Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wolves are DOGS. The different breeds of dogs are classified as entirely different species. The phenotypic differences between the races supercedes the phenotypic differences between different types of tigers, or even some types of dogs. As such, claiming that the different races of "homo sapiens" belong to the same species, or that they're not sub-species is in doubt and nothing more than political correctness gone amok.
To claim that this:
is not at the minimum a different type of subspecies than this
is intellectually dishonest.
City Fanatic, I'm not going to argue with you about scientific designations. I know from your past posts you have zero knowledge of the subject on which to base your claims. Also, I suggest you look up the definition of the word phenotype. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Physical variation does not a sub-species make. That would be akin to suggesting a chihuahua and a great dane are separate species. And, if you do choose physical characteristics to base your categorizations on, how do you delineate? Is it just skin color? Perhaps it's body shape and size? If it's the former, that means that Danny DeVito and Larry Bird are in the same sub-species, but in the latter, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan are in the same sub-species. You can't pick and choose what characteristics you prefer to use. That's bad science, which is also intellectual dishonesty.
Also, wolves are not dogs. At most, and there is disagreement among biologists, they are separate species, but at best they're sub-species. It's either Canine lupus and Canine familiaris or Canine lupus and Canine lupus familiaris. I'd love to explain the difference to you someday, but I doubt you'd listen.
By the way, the word you were looking for is genotype. Genotypes explain the differences in genetics which is a heck of a better marker for distinctions between and within species than phenotypes.
It is not. The genetic differences between these two are actually much fewer than those found between different chimpancees groups leaving miles apart.
One of the main characteristics of the human species, when compared to other animail species, is its homogeneity.
Let's look at different types of tigers. Please tell me how the following tigers are farther apart in phenotypic variety than the different human races. After all, the tigers are labeled as sub-species, but human are not, when it is clear that the different races of humans are by far more phenotypically different than the different sub-species of tigers.
Bengal Tiger
Siberian Tiger
Indochinese Tiger
Malayan Tiger
Sumatran Tiger
Now for the humans
African Negroid Man
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/investors/annualandotherreports/2006/images/photo_page24_1.jpg (broken link)
Asian Mongoloid Man
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1613/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1613R-5135.jpg (broken link)
City Fanatic, I'm not going to argue with you about scientific designations. I know from your past posts you have zero knowledge of the subject on which to base your claims. Also, I suggest you look up the definition of the word phenotype. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Physical variation does not a sub-species make. That would be akin to suggesting a chihuahua and a great dane are separate species. And, if you do choose physical characteristics to base your categorizations on, how do you delineate? Is it just skin color? Perhaps it's body shape and size? If it's the former, that means that Danny DeVito and Larry Bird are in the same sub-species, but in the latter, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan are in the same sub-species. You can't pick and choose what characteristics you prefer to use. That's bad science, which is also intellectual dishonesty.
Also, wolves are not dogs. At most, and there is disagreement among biologists, they are separate species, but at best they're sub-species. It's either Canine lupus and Canine familiaris or Canine lupus and Canine lupus familiaris. I'd love to explain the difference to you someday, but I doubt you'd listen.
By the way, the word you were looking for is genotype. Genotypes explain the differences in genetics which is a heck of a better marker for distinctions between and within species than phenotypes.
Genotype: DNA code that makes up genes
Phenotype: Outward physical expression of a gene.
You're simply trying to argue something from a politically correct, intellectually dishonest point of view.
Wolves are wild canines (dogs).
Okay, even if you argue that races are like breeds, it doesn't take away from the fact that the different races of humans are not the same, but different.
We could go into race and IQ if you'd like, and how that correlates heavily with GDP of nations.
Or, we could go into maritime history, colonialism, availability of natural resources and their impact on the entire world if you'd like, and how that correlates heavily with the GDP of nations. Perhaps we could then discuss the findings of Stephen Jay Gould and his discussions of the "intellectual dishonesty" attributable to IQ testing and how those tests have been administered improperly since they were first developed in order to get a priori results consistent with the testers' prejudices. Perhaps we could, but would you even be willing to listen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Fanatic
With all this data, how in the world can you call such "superficial"? Are you serious?
