There's no genetic pure race.

[LightHouse89]

This is obviously false. My sources from that link include:

Alan Templeton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Templeton

John Relethford
http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/anthro/jhr.html

Norman Sauer
http://www.forbio.msu.edu/faculty_staff.html

Stephen Ousley
http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/personnel/stephen-d-ousley/

All experts in relevant scientific fields relating to human biological variation. In contrast you have some twat movie critic/journalist and an extreme fringe psychologist (whose own university has published statements distancing themselves from his work), both who have plenty of racist/political baggage.

Let me guess people like Bryan Sikes and the likes are also incorrect in terms of being geneticists? :rolleyes: I never claimed McDonald was a biologist but it doesn't require a biologist to realize difference exists within populations. You sound like a Liberal robot.

I would like to see more biologists who all agree that race, ethnic groups and populations do not exist. Provide more than the same two you go on about plus the other two. We need more. I am unconvinced populations or homogenous groups do not exist [which is a lie].

[LightHouse89]

I ws referring to actual Apes- as in the animals haha

But yes Im aware of the scientists who promoted "over population" to stop whites from having kids

The same scientists who claim race doesn't exist XD LOL.

[Äijä]

There are no human races. That's the whole point, the lines/boundaries (if imposed) are arbitrary.



Is there some benefit in different populations mixing their genes? There are no negative effects biologically? Everything is just a social construct?

[LightHouse89]

Is there some benefit in different populations mixing their genes? There are no negative effects biologically? Everything is just a social construct?

Furthermore how is it the I am the same as the Afram when the likelihood of them committing a crime is much higher [as a population or individuals overall].

Just looking at these statistics which the government wants to mae illegal to the publc because its 'racist'. After all truth is infact racist so we need to lie to create a false truths. :) Just look at the numbers.


Its proof race or something exists. We are not all the same judging by groups. What the left is trying to claim is there are no groups. We are all just individuals. The same crowd claims that if we painted roads white it would end global warming.

I often wonder is this science or insanity? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-67

I know for a fact we have the moral high ground in this fight though.

[Pyramidologist]

Let me guess people like Bryan Sikes and the likes are also incorrect in terms of being geneticists? :rolleyes: I never claimed McDonald was a biologist but it doesn't require a biologist to realize difference exists within populations. You sound like a Liberal robot.

I would like to see more biologists who all agree that race, ethnic groups and populations do not exist. Provide more than the same two you go on about plus the other two. We need more. I am unconvinced populations or homogenous groups do not exist [which is a lie].

:picard1: Brain Sykes doesn't believe in race you clown.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fighunter/images/0/0f/Clown.gif/revision/latest?cb=20110227204135

"As this book will show, objectively defined races simply do not exist [...] The temptation to classify the human species into categories which have no objective basis is an inevitable but regrettable consequence of the gene frequency system when it is taken too far." ― Bryan Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry

Like I said, virtually no modern scientist supports the existence of human races. Do some reading and learn about science rather than just post nonsense conspiracy theories that scientists are somehow biased "liberals". Your posts get boring and repetitive fast.

[LightHouse89]

crimes are social constructs is the best conclusion I can come up with as to why blacks are more likely to break the rules. Not just blacks but other third world ethnics. It would seem the only civilized races on earth are Asians and whites. The rest of mankind is useless biological material.

[Antimage]

But yes Im aware of the scientists who promoted "over population" to stop whites from having kids

but why?

[Not a Cop]

There are no human races. That's the whole point, the lines/boundaries (if imposed) are arbitrary.

Ok, brown hair exist, so there is no blonde or black hair, hair colours don't exist in general, am i right?

[LightHouse89]

:picard1: Brain Sykes doesn't believe in race you clown.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fighunter/images/0/0f/Clown.gif/revision/latest?cb=20110227204135

"As this book will show, objectively defined races simply do not exist [...] The temptation to classify the human species into categories which have no objective basis is an inevitable but regrettable consequence of the gene frequency system when it is taken too far." ― Bryan Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry

Like I said, virtually no modern scientist supports the existence of human races. Do some reading and learn about science rather than just post nonsense conspiracy theories that scientists are somehow biased "liberals". Your posts get boring and repetitive fast.

No but he points out group differences. The very acknowledge meant of a group or populations is proof 'race' exists.

They are funded by special interest groups which makes many of them 'political'. Only a clown like you would disagree. The fact you have most of the Brown advocates here supporting you is proof of the left wing person you really are. I know for a fact you are a sock puppet account. If I am a clown it is for speaking with you and trying to have a conversation with you in the first place LOL.

Race again is a term to describe various ethnic groups. So good luck disproving they exist. That is what Marxists believe :).

I agree with him that races in the sense of lumping multiple populations together becomes problematic in terms of defining them as it is collectively combing groups that do not share the same genetic origins or even relations with one another.

This is why the word 'race' gets confusing however you cannot disprove something that you see with your own eyes. You also cannot disprove it without first brainwashing people to think this way which the far left in the intellectual institutions here are doing.

They will have to change the entire Criminal Justice system in order to do that which will be disastrous. Your posts are very redundant too. You post the same clowns over and over again who claim ethnic groups and populations are social constructs. They even claim traits associated with certain populations in the world are infact 'social constructs'. Proof you along with them are morons.

Why is it that no one is lobbying to ban the concept of race in any society that is multicultural? At least not yet.

Good luck trying to disprove 'muh people' exist.

[LightHouse89]

Ok, brown hair exist, so there is no blonde or black hair, hair colours don't exist in general, am i right?

Everything is a social construct. What ever you do don't drink the cool aid he offers!

[LightHouse89]

but why?

I am not sure what is gained by it. Just like I am unsure what is gained by making claims that races or populations aren't real.

Science is proving more and more it doesn't really have the answers. I think its due to the fact they are not asking the right questions or studying relevant things any more. I care more about innovation than this social science crap.

[Antimage]

.

but why did scientists "promote "over population" to stop whites from having kids"?

[Pyramidologist]

Is there some benefit in different populations mixing their genes? There are no negative effects biologically? Everything is just a social construct?

As far as I am aware, no. While hybrid vigour (heterosis) is observed in non-humans, the genetic variation between human populations isn't high enough for it to occur.


The physiological vigor of an organism as manifested in its rapidity of growth, its height and general robustness, is positively correlated with the degree of dissimilarity in the gametes by whose union the organism was formed … The more numerous the differences between the uniting gametes — at least within certain limits — the greater on the whole is the amount of stimulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis

[LightHouse89]

This was a good book :cool: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861

The 'reality' of difference will always be there which proves to a degree races exist. Clines don't mean much of anything. They are a part of DNA but they do not disprove race doesn't exist.

Please spare me this 'Humanist' crap which is infact politically charged.

[LightHouse89]

but why did scientists "promote "over population" to stop whites from having kids"?

Not sure. They still do it or contend that we are over populating America. So we should be more considerate and have less children while Mexico and Latin America colonizes our country.

[Äijä]

:picard1: Brain Sykes doesn't believe in race you clown.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fighunter/images/0/0f/Clown.gif/revision/latest?cb=20110227204135

"As this book will show, objectively defined races simply do not exist [...] The temptation to classify the human species into categories which have no objective basis is an inevitable but regrettable consequence of the gene frequency system when it is taken too far." ― Bryan Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry

Like I said, virtually no modern scientist supports the existence of human races. Do some reading and learn about science rather than just post nonsense conspiracy theories that scientists are somehow biased "liberals". Your posts get boring and repetitive fast.

Are humans monotypic or polytypic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies#Monotypic_and_polytypic_species



A monotypic species has no distinct population or races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. A taxonomist would not name a subspecies within such a species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:

All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.

The individuals vary considerably, but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.

The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.

Do you claim some of these conditions are true between all human populations?

[Antimage]

Not sure. They still do it or contend that we are over populating America. So we should be more considerate and have less children while Mexico and Latin America colonizes our country.

Lol this overpopulation is so stupid. America still have a lot of space

[Pyramidologist]

Ok, brown hair exist, so there is no blonde or black hair, hair colours don't exist in general, am i right?

It depends how you define "reality" or "existence" which is philosophical. But I would say: colours don't exist, but are useful categories. In contrast: race doesn't exist, and is not useful (if socially constructed). Science is based on the usefulness and explanatory/predictive power of classification, it doesn't directly make ontological arguments about what is really "real" in a mind-independent sense (although certainly a classification that is highly useful can be inferred to be "real" and non-arbitrary and exist outside the mind, so science and philosophy here are related).

Human "race" isn't a useful concept or category. It captures far too little variation. The colour argument is often used by "race realists", but it is flawed to equate human races and colour categories. Colours capture significant portions of the visible light spectrum, human races do not capture hardly any genetic variation (0.01% of the total genome).

[Äijä]

Bonobos and Common chimpanzees can interbreed, will they produce fertile hybrids?

[Pyramidologist]

Are humans monotypic or polytypic?

They are still polytypic. Human biological variation that shows a population structure overwhelmingly though is clinal, or of gradients across space, not clusters (i.e. races). [Edit: although if you read the link below you will see this is an inadequate re-definition of race itself, the genetic variation between human populations is far too low to pass as subspecies].


Regardless though of this issue, the geographical pattern to human genetic variation (which accounts for under 0.01% of the genome) matches an almost continuous gradient/isolation-by-distance model. As little as 1-2% of this variation is unexplained by geographic distance, and can be captured by clustering (Handley et al., 2007).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Genetic_clusters

Since human population genetic variation is 98-99% clinal, and only 1-2% clusters, its obviously not appropriate to recognise human races.

And the 1-2% clusters, don't help white nationalists or racialists (the genetic discontinuities are found in local regions within countries):

"Zones of discontinuity in human gene frequency distributions are present, but the local gradients are so small that they can be identified only by simultaneously studying many loci using complex statistical techniques. In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries." http://www.pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.abstract

[Äijä]

They are still polytypic. Human biological variation that shows a population structure overwhelmingly though is clinal, or of gradients across space, not clusters (i.e. races).



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Genetic_clusters

Since human population genetic variation is 98-99% clinal, and only 1-2% clusters, its obviously not appropriate to recognise human races.

And the 1-2% clusters, don't help white nationalists or racialists (the genetic discontinuities are found in local regions within countries):

"Zones of discontinuity in human gene frequency distributions are present, but the local gradients are so small that they can be identified only by simultaneously studying many loci using complex statistical techniques. In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries." http://www.pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.abstract


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slMub4NtrSk

[Pyramidologist]

No problem that you reject science for your own dogma because I will just not bother further replying to you, like the lighthouseclown.

[Äijä]

Does evolution and natural selection apply to humans? Do different human populations have different genes under selective pressure?

[Äijä]

No problem that you reject science for your own dogma because I will just not bother further replying to you, like the lighthouseclown.

LOL

[Neon Knight]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slMub4NtrSkWell that's my nightmare sorted out for tonight :)

[Unome]

People commonly say "humans can breed with each-other" to justify "we are all one people, one race, one equality".

But does anybody see people lining-up to have sex with Australian Aboriginals or other third world tribes???

What's the difference between "can" and "won't"?

[Desaix DeBurgh]

Kevin Macdonald, again not a biologist. He's some weirdo who writes anti-Semitic theories on Jewish psychology. Furthermore he's a white nationalist. How very non-biased...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#Affiliation


Your "sources" are all dubious, from white nationalists or other racists who have no credentials whatsoever in biology/relevant scientific fields.

Ok, but you are engaging in at least one logical fallacy here (this is not the first time you used it in this thread either) :





Poisoning the Well

(also known as: discrediting, smear tactics)

Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable, or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.

Logical Form:

Adverse information (be it true or false) about person 1 is presented.

Therefore, the claim(s) of person 1 will be false.

...



http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/141-poisoning-the-well

I think you are engaging in other possible logical fallacies like maybe the argumentum ad verecundiam and its converse (which is another ad hominem).

