Let me start with an admission - I haven't bothered to read the entire 300 odd post thread. Now, just because populations of humans with historically limited gene flow show intraspecific variations within their genotype does not mean that races exist. The same is true within all species (that varieties exist between populations). Whilst biologists sometimes use the term 'sub-species' (which I assume 'race' is the human equivalent), it is consensually understood that this term is merely for convenience and is wholly arbitrary. It can be useful in determining ecological patterns, however, and in questions of evolution. Much in the same way that 'race' (i.e. skin colour and ancestry) can be utilised in medical science to increase its efficacy. But the distinctions people make on racial lines are arbitrary, and the real problems seem to rise when generalisations are made which are groundless and/or lacking validity. For example making a leap linking intelligence and skin pigmentation is ridiculous. What is the mechanism by which skin pigmentation determines intellect, I wonder? Race also exists in the human imagination; in sociological terms it is a phenomena which is real (as it is embedded in our culture, and perhaps even our nature to dominate, and what better mechanism have we than division...the oldest trick in an ancient book). Anyway like I say I am far too bone idle to have read the whole thread, so maybe I am addressing points already made or repeating others' words. Indolence runs deep in the blood you see; I'm a West Indian Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . I smoke ganja too, it is programmed into me you know. :m: As is mugging, I am an inherent mugger. Unlike some of you, who are inherent mugs. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Enough already. Stand up is not my strong point... f
welcome, and wow!! first post in Feb. '03, 1 yr. 3 mos. later you're back! bien-venue! It doesn't appear that you are re-hashing (if i can use the term 'hash' so loosely with you) topics here. You're right, intra- and inter-populational variation exist in humans and other species without race formation. However, that does not mean that race designations are arbitrary, in general. Races exist in many species as real and distinct taxonomic groups. Even in humans, there was, presumably, a second race, i.e. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. What is arbitrary is the attempted, and misleading BTW, separation of H.s. sapiens into races based on hypothetical racial characteristics. Even though the term 'race' is used in medicine to increase treatment efficiency, i.e. certain treatments are automatically left out or emphasized based solely on 'race,' it doesn't increase efficacy, and in fact can be downright dangerous because these 'races' don't exist. For example, you said, "making a leap linking intelligence and skin pigmentation is ridiculous." If you said, "making a leap linking high blood pressure and skin pigmentation" make it any less ridiculous.
What is "eternal body fat"? You don't get it, do you? Opinion means dick in science. How about we take a look at a qualified study? "AIM: To examine if bone geometry and density of the femoral mid-shaft in older adults differs by sex and race, we studied 197 White women, 225 Black women, 242 White men, and 148 Black men aged 70-79 years participating in the Health, Aging, and Body Composition study; a prospective cohort study in the USA. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine the association of site-specific muscle and fat to bone geometry and density. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects were community-dwelling and reported no difficulty walking one-quarter of a mile or climbing stairs. Mid-femoral volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD, mg cm(-3)), total area (TA), cortical area (CA), medullary area (MA), cross-sectional moments of inertia (CSMI: I(x), I(y), J), and muscle and fat areas (cm(2)) were determined by computed tomography (CT; GE CT-9800, 10 mm slice thickness). RESULTS: vBMD was greater in men than women with no difference by race (p < 0.001). Bone areas and area moments of inertia were also greater in men than women (p < 0.001), with Black women having higher values than White women for TA and CA. Standardizing geometric parameters for body size differences by dividing by powers of femur length did not negate the sex difference for TA and MA. Significant differences (p < 0.05) among the four groups also remained for I(x) and J. Mid-thigh muscle area was an independent contributor to TA in all groups (Std beta = 0.181-0.351, p < 0.05) as well as CA in women (Std beta = 0.246-0.254, p < 0.01) and CSMI in White women (Std beta = 0.175-0.185, p < 0.05). Further, muscle area was a significant contributor to vBMD in Black women. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that bone geometry and density of the femoral diaphysis differs primarily by sex, rather than race, in older well-functioning adults. In addition, site-specific muscle area appears to have a potential contributory role to bone geometry parameters, especially in women." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12850965 (emphasis mine) Stop right here. Once again you are plagiarizing other peoples work. Here's a reference: http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/american_enterprises.htm Secondly, let's see what brilliant biologist is giving us this data. Let's look, "Dark Secret By Walter E. Williams John M. Olin professor and chairman of the department of economics at George Mason University" Who is Walter E. Williams, is he a brilliant biologist? No. He's a professor of Economics. So what the fuck does he know about biology? What research has he done or is he citing? None. But let's take another look at what he's saying; maybe he has a point anyway. "...evidence suggests that blacks systematically differ from whites. Blacks of West African ancestry..." I notice an immediate problem here. First he identifies black from whites and then he specifically references "Blacks of West African ancestry". Do you see the problem here? He's taking a select group, a very specific population, and then generalizing about an entire 'race' based upon that specific population. Forget if what he's saying is even true about West Africans, this is not sound reasoning. If this guy was actually a scientist or maybe even a professor of philosophy he would realize the problem. But he's not, he's an economist. This is pure drivel. ~Raithere
