Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saintaw on December 17, 2003, 07:17:32 AM
-
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000&catID=2
-
Yes it does.
Les:D
-
Race absolutely exists. We have the human race, just one. The components of which simply come in a variety of shapes and colors.
-
Maverick for president!
:)
-
right on it saw :) I think its all about how we have to live (in poverty, or in rich) that brings good and evil things up.
It sounds easy but isnt that wrong.
yah skincolur can be confusing cant it ? :D (white,black,red, etc...)
edit : hmm that makes me a liberal again ? :rofl
-
Maverick: We have the human race, just one. The components of which simply come in a variety of shapes and colors.
We already have a word for that - "species" as in "single human species".
There is no need to redefine a perfectly good term that means for humans the same as the term "subspecies" means for any other lifeform.
Race:
- A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted characteristics.
- An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
miko
-
yea no need to define the difference between a chuahua and a great dane.
not like they can mate or anything ones 40 times the size of the other but they are the same species.
this p.c. crap is scary. hail the party line.
there are races of man and they are different.
there are breeds of dog and they are different.
apes canines. ones touchy feely lovey when not killing his own species, one can lick his nuts.
about the only differences
-
Well, a chuahua and a great dane can breed and produce fertile offspring. That's why they are considered different subspecies of the same species.
That would require some artificial support, of course, but so does the breeding of some kinds of bulldogs - which have to be delivered by C-section.
One thing that is very illustrative in the example of dogs is hwo widely the breeds differ in mental abilities and character traits.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Well, a chuahua and a great dane can breed and produce fertile offspring. That's why they are considered different subspecies of the same species.
That would require some artificial support, of course, but so does the breeding of some kinds of bulldogs - which have to be delivered by C-section.
One thing that is very illustrative in the example of dogs is hwo widely the breeds differ in mental abilities and character traits.
miko
Can you imagine a great dane with the disposition and temperment of a chuahua?
-
Yo quiero Haggen Dass. Now!!!!!:D
Les
-
:) That would be scary.
An illustative breed is Pomeranian, though in good sense - a furry dog the size not much greater than chuahua with a fox-like face that was bred to small size so fast that it still retained the instincts of a large dog.
My neighbour's pomeranian bears itself with dignified silence and patience rather than constant yapping of small breeds. When my 70-pound boxer becomes too obnaxious, it does not hesitate for a moment to put him into his proper place...
miko
-
It depends on what you mean by race. Yes race exists in the sense that human genotypes show a pattern of clustering of similarities and differences that reflect the traditional racial divisions. If the human population mated at random, there would be no genetic subgrouping because the chance of any individual carrying a specific gene variant would be evenly distributed around the world. But this is not the case. Humans do not mate randomly because of a number of factors, including geography, sociology and culture.
But, in the sense usually implied by racists of inalterable groups with clear boundaries and no overlapping of traits, race certainly does not exist. Despite the factors mentioned above, individuals of difference “races” can and do interbreed, exchanging genes.
As miko pointed out, in this sense race is the same as sub-species in other animals (also called ‘breeds” in most domestic animals). For example, because of geography and the fact that pumas can’t afford airline tickets, a California puma is more likely to breed with another California puma than a Florida puma. That’s why you have different subspecies of pumas, each with certain characteristics.
Because of dog breeders, a Labrador is more likely to breed with another Labrador; a poodle in more likely to breed with another poodle. That’s why you have dog breeds with different genotypes and phenotypes. But the two breeds can still interbreed. That’s why you have labradoodles.
All sub-species (race, breed) level distinctions are somewhat arbitrary because members of the same species can exchange genes and interbreed.
-
People are are just people.
Can't put anyone in a nice little box and say they are this or that.
We are all human.
-
Then maybe we should call them breeds instead of races?
-
Originally posted by mrblack
People are are just people.
Can't put anyone in a nice little box and say they are this or that.
We are all human.
Get in the box, Mr Black.
(http://www.kodae-arts.com/fdb/SOB/box.jpg)
-
mrblack: People are are just people.
People are peope and races are races.
Race being a statistical concept, any statement that substantiates any assertion about a race by a reference to an individual example is meaningless. And vice versa.