Guess what ? I don't have time to debate with irrational/illogical people such as yourself. I have much more important things to do. However, I just want to point out the absurdity of some of the things you say. First of all you are a hypocrite. In one point in this thread you talk about peer reviewed scientific journals but you post from websites such as rationalwiki which is far from that. Also, I'll point out the absurdities of claiming race doesn't exist. There are all kinds of clines/gradients in nature for instance there are differents kinds of carbon such as Carbon 12 and carbon 14 but since carbon 12 is the most abundant and is what most people generally refer to when talking about carbon does that mean that radioactive carbon 14 doesn't exist and that only 'carbon' exists ? Or if race doesn't exist then how can forensic anthropologists, generally from a crime scene, tell the race of an individual based solely on their skeletal remains ? It is absurd to deny race but I have much more important things to do then to argue with illogical people. Barely 1 man in 100 is worth me arguing with and you are not one of them. So you can go on arguing with others in this thread but my time is more important than wasting it on people like you.

[Äijä]

Ok, but you are engaging in at least one logical fallacy here (this is not the first time you used it in this thread either) :



http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/141-poisoning-the-well

I think you are engaging on other possible logical fallacies like maybe the argumentum ad verecundiam and its converse (which is another ad hominem).

Guess what ? I don't have time to debate with irrational/illogical people such as yourself. I have much more important things to do. However, I just want to point out the absurdity of some of the things you say. First of all you are a hypocrite. In one point in this thread you talk about peer reviewed scientific journals but you post from websites such as rationalwiki which is far from that. Also, I'll point out the absurdities of claiming race doesn't exist. There are all kinds of clines/gradients in nature for instance there are differents kinds of carbon such as Carbon 12 and carbon 14 but since carbon 12 is the most abundant and is wht most people generally refer to when talking about carbon 12 does that mean that radioactive carbon 14 doesn't exist and that only 'carbon' exists ? Or if race doesn't exist then how can forensic anthropologists, generally from a crime scene, tell the race of an individual based solely on their skeletal remains ? It is absurd to deny race but I have much more important things to do then to argue with illogical people. Barely 1 man in 100 is worth me arguing with and you are not one of them. So you can go on arguing with others in this thread but my time is more important than wasting it on people like you.

That there are no races is the real social construct.

He went offline to ask his professor for help but I am sure we will soon get someone freshly subverted and bright eyed to continue from where he quit.

[Proctor]

They're not politically motivated. If you think so, are biologists who accept the theory of evolution, also biased? The consensus among biologists that humans races don't exist, matches the acceptance of evolution: 99.9% (there will always be a 0.1% minority of cranks). Indeed this is why the idea human races exist has been compared to flat earth (Diamond, 1994), the "phlogiston of our time" (Montagu, 1964) or belief in unicorns (Fish, 2002).

If you have evidence for human races then present it. So far you have posted nothing but gibberish. You also set up the straw man that those that deny race (which is virtually all scientists in relevant fields) are denying biological variation exists. This is obviously false. No two individuals are identical in genotype or phenotype. There's also a population structure to human variation that no scientist denies, but it is not, and never has been, racial.

Are you anti-scientific? Race is both a biological and social construct.

Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy (http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Edwards%2c%20A.W.F.%20%22Human%20genetic%20diversi ty-%20Lewontin%27s%20fallacy.%22%20BioEssays%2025%20% 282003%29.pdf)


The Race for Ancestral Genetics in Clinical Trials (http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/18/1270.full)



Unequal by nature: a geneticist’s perspective on human differences (http://www.amacad.org/publications/winter2002/Crow.pdf)



Faster Evolution Means More Ethnic Differences (http://edge.org/response-detail/10376)


The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/s)


The flipside of serendipity: human genetics rediscovers race. (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+flipside+of+serendipity%3A+human+genetics+redi scovers+race.-a0171539427)



Richard Dawkins accepts the usefulness of race (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/05/richard-dawkins-accepts-the-usefulness-of-race/#.VOpE9i57apQ)


Why race as a biological construct matters (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/why-race-as-a-biological-construct-matters/#.VOpFTC57apT)


Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures. (http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to)



Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ groups (http://rds.epi-ucsf.org/ticr/syllabus/courses/14/2006/02/28/Lecture/readings/mountain%20and%20risch.pdf)



The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1275602/pdf/AJHGv77p519.pdf)


Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease (http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007)



Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/)



Genetic Structure of Human Populations (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.short)



Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070)


Rushton, J. Philippe. Race, Evolution, and Behavior, 3rd Ed. Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965683605?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0965683605&linkCode=xm2&tag=consertimes-20)


Race: a social destruction of a biological concept (http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf)


Confusions about race: A new installment (http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf)


Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26human.html?pagewanted=print)


Darwin's Duel with Descartes (http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP1205090520.pdf)


DNA explains more than you think (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9207821/the-genome-of-history/)


Genes mirror geography within Europe (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735096/?_escaped_fragment_=po=19.2308)


Race and ethnicity as biological constructs.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1467750)


Constructing genomic maps of positive selection in humans: Where do we go from here? (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/711.short)


http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/Photos/global-genetic-distances-map.jpg

Nice bait btw, 4/10, made me reply.

[Neon Knight]

Human "race" isn't a useful concept or category. It captures far too little variation. The colour argument is often used by "race realists", but it is flawed to equate human races and colour categories. Colours capture significant portions of the visible light spectrum, human races do not capture hardly any genetic variation (0.01% of the total genome).Not useful? If a person who was adopted takes a genetic test which tells them places of ancestral origins then that is very useful to them for it helps to satisfy their need for meaning and identity. The genetic variation of 0.01% between humans is not significant? How about the genetic variation of 5% between apes and humans? Is that significant? Super-intelligent aliens might not think so and regard humans as a type of ape (also, it is not proven that humans cannot breed with chimps). The comparative genetic % difference between 1st cousins : 3rd cousins must be minute but it is very useful in determining whether 1st cousins should have children together (they probably shouldn't).

This whole argument can be boiled down to one question: are the genetic differences between human populations great enough to provide sources of identity? Science cannot answer that question and I think it is really a matter of taste. Some people find great identity just by supporting a certain sports club or following a certain religious denomination. You could tell Protestants and Catholics that they are really the same but they might strongly object. So if you want to identify genetically as a human or primate or mammal then you can do, but if your neighbour wants to identify as a European or a Briton or a Scot then his choice is equally valid.

[Pyramidologist]

Not useful? If a person who was adopted takes a genetic test which tells them places of ancestral origins then that is very useful to them for it helps to satisfy their need for meaning and identity. The genetic variation of 0.01% between humans is not significant? How about the genetic variation of 5% between apes and humans? Is that significant? Super-intelligent aliens might not think so and regard humans as a type of ape (also, it is not unproven that humans can breed with chimps). The comparative genetic % differences between 1st cousins : 3rd cousins must be astronomically small but it is very useful in determining whether 1st cousins should have children together (they probably shouldn't).

This whole argument can be boiled down to one question: are the genetic differences between human populations great enough to provide sources of identity? Science cannot answer that question and I think it is really a matter of taste. Some people find great identity just by supporting a certain sports club or following a certain religious denomination. You could tell Protestants and Catholics that they are really the same but they might strongly object. So If you want to identify genetically as a human or primate or mammal then you can do, but if your neighbour wants to identify as a European or a Briton or a Scot then his choice is equally valid.

Not "identity", but, usefulness. The answer is: human races don't qualify as useful categories. Minimal thresholds are introduced by biologists to recognise subspecies. Human races don't come close. Read any of Templeton's papers.

"Most demes or local populations within a species show some degree of genetic differentiation from other local populations, by having either some unique alleles or at least different frequencies of alleles. If every genetically distinguishable population were elevated to the status of race, then most species would have hundreds to tens of thousands of races, thereby making race nothing more than a synonym for a deme or local population. A race or subspecies requires a degree of genetic differentiation that is well above the level of genetic differences that exist among local populations." (Templeton, 2013)

Most biologists use the Fixation Index. Humans come out well below the 25-30% threshold.

"In contrast to chimpanzees, the five major ‘‘races’’ of humans account for only 4.3% of human genetic variation—well below the 25% threshold. The genetic variation in our species is overwhelmingly variation among individuals." (Templeton, 2013)

[Pyramidologist]

Ok, but you are engaging in at least one logical fallacy here (this is not the first time you used it in this thread either) :



http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/141-poisoning-the-well

I think you are engaging in other possible logical fallacies like maybe the argumentum ad verecundiam and its converse (which is another ad hominem).

Guess what ? I don't have time to debate with irrational/illogical people such as yourself. I have much more important things to do. However, I just want to point out the absurdity of some of the things you say. First of all you are a hypocrite. In one point in this thread you talk about peer reviewed scientific journals but you post from websites such as rationalwiki which is far from that. Also, I'll point out the absurdities of claiming race doesn't exist. There are all kinds of clines/gradients in nature for instance there are differents kinds of carbon such as Carbon 12 and carbon 14 but since carbon 12 is the most abundant and is what most people generally refer to when talking about carbon does that mean that radioactive carbon 14 doesn't exist and that only 'carbon' exists ? Or if race doesn't exist then how can forensic anthropologists, generally from a crime scene, tell the race of an individual based solely on their skeletal remains ? It is absurd to deny race but I have much more important things to do then to argue with illogical people. Barely 1 man in 100 is worth me arguing with and you are not one of them. So you can go on arguing with others in this thread but my time is more important than wasting it on people like you.

Forensic science deals with social constructs, not taxonomy. No forensic scientist argues races are real, or useful biologically. They recognise them as social constructs only. They would be discontinued if everyone woke up tomorrow and didn't identify as a race, ethnic group etc. The fact you don't know this shows you are a total amateur at this debate.

"The successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the [biological] race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category." (Sauer, 1992)

Sauer's (1992) paper is subtitled "If races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?". He answers that question: they're social constructs.

[Äijä]

Not "identity", but, usefulness. The answer is: human races don't qualify as useful categories. Minimal thresholds are introduced by biologists to recognise subspecies. Human races don't come close. Read any of Templeton's papers.

"Most demes or local populations within a species show some degree of genetic differentiation from other local populations, by having either some unique alleles or at least different frequencies of alleles. If every genetically distinguishable population were elevated to the status of race, then most species would have hundreds to tens of thousands of races, thereby making race nothing more than a synonym for a deme or local population. A race or subspecies requires a degree of genetic differentiation that is well above the level of genetic differences that exist among local populations." (Templeton, 2013)

Most biologists use the Fixation Index. Humans come out well below the 25-30% threshold.

"In contrast to chimpanzees, the five major ‘‘races’’ of humans account for only 4.3% of human genetic variation—well below the 25% threshold. The genetic variation in our species is overwhelmingly variation among individuals." (Templeton, 2013)

What is the degree of differentiation between Bonobos and Common chimpanzees?

Are there differences between human populations in morphology, physiology and behaviour?

[Neon Knight]

Not "identity", but, usefulness. The answer is: human races don't qualify as useful categories. Minimal thresholds are introduced by biologists to recognise subspecies. Human races don't come close. Read any of Templeton's papers.

"Most demes or local populations within a species show some degree of genetic differentiation from other local populations, by having either some unique alleles or at least different frequencies of alleles. If every genetically distinguishable population were elevated to the status of race, then most species would have hundreds to tens of thousands of races, thereby making race nothing more than a synonym for a deme or local population. A race or subspecies requires a degree of genetic differentiation that is well above the level of genetic differences that exist among local populations." (Templeton, 2013)

Most biologists use the Fixation Index. Humans come out well below the 25-30% threshold.

