Race is a subjective socio-economic construct, based in a mental illness to distract Humans from being Humans. Providing the false concept of Superior and Inferior Humans. The dominant culture has promoted the erroneous concept of various races through many venues, psuedo-science in particular.
All animals to the best of my knowledge have the same colour blood. Fish, lizards, birds, quadrupeds, and Humans have Red Blood. Non oxygenated blood is bluish-red, Oxygenated blood is a Bright red. Human Blood is carbon phyllic, it loves carbon, carbon monoxide, carbon di-oxide, alcohol, etc.
Humans all have the same colour blood, but do not necessarily bleed the same blood. There are 4 basic blood classifications: O, A, B, & AB. There are 2 variations of these types Rh Positive & Rh Negative. Most people are Rh positive in any of the categories.
The four bacic types are not restricted to the socio-economic limitting, primitve designations used for members of the Human family today
2006-08-15 09:24:16 · 8 answers · asked by LeBlanc 6 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Making political statements, especially fanatical dogmatic proselytism such as that of the race non-existence religion, in the guise of a question, is not what yahoo answers is for. Reported.
Apparently you believe that skin color, eye color, hair color, degree of hair curve, height, build, head shape, nose width, facial features in general, certain blood proteins, other microscopic traits, other physical traits, physical and mental aptitudes, character traits, a person's geographical area of origin, and one's ancestral Y chromosome markers, all occur together out of a gigantic magical coincidence.
2006-08-15 21:43:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Blood types might not be a scio-economic based distinction, but that doesn't mean you can use them to classify anything you want. You need a strong statistical link showing that blood type and IQ co-vary. Then you're going to have to provide some type of plausible explanation as to why that is so.
THEN you're going to have show why this is a better classification system than anything we have today. Lots of people who study human populations use genetic haplotypes, for instance.
THEN you're going to have to explain to us why we should even be paying attention to studies that contain IQ scores in the first place, given their notorious history of both wild error and discrimination (not to mention they measure something we don't even have a scientific definition for).
THEN you're going to deal with the implications of your research. Is the goal the same as correlating race with IQ? Are we going to sterilize people with type AB blood, for instance, just because they tend to have lower IQ scores? Are we going to only allow type A people to attend college, and make the Bs work in coal mines? Classification systems like this in the past have run into the fatal flaws of A) Being grossly inaccurate in the first place, and B) alienating large portions of the populations, leading to decades of lawsuits and social clean up.
Which is probably why there haven't been any studies done on this that I know of. It's a dead end, or pure propaganda. Take your pick.
Also, all animals do not have the same color blood, though lots of mammals have similarly composed blood. Still, none (or almost none) of it is similar enough to be transfused cross-species with any reliability.
EDIT: Science, I don't believe they occur together out of some magical coincidence. I'm just not convinced they all occur together in the first place. Some recent, competently done, and/or non-discredited evidence might be nice. Tough to find anything like that around anymore though, and it's far far far far far outweighed by competing evidence and alternative explanations.
2006-08-15 15:37:05 · answer #2 · answered by The Ry-Guy 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
IQ 152, last test and I'm an O Negative. I don't believe IQ is indicative of anything of great importance and as for being O Negative it is not a good thing to have. I am a universal donor yes, but what good does that do me personnally? It could be detertrimental to my health...I was lucky that RhoGam came on the market when the kids were born because I must have gotten this blood type from my maternal grandparents who bore 11 children and only 2 survived. Does that help or hinder your theory?
2006-08-15 09:43:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you are trying to suggest that the rare types breed the highest intelligence I disagree. My daughter is 16 and has type O. She is highly gifted and has an IQ of 151, is a member of the MEnsa genius society and is skipping the last 2 years of high school to go to college starting this Friday.
2006-08-15 09:32:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
IQ tests are bogus anyway. Instead of any sort of innate intelligence, all they test is access to knowledge (i.e. education) and other sources of information. Intelligence tests have been largely discredited in the academic literature.
2006-08-15 12:54:39 · answer #5 · answered by Will 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Good question... Ya, that is strange if no test like that has been done. Can 'O' outperform an 'A+', and so forth? Nice.... I'd like to see that done, truly.
2006-08-17 04:06:55 · answer #6 · answered by twowords 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because these so called expert scientists are not as smart as you.
2006-08-15 18:26:51 · answer #7 · answered by Jaz the Cat 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
maybe scientists haven't created a efficient way of doing so??...
2006-08-15 12:17:16 · answer #8 · answered by icandaze 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