Any given molecule in a piece of matter can have velocity (temperature) from 0 to X. Nevertheless none of us would have a problem readily distinguishing between a bathtub of freezing and that of boiling water - even though the molecules are exactly the same and each one has molecules moving at any speed from 0 to X and they could be easily mixed together.
No individual examination of single molecules would yield any usefull information about the nature of the whole bodies of water - only statistical analysis would reflect the reality of our dealing with them.
That is of course if we are interested in getting a bath without killing ourselves. If you need a single water molecule with a specified velocity, you are pretty good with one from either bathtub, though you may have to fish longer for a fast molecule in a cold bathtub.
Just like with people and races.
miko
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Race absolutely exists. We have the human race, just one. The components of which simply come in a variety of shapes and colors.
PC nonsense. Equal does not mean the same.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Well, a chuahua and a great dane can breed and produce fertile offspring. That's why they are considered different subspecies of the same species.
That would require some artificial support, of course, but so does the breeding of some kinds of bulldogs - which have to be delivered by C-section.
One thing that is very illustrative in the example of dogs is hwo widely the breeds differ in mental abilities and character traits.
miko
lighten up a bit....sheesh
-
Pick up a current issue of Discover magazine. There is an article in it about mitochondrial DNA and how it is used by scientists to trace man's ancestry. There is less genetic variation in the entire human population than you would find in a large troop of chimpanzees. This indicates, the article states, that all humans are descended from a core population of people of approximately 2,000 people who lived in central Africa about 100,000 years ago.
All Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans are descended from a small group of Africans, estimated at between 150 and 200 individuals, who migrated out of Africa during the last Ice Age because of climatic changes. This event was covered very well by an excellent program broadcast, on the Discovery Channel I believe, that was entitled The Real Eve. (There may be more to the title. It seems like there as another part to it, but I cannot remember for certain.)
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
There is an article in it about mitochondrial DNA
isnt that what tells if the person is a jedi?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
yea no need to define the difference between a chuahua and a great dane.
not like they can mate or anything ones 40 times the size of the other but they are the same species.
this p.c. crap is scary. hail the party line.
there are races of man and they are different.
there are breeds of dog and they are different.
apes canines. ones touchy feely lovey when not killing his own species, one can lick his nuts.
about the only differences
Confusing as usual.. but do I actualy agree with Dolt Vader? Good God, what is the world coming to...
Of course there are different 'races' of humans - the differences are plain to the eye no matter what technical definitions you like to throw out into the argument.
The differences between PC nuts and me are equally obvious: Instead of pretending there are no differences, I believe those differences are worth embracing.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Pick up a current issue of Discover magazine. There is an article in it about mitochondrial DNA and how it is used by scientists to trace man's ancestry. There is less genetic variation in the entire human population than you would find in a large troop of chimpanzees. This indicates, the article states, that all humans are descended from a core population of people of approximately 2,000 people who lived in central Africa about 100,000 years ago.
All Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans are descended from a small group of Africans, estimated at between 150 and 200 individuals, who migrated out of Africa during the last Ice Age because of climatic changes. This event was covered very well by an excellent program broadcast, on the Discovery Channel I believe, that was entitled The Real Eve. (There may be more to the title. It seems like there as another part to it, but I cannot remember for certain.)
Regards, Shuckins
Well that clears it up we are ALL African Americans:D
-
Originally posted by SOB
Get in the box, Mr Black.
(http://www.kodae-arts.com/fdb/SOB/box.jpg)
I think you must have ate too much glue and paste in kindergarden.
Geez LOL what a stooge:D
-
Originally posted by mietla
Equal does not mean the same.
A very good point, which is completely missed by most of the Western world.
-
i think the sameness is ment to make equality less of a issue in the long run.
that is really what bothers me the most. all men are created equal is a stretch. all men are the same (insert races) is a crock.
when ever somone sells a crock at the truth they are almost always selling somthing they aren't showing.
-
I think it's strange the way the most vociferous anti-racist people I know are fervent belivers of Pedigree certificates from the Kennel Club.
Is it heredity or envioroment?
-
Saurdaukar: The differences between PC nuts and me are equally obvious: Instead of pretending there are no differences, I believe those differences are worth embracing.
That makes sense as long as you are talking about cultures, not races. Unless you have some kind of an esthetic preference for people's various appearance.
