Science Killed Racism

According to The Bible, all humans came from Adam and Eve.

All Humans are Created Equal.

 

If I believe in race?.....lol are you kidding me?

A B
Quiz.....

Which one is the caucasian, A or B ?
Which one is black, A or B?


C D
Which is the Pomeranian, C or D?
Which one is the German Shepard, C or D?



Anyone with half a brain is going to correctly answer all 4 of the above questions. You could ask 100 people, and if they are being honest, all 100 people would have the same answers. That isn't a function of some bizarre coincidence. It is a function of the reality that different races and different dog breeds have common characteristics that everyone recognizes. Might you run into some racial or breed outliers?...sure, but that doesnt change the reality that in almost all cases people can tell the difference between the two comparators. An occasional outlier doesn't change the reality that there is an undeniable difference between races and dog breeds.

 

You are deflecting again. Why?

Anyway, you still didn't define the races. I should be able to use your traits to determine who is who:





Both of these people appear "white." However, both are biracial. How will I know that they are part of the group with the high propensity for Sickle Cell Anemia and high ability to produce sprinters?

Again, provide the list of races and the traits that define them.

 

You just UNWITtingly conceded/self-impeached. (after losing debate to others)
"both are Biracial"!
LOFL

IOW, YOU unwittingly admit there ARE Races, and that those you pictured are Mixes of TWO of those RACES.
Of course, mixes can be confusing for a number of reasons.
Unbelievable.
Mr fallacious Double talk Nails Hissef.
Bye II
Gameover #685
`

 

LIE. Physiology exposes the assumption that there a not different people, i.e. different races. What took place was the during the study, the myth of White supremacy was utterly destroyed, because it is a know and well-establish genetic fact, White is the recessive genome or genetic sequence and the all other sequences are dominate over the White/Caucasian.

 

*Sigh*

Apparently you missed me putting racial terms in "quotes." This is your belief, I'm simply using terms and your ideological beliefs to converse with you. Moreover, I said throughout the thread that race as currently defined is too broad and should be narrowed down. Apparently you missed that too.

That said, please recognize the two images for this: "Black" people can apparently produce "white"-looking people. Meaning that using dark-skinned people to define "black" would undermine the current definitions of race as "black" people come in all sorts of colors. Also, feel free at any given time to provide a list of races and the traits that define them. Otherwise, your position is incredible.

 

Obviously things get more convoluted the more mixture that you have between differing gene pools, and nobody is claiming otherwise. That changes absolutely nothing in this debate.

Take myself for example. According to Ancestry.com, I am roughly 55% White European, 25% American Indian and 20% Sub Saharan African. I mostly appear white, but growing up I had an afro with kinky tight curls. From which part of my ancestry do you suppose I inherited the afro with kinky tight curls?.....hmmmmm.....what a mystery. From which gene pool do you suppose I inherited my lilly white skin?.....hmmmm...what a mystery. You see, the mere fact that my mixed ancestry may be difficult to discern, in no way lends credence to the notion that the differing gene pools do not have identifying characteristics. The mere fact that you have to point to mixed ancestry in an attempt to prove your point, in reality supports my point.The more you mix the gene pools the less clear the defining characteristics, and the less the mixture of gene pools, the more clear the defining characteristics. With very few exceptions, nobody is going to confuse a 100% Negro with a 100% Caucasian or even a 95% Negro with a 95% Caucasian. The difference only becomes unclear as the mixture increases. This fact alone indicates the existence of a genetic difference between races. That difference is likely a function of thousands of years of sequential mutations, selective breeding, and responses to differing cultural factors, but it is a difference nonetheless.

In the article referenced in the OP the author said.... "In humans, as in all species, genetic changes are the result of random mutations—tiny tweaks to DNA, the code of life. Mutations occur at a more or less constant rate, so the longer a group persists, handing down its genes generation after generation, the more tweaks these genes will accumulate. Meanwhile, the longer two groups are separated, the more distinctive tweaks they will acquire."......

