Is this message reasonable? Why not?

[DogOnPorch]

Oh absolutely. Modern humans first appeared in Africa.

But Lictor seems to aping the pseudo-archaeology of the Nazis, that somehow the Germans were this advanced northern civilization. It was a load of garbage that is still foisted by a few racists out there. But the evidence is pretty clear, the Iron Age came later to Europe than it did to the Mediterranean world. In fact, some of the earliest areas to enter the Iron Age were in West Africa, at least four hundred years before Europe.

I wonder if Publius Quinctilius Varus noted that the Germans were behind the times...lol.

[lictor616]

Many dogs cannot breed with each other. To much variation in the species. Humans don't seem to have that problem. We are all one race, one species.

Totally false... All dogs have the ability to interbreed, except where extreme variations in size exist... a mastiff and a chihuahua say.

Dogs are all one specie... just as we humans are all one specie... but would dream to regard dog as precisely equal? Likewise who but a madman could look at the astonishing diversity of human evolution... can look at a congo pygmie and a northern asiatic (korean say) and say that these are exactly the same?

[M.Dancer]

can look at a congo pygmie and a northern asiatic (korean say) and say that these are exactly the same?

For that matter, who could look at a Dane and then another Dane and say they are exactly the same?

No one with half a brain...

Your point is blunt.

[ToadBrother]

Totally false... All dogs have the ability to interbreed, except where extreme variations in size exist... a mastiff and a chihuahua say.

Dogs are all one specie... just as we humans are all one specie... but would dream to regard dog as precisely equal? Likewise who but a madman could look at the astonishing diversity of human evolution... can look at a congo pygmie and a northern asiatic (korean say) and say that these are exactly the same?

Uh no, any more than I could look at a Spaniard and a Fin and say they were exactly the same, or on two brothers.

Genetically, both these individuals are incredibly closely related, and physical differences really do come down to very minor genetic differences.

At the end of the day, what counts is the overall genes, not the expression of a few here and there. On those grounds alone the old Victorian view of race is rendered meaningless. There are certainly genetic "races", but they have almost nothing to do with skin color or average height. If you go by the genetic notion of "race", then Africa has at least five, and everyone else in the world is the of the same race. That's because sub-Saharan Africa is by far the most diverse genetically, which also nicely debunks any notion that those "blacks' are somehow all inheritors of some "dumb" gene or whatever ignorant bigots like you try to trumpet.

[lictor616]

Which of the multitude of definitions of the word "race" we're all using, aparently. It would seem that the term can be applied to pretty much anything from physical characteristics on down to ethnic dress.

I do note, though, for lictor's sake, that that source defines race as a social construct.

_[+]

the source defines it as such out of catechism... out of the new orthodoxy of political correctness. Just as homosexuality used to be called a type of satanic affliction in more religious days... Its totally false. Not only does it run against the grain of common sense ALL OVER THE WORLD, but it is also refuted by medical science and biological evolution.

To say that humans are not subject to the laws of biological evolution, and that humans don't evolve, are all the same and will stay the same is a gross delusion... its on par with thinking that tadpoles come from horse's hair... Many academic prostitutes pay homage to the concept of equality... just as many evolutionnary scientists professed a belief in the primitive Christian deity, but that's mainly so that the politically correct rabble won't harass them. After seeing what happened to the father of genetics (James Watson) you can see their point.

[ToadBrother]

the source defines it as such out of catechism... out of the new orthodoxy of political correctness. Just as homosexuality used to be called a type of satanic affliction in more religious days... Its totally false. Not only does it run against the grain of common sense ALL OVER THE WORLD, but it is also refuted by medical science and biological evolution.

To say that humans are not subject to the laws of biological evolution, and that humans don't evolve, are all the same and will stay the same is a gross delusion... its on par with thinking that tadpoles come from horse's hair... Many academic prostitutes pay homage to the concept of equality... just as many evolutionnary scientists professed a belief in the primitive Christian deity, but that's mainly so that the politically correct rabble won't harass them. After seeing what happened to the father of genetics (James Watson) you can see their point.

Of course humans are subject to evolution. But because the longest interruption of gene flow in any extant human population prior to the European colonization of the Americas was about 10,000 years, there has been constant gene flow, and, if you were actually at all familiar with evolutionary and population dynamics, you would know that where there is gene flow, evolution tends to happen at a relatively even rate along the whole continuum of a species. Where evolution really creates differences in related populations is when gene flow is cut off. That simply did not happen in the case of H. sapiens, so that while there are certainly regional differences between populations, there is no population that ultimately was not the recipient of even more distant populations' genes.

