I changed my question half a page back, before any of your posts on my supposed inability to read. Maybe you forgot to ... read that. Which makes them prejudiced.
And all dogs originated in asia. But german shepherds originated in germany, kangals in turkey, bulldogs in england. There's a place of origin for each type. When the strains of homo-sapien branched around the world, different types evolved to suit specific areas. Each with their own unique appearance and culture. If you know what you're doing you can look at someone and say "that guy's papua new guinean" "a phillipino" "irish" or whatever, by the characteristics he posesses of that human strain. If you don't believe this is the case, you have to accept that I have esp, because I "get it right" a hell of alot. According to you a pastey guy with red hair could be a zulu or anything, so I'm pretty good for guessing where peoples' ancestries lie correctly with such consistency. Considering the vast array of options I had. I've been given no obvious cues from their appearance apparently. So I'm something of a phenomonen. Well, I'm afraid you can't expect to be taken seriously then. You seriously, with full sincerity, believe it's something of a coincidence that every person of oriental appearance you've encountered was either actually from asia or had parents from asia? You think it's been an unusual run of chance that you've not yet encountered a "Patrick O'brien" from ireland with full irish ancestry who happens to look like bruce lee? Or maybe you've met such a Patrick O'brien? So if I'm understanding you, ghengis khan may well have looked like shaquille o'neal, shakespeare might have looked like ghandi. We shouldn't make assumptions on what they looked like from where they existed right? If we trekked deep into the kalahari we'd find tribes with members as varied in appearance as the members of the UN? Oh any old one really, in any region of the world. It matters because you claim that the "oriental appearance" isn't a phenotype which arose in asia, but rather a random way individual people can look. By your own admission you believe people of "oriental appearance" have existed at random throughout all populations of human through history. So it would follow that early tribes would be multiracial. Not that race exists ofcourse, they'd just look like what "racists" would call multiracial. If (god forbid) a racist saw an early tribe of people he'd ignorantly and offensively say "there's a nigger pounding grain, a spic sharpening a spear, some chink kids playing with a turtle, a honky making a mud hut" rather than "there's a mob of niggers" because all the people would look like different races to his biggoted eyes but in reality they'd just be 'people'(awww), differing in appearance due to being individuals. The tribes we've seen in nat geo mags have either been fake and staged to be all black for racist propoganda purposes, OR it was just an unusual coincidence that they all happened to be black, and one of the women might have popped out an oriental or white kid days after the photo shoot. No reason why not. Correct? Are you sure you aren't? This started with you implying that you can't accurately use visual cues to determine someone's origins. You've gone on to more emphatically indicate this is your view by saying the oriental appearance isn't asiatic in origins but a way in which people from all over the world might happen to look and have happened to look everywhere through history. Now you're agreeing that different populations of people adapted to different environments around the globe, each population changing to suit their respective environments. So which is it? Did a population of homo sapiens which settled in asia evolve what is considered the "oriental appearance", or has it been a random appearance which popped up in all populations. The latter is just an impossible view to justify, without one hell of a zany conspiracy theory, but hey give it your best shot. I believe there is a jewish race, or more accurately jewish races, because jews have purposefully been breeding with jews only for thousands of years. This doesn't mean everyone calling themself a jew is part of the jewish race or part of any jewish race. But people from long lines of jews (and there are jews with comprehensive family trees) have to be considered part of a distinct breed. Hardly any dog breeds are as old and pure as jews. Many dog breeds were having other breeds crossed into them to restore them just 40 years ago, but they're still considered a breed, because they breed true to type. Jews breed jews. There's no way around that. The situation with jews is interesting, as they're a breed which survives multiculturalism where as most homo-sapien strains have traditionally just been seperated by geography. At the same time it seems many strains naturally tend to breed amongst themselves, seperated loosely by the cultural lifestyles of their people even within multicultural communities. The fact is, I can pick out jewish people by the way they look. My esp up to it's old tricks I suppose? I agree there are european jews and middle eastern jews. But each can be distinguished from other europeans and other middle easterners. My agenda is getting an accurate view of mankind. And I get frustrated by the blockades placed on my path for stupid political and so called "ethical" reasons. I have a similar interest in the history of dog types and breeds. It's a topic I'm fascinated with. The way in which populations of organism change once seperated, in accordance with the demands of their environments and lifestyles. Isolated breeding populations becoming more and more different from one another over time. It's interesting for me to analyse the natural habitats and cultures of different populations which share an ancestral population, and see how these factors have shaped the different animals they've become. Can you honestly say you share my interests? I suspect not. I suspect your finger is in this pie for reasons not pertaining to understanding the strains of homo sapien. You seem to have the, essentially admirable, goal of racial tolerance and equality. But your tactics are dishonest. You seem scared of the truth, worried it might reveal something which encourages people to be racist. Did you ever consider that fully understanding the situation down to it's core might be the best most effective path to racial tolerance? I can't say one dog is better than another because I know each is perfect for a different thing. If I was one of these races you're so eager to defend I'd be offended by your concerns. I'd get the impression you were worried about what "dirt" would be uncovered once we were fully understood. Like you suspected we were really inferior, and you were trying to keep the truth from the racists.
