RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity.

RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Zensee -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/2/2007 10:11:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee CL opines - "Because using "race" by the dictionary-provided definition to describe different groups of human beings is "abuse"? What are you doing to do, call the police and report me for beating the word? Does it cry?" How am I supposed to take such twisted prose seriously? As if I said anything close to this. Oh, no, no. I thought I explained that. That part was a bit of humor to break the monotony of dealing with you. So you unilaterally decide I am being tedious and start spouting absurdities while insisting I stick to points. Is that's your version of intellectual consistency. Can you understand why it is impossible to take you seriously? The rest of your post isn't worth the bandwidth to parse, except to offer the following as pretty typical of your nonsensical verbal antics and obfuscation. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord To draw analogy.. you're asking me how does a hammer work. I'm telling you to hit the butt of a nail in the spot you want it to go in at. You're calling my terminology bland, since I'm not telling you how hard to hit it, at what angle, or where at in the wall. Part of the reason I'm not telling you is that there's more variables than you seem to realize- you don't have to put nails in at specifically predetermined points in the wall (such as you don't have to have a race be such a predetermined definition). Another part is that there are obvious points I rather expect you to realize.

DomKen -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/2/2007 10:20:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave MadameDahlia: Hey Ho here we go, the same old red herrings used to verify the truth of Natural Selection. Since this is not an NS thread I will simply say that an Albino croc. is still a croc. etc etc One of the old chestnuts of the creationist lies factory. First species isn't all that precise a term. It should be to Natural Selectioners because they believe they know how different species originated No. Just because I understand how the diversity of life on Earth occured does not mean I have a perfect definition of species such that it perfectly applies in all situations. quote: quote: DomKen The most common definition is of a population that for whatever reason only breeds successfully with other members of that population. I believe , though do not know, that this definition only came about when Natural Selectioners began to realise that their theories led nowhere but back up their polyploidal orifices. Your belief is wrong. The species concept long predates Origin of Species. The present species concept is a direct descendant of Linnaeus'. quote: In earlier less sophisticated times many people realised that a gnat was a different species to an elephant and set about clarifying the taxonomy of speciation ie lets find a systematic organisation of the brutes.. Then along came Natural Selectioners with a very simplistic theory that claimed to explain the origin of such species. When it became apparent that their methods simply didnt work and the available fossil record did not support their theory they took refuge in ever more obscure , not to say obtuse definitions of and origins of speciation. Thus we have polyploidy,a chromosomal abnormality in an existing species. They even discovered punctuated equilibrium by which species A gets isolated from the main body of its community and magically turns into species B when everybody knows that they would just go on churning out more happy baby species A. NO? Nice strawman you've erected. You did a pretty good job of knocking it down too. Although bolding one of your flat out lies draws unnecessary attention to it. Now however let's deal with the truth. Biologists have been successfully using the Theory of Evolution for better than a century. The theory is rightfully and correctly viewed as the essential bedrock of biology in much the same way atomic theory underlies and unifies all of chemistry. Now to examine the "folk" species concept. So an elephat is an elephant right? So when the 2 species and one major subspecies of elephant are seen side by side you won't notice any difference? IME the difference in size of the ears is pretty noticeable when the animals are side by side. A closer to home example is the deer. When we see a deer we know what it is, a deer. However when you travel around a bit you find that the deer living in your backyard are quite different from the deer that live someplace else. In the US we have white tailed deer, mule deer, elk and the tiny key deer. So clearly the "folk" species concept is hopelessly naive. This was clear to Linnaeus in the 1700's and was expanded upon by others prior to Darwin. Now for the fossil record. 10 amazing fossils do you in quite thoroughly. Archaeopteryx lithographica. A winged, feathered animal. Which makes it a bird right? What about the long bony tail? How about the lack of a beak and a jaw full of sharp teeth? Taking a close look at the wings we find fully functional fingers not a couple of atrophied bones like we fgind in modern birds. Looking at the feet we'll be quite surprised to find an extendable sickle claw on one of its toes, like what the raptor dino had in the Jurassic Park movies. As a matter of fact if we ignore the feathers this odd little creature would almost fit in the ranks of the dinosaurs as an early relative of Velociraptor and its kin. Confounding that classification is a number of skeletal characteristics otherwise unknown in dinosaurs but that are seen in birds. So what we have is a whole lot of evidence that this animal was somewhere in between what we would view as a "true" dinosaur and what we would view as a "true" bird. Which is pretty good evidence that evolution was happening 150 million years ago and much more evidence is available to show that it happened before then, a fish with arms? Tiktaalik roseae, and even more showing it has continued since then even up to today. Finally the whole hand wave over polyploidy. Let's take an example some of us have certainly heard of. Triticale, which started out as a hybridization of rye and wheat. The reulting hybrids were sterile and didn't even grow very well. Then someone hit upon the idea of inducing polyploidy in the hybrid. so what we now have is a grain that isn't quite wheat nor quite rye, so none of that "it's still wheat" or equivalent thank you, that is completely infertile with either parent species but breeds true and with normal fertility with other members of its species. So polyploidy is not necessarily an abnormality within an existing species much as you might wish it were so.