"In contrast to chimpanzees, the five major ‘‘races’’ of humans account for only 4.3% of human genetic variation—well below the 25% threshold. The genetic variation in our species is overwhelmingly variation among individuals." (Templeton, 2013)What is their def. of race and how do they decide on the minimum thresholds? Are there such things as French, German and British races? I think it's all relative. There are discernable genetic differences if we look closely enough and average differences in looks as well.

[Pyramidologist]

Are you anti-scientific? Race is both a biological and social construct.

Its a social construct that captures far too little genetic/phenotypic variation to be considered useful. No one though denies it captures some variation (albeit a tiny quantity).

Anyone claiming race exists or is useful by definition is "anti-scientific". If race exists, why do 99.9% of biologists (the consensus) agree they are not useful? You're left quoting crackpots or extreme fringe sources.

"Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20995/abstract

[Äijä]

Its a social construct that captures far too little genetic/phenotypic variation to be considered useful. No one though denies it captures some variation (albeit a tiny quantity).

Anyone claiming race exists or is useful by definition is "anti-scientific". If race exists, why do 99.9% of biologists (the consensus) agree they are not useful? You're left quoting crackpots or extreme fringe sources.

"Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20995/abstract

You are on to something here.

[Äijä]

Where Neanderthals a different species or not?

[Neon Knight]

"Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation."I can agree with that but try these:

Race is a meaningful way to describe human phenotypal variation.

Race is a meaningful way to describe human geno-geographical variation.

[Pyramidologist]

What is the degree of differentiation between Bonobos and Common chimpanzees?

Are there differences between human populations in morphology, physiology and behaviour?

Actually the genetic differentiation between putative chimpanzee subspecies is low. Its right on the border of the Fst threshold (somewhere between 25-30). Many biologists appear to have removed them from scientific literature. So there are no chimpanzee subspecies/races. But when compared to humans, putative subspecies of chimpanzees show 5 times more genetic variation. That really puts things in perspective. But there is not only a genetic criteria to subspecies, they also have to have discrete boundaries and be reproductively isolated. Very few human populations qualify.

[Proctor]

Its a social construct that captures far too little genetic/phenotypic variation to be considered useful. No one though denies it captures some variation (albeit a tiny quantity).

Anyone claiming race exists or is useful by definition is "anti-scientific". If race exists, why do 99.9% of biologists (the consensus) agree they are not useful? You're left quoting crackpots or extreme fringe sources.

While you just ignore every single one of the links I provided, none of the links I posted are from fringe sources. Science is dynamic and established theories may be rejected in the future. You're arguing from authority which is fallacious, can you show me proof of that consensus, I highly doubt it's 99%.

Races are very useful biologically, especially to healthcare providers:

Mixedrace children suffer from more health problems:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Mixed race people suffer from catastrophic shortage of organ donors, leaving many to die of treatable illness:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
http://articles.boston.com/2009-05-28/news/29263326_1_national-marrow-donor-program-mixed-race-multiracial

You do realize that nearly everything we have a name for or category for nowadays is a social construct right?

Going to quote a blog I visited once:

"Race IS a social construct. But race does exist. Saying something is a “social construct” can be true and still yet not be really meaningful.

Think of it, the periodic table of chemical elements is a social construct. Do chemical elements then not exist? Or, much more relevant – in fact, exactly like race – Linnaean taxonomy is a social construct. Do kingdoms, classes, species not exist? Race is merely an extension of this.

In reality, genetic analysis can separate human populations into distinct groups. This works at the level of continental groups or even ethnic groups within a continent (or even groups within an ethnicity). At times the progression is smooth, with each group gradually giving way to the next, and at other times, the transition is abrupt."

[Drakoblare]

Why do you insecure mutts keep on denying me my Spartan blood?

[Pyramidologist]

I can agree with that but try these:

Race is a meaningful way to describe human phenotypal variation.

Race is a meaningful way to describe human geno-geographical variation.

No, because "race" cannot be re-defined in this sense:

"When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race." (Hochman, 2014)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Populations
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Ecotypes

Human populations and ecotypes exist. Races do not. Note the retard posters in this thread like lighthouseclown have done nothing but straw man my position. As soon as they hear someone claim races don't exist, they equate that to denying biological variation and population structure to this variation (which is very small, but still exists).

[Äijä]

Actually the genetic differentiation between putative chimpanzee subspecies is low. Its right on the border of the Fst threshold (somewhere between 25-30). Many biologists appear to have removed them from scientific literature. So there are no chimpanzee subspecies/races. But when compared to humans, putative subspecies of chimpanzees show 5 times more genetic variation. That really puts things in perspective. But there is not only a genetic criteria to subspecies, they also have to have discrete boundaries and be reproductively isolated. Very few human populations qualify.

So we have subspecies and more can form in isolation?

[Neon Knight]

The trouble is, as with many words, the definition of race has changed over time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29

This basic definition: a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics is now supported by pop. genetics so that is not trivialised. I never said that Norwegians and Nigerians could not have viable offspring and I did say earlier that the argument could be solved by using "racial type" instead of race.

[Äijä]

The trouble is, as with many words, the definition of race has changed over time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29

This basic definition: a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics is now supported by pop. genetics so that is not trivialised. I never said that Norwegians and Nigerians could not have viable offspring and I did say earlier that the argument could be solved by using "racial type" instead of race.


In biological terms, rather than in relation to nomenclature, a polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races, or more generally speaking, populations that need a separate description.[5] These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which would interbreed freely if given the chance to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies#Monotypic_and_polytypic_species

[Pyramidologist]

So we have subspecies and more can form in isolation?

There are no human subspecies, just a very small number of isolated populations (like remote tribes in the Amazon, and perhaps ethno-religious sects like the Samaritans). The isolation mechanism to gene flow doesn't have to be geographical, but it usually is. An isolated population is the earliest evolutionary stage of a species. Isolated population > Subspecies (race) > Species

Gunner Dahlberg (1948) coined the term "isolates" for isolated human populations. But they aren't genetically differentiated enough to pass as subspecies/races. This is because while there may be isolated populations today, they haven't been reproductively isolated for enough generations to have diverged genetically.

[StonyArabia]

While you just ignore every single one of the links I provided, none of the links I posted are from fringe sources. Science is dynamic and established theories may be rejected in the future. You're arguing from authority which is fallacious, can you show me proof of that consensus, I highly doubt it's 99%.

Races are very useful biologically, especially to healthcare providers:

Mixedrace children suffer from more health problems:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Mixed race people suffer from catastrophic shortage of organ donors, leaving many to die of treatable illness:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
http://articles.boston.com/2009-05-28/news/29263326_1_national-marrow-donor-program-mixed-race-multiracial

You do realize that nearly everything we have a name for or category for nowadays is a social construct right?

Going to quote a blog I visited once:

"Race IS a social construct. But race does exist. Saying something is a “social construct” can be true and still yet not be really meaningful.

Think of it, the periodic table of chemical elements is a social construct. Do chemical elements then not exist? Or, much more relevant – in fact, exactly like race – Linnaean taxonomy is a social construct. Do kingdoms, classes, species not exist? Race is merely an extension of this.


In reality, genetic analysis can separate human populations into distinct groups. This works at the level of continental groups or even ethnic groups within a continent (or even groups within an ethnicity). At times the progression is smooth, with each group gradually giving way to the next, and at other times, the transition is abrupt."

This is so balala my cousin is mixed race and never had a problem health wise. Funny she is an engineer.

[Äijä]

There are no human subspecies, just a very small number of isolated populations (like remote tribes in the Amazon, and perhaps ethno-religious sects like the Samaritans). The isolation mechanism to gene flow doesn't have to be geographical, but it usually is. An isolated population is the earliest evolutionary stage of a species. Isolated population > Subspecies (race) > Species

Gunner Dahlberg (1948) coined the term "isolates" for isolated human populations. But they aren't genetically differentiated enough to pass as subspecies/races. This is because while there may be isolated populations today, they haven't been reproductively isolated for enough generations to have diverged genetically.

Do different human populations have different genes under selective pressure?

[Pyramidologist]

The trouble is, as with many words, the definition of race has changed over time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29

This basic definition: a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics is now supported by pop. genetics so that is not trivialised. I never said that Norwegians and Nigerians could not have viable offspring and I did say earlier that the argument could be solved by using "racial type" instead of race.

No its never changed itself. People instead invented and hijacked new theories, definitions and concepts of race when they realized races in the taxonomic sense of subspecies don't exist. The biological concept of race has been falsified when applied to humans. This is fact.

"Race" means a lot to some people still as a social construct. So instead of accepting reality it doesn't exist, they had to come up with new definitions, and then testing those, when those failed, reinvent and test again. Its all rather lame. Some emotional/heavily biased people just need "race" still in their lives, so they won't accept the scientific evidence it doesn't exist, and keep changing the definition of it.

Anyway, my position before accepting anti-realism about human races, was to consider them as ecotypes. But ecotypes have nothing to do with races. In other words you can be a race-denialist and race-realist at the same time depending on what concept or definitions you use. Because people don't give this crap up, its now mostly all semantics.

If race =just a breeding population, then we're all "race realists". Bizarrely that is the definition some online racialists use. They have completely redefined race from what it originally meant and how it is defined by biologists (as subspecies). Again to quote Marks (2010) the fact you can point out there are populations:

"What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups."

Unless you can show sharply demarcated "clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups" (i.e. there is high genetic differentiation between populations, rather than within them) you aren't talking about race.

[Pyramidologist]

Do different human populations have different genes under selective pressure?

Selection changes genetic frequency like drift. But selection is systematic, drift is random. The derived light skin color allele of the SLC24A5 gene found at highest frequency in Europe for example is very low % in Africa because climatic selection does not favour it there.

[Pyramidologist]

While you just ignore every single one of the links I provided, none of the links I posted are from fringe sources. Science is dynamic and established theories may be rejected in the future. You're arguing from authority which is fallacious, can you show me proof of that consensus, I highly doubt it's 99%.

Races are very useful biologically, especially to healthcare providers:

Mixedrace children suffer from more health problems:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Mixed race people suffer from catastrophic shortage of organ donors, leaving many to die of treatable illness:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
http://articles.boston.com/2009-05-28/news/29263326_1_national-marrow-donor-program-mixed-race-multiracial

You do realize that nearly everything we have a name for or category for nowadays is a social construct right?

Going to quote a blog I visited once:

"Race IS a social construct. But race does exist. Saying something is a “social construct” can be true and still yet not be really meaningful.

Think of it, the periodic table of chemical elements is a social construct. Do chemical elements then not exist? Or, much more relevant – in fact, exactly like race – Linnaean taxonomy is a social construct. Do kingdoms, classes, species not exist? Race is merely an extension of this.

In reality, genetic analysis can separate human populations into distinct groups. This works at the level of continental groups or even ethnic groups within a continent (or even groups within an ethnicity). At times the progression is smooth, with each group gradually giving way to the next, and at other times, the transition is abrupt."

Well your list was mostly crap. It had Rushton on it, and Steve Sailor's "HBD" website. Rushton has been totally discredited. These "HBD" people are not scientists, but white nationalists.

Is race useful in medicine? Answer is no. The only populations that are useful to recognise are incredibly small, local groups, where specific heritable diseases can be found at a high frequency.

Sarich and Miele's 2004 book was never a defence of the race concept. All they did was equate any population with race:


"For example, Sarich and Miele (2004, 172) judge that the Dogon, Teita, and Bushmen (their terms) are distinctive races, as are people from Athens and
Copenhagen (p. 210), but most of these groups don’t seem to qualify as races as ordinarily conceived (presumably at least in part because these groups do not have readily identifiable distinctive visible traits). Of course, Sarich and Miele are entitled to use
the word “race” however they want. But their central and explicit aim is to vindicate the ordinary concept of race, and so they cannot soundly replace ordinary race-talk with some other kind of talk." (Glasgow, 2009)

Copengageners and Londoners a race. :picard2:

[Neon Knight]

the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivialIs it trivial? On the medical aspect, this is one thing I remembered:


Studies have shown that Asians are at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, when compared with people of European ancestry. Asians are more likely to develop the disease even at a lower BMI. This means that even though some Asian populations currently have a lower prevalence of overweight and obese individuals than populations in the West, they have a disproportionately high percentage of people with diabetes. Currently, 60% of the world’s diabetic population is Asian.

