impuretrash
Gold Member
- Aug 31, 2017
- 11,029
- 2,944
- 290
I was using sarcasm to poke holes in Unk's assertion that you can't judge Africa unless you've been there.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oooops
- Thread starter Unkotare
- Start date
I was using sarcasm to poke holes in Unk's assertion that you can't judge Africa unless you've been there.
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,234
- 24,222
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #122
Why are you so hostile towards education?How is that a straw man? Why are you against using books to learn?Do you use protection with your straw man?
Do you know what a straw man is?
Still enjoying your straw man?
I dont know why you keep trying to deflect away from your disapproval of our educational process. You made the decision to take that stance; its time for you to own it now.
Let me know when you get tired of repeating the same fallacy over and over.
I agree with those contributors who feel that there are differences between the various groups of human beings.
*****
If we drop the emotion-laden word "race" and substitute the more neutral word "culture," it will be easier to see that groups of human beings do think and act differently.
"We have all heard the expression, 'You can't generalize.' Not true. Anyone who has had more than a little exposure to other countries and nationalities knows that peoples as a whole have distinct personalities."
-- Richard Seid
My definition of "race" has always included "culture". It is also the reason why "race and color" are both included in our very limited list of protected classes in Section 8 of our discrimination laws. Race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, and familial status.
- Mar 13, 2012
- 40,969
- 15,908
- 2,260
Are they even the same species?
Why are you so hostile towards education?How is that a straw man? Why are you against using books to learn?
Do you know what a straw man is?
Still enjoying your straw man?
I dont know why you keep trying to deflect away from your disapproval of our educational process. You made the decision to take that stance; its time for you to own it now.
Let me know when you get tired of repeating the same fallacy over and over.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 36,335
- 19,225
- 1,905
Are you talking to me or yourself?Why are you so hostile towards education?How is that a straw man? Why are you against using books to learn?
Do you know what a straw man is?
Still enjoying your straw man?
I dont know why you keep trying to deflect away from your disapproval of our educational process. You made the decision to take that stance; its time for you to own it now.
Let me know when you get tired of repeating the same fallacy over and over.
Your statement does not qualify as sarcasm.He took no such stance.Why are you so hostile towards education?Do you know what a straw man is?
Still enjoying your straw man?
I dont know why you keep trying to deflect away from your disapproval of our educational process. You made the decision to take that stance; its time for you to own it now.
I was using sarcasm to poke holes in Unk's assertion that you can't judge Africa unless you've been there.
- Moderator
- #128
Potable Water Activism | Find a Career in Clean Water
the most basic, IMPORTANT need of a human--water!!!Africa is a shit holeThe lowest levels of drinking water coverage are in sub-Saharian Africa
sanitation:
And this has exactly what relation this thread?
NADA.
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,011
- 2,300
you should really follow along so you don't look more stupid than you arePotable Water Activism | Find a Career in Clean Water
the most basic, IMPORTANT need of a human--water!!!Africa is a shit holeThe lowest levels of drinking water coverage are in sub-Saharian Africa
sanitation:
And this has exactly what relation this thread?
it's a reply to a post saying Africa is not a shithole
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,214
- 2,560
- 315
Yes there are obvious differences, and they are caused by Genes, but you are way off on numbersThey are obvious differences between race. I know it isnt but about .01% but we are only 1.2% different from apes. So that .01 percent seems like a lot when you put it into context.
Significant error.
It is NOT and was never ".01%".
The First Human Genome Project/HGP (2003, Craig Venter) found .1%. 10x your number.
He retested 3 years later and corrected his original measurement saying it was 7x as great as he first thought, and could be as high as 1% difference/only 99% similar.
That's as much as 2/3 of the difference of the was between us and Chimps (98.6%), leaving Plenty of room for subspecies/Races.
The average figure used now is 99.5% similar.. 50x your number.
Human genetic variation - Wikipedia
Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. There may be multiple variants of any given gene in the human population (genes), leading to polymorphism. Many genes are not polymorphic, meaning that only a single allele is present in the population: the gene is then said to be fixed.[1] On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.[2][3]..
`
Last edited:
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,214
- 2,560
- 315
Perhaps the World's Foremost expert in Evolution/Genetics/Speciation and author the the Standard text of that latter name.There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label
What are the racists (from ALL sides) going to be scared of when the fact that race doesn't exist becomes unavoidably illusory? When, in any case..../
Credentials
Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia
Jerry Allen Coyne (1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. A prolific scientist, he has published dozens of papers, elucidating on the theory of evolution. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics..[3]
He is the author of the standard text 'Speciation' and the bestselling science popularization Why Evolution Is True and maintains a website by the same name.
Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (draft) forced a hiatus.
He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout.
He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.
Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985;1988; 1994&;2000) and The American Naturalist(1990;1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing.
His work is widely published in scientific journals as well as in such mainstream venues as 'The New York Times', the 'Times Literary Supplement', and The New Republic. His research interests include population and evolutionary genetics, speciation, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution, and sperm competition.[...]
He is the author of the standard text 'Speciation' and the bestselling science popularization Why Evolution Is True and maintains a website by the same name.
Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (draft) forced a hiatus.
He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout.
He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.
Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985;1988; 1994&;2000) and The American Naturalist(1990;1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing.
His work is widely published in scientific journals as well as in such mainstream venues as 'The New York Times', the 'Times Literary Supplement', and The New Republic. His research interests include population and evolutionary genetics, speciation, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution, and sperm competition.[...]
Article
Are there human races?
Jerry Coyne
One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology; or human biology in general; is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only; but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Goulds book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know its flawed).
But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups; differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology)..
[......]
What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, Races of animals (Also called Subspecies or ecotypes, are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.
Under that criterion, are there human Races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.
How many human races are there?
That's pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit Caucasians as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.