Take a moment to absorb the author's words. If we take the authors contention...Since we all apparently came out of Africa, we all started out genetically identical. As differing peoples spread to different parts of the world, their gene pools were isolated. Random mutations occurred in those gene pools, and the resulting tweaks to those gene pools were passed down to subsequent generations. Since most of those gene pools were separated for many millennia, they all drastically developed differing tweaks to their different gene pools. In order for me to be right that there is a difference between races, I only need to show that those gene pools proportionally have differing characteristics (distinctive tweaks), which I have more than accomplished. In order for you to be right that there isn't any difference, you would need to show that there isnt any correlation that can be shown along any characteristics that apply to one gene pool more or less than the other.

In truth, even you dont believe your contention. Deep down, you can differentiate a black person from a Caucasian and know the typical defining characteristics every bit as much as I do. You are trying to hide behind the fact that mutations can occur in any gene pool which could theoretically produce any result, and bogusly trying to claim that fact means that race has no bearing on genetic outcomes. Of course it does.

 

Your overall point in your post is that we should instinctively know who's who by how they look. Looks aren't enough when you are dealing with populations with great genetic diversity. These populations vary wildly in appearance so judging them by a few representatives is wrong.

The reason why you see claims that race as we know it has no biological basis is because scientists (not psuedoscientists) have found that genetic methods don't support racial assumptions. It doesn't help that different societies have different definitions of race either. You can't even define what you believe race is, and if you can't do that how can you even begin to discuss how race is a biological fact and not just some social construct.

 

-To say that Blacks have kinky, curly hair is NOT judging by a few representatives. If anything, it is YOU that is trying to point to the extremely rare genetic variation that bucks that trend and then act as if that exceedingly rare mutation somehow invalidates the concept that blacks have afros. I am not basing my opinion on a "few" representatives, YOU are. I am basing my opinion on the overwhelming preponderance of blacks (including myself).

Stating that most blacks have afros is NOT a social construct. It is a direct and correct observation.

 

There are countries full of "black" people (Somalians, Eritreans, Ethiopians) who don't have kinky, curly hair though. There are "black" tribes outside these countries full of people that have long straight hair as well. Are these people still "black?" There was a continent full (Austrailia) of dark-skinned people who had kinky, curly hair, but they found that they were genetically distinct from everyone else including Africans.

You can't win this. Geneticist have already found that racial assumptions aren't supported. What you'll end up finding is that race as we know it is socially defined. It is not biologically defined, which is why you still haven't provided appropriate definitions yet. You are depending on long-standing stereotypes to determine what you believe race is.

 

They are confused. Culture affects race affects culture. The Chinese grew rice which yields the most calories per acre of any staple grain. But rice is difficult to grow and requires much cooperation to be successful. Thus the Chinese are less individualistic than the Europeans who grew wheat. Fewer calories per acre but easier to grow and requires less cooperation.

The Chinese rice culture selected for cooperative people, the European wheat culture selected for individualistic people and so the two races evolved differently.

 

Just because you take the conversation into the weeds does not make you any more correct. There is a difference between a Negroid, Capoid, and an Australoid, eventhough they all have dark skin. Remember that we all came from Africa and it was separation over tens of thousands of years that produced the wide range of sequential mutations that created the observable differences that exist today. For those tribes that lived in hot climates, it makes perfect sense that through natural selection the darker skinned mutations predominated in hot regions. It also makes perfect sense that there is a fair amount of overlap in natural selection mediated mutations that create many similarities between those 3 races that all lived for tens of thousands of years in hot climates. For example, since the natural selection mediated mutation for sickle cell anemia is related to malaria, you are going to see the problem with sickle cell anemia across all 3 of these supposed "black" races because they all lived in warm climates where malaria thrives.. In truth when people say Black, that is a polite way of saying Negroid, which is referring specifically to Sub Saharan Africans. It is technically NOT referring to Capoid and Australoid. For that matter, Capoids and Australoids are essentially unknown races to the vast majority of the civilized world. I understand why you want to introduce them and then pretend like they are Negroids because it superficially supports your point, but nobody is picturing them when they say black (when meaning Negroid), because that isnt whom they are speaking of. I can go along with the notion that a North African Ethiopian (which is considered a Capoid and NOT a Negroid) has similar although different characteristics than a Sub Saharan Negroid. The existence of that ambiguity doesnt prove that racial differences do NOT exist, it proves that they DO exist.