This higher risk may be because Asians, especially South Asians, are more likely to have less muscle and more abdominal fat, which increases insulin resistance. For example, even though Indian newborns have a lower average body weight compared to white newborns, Indian newborns have higher levels of body fat and insulin. Imaging technology that measures fat in humans has shown that Asians of a healthy BMI have more fat around organs and in the belly area than Europeans with the same BMI.Also, like I've mentioned earlier, calling our genetic/phenotypal differences trivial ignores the very real human need for identity (and if it isn't 'race' then it's accent or dress style or religion, etc - always something).

Suppose the Danes vote-in a nationalist government which passes a law stating that, to help preserve their white population, the only migrants that will be allowed into Denmark will be those individuals who score at least 90% European on a 23 and Me test (or similar). What scientific argument(s) would you use against that?

[Äijä]

Suppose the Danes vote-in a nationalist government which passes a law stating that, to help preserve their white population, the only migrants that will be allowed into Denmark will be those individuals who score at least 90% European on a 23 and Me test (or similar). What scientific argument(s) would you use against that?

Denmark would be bombed and invaded by EU, NATO as an facist state.

[Dombra]

Denmark would be bombed and invaded by EU, NATO as an facist state.

What if they claim to be on the hunt for a disease that spreads faster than ebola, namely MENA and SSA admixture, even if they do not necessarily specify it. One cannot be racist again a sick person :nod

[Velda]

Not true at all. Lions aren't real either. They are all cats no such thing as species or breeds. Everything is equal and the same. :rolleyes:
He's right ;-) So please clean up the felidae's cage, you will tell me, there is no difference between real big and small felidae, if you come back alive.
Concerning the theory that "race" must be some sort of extendet family, I found this proof for myself: These men all share some R1a and R1b - subgroups in their DNA. Watching the video, I just recognized that almost all of those people, that were (or are) very good friends of mine, look similar to some of those persons!
Of couse I got or get along with other people as well, but even though I don't know the people behind the faces in this video, most of them seem likeable persons to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ZqiLtfeOM
I highly recomment this link:
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/modern-faces-ancient-migration/
Which one of these persons do you like most? I am sure, it will be the one that is similar with your race!

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Sure there is. Not to go into what definitions of race are again, but they are defined ie taxonomic by nature, and therefore pure by definition as well. The people on the otherhand mostly are not but that's mostly in historic times the case, and is not NEARLY as widespread as 99% of people seem to think.

[Velda]

[QUOTE=Pyramidologist;3417776]
Human populations and ecotypes exist. Races do not. /QUOTE]

These colors do exist, even though some people do not have extra words for some of them. There are furthermore more shades of the non visible light, as we can't see these, they have no extra names.
http://omniglot.com/language/colours/multilingual.htm

Things are, what they are, so if there is no need for you to call a certain item with a certain name, that's your decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

[LightHouse89]

[QUOTE=Pyramidologist;3417776]
Human populations and ecotypes exist. Races do not. /QUOTE]

These colors do exist, even though some people do not have extra words for some of them. There are furthermore more shades of the non visible light, as we can't see these, they have no extra names.
http://omniglot.com/language/colours/multilingual.htm

Things are, what they are, so if there is no need for you to call a certain item with a certain name, that's your decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

He along with present day anthropologists actually cannot determine what a race is because the usage of the word has changed over the last 100 to 150 years.

If you look at my nation's immigration laws it stated that white people [who came from this region of europe] were considered racially American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Europe

Why were they considered racially white or preferred to come here? Well lets look at history, culture, shared values, religion, ethnic relation etc... Thats why! Mind you it is racist for me to make this claim yet the immigration policies were thsi way for the last 3 centuries. This would explain why the over whelming majority of 'white' americans can trace ancestry to these regions of Europe.

The founding stock of people here were of those ancestries. So its obviously rational that if any nation were to accept immigrants it would have to be immigrants who were racially/ethnically similar to the founding stock peoples.

The white race is these people to us Yanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Europe

Dont believe me look it up. The definition of 'white' changed and became meaningless when we started taking in people from all over europe and the world which was very irrational and happened less than a century ago. This is why we have the issue with 'race' or who is what here.

Mind you blacks, aboriginals and other races or peoples were never intended to become American citizens. You can ask any anthropologist, scientist, historian etc... here and they will tell you this is true.

People are confused with the term 'race' and this is why it is being disregarded here and elsewhere to fit more into the agenda of those who rule us now here. If you look at the major political parties here they are mostly ran by descendants of immigrants and colored peoples.

[LightHouse89]

No its never changed itself. People instead invented and hijacked new theories, definitions and concepts of race when they realized races in the taxonomic sense of subspecies don't exist. The biological concept of race has been falsified when applied to humans. This is fact.

"Race" means a lot to some people still as a social construct. So instead of accepting reality it doesn't exist, they had to come up with new definitions, and then testing those, when those failed, reinvent and test again. Its all rather lame. Some emotional/heavily biased people just need "race" still in their lives, so they won't accept the scientific evidence it doesn't exist, and keep changing the definition of it.

Anyway, my position before accepting anti-realism about human races, was to consider them as ecotypes. But ecotypes have nothing to do with races. In other words you can be a race-denialist and race-realist at the same time depending on what concept or definitions you use. Because people don't give this crap up, its now mostly all semantics.

If race =just a breeding population, then we're all "race realists". Bizarrely that is the definition some online racialists use. They have completely redefined race from what it originally meant and how it is defined by biologists (as subspecies). Again to quote Marks (2010) the fact you can point out there are populations:

"What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups."

Unless you can show sharply demarcated "clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups" (i.e. there is high genetic differentiation between populations, rather than within them) you aren't talking about race.

You dont know what a race is because you and most modern retarded scientists have taken the term itself out of context. The same way you ass clowns take phrases such as this out of context 'all men are created equal'. LOL you people think you have us fooled. LOL hahahahaha

Dude this study you go on about is funded by the Human Genome Project. An organization that gets funding from my government and the UN to discover health issues and to end 'racism'. A spokesperson from that same organization claimed the only way to end racism is to discredit the word 'race' itself.

LOL you people are beyond delusional and insane.

[LightHouse89]

I can agree with that but try these:

Race is a meaningful way to describe human phenotypal variation.

Race is a meaningful way to describe human geno-geographical variation.

To me and to my forefathers who were of the whtie race this to our people were consider racially 'white' and racially American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Europe

This ass clown leftist agent is full of himself and going on about left wing sceince created by my government and the UN to end racism and racial homogeneity. They want the future of our lands to be mixed populations with no loyalty to any concept of volkish thinking. The way to end this way of thinking is to remove the foundations of it itself. Race cannot ever be discredited because it is a reality. How can you claim something isnt real if it is before your eyes?

These people are delusional and what they come up with doesnt make sense. When science becomes hijacked by political crap like the Nazis did with coming up with this fictious 'Aryan' race they use it for political purposes. There is no truth behind it because anthropologists do not even agree with these fruitcakes. This is why intellectual institutions here wont use this bullshit in our schools because its all fabricated lies. :cool:

I researched this organization and research group and found that several of the sceintists work right here in USA for the Democrat parties funded 'Genome Project' to end racism. LOL the whole thing is laughable and the fact it discredits other scientific work as trivial is even proof of this.

This is a troll thread created by an ass clown sock puppet.

[Pyramidologist]

Human populations and ecotypes exist. Races do not.
These colors do exist, even though some people do not have extra words for some of them. There are furthermore more shades of the non visible light, as we can't see these, they have no extra names.
http://omniglot.com/language/colours/multilingual.htm

Things are, what they are, so if there is no need for you to call a certain item with a certain name, that's your decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

Colours don't exist, depending however on how you define reality. What exists is the visible light spectrum. The human eye (brain > retina) then divides it into different wave-lengths. But those divisions are not objective. Other animals break the spectrum differently.

But like I said, colours are useful. If utility = existence, then colours exist because they are useful. I was denying though colours in an ontological mind-independent sense.

In contrast to colours, race is not useful as a category because it captures far too little variation and not particularly well.

[Pyramidologist]

Lighthouse89 are you genuinely retarded? Like with a learning-difficulty? You're posts are stupid and gibberish. This is a science debate, and you derail with crackpottery every time.

[Pyramidologist]

Where Neanderthals a different species or not?

There's two species concepts: vertical and horizontal (Mayr's "non-dimensional species concept"). Virtually all biologists agree that horizontal species exist/are useful because we can test them directly, however vertical species are often questioned because there's no way to test them. Any two individuals separated by a couple of generations (i.e. vertical) cannot be tested:

"There is no precise way in which we can test whether Julius Caesar and Princess Diana were members of the same species Homo sapiens. Firstly, it is impossible, for a number of reasons, to actually make them produce fertile offspring with each other; secondly, when we compare their morphology, or other biological characteristics, we see that they are not identical. The example is not as silly as it seems." (Henneberg, 1997)

So the species concept can only be applied to horizontal or "non-dimensional" (single point time + space) populations/individuals.

Neanderthals cannot be tested, which is why scientists have mixed opinions.

[LightHouse89]

Colours don't exist, depending however on how you define reality. What exists is the visible light spectrum. The human eye (brain > retina) then divides it into different wave-lengths. But those divisions are not objective. Other animals break the spectrum differently.

But like I said, colours are useful. If utility = existence, then colours exist because they are useful. I was denying though colours in an ontological mind-independent sense.

In contrast to colours, race is not useful as a category because it captures far too little variation and not particularly well.

LOL this is pure horseshit.

[LightHouse89]

Lighthouse89 are you genuinely retarded? Like with a learning-difficulty? You're posts are stupid and gibberish. This is a science debate, and you derail with crackpottery every time.

You have proven your left wing views. You dislike me because I claim we are not social constructs yet you turn around and use the same propaganda my government uses on us here where I live. You dont even take anything anyone here who may disagree with you into consideration and instead use the same propaganda my government uses to discredit reality.

This isnt a science debate and it isnt rational or realistic. Please find me anthropological evidence suggesting race or ethnic groups do not exist. Again good luck with that :thumb001:

The fact you cannot provide me with any anthropological research to back up this BS you are posting is further proof that it isnt correct. The fact your entire argument is based on a single research study is even further proof that is not truth itself. That being said you are full of yourself.

Good luck commie :thumb001:

[LightHouse89]

There's two species concepts: vertical and horizontal (Mayr's "non-dimensional species concept"). Virtually all biologists agree that horizontal species exist/are useful because we can test them directly, however vertical species are often questioned because there's no way to test them. Any two individuals separated by a couple of generations (i.e. vertical) cannot be tested:

"There is no precise way in which we can test whether Julius Caesar and Princess Diana were members of the same species Homo sapiens. Firstly, it is impossible, for a number of reasons, to actually make them produce fertile offspring with each other; secondly, when we compare their morphology, or other biological characteristics, we see that they are not identical. The example is not as silly as it seems." (Henneberg, 1997)

So the species concept can only be applied to horizontal or "non-dimensional" (single point time + space) populations/individuals.

Neanderthals cannot be tested, which is why scientists have mixed opinions.

Back to the 'vertical species' and 'horizontal species'. There is no such thing as a vertical species or a horizontal species you moron. Populations living elsewhere on the planet are entirely different. To make claims that an Australian Aboriginal and a Sami living in Norway share the same DNA is absurd.

There is a reason this crap isnt even backed up or supported by many anthropoligsts and other scientists. Mind you your list of scientists are employed by this organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project. Which is funded by my government and this project or one of its goals is to eliminate races by discrediting the fact they exist.

