# Chen019, you are a liar. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 9, 2012, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246 "2012-03-09T09:43:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/101 "2012-03-11T23:20:58Z")
I was unsure just what part **Brazil84** played in all this, or what his position was. OTOH **Colibri** has in my experience been an honest debater and a good scientist. If he says that **Brazil** is a liar, frankly I believe him. [QUOTE=Magellan] What term would you prefer for African Blacks? Negroids? Africanus? Use whatever you’d like. Same for Asians/Orientals…any term you’d like. Caucasians/Whites, whatever you’d like. [/QUOTE] Speaking for myself I don’t really care what term you use, so long as you can prove it refers to a scientifically valid group. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/102 "2012-03-11T23:22:01Z")
All you need to know about brazil you can learn from my discussion with him about anti-Asian discrimination. Incredibly dishonest, dickfingered assbag. Proof (the important points all lined up in one, tidy post): [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14809789&postcount=146](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14809789&postcount=146) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/103 "2012-03-11T23:32:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What term would you prefer for African Blacks? Negroids? Africanus? Use whatever you’d like. What I would like—in fact, what I would **require** in order to consider racial categories to be a scientifically valid classification system—is a term that represents a well-defined set of genetic **populations** that are demonstrably more closely related to each other than they are to genetic populations outside that set. I’m not asking you what we ought to **call** that set, I’m asking you to define scientifically what constitutes the criteria for **belonging to** that set. > [@magellan01](#): > > Same for Asians/Orientals…any term you’d like. Caucasians/Whites, whatever you’d like. Again, it’s not a matter of choosing the term (although admittedly it’s less confusing to have terms that don’t easily conflate with skin color if you don’t want the categories to be defined by skin color). It’s a matter of explaining what the term refers to. What actual genetic populations fall into the categories that you call “Asians/Orientals” (or some equivalent term) and “Caucasians/Whites” (or some equivalent term)? > [@magellan01](#): > > I’m really not interested in the game of you insisting that any term be as infallible as the definition of isosceles triangle. Dude, this isn’t a “game”, this is the **whole crucial point** of the discussion. If you don’t even know genetically what you **mean** by calling people “black” versus “white” or “Asian” or whatever racial category name you want to use, then how can you claim to be drawing any valid conclusions about people’s genetic backgrounds from their racial category? > [@magellan01](#): > > I’ll tell you what, let’s have a little wager. We’ll take 1,000 random pictures of people. And I have to guess there race. For every one I get correct, you give me a thousand dollars. For every one I get wrong, I give you a thousand dollars. Now I think that their are characteristics (both inward and outward, by the way) that allow one to to identify a person’s race with a high degree of accuracy. So, I think I’ll do really well. Heck, of course you will! You’re postulating a racial classification system based largely on what people look like, and claiming that you’ll be able to correctly classify pictures of random people according to that system—i.e., based on what they look like. I sure can’t argue with that! That’s like saying that given a random selection of color pictures of butterflies, you’ll be able to pick out which are the blue ones, which are the yellow ones, and which are the orange ones, with a high degree of accuracy. Well, duh—I wouldn’t have expected otherwise. But what we’re arguing about here is not whether you can tell somebody’s race (i.e., appearance-based category) based on what they look like, but rather whether you can reliably infer anything about the **genetic kinships** of those random people based on what they look like. If “race” is to be a scientifically useful concept in human genetics, then it has to tell us something verifiably correct about genetic relationships between humans. Your proposed test wouldn’t tell us jack-point-shit about how the random people in your pictures were actually **related** to one another. I repeat: _ **if a racial classification system doesn’t provide reliable information about the actual genetic relationships of members of those races, then what the hell is the point of it?** _ (Oh, and thanks **Richard** , you’re very kind!) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/104 "2012-03-11T23:34:32Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > OTOH **Colibri** has in my experience been an honest debater and a good scientist. If he says that **Brazil** is a liar, frankly I believe him. I don’t have a bad opinion of **Colibri** , which is why I’m surprised to see him act so childish and invertebrate-like. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/105 "2012-03-11T23:42:09Z")
