User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:05:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did, and that statement does not imply, in any way the statement in red. 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!  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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! Typical progressive bs. Everything is relative, reality doesn't exist, let's argue what is means. So let's. You tell me what meaningful differences exist that would lead reasonable (non liberal) people to conclude that pitbulls are in fact a different breed than golden retrievers. Since groupings are all so very arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:06:38 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Genetic clustering Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Does someone who is half one race and half another have a race? What about 1/8th of 8 different ethnicities? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:06:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Clinal distributions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:06:43 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. So this isn't my field! You guys get pissy about this stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:07:10 PM EDT
[#5]
If we were talking about rats, someone would've just posted a link like this and end of discussion.
http://www.petwebsite.com/rats/rat_species.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:08:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So this isn't my field! I gathered that. I just wanted to read this guy's shit. It sounds interesting, because it goes against the prevailing opinion, and I have a suspicion I know what he was latching on to in asserting "races." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:10:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clinal distributions. Correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:14:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Clinal distributions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Clinal distributions. I said nothing about skin color. An albino Zulu man will still cluster with his tribe genetically. We don't have to call it race, think of some PC term for it and I'll be more than happy to use it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:14:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are three races: pure African homo sapiens, homo sapiens hybridized with Neanderthals (Europe, Asia, Americas), and homo sapiens hybridized with denisovians (Australia, New Guinea). Its as good as the other definitions. Seems to be where it's headed and although I'm not familiar with the official taxonomy used, "races" may well be the correct term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:18:47 PM EDT
[#10]
I was always told that if you ain't...
...right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:20:41 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I said nothing about skin color. An albino Zulu man will still cluster with his tribe genetically. We don't have to call it race, think of some PC term for it and I'll be more than happy to use it. Neither did I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:21:45 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Typical progressive bs. Everything is relative, reality doesn't exist, let's argue what is means. So let's. You tell me what meaningful differences exist that would lead reasonable (non liberal) people to conclude that pitbulls are in fact a different breed than golden retrievers. Since groupings are all so very arbitrary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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! Typical progressive bs. Everything is relative, reality doesn't exist, let's argue what is means. So let's. You tell me what meaningful differences exist that would lead reasonable (non liberal) people to conclude that pitbulls are in fact a different breed than golden retrievers. Since groupings are all so very arbitrary. There are clear physical differences between golden retrievers and "pit bulls". The only one arguing that this isn't the case is you. I am not sure why you believe such a foolish thing, but again, this failure if completely yours. The problem is, there are plenty of types of dogs that are "close" to "pit bulls" but aren't "pit bulls". We see it in every "pit bull" thread. "That's not a real pitbull", etc. The reason is because the term "pit bull" or "golden retriever" or any other classification of "breed" is indeed an arbitrary list of characteristics written down by someone at some point in time. The fact that all "true pit bulls" have a common lineage does not eliminate the fact that the "standards" that define what is and isn't "true pit bull" are arbitrary. Because of this, give carte blache, one could make 5 breeds of dogs, or 1,000, just by changing these arbitrary definitions. It wouldn't make the animals any more of less different. The same goes for humans. Choosing certain characteristics (which happen to correlate to the genetic history of the human's ancestors) doesn't change the fact that the "key defining characteristics" are chosen arbitrarily. I could make 5 races of people, or 1,000 by changing the "key defining characteristics" or even genetic markers. Thus, in response to the OP: "How many genetic races of people (or dogs breeds if you want) are there?" The answer: "As many as someone arbitrarily wants there to be" ETA::Said another way: Life is a continuum. This doesn't mean there aren't differences between one end of the spectrum and the other, but assigning categories is indeed very arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:21:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's the superior Swedish race, and then there's the rest.  Your previous posts on various subjects have not escaped my notice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:22:27 PM EDT