Zensee -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/2/2007 10:32:42 PM)
But DomKen - it's so much easier to put all the petty uncertainties, questions and unresolved details into the black box of creationsim and watch them simply evaporate. Oops! Here's that damned evolution by natural selection thingy acting up again. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uoc--coh092206.php Damned inconvenient! Z.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 12:12:39 AM)
quote: Original: lucern ... The most honest thing, given more or less agreement with the major points in this post, would be to be able to walk the complicated path of knowing that race is biologically indefensible as well as aknowledging that it has a long history and remains extremely relevant in the social lives of people. ... Personally, I think you've got the most "logical" explanation for this whole subject that anyone has posted so far. You've given a far better commentary that supports both sides of this argument. Yes, it is biologically indefensible....but it is accepted and relevant socially and therefore would be -extremely- difficult to remove from the collective psyche.

Zensee -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 12:23:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking Yes, it is biologically indefensible....but it is accepted and relevant socially and therefore would be -extremely- difficult to remove from the collective psyche. Language changes as our awareness changes and our awareness changes as our languages changes. Relevance is not an objective state in this case, just an opinion about the perceived efficacy of an outmoded, misunderstood and rather over used word. I thought the whole point of this thread was to consider if it is time to retire the word race as a convenient way of categorising "the other".

QuietlySeeking -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 12:30:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster The fact that it's unimportant to most of the population doesn't mean it's unimportant. And understanding what's wrong with the ordinary person's conception of race is not comparable to understanding that a kilobyte is 1024 bytes. If you think a kilobyte is 1000 bytes, sure, you'll be wrong, but you can quantify exactly how wrong you'll be: 2.4%. If you think races can be determined by looking at someone and asking yourself what other human beings in your experience this new person looks like (which is basically all we do when we divide humans into races), then you're preventing yourself from understanding how humans evolved and why we have the genetic diversity that we have. It's really just a way of allowing yourself not to understand humanity. And that kind of error can't be quantified. By the way, this happens to be a raging issue in medicine right now. There is a new movement to tailor prescription drugs for specific races, on the argument that certain medicines may work better or worse for black patients. The obvious problem: How exactly do you determine who is black in a medically significant sense? You can read about it here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=B0FEC94D-E7F2-99DF-3CD8F25918B63A39 Actually, after reading through the article you provided, I would say that the article was more about a company attempting fraudulently to claim results (and therefore patents) that it could not prove. But according to the cited article in your article, 4 of 29 medications could have different responses due to "genetic difference between races"...which I'm afraid doesn't support your supposition that there are no races. Somehow, someway, these physicians determined that certain "traits" could affect the effectiveness of medication and attributed those traits to particular "races"....whether those races exist or not. How would they determine who is black in a medically significant sense? I don't know, I'm not a geneticist nor a medical doctor, but it seems like a compartmentilization that is useful to me. If I receive a drug that is more effective because of my European/German ancestry, hey, I'm all for it. By the way, the example I used was not to illustrate a concrete variance...it was used to present the concept that to the general public, the "lack of races" concept is irrelevant because they aren't educated enough to know the difference. Since I deal with the uneducated on a much greater scale than the educated, it is much simpler to accept their world-view for the purposes of communication....That sounded much less arrogant in my head, but I'll leave it because I can't find a better way to express it.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 12:41:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Language changes as our awareness changes and our awareness changes as our languages changes. Relevance is not an objective state in this case, just an opinion about the perceived efficacy of an outmoded, misunderstood and rather over used word. I thought the whole point of this thread was to consider if it is time to retire the word race as a convenient way of categorising "the other". If we can discuss this for seven pages without a clear-cut consensus on whether or not the word "race" is ready to be retired, how many thousands of pages would it take to actually come up with a viable plan for doing so, and how many millions of pages would it take to implement that change? It may be important. It may be time. The likelihood of the change happening is rapidly approaching zero, if such a small population (such as CM) has a hard time coming up with a consensus. Once of the definitions of "Relevance" includes the word "practical" which in turn is defined as "not theoretical or ideal". In an ideal world for some, there would be no race. In the world of genetics, there is evidence of no race. In the socially complex world of imperfect human beings, there is race.

