Race discussion with Big.Thirsty

Kirk said:
All Negroes have?

All Mongloids have?

All Caucasians have?
Click to expand...

lol, ok, cant help myself here...

All three of those groups have genetics from each other, because it's 2016 (feet and boats and climate change)
 
blank said:
So these "average differences," how can they be conveniently referred to?
Click to expand...
Some have already been provided. Black people, on average, are faster sprinters and are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia. This isn't evidence of race, as averages can be skewed by outliers etc.
 
Leigh said:
Some have already been provided. Black people, on average, are faster sprinters and are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia. This isn't evidence of race, as averages can be skewed by outliers etc.
Click to expand...
that wasn't my question, it was obviously unclearly worded...I'm not sure I know how to word it more clearly at this point in time 🙁
 
blank said:
that wasn't my question, it was obviously unclearly worded...I'm not sure I know how to word it more clearly at this point in time 🙁
Click to expand...
Ok. Well, that was the question you wrote and obviously the only thing I can respond to.
 
@Leigh will change his opinion if you can provide evidence that can't be refuted now or at any point in the future.......
 
Leigh said:
Ok, you list a race and then explain the physical identifiers.
Click to expand...


I can do that, but they will not be exclusive identifiers (the point I have been beating to death), I'll use a most commonly considered 'unique' type...

Australian Aborigines are commonly of fair stature, with well-developed torso and arms, and slender legs. The color of the skin is a shade of chocolate-brown or black, and the eyes are very dark brown or black. The hair is usually raven-black, not woolly, but fine and silky in texture, wavy, and long. The beard in males is well developed, as is the hair upon the body and the eyebrows. Male pattern balding is relatively common. Most Australian Aborigines (61 per cent) have blood type O.

The Australian Aborigines are typically dolichocephalic (narrow-headed), their cranial index (per cent ratio of cranial breadth to length) rarely exceeding 75 or 76. The brow-ridges are strong and prominent. The skull shape, looked from behind (norma occipitalis) is often sharply pentagonal. The nose is broad, the jaws are heavy, and the lips thick. Looked from the side (norma lateralis) the face tends to prognatism.

Aboriginal Papuans, descendants of the humans that first settled New Guinea, are racially similar to Australian Aborigines. Papuans typically have curly and sometimes wooly hair rather than the wavy hair typical of Australian Aborigines.

Australian Aborigine and Papuan populations diverged genetically and culturally during several thousand years of geographical separation. Unlike Australian Aborigines, who were strictly hunter-gatherers, aboriginal Papuans practiced agriculture. Their somewhat lower stature may result from lower protein intake or from adaptation to a more humid environment with greater vegetation cover than the desert-dwelling Australians.

Papuans speak many different native languages which are distinct from Asian and Polynesian languages. Papuan languages spoken in the New Guinea highlands have lexical similarities to reconstructed proto-Australian, indicating enduring similarities despite 6,000 to 8,000 years of geographical separation.



(not my own info of course - Human Differentiation: Evolution of Racial Characteristics)
 
Big.Thirsty said:
I can do that, but they will not be exclusive identifiers (the point I have been beating to death), I'll use a most commonly considered 'unique' type...

Australian Aborigines are commonly of fair stature, with well-developed torso and arms, and slender legs. The color of the skin is a shade of chocolate-brown or black, and the eyes are very dark brown or black. The hair is usually raven-black, not woolly, but fine and silky in texture, wavy, and long. The beard in males is well developed, as is the hair upon the body and the eyebrows. Male pattern balding is relatively common. Most Australian Aborigines (61 per cent) have blood type O.

The Australian Aborigines are typically dolichocephalic (narrow-headed), their cranial index (per cent ratio of cranial breadth to length) rarely exceeding 75 or 76. The brow-ridges are strong and prominent. The skull shape, looked from behind (norma occipitalis) is often sharply pentagonal. The nose is broad, the jaws are heavy, and the lips thick. Looked from the side (norma lateralis) the face tends to prognatism.