[#14]
How many little people does it take to make a race of pygmies?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:26:02 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...snip... An albino Zulu man will still cluster with his tribe genetically. We don't have to call it race, think of some PC term for it and I'll be more than happy to use it. Isn't that a bit circular? How, genetically, do you determine who is in his tribe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:27:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry that you imagining it then, as I've not said anything close to that. Again, this is your problem in understanding. I am not sure why you are having such a hard time refraining from stating that I'm saying things that I'm not. There are clear physical differences between golden retrievers and "pit bulls". The only one arguing that this isn't the case is you. I am not sure why you believe such a foolish thing, but again, this failure if completely yours. The problem is, there are plenty of types of dogs that are "close" to "pit bulls" but aren't "pit bulls". We see it in every "pit bull" thread. "That's not a real pitbull", etc. The reason is because the term "pit bull" or "golden retriever" or any other classification of "breed" is indeed an arbitrary list of characteristics written down by someone at some point in time. The fact that all "true pit bulls" have a common lineage does not eliminate the fact that the "standards" that define what is and isn't "true pit bull" are arbitrary. Because of this, give carte blache, one could make 5 breeds of dogs, or 1,000, just by changing these arbitrary definitions. It wouldn't make the animals any more of less different. The same goes for humans. Choosing certain characteristics (which happen to correlate to the genetic history of the human's ancestors) doesn't change the fact that the "key defining characteristics" are chosen arbitrarily. I could make 5 races of people, or 1,000 by changing the "key defining characteristics" or even genetic markers. Thus, in response to the OP: "How many genetic races of people (or dogs breeds if you want) are there?" The answer: "As many as someone arbitrarily wants there to be" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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! Typical progressive bs. Everything is relative, reality doesn't exist, let's argue what is means. So let's. You tell me what meaningful differences exist that would lead reasonable (non liberal) people to conclude that pitbulls are in fact a different breed than golden retrievers. Since groupings are all so very arbitrary. There are clear physical differences between golden retrievers and "pit bulls". The only one arguing that this isn't the case is you. I am not sure why you believe such a foolish thing, but again, this failure if completely yours. The problem is, there are plenty of types of dogs that are "close" to "pit bulls" but aren't "pit bulls". We see it in every "pit bull" thread. "That's not a real pitbull", etc. The reason is because the term "pit bull" or "golden retriever" or any other classification of "breed" is indeed an arbitrary list of characteristics written down by someone at some point in time. The fact that all "true pit bulls" have a common lineage does not eliminate the fact that the "standards" that define what is and isn't "true pit bull" are arbitrary. Because of this, give carte blache, one could make 5 breeds of dogs, or 1,000, just by changing these arbitrary definitions. It wouldn't make the animals any more of less different. The same goes for humans. Choosing certain characteristics (which happen to correlate to the genetic history of the human's ancestors) doesn't change the fact that the "key defining characteristics" are chosen arbitrarily. I could make 5 races of people, or 1,000 by changing the "key defining characteristics" or even genetic markers. Thus, in response to the OP: "How many genetic races of people (or dogs breeds if you want) are there?" The answer: "As many as someone arbitrarily wants there to be" Your spelling and grammar are poor. Is english your primary language? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:29:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many little people does it take to make a race of pygmies? OOOH! OH! I know this one! Four! One to hold the lightbulb and three others to spin him around! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:30:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your spelling and grammar are poor. Is english your primary language? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Typical progressive bs. Everything is relative, reality doesn't exist, let's argue what is means. So let's. You tell me what meaningful differences exist that would lead reasonable (non liberal) people to conclude that pitbulls are in fact a different breed than golden retrievers. Since groupings are all so very arbitrary. There are clear physical differences between golden retrievers and "pit bulls". The only one arguing that this isn't the case is you. I am not sure why you believe such a foolish thing, but again, this failure if completely yours. The problem is, there are plenty of types of dogs that are "close" to "pit bulls" but aren't "pit bulls". We see it in every "pit bull" thread. "That's not a real pitbull", etc. The reason is because the term "pit bull" or "golden retriever" or any other classification of "breed" is indeed an arbitrary list of characteristics written down by someone at some point in time. The fact that all "true pit bulls" have a common lineage does not eliminate the fact that the "standards" that define what is and isn't "true pit bull" are arbitrary. Because of this, give carte blache, one could make 5 breeds of dogs, or 1,000, just by changing these arbitrary definitions. It wouldn't make the animals any more of less different. The same goes for humans. Choosing certain characteristics (which happen to correlate to the genetic history of the human's ancestors) doesn't change the fact that the "key defining characteristics" are chosen arbitrarily. I could make 5 races of people, or 1,000 by changing the "key defining characteristics" or even genetic markers. Thus, in response to the OP: "How many genetic races of people (or dogs breeds if you want) are there?" The answer: "As many as someone arbitrarily wants there to be" Your spelling and grammar are poor. Is english your primary language? That said, apparently I'm still worlds ahead on reading comprehension and forming valid arguments. "You're a liberal" or "You said everything is relative" betrays your daily struggle in this regard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:32:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OOOH! OH! I know this one! Four! One to hold the lightbulb and three others to spin him around! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How many little people does it take to make a race of pygmies? OOOH! OH! I know this one! Four! One to hold the lightbulb and three others to spin him around! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:36:58 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Neither did I. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I said nothing about skin color. An albino Zulu man will still cluster with his tribe genetically. We don't have to call it race, think of some PC term for it and I'll be more than happy to use it. Neither did I. You are a biologist, or am I misreading your post? I'm not a racist. I'm not a fundamentalist scared of evolution. I don't hold strong opinions on this subject. I am capable of reading and understanding a logical argument. The stuff I've read makes me lean toward 3 or 4 races, but that is dependent on how you draw lines. Of course the same can be said for the entire taxonomic table. Genetic advances are showing us that we did pretty well in categorizing the animals. The evidence I've seen seems to indicate the same in the case of homo sapiens. I see race as having the same usefulness as the concept of breeds of dogs. Convince me race is meaningless and I'll be happy to change my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:38:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My spelling and grammar are poor, I'm an engineer after all. That said, apparently I'm still worlds ahead on reading comprehension and forming valid arguments. "You're a liberal" or "You said everything is relative" betrays your daily struggle in this regard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Typical progressive bs. Everything is relative, reality doesn't exist, let's argue what is means. So let's. You tell me what meaningful differences exist that would lead reasonable (non liberal) people to conclude that pitbulls are in fact a different breed than golden retrievers. Since groupings are all so very arbitrary. There are clear physical differences between golden retrievers and "pit bulls". The only one arguing that this isn't the case is you. I am not sure why you believe such a foolish thing, but again, this failure if completely yours. The problem is, there are plenty of types of dogs that are "close" to "pit bulls" but aren't "pit bulls". We see it in every "pit bull" thread. "That's not a real pitbull", etc. The reason is because the term "pit bull" or "golden retriever" or any other classification of "breed" is indeed an arbitrary list of characteristics written down by someone at some point in time. The fact that all "true pit bulls" have a common lineage does not eliminate the fact that the "standards" that define what is and isn't "true pit bull" are arbitrary. Because of this, give carte blache, one could make 5 breeds of dogs, or 1,000, just by changing these arbitrary definitions. It wouldn't make the animals any more of less different. The same goes for humans. Choosing certain characteristics (which happen to correlate to the genetic history of the human's ancestors) doesn't change the fact that the "key defining characteristics" are chosen arbitrarily. I could make 5 races of people, or 1,000 by changing the "key defining characteristics" or even genetic markers. Thus, in response to the OP: "How many genetic races of people (or dogs breeds if you want) are there?" The answer: "As many as someone arbitrarily wants there to be" Your spelling and grammar are poor. Is english your primary language? That said, apparently I'm still worlds ahead on reading comprehension and forming valid