I am hitting 10k with you right now: ask me 10 questions

[bardy]

guys!!!! I have an answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

black people are better athleticly because of unnatural selection due to slavery! the strong ones lived and the slave owners killed the smart ones! so all black people are dumb and strong!

end of thread

[the]

Originally Posted by ella

Oh boy... biology is based on genetics...

soooooooooooo..... any genetic study is a biological study... and if a genetic study dismisses the idea of race.. it therefore dismisses the biological idea of race.

well i guess you just proved yourself wrong then. since there ARE biological differences, there MUST be genetical differences.

[bardy]

okay guys is 'genetical' a word


woudlnt it be genetic

[the]

Originally Posted by bardy

okay guys is 'genetical' a word


woudlnt it be genetic

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...etical&x=0&y=0

[myosis]

Originally Posted by bardy

guys!!!! I have an answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

black people are better athleticly because of unnatural selection due to slavery! the strong ones lived and the slave owners killed the smart ones! so all black people are dumb and strong!

end of thread

a controversial psychiatrist who has a radio show here was deeply criticized for trying to give credibility to this kind of unreferenced research. it was all over the news.

[ella]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

that's really not helpful at all. research from (based on?) the HGP? how am i supposed to know where to look? genome.gov? that site is pretty large

I know, the study is huge...

I learned all about it in my sociology cultural minorities class... and also, like turolyn, i watched something about it on the Disc. channel.

maybe you can look up some scholarly journals...

[Speed Kills]

hey ella, it's me

[ella]

Originally Posted by the

well i guess you just proved yourself wrong then. since there ARE biological differences, there MUST be genetical differences.

but that is the ONLY biological/genetical difference (physical appearance).... and that IN ITSELF is not enough to biologically/genetically prove the idea of race. THEREFORE, race cannot be biologically proven. There are more differences among one certain race than there are between two different races.

wow.. i've repeated this over, and over and over again.

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by ella

I know, the study is huge...

I learned all about it in my sociology cultural minorities class... and also, like turolyn, i watched something about it on the Disc. channel.

maybe you can look up some scholarly journals...

this is the worst approach you can choose.

He wants you to defend your position, and all you have is to say you have heard about it in sociology cultural minorities class (now that's some useful stuff for life!) and watched Discovery channel and then you tell him to look up the journals himself.

People say many things. Link to some article in reviewed journal, please.

I give it F.

[ella]

Originally Posted by myosis

it will probably happen around the same time that pluto is admitted as a planet again.

if we admit pluto as a planet.. we should also acknowledge all the other dwarf planets.. lol what about Xena? or Sedna?

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

he's actually right. I saw this study on some Discovery channel show where they tested tons of kids of different races, and there was no way to tell them apart genetically.

so genetically they were identical but physically they appeared different? are you sure you're explaining this accurately?

look. i'm not saying there are genetically isolated groups of people we can name "asians" or "whites" or "africans" or whatever. obviously that would be stupidly simplistic. nor am i saying that any group of physical traits is an acceptable means of defining race (that seems like it would be far too difficult to pin down reliably). but when isolated populations spend thousands of years apart you should expect to see divergence in their genetic make-up based on environmental pressures (e.g. sickle-cell anaemia developing in response to the presence of malaria in sub-saharan africa), the same way their languages will develop differently.

of course, like human language, genetic differentiation will be along geographic clines, and this is what leads to the taxonomic difficulty. but that doesn't mean you should go too far in the other direction and say "well, actually there aren't any discernable differences", does it? yes, there is far greater genetic diversity among african humans than there is among, say, white europeans. but africa's quite a bit larger than europe, so shouldn't we expect that? the point then isn't that there's no such thing as racial difference, but that skin pigment alone isn't specific-enough to determine it in any useful capacity (since someone else having darker skin than mine doesn't tell me anything about them beyond a vague guess at how close to the equator their ancestors might have lived). i would suggest that "race" is undesirable as a blanket term for groups of humans given all the baggage it carries, but that this doesn't necessarily mean the concept should be done away with

[myosis]

Originally Posted by ella

lol

lol

[Luke de Spa]

token wikipedia link

[ella]

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

this is the worst approach you can choose.

He wants you to defend your position, and all you have is to say you have heard about it in sociology cultural minorities class (now that's some useful stuff for life!) and watched Discovery channel and then you tell him to look up the journals himself.

People say many things. Link to some article in reviewed journal, please.

I give it F.

ok, here...
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...norities.shtml

from there, you can find more than a dozen sites and publications with references towards race, genes, etc.

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by ella

ok, here...
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...norities.shtml

from there, you can find more than a dozen sites and publications with references towards race, genes, etc.

I will check their citation index first.

[ella]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

so genetically they were identical but physically they appeared different? are you sure you're explaining this accurately?