Again, genotypes and phenotypes are completely different things. Learn your science, and then get involved in the scientific aspect of the discussion. A few photos showing different skin colors and moderately altered bone structure hardly makes for a sub-species.
Or, we could go into maritime history, colonialism, availability of natural resources and their impact on the entire world if you'd like, and how that correlates heavily with the GDP of nations.
How does this have anything to do with the fact that black nations are still the poorest, and continue to remain the poorest, and the fact that blacks are the poorest in any nation in which they live?
Africa is loaded with natural resources. There's no excuse.
Quote:
Perhaps we could then discuss the findings of Stephen Jay Gould and his discussions of the "intellectual dishonesty" attributable to IQ testing and how those tests have been administered improperly since they were first developed in order to get a priori results consistent with the testers' prejudices. Perhaps we could, but would you even be willing to listen?
You're giving me a ridiculous excuse that Stephen Gould himself made up.
Blacks, on average, have a smaller cranial size, as whites have a smaller cranial size to east Asians, but not much smaller, and this relates to learning capacity and IQ, on average. Of course, there's a range amongst all races, but on average, that's roughly the where the races fall.
Shall I pull out the GDP data, the IQ data, the physical violence data? All of such relates to cranial size.
You're simply using sociologist and left wing, "we're all the same" arguments that flies in the face of what all the evidence suggests.
Quote:
Again, genotypes and phenotypes are completely different things. Learn your science, and then get involved in the scientific aspect of the discussion. A few photos showing different skin colors and moderately altered bone structure hardly makes for a sub-species.
I know my science much better than you, I'm sure.
Altered bone structure? True, the bone structure of various races is different, but so is muscle mass, hair texture and structure, eyes, etc. It's not just skin color.
What makes up a sub-species, then? Different sub-species of tigers can also mate and produce offspring.
Genotype: DNA code that makes up genes
Phenotype: Outward physical expression of a gene.
So, which do you think, with your limited understanding of science, is the most important determinant in classification? If you guessed genotype, then you're correct! If you guessed phenotype, then you haven't paid much attention. I don't see anywhere on here where anyone suggested that there were zero genetic differences between people, but genotypically, there is as much (or often more) variation (again, on a genetic level) within a population as there is between populations. That's what helps our species survive. It's science! Look it up.
Races are no more than political designations developed to ease the process of classification by categorization. The guidelines used are based off historical differences between cultural groups, not genetic differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Fanatic
You're simply trying to argue something from a politically correct, intellectually dishonest point of view.
Wolves are wild canines (dogs).
Okay, even if you argue that races are like breeds, it doesn't take away from the fact that the different races of humans are not the same, but different.
I never argued that humans are like dog breeds. That was someone else. I don't agree with that either. Human variation exists along clines and isn't static. There is no single human group that isn't breeding with their neighbors, who in turn are breeding with their neighbors, who in turn are breeding with their neighbors.... Dog breeds, once bred with another breed then becomes a mutt. That's closer to what all humans are: mutts. For most of human history, our cross-breeding has been done geographically, with most of our intermixing being done with those populations that were closest. Within the past few centuries though, that model has been tossed out the window.
Also, let me ask you a question. Can you see past the skin color of these two people? Skin color notwithstanding, there's a ton of phenotypic variation between these two men.
Doubtful, when your only source of knowledge is what you read in the Bell Curve.
Again, and I will state this clearly since you've overlooked it time and time again, I concur that there is variation within the human species. However, this variation isn't significant enough to justify classifying populations of humans as sub-species. And to answer your question (even though I made it clear before), a sub-species is a geographically (or otherwise) isolated sub-set of a larger population where reproduction between the populations has been eliminated, but not enough time has passed to allow complete speciation. A species, so you know, is a population that can only produce viable offspring by breeding with another member of its own species. Viable offspring are capable of producing offspring themselves. This stands in opposition to the breeding ability of different species like the lion and tiger, which most certainly can mate and produce offspring, but that offspring is sterile, and can't produce their own offspring.
So, which do you think, with your limited understanding of science, is the most important determinant in classification?