If you want to argue that the 3 darker skinned races have more overlap with each other than they do with Caucasians or Mongoloids, I would agree with you 100%. If you want to argue that it is easier to differentiate between a Mongoloid and Negroid than it is between a Negroid and a Capoid, I would agree with you 100%. If you want to argue that society incorrectly assumes that all 3 dark skinned races are Negroids, I would also agree with you 100%. If however you want to argue that there isnt a shared set of common traits that exist that can reasonably reliably differentiate between the various races, I disagree 100%. The mere fact that you point to Ethiopians as a different looking people is proof that they are different from pure Sub Saharan Negroids. I believe that the general consensus is that they are a mixture between the two, but that is open to change at some point in the future. Just because a lot of people don't realize that difference has no bearing on the existence of those differences.

 

We are finally getting somewhere. Based off your posts:

Race:

Trait​

Negroid:

Dark skinned Sub Saharan African​

Capoid:

Dark skinned (unknown)​

Australoid:

Dark skinned (unknown)​

Mongoloid:

(unknown)​

Regarding me wanting to pretend like Capoids and Australoids are Negroids is categorically false. If anything, I wouldn't have them in the same group.

 

While being polite and saying that "blacks" ( instead of Negroids)have kinky hair, your reply was that Some Ethiopian Blacks ( among others) do not have kinky hair. While that is true, you specifically did not delineate between a Capoid, Australoid, and a Negroid. It seems that you get very specific when it suits you, while at the same time also being very vague when it suits you. If as you say you would not have them in the same group, I would have expected you to make that delineation but you did not. What was that fancy ten dollar word you used earlier?....oh yeah... SOPHISTRY.

 

Far too many Trumpers do rank people by the former and care not a whit about the latter

 

Ya mean like Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants?

 

What the hell are you talking about "as Used today."
I am tallking scientifically, as are scientists.
I never talk Colloquially and colloquially was always Wrong.
No debate there.
Had you posted in the Race section (been at all interested or capable) in our scholarly debates of the last few YEARS you would have known this.

I post on Evolution in the Sci section when not posting here.
So I have a background, and more than a Political interest in the Sub-topic of Race/subspecies.
I also posted in our Scholarly debates in the Race section where/when there was meat on both sides.
That debate is now OVER with the most educated Race denier having committed mb suicide after losing a multi-Year debate.

DarkSkies doesn't rise close to That denier, and knows and posts NO 'science'/No scientists.
NADA.

Race "as used today," and ALWAYS, and in my own words...
(Watch Closely Jokers as I am the ONLY one here who knows what Race is)

Is Morphological (physical) difference caused by Genetic difference, born of thousands of years of separate Geographic Evolution.
such that...
The groups can be separated and reassembled with very high accuracy.​

Me one month ago, ON RECORD, characterizing my Years of well known posting here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...u-are-there-any-non-whites-here.536186/page-3

So do humans qualify?

I answered that in THIS thread on Page 4

Most scientists now deny race for Political reasons ("Scientific Race Denial"), an over-reaction to what some did a Century ago ("Scientific Racism").. Also for political reasons.

But there are human Races on ALL qualifications used on all other living things.
It's just not PC, and in fact dangerous, to say so.
`

 

This is why advocates of racialism should define what they believe race is. I didn't separate the people based on "Capoids, Australoids, and Negroids," because this is not how I would define people. I'm not a racialist so naturally I won't follow whatever rules that racialists use to define people. I'm just providing exceptions to the definitions you've given to show that there are many issues with how you are categorizing people. It also a way to demonstrate why scientist say that "race" is not biological and instead sociological.

 

When I say, "as used today," I mean just that. The definition of race has changed over time.

Who cares if you claim you are talking scientifically? Seriously. One of the first things a person talking scientist does is define what the hell it is they are talking about so everyone following is on the same page. You have yet to provide a list of races and traits that define those races, but you're so darn scientific. You make me laugh.

And the Race section, what about it? I've seen some of your posts. You have actually linked to articles that didn't even support your position! I remember you now. You always make claims about race and then link to random articles before declaring yourself the debate winner.

Overall, your position is incredible.

 

Concession #4 Noted.
And Everyone Please egain Note:
DarkSkies Complete Lack of any substance, knowledge or citation.
ZERO
Just argumentative Message Board double talk.

Compare to my topic-conversant, meaty, and citation filled post of the last FOUR PAGES.
Game over #686, #687, #688
`

 

Tax, if you believe my position is that I don't believe in race, then how can you expect me to prove a negative? All you have to do is explain what the races are and the traits that define them. This should be an easy thing to do for a user called "Taxonomy" who is conversant on "race."