How different are the races genetically?
Not very different. ...
But since the delimitation of races has historically depended Not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but Only on the existence of Some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of races Does Not mean that they Don't exist...."
`But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups; differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology)..
[......]
What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, Races of animals (Also called Subspecies or ecotypes, are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.
Under that criterion, are there human Races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.
How many human races are there?
That's pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit Caucasians as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.
How different are the races genetically?
Not very different. ...
But since the delimitation of races has historically depended Not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but Only on the existence of Some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of races Does Not mean that they Don't exist...."
Last edited:
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,214
- 2,560
- 315
NOVA | Does Race Exist?
with two Differing opinions. I post the latter from someone who necessarily/Practically/Forensically deals with race Every day.
George Gill, the Hands-on proponent:
with two Differing opinions. I post the latter from someone who necessarily/Practically/Forensically deals with race Every day.
George Gill, the Hands-on proponent:
Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically valid and Real.
Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The Other Half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."
[......]
Bones don't lie
First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80% accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations..... My students ask, "How can this be? They can Identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in Race!" ..
"The idea that Race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."
Deeper than the skin
[.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity.
I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual Legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing Race from skeletal remains than from Looking at living people standing before me.
Seeing both sides
Where I stand today in the "great race debate" after a decade and a half of pertinent skeletal research is clearly more on the side of the reality of race than on the "race denial" side...
On political correctness
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence.
How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"
Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?
[.......]
[......]
Bones don't lie
First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80% accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations..... My students ask, "How can this be? They can Identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in Race!" ..
"The idea that Race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."
Deeper than the skin
[.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity.
I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual Legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing Race from skeletal remains than from Looking at living people standing before me.
Seeing both sides
Where I stand today in the "great race debate" after a decade and a half of pertinent skeletal research is clearly more on the side of the reality of race than on the "race denial" side...
On political correctness
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence.
How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"
Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?
[.......]
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,234
- 24,222
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #134
They had it right 60 years ago when biracial marriages were outlawed.
Why would such idiocy be “right”? You liberals always F things up when you try to force people to act against human nature.
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,234
- 24,222
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #135
you should really follow along so you don't look more stupid than you arePotable Water Activism | Find a Career in Clean Water
the most basic, IMPORTANT need of a human--water!!!Africa is a shit holeThe lowest levels of drinking water coverage are in sub-Saharian Africa
sanitation:
And this has exactly what relation this thread?
it's a reply to a post saying Africa is not a shithole
No, it’s not.
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,234
- 24,222
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #136
Perhaps the World's Foremost expert in Evolution/Genetics/Speciation and author the the Standard text of that latter name.There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label
What are the racists (from ALL sides) going to be scared of when the fact that race doesn't exist becomes unavoidably illusory? When, in any case..../
Credentials
Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia
Jerry Allen Coyne (1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. A prolific scientist, he has published dozens of papers, elucidating on the theory of evolution. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics..[3]
He is the author of the standard text 'Speciation' and the bestselling science popularization Why Evolution Is True and maintains a website by the same name.
Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (draft) forced a hiatus.
He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout.
He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.
Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985;1988; 1994&;2000) and The American Naturalist(1990;1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing.
His work is widely published in scientific journals as well as in such mainstream venues as 'The New York Times', the 'Times Literary Supplement', and The New Republic. His research interests include population and evolutionary genetics, speciation, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution, and sperm competition.[...]
Article
Are there human races?
Jerry Coyne
One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology; or human biology in general; is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only; but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Goulds book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know its flawed).`
But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups; differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology)..
[......]
What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, Races of animals (Also called Subspecies or ecotypes, are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.
Under that criterion, are there human Races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.
How many human races are there?
That's pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit Caucasians as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.
How different are the races genetically?
Not very different. ...
But since the delimitation of races has historically depended Not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but Only on the existence of Some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of races Does Not mean that they Don't exist...."
Plagiarism and spam do not alter the facts presented in the article.
- Mar 13, 2012
- 40,969
- 15,908
- 2,260
Staying within your own race is not going against human nature.They had it right 60 years ago when biracial marriages were outlawed.
Why would such idiocy be “right”? You liberals always F things up when you try to force people to act against human nature.
Further more who are you calling a liberal?
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,234
- 24,222
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #138
Staying within your own race is not going against human nature.They had it right 60 years ago when biracial marriages were outlawed.
Why would such idiocy be “right”? You liberals always F things up when you try to force people to act against human nature.
...
Yes it is. You lefties always think you can engineer human behavior to whatever end you can cook up.
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,011
- 2,300
shithole--they don't even have enough water to drinkyou should really follow along so you don't look more stupid than you arePotable Water Activism | Find a Career in Clean Water
the most basic, IMPORTANT need of a human--water!!!Africa is a shit holeThe lowest levels of drinking water coverage are in sub-Saharian Africa
sanitation:
And this has exactly what relation this thread?
it's a reply to a post saying Africa is not a shithole
No, it’s not.
not enough sanitation = shit build up = literally a shithole
literacy low poverty high = shithole
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,234
- 24,222
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #140
shithole--they don't even have enough water to drink.....you should really follow along so you don't look more stupid than you arePotable Water Activism | Find a Career in Clean Water
the most basic, IMPORTANT need of a human--water!!!Africa is a shit holeThe lowest levels of drinking water coverage are in sub-Saharian Africa
sanitation:
And this has exactly what relation this thread?
it's a reply to a post saying Africa is not a shithole
No, it’s not.
Not enough water in the entire continent? Really, professor?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 481
- Replies
- 53
- Views
- 760
- Replies
- 209
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 649
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 246
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 10
- Replies
- 155
- Views
- 592
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 6
- Replies
- 233
- Views
- 962
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8069
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-