I find it odd how you act like you know my background. It's actually downright laughable, considering the reality. Why is it, little one, that you think that you know more than myself? Oh, because my view is not a nonsensical politically correct view, so you want to build yourself up by demeaning my supposed intelligence, as all left wing ideologues tend to do. Trust me, you'll never win this argument.
Quote:
If you guessed genotype, then you're correct! If you guessed phenotype, then you haven't paid much attention.
Genotype determines phenotype. That's basic. No one has denied such, nor argued that genotype isn't dominant to phenotype.
Quote:
I don't see anywhere on here where anyone suggested that there were zero genetic differences between people, but genotypically, there is as much (or often more) variation (again, on a genetic level) within a population as there is between populations. That's what helps our species survive. It's science! Look it up.
Who denied such? Genetic variations for race, however, do exist. The impact that such plays on the groups (races), however, is huge, in terms of its determinations for a strong, successful society.
Some genes don't impact civilization, while others do. Those that do impact civilization are more valued than those which only affect minor things. Thus, individuals within the same race having more genetic variation than individuals of different races doesn't mean anything.
Quote:
Races are no more than political designations developed to ease the process of classification by categorization. The guidelines used are based off historical differences between cultural groups, not genetic differences.
Okay, genius. One more time. Please tell me that there IS NOT ANY GENETIC VARIATION BETWEEN THESE TWO MEN.
Again, a "Social Construct". No Genetic Variation? Are you denying the role genes play here on lip shape, eye color, hair texture, skin color, skull shape, etc., etc., etc. The genes are playing themselves out in the phenotype.
Quote:
I never argued that humans are like dog breeds. That was someone else. I don't agree with that either. Human variation exists along clines and isn't static. There is no single human group that isn't breeding with their neighbors, who in turn are breeding with their neighbors, who in turn are breeding with their neighbors.... Dog breeds, once bred with another breed then becomes a mutt. That's closer to what all humans are: mutts. For most of human history, our cross-breeding has been done geographically, with most of our intermixing being done with those populations that were closest. Within the past few centuries though, that model has been tossed out the window.
While race-mixing is occurring, it's not to the point where everyone is a multi-racial Tiger Woods. In fact, most whites are over ninety percent European, while most sub-saharan Africans are over ninety percent negroid. The same could be said about Japanese. You're simply ignoring the large numbers of individuals who aren't racially mixed at all or to a very minor, insignificant degree.
Quote:
Also, let me ask you a question. Can you see past the skin color of these two people? Skin color notwithstanding, there's a ton of phenotypic variation between these two men.
It's obvious that skin color isn't the only determinant. Why do leftists, such as yourself, always state that it's about skin color? There are some "whites" who are darker than some blacks. Sheesh.
We could go into race and IQ if you'd like, and how that correlates heavily with GDP of nations.
With all this data, how in the world can you call such "superficial"? Are you serious?
^Ah a proponent of the storied race and IQ argument, one that is often discredited in the science world (for there is little support for the IQ test as a true measure of intelligence anyway, and countries with lower GDP have a stronger correlation with the effects of colonialism). You are truly a racial superiorist, a scientific racist. You'd fit well in Nazi germany, I can tell.
I guess you didnt read up on the origin of the term 'race' either, how about the term 'scientific racism'? Or are you too busy reading about skull sizes and polygenism, and the works of old racists like Morton, or contemporary ones like Rushton and Watson.
^Ah a proponent of the storied race and IQ argument, one that is often discredited in the science world (for there is little support for the IQ test as a true measure of intelligence anyway, and countries with lower GDP have a stronger correlation with the effects of colonialism). You are truly a racial superiorist, a scientific racist. You'd fit well in Nazi germany, I can tell.
I guess you didnt read up on the origin of the term 'race' either, how about the term 'scientific racism'? Or are you too busy reading about skull sizes and polygenism, and the works of old racists like Morton, or contemporary ones like Rushton and Watson.
Oh get that Nazi bs outta here! Cut your hair hippie. By the way, How come Africa hasn't progressed in thousands of years? Why is it still the stone age in Africa compared to Europe, Australia, North America, etc? The only part that has progressed similar to the rest of the world is South Africa which is nothing like the rest of the continent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
