User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 6:48:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No need! They're the exact same! Unless you are some kind of bigot! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: My pit bull is the EXACT same as your golden retriever, in behavior and physiology, you ignorant bigot! No need! They're the exact same! Unless you are some kind of bigot! Got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 6:48:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Pardon me, I am not a scientist or anthropologist or any sort, but I have researched breeding chickens, so I think of things in terms of breeds. I guess it's not the best word, it just helps me from getting into the technical jargon of scientists. Perhaps the best word is "subspecies" instead of "race". The only thing I know for sure is that all Homo sapiens are the same species since we have the same general phenotype and can all reproduce. I think we can all agree that "race" is not used for other animals, but for the sake of our discussion it can mean human subspecies.
Anyone who thinks there is only one race is enthusiastically ignorant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 6:50:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is "genetic distance" quantified. Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is "genetic distance" quantified. http://www.uwyo.edu/dbmcd/molmark/lect06/lect6.html How did we get these Cavalli-Sforza distances? They are simply a geometric view of the distances between multi-dimensional points on a hypersphere (a sphere with > 3 dimensions). Say we have two subpopulations S1 and S2 assayed at a single locus with alleles i = 1 to k. As I've said before, you can have as many races as you find useful, so the cut-off points depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Just as you may have five or 500 names to describe ranges on the color spectrum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 6:51:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: http://www.uwyo.edu/dbmcd/molmark/lect06/lect6.html As I've said before, you can have as many races as you find useful, so the cut-off points depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Just as you may have five or 500 names to describe ranges on the color spectrum. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How is "genetic distance" quantified. http://www.uwyo.edu/dbmcd/molmark/lect06/lect6.html How did we get these Cavalli-Sforza distances? They are simply a geometric view of the distances between multi-dimensional points on a hypersphere (a sphere with > 3 dimensions). Say we have two subpopulations S1 and S2 assayed at a single locus with alleles i = 1 to k. As I've said before, you can have as many races as you find useful, so the cut-off points depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Just as you may have five or 500 names to describe ranges on the color spectrum. Huh, almost like I said that earlier in the thread. Oh wait, I did. "All taxonomy is a social construct". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 6:53:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you can't and have no argument. Got it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My pit bull is the EXACT same as your golden retriever, in behavior and physiology, you ignorant bigot! No need! They're the exact same! Unless you are some kind of bigot! Got it. My argument is that my pit bull is the same as any golden retriever! Why is this so hard for you? I mean, isn't it obvious? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 6:53:12 PM EDT
[#6]
A left leaning geneticist running a PHD program in bioinformatics who studies epigenetics says races are statistically distinct. He also says IQ is heritable.
He doesn't like making these points and is quick to deny their political or social relevance but according to him the groupings are there. They aren't some mathematical artifact. The statistical analysis can be used to make valid predictions. I was an applied math major and he wanted me to join his program. He was also my judo sensei. I have no reason to disbelieve him. This is one of those subjects that unless a guy has PHD after his name I assume he's talking out his ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 6:55:57 PM EDT
[#7]
In before shit gets a little too rowdy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:00:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh wait, I did. "All taxonomy is a social construct". In the same sense the Linnean taxonomy is a social construct--one that happens to track quite closely with actual evolutionary history, and is a critical foundation of all of biology. You seem to think you've accomplished something. You haven't. Claiming it's a social construct doesn't mean it's wrong or that it doesn't describe an underlying biological reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:01:10 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My argument is that my pit bull is the same as any golden retriever! Why is this so hard for you? I mean, isn't it obvious? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No need! They're the exact same! Unless you are some kind of bigot! Got it. My argument is that my pit bull is the same as any golden retriever! Why is this so hard for you? I mean, isn't it obvious? What they are saying is the definition of a "breed" or "race" is arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:02:23 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one is saying there isn't genetic differences between living beings. How about genetic differences between groups of people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:06:39 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends on the person making the cut-off points. Not if they know what they are talking about. While there is plenty of clinal human variation, the correct BIOLOGICAL answer is one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:09:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are attacking a strawman that no one is saying. No one is saying there isn't genetic differences between living beings. What they are saying is the definition of a "breed" or "race" is arbitrary. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No need! They're the exact same! Unless you are some kind of bigot! Got it. My argument is that my pit bull is the same as any golden retriever! Why is this so hard for you? I mean, isn't it obvious? What they are saying is the definition of a "breed" or "race" is arbitrary. I think that we are in agreement here. My pitbull, as are any pitbulls, are as good a bird dog as any retriever. In fact, placing them in groups at all is arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:09:59 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm none of those races, I'm Nordic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Caucasoid Negroid Mongoloid(includes native American) This. 3 Unfortunately, this is a difficult/guilt ridden/self conscious/ politically uncorrect subject for many. I'm none of those races, I'm Nordic. A less adulterated caucasian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:13:17 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A left leaning geneticist running a PHD program in bioinformatics who studies epigenetics says races are statistically distinct. He also says IQ is heritable. He doesn't like making these points and is quick to deny their political or social relevance but according to him the groupings are there. They aren't some mathematical artifact. The statistical analysis can be used to make valid predictions. I was an applied math major and he wanted me to join his program. He was also my judo sensei. I have no reason to disbelieve him. This is one of those subjects that unless a guy has PHD after his name I assume he's talking out his ass. Interesting. Citation, please. I would be happy to evaluate his findings. I won't be talking out of my ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:13:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the same sense the Linnean taxonomy is a social construct--one that happens to track quite closely with actual evolutionary history, and is a critical foundation of all of biology. You seem to think you've accomplished something. You haven't. Claiming it's a social construct doesn't mean it's wrong or that it doesn't describe an underlying biological reality. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Oh wait, I did. "All taxonomy is a social construct". In the same sense the Linnean taxonomy is a social construct--one that happens to track quite closely with actual evolutionary history, and is a critical foundation of all of biology. You seem to think you've accomplished something. You haven't. Claiming it's a social construct doesn't mean it's wrong or that it doesn't describe an underlying biological reality. You also seem to think you've accomplished something by having biologists admit something that they know: the genetics of different populations of a different organisms differs. Wow, how amazing.  Classifying these organism into families, or kingdoms, or races really is arbitrary. You guys are fighting a strawman of 'stupid scientists think all living things are exactly the same derp derp!'. Also, the problem with that tree above in the sub species level, identifying which group an individual belongs it depends of separate populations of genetically pure individuals. Put 10 different breeds in an area and let them breed for 100 years, you'll be hard pressed to find the genetic "heritage" of the animals. The 'breeds' of dogs will be gone, probably replaced with a new one. In 1000 years, it will be damned hard to tell genetically, where people's ancestors came from unless they do not have a diverse ancestry. The 'races' would be destroyed, and replaced with new ones. The only reason "race" correlates to a meaningful and quantifiable difference in appearance is that we are living early after an the era of significant geographical isolation. Farther down the road, after mixing, "race" will not correlate as well, if at all to your graph if you wait long enough. The genetic markers will be there, but the "racial phenotypes" will not be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:14:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about genetic differences between groups of people? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No one is saying there isn't genetic differences between living beings. How about genetic differences between groups of people? Its a strawman you guys are fighting. What they are saying is that the lines are arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:16:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think that we are in agreement here. My pitbull, as are any pitbulls, are as good a bird dog as any retriever. In fact, placing them in groups at all is arbitrary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So you can't and have no argument. Got it. My argument is that my pit bull is the same as any golden retriever! Why is this so hard for you? I mean, isn't it obvious? What they are saying is the definition of a "breed" or "race" is arbitrary. I think that we are in agreement here. My pitbull, as are any pitbulls, are as good a bird dog as any retriever. In fact, placing them in groups at all is arbitrary. Sorry for your confusion in this matter. I'm not sure I can help you understand what I'm saying...I'm no english or science teacher, and you apparently need one or the other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:20:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its not that no one wants to draw lines, is that we can't draw lines in any scientific meaningful manner that would substantiate the common notion of 'race'. This isn't political correctness, this is biology. All divisions above and below the species level are arbitrary. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My classification is not meant to be scientific, which is why it does not fail miserably. It is a rough GUESS. There could be hundreds of breeds, and probably are, but without genetic marker test and stuff, then we can only make very general assumptions. That's why I said I'd love to learn more about human breeds, but we can't do that when no one is allowed to talk about it. Sure we can. For a hundred bucks you can a genetic test that maps out where your ancestors come from. And those various groupings can have some meaning, like predisposition to disease, etc. A lot of the groupings are related to the timing of certain migrations out of Africa. NONE of which corresponds in a meaningful way to what is commonly known as race. Or to put it in your terms, it's like saying we aren't allowed to discuss the various classifications of dog breeds when you are trying to say that the meaningful distinctions are the colors of the fur. There are black dogs, and White dogs, and brown dogs, and all white dogs share certain characteristic besides their fur, like size, temperament, likelyhood of heart disease, etc. White Alsatians and White miniature poodles have more in common than a white miniature poodle and a brown standard poodle. The reason you would not be able to have a discussion along those lines is that as soon as you get past the superficial, the "commonalities " evaporate Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You are proving my point. When I say we can't talk about it, I mean politically. Therefore our species isn't studied enough because no one wants to draw any lines between us, but that prevents us from understanding our differences. See what you did was seize on my superficial color description and attack, attack, attack it. I am not an idiot, and know that different color dogs doesn't make them a different breed. But humans aren't dogs, and our sin color usually does relate to our genetic heritage. This isn't political correctness, this is biology. All divisions above and below the species level are arbitrary. How many caucasians do you know who have sickle cell? How's the AIDS virus distributed, per capita among negroids vs others. (this is largely explained because the black death strengthened a certain cell structure owners among Europeans.) One would have to be blind to not see the 3 separate and definitive skull structures prevalent among humans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:20:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
I'm just asking from a scientific point and not the governments experiment..
1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:20:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A less adulterated caucasian. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Caucasoid Negroid Mongoloid(includes native American) This. 3 Unfortunately, this is a difficult/guilt ridden/self conscious/ politically uncorrect subject for many. I'm none of those races, I'm Nordic. A less adulterated caucasian. My ancestors haven't been anywhere near the Caucasus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:22:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, we aren't in agreement As that is not what I'm implying at all. Sorry for your confusion in this matter. I'm not sure I can help you understand what I'm saying...I'm no english or science teacher, and you apparently need one or the other. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you can't and have no argument. Got it. My argument is that my pit bull is the same as any golden retriever! Why is this so hard for you? I mean, isn't it obvious? What they are saying is the definition of a "breed" or "race" is arbitrary. I think that we are in agreement here. My pitbull, as are any pitbulls, are as good a bird dog as any retriever. In fact, placing them in groups at all is arbitrary. Sorry for your confusion in this matter. I'm not sure I can help you understand what I'm saying...I'm no english or science teacher, and you apparently need one or the other. I'm guessing ideological liberal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:23:00 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many caucasians do you know who have sickle cell? How's the AIDS virus distributed, per capita among negroids vs others. (this is largely explained because the black death strengthened a certain cell structure owners among Europeans.) One would have to be blind to not see the 3 separate and definitive skull structures prevalent among humans. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sure we can. For a hundred bucks you can a genetic test that maps out where your ancestors come from. And those various groupings can have some meaning, like predisposition to disease, etc. A lot of the groupings are related to the timing of certain migrations out of Africa. NONE of which corresponds in a meaningful way to what is commonly known as race. Or to put it in your terms, it's like saying we aren't allowed to discuss the various classifications of dog breeds when you are trying to say that the meaningful distinctions are the colors of the fur. There are black dogs, and White dogs, and brown dogs, and all white dogs share certain characteristic besides their fur, like size, temperament, likelyhood of heart disease, etc. White Alsatians and White miniature poodles have more in common than a white miniature poodle and a brown standard poodle. The reason you would not be able to have a discussion along those lines is that as soon as you get past