Humans, as a species, have not been geographically cut off long enough from each other for substantial changes in any population's gene pool to occur. It's that simple.

[lictor616]

Uh no, any more than I could look at a Spaniard and a Fin and say they were exactly the same, or on two brothers.

Genetically, both these individuals are incredibly closely related, and physical differences really do come down to very minor genetic differences.

At the end of the day, what counts is the overall genes, not the expression of a few here and there. On those grounds alone the old Victorian view of race is rendered meaningless. There are certainly genetic "races", but they have almost nothing to do with skin color or average height. If you go by the genetic notion of "race", then Africa has at least five, and everyone else in the world is the of the same race. That's because sub-Saharan Africa is by far the most diverse genetically, which also nicely debunks any notion that those "blacks' are somehow all inheritors of some "dumb" gene or whatever ignorant bigots like you try to trumpet.

At the end of the day, all that you're putting forth is a "lowest common denominator" argument... when confronted with the fact of racial differences you merely trivialize the matter and say that in essence we are all substancially the same... well guess what all dogs are MORE "substancially the same" then any two ethnicities of humans.

That's right there's more similitude between a Weimaraner and a cocker spaniel then there is between a Inuit and a Black person.

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)

tiny mtDNA in humans are responsible for very important and real differences. To illustrate that... imagine for an moment that we share 99.8% of our DNA code with chimpanzees. Yet, who in the world would say that we are substancially equal to chimps?

Edited September 9, 2009 by lictor616

[ToadBrother]

At the end of the day, all that you're putting forth is a "lowest common denominator" argument... when confronted with the fact of racial differences you merely trivialize the matter and say that in essence we are all substancially the same... well guess what all dogs are MORE "substancially the same" then any two ethnicities of humans.

That's right there's more similitude between a Weimaraner and a cocker spaniel then there is between a Inuit and a Black person.

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)

tiny mtDNA in humans are responsible for very important and real differences. To illustrate that... imagine for an moment that we share 99.8% of our DNA code with chimpanzees. Yet, who in the world would say that we are substancially equal to chimps?

First of all, I'd want to see actual citations to scientific sources about that claim, but even if true, the domestic dog is no more than about 15,000 years old, which is considerably younger than humans.

But, as I said, taking the claim of canid expert over population geneticists isn't exactly where I'd start.

So get to it, find the source of that claim, please.

[M.Dancer]

That's right there's more similitude between a Weimaraner and a cocker spaniel then there is between a Inuit and a Black person.

Someone just took a long walk on a short pier...

[lictor616]

Of course humans are subject to evolution. But because the longest interruption of gene flow in any extant human population prior to the European colonization of the Americas was about 10,000 years, there has been constant gene flow, and, if you were actually at all familiar with evolutionary and population dynamics, you would know that where there is gene flow, evolution tends to happen at a relatively even rate along the whole continuum of a species. Where evolution really creates differences in related populations is when gene flow is cut off. That simply did not happen in the case of H. sapiens, so that while there are certainly regional differences between populations, there is no population that ultimately was not the recipient of even more distant populations' genes.

Humans, as a species, have not been geographically cut off long enough from each other for substantial changes in any population's gene pool to occur. It's that simple.

wrong! Where do you get this drivel?

As Michael Bamshad noted in "Nature Genetics":

”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)

Think for a second, how can we tell apart Europeans and Africans if so much gene flow is shared by them? How can we tell apart a wolf and an Kickapoo (different species) when they are even less genetically differentiated from each other than is a European and an African? The answer is that ancestry jumbles together certain genes. Two different dobermans might differ on a number of genes which don’t add up to any consistent pattern, but the relatively smaller number of genes that distinguish the dobermans from the wolves are also found together in a statistically predictable way according to and predictable by ancestry.

The combination of extreme phenotipical traits that form a doberman are almost all right there in the wolf genome and vice versa, but a wolf would never give birth to anything that looked like a Doberman and vice versa because it would be an impossible genetic shuffle to randomly generate. This miracle is the essence of natural selection - shuffling together ordered patterns over time from raw genetic flow.

human evolution cannot be altered in the foreseeable future short of mass genocide or chemical damage... Breaking down geographical lines will not change humans and make them more alike even through miscegenation.

you argue out of Lewontin's fallacy: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/lewontindebunked.pdf

[lictor616]

First of all, I'd want to see actual citations to scientific sources about that claim, but even if true, the domestic dog is no more than about 15,000 years old, which is considerably younger than humans.

