due to the neutrality of the genes visa vi natural selection.

I hope that has clarified my position

[SteveCook]

Hence it seems strange to me that when we discuss "achievements", particularly of an entire race of people, that we should predicate it on the assumption that it is due to their overall intelligence.

I completely agree with the above statement as well

[Viking]

Many of you have probably read or heard of a book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, which follows a similar line of reasoning. The central theme of the book is a discussion of how the world became dominated by Eurasian cultures, and the author essentially refutes the idea that it is based on an inherent genetic disposition, or even an cultural superiority, using evolutionary and anthropological evidence and observations. I read it far too long ago to recall all the individual themes, but for those of you interested, the book is presented in a lucid and logically coherent manner, a worthwhile read whether you agree with him or not.

That is interesting, because Rushton's book, which was released after Diamond's book, claims to be a direct refutation of that book. (Indeed, he even mentions Diamond's book.) I'm not going to get into the particulars, but I would suggest reading it.

I was forced to pick up Diamond's book for one of my classes. I haven't started reading it yet, but it is hard to imagine how he could explain a lot of the things Rushton mentions. I'll share my thoughts if/when I do read it, though.

[blackdiamond]

That is like saying probabilities are meaningless, because they don't always happen. I think you'll find that you will have more success if you take them into account regardless.

Viking, i think i see where you are missing it.

Let me ask you a small question. There is a certain (hypothetical) country in which 80 per cent of the children born are girls and only 20 per cent are boys. You meet a woman in that country who is pregnant and she asks you "what is the probability that my baby will be a boy?" What would be your answer to her question?

(Anyone can try to answer this one - it's not a trick question and it's not off-topic as i will show in a moment).

** Mod's note: I have split the replies to a separate thread on probablity ***

Edited March 8, 2007 by softwareNerd
Split thread

[blackdiamond]

The only probability you can give is the one we already know: 50 per cent. it has equal probability of a being a boy or a girl.

Viking, the answer you gave (20%) is precisely the one i expected from you, given your arguments on this subject. The fact of the matter is that this is a common fallacy in logic. You can not just apply statistics to the probability of a specific situation without knowing the causal factors of the trends; you are not even supposed to take them into consideration. Thus, if your answer is correct, then i can tell you to "put the woman on a plane and take her to a country where 70 per cent are boys, and the probability of her giving birth to a boy will immediately change to 70%". I'm sure you can see how absurd that is.

Statistics of how many blacks are in jail have no bearing whatsoever on how you judge the honesty of any particular black man you meet unless you can give a convincing causal explanation, as Rationalbiker, DavidOdden, et al were demanding. Insisting that you will "take probabilities into account regardless" is simply irrational. (I'm not saying you are an irrational person, of course, since you are a very intelligent man, but the approach is irrational because it is totally random, no matter how strongly one feels about it!).

[SteveCook]

Thus, if your answer is correct, then i can tell you to "put the woman on a plane and take her to a country where 70 per cent are boys, and the probability of her giving birth to a boy will immediately change to 70%". I'm sure you can see how absurd that is.

Hang on a minute...I think you are mixing up certainty with probability. It would be the case that, in the absence of any other evidence (in other words, not knowing the woman had just arrived on a plane) the probability would be 70%. That doesn't make the probabalistic assunption invalid. It just makes it a probabalistic assumption. Nothing more, nothing less. What I think Viking is trying to get at and I think I at least agree with him on this point (please forgive me Viking if I have misunderstood you) is that if you use probabilities in such a situation you will probably be correct in your probabalistic assumtions 70% of the time. The whole point about probabilities is that they are used when all of the causal (or even correlational) factsd are not known. Thats the point of probabilities. If you knew all of the variable sinvolved, you wouldn't need to use probabilities because you would know for certain. Your critisism of vikings reasoning in this regard is actually a critisism of the use of probabilities...period. Which is a bit silly really. Anything as messy as biology..of which psychology and behaviour are a sub set must make use of probabilities otherwise we might all just as well go home. If you don't think that you use probabilities in your everyday interactions with the world consider this thought experiment:

Lets assume that you have to cross a river at one of two points. which you choose is up to you. However, historical records have been kept for mortality rates of the people crossing the river at the two points. At one point, 50% of people have been found to drown when trying to cross. At the other point, 1% of people have drowned. Which crossing are you going to use Blackdiamond?

