The Geneticists actually BEGGED OZZIE to allow them to mapout his Genome as they all said..."This guy should be DEAD!" LOL!!! 10 years from now we will all probably be getting an OZZIE DNA INFUSION....to keep us all healthier. AboveAlpha
not okay, andaman islanders are not melanesians, despite their black skin they're orientals which must be hard for chinese racists to dismiss those "black devils"...polynesians are predominantly oriental, with a bit of melanesian dna...those pale skinned europeans are closer genetically to sub saharan africans than the black devils of the andaman islands You're hung up on a social construct of race, there are no races DNA has definitively destroyed that invented concept... please moi lets not let racism influence because it has zero support in science, NONE.... a 50 yr old claim that has been long dismissed by anthropology, go find a 500 yr old claim for a flat earth it and promote that it has as much credibility... and my father had black hair and I have blond, does it count? We must be different races right? Individual differences are miniscule, genetically speaking we are virtually identical...alcohol like lactose metabolizing can vary within a population... oh really and what archaic race did the indians of the high andes interbreed with to develop their high altitude tolerance, a tolerance that must of developed in last 14k years, an impossibilty according to your 100k hypothesis...
If only we could get the PC out of science! Bush was always accused of putting religion before science. For example, stem cells were going to cure disease, if only Republicans could be removed. Has that happened yet? Even one disease? Then there was "climate change," which Republican "deniers" didn't accept. Now, almost every week new data refutes the man-made global warming hypothesis. Just this week, scientists reported that the antarctic ice cap was now bigger than it's ever been in the earth's history. But pols can't resist science because science has the credibility they lack. Pretending to speak with scientific backing confers power. Now the supposedly pro-scientific Obama has refused to close US borders to those who might carry Ebola, tuberculosis, or other infectious diseases; continues to do all he can to discourage US production of oil and gas (a fight he's losing); is working to bring health care under government, i.e., political, control; and routinely ignores research results about the effects of gun availability. The solution is: get government out of science. Government should provide funding, but not dictate results. But a tipping point has been passed: there's nothing government will not control, if it can. This runs counter to the US tradition. Whenever there's a problem, people now ask what the government should do. They ask that before anything. This would have been unthinkable for most of US history. So how can a government which controls everything not control science? The answer is to prevent government from controlling everything.
So our cars don't run faster than horses, electric light bulbs don't work, there's no such thing as radio and computers don't exist? We have faith in science because we don't NEED to have faith in it. Science works, whether we believe in it or not. Scientists don't know EVERYTHING, far from it, and they are the first to say so. Did you know that we now believe that about 74% of all the matter and energy in the Universe is completely invisible to us, and that means not just to our eyes but to the finest instrumentation we have of any kind. We have, until recently, not even suspected it was there and yet it must be, or the Universe cannot exist as it does. Heinlein said it best. "To be matter of fact about the world is to blunder into fantasy, and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
Yep, the religious have their invisible gods, and science has its invisible dark matter. Or as Sheldrake said, scientists say give us one miracle(the big bang) and we can account for the rest. LOL. We sure do rely much upon the invisible.
Quantum physics debunks materialism to anyone willing to see it. Sadly, many aren't, even those smart enough that should.
Race/racism is political/social construct it has no basis in science/biology....moi insisting otherwise which is counter to accepted science is ludicrous. ..dismisal of moi's "classical races" claim is based on known science and has nothing to do with being politically correct ....
Races obviously exist. It's a reasonable hypothesis, subject to test, that there might be differences deeper than appearance. The political left insists that all human beings, even men and women, are exactly identical except for appearance. In the case of gender, this is ludicrous, and has been refuted by a mass of science, including research by female scientists, that the left resolutely ignores. Many differences have been documented among the races. For example, 90% of Asians are lactose intolerant; Jews and Cajuns get Tay-Sachs disease; Africans get sickle cell anemia. Denying the science, and demanding that scientists only report results consistent with the left's ideology, is an egregious placing of politics ahead of science. Your own post is evidence that leftists continue to believe that what they say is more important than what is. There's a long history of this. In 1929, Stalin murdered thousands of engineers, whom he called "wreckers," because they dared to say certain things were physically impossible, even though the Communist Party had decreed they would be done. During China's "Cultural Revolution," scientists again died because they didn't concede that faith in Mao's Little Red Book was sufficient to undertake any technical project. There are countless examples of communists demanding that physical reality conform to their wishes, and punishing scientists and engineers for saying otherwise. The American left's Everyone Is The Same campaign is the same thing. There's an easy way to spot political meddling in science. True science asks questions and seeks empirical evidence. Politicized science demands that taboo questions not be asked at all, and avoids or denies empirical evidence.