arguments. "You're a liberal" or "You said everything is relative" betrays your daily struggle in this regard. OK. You go back to the nerdery where all groupings and classifications are arbitrary. I will return to the real world where life is good and things are still normal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:41:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OK. You go back to the nerdery where all groupings and classifications are arbitrary. I will return to the real world where life is good and things are still normal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your spelling and grammar are poor. Is english your primary language? That said, apparently I'm still worlds ahead on reading comprehension and forming valid arguments. "You're a liberal" or "You said everything is relative" betrays your daily struggle in this regard. OK. You go back to the nerdery where all groupings and classifications are arbitrary. I will return to the real world where life is good and things are still normal. You are living in a fantasy world apparently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:45:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The use of domesticated animals (dogs, cats, others) is an invalid use of the term race, or breed, since they are artificial constructs, engineered over the ages by humans. In the absence of human intervention, these characteristics would disappear over a long time. Likewise, most characteristics differentiating humans will disappear over time, given the vastly increased ability of humans to relocate, and breed with others of different characteristics. In the future, the world will probably be browner (or maybe yellower), but no less human. You say it is invalid comparison, then make the perfect post to valid the comparison. 
Man made construct that would disappear over time versus geographically made construct that will disappear over time. Either way the differences are superficial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:49:16 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your previous posts on various subjects have not escaped my notice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There's the superior Swedish race, and then there's the rest. Your previous posts on various subjects have not escaped my notice. Good, at least someone reads my awesome posts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:50:44 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are a biologist, or am I misreading your post? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I said nothing about skin color. An albino Zulu man will still cluster with his tribe genetically. We don't have to call it race, think of some PC term for it and I'll be more than happy to use it. Neither did I. You are a biologist, or am I misreading your post? I'm not a racist. I'm not a fundamentalist scared of evolution. I don't hold strong opinions on this subject. I am capable of reading and understanding a logical argument. The stuff I've read makes me lean toward 3 or 4 races, but that is dependent on how you draw lines. Of course the same can be said for the entire taxonomic table. Genetic advances are showing us that we did pretty well in categorizing the animals. The evidence I've seen seems to indicate the same in the case of homo sapiens. I see race as having the same usefulness as the concept of breeds of dogs. Convince me race is meaningless and I'll be happy to change my opinion. Race is not totally meaningless, it is just less useful or objective as people pretend it is. It is indeed arbitrary. Dog breeds are meaningless from a scientific standpoint, as I can breed a population of dogs and produce offspring that fail to meet the "official definition" of that breed despite their clear lineage. This because "breed classification" is not a nested hierarchy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:51:11 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, that is the real world. You are living in a fantasy world apparently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your spelling and grammar are poor. Is english your primary language? That said, apparently I'm still worlds ahead on reading comprehension and forming valid arguments. "You're a liberal" or "You said everything is relative" betrays your daily struggle in this regard. OK. You go back to the nerdery where all groupings and classifications are arbitrary. I will return to the real world where life is good and things are still normal. You are living in a fantasy world apparently. Well if all classifications and groupings are arbitrary, do you enjoy sex with men as much as you do women(in your ai sim world)? I mean, you are claiming all groupings are arbitrary. I'm not judging you, just seeking to clarify how far your bizarre reality extends? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:51:55 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry that you imagining it then, as I've not said anything close to that. Again, this is your problem in understanding. I am not sure why you are having such a hard time refraining from stating that I'm saying things that I'm not. There are clear physical differences between golden retrievers and "pit bulls". The only one arguing that this isn't the case is you. I am not sure why you believe such a foolish thing, but again, this failure if completely yours. The problem is, there are plenty of types of dogs that are "close" to "pit bulls" but aren't "pit bulls". We see it in every "pit bull" thread. "That's not a real pitbull", etc. The reason is because the term "pit bull" or "golden retriever" or any other classification of "breed" is indeed an arbitrary list of characteristics written down by someone at some point in time. The fact that all "true pit bulls" have a common lineage does not eliminate the fact that the "standards" that define what is and isn't "true pit bull" are arbitrary. Because of this, give carte blache, one could make 5 breeds of dogs, or 1,000, just by changing these arbitrary definitions. It wouldn't make the animals any more of less different. The same goes for humans. Choosing certain characteristics (which happen to correlate to the genetic history of the human's ancestors) doesn't change the fact that the "key defining characteristics" are chosen arbitrarily. I could make 5 races of people, or 1,000 by changing the "key defining characteristics" or even genetic markers. Thus, in response to the OP: "How many genetic races of people (or dogs breeds if you want) are there?" The answer: "As many as someone arbitrarily wants there to be" ETA::Said another way: Life is a continuum. This doesn't mean there aren't differences between one end of the spectrum and the other, but assigning categories is indeed very arbitrary. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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! Typical progressive bs. Everything is relative, reality doesn't exist, let's argue what is means. So let's. You tell me what meaningful differences exist that would lead reasonable (non liberal) people to conclude that pitbulls are in fact a different breed than golden retrievers. Since groupings are all so very arbitrary. There are clear physical differences between golden retrievers and "pit bulls". The only one arguing that this isn't the case is you. I am not sure why you believe such a foolish thing, but again, this failure if completely yours. The problem is, there are plenty of types of dogs that are "close" to "pit bulls" but aren't "pit bulls". We see it in every "pit bull" thread. "That's not a real pitbull", etc. The reason is because the term "pit bull" or "golden retriever" or any other classification of "breed" is indeed an arbitrary list of characteristics written down by someone at some point in time. The fact that all "true pit bulls" have a common lineage does not eliminate the fact that the "standards" that define what is and isn't "true pit bull" are arbitrary. Because of this, give carte blache, one could make 5 breeds of dogs, or 1,000, just by changing these arbitrary definitions. It wouldn't make the animals any more of less different. The same goes for humans. Choosing certain characteristics (which happen to correlate to the genetic history of the human's ancestors) doesn't change the fact that the "key defining characteristics" are chosen arbitrarily. I could make 5 races of people, or 1,000 by changing the "key defining characteristics" or even genetic markers. Thus, in response to the OP: "How many genetic races of people (or dogs breeds if you want) are there?" The answer: "As many as someone arbitrarily wants there to be" ETA::Said another way: Life is a continuum. This doesn't mean there aren't differences between one end of the spectrum and the other, but assigning categories is indeed very arbitrary. That's just incorrect. Yes animal breeds are arbitrarily defined and bred to standards, but they basically become their own subspecies (if I understand it correctly). If you breed an fugly GSD with a best of show GSD, then the offspring will still have the genotype and phenotype of a GSD--it is a purebred. If you mix any other breed/subspecies with a GSD then the offspring will be random genetic hybrids, and even within the same litter you might get several different looking dogs. So while breeding standards are completely arbitrary, classification is not arbitrary, classification is based on science/genetics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:55:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well if all classifications and groupings are arbitrary, do you enjoy sex with men as much as you do women(in your ai sim world)? I mean, you are claiming all groupings are arbitrary. I'm not judging you, just seeking to clarify how far your bizarre reality extends? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My spelling and grammar are poor, I'm an engineer after all. That said, apparently I'm still worlds ahead on reading comprehension and forming valid arguments. "You're a liberal" or "You said everything is relative" betrays your daily struggle in this regard. OK. You go back to the nerdery where all groupings and classifications are arbitrary. I will return to the real world where life is good and things are still normal. You are living in a fantasy world apparently. Well if all classifications and groupings are arbitrary, do you enjoy sex with men as much as you do women(in your ai sim world)? I mean, you are claiming all groupings are arbitrary. I'm not judging you, just seeking to clarify how far your bizarre reality extends?  I should have known better to highlight your silly statements without thoroughly reading them and considering what your weak attempt at a "gotcha" is going to be. All classifications above and below the species level are arbitrary, IN THE FUCKING CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD. Is that precise enough for you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:56:47 PM EDT
