# Human Branching **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2004, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395 "2004-06-15T00:04:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/121 "2004-06-16T22:54:08Z")
> [@pizzabrat](#): > > I noticed your essay didn’t touch at all on con-jovial racism, and following, con-jovial multiracialism. Assuming retroracialprobagation to be a constant in the race-raque-nucleic continum, and thus making deflected racialoid properties by definition completely relative; I find that to be a glaring omission. Even more complicating to your theory is the recently discovered Rashton’s Law of cyracialtronic multi-plane rendering, which makes multi-racialism AND absolute racism protonically impossible to recreate in the ultra-cognative plane (though the word is still out on the trans-cognative plane). Basically, you’re going to have to work on your theory a bit more. > [@Shalmanese](#): > > That’s true but did you consider the effect of Utpon’s law of reverse recombinatorial ethics in your assertion that retroracialprobagation are a constant in the race-raque-nucleic continum. Converse epi-planar field theory completely destroys any chance of Rashton’s law applying to anything but the most crude models of multi-racialism and frankly, the ultra-cognative plane is only seriously believed nowadays by kooks and cranks. You’ll find no mention of it in any peer-reviewed journal in the last 20 years. > > What I found personally weak about the human branching theory was that it presumes a mutualist ontological architecture of human dialectics which restricts raciocinitave abrogation to a 3 point process. More details later as I have to run. Ermmm . . . this is a double-whoosh, right? I mean, you guys made up all those words, right? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/122 "2004-06-16T23:06:40Z")
Don’t make me consult **AutoHink™** … ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/123 "2004-06-16T23:23:01Z")
This is your theory (or so you claim), so I just want one very simple question answered: What are the existing branches? You refused to answer this before, and we can only assume that this is because your answer _would_ be “White, Black, Red, Yellow, and Malay”. You’ve probably figured out that this will strip whatever remaining credibility you have, and so are refusing to say it. If this assumption is incorrect, please enlighten us. After all, if _you_- the supposed creator of this “theory”- can’t figure it out, how will anyone else? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/124 "2004-06-17T01:33:50Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > We have to teach kids that they have two reproductive choices: > > 1. To select someone in or very near our branch, thus continuing the branch’s unique Genetic traits. > 2. To select outside our nearest branches, thus discontinuing our unique Genetic traits in favor of a different genetic combination. How about this option? 3. To select someone based on the characteristics of that individual, and your bond with that individual person, without any concern for “race”, genetic makeup, or the price of tea in Sri Lanka. ---
**Author:** ![MelCthefirst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eada6e/32.png) [@MelCthefirst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MelCthefirst)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/125 "2004-06-17T02:30:11Z")
Is there even a link between reproductive choice and mate selection? (other than for overly concerned parents that is) ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/126 "2004-06-17T23:41:51Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Like? A law that says no one can make you marry outside of your branch? Sure, that’s fine with me, though as far as I know, there aren’t any legal requirements for marriage outside of 1 partner of the opposite sex (in most areas). I’m talking more about laws of “hate speech” today which today only address racism, need to start addressing extreme multi-racialism - whenever such events occur. I have a feeling that a case of that kind would simply be thrown out of court, but perhaps I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/127 "2004-06-17T23:45:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by hellothere > Most fundamentally we need to teach kids that genetic branching is OK, and that they have two kinds of reproductive choices: > > 1. To select someone in or very near our branch, thus continuing the branch’s unique Genetic traits. > 2. To select outside our nearest branches, thus discontinuing our unique Genetic traits in favor of a different genetic combination. > > Beyond that we need to continue to study genetics and the truth is what it is - and anybody who thinks we know it today, is wrong. We are still studying it and, unfortunately, that is heavy, heavy political pressure to NOT study what the precise genetic differeneces are. We are in the darkages in that regard. Genetics are life, itself, yet we cannot properly study it due to fear. > > Oh, in that case, I disagree with you; our children should have the freedom of choice to marry and/or reproduce with whomsoever they personally choose to marry and/or reproduce with, regardless of their chosen partner’s ‘branch’ (a term which I suspect you have only arbitrarily defined). > [@Mangetout](#): > > Oh, in that case, I disagree with you; our children should have the freedom of choice to marry and/or reproduce with whomsoever they personally choose to marry and/or reproduce with, regardless of their chosen partner’s ‘branch’ (a term which I suspect you have only arbitrarily defined). You state that you disagree with me, yet you provided no contrary thought… Apprently you didn’t carefully read what I wrote. Genetic branching isn’t my own artibrary definition, it’s a well understood concept. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/128 "2004-06-17T23:51:58Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > I’m talking more about laws of “hate speech” today which today only address racism, need to start addressing extreme multi-racialism - whenever such events occur. > > I have a feeling that a case of that kind would simply be thrown out of court, but perhaps I’m wrong. First you would have to prove that multi-racialism is bad, then you’d have to prove that someone somehow offended you with such, while proving the entire time that you aren’t using hate speech yourself, walking around telling people they shouldn’t mate outside their “branch” You still have yet to define what a branch is, BTW, and we’re still waiting. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/129 "2004-06-17T23:53:08Z")