Exactly!

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

look. i'm not saying there are genetically isolated groups of people we can name "asians" or "whites" or "africans" or whatever. obviously that would be stupidly simplistic. nor am i saying that any group of physical traits is an acceptable means of defining race (that seems like it would be far too difficult to pin down reliably). but when isolated populations spend thousands of years apart you should expect to see divergence in their genetic make-up based on environmental pressures (e.g. sickle-cell anaemia developing in response to the presence of malaria in sub-saharan africa), the same way their languages will develop differently.

And that's a very good point... the only reason that many africans....blacks... are more prone to sickle-cell anaemia is because they have that sickle cell present in their genes (which was used to protect against malaria)... Whites growing up in Africa could just as well carry that sicke cell gene... but that right there can't be used to categorize different races, obviously.

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

of course, like human language, genetic differentiation will be along geographic clines, and this is what leads to the taxonomic difficulty. but that doesn't mean you should go too far in the other direction and say "well, actually there aren't any discernable differences", does it? yes, there is far greater genetic diversity among african humans than there is among, say, white europeans. but africa's quite a bit larger than europe, so shouldn't we expect that? the point then isn't that there's no such thing as racial difference, but that skin pigment alone isn't specific-enough to determine it in any useful capacity (since someone else having darker skin than mine doesn't tell me anything about them beyond a vague guess at how close to the equator their ancestors might have lived). i would suggest that "race" is undesirable as a blanket term for human genetic diversity given all the baggage it carries, but that this doesn't mean the concept should be done away with

yes, exactly...but those biological differences only make up like .239048 percent of our DNA... so you can't really use that to identify different races, since the biological differences within a certain race are much greater than any differences between two races. that pretty much contradicts the biological idea of race.

[mxzombie]

Originally Posted by ella

Oh boy... biology is based on genetics...

soooooooooooo..... any genetic study is a biological study... and if a genetic study dismisses the idea of race.. it therefore dismisses the biological idea of race.

did this lack of logic bother anyone else? there's more to biology than genetics. a study that disproves a relation between race and genetic makeup doesn't necessarily disprove a "biological idea of race." biology is quite a large umbrella

[ella]

Originally Posted by mxzombie

a study that disproves a relation between race and genetic makeup doesn't necessarily disprove a "biological idea of race." biology is quite a large umbrella

oh but that relation does indeed disprove the biological idea of race.

how would you prove the biological idea of race?

[Orenthal James]

ella:

please, read a fucking book. or something.

[ella]

Originally Posted by Orenthal James

ella:

please, read a fucking book. or something.

what? -so i can make you look like more of a dumbass?

[Future Boy]

Keep up the good work ella.

[mxzombie]

Originally Posted by ella

oh but that relation does indeed disprove the biological idea of race.

how would you prove the biological idea of race?

you've got it all backwards!!!

[GlasgowKiss]

Ill give some land to the niggers and the chinks but i dont want the irish.

[ella]

Originally Posted by mxzombie

you've got it all backwards!!!

no no no, tell me how you would prove the biological idea of race. What evidence would you use? What would your argument be?

[Rockin' Cherub]

Originally Posted by ella

you can't really use (dna) to identify different races, since the biological differences within a certain race are much greater than any differences between two races. that pretty much contradicts the (genetical) idea of race.

this is true. best paragraph ella posted. by far. horrible poster.

[ella]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Cherub

this is true. best paragraph ella posted. by far. horrible poster.

.

[Rockin' Cherub]

i left out the first sentence because it was unscientific, replaced your "that" with something explaining what you're talking about and instead of "biological" i said "genetical", which is not only the right thing to say but also pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

so fuck you what's your problem

[myosis]

Originally Posted by ella

no no no, tell me how you would prove the biological idea of race. What evidence would you use? What would your argument be?

niggers are black and crackers are white. gooks are yellow. natives are red. skin color is a genetically transmitted trait.

seriously ella, we all know you can't cut between races like a knife. we're all aware of there being metis. the problem is that you can't seem to see further than the tip of your nose.

[ella]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Cherub

i left out the first sentence because it was unscientific, replaced your "that" with something explaining what you're talking about and instead of "biological" i said "genetical", which is not only the right thing to say but also pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

so fuck you what's your problem

my bad.. i read too deep into your post..

thanks =)

[ella]

Originally Posted by myosis

niggers are black and crackers are white. gooks are yellow. natives are red. skin color is a genetically transmitted trait.

seriously ella, we all know you can't cut between races like a knife. we're all aware of there being metis. the problem is that you can't seem to see further than the tip of your nose.

i know, but you guys can't seem to comprehend that skin color alone is not enough to biologically support the idea of race.

therefore the idea of race is supported purely on sociological ideas.

what don't you understand?