[#29]
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. Wow - where the fuck does this ignorant trash come from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:57:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's just incorrect. Yes animal breeds are arbitrarily defined and bred to standards, but they basically become their own subspecies (if I understand it correctly). If you breed an fugly GSD with a best of show GSD, then the offspring will still have the genotype and phenotype of a GSD--it is a purebred. If you mix any other breed/subspecies with a GSD then the offspring will be random genetic hybrids, and even within the same litter you might get several different looking dogs. So while breeding standards are completely arbitrary, classification is not arbitrary, classification is based on science/genetics. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There are clear physical differences between golden retrievers and "pit bulls". The only one arguing that this isn't the case is you. I am not sure why you believe such a foolish thing, but again, this failure if completely yours. The problem is, there are plenty of types of dogs that are "close" to "pit bulls" but aren't "pit bulls". We see it in every "pit bull" thread. "That's not a real pitbull", etc. The reason is because the term "pit bull" or "golden retriever" or any other classification of "breed" is indeed an arbitrary list of characteristics written down by someone at some point in time. The fact that all "true pit bulls" have a common lineage does not eliminate the fact that the "standards" that define what is and isn't "true pit bull" are arbitrary. Because of this, give carte blache, one could make 5 breeds of dogs, or 1,000, just by changing these arbitrary definitions. It wouldn't make the animals any more of less different. The same goes for humans. Choosing certain characteristics (which happen to correlate to the genetic history of the human's ancestors) doesn't change the fact that the "key defining characteristics" are chosen arbitrarily. I could make 5 races of people, or 1,000 by changing the "key defining characteristics" or even genetic markers. Thus, in response to the OP: "How many genetic races of people (or dogs breeds if you want) are there?" The answer: "As many as someone arbitrarily wants there to be" ETA::Said another way: Life is a continuum. This doesn't mean there aren't differences between one end of the spectrum and the other, but assigning categories is indeed very arbitrary. That's just incorrect. Yes animal breeds are arbitrarily defined and bred to standards, but they basically become their own subspecies (if I understand it correctly). If you breed an fugly GSD with a best of show GSD, then the offspring will still have the genotype and phenotype of a GSD--it is a purebred. If you mix any other breed/subspecies with a GSD then the offspring will be random genetic hybrids, and even within the same litter you might get several different looking dogs. So while breeding standards are completely arbitrary, classification is not arbitrary, classification is based on science/genetics. I can breed a population of GSD's to the point where they fail meet the standards of the breed "GSD". They'd probably become their own breed. In fact, that's how dog breeds are created. Point is, dog breeds are not nested hierarchies nor do they resemble phylogenetic classification in that regard. Dogs are all a single subspecies of wolf. Breeds are not subspecies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:58:20 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Maybe you could classify the groups according to some criteria. You could give the classes you divide them into a name, like "portzebie" or "race." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:59:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe you could classify the groups according to some criteria. You could give the classes you divide them into a name, like "portzebie" or "race." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Maybe you could classify the groups according to some criteria. You could give the classes you divide them into a name, like "portzebie" or "race." No? Oh, then my statement is still perfectly valid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:03:49 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Facepalm
I should have known better to highlight your silly statements without thoroughly reading them and considering what your weak attempt at a "gotcha" is going to be. All classifications above and below the species level are arbitrary, IN THE FUCKING CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD. Is that precise enough for you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My spelling and grammar are poor, I'm an engineer after all. That said, apparently I'm still worlds ahead on reading comprehension and forming valid arguments. "You're a liberal" or "You said everything is relative" betrays your daily struggle in this regard. OK. You go back to the nerdery where all groupings and classifications are arbitrary. I will return to the real world where life is good and things are still normal. You are living in a fantasy world apparently. Well if all classifications and groupings are arbitrary, do you enjoy sex with men as much as you do women(in your ai sim world)? I mean, you are claiming all groupings are arbitrary. I'm not judging you, just seeking to clarify how far your bizarre reality extends?