> [@The 27th Evil](#): > > OK, **hellothere** , so how do you feel about interracial relationships without children? I’m sterile, does that mean I can date whomever I want without worrying about helping to kill my unique genetic traits? What about post-menopausal women? People using birth control? > > Honestly, the difference in DNA between people of different races is so small as to be negligible. Everything still works the same way no matter what racial group we’re talking about, so there really is no point to your argument, is there? Not sure why you would ask that question (the first one). I’ll just attribute you current rambling to media conditioning. Regardint the difference in DNA, you just engaged in Multi-racial extremism, item #2: 1. Expressing the notion that nobody should even think about human genetic branching and population diversity, and that we should all exclude those thoughts from our minds. This then leads to direct verbal hatred expressed towards people who do enjoy, accept and understand human genetic branching. Some people say that “since not much branching has occurred, we should disregard all existing human branching and simply see ourselves as one genetic mass only.” We are “one Genetic mass,” sure. But we are a branching genetic mass, not just a single trunk or stump. Is the statement the “human race is genetically uniform” accurate? It depends entirely upon how broad the scope of your statement is. If you are speaking in terms of one billion years then, relatively speaking, the human race is genetically uniform as compared to many other genetic life forms. If you are talking about the past 200,000 years of genetic change, then the human race is anything but genetically uniform. It has been one of the many successfully branching genetic life forms of our planet. Some people say that “the human race has historically branched, but is no longer branching.” Think about the ignorance of that statement. All at once this person has shown complete disrespect, disregard, and insensitivity to all loving couples that are “of the same branch” and create kids together - that is a prime example of extreme multi-racialism. Additionally, small, minute genetic differences lead to dramatic difference in how the genetics grow and develop into a life form - we are all 98.8% genetically “the same” as chimpanzees. Many people have an irrational fear of human genetic branching because they associate it with racism. To fear human genetic branching is to fear life, itself. If you encounter somebody with this fear, ask them, “Why do you fear human genetic branching?” ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/130 "2004-06-17T23:53:10Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > You state that you disagree with me, yet you provided no contrary thought… Apprently you didn’t carefully read what I wrote. So which of your two options: 1. To select someone in or very near our branch. 2. To select outside our nearest branches. Aligns with my statement: have the freedom of choice to marry and/or reproduce with whomsoever they personally choose to marry and/or reproduce with, regardless of their chosen partner’s ‘branch’. ?? ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/131 "2004-06-17T23:53:26Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > I’m talking more about laws of “hate speech” today which today only address racism, need to start addressing extreme multi-racialism - whenever such events occur. Hate speech _laws_? Where? Don’t they have a constitutional law against laws like that? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/132 "2004-06-17T23:57:34Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > I’m talking more about laws of “hate speech” today which today only address racism, need to start addressing extreme multi-racialism - whenever such events occur. We cannot discuss that idea meaningfully until we have a clearer idea of what you’re talking about. You’re still being rather vague. (In fact, in this thread you have yet to identify a single example of what you would consider a distinct and coherent genetic group for mate-selection purposes. For all we can tell, that might be anything from the whole global population of a given “race” or “color,” to the 50-member Juke clan of Hellmouth Hollow, West Virginia.) Can you give us a **specific example** of an “extreme multi-racialist” statement which, in your opinion, ought to subject the speaker to prosecution for “hate speech”? Preferably, some well-known public statement with which we might already be familiar from the media. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/133 "2004-06-17T23:58:09Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Genetic branching isn’t my own artibrary definition, it’s a well understood concept. It isn’t the concept of branching I’m questioning; I want you to clarify exactly where you draw the line between ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ a branch (we could be argued to each be branches of one unique individual, or we could be argued to be all part of the same branch, called ‘humans’, or a wide range of points in between; where do YOU draw the line\>? ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/134 "2004-06-17T23:59:08Z")
