Considering your tendencies to point me out as, of all things, a fucking plaigerizer 15, your psudointellectual tripe sounds familiar. Suck it.
Hi paulsamuel: Well, I recall that you were going to disassemble any arguments for the biological basis of race. But about all you've done is post up some cheesy links to stuff by Gould and Lewontin and the like. You've mostly just been real dogmatic (only racists believe that there is a biological basis for race, stuff like that). Why don't you disassemble Rushton's r-K stuff or something like that? Or, disassemble that guy Sarich's arguments. Or Cochran's. I guess you really are an evolutionary biologist. Then you should start behaving like one. Instead of calling people names and stating how you're an expert and an intellectual superior and all (that's hardly evidence that supports your point), start building your case in what is supposed to be a biological question. The way you get all mad and huffed up and all, I think that instead of being called paulsamuel, maybe you should be called yosemitesamuel.
as a self-described racist, are you fit to moderate an open forum? how do you make choices? can a racist be open-minded &/or fair?
calm down, if it were true, you would have used some facts, instead of blowing your top. remember "Dragnet"?, just the facts
Randolfo: How does my observation that different breeds of humans exist make me unfair? Actually, you know what? Just shut the fuck up Christ-boy. gendanken: Oh u GO girl! Like, I'm just sitting here reading Cosmo and thinkin how RAD it would be if there was a fan club for stirner where we could make popcorn and play spin the bottle with each other and my bust of Nietzsche. its like, i didnt evne like philosophy until i realized that there are so menny hot boiz! omfg! like, when u think about it, it's soo true that we r overdependant on moral valuations and that they mebbe support a degenerate society 2! an u c, thats where freud took over from maxxy, cuz neurosis is like, so prevalent in western society that u could almost say that civilization is founded on neurosis lol! like, that's SOOO why egotism (lol! me-go ur so funny!) is necessary!
good eyes, you'll make a good farmer or dog-breeder, but we are not 'dogs', check other sources, you may think & say that your powers of observation are more accurate than science, but for now, I'll stick to one species, Homo sapiens. Race & breed are two different things & BTW, did you know that most dogs, left to their own devices would 'breed true', as a mutt with a curved tail? stop acting & talking like a little girl, what are you going to do? Ban me? oh, yeah, you're the moderator? how 'fair' can you be, with people that you disagree with? Tell yourself, then tell us the truth, if you can't, you should excuse yourself & join the huddled masses, with the rest of us Consider yourself 'reported'
"Race & breed are two different things & BTW, did you know that most dogs, left to their own devices would 'breed true', as a mutt with a curved tail? " Absolutely right. Example: The dingo, and the characteristics its shares with North American wolves. --No matter how isolated they were from eachother, and the superficial aesthestic differences (NA wolf being the more sexy one) they share many similar characteristics and a very similar distribution of intelligence across the 'canine' curve. Forget the fact that they're two different species!! Now two different breeds of dog..say the dalmation and golden retriever..have huge inherited differences in intelligence, but this is because gene's are sacrificed for the sake of aesthetics, not in spite of it like with the dingo (being fugly but also f***ing smart and vicious.) Anyways, I'm a little drunk at the moment...excuse me
The dingo, wolf and domestic dog are all the same species. They're all canis familiaris. They put a 'lupus' after canis familiaris for wolves and something else for dingos, but there is no point, as wolves are closer related to some domestic dogs than other domestic dogs are (or maybe its canis lupus with a familiaris after it? Can't remember) Dingos and wolves are just another 2 breeds of dog really. As far as I'm concerned canis familiaris(?or lupus?) and homo sapiens are the same. I don't even care about the word race anymore, but I know the human species contains individuals that can be classified into groups, and a lot of mutts that could be classified into 'type groups' (ie if someone looks african but obviously has some white influence as well you could say they are of african type, just like you can say a big heavy dog with a wrinkly face is of mastiff type).
woops...mistook 'family' for 'species'. My bad. Still, my point has clout. Even if NA wolves and dingo's can successfully breed together, they've been isolated for a long time. There aren't many differences between the two because the combination of genes is highly successful. The difference is appearance because lets face it - you need more fur if you live in the mountains, just as you need more melanin if you live in Africa. Same for other characteristics like strengths in different area's of intelligence, HEALTH, personality, but less so because physical environment doesn't play as big a role as the social one in those areas. Now physical environment has influence over the social environment, but most of it is based on silly, but necessary traditions which get repeated and overlap over cultures and breeds (ie the pack, bitches, viciousness.) Its all about survival, baby
No offence but maybe you and gendanken could change your names to Barbie and Gidget (with a heart over the i instead of the dot). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And 'RAD'? Let me guess, you were twirling your hair and blowing bubbles with your bubble gum when you typed that? heh.. Is it just me or are we in the Twilight Zone?
wolf, coyote and domestic dog are different species, from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=9611 * Canis adustus (side-striped jackal) * Canis aureus (golden jackal) * Canis familiaris (dog) * Canis latrans (coyote) * Canis lupus (gray wolf) * Canis lupus baileyi (Mexican gray wolf) * Canis lupus chanco (Mongolian wolf) * Canis lupus hodophilax (Japanese wolf) * Canis lupus pallipes (Indian wolf) * Canis lycaon (eastern Canadian wolf) * Canis mesomelas (black-backed jackal) * Canis mesomelas elongae (eastern African black-backed jackal) * Canis rufus (red wolf) * Canis simensis (Ethiopian wolf) this shows how wrong subjective personal observation can be when trying to draw conclusions about nature. of course there are groups of humans that share characteristics that can be grouped together based on those characteristics, but these are familial and genealogical and have nothing to do with race, nothing to do with skin color, nothing to do with personal observation nor personal "knowledge."
I'm sure it has recently been changed and domestic dogs are now technically canis lupus familiaris. Nearly 100%.... really don't feel like searching down a source, but will if I have to.
i'm sure you can find someone who will agree with you, but this taxonomy is official, i.e. the only one accepted by taxonomists, museums, biologists, universities, etc. and it is 100% up to date. please visit their website at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, it's the national center for biotechnology information, a branch of the national institutes of health and the repository for ALL DNA sequence data published in the world. i myself have deposited sequences there.
This week Howard University announced it wants to start collecting the DNA of African Americans. The school claims that such a data base is the best way to improve the health care for black Americans. For a long time, scientific researchers and the general public have assumed that African Americans must have a genetic predisposition to diseases such as diabetes, asthma and sickle-cell anemia because they suffer from them at a much higher rate than white Americans. http://www.theconnection.org/shows/...0529_a_main.asp
I can't say much for the other two, but of course they will have a higher rate of sickle cell anemia. In Africa, being a carrier saves your life. If you don't have a single copy of the sickle-cell anemia gene, you are susceptible to malarial infection, which will likely kill you. African Americans who have travelled to America still likely have a higher carrier rate, although I would suspect that it is being selected against over here, since the threat of malaria in the United States is very low. However, having the sickle-cell gene (as in one single copy) is hardly a detriment, as the majority of your haemoglobin functions normally.
I wonder if any of you have any knowledge if this is true or not? Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3455741&dopt=Abstract
Having more characteristics in common, makes that practical, by 'founders effect' so-called 'whites' share many characteristics, but that doesn't make them a subspecies, race or breed, just different. all these differences are relatively recent in geologic time, see for yourself, use your browser
They definitely don't have a higher rate of asthma than whites. The highest rates of asthma are found in the British Isles and also New Zealand!