Originally it was to study DNA to find a cure to diseases and health problems but now encompasses the ideology of destroying races to create Homo-Democraticus or a future Brazilia. No thanks LOL. Take your bs and blow your nose with it.

[LightHouse89]

Colours don't exist, depending however on how you define reality. What exists is the visible light spectrum. The human eye (brain > retina) then divides it into different wave-lengths. But those divisions are not objective. Other animals break the spectrum differently.

But like I said, colours are useful. If utility = existence, then colours exist because they are useful. I was denying though colours in an ontological mind-independent sense.

In contrast to colours, race is not useful as a category because it captures far too little variation and not particularly well.

Yes eye color, hair color, skin color and genetics...all of it doesnt mean anything and is insignificant because there is only one race. The Human Race :rolleyes: Yes we have all been through this torture before.

[Pyramidologist]

You have proven your left wing views. You dislike me because I claim we are not social constructs yet you turn around and use the same propaganda my government uses on us here where I live. You dont even take anything anyone here who may disagree with you into consideration and instead use the same propaganda my government uses to discredit reality.

This isnt a science debate and it isnt rational or realistic. Please find me anthropological evidence suggesting race or ethnic groups do not exist. Again good luck with that :thumb001:

The fact you cannot provide me with any anthropological research to back up this BS you are posting is further proof that it isnt correct. The fact your entire argument is based on a single research study is even further proof that is not truth itself. That being said you are full of yourself.

Good luck commie :thumb001:

Plenty of stuff has already been posted which falsifies the biological concept of subspecies (race) being applied to humans today. Nowhere did I deny they exist in other animals. It may also be that in the future a human population diverges genetically via reproductive isolation mechanisms to become a race.

My "race denial" is consistent with the facts and science. Your "race realism" is politically motivated. You're a white nationalist clown.

[Nurzat]

There's no genetic pure race.

There is.

[LightHouse89]

Plenty of stuff has already been posted which falsifies the biological concept of subspecies (race) being applied to humans today. Nowhere did I deny they exist in other animals. It may also be that in the future a human population diverges genetically via reproductive isolation mechanisms to become a race.

My "race denial" is consistent with the facts and science. Your "race realism" is politically motivated. You're a white nationalist clown.

As if to claim that this pseudo science you have posted is true? It really isn't. The fact you claim that Darwinism supports your claims is proof of your ignorance and agenda. Darwin never suggested that mankind was the same entirely he made claims that at one time mankind had similar ancestors.

You are incorrect though as are the people making these claims. The fact that we have several different theories all suggesting how genes spread in the world is proof that the flaw lies in biology and the scientific communities inability to thoroughly explain this stuff to the public. So we have left wing people like claiming that a Sami is the same as an Australian aboriginal.

Yes I am a clown because I am a preservationist. I should support the disappearance of my people. :rolleyes:

[LightHouse89]

There is.

Watch out you racist clown! There is no such thing as race, populations, or ethnic groups. Only the human race because we all bleed red.... :rolleyes:

These commies are promoting this to dissuade us from wanting to remove the immigrants from our lands.

Notice how they accuse anyone who disagrees with them a racist or white supremacist. I am only a supremacist because I want my country for my own kind so that my children and grand children can have a nation for themselves without having to live under the possible enslavement by the foreign hordes invading it. Its racist to wish to live in safe communities with your own kind free from marauding criminals and drug dealers. That would be too racist of me to want. Too racist for us to want our grand children to look like our grand parents. This is why we are clowns. Do you see the agenda they are pulling here?

Its very free and sadly I think our people are too stupid to see what is really happening behind the bullshit propaganda. Our own politicians are promoting this garbage along with the hijacked science community. They are using every tool at the disposable they have to ensure our removal from power in our lands and to promote multiculturalism and diversity here. Doesn't matter if we perish in the process.

That's progressive socialism for you.

[Velda]

So we have left wing people like claiming that a Sami is the same as an Australian aboriginal.


Furthermore, those left-wing people support those to built a family and have kids. Just talking for myself: My mtDNA is almost the "Saami" (U5b1b1), and I would never ever have the wish to have kids with an Australian aboriginal. Even if there were no other men in the world, I would not have. It would not make sense to me. Of couse, it would be possible, but that is not the point.
We use words to built cathergories, and the cathegory "race" is useful, because, we can share information about things we have a word for. If there is no word for it, it either means, the item is not existent in the society, or it is of no need to talk about it. Some primitive tribes only know the numbers "one, two, many". They don't have to calculate, so does that mean, that all the numbers do not exist?
There are different names for different sorts of snow among the Inuit, so what does this say about snow itself?

Just see words and cathegories as your personal and social way to handle objects. Language is only a window to reality. It is better to have a big window than a small one, so the word "race" is useful, as the name "tiger" vs. "pussicat" or "human being" vs. ape is. Every society of high socioeconomic and cultural development has a huge variety to express things by words.
Neglecting words does not makes the things behind it dissappear.
That's what I really dislike at the left wing's way to treat their environment: They simply neglect talking about nuisances. They use plenty of euphemisms, they dont't say "bad" "good" "black" "white" "war" or whatever word that is used in an explicit way.
Just accept, that some people like to classify via "races" while others like to classify via "humanoid species", dear left-wing-addiced person. You don't have to talk about "races" yourself.

[Pyramidologist]

Furthermore, those left-wing people support those to built a family and have kids. Just talking for myself: My mtDNA is almost the "Saami" (U5b1b1), and I would never ever have the wish to have kids with an Australian aboriginal. Even if there were no other men in the world, I would not have. It would not make sense to me. Of couse, it would be possible, but that is not the point.
We use words to built cathergories, and the cathegory "race" is useful, because, we can share information about things we have a word for. If there is no word for it, it either means, the item is not existent in the society, or it is of no need to talk about it. Some primitive tribes only know the numbers "one, two, many". They don't have to calculate, so does that mean, that all the numbers do not exist?
There are different names for different sorts of snow among the Inuit, so what does this say about snow itself?

Just see words and cathegories as your personal and social way to handle objects. Language is only a window to reality. It is better to have a big window than a small one, so the word "race" is useful, as the name "tiger" vs. "pussicat" or "human being" vs. ape is. Every society of high socioeconomic and cultural development has a huge variety to express things by words.
Neglecting words does not makes the things behind it dissappear.
That's what I really dislike at the left wing's way to treat their environment: They simply neglect talking about nuisances. They use plenty of euphemisms, they dont't say "bad" "good" "black" "white" "war" or whatever word that is used in an explicit way.
Just accept, that some people like to classify via "races" while others like to classify via "humanoid species", dear left-wing-addiced person. You don't have to talk about "races" yourself.

This was already discredited 50 or more years ago. What you are describing is populations, not races.

"Let us turn to Dunn and Dobzhansky’s definition of race. They write, in the aforementioned work, “Races can be defined as populations which differ in the frequencies of some gene or genes” (1952:118). This definition at once leads to the question: Why use the word “race” here when what is being done is precisely what should be done, namely, to describe populations in terms of their gene frequency differences? What, in point of fact, has the antiquated, mystical conception of “race” to do with this? The answer is: Nothing." - Montagu, A. (1962). "The concept of race". American Anthropologist. 64(5:1):919-928

[LightHouse89]

Lets discredit race to promote mixing of populations because we are all humans.

Its politically incorrect to deny the 'scientific' fact 'humans' exist and we are all the same.

Yet even this variation theory claims otherwise. Or [after reading it last night] has many inconsistencies in it.

I noticed this 'theory' made no mention of neanderthals or Denisovans. Mind you it didnt even signify that there is a difference between homosapiens and cro mags. It went on to claim there is no races, species, groups or anything period. However we are all human [well this cannot be seeing that no one population is the same].

It is irrelevant as the anthropology still considers Europeans as 'white'.

It is well known though that this 'evidence' was gathered by the Human Genome Porject which is a suspicious group funded by my government and completed the project in 2003. I took notice it had no mention of Neanderthals and did not even explain the differences between them and the different species of Mankind that existed in time. I am aware we are largely descended from Cro Magnons but recent genetic testing has uncovered that we [as in people of European descent] have significant Neanderthal ancestry than previously thought. So to claim we are all 'humans' is absurd and ridiculous.

So in essence if race doesnt scientifically exist then how is it possible that a human race exists? If race doesnt exist then humans do not exist. We are the products of different breed or species mixing in different geographical locations. I will stick with this theory as it sounds the most logical.

The concept of race or ethnic groups did not begin until mankind became more settled and civilized. Not when we were roaming the wilderness like nomadic cave people. This is something you do not understand. Races didnt form until more recent times because we became aware they existed. Anthropology is the study of ethnics and races. Biology is an entirely different field.

You can try to invalidate that ethnics/races/groups or populations dont exist but this is impossible to claim because they do exist. DNA from Africa is not identical to DNA from North Western Europe. To claim they are the same and to trivialize differences is done so with a political agenda like here in JewSA. The fact science journals have been told they cannot mention even the topic of DNA and our ancestry now is proof here that this study was done with an agenda. I even checked two college sources on this stuff and they even claimed to not agree with these findings is a sign of racism.

Yet again you would say 'race' doesnt exist. My question then would be well then how can racism exist? Its proof its most likely a hoax. Mind you some of the scientists here who came up with this stuff in the past had known links to the American communist party.

[Pyramidologist]

Lets discredit race to promote mixing of populations because we are all humans.

There's no negative effects to "race mixing". Nor are there any positive effects (hybrid vigour hasn't occurred because populations are not genetically differentiated enough). Studies on negative effects of "race mixing" usually spammed around on places like Stormfront are sociological, not biological.

And there are also people with a political agenda who push the "mixed race is better" mantra. These people are just as bad as the racialists/neo-Nazis.


Its politically incorrect to deny the 'scientific' fact 'humans' exist and we are all the same.

No one thinks or argues "we are all the same". This is just a straw man set up by online racialists.




Yet even this variation theory claims otherwise. Or [after reading it last night] has many inconsistencies in it.

I noticed this 'theory' made no mention of neanderthals or Denisovans. Mind you it didnt even signify that there is a difference between homosapiens and cro mags. It went on to claim there is no races, species, groups or anything period. However we are all human [well this cannot be seeing that no one population is the same].

It is irrelevant as the anthropology still considers Europeans as 'white'.

It is well known though that this 'evidence' was gathered by the Human Genome Porject which is a suspicious group funded by my government and completed the project in 2003. I took notice it had no mention of Neanderthals and did not even explain the differences between them and the different species of Mankind that existed in time. I am aware we are largely descended from Cro Magnons but recent genetic testing has uncovered that we [as in people of European descent] have significant Neanderthal ancestry than previously thought. So to claim we are all 'humans' is absurd and ridiculous.

So in essence if race doesnt scientifically exist then how is it possible that a human race exists? If race doesnt exist then humans do not exist. We are the products of different breed or species mixing in different geographical locations. I will stick with this theory as it sounds the most logical.

All fallacious. You are confusing species with subspecies (races). In my view Neanderthals were the same species as us; a lot of paleoanthropologists don't make a species distinction between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.


The concept of race or ethnic groups did not begin until mankind became more settled and civilized. Not when we were roaming the wilderness like nomadic cave people. This is something you do not understand. Races didnt form until more recent times because we became aware they existed. Anthropology is the study of ethnics and races. Biology is an entirely different field.

You can try to invalidate that ethnics/races/groups or populations dont exist but this is impossible to claim because they do exist. DNA from Africa is not identical to DNA from North Western Europe. To claim they are the same and to trivialize differences is done so with a political agenda like here in JewSA. The fact science journals have been told they cannot mention even the topic of DNA and our ancestry now is proof here that this study was done with an agenda. I even checked two college sources on this stuff and they even claimed to not agree with these findings is a sign of racism.