seeksfemslave -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 12:42:21 AM)
To those who seek to demonstrate that the concept of racial difference is illusory on the grounds that the genetic structure of those groups classified as different races is very similar and overlapping : could that not mean that what causes clearly identifiable differences, both physical and behavioral, is a very small part of the whole genotype. These racial differences can only be observed when taking a collective, ie across the board view. Seems a reasonable explanation to me. NO? Incidently deriding creationism does NOT make Natural Selection true. he he he he he!

Lordandmaster -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 12:45:21 AM)
Why would you consciously adopt the world-view of people who you ACKNOWLEDGE are uneducated? Sure, if you need to communicate with them, it's helpful to know how they think (or how you think they think--what you said did sound a little arrogant). But why would you accept their ideas yourself if you're aware that they're ignorant? quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking By the way, the example I used was not to illustrate a concrete variance...it was used to present the concept that to the general public, the "lack of races" concept is irrelevant because they aren't educated enough to know the difference. Since I deal with the uneducated on a much greater scale than the educated, it is much simpler to accept their world-view for the purposes of communication....That sounded much less arrogant in my head, but I'll leave it because I can't find a better way to express it.

Zensee -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 12:49:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently deriding creationism does NOT make Natural Selection true. he he he he he! Deriding natural selection doesn't make... whatever notion of the week you are proposing true either. Your point is? "Racial differences" are much more due to cultural and language variances than genetic or even morpholigical ones, by several orders of magnitude. It is precisely the mistaken notion that, for example, behavioural patterns attributed to one's "race" are bred, not learned, which gives us pause to wonder if the word has not outlived its usefullness. QS- who said it had to be resolved here on CM? It's a discussion. Stop setting absurd expectations and you won't be disappointed as often. Z.

SusanofO -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 3:16:07 AM)
I'm not a "Caucasian". According to my other brothers and sisters (who live on the planet Zaptroid, which is in a galaxy far, far away) - I'm an Alien.[;)] Chew on that idea for awhile... - Susan

seeksfemslave -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 5:26:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL Zensee "Racial differences" are much more due to cultural and language variances than genetic or even morpholigical ones, by several orders of magnitude. What in your opinion accounts for the almost total failure of every independant nation in Africa. This has not happened in India, Singapore or Israel. as examples. Take the racial split in the USA: we now see in the UK exactly the same situation has developed. Segregation, family break down, high crime levels, low educational achievement, high level sports achievement. Is that a coincidence only ? If you blame "whitey" then explain why Jamaica or Dominica are in such a mess.

kittinSol -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 5:35:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave What in your opinion accounts for the almost total failure of every independant nation in Africa. This has not happened in India, Singapore or Israel. as examples. Take the racial split in the USA: we now see in the UK exactly the same situation has developed. Segregation, family break down, high crime levels, low educational achievement, high level sports achievement. Is that a coincidence only ? If you blame "whitey" then explain why Jamaica or Dominica are in such a mess. I can well believe you hold these sort of nonsensical opinions. What surprises me is that you so shamelessly put them up here for all to see. Unless I misunderstood you (I hope I'm wrong!). Perhaps you'd like to explain?