Aboriginal Papuans, descendants of the humans that first settled New Guinea, are racially similar to Australian Aborigines. Papuans typically have curly and sometimes wooly hair rather than the wavy hair typical of Australian Aborigines.

Australian Aborigine and Papuan populations diverged genetically and culturally during several thousand years of geographical separation. Unlike Australian Aborigines, who were strictly hunter-gatherers, aboriginal Papuans practiced agriculture. Their somewhat lower stature may result from lower protein intake or from adaptation to a more humid environment with greater vegetation cover than the desert-dwelling Australians.

Papuans speak many different native languages which are distinct from Asian and Polynesian languages. Papuan languages spoken in the New Guinea highlands have lexical similarities to reconstructed proto-Australian, indicating enduring similarities despite 6,000 to 8,000 years of geographical separation.



(not my own info of course - Human Differentiation: Evolution of Racial Characteristics)
Click to expand...
Ok, so we are agreed that races may have average differences but not exclusive ones. Where we differ is that I don't believe non exclusive averages prove a race but you do.

Is that a fair summary?
 
Kirk said:
To compare humans with domesticated canine


So do individuals within each of those groups. What's your point mate?
Click to expand...

my point is if transportation never existed, climate change never caused migration it would be rather easy to explain the differences in various race groups
 
Leigh said:
Ok, so we are agreed that races may have average differences but not exclusive ones. Where we differ is that I don't believe non exclusive averages prove a race but you do.

Is that a fair summary?
Click to expand...

No, because you do not believe race exists physically, hence you can not have an opinion on differences between them, there are no differences, its a social construct only, is what you think.

?

Not trying to be a nob, I am just lost at the point you start parsing our opinion differences of the physical characteristics of various races when you do not consider race to exist physically.

?
 
Big.Thirsty said:
No, because you do not believe race exists physically, hence you can not have an opinion on differences between them, there are no differences, its a social construct only, is what you think.

?

Not trying to be a nob, I am just lost at the point you start parsing our opinion differences of the physical characteristics of various races when you do not consider race to exist physically.

?
Click to expand...


Go to bed.

We will be here tomorrow.
 
Leigh said:
Ok. Well, that was the question you wrote and obviously the only thing I can respond to.
Click to expand...
Leigh said:
There are average physical differences between races but this doesn't prove a physical difference between races. For example, west Africans have a higher incidence of ACTN3. West Africans happen to be black, so blacks on average are faster sprinters but being black in itself doesn't make someone a faster sprinter, the ACTN3 gene does.
Click to expand...
How can we people, in the English language, conveniently refer to groups of people who display/have inherited/possess these identifying average differences?

Does this question make sense to anyone?
 
blank said:
How can we people, in the English language, conveniently refer to groups of people who display/have inherited/possess these identifying average differences?

Does this question make sense to anyone?
Click to expand...

I'm Blank
 
blank said:
How can we people, in the English language, conveniently refer to groups of people who display/have inherited/possess these identifying average differences?

Does this question make sense to anyone?
Click to expand...


'human differentiation' (and geographically the term 'ecosphere' is used, but the concept of them is renderred insignificant by transportation)

India is the ecosphere of the Dravidian race

Human Differentiation: Evolution of Racial Characteristics
 
Big.Thirsty said:
lol, that may be my issue here, but referring back to thee origins of the discussion Leigh thinks race is only a social construct, right?
Click to expand...

Dude....No Idea.

I like everyone. ...And you was going to bed ages ago.

Keeping it real
 
200w_d.gif
 
Big.Thirsty said:
No, because you do not believe race exists physically, hence you can not have an opinion on differences between them, there are no differences, its a social construct only, is what you think.

?

Not trying to be a nob, I am just lost at the point you start parsing our opinion differences of the physical characteristics of various races when you do not consider race to exist physically.

?
Click to expand...
That's a non sequitur. I don't need to believe race is physically real to acknowledge there are average differences between them. Do you believe that a race can be defined by the average physical characteristics?

I'm trying to nail down your position so that we can discuss it but you seem to moving the goal posts.

1) You believe races are physically different.
2) You don't believe races have exclusive physical traits.

Those points appear to be mutually exclusive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top