the only thing ludicrous here is racists making claims about a science they know nothing about...making a racist narrative fit your absent knowledge genetics...then bringing a political motive/slander for anyone who disagrees with their racist slant...there are no political agendas in science only the facts...but you have a stated political/social agenda... Show us the taxonomy for primates starting at Family Hominidae down to Homo sapiens sapiens, and then the biological subspecies for the races, I'll wait.....for a very, very, very long time....yeah I can hear the excuses now "biologists are all pc liberal/progressive/socialist/commies, yada, yada, yada"....
"There are no political agendas in science only the facts." True. "But you have a stated political/social agenda." And what, my "scientific" friend, might that agenda be? I don't notice any such agenda stated or implied in my first post. I'm saying what you're saying. You just don't seem to mean it, because you don't want questions about the races to be asked at all (a dead give-away of the left), and you dismiss out of hand any research result that doesn't suit your prejudices (the second give-away of the left). You accuse me of racism, which is groundless slander. If I took you for a serious person, whose opinions merited consideration, I'd report you for discipline. To make this very clear, what I'm saying is that scientific research, free of political agenda, including yours, may legitimately inquire about racial characteristics, as it may inquire about any subject of importance. I understand your motives. You're terrified that research might not confirm your "we're all the same" ideology. Your terror does not confirm your confidence in your own ideology. If you were sure you were right, you'd welcome research that would prove it. That's why you don't want to allow scientific research at all.
So I guess it is coincidence and of no genetic association that those who in the world of 3 races; Asiatics, are more sensitive to ethanol (drinking alcohol) and TB medicines too. Talk to an anesthesiologist sometime. The Asians are light weights. Ginger's on the other hand have quite a tolerance and give anesthesiologist a harder time than most. Okay, Gingers are not a race, but like the Asian - exemplify an association between drug tolerance and "face". <the horror> Having worked addictionology many years, I can tell you, Ginger addicts are harder to detox. They won't ! Of course there are variations within a population. But, Science supports more evidence of "Face" relating to "Medicine" than wyly would wish. Consider, your bone marrow or kidney transplant if not from a near relative is "within your race" for tissue typing reasons. That makes interracial recipients difficult to match. True <the horror> Of course this is "best matches". Some centers to plug in organs that stretch the system. You can buy a liver at UCLA. Larry Hagman and some Japanese Yakuza or gov't guy did ! Where are my rose tinted glasses I am so depressed. Moi r > g No
anesthesiologists?...ahh how about you talk to a genetist and end the racist ignorance once and for all... Transplant success relies on genetic similarity (family), the chances of finding a bone marrow donor within a family are only 30%, if you need a organ donor from within your own family there is no guarantee you will find a match, so according to your definition individual members of the same family must be different races?...using your logic we must have millions if not billions of races...we are 99.9% identical, that remaining .1% varies from person to person, your .1% will not be not be the same as mine, your .1% will not even be the same as a sibling unless you have a clone... From an expert on race, Pilar Ossario ....."One of the things we're hearing now is that the human genome project is somehow showing us that race doesn't exist. Well, what it's showing us is that the simple biological notion of race is wrong."..."But just because race isn't something biological, that doesn't mean it's not real. There are a lot of things in our society that are real and are not biological. I think we would say marriage is something that's real. It's real because we have laws that we follow. We have social traditions that we follow. And those things are real. And race is real in that same sense. It's real in the sense that we create it in our relations between people. We treat people a certain way based on what race we believe them to be. Race, as we understand it as a social construct, has a lot to do with where somebody will live, what schools they will go to, what jobs they will get, whether or not they will have health insurance. So race does play a very important role in our lives, and I think race is real as a social construct. It's not real as a biologically definable thing." http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-03.htm
Yada, yada, yada, another political rant but no taxonomy for homo sapiens sapiens that shows a classification for race..why am I not surprised, you lose....
I have neither knowledge of nor interest in human taxonomy. That's why I haven't said anything about it. My concern is only your seeming disregard for science.
