I don't always find racism disgusting. It's a vague guilt-by-association word which conflates egregious racial abuse (what you're doing) with observations of racial differences (what I'm doing), a word used by sophists and people who want carte blanche to eliminate their "class enemies" in the language of an earlier generation of Bolsheviks, much like fascist, without too much attention to actual guilt. What I find really disgusting is lies.
I am abusing someone for their race? Seems farfetched. I don't even know what US race the other posters here belong to. Meanwhile, you haven't made a single observation of an actual "racial difference" here. You have made claims and assertions, but they are mostly false, see - not observations. You might want to be a bit more careful in your posting, then. Most of your posting here is - at a minimum - falsehood. How much of that is intentional is hard to determine. Or you could come up with an example - just one - of this "genomic" racial classification you say is so common and scientific and all.
I said that I could, and I can. But I also said, if you can remember, that I wouldn't need to since it would simply be appealing to authority to find someone repeating what I'm saying. I asked you whether a division defined by genetic similarity was a reasonable construct, like in any non-human organism. You said it was not because humans are "too closely related". I asked you to back that up, you did not. You cannot because it is a lie. So what difference does it make if I find someone saying what I'm saying? You'll just dismiss them as a "racist scientist" because humans are "too closely related" for them to be right. So it's really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You're asking me to jump through hoops providing irrelevant sources at your whim. Meanwhile you introduce "facts" which are completely made up, and totally ignore anyone who asks you to back them up. Because your "facts" are lies, hypocrite.
Nevertheless, if you insist Darwin (1857): "Grant all races of man descended from one race; grant that all structure of each race of man were perfectly known—grant that a perfect table of descent of each race was perfectly known.— grant all this, & then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if allocated by structure alone. Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races & their pedigrees would go together." Dobzhansky (1970): “A race is a Mendelian population, not a single genotype; it consists of individuals who differ genetically among themselves … This is not to deny that a racial classification should ideally take cognizance of all genetically variable traits, oligogenic as well as polygenic." Hartl and Clark (1997): "In population genetics, a race is a group of organisms in a species that are genetically more similar to each other than they are to the members of other such groups. Populations that have undergone some degree of genetic differentiation as measured by, for example, Fst, therefore qualify as races." Leroi (2005): "Populations that share by descent a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else." Coyne (2014). “To a biologist, races are simply genetically differentiated populations, and human populations are genetically differentiated. Although it’s a subjective exercise to say how many races there are, human genetic differentiation seems to cluster largely by continent, as you’d expect if that differentiation evolved in allopatry (geographic isolation) Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele in their book Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004: 207): "Races are populations, or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features." Neven Sesardic stated in the paper Race: a social destruction of a biological concept (2010): "First, the basic meaning of "race" seems to imply that, due to a common ancestry, members of a given race A will display increased genetic similarity, which will make them in some way genetically different from individuals belonging to another race, B. Second, it is frequently assumed that A-individuals will also differ systematically from B-individuals with respect to some genetically determined morphological characteristics (skin color, hair texture,facial features,etc.), with these morphological differences being the basis for the common-sense racial recognition and classification. And third, A-individuals could differ from B-individuals with respect to some genetically determined psychological characteristics as well." Richard Lynn in his book Race Differences in Intelligence (2006: 7): "A simple and straightforward definition of race is that it consists of a group that is recognizably different from other groups. A fuller definition is that a race is a breeding population that is to some degree genetically different from neighboring populations as a result of geographical isolation, cultural factors, and endogamy, and which shows observable patterns of genotypic frequency differences for a number of intercorrelated, genetically determined characteristics, compared with other breeding populations. Geographical contact zones between races generally contain racial hybrids, who show intermediate values of gene frequencies from the more central distributions of the breeding groups."
Yes it is. It is remarkably homogeneous. There is more genetic variation between different species of chimpanzees that appear identical than between any two humans. It's not solipsism. The genes that lead to schizophrenia may also lead to greater creativity in another context, to the ability to recognize connections that other people may not. IQ is not a real thing. Race is not a scientific concept. It is a social concept. It has no agreed upon consensus scientific definition.