But, as I said, taking the claim of canid expert over population geneticists isn't exactly where I'd start.

So get to it, find the source of that claim, please.

um... are you kidding I DID CITE THE SOURCE... re read it again (James Serpell’s The Domestic Dog: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521425379/)

how would sub-species age be all that relevant?

The domestic dog is young ... but the genus canis from which it comes is actually older then the Homo Erectus.

By the way such traits as blond hair are very young as well and originate from the Ice Age 17-18 000 years ago.

Either way any theory of human equality would have to show that some unnamed force, deity or phenomena put a stop to human evolution 64 000+ years ago and that no mtDNA has changed since, which of course fly's in the face of all the compiled biological knowledge we have acquired since as well as common sense.

Edited September 9, 2009 by lictor616

[M.Dancer]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=WTboYQ_C1U...ical&f=true

A quick glance shows the author is basically saying that a chiuahua is the same as a St.Bernard.

[lictor616]

So now an almost meaningless word in the light of modern genetics because even more meaningless.

First of all, two dogs of different breeds mating and producing offspring does not produce hybrids. All domesticated dogs are just varieties of C. lupus. They're wolves that have been physiologically and behaviorally modified by heavy breeding.

and races are all varieties of "Homo sapiens"... that's what human races are! Clines/ groups of genetic clusters differently evolved and slightly mutated over different geographical areas.

The only difference is that while politically correct lemmings have no problem calling a Great Dane ... a Great Dane (instead of a Canis lupus), they insist that a human is a human ... and that any attempt at classifying or distinguishing the difference clines, sub-races and races or "varieties" or by products of human evolution are sinful and shameful...

Thank you for making my point.

[lictor616]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=WTboYQ_C1U...ical&f=true

A quick glance shows the author is basically saying that a chiuahua is the same as a St.Bernard.

not the same but close. And that is correct.

[Guest American Woman]

Notice that I have never called you any of those things.

never said you did... neither did you reprimand the people who actually did ... my suspicion is that you don't care about hate and "anger" as long as its not directed towards your camp.

Why would I reprimand people who did? I'm not a moderator. I'm not the board's conscience. Fact is, I read a small percentage of what's on this board, so don't assume I even know when you're being insulted. But I average about two posts a day. If I had to start reprimanding everyone who insulted other posters I'd average about 50. And for the record, I've never noticed you reprimanding people who call me stupid, either. As for "my camp," could you please tell me what that is? Because I haven't a clue. I didn't even realize I had a camp!

This is the second time within the span of a couple of posts that you've made assumptions about me, and again, you are wrong. I don't care for the insults and name calling here, but I've long ago concluded that 'civil, intelligent discussions' are not to be found on these boards. But I will say this: people dislike individual people. I see that as different from putting down a whole race or a whole group of people because it is different. For example, if someone makes a dig at Obama, I certainly wouldn't "reprimand" them. But when you call an entire nation a "cesspool," I find that a different matter entirely and that's why I called you on it.

I do see the point that Black History is to give relevance to "black achievement" and to give a sense of pride in their own race and roots to blacks... my only objection is that history cannot be used in the same way by whites... I don't understand how you can continue to gloss over that... what I propose is the closest thing to EQUAL TREATMENT one can propose.

I think the "closest thing to equal treatment" would be to have had history all encompassing so there would be no need for "Black History Month." But that hasn't been the case. Hopefully that will change so that the whole rest of the year isn't leaning towards one race while another race gets 'a month;' hopefully in the future history will treat all people/races/nations equally.

history is all encompassing... but for purposes of expedition, we usually don't learn Swahili and Dinka witch doctor medicine- we tend to focus on the most relevant aspects. Lack of concision is a big problem... and either way no worries, most high schoolers get out of high school (well the ones that do.. about 56%) utterly ignorant of history altogether... so there! were much better off aren't we!

I don't think Black History Month is about teaching Swahili and learning about Dinka witch doctor medicine. The fact that you couldn't think of any other examples kind of proves to me the need for putting some black history out there.

But if most high schoolers are utterly ignorant of history all together, as you believe, it makes even less sense that you would get all worked up about something apparently most people aren't paying attention to anyway.

Edited September 9, 2009 by American Woman

[lictor616]

Oh absolutely. Modern humans first appeared in Africa.

