[Ronin4hire]

Geez you talk alot of irrelevant sh*t.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

How is there more difference?

Not to mention, dogs have been specifically manipulated, but, genetically, they are about as similar between themselves as a species than we are to each other as humans.

Would it be hard to produce a tiny person with specific facial features and skin color through only several generations of breeding? No, it would be easy. If we tried to manipulate humans, then it'd be little harder than making dog breeds, aside we take longer to mature before we can breed again, which slows the process.

Of course, nature has done this for us. You'll find all sorts of different features, colors, capabilities, and sizes of people that will match the difference between any dog breeds.

Oh really? colors correlates to human concepts of race... as do facial features, perhaps a few other regional differences as the field of medicine has proven. I can agree with that.

But size? capability?

That's complete bullsh*t.

Let's leave all the dog analogies out from here on in. Dogs have a completely different history to humans. Using breeds as an analogy to race is only making things messier in an already messy thread. I mean as long as you understand that humans are a species/sub-species then I don't think continuing with the dog analogies helps.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Yes, races are traits passed through blood lines, what did you think the word meant?

Race is not a different species. No one ever said it was. It is just the word that defines our origins based on our appearance and so forth.

So how much scientific difference is there that seperates the genetic structure of dogs from each other compaired to us? I doubt you'll find any.

Race is the social construct built upon certain, regional genetic traits. But overall... there is as much genetic variance between and within these so called races.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Oh, even in a stable climate, species will change everually. But, of course, it is much slower.

In most cases, however, evolution is a very slow process. A look at Darwins famous Galapagos islands will give you a rich insight. You see, all the species on those islands were travelers from other parts of the world who got stranded there. Through enough time, the isolation caused then to form different species.

Same with lions and tigers. They are very close cousins. Similar to wolves and dogs. They can still breed with each other, also, yet their offspring are always freaks of nature (ligers).

Humans, we were in the process of forming different species due to isolation, but the isolation was broken by technology before we could becomes as distant as lions and tigers are. What is unscientific about that?

We lived in different climates, hunted different prey, had very different cultures. You said yourself that white men became white because of the terrain, so what is wrong with following that up and saying the evolution that white men underwent was also present in other fields?

And, there are genetic differences in our DNA. They are the things that make our skin white or black, they decide ou height, our facial features. Many things. Much of what you call the "indiferent" DNA we also share with chimps. But, of course, they are humans, also.

Nice spiel... unfortunately you haven't addressed what I said.

Evolution does not happen for the sake of it. Environmental factors are the ultimate cause for evolution.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

I didn't say any of that. Don't tell lies.

What I said was based on verifyable facts. The point would have been their common inability to function in a complex society, which is true. The reason, I theorised, was reasons due to genetic isolation that may have left them behind in mans slow evolution. And isolation that left them out of the complex learning enviroment that the entire rest of the human population underwent for 50,000 years together after their isolation (assuming they have been there for 60,000 years, and the Americas were only colonized about 10,000 years ago).

The only unscientific thing in our discussion would be that you say every single feature of humans can be controlled and evolved within bloodlines, aside just one thing, the brain. Something which I can prove evolves in species just as quick as and other body part.

That is just science, Ronin.

Oh, and 1 in 6 humans are Chinese. What is the bet the majority of those 1 in 200 decendants of Genghis Kahn are in China? The next biggest empire was Alexander the Great, whos men didn't like to fuck so much. After that it was the Romans, who were actually quite a small power. So, no, the blood has not been so vastly spread around like you claimed. Just a lot of mongols in Asia, nowhere else.

Geez! Where do I start...

First off you did say that and if I can find that thread I will prove it.

Anyway.... you're making a lot of assumptions here.

You're assuming that the plight of the aboriginals is everything to do with biology. That's complete bullsh*t. Marginalisation of the aboriginal people by the British and Australian people's to this day has a lot to do with their current situation.

The rest is some crazy, unfounded theory to fit your perception of what you think explains the plight of such people.