Science and Mathematics are the tools by which Humanity advances and they have nothing to do with Religion, Politics or Beliefs....they simply....ARE. Even Preists, Ministers, Rabbi's...etc....must earn a degree in THEOLOGY....which is a B.S.....Batchelor of SCIENCE!! AboveAlpha
Lol. No. This hasn't shown to be a closed case FACT, and all debate is closed. Why do you do this? Declare yourself correct and then announce that no one may question it. It's quite arrogant. You are close to being correct... kind of, but still incorrect. The current single origin THEORY accepted by most scientists, supports a massive migration out of africa, mainly east africa, though north has been proposed. The multiple origin theory most widely accepted, suggests one race out of Africa mixed at low percentage with another to come up with modern humans, the two groups being homo sapien and homo erectus. Though, the mix rate is low, less than ten percent if memory serves. However, there is still vibrant debate and the matter is far from settled. I always work hardest to argue against arguments that include the notion that there is no room for debate. President Obama is quite bad about this ultimatum.
The trouble is, we don't apply the scientific method to the accepted dogma that science is still filled with. A scientist points this out in The Science Delusion. But he made lots of materialists really upset, by thinking we should apply the method to the dogma that is alive and well in science. If scientists were not humans with egos, it would be much easier to question the dogmas in science.
says the man who admittedly deliberately disregards the science of genetics and biology (taxonomy) which are the key relevant areas of the debate..... eew you are a sharp debater aren't you ...
there is no credible hypothesis let alone a vibrant debate for homo sapiens sapiens interbreeding with homo erectus, it's nothing more than fringe speculation...there would've been enormous differences in brain structure that would've made interbreeding impossible even if they existed in the same time period...
Not trying to debate. You're shadow-boxing, not debating. Debates require two opposing parties. I jumped in because I'm a friend of one of the posters at whom you were leveling the same overheated and irrelevant rhetoric you've directed at me. I neither know nor care what you're trying to say about human taxonomy, but a lifetime of scholarship has taught me that people who rely on name-calling and personal attacks seldom have anything worthwhile to say. If you could prove your point with science, you would have.
My wife believes I am living proof of this And of this In re all the "studies" that "prove" racial characteristics exist. So. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing, What. What difference doe it make if such differences are real or not? Is a black genius any less a genius?
No....it is NOT a Theory...it is a FACT. How did it become a FACT? When we COMPLETELY MAPPED THE HUMAN GENOME....and then took DNA samples from a great number of people on all Continents and Islands all over the world. The FACT is....all DNA samples from these Ten's of Thousands of people....show all had ancestors originating from Africa. Every single Human DNA saple from every person ever tests shows this one simple FACT....that FACT being...we all had ancient Human Ancestors originating out of Africa and our ancient Human Ancestors existed in one form or another as far back as 5 Million years ago in Africa. This is NOT a debatable issue unless YOU can find a single Human Being who's Genome shows DNA not originating out of Africa. Since out of thousands upon thousands of people samples NONE have shown this to be wrong....I think is is BEYOND SAFE TO SAY this is a FACT. AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - What the HELL are you talking about? AboveAlpha
None of that matters to those who deliberately ignore the genetic evidence in order to promote their personal cherished narative...the dna evidence doesn't lie its not subjective, its definitive...
The lesser ability to metabolize ethanol and Asiatic populations have no relationship, even if the genome might say they do 23AndMe checks for this trait. Okay, for P.C. sake, not lesser but different http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction Alcohol flush reaction (also known as Asian flush syndrome, Asian flush, Asian glow, among others) is a condition in which an individual develops flushes or blotches associated with . . . . And I can't get my Chinese girl friend to have any sort of alcohol, how about yours, wyly ? Moi I Do Not Flush I Am Superior <thumping chest> r > g View attachment 30686 I am American I am superior <chest thumping>
As I said, you aren't correct. It's the "mostly out of Africa Hypothesis". Notice it is a hypothesis, and it shows that modern humans are a mixture of African and Eurasian descent. You assert that humans came from Africa CASE CLOSED. The human genome shows that it could be said that modern humans came from a mixture of a species that came out of Africa and interbred with Eurasians. So, we come from both Africa and Asia. Not just "we come from Africa and the debate is now closed". Your closed minded anti scientific way of thinking is so stubborn that you can't see that I'm not saying "humans didn't come from Africa", but rather "humans came from Africa, and other places also". (source Gentic Engineering and Biological News http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articles/revolutionizing-the-out-of-africa-story/4804/) What really grinds my gears about your post is that you state it as fact, debate closed, and that to open debate, I must prove you wrong. You are like those Christians that say "God is real, and YOU must prove it wrong or the debate is closed". You are closed minded, but worse, you are actually technically incorrect about the hypothesis you are trying to thump me over the head with. Read the data, rethink what you know, stop being stubborn.
