xev

Xev, since the lack of human races is scientific certainty with many scientific publications confirming this, one must ask the reasons why there are those who disagree. the first group are those individuals too stupid to understand the science. i suspect you are in this category Xev. the second group choose to cling to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. these are the racists, which BigD belongs to. since, xev, your opposition to the scientific evidence is so vehement, you may very well be part of the latter group, i.e., a racist.

which is it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please shut the f**k up paulsamuel, don't turn Human Science into a flame war.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought you posted this exact same post somewhere else, paulsamuel? :bugeye:

--Long Live the Female Messiah.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paulsamuel:

Just today I was reading an article in the paper about how the organ donation registries are trying hard to recruit minorities.
This is especially important in light of the fact that cross-racial organ transplants are more likely to fail than same-race transplants.

Race is a simple consequence of Mendel's laws and micro-evolution.
Why is this so difficult to grasp? You can scream "SCIENCE SAYS" all you like, and you will persuade the fools who long for any authority figure to tell them what to think and believe. But saying so does not make it so.

You have presented no evidence in support for your contention that race is nonexistent. Your only argument is insult, and insult is not argument.

You are resorting to a childish ad-hominem since I have been ignoring you.

I am indeed a racist. This is pretty much the only thing you've gotten right about me so far.
I am also, to a degree, a racial seperatist.
What is your point? Please post one.
Also, as a moderator I'd ask you not to cross post, and not to attempt to stir up flame wars.

 

you don't understand the science, that's why you'll come up with all these meaningless tidbits, and mistakenly think they support your argument, but they don't. they support science, i.e. no human race.

you refuse to examine the published scientific evidence or listen to experts.

just admit you don't understand, admit that you're at the level of mere belief with no scientific support.

why do you refuse to learn about the biological bases of race?

you keep spouting crap, which reveals your lack of knowledge.

you ought to take Mark Twain's advice, "it's better to keep one's mouth shut and have people think you're stupid, than to open it and prove to them that they're correct."


what do you think Mendel's laws and micro-evolution are??!! They're SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!! The unfortunate part is that you've NO IDEA what they are and how they relate to race.

As I said before, state your argument, then I'll disassemble it piece by piece.

 

Okay, maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say, paulsamuel. Am I to understand that there are no races?

If we aren't talking about skin color, than we must be talking about the whole "We're all human and the same" crap, right? Well, from what I understand certain types of cancer are more likely to show up in black people, than they are white people, and vice-versa. Am I to understand that this means we're all the same?

And what about the organ transplants? How come cross-race organ transplants don't work that well?

 

Paulsamuel:
My argument is simple.

There are certain physical characteristics shared by sub-groups of humans, that differentiate them from the mass of humanity, yet are not so different as to be considered seperate species of humans. To wit, the species homo sapiens sapiens is divided into various breeds.

You keep talking about "published scientific data" and yet when repeatedly asked, you don't cite your sources. You seem to think that redundant ad hominems prove anything but your inability to hold civil or intelligent discourse.

They don't.

 

An organ transplant with your white neighbour most likely wouldn't work either.

 

I actually meant "How come cross-race organ transplants don't work as well as same-race organ transplants do?" Other then that, leave me alone with my drink!

 

repeatedly asked???!!! repeatedly asked??!!! no one asked, you liar.

that's the problem with you and people like you, you already know everything, without the benefit of reading the literature, doing the research or getting an education.

start with these.

1) Lewontin RC. Related Articles, Links
The problem of genetic diversity.
Harvey Lect. 1974-75;70 Series:1-20.

2) Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002 Aug;118(4):393-8.

3) Curr Biol. 1997 Dec 1;7(12):R757-8. Related Articles, Links
*
Population genetics: a new apportionment of human diversity.
Barton NH.
ICAPB, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK.
A worldwide survey of polymorphic molecular markers shows that the human population is genetically homogeneous, in close agreement with evidence from quite different genes and traits.

4) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Apr 29;94(9):4516-9. Related Articles, Links
*
An apportionment of human DNA diversity.
Barbujani G, Magagni A, Minch E, Cavalli-Sforza LL.
Department of Biology, University of Ferrara, via Borsari 46, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy.
It is often taken for granted that the human species is divided in rather homogeneous groups or races, among which biological differences are large. Studies of allele frequencies do not support this view, but they have not been sufficient to rule it out either. We analyzed human molecular diversity at 109 DNA markers, namely 30 microsatellite loci and 79 polymorphic restriction sites (restriction fragment length polymorphism loci) in 16 populations of the world. By partitioning genetic variances at three hierarchical levels of population subdivision, we found that differences between members of the same population account for 84.4% of the total, which is in excellent agreement with estimates based on allele frequencies of classic, protein polymorphisms. Genetic variation remains high even within small population groups. On the average, microsatellite and restriction fragment length polymorphism loci yield identical estimates. Differences among continents represent roughly 1/10 of human molecular diversity, which does not suggest that the racial subdivision of our species reflects any major discontinuity in our genome.