Kimstu, let’s try this as a starting point. You seem to agree that neither you nor I would have any trouble identifying people in our little wager. That we’d be able to identify—with a very high degree of certainty—Asians as Asians, Caucasians as Caucasians, and African Blacks as African Blacks. (Let’s leave aside the side issue of Aboriginals for now, though I’m fairly certain I could identify them, too.) So, these characteristics that allow us to correctly identify people in our wager, would you say that they are genetically based? That those characteristics are very likely to be passed on generationally? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/106 "2012-03-12T00:15:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Kimstu, let’s try this as a starting point. You seem to agree that neither you nor I would have any trouble identifying people in our little wager. That we’d be able to identify—with a very high degree of certainty—Asians as Asians, Caucasians as Caucasians, and African Blacks as African Blacks. (Let’s leave aside the side issue of Aboriginals for now, though I’m fairly certain I could identify them, too.) > > So, these characteristics that allow us to correctly identify people in our wager, would you say that they are genetically based? That those characteristics are very likely to be passed on generationally? Ok, then what would you characterize these groups as, Caucasian, Asian or black? Italians, Turks, Lebanese, Moroccans, Kurds, Afghans, Pakistanis, Persians, Mexicans and Bangladeshis. If the racial categories you’ve proposed are remotely worthwhile, you shouldn’t have any problems classifying the groups and why? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/107 "2012-03-12T00:32:16Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Seems like more of a deliberate strawman to me. I’ve never heard anyone complain that “The South” does not exist since Wheeling, West Virginia is significantly further north than Cape May, New Jersey. > > Normally, most people can accept that language and the underlying thinking can be flexible – that a “red tide” is not necessarily red or even tidal in nature. That “SoHo” does not include many blocks which are nonetheless south of Houston street. That “Asian-American” does not include recent immigrants from Israel. Well true, in natural sciences you invariably have continuous underlying variation but people have no difficulty describing categories that roughly map that variation. This happens all the time (hills vs mountains for example), or a more mundane example, when is a bald person bald? This is also why I’ve asked some people on this thread whether they simply disagree with the whole subspecies/race approach across the board. For every species, or just in relation to humans. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/108 "2012-03-12T00:33:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Kimstu, let’s try this as a starting point. You seem to agree that neither you nor I would have any trouble identifying people in our little wager. That we’d be able to identify—with a very high degree of certainty—Asians as Asians, Caucasians as Caucasians, and African Blacks as African Blacks. (Let’s leave aside the side issue of Aboriginals for now, though I’m fairly certain I could identify them, too.) > > So, these characteristics that allow us to correctly identify people in our wager, would you say that they are genetically based? That those characteristics are very likely to be passed on generationally? Passed on generationally between **individuals** , sure. Individuals tend to look more like their parents than like unrelated individuals, although there are certainly many exceptions. But not necessarily genetically based with respect to **populations**. That is, when it comes to genetic populations, the extent to which they look alike is **not** a reliable indicator of how closely related they are. This is partly due to “convergent adaptation”, as **Belowjob2.0** noted, which over time leads populations in similar environments to evolve similar traits irrespective of how closely related they are genetically. For example, if we identified among our pictures one member of the “Caucasian race”, one member of the “Asian race”, and two members of the “African Black race”, then your hypothesis about racial categories, as I understand it, would suggest that the two African Blacks would be more closely related than the Caucasian and the Asian. But that could very well be entirely _ **wrong** _. Many African populations, such as the !Kung and the Tswana, _are farther apart genetically than, say, Japanese and French populations_. Counterintuitive, but true. Even though you and I might think, on the basis of the racial classification scheme, that the two Africans “look more alike” than the Asian and Caucasian do, they could very well be less closely related than the Asian and Caucasian are. This is the big hitch in attempting to interpret current racial classifications as proxies for actual genetic population divisions. They just fail to take into account the effects of things like convergent adaptation. Consequently, they can’t reliably tell the difference between “groups that look alike because they’re closely related” and “groups that look alike even though they’re not closely related”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/109 "2012-03-12T00:37:57Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Ok, then