> [@pizzabrat](#): > > Are you serious? All of those terms were invented by whites themselves (don’t let the fact that a black character uttered the first example in the eponymous Hollywood movie fool you - it was written by a [member of your branch](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005421/)). And they’re all transparent attempts at disingenuous self-deprecation (Don’t mind me, I’m just a lil’ old white boy! Tee-hee!"). Trust me, I hate them more than you do. “White” people is a broad classification and many are simply incorrectly lumped into that category. Jewish people are both Semitic and White and many “multi-racial” blends in between. Since Jews own most media outlets, it is no surprise that we live in a world that embraces multi-racialism almost like a religion. If you wish to lump all hollywood Jews into the “white” group you are not really paying attention to things. You could qualify them as a “white ethnic group.” That would be reasonably accurate - but remember that any discussion of genetics is relative. I really don’t know what shade of “white person” wrote those phrases, and I really don’t specifically care. I point out that they are openly propagated, whereas any reference to any other group is not so openly propagated because it would be termed hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/135 "2004-06-18T00:02:41Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Since Jews own most media outlets . . . Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/136 "2004-06-18T00:03:08Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > “White” people is a broad classification and many are simply incorrectly lumped into that category. Jewish people are both Semitic and White and many “multi-racial” blends in between. Since Jews own most media outlets, it is no surprise that we live in a world that embraces multi-racialism almost like a religion. If you wish to lump all hollywood Jews into the “white” group you are not really paying attention to things. You could qualify them as a “white ethnic group.” That would be reasonably accurate - but remember that any discussion of genetics is relative. > > I really don’t know what shade of “white person” wrote those phrases, and I really don’t specifically care. I point out that they are openly propagated, whereas any reference to any other group is not so openly propagated because it would be termed hate speech. Wow, not only do you dislike people of color, you also dislike Jews… the more you call me an extremist multi-racialist, the more I like it O\_o ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/137 "2004-06-18T00:07:56Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > To reiterate: > **"Point out that the assumptions made by the readers betray serious character flaws"** > > Yawn. Is that the best you can do? Someone says that the website: “Makes vague assertions, hoping that they will be misunderstood.” No, I wrote it hoping that it would be understood, not misunderstood. My assertions are not vague, they are relatively specific, though broad often times. - Brush off requests for further detail. Your readers will be inclined to make assumptions. I provide details relevant to human genetic branching. It’s really quite self-explanatory. Really anybody who would come out “against” human genetic branching is just plain odd since they, themselves, are genetic life. - Point out that the assumptions made by the readers betray serious character flaws and/or reinforce your grand ytheory. The assumptions many make are the assumption of racism… this is because the media programs them with this often. I wouldn’t term that a character flaw. It’s an intellectual flaw. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/138 "2004-06-18T00:13:17Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > I provide details relevant to human genetic branching. It’s really quite self-explanatory. Really anybody who would come out “against” human genetic branching is just plain odd since they, themselves, are genetic life. What is a branch? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/139 "2004-06-18T00:15:46Z")
So why not just succinctly state your position; every time anyone picks you up on something you wrote, you’re all ‘that wasn’t what I meant’ - it’s never _ **your** _ failure to communicate, it’s _everybody else’s_ failure or inability to understand. :rolleyes: Please succinctly state your position. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/140 "2004-06-18T00:22:15Z")
[QUOTE=Zagadka] So… you are basing an argument - one that you want mandatorily taught in schools - on a hypothesis about research that not only is incomplete, thus far argues against your point. [quote] Today, we teach kids that people are all “genetically the same.” Obviously you agree with this policy, thus you think genetic studies are complete - so you are the one supporting a position based upon nothing. That genetics branch is not a “possibility” that needs 20 years to prove. It is a fundamental law of genetic life. We empiracally know this to be true. However, Genetic studies have already proven the obvious, that genetic differences exist - but what you fail to understand is that those studies are not even required to understand that human genetic branches exist - it’s empiracally deducable. To provide you, or anybody, with the specific genetic codes that completely define one unique branch from another, could be accomplished sooner than the arbitrary 20 years, but somehow I doubt anybody is too terribly motivated to expedite those studies. I have suggested we teach kids, and ourselves, about how we are genetically different. We know that we are mostly that same. So the interesting aspect is how we are genetically different. How unique populations are different. Extreme multi-racialism is the fear that prevents people from openly discussing this in universities, etc. > [@](#): > > You freely admit that you have absolutely no scientific evidence and base your classifications on the color of people’s skin If the color of peoples skin were the only observable difference between populations that would be pretty amazing. Almost every aspect of a humans morphology has uniqueness depending upon their population. If you do not see those differences, I cannot help you, because there is nobody home. > [@](#): > > I don’t disrespect anything. I just don’t think we should be teaching your wacky hypotheticals in school. That human genetics branch is not a hypothesis. It is fact. You are, in fact, an extreme multi-racialist who shows a lot of fear of human genetic branching. It’s pretty obvious to any rational minds reading. > [@](#): > > Come back when you have an iota of scientific basis for your argument. You can’t even define what a “branch” is, can you? Branch is precisely defined by genetic distance: GENETIC DISTANCE: The calculation of a genetic distance between two populations gives a relative estimate of the time that has passed since the populations have existed as single cohesive units. The actual scientific use of the term “Genetic distance” involves precisely how different the DNA itself is. This website will mention genetic distance is in terms of generations of reproduction or years which goes hand in hand with Genetic difference and branching. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395.md?page=8)