That would be, if it's definitive. Did you provide a link? I'd be very interested in reading up on that.
Edit: reading now but busy. Will respond once I've read it and have time.
Race discussion with Big.Thirsty
- Thread starter Leigh
- Start date
Edit: reading now but busy. Will respond once I've read it and have time.
- Jan 14, 2015
- 12,562
- 16,994
10 pages...
P
Punch
Guest
Some people are bigots. Some people like to debate. Some people like to fuck around. And here we are.10 pages...
Move the weird member thread back to off topic and lets tackle a real issue.
Ok I had a read. There isn't much about race identification in there, other than they can recognise race from cranial remains. No description of method or accuracy.
Consider that we generally identify someone's race by looking at them, although this again isn't definitive.
So whilst it is interesting, the article doesn't provide enough info to be conclusive. I will do some more reading on it.
More like:
Me: 'Race is real'
Leigh: 'Please provide succinct proof posted in this thread that does not require me to read anything or click any links, it needs to prove exclusive features of modern races to pass my litmus test while I pretend to not understand how transportation/migration makes that impossible...'
Me: 'I can't, because transportation - I never said distinct exclusive racial groups currently exist, because transportation'
Leigh: 'Yao Ming is tall, therefore my premise that race is only social constuct has been proven'
For people that do care to read: Allele frequency spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I get the point you're trying to make
@Leigh. But I don't think it's scientifically accurate to say the physical differences aren't there. Biological anthropology is a peer-reviewed science. Its existence alone is the proof.
How would you classify these very different, yet strikingly similar peoples? Should we just make up a new, less offensive word for it?
@Leigh. But I don't think it's scientifically accurate to say the physical differences aren't there. Biological anthropology is a peer-reviewed science. Its existence alone is the proof.How would you classify these very different, yet strikingly similar peoples? Should we just make up a new, less offensive word for it?
I don't understand your question. I'd classify them all as mummies. Do I need to classify them further?I get the point you're trying to make
How would you classify these very different, yet strikingly similar peoples? Should we just make up a new, less offensive word for it?
P
Punch
Guest
We made those for you humans. Don't get uppity now.I get the point you're trying to make
How would you classify these very different, yet strikingly similar peoples? Should we just make up a new, less offensive word for it?
for those truly interested...
View: https://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/1594204462
Drawing on startling new evidence from the mapping of the genome, an explosive new account of the genetic basis of race and its role in the human story
Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another. For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation. Arguing that race is more than just a social construct can get a scholar run out of town, or at least off campus, on a rail. Human evolution, the consensus view insists, ended in prehistory....
View: https://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/1594204462
Drawing on startling new evidence from the mapping of the genome, an explosive new account of the genetic basis of race and its role in the human story
Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another. For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation. Arguing that race is more than just a social construct can get a scholar run out of town, or at least off campus, on a rail. Human evolution, the consensus view insists, ended in prehistory....
LOL ok I should have written "we CAN generally identify someone's race by looking at them"
'No you can't, ever hear of boats and shit?'
we have officially gone 980 degrees, lol, good times...
Thanks for seeing it, he has no position left other than mocking as an endurance challenge, telling, imo - ultimately the crowd decides...
No I'm not. You posted a pic of some mummies and where they were found and asked me his I'd classify them. I don't know what you're looking for. A Mexican mummy and an Egyptian mummy?
You can try to trivialise my posts but you've dragged out a thread to basically say that you have no evidence to support your point.
I'm much more interested in
@IschKabibble's posts now. I may actually learn something.
Remember,You can try to trivialise my posts but you've dragged out a thread to basically say that you have no evidence to support your point.
I'm much more interested in
A few years ago you agreed with me and the hard sciences, until some smooth talking SJW lothario put the Social Science black arts on you...
now you are a flat earth geneticist, will stop dragging this out now with my inability to prove complex scientific ideas with concise irrefutable inline pastes
fuck that guy, lol