thompsonx -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 6:53:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I'm not a "Caucasian". According to my other brothers and sisters (who live on the planet Zaptroid, which is in a galaxy far, far away) - I'm an Alien.[;)] Chew on that idea for awhile... - Susan SusanofO: There are no immigration quotas for Zaptrodians. This defines you as a criminal illegal alien who is here to steal jobs from hard working citizens...La Migra has been alerted and are on there way to your home to take you into custody for a spanking followed by deportation. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 7:01:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL Zensee "Racial differences" are much more due to cultural and language variances than genetic or even morpholigical ones, by several orders of magnitude. What in your opinion accounts for the almost total failure of every independant nation in Africa. This has not happened in India, Singapore or Israel. as examples. Take the racial split in the USA: we now see in the UK exactly the same situation has developed. Segregation, family break down, high crime levels, low educational achievement, high level sports achievement. Is that a coincidence only ? If you blame "whitey" then explain why Jamaica or Dominica are in such a mess. Seeks: In all your many posts I have noticed that you are a man of intellect. For you to ignore the history of the countries you castigate confuses me. The hand of "whities" imperialism is evident but you choose to ignore it and continue to infer that the "ignorant savages"simply are not fit to govern themselves. When white societies engage in wars,coups and uncivilized behavior you seem to ignore it. Who was the last non white prime minister of Great Brittan to declare war on another nation. Common' dood ...you are brighter than that. thompson

DomKen -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 7:22:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently deriding creationism does NOT make Natural Selection true. he he he he he! Did you not bother to read and understand Zensee's link above? Maybe you missed so here it is again: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uoc--coh092206.php Here we have a previously negative trait, male crickets unable to 'sing' to attract mates, becoming a positive trait due to a change in the environment, a parasite entering their territory. So we now have males who don't sing still reproducing, even if less efficiently than before, while those that sing are being killed by the parasitic fly before they reproduce. The trait that makes for non singing males has spread widely into the population and is now the normal condition. Looks like natural selection at work to me. BTW I know you're handwaves, 'they're still just crickets' or 'that isn't a new species', are on their way. So rather than spouting the one liners why don't you tell me what you think keeps these sorts of changes in traits in a population from adding up into enough to cause a speciation event?

philosophy -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 8:21:01 AM)
[FR] ......we are all much more alike than we are different. However, both parts of that equation are crucial, our differences and our similarities. We ignore either at our peril.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 9:40:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Why would you consciously adopt the world-view of people who you ACKNOWLEDGE are uneducated? Sure, if you need to communicate with them, it's helpful to know how they think (or how you think they think--what you said did sound a little arrogant). But why would you accept their ideas yourself if you're aware that they're ignorant? Because I have more than enough things that I can change in my life and the lives of those around me to worry about something as amorphous as the definition and usage of the word "race". I'll leave the Sisyphean task of changing the social fabric of the entire world (regarding the definition of a single word) to folks such as you and kittensol.

kittinSol -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 9:43:00 AM)
That's what I call bowing out gracefully [:D]!

CuriousLord -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/3/2007 10:21:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee CL opines - "Because using "race" by the dictionary-provided definition to describe different groups of human beings is "abuse"? What are you doing to do, call the police and report me for beating the word? Does it cry?" How am I supposed to take such twisted prose seriously? As if I said anything close to this. Oh, no, no. I thought I explained that. That part was a bit of humor to break the monotony of dealing with you. So you unilaterally decide I am being tedious and start spouting absurdities Actually, that was one small joke to lighten up the start of a long post. Well, that, and a bit of honesty. At that point, you were rather tedious to deal with. Don't get me wrong- complex subjects can be fun.. but this instance of 'tedious' was moreso that with regards to the tedium of instructing a student with too much of a reliance on personal ego to make the catalytic recognition of misunderstanding to embrace new concepts. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee while insisting I stick to points. Which, ironically, you haven't.. ..of course, this also implies I haven't answered any points.. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee The rest of your post isn't worth the bandwidth to parse ..though it does seem you've decided to use.. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee nonsensical verbal antics and obfuscation ... But, hey, have your emotional rant about nothing, k? ;) quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Can you understand why it is impossible to take you seriously? Pretty much the same reason kids perfer to pass notes in class, I suppose. It's a one-way dialog, and you're pissy about not being able to say much. Anyhow, seeing as your emotions seem a little banged up, this'll likely be it for a while. Next time you'd like to resume, I'd ask you try not to be so senstive, nor so ironic in your display of needing to be let up on. You did seem unusually intelligent, outside of the difficulty with abstract definitions.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125