this discussion is about science, not fantasy. please take your comic book ideas to the Religion/Philosophy section
I was responding to the OP about race and how the Table of Nations and other historical records, have tracked all of mankind as they migrated from the Mesopotamia region to the continents of the Earth. Genealogists have identified only four base haplogroups (mtDNA) which relates to the four fertile females who emerged from the Ark 4,400 years ago. Genealogists also refer to a mitochondrial Eve, the "mother to all humans" who has been scientifically calculated to have lived approximately 6,000 year ago. P.S. It's nice to meet you cousin!
None of that is true. No DNA studies have verified the Noah's Ark myth and Mitochondrial Eve has not been scientifically calculated to have lived 6,000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA), in a direct, unbroken, maternal line, of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person.
You folks need to learn the Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and only liberal/progressive/socialist views and opinions are permitted by the site owners to remain up on the site. One liberal/leftist site, here is balance from a Creationist science site: http://www.icr.org/article/5657/
I know that Wikipedia can be edited but the comment is consistent with scientific consensus. http://www.livescience.com/10015-age-confirmed-eve-mother-humans.html A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040580910000493 As is typical of Creationist "science" sites the author attempts to interpret scientific studies in a way that fits the Biblical narrative. They attack evolutionary models and come to conclusions that don't fit the data. The molecular clock method is not exact, there are complications as the scientists admit, but the majority of attempts to date mitochondrial Eve fit an estimation of 100,000-200,000 years which is consistent with the dating of human fossils.
Personally, separating the species into races need not be a racist thing. It's just a way to draw a distinction, in how a person looks. Do looks matter? Well, if they don't we sure spend trillions in order to think it matters. LOL Races, separating people into races is not really any different from separating dogs into breeds. They are all dogs, but the breed makes a distinction of what sort of dog they are. Now if one separates into races in order for nefarious reasons that is one thing, and we should never do it But separating people into races for benign reasons doesn't seem to be something we run away from. If I want to form up a basket ball team, it might be handy to know the race. Otherwise I might create a team of the shorter Japanese, whereas my opposition has these really tall blacks. LOL. I see nothing wrong with being considered to be a particular race. No more than I see a reason not to separate dogs into breeds. We, as human beings will always separate humans into groups, if for nothing more than to be able to communicate what a particular human looks like, to someone who has not seen them, and we don't have a picture to present. The trouble of course comes in when you want to indulge in racism, to judge human beings simply by their race. And that is the main reason today we want to get away from separating people into races. If we could do away with racism, by education from the cradle, then there would be no problem with having races.
There are several examples where different plant and animal species can be interbred. Normally they do not interbreed in nature, but it can be made to happen if the circumstances are right. The hybrid offspring often are less well adapted to their climatic conditions or have some problem that makes them less able to survive and compete in their ecosystem. Sometimes these different species are actually really just one species but are considered subspecies. Just one example: The Western Maidenhair fern is really the same species as the Eastern Maidenhair fern, but there are subtle visual characteristics that can be used to differentiate them. And the Western Maidenhair is better suited to the Western climate, it has difficulty growing in the Eastern region of the United States.
looking at the genetic data, its pretty damn absurd to say there is only ONE white race. if we look at phenotype & genetics, there are at least 3 white european races. same with just one single "black" race, its also just as absurd. there are clear differences between Zulus, Ethiopians, Nigerians, etc. but of course, for the purposes of racist & political convenience, idiots lump them all together as "the black race" and "the white race".
Maybe Stringer doesn't want to get "Watsoned" by the Bolsheviks. But yes 100000 years is plenty of time for a 30 point IQ difference. Hey wait, there is a 30 point IQ difference.
blaming the hard science on Bolsheviks, is pretty silly. as is the idea that all europeans are the same "race".
...and if all the various people of different hues of skin shades were not isolated, we would all return to our less obvious shades of skin, eye and hair coloring. We are 99.9% the same and .1% different, we can all reproduce our own kind, humans. Sadly, Darwinians are the group who views darker skin shaded people as inferior, because they are less evolved.
Hitler got that idea from Darwin. Look up the full title to Darwin's On Origin of Species book.. - - - Updated - - - 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.--
mikemikev believes hat Race is defined as shared genetics and ancestry if that's the case, then there are many races in Europe, many races in Africa, many races in Asia. his definition throws the idea of the white, black, yellow, red races OUT the door.
Ronstar's tactic is to repeat the same falsehoods and ignore the refutation. I made a copy paste to respond to his ad nauseam. Relevant part underlined: Race is defined by ancestry inferred from total genomic similarity. So single traits like "blue eyes" are not races.Scientists recognise infrasubspecific taxa, such as in canis lupus familiaris. Fst for various subspecies in animals goes down to 0.01. Any overall genetic difference can validate taxa, even a gene or two. Race defined by similarity forms major clusters which subdivide any number of times.