Yet again you would say 'race' doesnt exist. My question then would be well then how can racism exist? Its proof its most likely a hoax. Mind you some of the scientists here who came up with this stuff in the past had known links to the American communist party.

Tell me something, are botanists who study flowers also politically motivated Jews? :picard1:For plenty of flowers, no subspecies/varieties exist.

Homo sapiens are not the only species without subspecies (races).

[Äijä]

Only way to get humans to be without subspecies is to bend the rules how those are classified, comparison with Bonobos and Chimps.

Just like in animal population people have adapted to different enviroments.
It would be wrong to take a Polar bear to Africa, it is also wrong to import Africans to Europe.
The Africans would die outside developed urban centers, they cant support themselves in this enviroment, most are on welfare as it is.

[Pyramidologist]

Only way to get humans to be without subspecies is to bend the rules how those are classified, comparison with Bonobos and Chimps.

Just like in animal population people have adapted to different enviroments.
It would be wrong to take a Polar bear to Africa, it is also wrong to import Africans to Europe.
The Africans would die outside developed urban centers, they cant support themselves in this enviroment, most are on welfare as it is.

"Bending the rules" is what "race realists"/racialists do who cannot accept the science that human races don't exist:

"Support for the biological concept of race declined slowly but steadily during the second half of the twentieth century. However, debate about the validity of the race concept has recently been reignited. Genetic-clustering studies have shown that despite the small proportion of genetic variation separating continental populations, it is possible to assign some (geographically separated and not recently admixed) individuals to their (or their ancestors’) continents of origin, based on genetic data alone. Race naturalists have interpreted these studies as empirically confirming the existence of human subspecies, and by extension biological races. However, the new racial naturalism is not convincing. The continental clusters appealed to by race naturalists are arbitrary and superficial groupings, which should not be elevated to subspecies status. Moreover, the criteria applied to humans are not consistent with those used to define subspecies in nonhuman animals, and no rationale has been given for this differential treatment."
- Hochman, A. (2013). "Against the new racial naturalism". Journal of Philosophy (6):331–51

Note the genetic "clustering" methods used by "race realists" are never applied to non-humans. It is them who are shifting the criteria and definition of race.

[LightHouse89]

"Bending the rules" is what "race realists"/racialists do who cannot accept the science that human races don't exist:

"Support for the biological concept of race declined slowly but steadily during the second half of the twentieth century. However, debate about the validity of the race concept has recently been reignited. Genetic-clustering studies have shown that despite the small proportion of genetic variation separating continental populations, it is possible to assign some (geographically separated and not recently admixed) individuals to their (or their ancestors’) continents of origin, based on genetic data alone. Race naturalists have interpreted these studies as empirically confirming the existence of human subspecies, and by extension biological races. However, the new racial naturalism is not convincing. The continental clusters appealed to by race naturalists are arbitrary and superficial groupings, which should not be elevated to subspecies status. Moreover, the criteria applied to humans are not consistent with those used to define subspecies in nonhuman animals, and no rationale has been given for this differential treatment."
- Hochman, A. (2013). "Against the new racial naturalism". Journal of Philosophy (6):331–51.

Note the genetic "clustering" methods used by "race realists" are never applied to non-humans. It is them who are shifting the criteria and definition of race.

Well the correct term wouldnt be racist according to your fruitcake sources. It is infact 'genetic discrimination' if I turned someone's job application down based on the skin color they have.

LOL its absurd you people are trying to bend reality to suite some goal here. You are left wing and it is very obvious. Its okay with me if you are. The fact you refuse to admit race is a reality and society wont ever distance itself from that term.

'Genetic discrimination'. Oh come on the left with these fancy new words is too ridiculous.

[LightHouse89]

There's no negative effects to "race mixing". Nor are there any positive effects (hybrid vigour hasn't occurred because populations are not genetically differentiated enough). Studies on negative effects of "race mixing" usually spammed around on places like Stormfront are sociological, not biological.

And there are also people with a political agenda who push the "mixed race is better" mantra. These people are just as bad as the racialists/neo-Nazis.



No one thinks or argues "we are all the same". This is just a straw man set up by online racialists.



All fallacious. You are confusing species with subspecies (races). In my view Neanderthals were the same species as us; a lot of paleoanthropologists don't make a species distinction between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.



Tell me something, are botanists who study flowers also politically motivated Jews? :picard1:For plenty of flowers, no subspecies/varieties exist.

Homo sapiens are not the only species without subspecies (races).

So disappearing is good? You people are fucking nuts.

[LightHouse89]

Pyra's ideas here are funded by some very openly left wing organizations with political agendas of increasing diversity in our lands.

Here in the USA one such organization is called the Ford Foundation. They donate billions to La Raza. An organization that openly advocates for the extermination of my ethnic group from the USA.

Here. http://www.understandingrace.org/about/ [scroll down to where it says funded by at the bottom of the page].

Here is the actual website with the obvious 'agenda' written all over its front page. 'Diversity is our strength'. No 'diversity' means our replacement and insurance of our minority status. No thanks. http://www.fordfoundation.org/

The president is a mulatto what a shocker. :picard1:

Sadly the American Anthropological Association supports this too. However they do not deny that race doesnt exist but they have defined it as something else. Too long to post.

The more I read this crap the more I am convinced the past 500 years of racial studying was most likely right. Its rather odd that only within the recent 50 years this BS has been produced. Even more odd it is as political as some of the shit from the 1900s. So I dont buy it.

Race is reality. Be it perceived as social or biological [to me its both]. I wont go on about this topic as it doesnt interest me. Race is real no matter what.

[Velda]

@Pyramidologist

So what we call "race" is "population" for you. What's the problem with this label "race"?
E.g. one says, there are different races of dogs. They are able to have puppies, too, a poddle and a German shepherd dog, or a dachshund and a poodle.
If e.g. some African people are excellent sprinters, but none of them will be in the Olympics Top 5 swimming-team, this has to do something wih "race".

(This is off topic now, but I just realized, that in quite many articles here, including mine there is some really annoying porn advertising animated gifs. which I asked myself, how the hell it comes in there. Using "Noscript" does not help against this BS.)

[Pyramidologist]

@Pyramidologist

So what we call "race" is "population" for you. What's the problem with this label "race"?
E.g. one says, there are different races of dogs. They are able to have puppies, too, a poddle and a German shepherd dog, or a dachshund and a poodle.
If e.g. some African people are excellent sprinters, but none of them will be in the Olympics Top 5 swimming-team, this has to do something wih "race".

(This is off topic now, but I just realized, that in quite many articles here, including mine there is some really annoying porn advertising animated gifs. which I asked myself, how the hell it comes in there. Using "Noscript" does not help against this BS.)

If races are populations, are a tribe of 60 Amazonian Indians a race? Races are not demes or localized breeding populations.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Populations

[LightHouse89]

Race is a social construct.

Gender is a social construct.

Ethnic groups are a social construct.

Religion is a social construct.

Nations/Countries are social constructs.

What an inspiring ideology. Has alot in common with socialism. Wow they have been at it for the last 50 or so years. :)

[Cleitus]

Race is a social construct.

Gender is a social construct.

Ethnic groups are a social construct.

Religion is a social construct.

Nations/Countries are social constructs.

What an inspiring ideology. Has alot in common with socialism. Wow they have been at it for the last 50 or so years. :)
Liberalism is just presentable Marxism.

[Sockorer]

If races are populations, are a tribe of 60 Amazonian Indians a race? Races are not demes or localized breeding populations.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Populations






Yes, the word race can be used in that way. It may not have the same use value of say a 4 race scheme.

Race is typically used to describe somewhere between 3 and 8 human populations, but it can still be used in that way. If it was used in that way it would end up dividing the human species into tens of thousands of races, if not more.

[Sockorer]

In response to the OP.

Whether or not there are no genetically pure races or there are genetically pure races depends on how many races you divide humanity into and on what criteria these divisions are made.

[Pyramidologist]

Yes, the word race can be used in that way. It may not have the same use value of say a 4 race scheme.

Race is typically used to describe somewhere between 3 and 8 human populations, but it can still be used in that way. If it was used in that way it would end up dividing the human species into tens of thousands of races, if not more.

10,000+ races? lol. Please show me this in a non-human species. Like I said, demes or local breeding populations are not races. You can't re-define words to the extent they don't resemble what they meant originally in the slightest.

[Sockorer]

10,000+ races? lol. Please show me this in a non-human species. Like I said, demes or local breeding populations are not races. You can't re-define words to the extent they don't resemble what they meant originally in the slightest.

race (n.2) Look up race at Dictionary.com
"people of common descent," a word from the 16th century, from Middle French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish and Portuguese raza). Etymologists say no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense. - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=race

Race has and can be used to refer to local breeding populations. I'm not redefining anything, you are. You keep defining race as being the same thing as sub species and then concluding race does not exist because humans don't have sub species according to some definition of sub species. No one actually uses race in the sense you and your political motivated cohorts keep redefining race as in order to "debunk it".

[Pyramidologist]

race (n.2) Look up race at Dictionary.com
"people of common descent," a word from the 16th century, from Middle French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish and Portuguese raza). Etymologists say no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense. - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=race

Race has and can be used to refer to local breeding populations. I'm not redefining anything, you are. You keep defining race as being the same thing as sub species and then concluding race does not exist because humans don't have sub species according to some definition of sub species. No one actually uses race in the sense you and your political motivated cohorts keep redefining race as in order to "debunk it".

This is false. You're posting sociological definitions which have no relevance to biology. No biologist or scientist uses the definition you posted. However no one even applies what you posted to local breeding populations. Who throughout history have described the Amish, or a tribe in the Amazonian rainforest as a race?

And the person who is politically motivated is you. You're a white nationalist/neo-Nazi clown, hence your political dogma is why you re-define race.

[Nurzat]

There's no genetic pure race.

There is.

[Sockorer]

This is false. You're posting sociological definitions which have no relevance to biology. No biologist or scientist uses the definition you posted.

race (n.2) Look up race at Dictionary.com
"people of common descent," a word from the 16th century, from Middle French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish and Portuguese raza). Etymologists say no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense.

I'm sorry I didn't know a lineage, family, breed or RACE has nothing to do with biology, these words and concepts just appeared out of nowhere and don't describe biological reality.

It doesn't matter if any biologist or scientist used my definition or if every scientist or biologist used my definition.



However no one even applies what you posted to local breeding populations. Who throughout history have described the Amish, or a tribe in the Amazonian rainforest as a race?


Refer to my presentation of the etymology of the word race.




And the person who is politically motivated is you. You're a white nationalist/neo-Nazi clown, hence your political dogma is why you re-define race.


That's funny because I didn't hold any "white nationalist/neo-Nazi clown" views before I learned about race.

[LightHouse89]

race (n.2) Look up race at Dictionary.com
"people of common descent," a word from the 16th century, from Middle French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish and Portuguese raza). Etymologists say no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense. - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=race

Race has and can be used to refer to local breeding populations. I'm not redefining anything, you are. You keep defining race as being the same thing as sub species and then concluding race does not exist because humans don't have sub species according to some definition of sub species. No one actually uses race in the sense you and your political motivated cohorts keep redefining race as in order to "debunk it".

Its no use because he wil debunk it with all of that is considered a social construct.

He wont admit it here even though I have aksed him. That men and women are also social constructs. That gender identity is even a social construct. :rolleyes:http://oakes.ucsc.edu/academics/Core%20Course/oakes-core-awards-2012/laura-flores.html

It is such an insane ideology and apart of the modern New Perspective on what they perceive as a reality.

Essentially 'species' can be considered a social construct but this is another debate that is ongoing here in the good Old US of A.