the superficial, the "commonalities " evaporate Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You are proving my point. When I say we can't talk about it, I mean politically. Therefore our species isn't studied enough because no one wants to draw any lines between us, but that prevents us from understanding our differences. See what you did was seize on my superficial color description and attack, attack, attack it. I am not an idiot, and know that different color dogs doesn't make them a different breed. But humans aren't dogs, and our sin color usually does relate to our genetic heritage. This isn't political correctness, this is biology. All divisions above and below the species level are arbitrary. How many caucasians do you know who have sickle cell? How's the AIDS virus distributed, per capita among negroids vs others. (this is largely explained because the black death strengthened a certain cell structure owners among Europeans.) One would have to be blind to not see the 3 separate and definitive skull structures prevalent among humans. Which one of those things that you described is the objective classification of race? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:23:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting. Citation, please. I would be happy to evaluate his findings. I won't be talking out of my ass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A left leaning geneticist running a PHD program in bioinformatics who studies epigenetics says races are statistically distinct. He also says IQ is heritable. He doesn't like making these points and is quick to deny their political or social relevance but according to him the groupings are there. They aren't some mathematical artifact. The statistical analysis can be used to make valid predictions. I was an applied math major and he wanted me to join his program. He was also my judo sensei. I have no reason to disbelieve him. This is one of those subjects that unless a guy has PHD after his name I assume he's talking out his ass. Interesting. Citation, please. I would be happy to evaluate his findings. I won't be talking out of my ass. What have you published? I'll send him a chat and see if he's heard of you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:24:16 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My ancestors haven't been anywhere near the Caucasus. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Caucasoid Negroid Mongoloid(includes native American) This. 3 Unfortunately, this is a difficult/guilt ridden/self conscious/ politically uncorrect subject for many. I'm none of those races, I'm Nordic. A less adulterated caucasian. My ancestors haven't been anywhere near the Caucasus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:24:47 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm guessing ideological liberal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You are attacking a strawman that no one is saying. No one is saying there isn't genetic differences between living beings. What they are saying is the definition of a "breed" or "race" is arbitrary. I think that we are in agreement here. My pitbull, as are any pitbulls, are as good a bird dog as any retriever. In fact, placing them in groups at all is arbitrary. Sorry for your confusion in this matter. I'm not sure I can help you understand what I'm saying...I'm no english or science teacher, and you apparently need one or the other. I'm guessing ideological liberal. Sorry that your foolish assumptions have made you draw horribly incorrect conclusions. Be careful, make sure that type of thinking doesn't carry over into other aspects of your life! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:26:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many caucasians do you know who have sickle cell? How's the AIDS virus distributed, per capita among negroids vs others. (this is largely explained because the black death strengthened a certain cell structure owners among Europeans.) One would have to be blind to not see the 3 separate and definitive skull structures prevalent among humans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My classification is not meant to be scientific, which is why it does not fail miserably. It is a rough GUESS. There could be hundreds of breeds, and probably are, but without genetic marker test and stuff, then we can only make very general assumptions. That's why I said I'd love to learn more about human breeds, but we can't do that when no one is allowed to talk about it. Sure we can. For a hundred bucks you can a genetic test that maps out where your ancestors come from. And those various groupings can have some meaning, like predisposition to disease, etc. A lot of the groupings are related to the timing of certain migrations out of Africa. NONE of which corresponds in a meaningful way to what is commonly known as race. Or to put it in your terms, it's like saying we aren't allowed to discuss the various classifications of dog breeds when you are trying to say that the meaningful distinctions are the colors of the fur. There are black dogs, and White dogs, and brown dogs, and all white dogs share certain characteristic besides their fur, like size, temperament, likelyhood of heart disease, etc. White Alsatians and White miniature poodles have more in common than a white miniature poodle and a brown standard poodle. The reason you would not be able to have a discussion along those lines is that as soon as you get past the superficial, the "commonalities " evaporate Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You are proving my point. When I say we can't talk about it, I mean politically. Therefore our species isn't studied enough because no one wants to draw any lines between us, but that prevents us from understanding our differences. See what you did was seize on my superficial color description and attack, attack, attack it. I am not an idiot, and know that different color dogs doesn't make them a different breed. But humans aren't dogs, and our sin color usually does relate to our genetic heritage. This isn't political correctness, this is biology. All divisions above and below the species level are arbitrary. How many caucasians do you know who have sickle cell? How's the AIDS virus distributed, per capita among negroids vs others. (this is largely explained because the black death strengthened a certain cell structure owners among Europeans.) One would have to be blind to not see the 3 separate and definitive skull structures prevalent among humans. LOL. If my left nut was twice the size of your right nut, would that make us different races? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:28:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Negroid (Congoid)
Caucasoid (Europid) Mongoloid based off hair shaft cross section. Flat, oval, round, respectively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:28:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No no no. The Caucasus are at the longitude of the dividing line. You are a Cauceuro. People east of the Caucasus are Caucasians. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:29:41 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What have you published? I'll send him a chat and see if he's heard of you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A left leaning geneticist running a PHD program in bioinformatics who studies epigenetics says races are statistically distinct. He also says IQ is heritable. He doesn't like making these points and is quick to deny their political or social relevance but according to him the groupings are there. They aren't some mathematical artifact. The statistical analysis can be used to make valid predictions. I was an applied math major and he wanted me to join his program. He was also my judo sensei. I have no reason to disbelieve him. This is one of those subjects that unless a guy has PHD after his name I assume he's talking out his ass. Interesting. Citation, please. I would be happy to evaluate his findings. I won't be talking out of my ass. What have you published? I'll send him a chat and see if he's heard of you. He hasn't heard of me. He's not in my field and I fled academia long ago. How about you just tell me and everyone else who this guy is so we can judge for ourselves? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:30:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What have you published? I'll send him a chat and see if he's heard of you. That's a pretty pathetic dodge. Either you can cite the claim or you can't. If you can cite it, many of us here are interested to see the papers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:32:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope, just someone who understands science. Sorry that your foolish assumptions have made you draw horribly incorrect conclusions. Be careful, make sure that type of thinking doesn't carry over into other aspects of your life! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are attacking a strawman that no one is saying. No one is saying there isn't genetic differences between living beings.
What they are saying is the definition of a "breed" or "race" is arbitrary. I think that we are in agreement here. My pitbull, as are any pitbulls, are as good a bird dog as any retriever. In fact, placing them in groups at all is arbitrary. Sorry for your confusion in this matter. I'm not sure I can help you understand what I'm saying...I'm no english or science teacher, and you apparently need one or the other. I'm guessing ideological liberal. Sorry that your foolish assumptions have made you draw horribly incorrect conclusions. Be careful, make sure that type of thinking doesn't carry over into other aspects of your life! You claimed that any definition or grouping of race or breed is arbitrary. I merely agreed. Pitbulls = retrievers. Groupings are arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:34:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting. Citation, please. I would be happy to evaluate his findings. I won't be talking out of my ass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A left leaning geneticist running a PHD program in bioinformatics who studies epigenetics says races are statistically distinct. He also says IQ is heritable. He doesn't like making these points and is quick to deny their political or social relevance but according to him the groupings are there. They aren't some mathematical artifact. The statistical analysis can be used to make valid predictions. I was an applied math major and he wanted me to join his program. He was also my judo sensei. I have no reason to disbelieve him. This is one of those subjects that unless a guy has PHD after his name I assume he's talking out his ass. Interesting. Citation, please. I would be happy to evaluate his findings. I won't be talking out of my ass. Assuming you are talking about "races are statistically distinct.", what is interesting about it? Serious question. Seems like a "how could it be any other way" issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:34:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My pit bull is the EXACT same as your golden retriever, in behavior and physiology, you ignorant bigot! No, it's not. Do you think a chiwawa is the same as a sheep dog in behavior and physiology? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:40:12 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many caucasians do you know who have sickle cell? How's the AIDS virus distributed, per capita among negroids vs others. (this is largely explained because the black death strengthened a certain cell structure owners among Europeans.) One would have to be blind to not see the 3 separate and definitive skull structures prevalent among humans. Hemoglobinopathies and similar traits aren't a very good argument for race. The HbS gene is found in Africans, Indians, Middle Easterners, and Turkey, Greece, etc. Likewise the thalassemias-- alpha-thalassemia is seen in Africans and East Asians. HbS is probably more instructive, though, since it is a single, well-known mutation (Glu6Val on the Hb beta-chain) whereas the thalassemias cme about due to a number of different mutations. Distribution of HIV likely has a lot more to do with cultural practices than genetics. I understand what you're saying about skull morphology, but those lines become very blurred in many places. Somalia, Madagascar, PNG-- all places full of people whose skulls don't look like what you'd expect based on a cut and dry three-race model (and whose lineages are reasonably old unlike, for example, Brazil). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:40:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You claimed that any definition or grouping of race or breed is arbitrary. I merely agreed. Pitbulls = retrievers. Groupings are arbitrary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, we aren't in agreement As that is not what I'm implying at all. Sorry for your confusion in this matter. I'm not sure I can help you understand what I'm saying...I'm no english or science teacher, and you apparently need one or the other. I'm guessing ideological liberal. Sorry that your foolish assumptions have made you draw horribly incorrect conclusions. Be careful, make sure that type of thinking doesn't carry over into other aspects of your life! You claimed that any definition or grouping of race or breed is arbitrary. I merely agreed. Pitbulls = retrievers. Groupings are arbitrary. Sorry for your confusion. I'm starting to think english IS the reason you are having a problem understanding. Serious question: Is it your second language? If so, I'd like to comment you on how well you are doing! Stick with it!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:41:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, it's not. Do you think a chiwawa is the same as a sheep dog in behavior and physiology? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My pit bull is the EXACT same as your golden retriever, in behavior and physiology, you ignorant bigot! No, it's not. Do you think a chiwawa is the same as a sheep dog in behavior and physiology? Your race clearly lost the sarcasm gene at some point |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:43:37 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a pretty pathetic dodge. Either you can cite the claim or you can't. If you can cite it, many of us here are interested to see the papers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What have you published? I'll send him a chat and see if he's heard of you. That's a pretty pathetic dodge. Either you can cite the claim or you can't. If you can cite it, many of us here are interested to see the papers. I can't cite any claim or claims. I was just telling you what dude said. I thought maybe you and him could argue it out. I'm sure as hell not putting his name out on a public forum though. That guy's black in several martial arts. Also I'm not going to waste his or my time if you're just some internet blowhard. ETA: Tell you what, you send me a citation from population genetics that shows racial groups don't exist and I'll ask him what he thinks of it. I'll probably see him in class this Tuesday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:48:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Negroid (Congoid) Caucasoid (Europid) Mongoloid based off hair shaft cross section. Flat, oval, round, respectively. This is not that much different from my rough guess. However, it is probably just as arbitrary. My main point is that if I wanted to read about the classification of different subspecies of rats or trees or any other plant/animal, then that I formation would be common knowledge immediately available to anyone interested. It would be uncontested because it is science. Yet the most important and interesting animal of all--humans--have not successfully been classified in a standard and acceptable scientific way, and it is a highly contestable topic, when it should not be. Our differences should be celebrated. We've made progress by using genetic testing, but we had (mostly) accurate classifications of plants and animals before genes were ever even discovered (like in the 1800's). Weird huh? The reason we cannot agree is because its so difficult not to be subjective when you are literally the subject being analyzed. I'm sure if aliens came to Earth the first thing they'd do is categorize the human species. Until then, I am "white", which is a pretty pathetic grouping! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:49:27 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't cite any claim or claims. I was just telling you what dude said. I thought maybe you and him could argue it out. I'm sure as hell not putting his name out on a public forum though. That guy's black in several martial arts. Also I'm not going to waste his or my time if you're just some internet blowhard. I think you're confusing me with someone else in this thread. I simply asked for the cite. I'm genuinely interested in the issue. If the guy is published he's already put his name out there. Here, I'll help you with his anonymity. Search at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ for one of his papers on the topic, then link it in this thread. 