I should have known better to highlight your silly statements without thoroughly reading them and considering what your weak attempt at a "gotcha" is going to be. All classifications above and below the species level are arbitrary, IN THE FUCKING CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD. Is that precise enough for you? Don't start moving the goal posts now. Your reasoning and logic are weak and you just admitted to everyone that you love men. Case closed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:04:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Classifying these organism into families, or kingdoms, or races really is arbitrary. Not really--the classifications are broadly speaking a reflection of an underlying biological reality, namely the process of evolution. That's why the classification system was found to be useful, even though Carl Linneaus predated Darwin, genetics, and DNA. The racial classifications are also a reflection of an underlying biological reality, namely isolated groups of humans interbreeding with each other under environmental pressure for periods of hundreds or even thousands of years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:08:54 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really--the classifications are broadly speaking a reflection of an underlying biological reality, namely the process of evolution. That's why the classification system was found to be useful, even though Carl Linneaus predated Darwin, genetics, and DNA. The racial classifications are also a reflection of an underlying biological reality, namely isolated groups of humans interbreeding with each other under environmental pressure for periods of hundreds or even thousands of years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Classifying these organism into families, or kingdoms, or races really is arbitrary. Not really--the classifications are broadly speaking a reflection of an underlying biological reality, namely the process of evolution. That's why the classification system was found to be useful, even though Carl Linneaus predated Darwin, genetics, and DNA. The racial classifications are also a reflection of an underlying biological reality, namely isolated groups of humans interbreeding with each other under environmental pressure for periods of hundreds or even thousands of years. I never said biological classification, or racial classification, isn't useful. Just that it is arbitrary. How many levels are there on the phylogenetic tree? Why? A: Because it was arbitrarily decided that this number of levels would be adequate to classify things, not because there was an objective reason behind it. How many races are there? Why? A:Because it was arbitrarily decided that this number of races would be adequate to classify people, not because there wan an objective reason behind it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:10:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a scientific standpoint there is no such as "race." There are no particular genetic markers that decide race. The genetic difference between those with higher levels of melanin in their skin and paler folk is less than that between Finns and Italians. Race is a completely social construct. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile There are in the basic sense of humanity three. After the great food of deluge of Noah's day when the ark rested on Mt. Ararat, Noah had three sons and their wives which made the voyage with Noah and his wife. One of Noah's son's Shem who's descendants became the people in what is generally considered to have settled in the greater eastern Asia and far east of today and initially in Asia Minor and the Middle east, and then after much time across a land bridge between what is today Russian and Alaska and eventually settled in what is today the North and South American Continents. Japheth, Europe, Central and Northern East Central Asia, and Asia Minor, and the Middle East initially . Ham, Middle east and Turkey initially, Africa, parts of the Indian Sub-continent, South-east Asia, Pacific Islands, Borneo, Indonesian islands or most anywhere in these regions which they shared with the sons of Shem. Usually Shem's descendants were living in the northern regions of these areas with Ham's descendants living in the southern regions if not inter-mingled in some locations by both. It is thought that the descendants of Ham were the first human beings to see and settle many places such as the greater Pacific islands Australian Continent, New Guinea, and the islands of New Zealand. European race, Asian race, or dark skinned or so-called African American race. Most of us such as myself here in the United States possess at least two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:12:33 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I This. 3 Unfortunately, this is a difficult/guilt ridden/self conscious/ politically uncorrect subject for many. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Caucasoid Negroid Mongoloid(includes native American) This. 3 Unfortunately, this is a difficult/guilt ridden/self conscious/ politically uncorrect subject for many. Nope ,that's old Five if you want to go that way African Caucasian (European, middle eastern, Indian) East Asian Native American Australasian I think haplogroups (Y chromosome and Mt DNA) are much more useful |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:19:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clinal distributions. The clines are pretty abrupt in some geographic areas and between social groups in one geographic area. Cavolli-Sforza at Stanford did most of the early work in genetic mapping of humans. He denied the existence of race, but he was whistling past the graveyard; his data belies him. Take a look at the cover of his book, "History and Geography of Human Genes," and you'll see something that looks like what Francis Galton would sketch out at a dinner party circa 1890. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:24:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Bing say:
1. Caucasian 2. Mongolian 3. Negroid Bible say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:54:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good, at least someone reads my awesome posts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's the superior Swedish race, and then there's the rest. Your previous posts on various subjects have not escaped my notice. Good, at least someone reads my awesome posts. I'm not sure raf meant that as a complement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:56:29 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure raf meant that as a complement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's the superior Swedish race, and then there's the rest. Your previous posts on various subjects have not escaped my notice. Good, at least someone reads my awesome posts. I'm not sure raf meant that as a complement. That's what I gathered. I guess he's cranky today, or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:56:40 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
I'm just asking from a scientific point and not the governments experiment.. 23,388 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:59:04 PM EDT
[#43]
Race is a very outdated concept. Most serious anthropologists ditched the concept years ago. The study of cultures and ethnithities is much more valid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:10:36 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Race is a very outdated concept. Most serious anthropologists ditched the concept years ago. The study of cultures and ethnithities is much more valid. Is the study of cultures and ethnicities a more valid way to investigate Tay-Sachs, sickle cell anemia, or HPV than a one based on genetics? I know when I want rigorous scientific thinking I go talk to an anthropologist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:23:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:25:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:29:45 PM EDT
[#47]
http://io9.com/5501565/extinction-events-that-almost-wiped-out-humans There is one near-extinction event that is fairly well-known, although it remains controversial. Roughly 70,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years, an enormous eruption occurred in what is now Sumatra, leaving behind Lake Toba (the crater lake pictured above). The eruption coincides with a population bottleneck that is often cited as the reason for the relatively low genetic diversity across Homo sapiens sapiens. Research suggests as few as 2,000 humans were left alive by the eruption and its aftereffects. A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found another population bottleneck much farther back in human history. Genetic studies found that 1.2 million years ago there were as few as 55,000 members of genus Homo, including pre-human hominids like Homo erectus and Homo ergaster. This one is interesting because we don't have solid evidence of a catastrophic event during that period, so we're not sure what might have caused the population crash or where to look for more evidence. The really interesting thing about a population bottleneck is the effect it has on evolution. With a small population, mutations get passed through a very large percentage of the species' members. Detrimental mutations could be devastating and lead to outright extinction. Beneficial mutations, however, could cause fairly fast shifts in the population. And if you imagine some kind of tribal arrangement in which a few dominant males were responsible for a lot of the procreation going on, this situation becomes even more pronounced. An entirely new species might be created within a few generations. Anthropologists have proposed that such bottlenecks were responsible for the rapid development of hominids. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:34:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Lumpers vs. splitters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 10:45:59 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's what I gathered. I guess he's cranky today, or something. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your previous posts on various subjects have not escaped my notice. Good, at least someone reads my awesome posts. I'm not sure raf meant that as a complement. That's what I gathered. I guess he's cranky today, or something. I think you're on the list now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 11:00:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Negroid (Congoid) Caucasoid (Europid) Mongoloid based off hair shaft cross section. Flat, oval, round, respectively. There's more than hair type. Bone structure, especially skull size/shape, average height, etc. Hair properties Skin properties (such as Keloid scarring) Muscle mass distribution IQ Skin color is secondary to most, and most people are a mix of more than one. |
|
|
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.
