Discussion in 'Human Science' started by paulsamuel, Apr 1, 2004.

  1. Big D Registered Senior Member

    Asthma most severe among blacks
    CDC releases study on disease in ethnic groups

    It's also not clear why 37.2 percent of African-Americans reported going to the emergency room for asthma treatment in the past year, compared with 14.5 percent of whites.

    Blacks also make more routine clinic visits for asthma, so the emergency visits don't appear to indicate a lack of access to primary care, Moorman said.

    "Maybe [blacks] have more severe disease, or maybe they have less appropriate management," she said. "Maybe they're not following their doctors' orders. Or maybe they're not getting the medication adjusted to their symptom level."

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xev Registered Senior Member

    This is funny - paulsamuel said he would report my posts as well.
    Niether of you have.

    Gendanken - where in the fuzzy fuck are you?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    I did report your lies, you fucking liar. What's more, you should fucking know I did since you're a moderator. If that's true then your last statement was meant only to mislead the public forum. you really are a fucking slimy weaselly bastard. christ, i need to take a bath after reading your posts, eewww!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Stick to the topic Xev. You're too stupid to argue the issues, all you can do is repeat your uninformed opinion over and over again. Did you try to read any of the references I gave you? Of course not! You already know everything! Take your puny brain and parochial opinions elsewhere! Try the Pseudoscience forum.
  8. Xev Registered Senior Member

    I haven't been notified. In any case, who gives a shit?

    Refute me? You can't argue against physical fact - you can only erroniously claim that I'm a bigot. It's quite obvious to anyone that there exist between humans certain physical differences, and that these differences can be used to loosely categorize humans into subgroups.

    Perhaps you could instead regale us with stories of how you once gave handjobs to actual scientists who went on to make actual discoveries?
  9. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    You've been refuted at every turn and by virtually everybody
    you've not stated a 'physical fact', so I've not been arguing against one, i've been arguing for a physical fact. the 'obvious' phenotypic differences cannot be used to categorize humans into subgroups. that's what those scientific references tested and refuted, which you refused to read.

    there is NO scientific evidence supporting your claim! NONE!!!

    you're like the flat-earthers. 'of course the earth is flat. would the ball not roll in one direction or the other if the earth was spherical? it's obvious to all that the earth is flat, therefore the earth is flat.'

    thus your argument, which is easy to refute on any level, scientific or philosophical,

    "It's obvious to anyone that there exist between humans certain physical differences, and that these differences can be used to loosely categorize humans into subgroups."


    "There exist between humans certain physical differences, and that these differences can be used to loosely categorize humans into subgroups."

    That's a pretty weak arguemnt, even for your standards.
  10. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Child, I don't have access to Nature or any other journal - just the abstracts - hence I'm not going to be looking up your articles until I wander down to the library, which would be after this semester is over, because I am busy these days, and before I leave for vacation - if and only if I find myself bored enough to do so. So! Real arguments, now.

    That's very nice paulsamuel, but how do you account for the fact that race is hereditary?
  11. chuck u farley Registered Senior Member

  12. actually, your words say that, did you forget so soon?

    I like that little bit about you showing that you care for your status as moderator, don't "cross post" or "flame"

    its obvious that the earth is flat too, your point being? BTW, read any good science books lately? Spenser Wells', "The Journey of Man: a Genetic Odessey" would be a good start

    Oh, regale us with your status as a moderator, such choice of words, such a scholarly mindset, so fair & balanced!
  13. Thanks for the mature taunting, I guess that by mature, you thought they meant "X-rated"? you are soo mature. Oh, and what was the main topic of this thread? stay focused, moderator!!
  14. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    so, you finally admit that you argue from ignorance. like an alcoholic, that's the first step to recovery.

    well, i did your research for you by obtaining the references, now you want me to read them and digest them for you (which you will then misinterpret).

    well let's skip all that, and I'll interpret them and draw your conclusions for you.


    you now agree with me about the lack of races in humans, and you apologize for all the fuss.

    THERE IS NO RACE!!! How can something that doesn't exist, be hereditary?

    Jesus! It's like talking to a brick wall.
  15. CounslerCoffee Registered Senior Member

    If two white people get together and have a black baby, that's normal? Because race isn't hereditary?
  16. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member


    White people aren't a race, black people aren't a race.

    If two fertile white people (of the opposite sex) posess the genes to make a black baby, then they can, indeed, have a black child.
  17. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Actually counsler, it does happen...very rarely. But its more common for two blacks to make one white.

    I think what paulsamuel is trying to say is that the majority of these hereditary differences are only skin deep, because, while things like intelligence do and have evolved among the different strains of humans, they change much more slowly than things like skincolour since they're epistatic traits (maybe polygenic...can't remember after 1 year...) Well...more epistatic than skincolour.

    Genes interact in very strange ways. Altering enough genes to have significant changes in intelligence or or anything deeper than skincolour would result in an entirely different species- Something we can't breed with, but also something that looks much different than a black or even a neanderthal.

    My biology teacher was actually a racist herself.
    Her motto:
    blacks should marry blacks
    greeks should marry greeks

    Her reasons:
    -Preserve the bloodtypes. Not having common types could result in widespread disaster (though she did admit that having variety was very important)
    -easier to get along with a familiar culture
    -purebred offspring have better health
    -less opportunity for pandemics as diseases find their way into the open gene pool and mutate.