Kriminal99, I was wondering if you had a comment on that little calculation I did with that 2.5% figure. But on to what you did respond to: No. That would make race psychologically significant. You have to prove biological significance biologically. You haven't. Show me two races that do not interbreed. No, that is incorrect. A species does not have to be homogeneous; there can be genetic patterns in a species that do not qualify as race. In fact, the patterns that exist are part of the problem, they overlap. The answer then is not simply one of heritage. I have yet to answer anything dishonestly. Yes, traits like skin color that are dependent upon multiple alleles will average out. But the population is not unaffected. There are plenty of other genes that do not average out like this. I cited a reference earlier about a chromosomal lineage that is believed be present in about 0.5% of all men in the world. This single linage is believed to date back to only a few generations before Genghis Khan. If a single person's lineage can detectibly spread to 0.5% of the world's male population in about 1000 years how can you possibly imagine that an interbreeding rate of 2.5% (over 6 million people) leaves the races unaffected? I'm sorry but you're simply ignoring the facts. They've been given to you already but you've either ignored them or failed to understand them. Paul cited a study on mtDNA just a few days ago. If the races were unaffected then we would see racially aligned divisions. They're not there. What you think doesn't matter. What you see, you have to understand in context or it amounts to worthless speculation. You have to prove it. ~Raithere
Thanks for the warm welcome back! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Picture, if you will, the lesser-spotted Monarch butterfly. This graceful lepidoptera resides in Europe with metapopulations spread over a vast geographical range. On a North-South axis, the wings differ in colour along a gradient which runs from a deep burnt orange (N) to a muddy brown (S). In addition, biologists have noted the variation in the number of spots occuring upon the wings of this beautiful creature. In the East, the mean is 53 upon each individual, whereas in the Western reaches of the species' range, an average of 14 markings have been recorded. Biologists are in disagreement as to how to divide the species into 'races' - should subspecies type be determined by colour or spot number? It is not known whether Neanderthals were able to produce fertile offspring with humans. If they could not, they would not be considered (by Mayrs' definition: "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." ) the same species. But many thanks for your thoughts. Previously I used 'efficieny' and 'efficacy' as synonyms when they are not. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oops. f
Paulsamuel, thanks for finally coming to your senses and admitting the obvious. I might note that even traditional racialists realized this and that you've spent several months denying this obvious fact, but I remember that I am dealing with a man marginally less bright than a turnip. You are to be commended for noticing the obvious (and "scientifically" demonstrable) Big D: Keep on fighting the good fight, my white brother!
As to this: "Hybrid skeletons sharing Neanderthal and Cro-magnon features have been found in Portugal, proving that the two species did interbreed. However, it has been speculated that these hybrid individuals could have been sterile." If I am not mistaken, genetic testing on neanderthal skeletons has shown that they have no relationship to modern humans. If they did interbreed, it went nowhere.
You are mistaken. Of course Neanderthals had a relationship with modern humans. The question is whether they were different races or different species. You really ought to get some rudimentary knowledge of a subject before you post on that subject.
Paula: I said no such thing, not in the post you quoted nor in any other post. Your exegesis of that is ludicrious. "I am simply saying that, while race may not be an especially valid construct using your terms, it undoubtably is a valid construct using others. " This should need no further explanation. Why don't you amuse yourself by sticking bamboo skewers up your urethra and leave these semi-intelligent people in peace? Duh? Are you capable of understanding context, retard? I'm not using the word "relationship" in the sense of "paula has a sexual relationship with his Karin Terrier" but in the sense of relatedness. They were not kin. http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/neandertal.html This is common knowledge, fuck-knuckle.
you are really abusively repulsive. you lie so much and contradict yourself so much, you don't know what you said or which side of an argument you're for on any given day. This is a scientific dispute on which you are not qualified to comment. There are data supporting both sides of the dispute. It is not yet resolved. Be that as it may, they are still closely related as either sub-species or sister species. Please try to obtain some rudimentary knowledge of a subject before you claim to have "common knowledge" of that subject. However, maybe you enjoy looking like a fool.
i agree. biologists are such spoilsports (begone, spawns of satan) besides, if you cannot - click here - it, it probably is garbage anyway.
Paula: You've said as much. Repetition is a sign of indiscipline and insufficiant creativity. Perhaps you would be so kind as to cite where I have lied. As for contradiction, I've noted that I do not debate so much as explore. Nor do I make firm pronouncements on anthropology, which I have no professional background in. Are you so desperate for my wisdom that I must pontificate for you? Then I presume you will cite this data supporting the other side. Assertion is not proof. I did not dispute this - it is quite apparent from their physical characteristics. I did not claim to have "common knowledge" of the subject. Neither anthropology nor paleontology is my field. That said, I follow the disciplines and have not heard it claimed that neanderthal contributed to the makeup of modern homo sapiens. I should appreciate it if you cite a source saying that they were. And please, to do so without attempting to provoke an argument where there is none. Hathor: You live up to your namesake only in your cowlike nature. Begone, heifer.
it is my pleasure. please take note of this as well. we can bond in UNITY, can we not. my kin sister? btw, i am the goddess of fuck and festivities. it would bode well for the relationship between our two sub races if you take note of that.