The inherent racial differences are physical and physiological while the human society is based on rational mind and reason.
Basically, our human essense lies in "software", not hardware.
I can see how we can utilise someone's physical strength or resistance to heat but those qualities are too pedestrian to use the word "embrace".
What we, normal people, mean by diversity and ready to embrace is the difference in cultures - which has only coincidental overlap with races.
Though in modern PC academia "diversity" means different ways to mispronounce English while adhering to the liberal political position.
The only biological diversity that matters for society is the "diversity" in intelligence and basic inheritable character traits like psychoticism - and I cannot see how one could embrace such diversity. It's pretty clear cut that higher intelligence and lower psychoticism are better than otherwise.
miko
-
All Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans are descended from a small group of Africans
That is a misleading statement. It should say "All Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans and all Africans - of which there are several distinct groups - are descended from a small group of common ancestors who lived in Africa".
Those "ancestral africans" did not look anything like the most common type of africans we are used to seing - which did not exist. They may have been looking like pigmeys or khoi-san (bushmen) which are very different.
Also, recently the scientists found that in very rear cases some mitochondria may be inherited from the father - which throws a huge monkey wrench into their neat calculations regarding the "original Eve"
miko
-
“If I pull over a minority, I feel obligated to get my quota of majorities.”
This was a quote from a police officer in our Racial Profiling class last week. Yes, race still exists.
-
Originally posted by Ozark
“If I pull over a minority, I feel obligated to get my quota of majorities.”
This was a quote from a police officer in our Racial Profiling class last week. Yes, race still exists.
what do you mean still? It will always exist
-
Originally posted by mrblack
Well that clears it up we are ALL African Americans:D
They now prefer to be called Blacks. (Not making this up, saw it on MSNBC yesterday.) Seems the term "African" implies they are lesser Americans or less patriotic. They are simply Americans that are Black.
-
Originally posted by mietla
what do you mean still? It will always exist
I'm so sorry that I offend you by useing the word... still!
Part of the class discussion was on the 1963 MLK, March on Washington, speech. After all the civil right laws passed in the 60's, some thing are still the same.
-
well... i went on that theory when I got my last loan.. under "race" i asked the lady... "what is popular today?" she said that american indian/native american was good.... I said... "put me down for that".. "are you?" she said.... "prove I'm not." said I.... "oh, see your point... american indian it is." says she.
I want to hear about there being no race at the next college admission session at beserkly. Or that we are all africans from the next lawyer or politician.
There are racial features that are passed on. u can dilute em or not. people are attracted to people that basicaly look like them.. that is how the features are passed on.
lazs
-
This isn't a NASCAR thread?
:confused:
Cya!
-
Canine species variety is probably not an apt comparison.
Was watching a show on pbs, think it was a NOVA episode about the question of race . A high school class did an experiment. Each student was asked to pick another student in the class who they thought was closest to themselves genetically. Of course they all picked a student that they looked the most like . Black students chose other black students, fair students chose other fair students, asian students chose other asian students, you get the idea. Then they submited dna samples and analyzed them and compared them and paired them. It turns out all of the students had guessed wrong. Fair skinned white kids found that their closest genetic match was a black kid and vice versa . In fact when the experiment was finished none of the genetic pairs were of the same "race" .
-
^ It sounds extremely implosible to me.
Especially the statement that none of the genetic pairs were of the same "race" rather than the pairing seeming random.
I am not implying that you invented the study, but I would really like to learn more about what kind of metodology they used - which genes they compared and what kind of weight they assigned to matches.
Could you find info on that episode on the web and post the link here, if you have time?
miko
-
Originally posted by mietla
PC nonsense. Equal does not mean the same.
FWIW I am anything BUT PC.
Please show me in MY post just where I said anything about equal.
-
It's not so unbelievable when you consider the fact that we all came from africans a very short time ago. And that something like 90% of all human genetic variation can be found in any community, wether it be a small town in nebraska or a small town in vietnam .
Here you can find transcripts.
http://www.newsreel.org/films/race.htm
Episode one explains why race is not biologically constructed. The producer, Christine Herbes-Sommers, focuses on an experiment with a high school biology class in Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. The students measured their mitochondria DNA, which is inherited from the mother and has the greatest variation from person to person, to find out who else in the class and in the world they most resemble. Before the students took the test, they were asked to guess. Not surprisingly, each student picked people of the same ethnicity, both in the class and in the world. The results proved almost every student wrong, and even those who guessed correctly found the answers more complicated than expected.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm
-
Maverick
Please show me in MY post just where I said anything about equal.