5) Lewontin, 1972. The apportionment of human diversity. Evol. Biol. . 6:381.

6)Nei and Roychoudhury. 1982. Genetic relationship and evolution of human races. Evol. Biol. . 14:1

7) Nei and Roychoudhury. 1972. Gene differences between Caucasian, Negro, and Japanese populations. Science. 177:434.

 

Are you going to bark all day little doggie, or are you going to tear my argument to shreds (as promised)?

 

That is not an argument. It is an opinion. An argument would require a fundamental scientific reason why different humans should belong to a single race. You provide no other argument other that it is 'obvious' to you.

Your opinion that is so 'obvious' seems to go against scientific studies that say it might be obvious, but there is no biologic reason to subdivide the human species into races. Paul gave references.

So, maybe you can backup the 'obvious' with a compelling argument, since that shouldn't be so difficult if it is really so 'obvious'.

 

shh
all you can say is that you know a bunch of people that had transplants, period. Going into the finer details isn't scientific.

 

Paul:

This goes out to Dr. Lou and all you others so adamant in race being a myth.

Humans have 23 chromsomes.
Chimps and other primates have 24.
Other animals have more than or less than these two numbers.

On these chromsomes are found genes that on its carriers express a phenotype, a characteristic that differs cross culturally. I'll tell you what I told Dr. Lou in some other thread:

"There's no such thing as purebreds but the phenotypes are unquestionably different cross culturally. These phenotypes we can class together in grpups as what we can safely call race: just as you would call the grape Skittle "purple" and the lemon one "green". However, they are both Skittles."


We only get into a problem when we run into those small minds that wish to keep the races 'separate'. These genes between humans are like instructions for the same make of car so together they can make a car- there's no reason to keep them seperate.

Genes between humans and rats are instruction manuals for two different makes of cars or species, so they don't mix.

Separatist bullshit is for those Himmlerian dwarves with pictures of Nordic gods up in their rooms, blabbing about Hitler's "Holy Grail".

 

???
You do realise I'm one of the people that thinks forgetting about races is ridiculous right?

Why did you use my name? Am I reading incorrectly?

 

you've misunderstood the argument. that's ok. i'll update you.

in a cultural and sociological sense, race exists, but it is a human construct and human 'races' do not exist biologically. that's because of the strict biological definition of race, i.e. a population genetically distinct enough to be coherent to the exclusion of all other groups. many scientific studies have shown that humans and the geographic populations thereof, are not genetically distinct enough to be considered biological races.

xev refuses to accept this scientific evidence and attacks all (with impunity since she's a moderator, which I consider unconscionably irresponsible) who disagree with her with vehemence. she dared call me, me!!, (who is an evolutionary biologist, a geneticist, a Dr., a scientist, a university level teacher) an imbecile! The insolence of this teenager has no bounds!

 

I don't think xev was even refusing to accept that. I could be wrong.
So I'll just present the argument I actually voiced ages ago when I was discussing it with static-whatever.
So the human races don't meet some biological requirement. Is that such a big deal? This seems to make people think they can just ignore the differences between the different evolutionary branches of the homo-sapiens bush.
Caucasoids are different to mongoloids, you guys are only proving they're not different enough on a molecular level to reach some arbitrary definition. Fine. This doesn't negate the fact that they are different. Some people seem to be trying to argue that it does, which of course is ridiculous and in fact not scientific.
Because obviously south american indians weren't interbreeding with sherpers a thousand years ago. They were seperate populations breeding amongst themselves for some time. This is bound to make them different animals. Different species? no, apparently not even different "races", whatever that means these days, but they are different animals in the same way a german shepherd is different from a dutch shepherd.
And these differences are apparent in many ways, appearance and behaviour, some of the differences are subtle yes and the similarities are more substantial, because we are the same species. However there are differences none the less and they should and would be acknowledged by a purely objective scientific mind.

 

another ref. directly refuting the racist BigD's "facts"

5: Gould SJ. Related Articles, Links
Morton's ranking of races by cranial capacity. Unconscious manipulation of data may be a scientific norm.
Science. 1978 May 5;200(4341):503-9.

 

i remember arguing with you about this, and i even attempted to actually draw a tree for you (what a waste of time and argument on deaf ears).

human evolutionary geneticists don't need to construct some made up concept like race to examine the evolutionary phylogeny of the human race. they have been doing it for over 30 years now using genetics and longer than that using morphological techniques.

to deny race is not to deny differences in the human race. in fact we embrace difference and love to examine it, and use it to look at migratory patterns and determine dates and places of African exodus.

denying race only denys a confusing, outdated and misleading semantic. we scientists have dropped it, now it's time to teach the lay people to drop it.

what we are saying is THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CAUCASOIDS AND MONGOLOIDS BIOLOGICALLY. Sorry for yelling but I want to emphasize that point. if you choose to believe that these groups exist, that is fine, and it may even be helpful, but these 'groups' or 'races' are cultural and sociological designations, not biological and they should not be treated as such.