99% chance he's one of at least three authors on the paper, so nothing will identify him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:50:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is not that much different from my rough guess. However, it is probably just as arbitrary. My main point is that if I wanted to read about the classification of different subspecies of rats or trees or any other plant/animal, then that I formation would be common knowledge immediately available to anyone interested. It would be uncontested because it is science. Yet the most important and interesting animal of all--humans--have not successfully been classified in a standard and acceptable scientific way, and it is a highly contestable topic, when it should not be. Our differences should be celebrated. We've made progress by using genetic testing, but we had (mostly) accurate classifications of plants and animals before genes were ever even discovered (like in the 1800's). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Negroid (Congoid) Caucasoid (Europid) Mongoloid based off hair shaft cross section. Flat, oval, round, respectively. This is not that much different from my rough guess. However, it is probably just as arbitrary. My main point is that if I wanted to read about the classification of different subspecies of rats or trees or any other plant/animal, then that I formation would be common knowledge immediately available to anyone interested. It would be uncontested because it is science. Yet the most important and interesting animal of all--humans--have not successfully been classified in a standard and acceptable scientific way, and it is a highly contestable topic, when it should not be. Our differences should be celebrated. We've made progress by using genetic testing, but we had (mostly) accurate classifications of plants and animals before genes were ever even discovered (like in the 1800's). While not a biologist, I've been in a committee meeting that was discussing the definition of "damage" in the context of a model, and people were arguing to the point of raising their voices. There is an entire chapter in moby dick arguing that whale are fish. Purse swinging over arbitrary definitions is what taxonomy is about. Genetics has helped settle some disputes, but it doesn't solve all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:51:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Nope, not going there...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:52:03 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you're confusing me with someone else in this thread. I simply asked for the cite. I'm genuinely interested in the issue. If the guy is published he's already put his name out there. Here, I'll help you with his anonymity. Search at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ for one of his papers on the topic, then link it in this thread. 99% chance he's one of at least three authors on the paper, so nothing will identify him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I can't cite any claim or claims. I was just telling you what dude said. I thought maybe you and him could argue it out. I'm sure as hell not putting his name out on a public forum though. That guy's black in several martial arts. Also I'm not going to waste his or my time if you're just some internet blowhard. I think you're confusing me with someone else in this thread. I simply asked for the cite. I'm genuinely interested in the issue. If the guy is published he's already put his name out there. Here, I'll help you with his anonymity. Search at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ for one of his papers on the topic, then link it in this thread. 99% chance he's one of at least three authors on the paper, so nothing will identify him. Yeah I'll look but I sure as hell don't want that guy pissed at me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:58:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't cite any claim or claims. I was just telling you what dude said. I thought maybe you and him could argue it out. I'm sure as hell not putting his name out on a public forum though. That guy's black in several martial arts. Also I'm not going to waste his or my time if you're just some internet blowhard. ETA: Tell you what, you send me a citation from population genetics that shows racial groups don't exist and I'll ask him what he thinks of it. I'll probably see him in class this Tuesday. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What have you published? I'll send him a chat and see if he's heard of you. That's a pretty pathetic dodge. Either you can cite the claim or you can't. If you can cite it, many of us here are interested to see the papers. I can't cite any claim or claims. I was just telling you what dude said. I thought maybe you and him could argue it out. I'm sure as hell not putting his name out on a public forum though. That guy's black in several martial arts. Also I'm not going to waste his or my time if you're just some internet blowhard. ETA: Tell you what, you send me a citation from population genetics that shows racial groups don't exist and I'll ask him what he thinks of it. I'll probably see him in class this Tuesday. right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:59:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit. Science argues constantly about these types of classifications. People get into heated discussions over these types of deffinitions of words, personal rivalries form, etc. While not a biologist, I've been in a committee meeting that was discussing the definition of "damage" in the context of a model, and people were arguing to the point of raising their voices. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Negroid (Congoid) Caucasoid (Europid) Mongoloid based off hair shaft cross section. Flat, oval, round, respectively. This is not that much different from my rough guess. However, it is probably just as arbitrary. My main point is that if I wanted to read about the classification of different subspecies of rats or trees or any other plant/animal, then that I formation would be common knowledge immediately available to anyone interested. It would be uncontested because it is science. Yet the most important and interesting animal of all--humans--have not successfully been classified in a standard and acceptable scientific way, and it is a highly contestable topic, when it should not be. Our differences should be celebrated. We've made progress by using genetic testing, but we had (mostly) accurate classifications of plants and animals before genes were ever even discovered (like in the 1800's). While not a biologist, I've been in a committee meeting that was discussing the definition of "damage" in the context of a model, and people were arguing to the point of raising their voices. Some argument is part of science. I studied cactus extensively for a few years. They used to argue over what different species and subspecies were, because they used to base classifications on the ability to fertilize. Several cactus had to be reclassified after genetic testing. These days genetic testing pretty much settles all arguments. But with humans I still haven't heard of any consensus--maybe there is a consensus, and just no one wants to talk about it. I'm still waiting to see a link with the answer to OP's question though... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:00:41 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: I'm just asking from a scientific point and not the governments experiment.. depends on the scientist who is answering the question some claim race is a social contstruct. some claim there are only 3 (negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid) some claim there are only 4 (add australoid to the list above) some claim there are a lot of races From the genetic evidence, I think the best number is 4, but reality is a lot more fluid than our attempts to put people in boxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:01:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some argument is part of science. I studied cactus extensively for a few years. They used to argue over what different species and subspecies were, because they used to base classifications on the ability to fertilize. Several cactus had to be reclassified after genetic testing. These days genetic testing pretty much settles all arguments. But with humans I still haven't heard of any consensus--maybe there is a consensus, and just no one wants to talk about it. I'm still waiting to see a link with the answer to OP's question... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Negroid (Congoid) Caucasoid (Europid) Mongoloid based off hair shaft cross section. Flat, oval, round, respectively. This is not that much different from my rough guess. However, it is probably just as arbitrary. My main point is that if I wanted to read about the classification of different subspecies of rats or trees or any other plant/animal, then that I formation would be common knowledge immediately available to anyone interested. It would be uncontested because it is science. Yet the most important and interesting animal of all--humans--have not successfully been classified in a standard and acceptable scientific way, and it is a highly contestable topic, when it should not be. Our differences should be celebrated. We've made progress by using genetic testing, but we had (mostly) accurate classifications of plants and animals before genes were ever even discovered (like in the 1800's). While not a biologist, I've been in a committee meeting that was discussing the definition of "damage" in the context of a model, and people were arguing to the point of raising their voices. Some argument is part of science. I studied cactus extensively for a few years. They used to argue over what different species and subspecies were, because they used to base classifications on the ability to fertilize. Several cactus had to be reclassified after genetic testing. These days genetic testing pretty much settles all arguments. But with humans I still haven't heard of any consensus--maybe there is a consensus, and just no one wants to talk about it. I'm still waiting to see a link with the answer to OP's question...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:02:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Add race if you want to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:02:44 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well since no one has been able to come up with a scientific definition of race in this thread that is anything other than arbitrary definition, I'd say they have a point. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anthropologists will try to convince you that there are no races. It is their mantra. Genetic clustering If we do away with race, we'll need to come up with another word that we can use to explain racial differences when it comes to medicine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:02:57 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anthropologists will try to convince you that there are no races. It is their mantra. Race is a social construct. Anthropologists discuss human genetic differences through the study of population genetics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:04:32 PM EDT
[#50]
There were many books written on this at one time. It is no longer fashionable to discus. What you are seeking is not just the number of races, but of types. This is where it gets complicated and there are various scientific opinions. There are for example different types in white Europeans. Different theories on the Congoids alone can come up with a good variety of competing numbers. Serious research into this question was turning up some unexpected facts, before it became nonPC.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