what would you characterize these groups as, Caucasian, Asian or black? > > Italians, Turks, Lebanese, Moroccans, Kurds, Afghans, Pakistanis, Persians, Mexicans and Bangladeshis. > > If the racial categories you’ve proposed are remotely worthwhile, you shouldn’t have any problems classifying the groups and why? That’s incorrect. Just because cohesive populations might (and do) exist, does not mean that all people are easily identified. Certainly not by the naked eye. Let’s say that we have three different peoples living on three isolated planets. And they are factually quite different. Group A is quite tall—all over 7 feet—with blue hair. Group B is quite short—all under 4 feet—with red hair. And Group C is Medium height—all between 5 and 6 feet—with yellow hair. All groups have there eyes. They all have a common ancestor. If we went and brought these people to earth, would you say that they’d constitute three groups that we could talk about as being three races? I’d say that would make sense. Now if these people are all sent to a huge, previously uninhabited pleat and over the millennia, interbred, might you expect there to be some people that you’d have a hard time determining which DNA was most strongly represented in their bodies? Of course the answer is yes. And they are your Italians, Turks, Lebanese, etc. And they’re existence does not negate nor disprove the existence of the three races. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/110 "2012-03-12T00:49:54Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Passed on generationally between **individuals** , sure. Individuals tend to look more like their parents than like unrelated individuals, although there are certainly many exceptions. > > But not necessarily genetically based with respect to **populations**. That is, when it comes to genetic populations, the extent to which they look alike is **not** a reliable indicator of how closely related they are. This is partly due to “convergent adaptation”, as **Belowjob2.0** noted, which over time leads populations in similar environments to evolve similar traits irrespective of how closely related they are genetically. > > For example, if we identified among our pictures one member of the “Caucasian race”, one member of the “Asian race”, and two members of the “African Black race”, then your hypothesis about racial categories, as I understand it, would suggest that the two African Blacks would be more closely related than the Caucasian and the Asian. > > But that could very well be entirely _ **wrong** _. Many African populations, such as the !Kung and the Tswana, _are farther apart genetically than, say, Japanese and French populations_. Counterintuitive, but true. > > Even though you and I might think, on the basis of the racial classification scheme, that the two Africans “look more alike” than the Asian and Caucasian do, they could very well be less closely related than the Asian and Caucasian are. > > This is the big hitch in attempting to interpret current racial classifications as proxies for actual genetic population divisions. They just fail to take into account the effects of things like convergent adaptation. Consequently, they can’t reliably tell the difference between “groups that look alike because they’re closely related” and “groups that look alike even though they’re not closely related”. Oh, I see what you’re saying now. That’s helpful. I completely get that the two Black Africans may not be was closely related genetically as two individuals who appear to not share overt characteristics. I wasn’t concentrating on that, but I agree with the logic behind it. But that doesn’t negate my point, which is only that two African Blacks, or two Asians, or two Caucasians DO share genes that make them similar. They needn’t be _more_ similar than disparate individuals. That’s got nothing to do with my position. The fact remains, that there may be (are) certain identifiers that are very reliable for classification. For instance, dark skin, or kinky hair, or dark skin _and_ kinky hair. Agreed? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/111 "2012-03-12T01:16:32Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Ok, then what would you characterize these groups as, Caucasian, Asian or black? > > Italians, Turks, Lebanese, Moroccans, Kurds, Afghans, Pakistanis, Persians, Mexicans and Bangladeshis. [Here are the major groups or branches](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/figure/fig1/) from the 52 populations in the Human Genome Diversity Panel. > [@](#): > > The matrix of pairwise interpopulation genetic distances (FST values) was used to construct a neighbor-joining (NJ) phylogenetic tree that summarizes the relationship of the 52 populations to each other (Figure 1A). The tree divides the populations into five broad groups: African, East Asian, West Eurasian (European, Middle Eastern, and Central and South Asian populations), American, and Oceanic. Turkey has an interesting history and there is a recent paper on the ancestral background of that population. Unfortunately, I can’t open the full paper but here is part of the [abstract](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00701.x/abstract): > [@](#): > > Turkey has experienced major population movements. Population structure and genetic relatedness of samples from three regions of Turkey, using