    Thats all I can think of for now. She was a crazy bitch, even telling us about the time she got raped, but the bitch had a few points. I'm surprised, paulsamuel, that you haven't admitted at least a few of these things. I'm sure your understanding of genetics is far better than mine.

    anyways, goodnight :m:
  18. Big D Registered Senior Member

    Single celled animals to worms to humans and then beyond is the way of nature; which is to build upon what already exists through constantly modifying things via very small incremental changes. These very small incremental changes add up and cause very major differences in living things as they are finally expressed as fully formed life forms. Look at humans and worms for an example of this. To repeat: On a basic level, humans are very much like worms, but as we move beyond the basic level, we find that the millions of small incremental changes have resulted in a creature that really is very different than worms.

    With this basic understanding of nature and life we can then look at closer relatives of humans than worms, and perhaps start formulating some thoughts on the nature of man and existence, and in doing so, perhaps we can throw off the yoke of ignorance that so characterizes our present Dark Age, and the hateful race-deniers.

    Here are a few odds and ends, many of which you probably already know, along with a little speculation. Perhaps, connecting up some of these odds and ends will lead to a greater understanding as we cogitate on man, life, God, and destiny.

    DNA consists of just 4 nucleotides whose names are usually shortened to the letters A,T,C,G. Shuffle these four chemicals one way and you have a man. Shuffle them another way and you have a worm--so there should be no surprise that humans and worms share some genes.

    Human DNA is about 98.4% the same as chimpanzee DNA. This means that all the differences between humans and chimps is contained in only 1.6% of our DNA. To put this another way, chimps are 98.4% the same as humans. Why is this important? Because the race-deniers try to tell us that all humans are virtually the same except for some itsy bitsy minor little genetic things. Even the most evil race-denier should be able to see how that itsy bitsy 1.6% difference between humans and chimps results in a world of difference between the two creatures, and you'd think that in so seeing, they would be able to analogize to differences among different humans as well. Unfortunately, race-deniers have an agenda that requires them to ignore facts, just as their moronic forbears ignored facts and did intellectual headstands to deny that the Sun, and not the Earth, was the center of the solar system.

    Gibbons, just to cite one of thousands of similar examples, have a world population of just around 200,000 individuals. These 200,000 individuals are spread into 4 species and 15 subspecies. Man has a population of around 5 billion individuals and we are told by the most zealous race-deniers that not only are all 5 billion humans lumped into one species, but that we are all of one race. Contrary to what the race-deniers want you to believe, the races of man are actually sub-species (because, that's what "race" is), and they would be developing into separate species given proper isolation from one another.

    We can say, for our purposes, that evolution is a slow change to a higher state. A higher state for humans, must mean some level of higher consciousness (meant here to mean all things of the mind). This is so, because the thing that really distinguishes humans from other living things on Earth, is our physical brain and the mind that is one of its products. The way one would consciously go about evoloving a creature would be by selecting members of a larger population--the masses--with particular traits that one wants to encourage and to allow those with these traits to breed pure. This is accomplished by a separation from the masses which, by definition, have to be average in intellect and other characteristics, otherwise they wouldn't be the masses. The way one would consciously go about devolving a creature would be by folding those with different traits back into the masses. Species evolve by being different and separate. They devolve by being the same and not separate.
  19. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    the races of man are actually sub-species

    Hahaha, you've shown evidence against yourself! This is completely false. The fact that there are so many humans, with near zero geographic isolation from eachother is proof that there are no major subspecies.

    Maybe the inuit living in northern greenland, or the subterranean mongolian tribe of albinos, but thats as far as it goes with humans, because, to have a subspecies, you need geographic isolation a relatively small population, and these need two need to be pressurecooked over extended periods of time. It does happen, but there are very few cases with humans. You'd have to be a dumb shit to call 3 billion asians a subspecies because there is so much variety within asia, and they haven't been isolated from the rest of the world for nearly long enough.

    Subspecies take many thousands of years to develop, and they need isolation! Even then they won't be terribly different from the parent species and not too much deeper than the skin or other environmental adaptions.

    BigD, its people like you who advocate the presence of lemurians and chupacabra in the carribean!
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2004
  20. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    No Shit?

    Dee Cee
  21. not being a cultural anthropologist, my guess is that its a visual cue, we needed to recognize "us" from "them", check out any research on recognition of facial characteristics, it's probably why we can tell friends from far away
  22. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    I think all that anybody here is arguing is definition.

    To me, race is simply a sub-group that is easily identified as being related via visual cues. I wouldn't limit this only to skin color, because even among people of the same skin color you can tell where some people (or their ancestors) came from based on physical traits.

    Now my issue is, why does anyone argue against this? These are useful ways to describe people.

    The only argument here is if it has a genetic basis... and even that is mostly a moot point. It most certainly does have a genetic basis. Yes, two black parents can have a white kid... but it is still normally obvious that the kid is partially black. Regardless, just because the idea is not 100% correct does not mean that it is not useful.
  23. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    the reason race, as a concept, was invented (AFAIK) has roots in the days of creationism (pre-darwinian) to explain inter-populational phenotypic variation. obviously, that reason is obsolete. Mayr, has written a nice history of the conceptual bases (pl. of basis) of race in his book, The Growth of Biological Thought.

Share This Page