Race Discussion

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

By bloodline I don't mean "O Negative", silly. I mean the characteristics passed through DNA that make people of closer relation seem more alike. That is true and observable with both dogs and humans.

Also, the more alike a specific bloodline becomes, the more apart they become from those they have been isolated from. That is how new species are eventually born.

Savvy?

What?

If they aren't related then there are three distinct "bloodlines" in those photographs if you're referring to geneology.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

What is it, 1 in 200 men are related to Genghis Khan? So you think Genghis Khan slept with 1 in 200 women?

Do you have a brain, Ronin?

Most races were started by a small tribe that migrated to an area. The population then spread from there. Breeding only occured locally. I mean, how many people way back when went 8,000 miles across the planet just to have sex? That made for isolated breeding lines. Genetic traits were circulated in these breeding communities, which makes for the traits we can now see today. We call them "races".

We don't call the traits races. We call traits "traits". The social construct of race encompasses a lot more based on those traits. Traits that in the bigger picture are only a small part of the overall genetic code which make up humans.

The rest is pseudo-science I'm afraid. Very simplistic.

You're either assuming that humans managed to coincidentally split themselves up into genetic code and go their seperate ways.

Or you're assuming that apart from the environmental conditions which forced change in human skin colour and a few other traits around the world to a certain degree... changed more than simply the traits which we base race off of. It's simply not true.

Or perhaps you're assuming both.

Not only that you assume that these racial lines have stood the test of time.

BTW- Your Ghengis Khan example is a good point. Ancient Empires would have diluted a lot of these so called "bloodlines" you speak of. Not that I believe any of the sh*t you spout.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

So now I'm spouting "shit"? Thanks, Ronin. But anything I've said, it is a lot better than anything you've said.

That's your opinion

Originally Posted by Tenchu

You've never explained why breeds of dogs are so different than races of people. Can you do that now, please.

There is more difference between dog breed than than there is amongst the human race. (Though according to Nyororin, the basis of our perception of breed is the same as our perception of race)

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Tell me how this is psuedo science. If you're going to throw in insults, then you'd better have some good reasons.

You're implying that the races we've identified are distinguished by things other than the specific traits which we base them on.

We'll you're right in one sense. As a social construction... race is politically defined based on such traits.

Scientifically though... these traits in humans which we base race on are quite superficial and do not represent any difference at an overall genetic level (apart from the ones which determine the traits that are the basis of race that is)

Originally Posted by Tenchu

And what is evolution, if anything other than an isolation of traits? That is how all things start. Face it, humans started to go their seperate ways due to isolation. We began to mutate away from each other. If that is not true, then what is?

Things evolve only if there a change is necessary and forced. They don't evolve for the sake of it. Why people in the North evolved white skin etc can be put down to change in environment as human migration progressed for example.

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Why is it such a problem for you to admit one and another are different?

I've had this discussion with you before. You are the one who has said in another thread that Australian Aborigines are of sub-human intelligence, and likening them to primates. I am particularly pedantic with you because of it.

[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.

[Nyororin]

This thread is starting to get really hostile... And I think that to avoid being closed, both Tenchu and Ronin need to back off a little bit. I don`t want to see the thread closed nor do I want to see either of you hit with a ban so please try to keep this from getting any more heated. I can easily see it becoming so at this pace.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

At the end of the day, if you want to deny life is a variable, inconsistant, and constantly changing being then that is your problem. But you should not jump up and down so high and low when people don't agree with you.

I'm not denying anything of the sort... All I'm doing is saying that race is not based on such differences (inter-special variety) while you are saying race is a valid measure of it. The only thing race is based on are a few regional, largely superficial traits. Therefore the only thing race is a measure of at a scientific level are those traits.

It's a scientific fact. Google it if you like. Better yet learn about it at school.

Anyway... if you wish to back down that's fine... I don't think we will ever get through to each other nor is it my expectation or even goal. I post for the sake of those that may read your pseudo-science and half truths and think they are valid.
(Notice how instead of answering the questions I put up in reply to your post you'd rather back down citing a breakdown in civility as the reason why)

[noodle]

I'm not gonna get in the middle of this fight, but Ronin, you should realise that social scientists and scientists have different definitions of Race.

