GostHacked Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 the same scientific bases that distinguishes different species and sub-races of a any given species is the same for the different races of mankind... what don't you understand?! The human race is ONE race. There are sub-cultures and different ethnicities and skin colour, but underneath our genetic make up is the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human A human is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae (taxonomically Homo sapiens—Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man"). Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans evolved in east Africa about 200,000 years ago. When compared to other animals and primates, humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving. You're right of course in saying that there are more then just the broadly defined races (black, white, yellow) etc... There are doubtless hundreds... if not outright THOUSANDS of sub races ... in the same way that genetic drift expresses itself in races of dogs. Different ethnicities, but not different race. Please know and understand the difference. You should be using the term species, or speciation. Because there are different species of canines, but as far as our research goes, there is only one species of human. But to go from the notion (that you yourself concede) that there are "dozens of different races within a race" and that therefore "races don't exist" and "have no scientific basis" is obviously a pretty inane not to mention hopelessly absurd... I found an article that might prove you right however. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge. bring on the eugenics !!!! If you can't see the difference between a black person and an inuit... then goodbye and good luck... but please stop imposing your hogwash on people who aren't fugitives from reality. They are culturaly different, enthicly different, but underneath, they are part of the same Human Race same species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 The human race is ONE race. There are sub-cultures and different ethnicities and skin colour, but underneath our genetic make up is the same. no, be reasonable, compare comparable terms in biology: The human race is one SPECIE. The Genus Canidae, the Big cats constitute unique species as well. But INSIDE these species are innumerable SUBSPECIES (or rather races). You're just arbitrarily deciding where the races end, confsuing genus/specie and sub specie and applying double taxonomical standards. In effect you're just "deciding" that humans are the only specie on this planet that are incapable of producing sub species... and that humans are subject to different laws of nature... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 There are no questions about physical differences. Anyone who thinks that those differences actually anopunt to anything important, as August might say, is an idiot.I'm not sure how those differences relate to things that are important, like whether a black person is genetically predisposed to be a better or worse parent than another...and I'm pretty sure no one does. In otherwords, I have no idea whether your own racial genetic markers make you predisposed to be a racist clown, but I certainly hope not. again Dancer: who are YOU to decide where the "races end" and what faculties and mtDNA markers are "meaningless"??... there is no such thing as "meaningless" differences in biology. Calling me an idiot for recognizing these differences and not subscribing to the silly Christian myth of "all men are created equal" doesn't do much for your argument... And of course, you could be a bit less ingenuous when you talk of SUPERIOR or BETTER or INFERIOR races. No one was specifically talking about that except to point out performance differences in all manner of areas. Sprinting, Basketball etc... To call me a clown is just proof of your emotionalism and irrationality with this topic... you get so palpably hysterical when anyone talks about race... its obvious that you have a commitment to NOT talking honestly about this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 The Genus Canidae, Speaking of laws of nature, foxes and wolves cannot produce offsping, they are separate BUT, belong to the same family. All humans can produce offspring, we are one. Equally the genus Hominoidea contain Apes, monkeys and humans.... You might as well suggest that brunettes are one race and blonde are another. You would of course be wrong, but no less wrong than the stupidity you are currently espoucing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 talking honestly.... You of all poeple should be the last to accuse someone of talking honestly. You have put forth more lies in your short membership than I have in a life time. Speakig of lies...when are you going to post some refernce to the south shore police and then not arresting a black drug dealer in a stolen car because they didn't want an audit? Hmmm? Come on, even Ronald McDonald could do it if it were true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 BTW There is only one subspecies of domestic dog. Dog breeds are groups of closely related and visibly similar domestic dogs, which are all of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris, having characteristic traits that are selected and maintained by humans, bred from a known foundation stock.