Race: An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies. With a definition like this, I don't know how people get the idea in their heads that race doesn't exist.
Oh, and like conservative, religionist, antiscientific propaganda is actually resonable? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I know because I'm bringing religion into things and ignoring the scientific fact of the slavic and turkic races being the root of most of the euorpean jews. Instead we should just all agree that anyone who follows Judiasm is automatically a semetic person who can trace their ancestory to Abraham...
But the vast majority of human beings have not been geographically isolated in the last 10,000 years or so, which is the time within which all so-called races have evolved. The human genome lacks so much diversity that if all the people on Earth except those in sub-Saharan Africa were wiped out tomorrow, practically all the genetic diversity of the human species would still exist in various individuals left alive.
Dr Lou Natic: Only to a small degree. But in the modern era, certainly over the last 100 years or so, all of those types have become hopelessly intermingled, in a genetic sense. No human these days is really isolated from the gene pool. I seriously doubt it. You might be able to say "That guy looks like he might have had Irish ancestors somewhere in the past". Can you tell an American from an Irishman, just by looking? Can you tell a Tongan from a Maori? Well, yes. No nation in the world is populated by people who all have genes which no other human on Earth possesses. But that's not true. Are you American? If so, I assume you've met some third- or fourth-generation Asian-looking Americans. Where do you draw the line at saying somebody has ceased to be Asian? How many generations back do you go? The fact is, you don't classify people that way, do you? You don't look at their ancestry. You just glance at them, then apply a label according to how they look to you. What's "full Irish ancestry"? We can make likely guesses of how they may have looked. More to the point, though, we can't assume much else about them, even if they looked as we might guess. Most likely, no. But their genetic diversity could be about the same as the members of the UN. You draw an arbitrary line between people of "oriental" and other appearances. That line is, most probably, peculiarly individual to you. If you got down to the nitty-gritty, you'd probably find that you could find examples of people that you would call "oriental" but others would call some other race. Goes without saying, since practically all the current genetic diversity of the human species already existed in those early tribes in Africa. Now you're getting it! The construction of the notion of "race" is actually quite recent, especially in America. Years before the civil war, the political distinction between "black" and "white" practically didn't exist in American discourse. Correct. Racist terms seek to destroy individuality, and replace it with generic stereotypes - always for political reasons. You don't see the diversity in those tribes. All you can see is their skin colour. That says a lot about you, but not much about them. I could line up 6 people, all born in America, right now, and you would go ahead and classify them into 6 different "races". So, I am completely correct in saying you can't use race to determine an individual's origins. Where do you live? The United States? If so, I could guarantee that I could find a black African person, or somebody from Mongolia, or somebody from Iceland perhaps, who would share more genetic similarities with you than your "white", American next-door neighbour. During a period of relative geographic isolation, such a population did indeed develop in Asia. But that period is now long gone. All the genes from that population are now found in individuals all over the world. Chances are that you have some of them. You are thinking, of course, only of that subset of people for which this is true, and who now call themselves "Jewish". At the same time, you ignore the people of Jewish ancestry for which that did not occur - those who, for various reasons, decided to breed outside the Jewish religion. Do you deny that such people exist, even today? To do so would be foolishly naive. Correct. Thus, racial labels don't always say something meaningful, do they? Hardly any dog breeds are as "pure" as the entire human species. Not always. So you keep saying. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You label people in certain ways. Why should anybody be surprised that your labels match your prejudices? For what purpose? How is your concept of "race" useful? But human beings have not separated over the last several thousand years. If anything, they have got closer and closer together. No. I know people are racist for illogical reasons, to do with the way they were brought up. I only wish it was possible to logically argue racists out of their bigotry, but it's very difficult to argue somebody out of something they weren't argued into in the first place. But that's the point of the race debate. Different human "races" are just labels. At best, they indicate superficial differences. But the racist assumption is that the superficial differences are just surface manifestations of deep and important differences between different people. All the (modern, non-political) science shows that to be a deeply flawed view. Nobody is "better" just because they have white skin. And you can't say much more about a person if the only thing you know about them is that they have white skin.