But Lictor seems to aping the pseudo-archaeology of the Nazis, that somehow the Germans were this advanced northern civilization. It was a load of garbage that is still foisted by a few racists out there. But the evidence is pretty clear, the Iron Age came later to Europe than it did to the Mediterranean world. In fact, some of the earliest areas to enter the Iron Age were in West Africa, at least four hundred years before Europe.

yes absolutely the first hominid groups are traced back to africa... To "Lucy" and other pre-human anthropoids, thousands of generations ago.

Just as Darwinius masillae is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius, another missing link is 47 million years ago (but was found in germany)

Just as we all come from the microscopic speck of protoplasmic jelly floating in the tepid waters of the Paleozoic Sea BILLIONS of years ago.

Does that mean that we're all equal?

Evolution is not only quantitative is it qualitative. Nature knows of no equality, rather nature operates according to an iron law of INEQUALITY... even two twins are different!

[M.Dancer]

not the same but close. And that is correct.

Which is to say that as well, an african pygmy is the same as a swede..well, not the same, but close enough not to matter.

[lictor616]

Which is to say that as well, an african pygmy is the same as a swede..well, not the same, but close enough not to matter.

No, wrong again. The difference between two breeds of dogs matters, and has very relevant impacts in the real world... A chihuahua for instance will have different dietary habits and different tolerances and capacities... imagine using a chihuahua as a guard dog ... or having it sleep outside in a snowbank as though it was a st-bernard.

But once again 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)

The difference between two broadly defined human races is GREATER then between 2 breeds of dogs... yet strangely... liberals and even normal people around the globe universally have no problem distinguishing dog races... even if these are less important (and much less relevant)

[M.Dancer]

No, wrong again. The difference between two breeds of dogs matters, and has very relevant impacts in the real world... A chihuahua for instance will have different dietary habits and different tolerances and capacities... imagine using a chihuahua as a guard dog ... or having it sleep outside in a snowbank as though it was a st-bernard.

Chihuahuas bark just like any other guard dog and will protect its territory like any guard dog. What it eats and whether it can stand cold is rather superficial....just like the superficial differences between races.

[JB Globe]

You know there's actually no such thing as race, right?

[M.Dancer]

You know there's actually no such thing as race, right?

On a scientific level race is irrelevant. On a cultural level it is pervasive.

[lictor616]

Chihuahuas bark just like any other guard dog and will protect its territory like any guard dog. What it eats and whether it can stand cold is rather superficial....just like the superficial differences between races.

Whether it can withstand cold, and its diet and ability to protect itself may well be the difference between life and death for the poor little thing.

but wait a minute: you are seriously saying that a chihuahua is an effective guard dog? Wow talk about arguing for the sake of arguing...

never mind dancer... I think we've agreed to disagree.

In essence all you and other "egalitarians" are doing is that artificially diminishing the mtDNA differences... Doesn't make them any less relevant and important i'm sorry to say.

[Bonam]

You know there's actually no such thing as race, right?

Sigh, not more of this foolishness.

Oh well, at least it let's me sort away the posters who are in complete denial of reality and pay less attention to their arguments in the future.

Race clearly exists. It doesn't matter whether it is a concept well founded in human biology or if it is only of social relevance. It is a concept that the vast majority of humans understand. Just about anyone can clearly differentiate between members of at least 3 or 4 different human racial groupings (white, black, asian, etc) and others can differentiate between very specific races, such Danish, Scottish, Han Chinese, Mongol, Korean, Arab, Persian, or closer to home for you, even Ashkenazi and Sephardi are "races".

There's no point saying these things don't exist.

[M.Dancer]

There's no point saying these things don't exist.

They exist in our minds and then only with a broad brush. If we were to nit pick, there is no one black race or one white race or one asian race, there are dozens of each, which is why as a metric it is useless.

Culture on the otherhand is real. Which is why scots in Canada are relatively well behaved and in scotland they are not.

[lictor616]

Race clearly exists. It doesn't matter whether it is a concept well founded in human biology or if it is only of social relevance. It is a concept that the vast majority of humans understand.

Indeed it is... it is actually so embedded and real that it might be termed INSTINCTIVE. From all the studies routinely carried out on children... how children have a hard time with what is called "other race facial recognition" how MRI scans show that young children show heightened activity in the amygdala when they are around people of different races... how even "babies discriminate"

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14909

at what point does the evidence ceases to be insufficient?

I mean the whole problem with this argument is that the onus of evidence should be on the Egalitarian side to show how sub race- racial differences are really as they say they are "figments of the imagination".

Edited September 9, 2009 by lictor616