over 500,000 SNP genotypes, were compared together with Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) data. To obtain a more representative sampling from Central Asia, Kyrgyz samples (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan) were genotyped and analysed. Principal component (PC) analysis reveals a significant overlap between Turks and Middle Easterners and a relationship with Europeans and South and Central Asians; however, the Turkish genetic structure is unique. > > FRAPPE, STRUCTURE, and phylogenetic analyses support the PC analysis depending upon the number of parental ancestry components chosen. For example, supervised STRUCTURE (K= 3) illustrates a genetic ancestry for the Turks of 45% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 42–49), 40% European (95% CI, 36–44) and 15% Central Asian (95% CI, 13–16), whereas at K= 4 the genetic ancestry of the Turks was 38% European (95% CI, 35–42), 35% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 33–38), 18% South Asian (95% CI, 16–19) and 9% Central Asian (95% CI, 7–11). PC analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity. Thus, this study demonstrates admixture of Turkish people reflecting the population migration patterns. This is the case with other species too, you have [intergradation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergradation) and mixed populations. Here’s a beetle [example](http://beetlesinthebush.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/cicindela-scutellaris-lecontei-x-scutellaris-unicolor-intergrades-in-southeast-missouri/): > [@](#): > > Seven geographically recognizable subspecies are generally accepted, with considerable variation evident within some of these and along zones of contact between them. > > The greatest portion of the species’ range is occupied by nominotypical populations in the Great Plains and subspecies lecontei in the Midwest and northeast. Similar to what I’ve noted in previous posts for other species, a broad zone of intergradation between these two subspecies occurs along the upper Missouri River ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/112 "2012-03-12T01:39:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well said. Thank you. > [@](#): > > Not hardly. We’re talking science, here, gentlemen. > > Precision, exactitude, consistency, reproducibility. > > Bring it, or get the fuck out of my (metaphorical) laboratory. Do these standards apply to all categories which are used in science? Or just to human races? For example, if I divide the human population into “non-smokers,” “light smokers,” and “heavy smokers,” does this grouping have scientific validity? Why or why not? Also, what are the consequences is a grouping lacks scientific validity? Does it mean that any scientific study which attempts to generalize about such groups is somehow per se invalid? Or does it mean something else? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/113 "2012-03-12T01:42:35Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Nope, your response is based on misunderstanding. Point by point: > > Wrong: I don’t believe that “ **any** classification of people into different racial groups is invalid”. It’s possible that somebody **may** at some point come up with a classification scheme (say, skin lightness times follicle roundness times earlobe length, or whatever) that **does** use phenotype similarity as a scientifically reliable proxy for genetic kinship. > > But at present, nobody has successfully come up with such a valid classification. It’s not just that attempts to treat currently defined racial groups as somehow representing genetic populations are **unproven** : it’s that they’re often _ **factually, demonstrably wrong** _. > > If you say “A black Australian Aborigine and a black sub-Saharan African are the same race, and therefore we can assume that they are genetically more closely related to each other than to a white European”, the problem with that is not that you’re being “politically incorrect” or something, but that you are literally, provably, scientifically **WRONG**. > > DNA studies make it clear that those two “members of the black race” are NOT more closely related genetically to each other than to white people. And that makes complete hash of the concept of race as some kind of cross-cultural global category that reliably indicates genetic kinship. > > Likewise, if you say “The light-skinned heavy-bearded Ainu Japanese are genetically more like Caucasians than darker-skinned smooth-faced East-Asian-looking Japanese”, you are just plain WRONG. > > So if racial classification based on phenotype characteristics can’t reliably predict genetic relationships, then what’s the use of it? > Nope, it’s because studies on different populations within “racial groups”, like the ones on Aborigines and Ainu that I linked to above, have _ **scientifically shown** _ that the “racial group” classification is not reliable. > > Now, that’s certainly not to say that **some** populations within a given “racial group” aren’t closely related. I’ve got nothing at all against studying genetic differences between genetic populations that are correctly identified as genetic populations. > > But throwing a bunch of demonstrably genetically **different** populations into a single “look-alike” category called “the black race”, or “the Caucasian race” or “the Oriental race” or whatever, and claiming that their membership in the “same race” should be taken to imply genetic similarity, is simply horseshit. > > It would be like a stranger coming up to the three **Rover** brothers whom I hypothesized in my previous post and saying “Well, clearly the blond **Rand** and his blond brother **Ron** are more closely related to each other than to this darker guy **Milton** ”. Sure, it’s not unreasonable as a superficial guess, but _ **you already know, and can scientifically prove, that it’s simply WRONG!