Look up the definition of what a social oncstruct is. This 'disease' is apart of Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Socialism in the western world and the Progressive Ideology. Its actually funded by the government and sadly this way of thinking began in the early 1900s. Then it expanded into what it is today. There is a wealth of knowledge on this stuff. It isn't anything new. This degeneracy has been around for awhile.

If you dare question them or its belief system then you are a xenophobe, politically 'incorrect' [I didn't know that in a Democratic world you could be politically incorrect or politically correct which is shocking and very anti-Democracy], white supremacist [a word coined and created by the same crowd of fruitcakes which never existed in this nation's history], and or a racist [although they are doing away with this word because races and ethnic groups do not exist in the world according to them as they are simply just social constructs].

Furthermore they have in anthropology as oppose to using 'racist' as a word they tend to use 'ethnocentric' but they are figuring out ways of getting rid of that word because they need something that can go along with 'social construct' to discredit the existence of something.

Its really just a war of words. The reason they are incapable of understanding this old terminology boils down to them being not stupid or ignorant but the fact they want the 'old world' or history to disappear. They are literally going out of the way to do this. I once heard one of my Marxist professors claim 'We need to erase our past because it was politically incorrect' to justify taking down the Confederate Memorials down south and even the Plymouth rock monument here in New England.

What it boils down to is this is a war against the western world. The war isn't being fought physically except with the importing of foreign peoples here but actually being fought and won using psychological warfare. A new thing because the opposition is too chicken shit to come into our homes and disarm us or actually kill us off for disagreeing with them.

This shit is nothing new man. Its been around for awhile. Luckily most of our people are not that retarded.

[Pyramidologist]

race (n.2) Look up race at Dictionary.com
"people of common descent," a word from the 16th century, from Middle French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish and Portuguese raza). Etymologists say no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense.

I'm sorry I didn't know a lineage, family, breed or RACE has nothing to do with biology, these words and concepts just appeared out of nowhere and don't describe biological reality.

It doesn't matter if any biologist or scientist used my definition or if every scientist or biologist used my definition.





Refer to my presentation of the etymology of the word race.






That's funny because I didn't hold any "white nationalist/neo-Nazi clown" views before I learned about race.

So a family of 4 individuals (mother, father, son, daughter) is race? Any two people can qualify as "common descent". Are two brothers a race because they share a recent common ancestor (father)?

And local populations or demes, are just that: populations. They aren't races.

The fact you can only defend "race" on such weak grounds shows why they're aren't human races. You aren't making case for them at all if you think a family of 4 individuals, or a local population like the Amish are a race.

[LightHouse89]

race (n.2) Look up race at Dictionary.com
"people of common descent," a word from the 16th century, from Middle French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish and Portuguese raza). Etymologists say no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense.

I'm sorry I didn't know a lineage, family, breed or RACE has nothing to do with biology, these words and concepts just appeared out of nowhere and don't describe biological reality.

It doesn't matter if any biologist or scientist used my definition or if every scientist or biologist used my definition.





Refer to my presentation of the etymology of the word race.






That's funny because I didn't hold any "white nationalist/neo-Nazi clown" views before I learned about race.

Again don't waste your time. He is a moron.

He doesn't care about definitions or debates unless it supports his ideas that are were conspired in a lab here in the states by the federal government. If he is too retarded to understand it then Oh well.

I have never cared much for this scientific bullshit anyway. Or enough to take 'race' or 'racism' that seriously. I just enjoy trolling people who are social justice warriors or this 'social construct' crap.

Also I like when they go into detail about how race doesn't exist but 'human variation' does. :rolleyes: Its like saying there is no difference in global populations but there is. Which ofcourse is bullshit. I remember they found there was DNA that existed in Europe that didn't exist elsewhere so his theory isn't really all that right. It claims Africa is where the majority of 'variation' in genes exists.

Which is bullshit. Different populations elsewhere have different genes. There is a reason not all scientists world wide buy this because new evidence is coming out all the time to disprove the Human Genome Project or its inconsistencies. I know what he is going on about as I have read up on it. The project ended in 2003. Yet today more and more evidence is coming out about genes.

Many of these genetic studies though especially about hair color and eye color in Europe I have found to be rather odd or inconsistent. One study suggested that we got this DNA from Neanderthals and others claim it came from much later on than that and from a different source. So with so many inconsistences I tend to take 'modern' science with a grain of salt. The fact the science field as a whole is loaded with very left wing people be it in almost any field [environmental science which is my favorite] is sad.

There is nothing scientific about a 'social construct'. Mind you nothing rational in that way of thinking either.

[LightHouse89]

So a family of 4 individuals (mother, father, son, daughter) is race? Any two people can qualify as "common descent". Are two brothers a race because they share a recent common ancestor (father)?

And local populations or demes, are just that: populations. They aren't races.

The fact you can only defend "race" on such weak grounds shows why they're aren't human races. You aren't making case for them at all if you think a family of 4 individuals, or a local population like the Amish are a race.

Embrace our race. :cool: Stop being such a social construct.

I think you are going back too far in time to discover what a 'race' is. Don't be such a moron.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

This is false. You're posting sociological definitions which have no relevance to biology. No biologist or scientist uses the definition you posted. However no one even applies what you posted to local breeding populations. Who throughout history have described the Amish, or a tribe in the Amazonian rainforest as a race?

And the person who is politically motivated is you. You're a white nationalist/neo-Nazi clown, hence your political dogma is why you re-define race.

Man you're a fucking idiot. I already told you how species are defined taxonomies, just like this description. Well I will just put you in ignore you worthless cunt.

[Sockorer]

So a family of 4 individuals (mother, father, son, daughter) is race? Any two people can qualify as "common descent". Are two brothers a race because they share a recent common ancestor (father)?

And local populations or demes, are just that: populations. They aren't races.

A family or local population can be described as a race, I don't typically call them races, common usage of race usually breaks humanity into 3-8 categories based on common ancestry and phenotype and calls these races. Smaller populations that share more ancestry are typically described by different words like nation or family. But all of these concepts and words race,breed,lineage,family describe the same phenomena(variation between populations of humans) they differ in the degree of shared ancestry between the members of said category.




The fact you can only defend "race" on such weak grounds shows why they're aren't human races. You aren't making case for them at all if you think a family of 4 individuals, or a local population like the Amish are a race.

assert more

[LightHouse89]

A family or local population can be described as a race, I don't typically call them races, common usage of race usually breaks humanity into 3-8 categories based on common ancestry and phenotype and calls these races. Smaller populations that share more ancestry are typically described by different words like nation or family. But all of these concepts and words race,breed,lineage,family describe the same phenomena(variation between populations of humans) they differ in the degree of shared ancestry between the members of said category.





assert more

Yes a Nation is both a country and its people who form a broader family or community. A race to me would be like combining Europe into one mass [including Russia in the Slavic sense]. That would be the 'white race'. Eurasia is the origin of white people and the fatherland :) Our mythology points to the direction. Celtic and Germanic mythology for example claim our ancestors came from the east [I believe referring to the Eurasian plains or somewhere over there]. So technically we are a race and this clown can deny that reality all he wants.

I really don't care about archaic man. It is hard in a way to even use archaic man to describe modern peoples living all over the place as we have little in common with him. Genetics don't dismiss the concept of race but comparing Cro Magnon [as in stone age man] to us today is insanity.

That's why I laugh at this clown who uses pre stone age man and stone age man to try to conjure the concept of race. It wouldn't work and it doesn't really make sense. I care more about Indo-Europeans who created civilization and gave us culture. That is who created the 'white' race. :cool:

[LightHouse89]

Man you're a fucking idiot. I already told you how species are defined taxonomies, just like this description. Well I will just put you in ignore you worthless cunt.

I like arguing with social constructs.

[Whiteman]

As I've noticed a pattern on this kind of forums, I'll try to be as laconic as possible. There's no genetic pure race (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml). The perception of 'race purity' originates, and it's observable, because of the heritability and relativization and appropriation and identification and differentiation of certain desirable and common traits within social groups; which we could just call them by the appropriate name "ethnic groups".

Does this means that there aren't biological differences determined by genetic? Does this means that race doesn't matter? Or that ethnicity doesn't matter? Or that the preservation of these two whether for separate or together doesn't? On the contrary. As the purpose of living isn't dying, the purpose of evolution isn't extinction nor, as it might seem, merely adaptation. As far I've been coming to know, transcendence seems to be that purpose.

Victimism it's the modern topic, the pivot of almost every contemporary political idiosyncracy. Victimism excuses weakness, worships it, idealize it. And the denial of weakness, as something to overcome, blocks the potential for greatness. Victimism cannot consagrate to attain anything superior than itself as it substantialize on the condition, whether real or not, of inferiority.

Genetical purity on human populations, in terms of a sociological conception, it's ficticious as it is an extrapolated and biased construction at the moment it becomes incongruous to exact sciences. Both racism and anti-racism had proven to only serve to victimize and submit and/or omit ethnic groups, whether of different origins or the very own; As the true nature of victimism is passive coercion.

That it's to say, genetical purity seems to be not only unreal but also irrelevant to ethnic preservation; while normalization, as said in the first paragraph, is. The moment ethinicities find shelter in racism and victimism, they sentence their own decadence and, eventually, their extinction. If you still didn't get it, just go check about inferiority/superiority complex.

Yeah sure just how nothing really objectively exist just like a breed of fox doesn't exist since everything can be deconstructed and contructed obviously. If you look at shit and mud in the subatomic level there is no difference. Why categorize trucks and car when they are more similar than different. We share 95% of genetics with a dragonfly if you want to go to that level of abstraction. The point of genetic purity is irrelevant and there are more to it. You are making a pointless conjecture here by the way how are you being laconic when your being to fucking prolix stupid fuck. Blab blab blab blab you are being a fucking mouthful here.

[Pyramidologist]

Yeah sure just how nothing really objectively exist just like a breed of fox doesn't exist since everything can be deconstructed and contructed obviously. If you look at shit and mud in the subatomic level there is no difference. Why categorize trucks and car when they are more similar than different. We share 95% of genetics with a dragonfly if you want to go to that level of abstraction. The point of genetic purity is irrelevant and there are more to it. You are making a pointless conjecture here by the way how are you being laconic when your being to fucking prolix stupid fuck. Blab blab blab blab you are being a fucking mouthful here.

Nice straw man. Utter retard.

[Pyramidologist]

A family or local population can be described as a race, I don't typically call them races, common usage of race usually breaks humanity into 3-8 categories based on common ancestry and phenotype and calls these races. Smaller populations that share more ancestry are typically described by different words like nation or family. But all of these concepts and words race,breed,lineage,family describe the same phenomena(variation between populations of humans) they differ in the degree of shared ancestry between the members of said category.





assert more

See bold.

"Race is generally used as a synonym for subspecies, which traditionally is a geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated population... To avoid making “race” the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human “races” are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A “subspecies” can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human “races” are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human “races” are not and never were “pure.” Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." - Templeton, A. R. (1998). “Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective.” American Anthropologist. 100(3), 632-650

Like I said, demes or local breeding populations are not races.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Defining_race

"Hochman (2014) has raised concerns that the modern redefinitions of race used by racialists are much too weak to contrast with the consensus races don't exist:

”The problem with weak versions of racial naturalism is that they do not contrast with anti-realism about biological race. When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race."

[Prisoner Of Ice]

There are races, but I guess it doesn't matter if there are or not so long as we sterilize everyone with a brain smaller than 1500 ccs.

[Whiteman]

Nice straw man. Utter retard.

I am not making a strawman you fucking retard, I said there are race differences and he is being fuckign annoying with vague abstraction of genetic purity.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I am not making a strawman you fucking retard, I said there are race differences and he is being fuckign annoying with vague abstraction of genetic purity.

Don't bother with him. Obviously he is a swarthy retard migrant to england. He probably whines on the net all day that daily mail is full of lies when he's not doing his standup routine here.