[1] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 no, be reasonable, compare comparable terms in biology:The human race is one SPECIE. So we agree then. Good. One race, one specie. The Genus Canidae, the Big cats constitute unique species as well. But INSIDE these species are innumerable SUBSPECIES (or rather races). So this cannot apply to the Human Race, which you and I both agree is one Specie. Hence one race. You're just arbitrarily deciding where the races end, confsuing genus/specie and sub specie and applying double taxonomical standards. In effect you're just "deciding" that humans are the only specie on this planet that are incapable of producing sub species... and that humans are subject to different laws of nature... Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. <--- I hope you are not calling this arbitrary. No where did I say it was not possible for other sub-species to exist. I am saying that they do not exist as of this time as far as we collectively know. Evolution could prove me wrong. Because there could eventually be an offshoot Homo Sapiens (that is not an arbitrary classification either) that could evolve into something else. Enough genetic drift would have to occure before we can arbitrarily assign the term 'sub-species' to another part of the current single race we are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Speaking of laws of nature, foxes and wolves cannot produce offsping, they are separate BUT, belong to the same family.All humans can produce offspring, we are one. Equally the genus Hominoidea contain Apes, monkeys and humans.... You might as well suggest that brunettes are one race and blonde are another. You would of course be wrong, but no less wrong than the stupidity you are currently espoucing. completely wrong, once again: Wolves and Foxes CAN REPRODUCE, DOGS AND WOLVES CAN REPRODUCE, Coyotes and DOGS CAN REPRODUCE, and in these cases they aren't even considered to be the same SPECIE. And wrong: Hominoidea is the order or FAMILY our genus is HOMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus) is does NOT INCLUDE chimps or apes (VERY close relatives to be sure though) And there have been experiments conducted in Stalinist Russia, when Communists where trying to impregnate Nigerian women with various primate/gorilla semen... and were reportedly successful and produced hybrid monsters that were (thankfully) not viable (the Communists where perhaps trying to create a new breed of humans that were better suited to life under communism). Race is a CLUSTER of genetic markers... therefore one trait is not likely to be categorized as a race (just as races of dogs can display various fur shades and patterns... look at the great dane). But it would be even taxonomically accurate to decree that red, straight haired people with light eyes comprise separate races... how many blacks you know fit that bill? then again how many asians? The overwhelming majority of people fitting that definition are "white" nordic indo europeans. see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) So we agree then. Good. One race, one specie. So this cannot apply to the Human Race, which you and I both agree is one Specie. Hence one race. stop the willful knavery for a moment and please reason with me... Humans are one SPECIE.... race and SPECIE are not the same... no matter how many times you repeat it... repeating a non-fact will not make it fact... even if you repeated yourself 1000 times: 1000 X 0= 0 Dogs are one specie ... and they are multiple races and sub-races.... Humans are one specie and have multiple races and sub races... and even more damning: the amount of genetic difference between any two breeds of dogs will be LESS then any two humans of different cline /race/ethnicity: To quote James Serpell’s The Domestic Dog: ”Recently using genetic and biochemical methods researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical . . . to other members of the genus . . . Results using mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) data . . . reveal startling similarities among canids . . . Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman Pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves . . . to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.” (pp. 32-33) Edited September 11, 2009 by lictor616 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classif...f_human_beings) Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not the concept of race is biologically warranted;[3][4] the ways in which political correctness might fuel either the affirmation or the denial of race;[3][4] and the degree to which perceived differences in ability and achievement, categorized on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e., genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors. So it seems that the term RACE is completely subjective and arbitrary. And reading further the article agrees with me. Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[5] Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[6] Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races or racial groups, are social constructs.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] However, the concept of race may be useful in forensic anthropology. According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".