On a more everday note, whenever you plan anything, you are taking probabilities into account (or are at least doing somthing in your brain that is functionally equivalent to calculating probabilities). For example if you are choosing where to go on vacation between two or more options. You eventual choice will come down to which of the propposed destinations you think might offer the most interest to you. You can't know for certain because you haven't had the experience yet. You must simply make a probabalisitc calculation based on the limited information you have.

etc etc etc...

[blackdiamond]

Lets assume that you have to cross a river at one of two points. which you choose is up to you. However, historical records have been kept for mortality rates of the people crossing the river at the two points. At one point, 50% of people have been found to drown when trying to cross. At the other point, 1% of people have drowned. Which crossing are you going to use Blackdiamond?

oh, that's easy. I would cross at the point with 1% drown rate. But you see, this is because it's the same river, so there is an established metaphysical relationship with my current situation.

Thus if someone told me, this black man has been to jail 500 times for theft whereas this white man has been to jail 1 time for theft, which of the two would you prefer to trust with your money? That's also an easy one.

I think you might want to think about the point a bit more, Steve, before using offensive words like "silly".

Edited March 9, 2007 by blackdiamond

[blackdiamond]

Another (realistic) example for Steven and Viking:

You've read somewhere that 70 % of the people in American jails are noticeably above average height (tall), and only 20 % are short. And then you meet two strangers, one of whom you have to trust with your money - one is short and the other is tall. Which one would you choose? Would you call someone silly for not using the "probabilistic assumption" from these stats?

[aequalsa]

Another (realistic) example for Steven and Viking:

You've read somewhere that 70 % of the people in American jails are noticeably above average height (tall), and only 20 % are short. And then you meet two strangers, one of whom you have to trust with your money - one is short and the other is tall. Which one would you choose? Would you call someone silly for not using the "probabilistic assumption" from these stats?

I wouldn't call it silly but I would consider it to be illogical to choose not to make a decision based on probability if that was the only information that you possessed. Generalizations are only dangerous because people often mistake them for causality. If you understand that probabilities are what they, it makes perfect sense to take them into account.

To put this in a less emotionally charged example...If I were to open a butcher shop in a jewish neighborhood, I would probably choose(wisely) to have a small selection of pork in my inventory, even though some percentage of jewish people undoubtedly eat pork.

In that scenario I only know that most of my customers will be jewish and maybe 5% eat pork. I have no other information so I play the odds. Anything immoral here?

[SteveCook]

oh, that's easy. I would cross at the point with 1% drown rate. But you see, this is because it's the same river, so there is an established metaphysical relationship with my current situation.

What?

No need for probabalistic assumptions on your part here BlackDiamond. You can be certain that I have absoloutly no idea what on Earth you mean by saying that there is an "established metaphysical relationship with your current situation". Perhaps you might be so kind as to enlighten me as to its meaning? Please be slow though, because my limited intellect might miss it's meaning otherwise.

On the basis of the limited information I have in my possession at the moment, I must make the probabalistic calculation that either the above statement you have made has a meaning that is logically explicable, but which I am quite happy to accept I am too ignorant or stupid to have understood it without further explanation.

Althernatively, it is a grand sounding, but essentiially vacuous statement designed to rhetorically obscure a lack of coherent argument.

[blackdiamond]

I wouldn't call it silly but I would consider it to be illogical to choose not to make a decision based on probability if that was the only information that you possessed. Generalizations are only dangerous because people often mistake them for causality. If you understand that probabilities are what they, it makes perfect sense to take them into account.

To put this in a less emotionally charged example...If I were to open a butcher shop in a jewish neighborhood, I would probably choose(wisely) to have a small selection of pork in my inventory, even though some percentage of jewish people undoubtedly eat pork.

In that scenario I only know that most of my customers will be jewish and maybe 5% eat pork. I have no other information so I play the odds. Anything immoral here?

