1
Race discussion with Big.Thirsty
- Thread starter Leigh
- Start date
Can't wait for 333
^^^^^^^here we go
Between what?
The 100 metres final tells me race isn't just a social construct. just a thought. most likely very wrong.
though, i'll admit this is a highly sweeping comment.
For instance, this doesn't take into consideration forces within college athletic programs, nurturing etc but oh well.
Races
^^^^^and we have a dissenter amongst us
Ah, overthrowing the authority of the dictionary at last, are we?
It gives the definition of words. Nothing more, nothing less.Ah, overthrowinh the authority of the dictionary at last, are we?
The problems with some of the arguments being presented in favor of physical characteristics of race are as follows:
1) The supposed science
@Big.Thirsty is referring to is not especially new. It's a resurrection of older, largely discredited scientific approaches to develop racial narratives. Skull shape is basically phrenology all over again and that has always lacked scientific rigor. Its use in anthropology is in a very different manner from that used by geneticists trying to unlock variation. Forensic science in general has more of an adversarial relationship with genetics than otherwise. This is one of the reasons DNA examination has become de rigeur in recent times even though it's generally much less applied than the cruder tactics of forensic analysis.
2) What is meant by "physically different" in racial classification? Usually, it would mean that we can break the human species into subspecies if race were truly physical. But the divergences among humans being discussed don't sufficiently meet the statistical threshhold to label groups as subspecies. So what are they?
Generally speaking, what is mostly being discussed are variable traits, or phenotypical expressions. But these expressions are just averages as
@Leigh has been saying. No scientist worth their salt would say phenotypical variation averages correlate to anything that would qualify for a formal taxonomic classification. What they would likely say instead is that these averages demonstrate enough correlation that some approximations can be made about groups from particular regions or along the same ancestral line. But these are approximations, not classifications. What we have seen from evolutionary development biologists is that the genetic variations are in fact wider within these approximate groups than between them, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread. The agreed upon value for subspecies classification is between .25 and .35 whereas the value for differences we observe between human populations account for only .156 (see Templeton, 1999). The human genome research has more or less confirmed this, despite popularizations of alternate theories by a "troublesome" book.
3) Enter Nicholas Wade, who I'm going to guess is the primary source for a lot of Big Thirsty's arguments since he's parsing them almost verbatim, particularly the insistence that this is "new biology" brought about by research into the genome (and of course the fact that he linked the book in an earlier post). Wade's inferences have been soundly rejected by hundreds of geneticists and anthropologists who say he's mischaracterized their work. He has retorted that it's all a vast left wing conspiracy to remain politically tenable that has led to these rebukes, but there have followed several publications debunking his analysis largely due to the popularity of the book in certain circles.
The critiques have been mostly straightforward: trait variability Wade uses in the book as evidence are easily attributable to geographic distribution rather than evolutionary modification; the development of some traits he cites happened over too short a time period to be evolutionary in nature; Wade makes causal inferences about behavior and genetics even though there is little reliable understanding of the genetic influence on behavior, etc. Here is a comprehensive rebuttal: A Troubling Tome » American Scientist Here is a more condensed one: Echoes of the Past: Hereditarianism and A Troublesome Inheritance
To put it simply, to claim that phenotypical averages correlate to behavioral similarities in a given population and thus merit specific classification is a social construction. Ergo, even the pseudoscientific explanation being propounded still leads to the same conclusion.
There is no physical basis for race.
1) The supposed science
@Big.Thirsty is referring to is not especially new. It's a resurrection of older, largely discredited scientific approaches to develop racial narratives. Skull shape is basically phrenology all over again and that has always lacked scientific rigor. Its use in anthropology is in a very different manner from that used by geneticists trying to unlock variation. Forensic science in general has more of an adversarial relationship with genetics than otherwise. This is one of the reasons DNA examination has become de rigeur in recent times even though it's generally much less applied than the cruder tactics of forensic analysis.2) What is meant by "physically different" in racial classification? Usually, it would mean that we can break the human species into subspecies if race were truly physical. But the divergences among humans being discussed don't sufficiently meet the statistical threshhold to label groups as subspecies. So what are they?
Generally speaking, what is mostly being discussed are variable traits, or phenotypical expressions. But these expressions are just averages as
@Leigh has been saying. No scientist worth their salt would say phenotypical variation averages correlate to anything that would qualify for a formal taxonomic classification. What they would likely say instead is that these averages demonstrate enough correlation that some approximations can be made about groups from particular regions or along the same ancestral line. But these are approximations, not classifications. What we have seen from evolutionary development biologists is that the genetic variations are in fact wider within these approximate groups than between them, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread. The agreed upon value for subspecies classification is between .25 and .35 whereas the value for differences we observe between human populations account for only .156 (see Templeton, 1999). The human genome research has more or less confirmed this, despite popularizations of alternate theories by a "troublesome" book.3) Enter Nicholas Wade, who I'm going to guess is the primary source for a lot of Big Thirsty's arguments since he's parsing them almost verbatim, particularly the insistence that this is "new biology" brought about by research into the genome (and of course the fact that he linked the book in an earlier post). Wade's inferences have been soundly rejected by hundreds of geneticists and anthropologists who say he's mischaracterized their work. He has retorted that it's all a vast left wing conspiracy to remain politically tenable that has led to these rebukes, but there have followed several publications debunking his analysis largely due to the popularity of the book in certain circles.