Since you haven't been able to do this very simple thing, understand why scientist are saying that "race" is a social construct and not biological.

 

"

I am not an "advocate of racialism". I am not advocating that any particular race is any better or worse than any other race. I do however recognize that there are many elements of racial genetics that are undeniable when taken in the aggregate. It is utterly absurd to claim that race is not a biological determination. Does that biological determination give you predictive answers that are correct 100% of the time?....of course not. That is what is really being discussed when SOME scientists make the claim that race is not biological. The very definition of biological is "genetically related". Race is an association made between groups that lived separated from each other over tens of thousands of years. You cannot credibly state that groups that were separated for tens of thousands of years cannot be biologically connected because they most certainly can through DNA testing.

These groups can be connected, and basic inferences can be made about the aggregate of that group. That is not to say that there won't be plenty of exceptions because there most certainly will, but percentages can be accurately calculated if anyone bothers to go to that amount of trouble. We can track the rate of Sickle Cell Anemia amongst Negroids, Caucasians, and Mongoloids. That data is useful. It is inaccurate to state that there is not a biological basis for drawing those conclusions upon the whole. In truth, when some scientists make the statement that race is not biological, they most certainly would not disagree that you can track the rates of various genetic diseases that afflict various races. That isnt what they mean when they say that race is not biological. The reason that they make that bombastic claim isnt because they dont really believe you cannot derive any data based on genetic race data as their claim suggests, rather they are adhering to their version of political correctness that finds it uncouth to classify the individual based on the perception of the whole. To claim that race doesnt exist is not a scientific claim, it is political. Not all scientists make the claim that race is not biological. Only the political ones do.

 

You aren't an advocate of racialism, but your post provides a literal example of it. Ok.

Your second paragraph could be supported if scientist could consistently derive results based on the current concepts of race. The problem is they cannot. It has nothing to do with political correctness, but what is provable, retestable, and verifiable at a consistent level. What is found is that scientists are finding differences within the so called races and so their findings don't align with what people are calling races.

 

-I am NOT providing a literal example of racialism. In order for that to be true I would have to be making a relative value judgment and I have done no such thing. You arent achieving anything by falsely accusing me of behaving in a racist manner.

-Let me explain the part of what I am saying that you are not understanding.....The notion that they are putting forth, which is that in order for there to be a scientific basis for race it has to be predictive with scientific certainty, is nothing more than an arbitrary strawman. Nothing is written in stone that says that in order for something to be scientific, it must have 100% predictive value. Medicine is science, and medicine is all about odds, not certainty. Asessing odds for specific afflictions by race is a useful tool in formulating a differential diagnosis. We most certainly have the ability to determine the odds that a certain race carries the gene for sickle cell anemia. That data constitutes useful scientific information. I have focused on sickle cell anemia, but in truth every race has differing tendancies for differing afflictions and that information is without question used in their "scientific" analysis. Just because that information doesnt provide a 100% certain diagnosis for an individual does NOT mean that therefore that information is not scientific.

When I mentioned that most world class sprinters are black, that is in itself a scientific topic. In fact, Duke University in concert with Howard University did a wide ranging study on that very subject.
https://www.livescience.com/10716-scientists-theorize-black-athletes-run-fastest.html

Their conclusion was that "Physical differences in the length of the limbs and the structure of the body mean the center of gravity tends to be higher in the bodies of black people, the researchers say. ". Those same scientists also concluded that white have faster swimming times because they have longer torsos.

Should we tell Duke University scientists that their work wasnt science because it didnt provide 100% predictive values for any one individual?...Of course not, because such a declaration is nothing more than an arbitrary strawman.

Why are SOME scientists pushing such a narrow version of what constitutes science when in fact science is an EXTREMELY broad endeavor? Political correctness. They know as much as anyone that science is FAR broader than that which can be 100% predictive, yet they push that notion anyway because it comports with their view on what is politically correct. They know that they can make that statement, and have an army of lemmings that will go forth and push their bogus notion as if it were the gospel. Hence you get this thread.

 

Practice and opportunity. Had they invested their time and energy into science and technology, who is to say that they wouldn't have excelled in those areas, also.