A social scientists has the difinition you've been saying... We're all equal, and basically the only reason we even speak about races is to help us understand slight differences in traits.

A scientist will tell you that when there general general biological difference from region to region, this defines a race... For example, West African have different twitch muscles, or that there are certain blood diseases that only tend to affect Black people, and some that only tend to affect white people. Sometimes, for the same illness, they have different medicines. One is for Black and other is for White (in laymans terms).

Socially, human value etc, I agree we are all the same, we are equal etc, but to argue against the scientific definitions of race so blindly because you probably believe that it's racist is kind of silly. It is impossible to give clear cut and dry definitions of race because even within races, there are differences, but it's not a bad or stupid thing to define races according to traits. When you notice that the majority of West Africans have fast twitch muscles, it helps to define them as a race!

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

A social scientists has the difinition you've been saying... We're all equal, and basically the only reason we even speak about races is to help us understand slight differences in traits.

A scientist will tell you that when there general general biological difference from region to region, this defines a race... For example, West African have different twitch muscles, or that there are certain blood diseases that only tend to affect Black people, and some that only tend to affect white people. Sometimes, for the same illness, they have different medicines. One is for Black and other is for White (in laymans terms).

Socially, human value etc, I agree we are all the same, we are equal etc, but to argue against the scientific definitions of race so blindly because you probably believe that it's racist is kind of silly. It is impossible to give clear cut and dry definitions of race because even within races, there are differences, but it's not a bad or stupid thing to define races according to traits. When you notice that the majority of West Africans have fast twitch muscles, it helps to define them as a race!

I mentioned that earlier... there are regional differences, but my point is that they are a small part of a bigger picture when it comes to the biological makeup of humans.

Furthermore many of these regional tendencies aren't always absolute. (For example, I read many Asians have a gene which makes their earwax dry... but not all of them do). So when scientists or doctors speak of race... they speak in relation to it and sometimes use it out of convenience (medicine especially). But they don't have a definition of it... largely because racial theory was debunked last century.

Scientists tend to use terms which relate to humans on a genetic level rather than race.

[noodle]

I don't think these differences are that small... When studying ancient buried bodies, how can they identify someones race if our DNA differences were really that insignificant?

Many Egyptian Pharoes were found to be Berber (first recorded people to inhabit North Africa, previously known as Libyans by Greeks and Romans) from the study of their DNA. Skin Colour, hair colour, facial features might seem insignificant, but on a biological, gene level, when there are staggering differences or similarities from people of different regions, it does count for something.

The race theory hasn't really got anything to do with this... The race theory is about a superior race in the sense of them being better and more important than other races... But for one to deny that Black people of western African descent, are not superior at running is a bit of a joke. I believe we are all equal, but I also believe black people are better at running... Heck, in athletics, black people hold more than 90% of the best speed records!

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

I don't think these differences are that small... When studying ancient buried bodies, how can they identify someones race if our DNA differences were really that insignificant?

Many Egyptian Pharoes were found to be Berber (first recorded people to inhabit North Africa, previously known as Libyans by Greeks and Romans) from the study of their DNA. Skin Colour, hair colour, facial features might seem insignificant, but on a biological, gene level, when there are staggering differences or similarities from people of different regions, it does count for something.

The race theory hasn't really got anything to do with this... The race theory is about a superior race in the sense of them being better and more important than other races... But for one to deny that Black people of western African descent, are not superior at running is a bit of a joke. I believe we are all equal, but I also believe black people are better at running... Heck, in athletics, black people hold more than 90% of the best speed records!

-I'm assuming that they identify race by looking for specific traits.

-Racial theory was the idea hypothesized by scientists up untill the mid 20th century when it was debunked. The idea that humans fall into one of many racial groups and that these groups are significantly distinguishable biologically.

-Black people are better at running? For that to be true then ALL black people would have to be better than ALL white/Asian people. That the very best are always black MAY (or may not, I'm really no biologist... though my study requires me to know about the scientific consensus on such things.) mean that a certain genetic predisposition occurs in West Africa that gives them that advantage... but it's hardly a fact that Black people are better at running.