You repeat these points over and over like a mantra. Frankly half of what you say is not even wrong. I literally just gave definitions of race above. What is your argument here? That you don't like it? That some random guy in Boise, Idaho has a different definition? Who cares whether IQ is a "real thing". It predicts ability very well and correlates with national wealth. So if one species has more variation, the species with less variation is "homogeneous"? What are you even saying? It's like you fail to understand words like "same" and "different". It's like talking to a mildly retarded four year old. Humans have more variation that many subspecies. Even if they didn't, it's painfully obvious that they're not "homogeneous". There are differences, some of those differences matter. You're absolutely delusional, brainwashed, lying, I don't know. Just crazy Marxist nonsense. Anyway I expect one of your well paid Commissars will be along to give me the "Watson" treatment for questioning the party line, on your "science" forum.
We don't even know how the human body works so saying that race is real or isn't is perhaps a bit premature. What we also don't know is how life on Earth go started (the origin of life is still a big mystery) and in fact we don't even know what life really is.
I'm sorry I seem to have stumbled onto a website of congenital morons pretending to be scientists. I'll see myself out.
I believe that there could be different human races. Our bodies do not all work the same also and we also do not look the same. Some people are more gifted than others, some are better-looking than others, some are healthier than others and some people are much stronger (and more pain-resistant) than others. Some people are exceptially gifted athletes or simply very good at sports while others are not good at sports. We are not all the same and our bodies do not all work the same. Not all people even look the same. I believe that biology and especially the branch of biology called biochemistry supports me on that
I say you can't. Prove me wrong. You have claimed the existence of something that no one else here has ever seen, and that seems very unlikely to exist. I think it doesn't exist, but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if you can show it to me. Put up or shut up. Why are you suddenly talking in vague generalities like that, when your original subject was human races - not just "division defined by genetic similarity", but a specific type of scientific, taxonomic, division called a "race"? All I was doing was providing you one of the reasons why nobody has gone to the extraordinary trouble of dividing the human species into races on genetic grounds. Why, in other words, you cannot find a "genomic" definition of any human race.
I believe that there is more to biological evolution than just genetics. Whether race exists or not is debatable but I believe that the fact stands that our bodies do not work the same, at least not in the biochemical and biophysical level. Not all people are equally healthy, not all people experience pain as the same magnitude (some people are much more sensitive to pain) and not all people have equally strong muscles/physique.
No, you did not. Nothing you posted includes the definition of a single human race based on genetic similarity.
That is probably for the best. Perhaps a site with less emphasis on science, and more on your sort of personal attacks, would be better suited to you temperament.
BTW, please stop using phrases like "appeal to authority," which you clearly do not understand. Citing reputable authorities and peer-reviewed works does NOT constitute an appeal to authority--that's called "actually supporting one's thesis." However, what you've done in, say, post #244 IS, very much, an appeal to authority. Anyone can come up with a wacky thesis, grab a bunch of decontextualized quotes from a variety of sources--including proper, genuinely knowledgable ones, and claim that said "citations" clearly support or confirm their thesis, when in fact they only seem to support the thesis by virtue of their abstraction and excisement from the fuller context. The reality is, they do not in any way whatsoever support whatever wacky thesis you're promulgating here. Actually, what you've done here is arguably even lamer: you didn't even mine these quotes on your own; rather, you simply copy-pasted a bunch of quotes from a Neo-Nazi website.
I believe that evolution rests on the generation of a variety of survival skills which meet environmental requirements (natural selection). With a few exceptions (we carry our sick), everyone alive today is more or less adapted to their environment, which has become 80% artificial in "developed" countries. When we speak of "primitive peoples" we are just identifying "poor people", who do not have the finances to build dams or launch satellites for communication. But they "know" more about their environment than any scientist who comes in for a few months and gathers a few "samples" for analysis. The same can be said for inner-city dwellers. If you can survive in those environments, you are not genetically inferior. Their survival skills are just adapted in different directions, concret jungles, tropical jungles, polar climates, desert climates, swamp environments, etc. Each climate requires specific survival skills and to say that someone living and navigating a jungle environment, surrounded by dangers which require guile and skill to avoid, is of low intelligence is an observation from pure ignorance, IMO. Modern IQ tests are hopelessly inadequate to test for survival skills in primitive environments. The questions are alien to undeveloped cultures. There are peoples who have never seen a bottle of soda-pop or a camera. How do you explain a photograph to a person who has never seen a photograph? The problem does not lie in intelligence, it lies in locally available natural resources.
What utter nonsense. I would address it but you see the same shit everywhere. By the same token rats are intelligent. How ironic.
