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.
It is interesting the Race Science advocates looked to the Animal world to make their argument valid, I used to be convinced that there was no such thing as different races of humans but when I read the arguments of race science advocates, I am now convinced that there may still be some Neanderthals left surviving
It is interesting the Race Science advocates looked to the Animal world to make their argument valid, I used to be convinced that there was no such thing as different races of humans but when I read the arguments of race science advocates, I am now convinced that there may still be some Neanderthals left surviving
humans easily separate themselves from the animal kingdom classifying other living beings. it's much more uncomfortable doing that to yourself because we don't want to be restricted or dictated to. we are more individualistic and conscious about our identity so it's offensive to us.
it's similar to the belief humans have a soul but animals don't. lol
Could have fooled me. You sound like a guy with something against blacks.
Quote:
True but blacks victimize whites more than whites victimize blacks. Also, I hope you're not trying to rationalize the high black crime rate by saying that its mostly perpetrated against blacks.
Again you make that comment with no statistics to back you up. According to the link extra racial crime is almost equal between blacks whites and hispanics.
Lets not make up things, it makes your argument look weak.
Quote:
Most hate crimes perpetrated by blacks against whites are not categorized as hate crimes. Its only crimes against protected minority groups that are considered hate crimes. That's why there are so few blacks in this category.
Again, you are making this up (I have personal knowledge of this). Blacks who commit crimes against anyone else on the basis of race are counted as hate crimes. You are making some wild eyed un verified claim that 'some mysterious beings change the hate crime data'. Thats just crazy.
Further, if you would have actually looked at the site, you would have noticed that no all the male whate crimes are aimed at blacks. Whites seem to target hispanics, gays, women and muslims at very large numbers as well.
Again lets not make up any claims without statistical verification, if you are going to base your beliefs on statistics.
Quote:
Statistically blacks are much more likely to perpetrate a crime than whites.
Ok, now you are just ignoring. Read the above quote, and seriously, go to the site. For your own argumentative sake.
You make your own arguments look foolish citing claims that are disproven out outright false. Unless you have some statistical data that outweighs or is of a greater and more accurate compilation than the FBI, the federal and state courts, the burea of prisons and every law enforcement group in that nation, your claims are essentially just fabrication.
For the umpteenth time, there is no scientific basis for the existence of race.
There is tons of scientific basis for the existence of race, but there is also scientific work that appeas to oppose that position, and you have chosen, for personal reasons of your own, to side with the latter group. Which might be right and might not be.
Your side is saying that there can be no distinct hereditary taxonomic category below the level of species. That is very very far from being generally accepted by people who know something about biology. Even the exact species distinctions of about 5-10% of all the vertibrates remains uncertain. Every year, taxonomist change the species designation of about a dozen birds, either lumping two species into one, or splitting one into two, and sometimes more than two. It is thought, with DNA analysis, that the White winged Crossbill may in fact be almost 100 distinct species. So how can you be so absolutely and categorically clear in what you have proposed as proof of what you want to believe?
Please spare me the links from the scientists who are on your side. I acknowledge that there are some. They are easy to find by myself---they adorn every PC zealot's website and blog. Please withhold you layman's opinions that some scientists are right and others are wrong and you know which ones they are. It is insulting.
There is tons of scientific basis for the existence of race, but there is also scientific work that appeas to oppose that position, and you have chosen, for personal reasons of your own, to side with the latter group. Which might be right and might not be.
Your side is saying that there can be no distinct hereditary taxonomic category below the level of species. That is very very far from being generally accepted by people who know something about biology.
Please spare me the links from the scientists who are on your side. I acknowledge that there are some.
Some, or the overwhelming majority of? It seems that there are almost no scientist willing to claim the social darwinist 'race is biological' ideal, and the few that are do not seem to be respected or even accepted in legitimate academia.
For those who would like to see an example of this (feel free to ignore it if you do not)
Originally Posted by Geneticism A. Templeton, Ph.D
There are not enough genetic differences between groups of people to say that there are sub-lineages (races) of humans,
...