** _ > > If the three of you are all full brothers, then you are **not** more closely related to one of them than to the other, even if one of them happens to look more like you. And anybody trying to draw any conclusions about the **Rover** family based on such a mistaken assumption would merely be a horseshit-generating horse’s ass. > > And that’s what people are who attempt to draw conclusions about genetic differences between cross-cultural trans-ethnic phenotype-defined racial categories which contain population groups that have been **proven** to be no more genetically similar to other populations within the same “race” than to populations outside it. > > The reason they’re invalid is not that they’re using racial categories _per se_, but because they’re jumping to conclusions about the genetic kinship of population groups within the same racial category that have been scientifically demonstrated to be—what’s that word? oh yeah—_ **WRONG** _. And this whole post (and many of your other posts in this thread) are also based on misunderstanding. You seem to think that I believe that any person with black skin can be lumped into a racial group called “blacks” or something. I’ve never said that. all I’ve said is that I think it’s legitimate for scientists to come up with racial groups for purposes of doing studies as long as they explain how they did so. More basically, the issue you seem to be most up in arms about is how actual genetic populations do not track perfectly with the social/cultural groups that make up traditional concepts of race. I agree with that and have no beef with it. So you can save your sermons and address my actual points if you are able to. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/114 "2012-03-12T01:44:19Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I’m not engaging with you, moron, I’m insulting you. And you’re a liar because you lie, not just because you speculate about motivations. :shrug: You pointed to my speculation about your motivations as though it proved something. > [@](#): > > I’m posting as a poster, not a mod, and this is the Pit. If you don’t have enough familiarity with **brazil84** to know that he’s a liar, then piss off. I’m not going to play his stupid games by proxy. Lol, “stupid games” = “backing up your assertions” ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/115 "2012-03-12T01:47:45Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > OTOH **Colibri** has in my experience been an honest debater and a good scientist. IMHO, a good scientist would follow the motto “Nullius in verba.” ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/116 "2012-03-12T01:52:22Z")
Bullshit. magellan, you’d ID [this gu](http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2010/07/07/1679170/Jawai2-420x0.jpg)y as black every day of the week. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/117 "2012-03-12T01:53:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > IMHO, a good scientist would follow the motto “Nullius in verba.” Are you saying that **Colibri** is a bad scientist or that I am? For **Colibri** he seems to have based his opinion on his own interactions with you. For me, based on links provided and your subsequent behavior in this thread, I can see for myself that you’re a lying asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/118 "2012-03-12T01:59:49Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Turkey has an interesting history and there is a recent paper on the ancestral background of that population I think what he was getting at is that the correct answer to even beginning to classify “Turks” into races is: which Turks? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/119 "2012-03-12T02:03:02Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Are you saying that **Colibri** is a bad scientist or that I am? A little bit of both. > [@](#): > > For me, based on links provided and your subsequent behavior in this thread, I can see for myself that you’re a lying asshole. Then quote my lie. Otherwise, perhaps it’s you who is the lying asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/120 "2012-03-12T02:15:33Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > magellan, you’d ID [this gu](http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2010/07/07/1679170/Jawai2-420x0.jpg)y as black every day of the week. Classification systems in other species don’t require 100% accuracy. More like [75%](http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=18&cts=1331518462875&ved=0CFcQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sei.org%2Fowl%2Fmeetings%2FPresentations%2FJune%2FDumbacher%2520Taxonomy.pdf&ei=i1tdT8DfGIuZiAeWwbyiDQ&usg=AFQjCNE1Rel7y1o8irdV5txsmKgFhUKdWQ&sig2=A5SiTg06CrTobiQDw9emPg). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246.md?page=7)