[Pyramidologist]

I am not making a strawman you fucking retard, I said there are race differences and he is being fuckign annoying with vague abstraction of genetic purity.


Yeah sure just how nothing really objectively exist just like a breed of fox doesn't exist since everything can be deconstructed and contructed obviously. If you look at shit and mud in the subatomic level there is no difference. Why categorize trucks and car when they are more similar than different. We share 95% of genetics with a dragonfly if you want to go to that level of abstraction. The point of genetic purity is irrelevant and there are more to it.

This isn't a straw man? :picard1:

And "white man" from Bangladesh. You're a troll sock-puppet.

[Whiteman]

Don't bother with him. Obviously he is a swarthy retard migrant to england. He probably whines on the net all day that daily mail is full of lies when he's not doing his standup routine here.

I am whiter than his Bangladeshi ass

[Whiteman]

This isn't a straw man? :picard1:

And "white man" from Bangladesh. You're a troll sock-puppet.

I am whiter than you, I am the descendent of the Nordic Vedic king since of the time of Aryan invasion of India.

[Velda]

In response to the OP.

@Pyrado

Whether or not there are no genetically pure races or there are genetically pure races depends on how many races you divide humanity into and on what criteria these divisions are made.

Same with colors, there are millions for it. You can check out this pattern on your pc saying http://www.computerhope.com/htmcolor.htm
"red" #FF0000 in HTML

So we all agree, that this is the "reddest, typical red". There are millions of other shades of red, but somehow, somewhen, it is suddely no red any more.

Same with persons: This person is a black man, this man is brown, and another one is quite white. What is your problem with the name "race"? You don't feel ashame to use the name of colors, too, concerning blue, red, orange or green? Just a way to describe reality, the way it seems useful to most people.

It gives people a positive feeling for their own identity to say: "I am a member of the white race." or "I am a member of the black race.

I just really hate what some left-wing-guy do: The defragment everything: Race, gender - just to confuse.
This seems quite stupid to me, so I'd like to stop talking to these nihilists, just believe, what you want, I am out of the discussion now with you, Pyramo.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Same with colors, there are millions for it. You can check out this pattern on your pc saying http://www.computerhope.com/htmcolor.htm
"red" #FF0000 in HTML

So we all agree, that this is the "reddest, typical red". There are millions of other shades of red, but somehow, somewhen, it is suddely no red any more.

Same with persons: This person is a black man, this man is brown, and another one is quite white. What is your problem with the name "race"? You don't feel ashame to use the name of colors, too, concerning blue, red, orange or green? Just a way to describe reality, the way it seems useful to most people.

It gives people a positive feeling for their own identity to say: "I am a member of the white race." or "I am a member of the black race.

I just really hate what some left-wing-guy do: The defragment everything: Race, gender - just to confuse.
This seems quite stupid to me, so I'd like to stop talking to these nihilists, just believe, what you want, I am out of the discussion now with you, Pyramo.

It's just another way of attacking, while pretending to defend. That is what political correctness cultural marxist crap is all about.

[Velda]

It's just another way of attacking, while pretending to defend. That is what political correctness cultural marxist crap is all about.
That's just what I thought. Some people should write in German discussion-boards, 90% of common discussion-boards are frequented by Pyramido-like-left-wing people. That's why I prefer those boards like theapricity. Most people here seem normal to me. I am so annoyed of what we call "Gutmenschen" in Germany. (=attacking, while pretending to defend, pretending to be some nice guy, willing to do good things, but in reality doing some nihilist's left-wing-useless and confusing stuff, no one needs, because it makes everything worse, just a do-gooder.)

[Prisoner Of Ice]

That's just what I thought. Some people should write in German discussion-boards, 90% of common discussion-boards are frequented by Pyramido-like-left-wing people. That's why I prefer those boards like theapricity. Most people here seem normal to me. I am so annoyed of what we call "Gutmenschen" in Germany. (=attacking, while pretending to defend, pretending to be some nice guy, willing to do good things, but in reality doing some nihilist's left-wing-useless and confusing stuff, no one needs, because it makes everything worse, just a do-gooder.)

Just trying to oppress the 'peasants' ie people who actually do all the work and all the thinking while pretending to champion them, and brainwashing our fellows to dothe work for them. Standard formula for politicking leeches who live via rent seeking behavior since the dawn of time but cultural marxism is the perfection of the method so to speak. And if you disagree with any bit of it, you are racist homophobic sexist etc.

[Pyramidologist]

Same with colors, there are millions for it. You can check out this pattern on your pc saying http://www.computerhope.com/htmcolor.htm
"red" #FF0000 in HTML

So we all agree, that this is the "reddest, typical red". There are millions of other shades of red, but somehow, somewhen, it is suddely no red any more.

Same with persons: This person is a black man, this man is brown, and another one is quite white. What is your problem with the name "race"? You don't feel ashame to use the name of colors, too, concerning blue, red, orange or green? Just a way to describe reality, the way it seems useful to most people.

It gives people a positive feeling for their own identity to say: "I am a member of the white race." or "I am a member of the black race.

I just really hate what some left-wing-guy do: The defragment everything: Race, gender - just to confuse.
This seems quite stupid to me, so I'd like to stop talking to these nihilists, just believe, what you want, I am out of the discussion now with you, Pyramo.

You are just parroting the same fallacies.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Just trying to oppress the 'peasants' ie people who actually do all the work and all the thinking while pretending to champion them, and brainwashing our fellows to dothe work for them. Standard formula for politicking leeches who live via rent seeking behavior since the dawn of time but cultural marxism is the perfection of the method so to speak. And if you disagree with any bit of it, you are racist homophobic sexist etc.

Butthurt, pyranigg?

They even call whites who oppose them 'rednecks' in the USA instead as an insult.

What dumb 'rednecks'. Except I have 155+ IQ and multiple sciencing degrees and am probably smarter than any leftist shiteater on the planet. And white people always score the highest IQs yet they are 'rednecks'.

Also I always get a laugh when I see leftist shitbags who are arguing with me. Always turn out to be inbred crooked tooth looking motherfuckers, of indeterminate race looking somewhat like an alien, short and/or a racial caricature :lol:

Not to mention so many of them look like twice my age even though they are closer to half my age :lol: People who shouldn't even be allowed to vote or drive telling me how bad I am, boo hoo.

[Pyramidologist]

Butthurt, pyranigg?

They even call whites who oppose them 'rednecks' in the USA instead as an insult.

What dumb 'rednecks'. Except I have 155+ IQ and multiple sciencing degrees and am probably smarter than any leftist shiteater on the planet. And white people always score the highest IQs yet they are 'rednecks'.

Also I always get a laugh when I see leftist shitbags who are arguing with me. Always turn out to be inbred crooked tooth looking motherfuckers, of indeterminate race looking somewhat like an alien, short and/or a racial caricature :lol:

Not to mention so many of them look like twice my age even though they are closer to half my age :lol: People who shouldn't even be allowed to vote or drive telling me how bad I am, boo hoo.

You're a lowbrow poster. Your knowledge on physical anthropology and so on is basically zilch. You already embarrassed yourself in the other thread when you made it clear you don't understand the basics of Multiregionalism, despite oddly identifying with it. Any genuine Multiregionalist would distance themselves from you dude, you're an internet kook.

[AverageKorhonen]

This isn't a straw man? :picard1:

And "white man" from Bangladesh. You're a troll sock-puppet.

Stop calling everybody sock-puppet, troll, alt etc. When will you be satisfied with this unfunny mantra ?

[Pyramidologist]

Stop calling everybody sock-puppet, troll, alt etc. When will you be satisfied with this unfunny mantra ?

You're a confirmed (by a moderator) sockpuppet troll. Its unclear why you aren't banned.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?161704-Apricity-sock-farms&p=3424362&viewfull=1#post3424362

[Pyramidologist]

Once again Prisoner of Ice logs off, AverageKorhonen logs on. Both are socks of the same troll. "White man" is probably a third.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://i.imgur.com/MaLKZJz.jpg

People don't agree with my lying bullshit. Waa waa waa!!!

[AverageKorhonen]

Once again Prisoner of Ice logs off, AverageKorhonen logs on. Both are socks of the same troll. "White man" is probably a third.

Stop fantasizing, you peasant pseudoscientist. You're not Sherlock or Batman as it seems. He's still online as far as I can tell.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Once again Prisoner of Ice logs off, AverageKorhonen logs on. Both are socks of the same troll. "White man" is probably a third.

Wow, you are completely fucking stupid. Even if he were me using a proxy, I could could just log in as him in another window. Fucking internets, how they work motherfucker? :lol:

[AverageKorhonen]

You're a confirmed (by a moderator) sockpuppet troll. Its unclear why you aren't banned.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?161704-Apricity-sock-farms&p=3424362&viewfull=1#post3424362

You are the one to be banned for false accusation. I was never registered in this website before, Jabroni.

[Pyramidologist]

You are the one to be banned for false accusation. I was never registered in this website before, Jabroni.

Not a false accuation, you pathological liar and internet kook who just uses this website to troll people. I got a reputation point from a mod, who even confirmed you are troll sock. Do you really have nothing better to do? No life?

[AverageKorhonen]

Not a false accuation, you pathological liar and internet kook who just uses this website to troll people. I got a reputation point from a mod, who even confirmed you are troll sock. Do you really have nothing better to do? No life?

Nigga, please. You write tons of pseudoscience absolute nonsensical shit about topics you don't even grasp; And when people call you out on your ignorance, you start your mantra: ''sock-puppet!'' ''alt !'' ''troll''

Can't argue with someone = ''Troll''

Good luck with this kind of approach in your ''life''.

http://s16.postimg.org/ewpr3my5x/n_Qx70.jpg

[Pyramidologist]

Nigga, please. You write tons of pseudoscience absolute nonsensical shit about topics you don't even grasp; And when people call you out on your ignorance, you start your mantra: ''sock-puppet!'' ''alt !'' ''troll''

Can't argue with someone = ''Troll''

Good luck with this kind of approach in your ''life''.

http://s16.postimg.org/ewpr3my5x/n_Qx70.jpg

What pseudoscience, troll? The person posting crackpottery is you, and on your socks (Prisoner). Like I said you're an internet kook.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Maximum-Butthurt-Achieved-Reaction-Gif.gif

[LightHouse89]

What pseudoscience, troll? The person posting crackpottery is you, and on your socks (Prisoner). Like I said you're an internet kook.

You would dare say that gender is a social construct? LOL the very material you are blabbering on about is pseudo science.

One easy way to take notice of race in my nation is to merely look at the differences in crime rates. I can tell the difference between race and intelligence. I compare populations locally that are 'quite varied in DNA' like tri-racials and blacks and they commit the majority of crime here. Infact the local prison is 75% Latino or Black. LOL. I live in the most liberal area of the country that caters to these worthless third worlders and they are still naturally dumb.

[LightHouse89]

It's just another way of attacking, while pretending to defend. That is what political correctness cultural marxist crap is all about.

Notce how half the time the best way a liberal socialist can counter an argument is coming up with an excuse. My favorite excuse is the 'socio-economical' crap. I laugh the hardest. The liberals are trying to use this argument in the criminal justice field. They will literally by pass statics in all western nations on race issues and even go as far to make claims that only in America is race an issue :rolleyes:. Not to mention they will claim blacks given the same socioeconomic opportunities are no different than anyone else [which is a lie].

[LightHouse89]

Gender is a social construct. I love that. Just google the definition of a social construct it claims that.

If this is the case then it is possible that species are social constructs.

A dog is related to the wolf. As is the coyote. So a wolf, a dog and a coyote are social constructs. I love this logic. My pants are a social construct. I shouldnt have to wear them in public.

[lei.talk]

Forensic science deals with social constructs, not taxonomy.

No forensic scientist argues races are real,
or useful biologically.

They recognise them as social constructs only.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bew-7fGSa0