The critiques have been mostly straightforward: trait variability Wade uses in the book as evidence are easily attributable to geographic distribution rather than evolutionary modification; the development of some traits he cites happened over too short a time period to be evolutionary in nature; Wade makes causal inferences about behavior and genetics even though there is little reliable understanding of the genetic influence on behavior, etc. Here is a comprehensive rebuttal: A Troubling Tome » American Scientist Here is a more condensed one: Echoes of the Past: Hereditarianism and A Troublesome Inheritance
To put it simply, to claim that phenotypical averages correlate to behavioral similarities in a given population and thus merit specific classification is a social construction. Ergo, even the pseudoscientific explanation being propounded still leads to the same conclusion.
There is no physical basis for race.
What kneeblock said.
People need to get their heads around the fact that we originate from ONE common set of ancestors, if we were in fact 'sub species" as the BT's of the world would have us believe the third generation of males after the intermixing would be born sterile like we see in nearly all hybrid mammals, tale the Savanah Cat for the Siberian Cat for example.
Male mules for example are also born sterile while a female mule is perfectly sterile if the male they are breeding with is a no hybrid member of the equine family for which the female mule carries that specific admixture. The sterility of hybrids of sub specicies is often attributed to the different number of chromosomes the two species have, for example donkeys have 62 chromosomes, while horses have 64 chromosomes, and mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes.
There are many other genetic mechanisms in animals to keep gametic isolation and species distinction.
Now I can take say a pygmy from the Andaman Islands and have them mate with an eskimo and not only will their offspring not be sterile they will less likely be so than a "pure" eskimo or pygmy.
So all this "climate change" and "boats" bullshit has lent fuck all to human genetic diversity, proof? the greatest human diversity anywhere on earth from a purely scientific POV is in Africa more so than so called "multi ethic/racial" continents such as North America, Australia and South America. My understanding is that this is because Africa has had the greatest amount of time to see the "mixing of human genes" that all originated from within it.
There is no scientific basis for race.
People need to get their heads around the fact that we originate from ONE common set of ancestors, if we were in fact 'sub species" as the BT's of the world would have us believe the third generation of males after the intermixing would be born sterile like we see in nearly all hybrid mammals, tale the Savanah Cat for the Siberian Cat for example.
Male mules for example are also born sterile while a female mule is perfectly sterile if the male they are breeding with is a no hybrid member of the equine family for which the female mule carries that specific admixture. The sterility of hybrids of sub specicies is often attributed to the different number of chromosomes the two species have, for example donkeys have 62 chromosomes, while horses have 64 chromosomes, and mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes.
There are many other genetic mechanisms in animals to keep gametic isolation and species distinction.
Now I can take say a pygmy from the Andaman Islands and have them mate with an eskimo and not only will their offspring not be sterile they will less likely be so than a "pure" eskimo or pygmy.
So all this "climate change" and "boats" bullshit has lent fuck all to human genetic diversity, proof? the greatest human diversity anywhere on earth from a purely scientific POV is in Africa more so than so called "multi ethic/racial" continents such as North America, Australia and South America. My understanding is that this is because Africa has had the greatest amount of time to see the "mixing of human genes" that all originated from within it.
There is no scientific basis for race.
Now if anyone wants to read some of the WORST written thought since our species put pen to paper or papyrus please click this link
MMA's worldwide leader in UFC news, gear and events
MMA's worldwide leader in UFC news, gear and events
"Its culture.
If Africans had an equivalent to protestant, or confucian culture they would be completely different.
Instead they have tribal religions, and a parcticularly shitty version of Islam in most of Africa."
@Leigh your argument against eugenics was again? lol
This POS should have been still born, no good can come from him or her breeding
If Africans had an equivalent to protestant, or confucian culture they would be completely different.
Instead they have tribal religions, and a parcticularly shitty version of Islam in most of Africa."
@Leigh your argument against eugenics was again? lol This POS should have been still born, no good can come from him or her breeding
Nah just getting started
White folk to sports and leisure wear
Orientals to the stationery section
Africans to the BBQ section
Indians and other dots to the complaints counter
There was a time just a few hundred years ago, when races were a little easier to differentiate. This was mostly due to lack of transportation, and technology in general. Populations were much more confined. Sure there are small differences, like height, eye shape, etc. These are only averages though, us humans were not confined for a long enough period of time to reach a point of major differences. I.E. donkeys and horses, which can breed, but the offspring is sterile. Same goes with Beefalo (Cow and Buffalo) and multiple other closely related species. If given 5 million years of separation, sure we would likely have major differences too, just like the above animals. However, it's likely never to happen due to melting pot society's today. In fact, I imagine that not too far in the future, everyone will look relatively the same because of interracial mixing.
Last edited:
What makes you think tht interbreeding didnt happen between groups throughout Asia/Europe/Africa?
Human migration isnt new its just more convenient now.
Not saying it didn't, it most certainly did, just not as often as it does now. I imagine every time one village or army conquered another, well, you know...
The best example of this "pure race" fallacy is Koreans. They think they are a "pure race" but are a bunch of mutts.
Japanese too, some of them look like whitey others like Samoans
Japanese too, some of them look like whitey others like Samoans
cool mang here's what im sayingNot saying it didn't, it most certainly did, just not as often as it does now. I imagine every time one village or army conquered another, well, you know...
- We all started off as Africans
- Migrated out of there at different times
- The different waves of migrants interbred with those who left before them
- There was no period in history where pure races existed.
Half my family/ancestors from the middle of the pacific ocean, tiny place called Fiji isolated by the largest body of water on earth and even we were never "pure bred"
Completely agree, in fact if anyone were to claim "pure" wouldn't it be people from Southern Africa?