There seems to be a lot of ideology on this thread and little scientific discussion. What do readers here think of Cavalli-Sforza's work? Since the genome of a mouse is 99 percent similar to a human being's and the chimp is 99.9 percent the same as a human, we should focus on what the differences provide since those local developments are the unique aspects that we appreciate, whether called race or ethnicity or any other label. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,56953,00.html
Ideology, such as "we should focus on [whatever] differences"- no thanks; it's the same, tired, wreckless idiocy of Steve Sailer, Ann Coulter, et al, all over again. Racism is fundamentally a belief in "races"... you wanna believe, kid? Knock yourself the fuck out- Way out.
Didn't exist. A'ight...riddle me this: If jews aren't a race, then why are some people called "Jewish-Americans", in the same manner as americans of african descent are called "African-Americans"?
Depends on what you mean by race; I'm betting it's unscientific, making you the first to flee. If not, then you're just trolling.
That's a poor argument. It is better to speak of genetic groupings that establish a racial population. Jews suffer a much higher frequency for the following diseases: Bloom's Syndrome Canavan Disease Familial Dysautonomia Fanconia Anemia Gaucher Disease Mucolipidosis IV Niemann-Pick Disease Tay-Sachs Disease Torsion Dystonia http://www.mazornet.com/genetics/index.asp http://www.mssm.edu/jewish_genetics/genetic_diseases.shtml http://www.geneticstesting.com/patient_info/jewish_diseases.htm Doctors and other scientists accept the fact of race because it can help to diagnose and treat disorders. To deny this information is harmful to the patient and an exercise in deliberate ignorance for the sake of political correctness.
We're discussing Humans, and I won't let you cower out by changing the subject. You're equivocating the old idea of what "race" is with a taxonometric classification which is nonexistent within Homo Sapiens Sapiens. ... As predicted, you've proffered an unscientific label where one doesn't exist _or_ belong. The HGP shows that there is more genetic variation within ethnic subgroups than between them. This is settled science. As is mDNA research, which measures matrilinear inheritance; in our case- back to some 6 or 7 possible mothers about 12,000 years ago, and further to a single mother about 150,000 years ago in Northern Africa. ... If you don't grasp the fundamental anthropologial meaning of the term race, then you won't understand the following sentence: All Humans living today are one race; their only competitor "race" (Homo Neanderthalis) died out or was absorbed within the past 30,000 years. That is also settled science. ... Again for the retards- it is equivocation (logical fallacy; semantic trick) of the term race to mean species and subspecies both; forget that it isn't even a valid scientific taxonometric division to begin with. In the case of Humans, specifically, there are no such subspecies (which are sufficiently different or isolated from one another for a racial distinction). Only arbitrary phenotypic, geographic, cultural or ethnic division... Based on subjective preferences, fostered in ignorance.
There is a human subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens, of which every modern human is a part. To be honest, I cannot answer the following. What are people's thoughts on this: The external differences which can be used to genertically divide up the world's human population into "races" are due to differences in genes of which the amount is an order of magnitude below the differences between dog breeds. The differences between a caucasian and an asian are certainly due to adaption to geographical locations over time, however, they are not nearly significant enough to be considered distinct breeds by modern taxonomists (politics aside). This is my gut reaction, but to be honest, people are so afraid of hurting other people's feelings that I've never really seen genetic evidence to back this up. The only data I have seen is the "there is more genetic difference inside any given "race" than between them and another "race"; but this does not speak directly to the question.
The point is not that race doesn't exist. Clearly, the concept of race is used for all kinds of things by all kinds of people. The point is that race is not a biologically helpful model, except perhaps as a pointer to distant links to a particular geographical region.
There is a human subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens, of which every modern human is a part. Yes, Modern in the paleontological sense, not simply "those alive today." The external differences which can be used to genertically divide up the world's human population into "races" are due to differences in genes of which the amount is an order of magnitude below the differences between dog breeds. Nope, no comparison (on a percentage difference). Canines are much different... (they can interbreed outside normal species grouping; foxes, wolves, et al) only point i beg to differ on. Sorry. In Humans, external differences being "race" date back several hundred years, and a plurality of Human subspecies has been utterly destroyed for about three years now. The differences between a caucasian and an asian are certainly due to adaption to geographical locations over time, however, they are not nearly significant enough to be considered distinct breeds by modern taxonomists (politics aside). Not adaptation to a location, but close; one doesn't adapt to a continent or mountain range. There are presently no "sufficiently isolated" populations of Humans to speciate. This is my gut reaction, but to be honest, people are so afraid of hurting other people's feelings that I've never really seen genetic evidence to back this up. You might visit : http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/faqs1.shtml The only data I have seen is the "there is more genetic difference inside any given "race" than between them and another "race"; but this does not speak directly to the question. Yes it does, and that is exactly why it is not "race" which most people mistakenly attempt to compare; it is genetic variation within groups of karyotypes, and between groups of phenotypes. I apologize if that seems poorly phrased. As I've said before, the belief in races is even more prevalent than theism. That's supremely dangerous, memetically. All the Best to You.