He has shown that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation within local populations. While between-population variation exists, it is quantitatively small and does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
In short the genetic differences between two people of the same so-called 'race' can often be and usually are significantly more than between people of two different races. People use what they see with their eyes as a way to qualify others, when skin tone and facial shape is only 1% of a persons genetic code.
Seriously, arguing this is like the people who still try to argue the world is flat, or that the world is 5000 years old, or other such nonsense. Since we know race is a social construct, how about people with questions and issues about it argue it as such, rather than sticking to disproven and generally unaccepted sciences to validate self superiority claims?
That's ridiculous. Based on what you're saying there would be no difference between a tiger and a house cat. One is just a different color and a lot bigger. Both cats = same species. Different breeds = different race.
I've heard the claims that there really are no different races. Its nonsense.
Ah, sorry but while domestic cats and tigers are both members of the Felidae family, the domestic cat is of the felinae subfamily and the felis genus while tigers are members of the Pantheriane subfamily and Panthera genus. On the other hand, all living humans are Homo sapiens sapiens, no sub family, no subspecies, no breeds and no races.
Again, if you are determining breed/race based purely on phonotypes, the argument that red heads, or tall people constitute a separate race is as valid as skin color.
Some, or the overwhelming majority of? It seems that there are almost no scientist willing to claim the social darwinist 'race is biological' ideal, and the few that are do not seem to be respected or even accepted in legitimate academia.?
Every taxonomist uses the term "subspecies"---his work would be impossible without it. "Race" and "Subspecies" are interchangeable, they mean exactly the same thing---the taxonomic level below 'species'. But scientists are so sick and tired of getting death threats from morons who know nothing about science, that they exclusively use the word "subspecies" now.
If you'd ever read any more about science than what is cherry-picked for your favorite blogs, I wouldn't have to tell you that. You have no idea what the "overwhelming majority" of scientists think.
Every taxonomist uses the term "subspecies"---his work would be impossible without it. "Race" and "Subspecies" are interchangeable, they mean exactly the same thing. But scientists are so sick and tired of getting death threats from morons who know nothing about science, that they exclusively use the word "subspecies" now. If you ever read any more about science that what is cherry-picked for your favorite blogs, I wouldn't have to tell you that.
A 'subspecies' of humans would be neanderthals, or steinbecks man, or homo erectus. Groups divergent from hundreds of thousands, of not million of years of separation.
Up until 100k years ago, all humans looked the same and were from the same place. In fact, Sub Saharan africans and modern europeans common ancestor only began to split around 50,000 years ago.
Nowhere near the amount of time needed to evolve a 'subspecies'.
Serious folks, if you are going to argue racial supremacy, at least try to do it in the bounds of accepted academic science.
In a spate of gruesome incidents over the past few months, albinos have been kidnapped, killed and dismembered for witch doctors who use their limbs and organs to make lucky charms.
There is tons of scientific basis for the existence of race,
Then post a few pounds. If there are tons, then that shouldn't be so hard.
Quote:
you have chosen, for personal reasons of your own, to side with the latter group.
Outside of the ability to read, what would those personal reasons be?
Quote:
Your side is saying that there can be no distinct hereditary taxonomic category below the level of species.
Like I said above, if there is a taxonomic name for the various "races" other than homo sapiens sapiens please by all means post them.
Quote:
So how can you be so absolutely and categorically clear in what you have proposed as proof of what you want to believe?
Quote:
Please spare me the links from the scientists who are on your side.
Ah, no one is on my side, I am simply guided by the pertinent literature. You are welcome to present any links to any scientific journals, or articles that support your position, I have yet to find one.
Quote:
They are easy to find by myself---they adorn every PC zealot's website and blog.
PC zealots... too funny.
Quote:
Please withhold you layman's opinions that some scientists are right and others are wrong and you know which ones they are.
Please feel free to post your vitas in microbiology, genetics of taxonomy at any time.
Quote:
It is insulting.
Well even a clock is right twice a day, your posts are insulting, lazy, and politically correct... for the 19th Century
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.