I have not said that you should never take statistics/probabilities into account when making decisions; notice my stress on the word 'regardless' as used by Viking and implicit in your own post. In the baby boy puzzle above, for example, it would be perfectly logical for you to choose to sell more girl clothes to that country than boy clothes. The statistic now has a causal relationship to your expected business success/sales (like your pork example above), which is why you MUST take it into account as a logical person. But this does not mean you can take it into account in any situation that just makes reference to boys and girls, regardless.

[blackdiamond]

...Perhaps you might be so kind as to enlighten me as to its meaning? Please be slow though, because my limited intellect might miss it's meaning otherwise.

...I am too ignorant or stupid to have understood it without further explanation.

...Althernatively, it is a grand sounding, but essentiially vacuous statement designed to rhetorically obscure a lack of coherent argument.

First, you used the word 'silly' in reference to me / my position, for which you have seen no need to apologise after i expressed that it was offensive. And now this.

I don't think it will be possible for you and I to have a rational discussion with that attitude in place.

[blackdiamond]

just in case there is someone else who is confused about my answer to the river example, let me explain it here.

You are facing the same particular points in the same river that have caused/led to drowning of some boats. We do know the fact that some parts of a river can indeed be more structured for drowning boats than others; and we are told that one part has had a significantly higher record for this. Obviously you have to take this information into account since you are facing that same river.

In the case of a black person i meet, i do not know that there is something in the skin pigmentation that can cause a person to behave a certain way, so i have no connection to make whatsoever between this particular black person and the other black persons in jail. Similarly, we do not know that there is any connection between the gene for tallness and propensity to commit crime for me to take into consideration the statistic about the more tall people in prison when i am faced with a tall person.

But if the person i am meeting has a big record of theft, i will be inclined not to trust him (at least with my money) and this is precisely for the same reason as the river situation: we do know that there can be something in the life/experience/choices (not skin) of a human being that can cause them to be a thief. I must take the probability that he is more inclined to steal from me into consideration.

Now, if we MUST know that there is actually something in the skin of the person that can cause such character, we all know who has the burden of proof for that proposition.

[aequalsa]

just in case there is someone else who is confused about my answer to the river example, let me explain it here.

You are facing the same particular points in the same river that have caused/led to drowning of some boats. We do know the fact that some parts of a river can indeed be more structured for drowning boats than others; and we are told that one part has had a significantly higher record for this. Obviously you have to take this information into account since you are facing that same river.

In the case of a black person i meet, i do not know that there is something in the skin pigmentation that can cause a person to behave a certain way, so i have no connection to make whatsoever between this particular black person and the other black persons in jail. Similarly, we do not know that there is any connection between the gene for tallness and propensity to commit crime for me to take into consideration the statistic about the more tall people in prison when i am faced with a tall person.

But if the person i am meeting has a big record of theft, i will be inclined not to trust him (at least with my money) and this is precisely for the same reason as the river situation: we do know that there can be something in the life/experience/choices (not skin) of a human being that can cause them to be a thief. I must take the probability that he is more inclined to steal from me into consideration.

Now, if we MUST know that there is actually something in the skin of the person that can cause such character, we all know who has the burden of proof for that proposition.

I think you missed my point. There is nothing genetic about jewish people choosing not to eat pork. A group of identifiable people have a high likelyhood of a particular behavior which I would be making a decision based upon. You can substitue any people and any behavior that is correlated to them to the same effect.

There doesn't need to ba anything about skin color which causes the behavior for the judgement to be wise. If you knew that 98% of redheads were violent criminals and easily angered, it would be wise to avoid them even if you didn't know why they were violent or didn't know the individual personally.

Thesame judgement could apply to 6 boys of any color on a street corner wearing blue bandanas. They might not be gang members. They might be acting as gang members in a highschool play. But still we make a judgement about them in regard to our behavior based on the correlation alone.

[blackdiamond]

I think you missed my point.

Aequalsa, the post you have replied to was not directed at you. My reply to you is further up, and i have not said anything about genetics or skin colour there. Thanks.

Edited March 9, 2007 by blackdiamond