[4] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 completely wrong, once again: Wolves and Foxes CAN REPRODUCE, Feel free after you have proved your South shore cop bullshit to find one fox wolf hybrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Dog Races Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid#Dog-fox_hybrids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid#Dog-fox_hybrids I am not sure how much more he can take!! EDIT And your previous post. Absolute gold. I got a good giggle out of it. Edited September 11, 2009 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. <--- I hope you are not calling this arbitrary. No where did I say it was not possible for other sub-species to exist. I am saying that they do not exist as of this time as far as we collectively know. Evolution could prove me wrong. Because there could eventually be an offshoot Homo Sapiens (that is not an arbitrary classification either) that could evolve into something else. Enough genetic drift would have to occure before we can arbitrarily assign the term 'sub-species' to another part of the current single race we are now. I'm no the one who is ignoring taxonomic descriptive terms. You,re the one who called humans A RACE... duh huuuh. Evolution is a pretty devastating refutation to the nonsense you just spouted: Homo Sapiens are EVOLVING, and HAVE EVOLVED since they were first introduced 200 000 years ago... http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2.../mn_skull01.jpg http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...t%3D42%26um%3D1 A 160,000-year-old skull found in Ethiopia is the oldest known modern human fossil, there are craniometrical differences (the skull is larger) and many other dissimilarites... this is what a Homo Sapien of that time would have looked like (reconstructed): http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...t%3D42%26um%3D1 Many traits and mtDNA markers disappear and are replaced... that's evolution... slow change... the evolution happens through increased differentiation. The silly Christian and liberal war-cry that "all men are created equal" has no basis in science. Many genetic drift separates us between these old remains and ourselves... yet we still call them Homo Sapiens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I'm no the one who is ignoring taxonomic descriptive terms. You,re the one who called humans A RACE... duh huuuh. Evolution is a pretty devastating refutation to the nonsense you just spouted: Homo Sapiens are EVOLVING, and HAVE EVOLVED since they were first introduced 200 000 years ago... http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2.../mn_skull01.jpg http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...t%3D42%26um%3D1 A 160,000-year-old skull found in Ethiopia is the oldest known modern human fossil, there are craniometrical differences (the skull is larger) and many other dissimilarites... this is what a Homo Sapien of that time would have looked like (reconstructed): http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...t%3D42%26um%3D1 Many traits and mtDNA markers disappear and are replaced... that's evolution... slow change... the evolution happens through increased differentiation. The silly Christian and liberal war-cry that "all men are created equal" has no basis in science. Many genetic drift separates us between these old remains and ourselves... yet we still call them Homo Sapiens... Except, as I've pointed out, there hasn't been any long period of separation. The longest period that we know of was the Aboriginals of Tasmania, and that was about ten thousand years. Oh, and here's a rather good explanation of it all: http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/rhking/departmen..._race_exist.pdf One of the guys you quoted was an author, and he cautions precisely against what you're trying to assert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classif...f_human_beings)So it seems that the term RACE is completely subjective and arbitrary. And reading further the article agrees with me. meaningless! you're own link says NO SUCH thing! Why do you have to lie and use words such as "completely" when there is no such consensus! the grand majority of biologists agree that there are human races (Lieberman et. al. 2001). (http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Lieberman2001CA.pdf) "anthropology’s core concept of “race” had been rejected by 41%of physical anthropologists and 55% of cultural anthropologists" (majority of anthropologists agreed with the concept of race) today given the silly taboo and liberal apparatus which dominates universities (remember James Watson) "Clines provided a concrete alternative to thinking in terms of races. Identifiable traits were not confined to one “race” and were not uniform in frequency within a geographic area." LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings) "Clines One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion, that since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279)." So you see the only difference is in terminology... the word "race" is so taboo everywhere, that scientists just went out and found a replacement. Clines is the new word... and means a much more complex taxonomy then race... Race is very broad...clines very specific but operates on the SAME taxonomic standards. Wikipedia also mentions "Lewontin's fallacy": (which you ignore) "I refer you again to Ernst Mayr’s definition of sub-species is the standard one accepted by scientists (the record is in the scientific literature, look in it and see how many scientists are using the nutty Lewontin “within-between” formula to determine sub-species of animals - about as many that are using “punctuated equilibrium” I would guess) and has been the standard since the initiation of the Darwinian New Synthesis. Mayr has publicly addressed the misinformation that evolutionary biologists believe there aren’t human races:" "There is a widespread feeling that the word race indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as there are no human races. Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals . . . the geographic races of the human races established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact." Edited September 11, 2009 by lictor616 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Except, as I've pointed out, there hasn't been any long period of separation. The longest period that we know of was the Aboriginals of Tasmania, and that was about ten thousand years.Oh, and here's a rather good explanation of it all: http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/rhking/departmen..._race_exist.pdf One of the guys you quoted was an author, and he cautions precisely against what you're trying to assert. contains quote such as "Some investigators contend that"... "controversial", "This debate will be settled only by further research on the validity of race as a scientific variable." also they predictably ignore BiDil and many journals corrobarating the fact that group racial medicine is a viable field. Also the author: Michael Bamshad (who also writes sociological papers) once noted in Nature Genetics: that difference between individuals IN A RACE are LESS then differences BETWEEN RACES.: ”Frequently, it is erroneously contended that the high (85–95%) within group variance of human populations is inconsistent with the existence of races because differences between individuals are greater than differences between groups. Such low FST values are sometimes misinterpreted to mean that genetic differences between individuals within sub-Saharan Africa, Asia or Europe are typically greater than differences between individuals on different continents. A positive FST indicates, however that individuals from different populations are, on average, slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population” (p. 5-7) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/rhking/departmen..._race_exist.pdf you should really take the time to read what you propose: flip to page 5 of your source: Alu Polymorphisms SIDEBAR1 November 10, 2003 Image: NADIA STRASSER here you have a CHROMOSOME MAP of the the races. and on the subject of genetic equality it says : "In cases where membership in a geographically or culturally defined group has been correlated with health-related genetic traits, knowing something about an individual's group membership could be important for a physician." remember when I quoted author Sally Satel, saying that "ALL MEDICAL DOCTORS RACIALLY DISCRIMINATE"? Yeah sure... race is meaningless... unless you seek medical effective medical treatment... because not considering one's race can lead to MISDIAGNOSES. I mean how more obvious can you get... here you are quoting a PC excuse sheet that doesn't even debate my core points... and actually AGREES WITH THEM... Edited September 11, 2009 by lictor616 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Except, as I've pointed out, there hasn't been any long period of separation. there hasn't been long period of separation for hmmm; if we're generous... ALL of 100 years... a mere moment in biological time... So i'm guessing you're implying that 100 years is enough to eliminate genetic drift and variation... You'd have to be implying that... or else you'd be saying that we're not all ONE race/cline/specie/ethnicity.... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Except, as I've pointed out, there hasn't been any long period of separation. The longest period that we know of was the Aboriginals of Tasmania, and that was about ten thousand years.Oh, and here's a rather good explanation of it all: http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/rhking/departmen..._race_exist.pdf One of the guys you quoted was an author, and he cautions precisely against what you're trying to assert. you should also read Bamshad's harsh words for affirmative action as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/rhking/departmen..._race_exist.pdf Race and MedicineBut the importance of group membership as it relates to health care has been especially controversial in recent years. Last January the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines advocating the collection of race and ethnicity data in all clinical trials. Some investigators contend that the differences between groups are so small and the historical abuses associated with categorizing people by race so extreme that group membership should play little if any role in genetic and medical studies. They assert that the FDA should abandon its recommendation and instead ask researchers conducting clinical trials to collect genomic data on each individual. Others suggest that only by using group membership, including common definitions of race based on skin color, can we understand how genetic and environmental differences among groups contribute to disease. This debate will be settled only by further research on the validity of race as a scientific variable. That last line says it all really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 the word "katz" appears NOWHERE in the text. You don't want to talk about Katz anymore, only dogz? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 You don't want to talk about Katz anymore, only dogz? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Blue eyes against the evil brown eyed ones.....lets rumble! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.