You did not, I said that. You've just used a typical PC statement which although patently untrue, it suppose to make us feel better about ourselves.
"Wouldn't it be nice if we all were the same. Then there would be racism".
That's a premise. The trouble is, that this is an idiotic wish. We are different, that is a fact. The skin color is just an insignificant although highly visible trait, so PC police has a tendency to say we are really all the same color.
"White and black are really the same color, just different intensity". Which of course is again, idiotic, but again, suppose to make us feel better.
Just because we strive to treat people equally before the law (this is the only thing the government should enforce), does not mean that we need to foolishly lie to ourselves and claim that this equality makes us "the same".
-
The fact that a group of untrained high school students failed to accurately identify racial features is not surprising. On the other hand, genetic tests are highly reliable in sorting individuals into one of 5 ancestral branches: an African branch, Caucasian branch, Pacific Islander branch, East Asian branch, and Native American branch.
For details: boring scientific stuff (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:uoDKRrzjFVEJ:Pub11.ezboard.com/fmsdiagnosedfrm54.showMessage%3FtopicID%3D254.topic)
You can do the same thing with skeletal features, which is how forensic anthropologists identify race from skeletal remains with very high reliability.
Such tests are not perfect, of course, because a certain percentage of any population is admixed with genes from other populations.
-
If we are gonna compare with dogs, the genetical differences between human "races" are more comparable to differences between variations of, say, a Retriever, than different dog breeds.
-
Suave: It's not so unbelievable when you consider the fact that we all came from africans a very short time ago.
I have no problem with races having significant genetic similarity. I have problem believing that people may have closer genetic similarity with people with whom they have more remote common ansestors than with their closer cousins.
Now to the script. I see BS right there - a whole truckload of self-contradictory crap.
1. Mitochondrial DNA traces maternal descent, they postulate that right in the script.
Regardless of our knowlege of genetics we know for sure that africans are more closely related among themselves than they are to russians. A russian is much more likely to have a common grand-grand-...mother with another russian or european or asian than with an african.
Even considering that most aftican americans have considerable admixture of white blood in them, it mostly throgh white male who did not pass the mitochondria.
If they claim otherwise, they blow up the whole significance of the mitochondria. It's like reading a text that says the letters and words in that very text are just meaningless scrambles, not letters and words.
The mitichondrial DNAs are extremely simple and have very few genes that could differ, so if those genes were mutating randomly they could produce results inconsistent with descent. But that's BS because first, they did not have random results but ones biased in the wrong direction, and second, the scientists do use the mitichondrial DNAs to track maternal descent successfully and know the frequency of mutations over time and know them to be reliable.
2. Mitochndrial DNA are not human DNA. Mitocholdria are separate single-sell symbiotic organism that adapted to exist in other sells and provide them with services in exchange for nutriens and protection.
As such, mitochondrial DNA do not determine any individual or racial characteristics whatsoever.
It seems strange that they would talk about "external differences, rooted in biology, are linked to other, more complex internal differences" but concentrate on a single element that is not responcibe for any differences.
3. All of our genetics now is telling us that that's not the case. We can't find any genetic markers that are in everybody of a particular race and in nobody of some other race. We can't find any genetic markers that define race.
That's BS. In a people from non-mixed african and european stock there are known exclusive markers.
Of course african-americans are only such by label, in reality almost all of them have mixed inheritance (5-25% white blood on a gradient from south-east to north and west), so for them there may not be exclusive markers.
It's statistical for them rather than deterministic but no one ever argued that races could not mix.
I also see many other misrepresentations in that script like "only one of 1000 genes is different, so the diffeences must be small". It's like using canvas in comparing the pictures. Sure, 999 out of 1000 genes cannot differ because they code for vital functions and a mutation would produce a non-viable organism.
At the same time 1 in 1000 gene multiplied by millions of thousands of genes total gives us a few tens of thousands of genes that can differentiate us one from another.
miko
-
Can you imagine a great dane with the disposition and temperment of a chuahua?
LOL!