Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at
Sat Oct 19 19:25:37 EST 2002

"Jd" <JDay123 at> wrote in message
news:3db18f67.3845007 at
> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at> wrote:
> >JDay123 at (Jd) wrote:
> >>cary at (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >>><>The progeny of a mating between two different groups of sexually
> >>><>individuals will generally exhibit characteristics of each mate. As
> >>><>number of progeny increase, there will be - under "normal" mating -
> >>><>characteristics from each mate's genetic heritage in different
> >>><
> >>><I've seen negroids from Africa and they are as black as black gets
> >>><in humans.  Meanwhile, American negroes are getting whiter and
> >>><whiter.  While traits such as hair texture and facial features do
> >>><not seem to change much, skin color does and very noticably if you
> >>><compare them with real Africans.  These are simply observations I've
> >>><made and I'm speculating that where gene(s) responsible for skin
> >>><color are concerned, the genes of white folks are dominant.
> >>><
> >>><Also, over in Africa, our negroes would not be able to call
> >>><themselves African-Americans without being ridiculed.  I know a guy
> >>><who goes over there frequently and he's told me that "off color type
> >>><mixed folks" over there are in a lower class than real Africans.  In
> >>><fact, real Africans are puzzeled as to why American negroes call
> >>><themselves African-Americans since they 1) aren't from Africa and 2)
> >>><their parents aren't from Africa.
> >>>
> >>>I'm sure much of what you say here is true, most of it in fact.
> >>>the question was: if breeding with Caucs does in fact make the
offspring of
> >>>African-Americans lighter than they were:  H o w   d o e s   t h i s
> >>>m a k e   w h i t e s   "s u p e r i o r"?
> >>
> >>I'm attempting to use your own argument against you i.e.
> >>"evolution".  Do you not see how this notion of dominant genes
> >>fits hand in glove with ToE?
> >
> >Dominant genes do play a part in the ToE. On the other hand,
> >"dominant" does not equal "superior".  Pale skin color is "inferior"
> >for people spending a lot of time in the sun.
> >
> >In any event, what you've described above is blending (a mixture of
> >pale and dark skin would seem naturally to lead to something in
> >between) and not a simple dominant-recessive pair.
> >
> >>On the other hand if as the framers of the Declaration of
> >>Independence wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
> >>all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
> >>with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
> >>and the pursuit of Happiness" is true and there is a "Creator", what
> >>difference would genes make?
> >
> >Since the Deists believed that the "Creator" was someone who set up
> >the natural world and its laws, which have then played out ever since,
> >genes could very well be the Creator's way of doing things.
> Then either Africa is under a curse, the genes of it's inhabitants
> are inferior, or at some point in the futer Africa will become a
> superpower.  Which is it?
> >>How could you possibly suggest (as you
> >>did in another post) that the white Christians who founded this
> >>country were racists
> >
> >Because they were, and many still are, like you.
> Since you don't believe in different races, how can you resolve this
> mental conflict you're having?
> >>when in fact, evolutionists are bear more
> >>responsibilty for the notion that other races sprang from mud?
> >
> >There is no evolutionary notion that some races "sprang from mud",
> >since there is no evolutionary notion that races even exist.
> See what I mean? (How then, can I be a racist?)
> >Human beings did NOT "spring from mud", EXCEPT in Genesis.
> >
> >>It just may be that Christians everywhere have been blessed by God
> >>Himself with wonderful abilities which include common sense
> >
> >You seem to be lacking it.
> Mere personal attack.
> >> and rational thinking
> >
> >You definitely are lacking it.
> ....and another.
> >>and that the enemies of God have not.
> >
> >God has no enemies.  Though the nincompoop puts up a pretty good
> >effort at it.
> >
> >lojbab
> Look lobob, if you keep insisting that man sprang from mud by way of
> monkeys and evolution, you're setting yourself up to be against God
> Himself.  God created man in his own image and that did not involve
> monkeys.
> Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of
> God created he him; male and female created he them.
> Jd

The reason the word "liberal" is always in quotation marks when addressing
morons like lojbab is that it's an insult to the English language to use
such a previously good word to describe the STUPIDITY of someone who would
argue that races don't exist at the same time that they argue that anyone
who challenges their STUPIDITY is a "racist".

It's become obvious that such "liberals" use this term as a mere debate
tactic because they "think" they score some kind of debate points whenever
they repeat media mantra that they can never hope to fully appreciate or

If it's got a nice ring or bite to it, then it's good enough for a
"liberal"--but attempting to get them to clarify their ambidextrous
"thinking" is like asking a tree to bark.

Jd, lojbab's argument isn't with you or the Holy Bible or God--it's with

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list